Subject: Codex Bezae & the Curetonian Syriac

From: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 22:34:48 -0700 (PDT)

Hello List,

I'm not much into tc, but in reading parts of Bruce Metzger's book I came
across a mention that in the Codex Bezae and also the Curetonian Syriac
there are a few additional names inserted within Jesus' genealogy, at Mt
1:8.  Do any of you happen to know what these names are, or how one best
gets hold of a copy of these codices to find out?

Jim Deardorff

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 97 14:49:46 +0100

>gets hold of a copy of these codices to find out?

Just consult the apparatus of critical editions as, e.g., Nestle-Aland (27th 
ed.) or the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (15th ed.). It's probably easier to 
get hold of a copy of those than of the MSS.
BTW-- When consulting a copy of Codex Bezae you would be surprised to find the 
mattheian genealogy lacking. 

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:44:40 -0700 (PDT)

> mattheian genealogy lacking. 

Thanks very much, Ulrich.  I'm slowly learning to read all the strange
symbols and fine print in my 26th edition of N-A.  So I found the 3
additional names, along with the annotation D for Bezae, and sy with
superscript c for the other.  But why was the D superscripted by "luc", as
this was in reference to Matthew's genealogy, not Luke's?  And if the
Codex Bezae inserted an extra three names at Mt 1:8, how could it fail to
contain at least a part of Matthew's genealogy? 

Jim Deardorff

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 14:49:26 -0500 (CDT)

>contain at least a part of Matthew's genealogy? 

Actually, Ulrich already explained this. If you look at the back
of NA26, you'll find that D is missing for the genealogy of Matthew.
The critical note is taken from D's text of *Luke*. Instead of
using Luke's genealogy, D (alone; no Old Latin support except d)
has substituted Matthew's genealogy. This is probably the single
most important sign of editing in D in the Gospels.

BTW -- we might add that D cur are not the only sources to expand
the genealogy here. We also find the expanded form in at least
part of the Ethiopic tradition.

There are many other small variations in the manuscripts of the
genealogy. Most of them serve to bring the text of Matthew closer
to Genesis or Chronicles (Hebrew or LXX).

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 17:38:27 -0700 (PDT)

> most important sign of editing in D in the Gospels.

Thanks for explaining this further.  I was unprepared to run into this
large a degree of borrowing (Mt to Lk), and so could hardly believe it at
first, even though my study of a 1963 translation of a late 1st-century to
early 2nd-century ms (scrolls), whose originals are no longer extant, has
prepared me for massive redactions to have occurred at the time Matthew
was first written.

But since an answer often leads to another question, did I interpret "vac
= vacat" right to mean vacant or less or except?  (This is a heck of a way
to try to learn Latin!)

Jim Deardorff