Lk 1:5 hHRWDOU (TOU) BASILEWS THS IOUDAIAS Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Aug 25 13:10:21 EDT 2002
Lk 1:4 TWN/hWN Lk 1:5 KAI GUNH AUTWi I hereby resubmit the third of the questions concerned with distinctivereadings of Codex Bezae in the text of Luke’s gospel.Lk 1:5 EGENETO EN TAIS hHMERAIS hHRWDOU (TOU) BASILEWS THS IOUDAIAS;NA27/USB4 omits, while Codex Bezae (D05) includes the article TOU at thepoint indicated.In view of the fact that the evangelist Luke unquestionably claims to beprecise in presentation of historical data, might the article TOU have beenwritten by Luke precisely to distinguish Herod the KING of Judea fromanother Herod, such as the ethnarch of Judea?– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Lk 1:4 TWN/hWNLk 1:5 KAI GUNH AUTWi
Lk 1:5 KAI GUNH AUTWi Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Aug 25 13:17:11 EDT 2002
Lk 1:5 hHRWDOU (TOU) BASILEWS THS IOUDAIAS Sabbaths/Sabbath (SABBASIN) I hereby resubmit the fourth of the questions concerned with distinctivereadings of Codex Bezae in the text of Luke’s gospel.The text of Lk 1:5 reads: EGENETO … hIEREUS TIS ONOMATI ZACARIAS EXEFHMERIAS ABIA, KAI GUNH AUTWI EK TWN QUGATERWN AARWN KAI TO ONOMA AUTHSELISABET.Lk 1:5 KAI GUNH AUTWi is the reading both in D05 and in NA27/USB4)Why is a dative (AUTWi) used here rather than a genitive (AUTOU)? Thedative of attribution also appears in Lk 8:3, 12:15; how is this differentfrom a possessive genitive? In Lk 1:13 and 1:18 Elizabeth is called thewife ofZacharias with a genitive. This seems independent of the construction withthe verb EINAI implicit, since the expression “belong to someone” is foundalso with the genitive (Lk 4:7; 12:20D05; 18:16). Does the dative conveysome nuance that is distinct from the genitive in an expression such asthese?– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Lk 1:5 hHRWDOU (TOU) BASILEWS THS IOUDAIASSabbaths/Sabbath (SABBASIN)
Lk 1:5 KAI GUNH AUTWi Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Aug 25 16:14:19 EDT 2002
Lk 1:26 APESTALH APO/hUPO TOU QEOU Lk 1:27 EMNHSTEUMENHN/MEMNHSMENHN I should have called attention to Dennis Hukel’s response (Fri, 23 Aug 200207:55:09 -0700) to this matter and take the opportunity to do so now.At 1:17 PM -0400 8/25/02, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>I hereby resubmit the fourth of the questions concerned with distinctive>readings of Codex Bezae in the text of Luke’s gospel.> >The text of Lk 1:5 reads: EGENETO … hIEREUS TIS ONOMATI ZACARIAS EX>EFHMERIAS ABIA, KAI GUNH AUTWI EK TWN QUGATERWN AARWN KAI TO ONOMA AUTHS>ELISABET.> >Lk 1:5 KAI GUNH AUTWi is the reading both in D05 and in NA27/USB4)> >Why is a dative (AUTWi) used here rather than a genitive (AUTOU)? The>dative of attribution also appears in 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). Does the dative convey>some nuance that is distinct from the genitive in an expression such as>these?>—Dennis responded: “According to the Syntax Grammars, the dative ofpossession has a nuance of emphasizing the object (rather than thepossessor in the genitive), yet also emphasizes the possessor’s personalinterest in the object. The dative of possession is also usually used withan equative verb, which would go along with an implicit EINAI.”The dative of possession is not rare, but not as common as the dative ofadvantage. In Matt. 26, when Jesus gives a condition contrary to fact(usually translated “it is better for that man if he had never beenborn”), it makes much better sense to me to take AUTWi as a dative ofpossession (“it would be that man’s ideal if he had never been born”). Thistotally turns the meaning of the text around from the traditionalinterpretation of a (supposed) objective fact to a prophecy of Judas’soon-to-be mental condition (which would suggest he would be dispairing oflife and may commit suicide, which he did). The particular problem I havewith the dative of advantage here is how it can be that all the good timesin Judas’ life could be rendered of noaccount if it were (objectively) preferable he never existed at all. Whatdo you think?”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Lk 1:26 APESTALH APO/hUPO TOU QEOULk 1:27 EMNHSTEUMENHN/MEMNHSMENHN