D05 and D06

The forum for those who still struggle with morphology, syntax, and idiom, or who wish to discuss basic questions about the meaning of Greek texts, syntax, or words.
Forum rules
This is not a place for students to ask for the answers to their homework assignments. Users who do that may be banned.
Post Reply
Tim Evans
Posts: 91
Joined: July 10th, 2015, 1:40 am

D05 and D06

Post by Tim Evans »

When I read Hebrews (in Greek) it seems that D* has a large number of variants the seem mostly not to important, making it seem (Making me think that D seems rather lax with its copying practices), but then what does it mean for D to be lax, is this one document or a group of documents?

I've been trying to understand what "D" is in the NA27 apparatus, p59. It describes them as follows:
D (05): D1 (6th–7th cent.); D2 (circa 9th cent.); D3 (12th cent.); D c (younger hand, not assigned to a group)
D (06): D1 (7th cent.); D2 (circa 9th cent.); D c (younger hand, not assigned to a group)
  • 1. D(05) Is D1 a group of documents, or a single document?
    2. D(06) Is D1 the same group? or a different group, why do they have different dates?
    3. If they are groups of documents, how many are there in these groups?
    3. Why is there a separate D(05) and D(06)?
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: D05 and D06

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Tim Evans wrote:
  • 1. D(05) Is D1 a group of documents, or a single document?
    2. D(06) Is D1 the same group? or a different group, why do they have different dates?
    3. If they are groups of documents, how many are there in these groups?
    3. Why is there a separate D(05) and D(06)?
1. D/05 is Codex Bezae, a Greek-Latin diglot from the 5th century once owned by Theodore Beza. It is a leading member of the so-called "Western" text, an early but non-strict branch of the textual tradition. It contains the Gospels and Acts and Catholic epistles (with lacunae). A number of scribes and correctors have worked on the text. D* designates the original scribe, D1, the first corrector, D2 the second corrector, etc. So what we have is a series of texts in one manuscript.

2. D/06 is Codex Claromontanus, a Greek-Latin diglot from the 6th century. It is also a leading member of the so-called "Western" text. It contains the epistles of Paul, with some gaps. D* designates the original scribe, and D1, D2 etc. the later correctors. The corrections of D1 and D2 are so extensive that the resulting text is Byzantine.

3. They are two manuscripts of different parts of the NT, with different correctors.

3. They were always separate; the problem is why they share the same siglum 'D'. This is a little complicated to explain. The use of 'D' siglum goes back to Wettstein, who employed a different set of sigla for the different parts of the NT (Gospels, Paul, Praxapostolos = Acts + Catholics, and Revelation), and reused the same sigla (letters and numbers), with the result that the same manuscripts can have different sigla in different parts of the NT and the same sigla in different parts can refer to different manuscripts. Sometimes, to distinguish one siglum from another, the letter 'e', 'p', 'a', or 'r' was appended. So D/05 may be referred to De or Da, and D/06 as Dp. This system was very confusing and reformed by Caspar Gregory, who gave all NT manuscripts the same consistent number. Thus Codex Bezae is 05, and Codex Claromontanus is 06.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Tim Evans
Posts: 91
Joined: July 10th, 2015, 1:40 am

Re: D05 and D06

Post by Tim Evans »

Thanks so much, that is really helpful! I suspected something complicated was going on, but I didn't realise it would be that complicated (:

Is there an excellent/go-to resource for learning more about these manuscript issues?
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: D05 and D06

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Tim Evans wrote:Is there an excellent/go-to resource for learning more about these manuscript issues?
Online, you can try Bob Waltz's Encyclopedia of Textual Criticism.Wikipedia is unexpectedly good on individual manuscripts, having been the pet project of a Polish (?) academic.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Post Reply

Return to “Beginners Forum”