Fwd: Re: Codex Bezae (D05) Reading #4
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Aug 23 12:06:28 EDT 2002
I think this was meant for the list; although I have posted responses to
some of the Codex Bezae readings, I posted them originally FOR Mme Chabert
d'Hye\res.
>Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 07:55:09 -0700
>Subject: Re: [b-greek] Codex Bezae (D05) Readings #2-5
>To: cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
>From: "Dennis Hukel" <hukel at bhiinc.com>
>
>>>>>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?"]<<<<
>
>Dear Carl,
>According to the Syntax Grammars, the dative of possession has a nuance of
>emphasizing the object (rather than the possessor in the genitive), yet
>also emphasizes the possessor's personal interest in the object. The
>dative of possession is also usually
>used with an equative verb, which would go along with an implicit EINAI.
>
>The dative of possession is not rare, but not as common as the dative of
>advantage. In Matt. 26, when Jesus gives a condition contrary to fact
>(usually translated "it is better for that man if he had never been
>born"), it makes much better sense to me to
>take AUTWi as a dative of possession ("it would be that man's ideal if he
>had never been born"). This totally turns the meaning of the text around
>from the traditional interpretation of a (supposed) objective fact to a
>prophecy of Judas' soon-to-be
>mental condition (which would suggest he would be dispairing of life and
>may commit suicide, which he did). The particular problem I have with the
>dative of advantage here is how it can be that all the good times in
>Judas' life could be rendered of no
>account if it were (objectively) preferable he never existed at all. What
>do you think?
>
>Dennis Hukel
>hukel at bhiinc.com
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list