I'm wondering whether the first step is not to work out exactly what
that laconic footnote means. The usual reading here (if Luke 12.32) is
"Don't worry little flock [whether] your father is pleased to give you
the kingdom." It seems that the Vulgate has "your" (as does the Greek)
whereas a natural change would be "my" -- typical of what scribes might
do (i.e. "[whether] my father is pleased...") though the Nestle-Aland
apparatus gives no hint of such a change. However, the Latin would then
require "mei" (i.e. "my"), wouldn't it? So the note remains a bit of a
mystery. Perhaps "m. codd." means "many codices" (i.e. m. = multis)?
On 04/05/15 12:00, TEI-L automatic digest system wrote:
>> On May 2, 2015, at 18:17 , Burghart Marjorie<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >Dear all,
>> >I would like to encode an existing critical edition, where this is found:
>> >Nolite timere, pusillus grex, complacuit patri meo(a) dare uobis regnum.
>> >(a) meo] conieci, m. codd., uestro Vulg.
>> >Some explanations: this means that the wor "meo" in the sentence is a conjecture of the editor ("conieci").
>> >All the manuscripts bear the same abbreviated reading, "m." ("m. codd.").
>> >But this sentence is actually a biblical quotation, and in the Latun Bible, the Vulgate, the reading here is "uestro" ("uestro Vulg."). This is why the editor thinks "m."stands for "meo", i.e. also a pronoum but for a different person, which makes perfect sense.
>> >How would you guys encode this?