Acts 13:46b D Bezae

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.

Re: Acts 13:46b D Bezae

Postby cwconrad » December 9th, 2013, 5:21 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:Coopers notes are almost inscrutable and at times he is more opaque than BDF which is hard to imagine. The one useful item that was mined from Cooper is that construction isn't always used of possession.

Well, leery as I am of efforts to dice up the adnominal genitive into precise and distinct semantic subcategories, so also I am dubious of cataloging dative usages too precisely. Particularly amusing (ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ) is the so-called "sentence dative" or "ethic" dative that vaguely references the concern of the person(s) indicated -- usually 2nd person and more often singular -- with whatever is being stated. That particular usage strikes me as close to the colloquial sentence punctuator common in many tongues: " ... you know ... " or "I'm tellin' you ... "
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
… ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὸν οἶνον ἠξίους
πίνειν, συνεκποτέ’ ἐστί σοι καὶ τὴν τρύγα Aristophanes, Plutus 1085
cwconrad
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714

Re: Acts 13:46b D Bezae

Postby Stephen Carlson » December 10th, 2013, 4:39 am

cwconrad wrote:At any rate, the likelihood of the sense intended in the proposed Englishing of this text in Codex Bezae seems low to me; I still find it easier to think that ἀναγκαῖον was negligently omitted by the scribe.

The theory of the text of Acts that Rius-Camps & Read-Heimerdinger follow is that the Codex Bezae D text of Acts is more likely to be authorial than that of the Codex Vaticanus B text of Acts. As a result, they are wont to read as intelligible what may appear to other textual critics as scribal nonsense.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1899
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Acts 13:46b D Bezae

Postby Stirling Bartholomew » December 13th, 2013, 5:18 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
cwconrad wrote:At any rate, the likelihood of the sense intended in the proposed Englishing of this text in Codex Bezae seems low to me; I still find it easier to think that ἀναγκαῖον was negligently omitted by the scribe.

The theory of the text of Acts that Rius-Camps & Read-Heimerdinger follow is that the Codex Bezae D text of Acts is more likely to be authorial than that of the Codex Vaticanus B text of Acts. As a result, they are wont to read as intelligible what may appear to other textual critics as scribal nonsense.


Right. I am cautions about accepting the readings (interpretations of Bezae) of Acts in Rius-Camps & Read-Heimerdinger for precisely that reason.

BTW, I have another Text Critical project going on behind the scenes which will eventually see the light of day but at this time is kind of under wraps due to copyright negotiations. Wondering if there is anyone here who would like to do a little work in text of Acts in support of a worthy cause. It could be anywhere from a hours work to a big project depending on how much interest you have in it. All you would need is the ability to read the critical apparatus in UBS4. A copy of NA27 and Swanson for Acts would be nice but not essential. I have a rather full apparatus for Acts in a word file I can send you.

My immediate need is for someone to simply look through the the full apparatus for Acts and mark (color highlighting or some sort of marking) any variant that is found in the UBS4 apparatus. A simple task should not take more than hour. I don't have UBS4. If anyone has an interest in a project like this send me a PM and I will give you more detail.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
 
Posts: 213
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Previous

Return to New Testament

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests