Codex Bezae (D05) Readings #1
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Aug 20 10:13:34 EDT 2002
The following is the first of several readings from Codex Bezae (D05)
submitted by Sylvie Chabert d'Hyères to B-Greek for submission in
accordance with my immediately preceding announcement of this sequential
discussion; others will follow in turn as each discussion thread has run
its course. To assist B-Greekers who might be unfamiliar with French
formatting conventions or uncomfortable with the French statement of the
concerns, I have adjusted the formatting (and the transliteration) to
follow B-Greek conventions and have offered (in square brackets following
each statement) an English translation of the French; I have tried to be as
clear and precise in my translation, but I won't vouch for its total
accurancy and I welcome corrections.
1 - KAQA/KAQWS,
Lk 1:2 MS D05: KAQA PAREDOSAN hHMIN hOI AP' ARCHS AUTOPTAI
- 1 conformément à ce que nous ont transmis les témoins oculaires
["according to what the eyewitnesses have transmitted to us ..."
KAQA pour KAT' hA; hA pluriel neutre du relatif hOS, hH hO ["KAQA for KAT'
hA; neuter plural hA of the relative pronoun hOS, hH hO"]
Lk 1:2 MSS A B etc.: KAQWS PAREDOSAN hHMIN hOI AP' ARCHS AUTOPTAI
- 2 comme nous ont transmis les témoins oculaires ["as the eye-witnesses
have transmitted to us ..."
En D05 le verbe a pour complément d'objet direct le relatif hA. (Même
remarque en Mt 27,10). Si je ne me trompe pas, ce relatif ne représente pas
le terme PRAGMATWN qui précède mais signifie "selon les choses que..."; les
AUTOPTAI avaient transmis leur lecture d'une partie des évènements; ceux-ci
ne se réduisaient pas à leurs seuls témoignages. ["In D05 the verb has as a
direct object the relative hA. (just as in MT 27,10 KAQA SUNETAXEN MOI
KURIOS). If I am not mistaken, this relative does not refer back to
PRAGMATWN as antecedent but means "according to things' that..."; the
AUTOPTAI had transmitted their reading of some of the events; they did not
limit themselves to their testimonies only."]
Dans les autres manuscrits où le relatif fait défaut, on peut se demander
si la phrase n'est pas bancale. Le relatif serait-il sous-entendu en grec
et selon quelle règle? Les traducteurs français suppléent par l'addition de
"ce que" ou bien de "les" qui, lui, renvoie aux PRAGMATWN. Ailleurs quand
Luc utilise KAQWS c'est devant un verbe intransitif ou bien devant un verbe
qui a, dans la phrase même, un substantif comme complément d'objet direct.
{une exception en 5,14 ; à moins que PROSTASSW , qui commande hINA en D05,
ne soit pris intransitivement?} ["In the other manuscripts where the
relative pronoun is lacking, one might wonder whether the sentence isn't
awkward. Would the relative pronoun would be implicit in the Greek and
according to what rule? The French translators compensate by the addition
of "what" or of "them" which refers back to the PRAGMATWN. Elsewhere when
Luke uses KAQWS it precedes an intransitive verb or a verb which has, in
the very sentence, a substantive as a direct object {an exception in 5:14;
unless PROSTASSW, which governs hINA in D05, is not construed
intransitively?}"]
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list