Codex Bezae (D05) Readings #2-5
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Aug 22 19:51:05 EDT 2002
What follow are ##2-4 of several readings from Codex Bezae (D05)
submitted by Sylvie Chabert d'Hyères to B-Greek for submission in
accordance with my earlier 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
accuracy and I welcome corrections.
------------------------------------
2 - Lk 1:4 PERI TWN KATHCHQHS LOGWN
L'article TWN, corrigé dans les autres manuscrits par le relatif hWN,
serait-il dû à une erreur de scribe? Sinon comment le lire
grammaticalement? ["Could the article TWN, corrected in the other MSS by
the relative pronoun hWN, be due to a scribal error? If not, then how could
it be understood grammatically?"]
------------------------------------
3 - Lk 1:5 EGENETO EN TAIS hHMERAIS hHRWDOU TOU BASILEWS THS IOUDAIAS
Il y eut dans les jours d'Hérode - le roi de la Judée -... ["There was, in
the days of Herod, the king of Judea ..."]
Par l'article cet Hérode est distingué d'un autre (Hérode l'ethnarque de
Judée) ; sans l'article est simplement indiqué son rang. A travers la
présence de l'article n'est-ce pas l'intention de l' auteur , un historien,
qui se lit ? ["This Herod is distinguished from another (Herod, the
ethnarch of Judea); without the article it is simply his rank that is
indicated. Doesn't the presence of the article indicate the author's
intention as an historian?"]
------------------------------------
4 - Lk 1:5 KAI GUNH AUTWi (same text in D05 and in NA27/USB4)
Pourquoi un datif plutôt que le génitif? Autres exemples avec un datif
d'attribution Lk 8:3, 12:15 ; quelle est la différence d'avec le génitif de
possession? En Lk 1 :13 et 18 Elisabeth est dite la femme de Zacharie avec
le génitif. Cela semble indépendant de la formulation avec le verbe être
sous-entendu puisqu'on trouve l'expression "être à untel" aussi avec le
génitif (Lk 4:7;12:20D05; 18:16). Quelle nuance apporte le datif ? ["Why a
dative (AUTWi) rather than the genitive (AUTOU)? Other examples with a
dative of attribution are Lk 8:3, 12:15; how is this different from a
possessive genitive? In Lk 1:13 and 1:18 Elizabeth is called the wife of
Zacharias with a genitive. This seems independent of the construction with
the verb EINAI implicit, since the expression "belong to someone" is found
also with the genitive (Lk 4:7; 12:20D05; 18:16). What nuance does the
dative bear?"]
------------------------------------
5 - Lk 1:6 D05: ENWPION TOU Q<EO>U (NA27/USB4: ENANTION TOU QEOU
Dans cet exemple précis doit-on préférer ENWPION ou ENANTION?
Que dire de ENANTI et de son iota deictique au v 8? ["In this particular
instance ought we to prefer ENWPION or ENANTION? What should we say of
ENANTI and its deictic Iota in verse 8 (both D05 and NA27/USB4)?"]
--
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