{"id":9802,"date":"2023-09-19T16:53:30","date_gmt":"2023-09-19T21:53:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/?p=9802"},"modified":"2023-09-19T16:53:30","modified_gmt":"2023-09-19T21:53:30","slug":"bezae","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/2023\/09\/19\/bezae\/","title":{"rendered":"Bezae"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In the preparation of this edition of the Greek text, but much more in the preparation of the second edition which he brought out in 1582, Beza may have availed himself of the help of two very valuable manuscripts. One is known as the Codex Bezae<\/a><\/em> or Cantabrigensis, <\/em>and was later presented by Beza to the University of Cambridge<\/a>, where it remains in the Cambridge University Library<\/a>; the second is the Codex Claromontanus<\/a><\/em>, which Beza had found in Clermont (now in the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale de France<\/a> in Paris).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis<\/strong>, designated by siglum<\/a> Dea<\/sup><\/strong> or 05<\/strong> (in the Gregory-Aland<\/a> numbering of New Testament manuscripts), \u03b4 5 (in the von Soden<\/a> of New Testament manuscript), is a codex<\/a> of the New Testament<\/a> dating from the 5th century written in an uncial<\/a> hand on vellum<\/a>. It contains, in both Greek<\/a> and Latin<\/a>, most of the four Gospels<\/a> and Acts<\/a>, with a small fragment of 3 John<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d0 sinaiticus errors<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Matthew 13:54 \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Luke 1:26<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Luke 24:51 added as a correction in sinaiticus but it includes acts 1:2,10-11<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark 1:11<\/p>\n\n\n\n

–<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark 2:26 Marcos no dice que ahimelec le dio el pan sino que David comi\u00f3 del pan. Ahimelec fue asesinado y abiatar tomo su lugar. Mateo no tomo de marco. Ninguno entre s\u00ed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No one is wrong here except the reader who jumps to unwarranted conclusions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, Mark 2:25 does not<\/strong> say Abiathar gave David the show bread. (It doesn’t even mention him.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? (Mark 2:25, KJV)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The next verse does mention Abiathar, but says nothing of his involvement in the shewbread aside from the event occurring in his “days” (time).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar<\/strong> the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? (Mark 2:26, KJV)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, Abiathar was the son of Ahimilech, the priest who gave David the shewbread. And it was Abiathar who was to become virtually the sole survivor after the massacre of the priests in the Saul\/Doeg incident, occasioned by David’s dissembling. It would have been Abiathar who was to follow in his father’s footsteps as the high priest, having carried with him the ephod to David during his escape.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The interaction between Saul and Ahimilech is recorded in 1 Samuel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n