Par. gr. 139: einige korrekturen

html/manuscripts/par_gr_139.html

@@ -1554,10 +1554,9 @@
                                        2 in Ps 15,1b–2 [Villani]) and Theodoret (comm. in Ps 15,1b–2a [PG 80,957
                                        A8–B3.C3–7.C9–10.C13–D5) coincide almost word for word. However, the
                                        paraphrase offered by this catena is rather a paraphrase of Eusebius, and
-                                       not of Theodoret. This due to the fact that it does not make use of those
-                                       passages that only Theodoret's commentary on Psalm 15,1b–2a contains. A
-                                       fragment of Asterius text that can be related to the two indicated texts is
-                                       not known.</p>
+                                       not of Theodoret, since it does not paraphrase those passages that only
+                                       Theodoret's commentary on Psalm 15,1b–2a contains. A fragment of Asterius
+                                       that can be related to the two indicated texts is not known.</p>
                                  </div>
                                  <div class="commentaryfragment"><a id="par-gr-139-fr-15-13"></a><p class="paragraph-in-commentaryfragment-header">Commentary fragment: bottom of the page - <b>Eusebius</b> - <b>Eusebius, fr. 3 in Ps 15,1b–2 (Villani)</b></p>
                                     <p class="paragraph-in-commentaryfragment">Lemma: Ps 15,1b–2</p>
@@ -1718,12 +1717,13 @@
                                     <p class="paragraph-in-commentaryfragment">Attribution: Ευσ(εβίου) |
                                        Θεοδ(ω)ρ(ή)τ(ου)</p>
                                     <p class="paragraph-in-commentaryfragment">Here too
-                                       (see Ps 15,1b–2a), the catena of Paris. gr. 139 gives the fragment more than
+                                       (see Ps 15,1b–2), the catena of Paris. gr. 139 gives the fragment more than
                                        one attribution. This is due to the fact that Theodoret (comm. in Ps 15,5a
                                        [PG 80,960 B7–961 A7]) and Eusebius (fr. 7 in Ps 15,5a [Villani]) agree
-                                       almost word for word. At the end of the first line of the paraphrase in
-                                       question, the scribe used the two separating dots (:). However, the second
-                                       line is without ekthesis.</p>
+                                       almost word for word. The scribe concluded the first line of this paraphrase
+                                       with the two separating dots (:). However, the second line is not
+                                       highlighted through an ekthesis. Evidently, he must have noticed the
+                                       presence of a single fragment.</p>
                                  </div>
                               </div>
                            </div>