εκχθρουσ (02, 05, 032) for εχθρουσ
μετοξυ (P66, 01, 02) for μεταξυ
εσιν (01, 02, 03) for εισιν (and it occurs at least 6 times)
There are several more cases like that, and then there are cases where one scribe continually reuses a word such as 05 which uses αποκρεισ three different times instead of αποκριθεισ (thus it was not just a single slip of the pen). Should that merit consideration as a new word form?
And then there is σαρκαν which appears in P66 twice and 05 once as an accusative form, which would imply the alternative declension σαρκα, η, -ας instead of σαρξ, η, -κος.
In school, my English teacher said that a new word needs to appear in print at least twice before it gets the privilege of being considered a newly coined word. So with that in mind, should I consider the examples above as being valid word forms?
And then where should I draw the line between considering a word to be a scribal error vs. a legitimate form? I noticed that there are a zillion times (well, maybe about 30) where a word could be explained by an alternative undocumented declension like with σαρκαν, but unlike σαρκαν it only appears once. Should I list the word with the alternative declension pattern, or should I consider it a scribal error where the scribe clearly neglected to consult his copies of BDAG and LSJ?
