From: Clayton Bartholomew (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Apr 28 1997 - 16:48:46 EDT
Thank you, Professor Hobbs and Mr. Oxford.
I made a small scribal error in my posting which you caught. I dropped
the first iota from diaponoumenoi. A humorous error given the subject
under discussion. The paragraph should read.
"Has anyone ever suggested that scribe for D had in his vorlage
kai diaponoumenoi, and omitted the d? This is an improbable scenario
since D seems prone to have alternate prepositions in the prefixes of
compound verbs. There are two examples in Acts 4:2."
I also made the following brash assertion:
"Ropes is citing D* and NA27 is citing a corrector of D but not making
it evident in the apparatus."
To which Professor Hobbs responded:
>I know of no evidence that the KATA--- reading is a corrector's work.
>While it would make sense (different than DIA--), this seems to be a
>reading found only in NA27's apparatus."
And Mr. Oxford responded:
> Just a brief post to follow up on what Edward posted a little earlier. My
> experience in working with the NA27 in the book of Acts leads me to answer
> the above question negatively. The NA27 seems to be consistent in citing a
> corrector of D where appropriate. The problem lies in the NA27's lack of
> precision in their citation of a corrector. DC Parker's study, _Codex
> Bezae_, argued that over 19 hands could be detected in the manuscript, the
> earliest of which, G, corrected the manuscript ca. 400. When the NA27
> refers to the first corrector of D, they have in mind "a merging" of the
> hands of several correctors, dating from the 6th-7th century (NA27, p.5*).
> So, as can be seen, the NA27 is not terribly precise.
> > >
As I work my way through Acts in Codex Bezae, comparing it variant by
variant to the text now received by all, I have been checking my work in
Ropes and NA27 against the apparatus in the 7th edition of Dean Alford's
Greek Testatment. Alford appears to agree almost always with Ropes on
the content of Codex Bezae. It helps me spot variants that are not
immediately obvious. On the word under discussion, Alford gives the
Now Alford may not have actually checked the original, he was however
following the 8th Edition of Tischendorf. All this is, of course,
ancient history but interesting none the less to some one with
Finally there is no substitute for looking at the document itself, or at
least a image of it.
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:13 EDT