Στέφανος ἔγραψεν
Jonathan Robie wrote:2. Should I be surprised that the two μὲν clauses do not correspond? τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν presumably does not describe the same group as οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἀγάπης, and τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι’ εὐδοκίαν presumably does not describe the same group as οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας. Why not?
I think the arrangement is chiastic (inverted parallelism), so the two middle terms go together and the two outside terms go together.
There is a substantive textual difference on these clauses. The Byzantine text type reads
Τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ
ἔριν,
τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι' εὐδοκίαν τὸν χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν·
οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἐριθείας τὸν χριστὸν καταγγέλουσιν, οὐχ ἁγνῶς, οἰόμενοι θλῖψιν ἐπιφέρειν τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου,
οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἀγάπης εἰδότες ὅτι εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου κεῖμαι.
...
καὶ τί αἰρήσομαι οὐ γνωρίζω
Both readings are good, so in this instance, does one trust the Alexandrians to preserve and not to edit according to their textual abilities, or does one trust the scribes within the mother-tongue Greek world to preserve the better text?
The Alexandrian text produces an inverted structure 'negative-positive-positive-negative', while the Byzantine produces an epexegetical 'negative-positive;negative-positive', similar to 4:12 ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν μεμύημαι, καὶ χορτάζεσθαι καὶ πεινᾶν καὶ περισσεύειν καὶ ὑστερεῖσθαι pos-neg;pos-neg.,
although following an introduction that was neg-pos
οῖδα γὰρ ταπεινοῦσθαι, οῖδα καὶ περισσεύειν·
ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν μεμύημαι, καὶ χορτάζεσθαι καὶ πεινᾶν καὶ περισσεύειν καὶ ὑστερεῖσθαι
καὶ τί αἰρήσομαι οὐ γνωρίζω
ἀλλ' νῦν μανθάνομαι κατὰ τὸ Βυζαντιακὸν κείμενον