Codex Bezae (D05) Readings #6-9

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Aug 22 19:52:24 EDT 2002


What follow are ##6-9 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.

6 - Lk 1:13 NA27/USB4: hH GUNH SOU ELISABEQ GENNHSEI hUION SOI; D05: ...
ELISABED ... GENNHSEI hUION ...
Le pronom est absent de D05. Que dire de son insertion dans les autres
manuscrits? ["The pronoun SOI is missing in D05; what should we say of its
insertion in the other MSS?"]
------------------------------------

7 - Lk 1:20 NA27/USB4: TOIS LOGOIS MOU, hOITINES PLHRWQHSONTAI EIS TON
KAIRON AUTWN; D05: PLHSQHSONAI
Faut-il ici préférer le verbe PIMPLHMI à PLHROW ou bien est-ce indifférent?
["Should the verb PIMPLHMI be preferred to PLHROW here or does it really
make no difference?"]
------------------------------------
8 - Lk 1:26 NA27/USB4: APESTALH hO AGGELOS APO TOU QEOU; D05: ... hUPO TOU QEOU
Envoyé ... par Dieu. Il semble que la différenciation UPO / APO se soit
atténuée avec le temps, APO remplaçant progressivement UPO. Aussi la
correction de upo en apo ne témoignerait-elle pas d'une rédaction plus
tardive ? Mais b-greek a peut-être déjà traité du sujet? ["Sent ... by God.
It appears that the distinction between hUPO and APO weakened with time,
APO progressively replacing hUPO. Is it also possible that the correction
of hUPO into APO might attest a later redaction? But perhaps B-Greek has
already held a discussion of this matter?"]
------------------------------------
9 - Lk 1:27 NA27/USB4: EMNHSTEUMENHN ANDRI hWi ONOMA IWSHF; D05:
MEMNHSMENHN instead of EMNHSTEUMENHN
Selon D05 Marie était simplement "promise en mariage" ; selon les autres
manuscrits qui reprennent le terme du Dt, elle était "officiellement
fiancée" . Quelles conséquences dégager du choix de l'un ou de l'autre
terme? Autre question: pourquoi le parfait? ["According to D05 Mary was
simply 'promised in marriage'; according to the other MSS which echo the
term from Deuteronomy, she was 'officially engaged.' What follows from the
choice of the one over the other term? Another question: Why the perfect
tense?"]
-- 

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