The story of Joseph and Aseneth expands a few verses from the book of Genesis into a novella-length work. In recent years, the story has attracted considerable scholarly attention. Interest has focused on questions of provenance: whether the 'longer' or 'shorter' version of the text has priority, and what this means for its interpretation. Like other works of the so-called 'Jewish Pseudepigrapha', it is increasingly used as a source for Judaism and Christianity at the turn of the Common Era. But few have engaged with the story's manuscript witness and transmission. This thesis returns to the sources. It considers how the redaction and translation of Joseph and Aseneth affected its interpretation, and looks at the interests of the redactors and copyists. It warns against placing too much weight on details that lack such an importance in the manuscript tradition. The introduction surveys modern secondary literature on the story. Section 1 investigates the translation and transmission context of the two earliest preserved versions, the Syriac and Armenian translations. Despite their text-critical importance, they have received little attention. Section 2 focuses on the Greek manuscripts of the three longest families (f, Mc, a). It argues that these redactions, and the variety within their witnesses, need to be understood within a Byzantine context, in particular, within hagiographic trends for works produced in monastic environment. Section 3 looks at how the story could be abridged and edited. It identifies the key elements of the story shared by redactors. Four versions are compared: family d, E, Latin 1 and so-called "early modern Greek". The appendices contain a synoptic presentation of Greek versions of the story, an edition and translation of the story from manuscript E, and a translation of the Greek text from manuscript 661.

No description available.

L'état du texte de l'auteur latin Properce fait l'objet de débat depuis plusieurs siècles déjà. Son état déterioré a laissé place à de nombreuses hypothèses sur sa transmission. Le présent mémoire vise à évaluer de façon macroscopique la validité de l'hypothèse voulant que dans l'archétype des manuscrits propertiens ou dans un antécédent de ce dernier, un interpolateur ait modifié les vers corrompus pour leur redonner une forme métriquement régulière. Pour ce faire, nous recensons l'état de la critique textuelle entourant Properce ainsi que l'état de la question en ce qui a trait à l'interpolation métrique plus précisément. Nous présentons ensuite un résumé des données pertinentes, relevées dans les tableaux de l'annexe, où nous trouvons d'un côté des erreurs métriques et de l'autre des corruptions identifiées unanimement par quatre éditeurs principaux du texte de Properce. Des observations sur les résultats sont par la suite présentées et soutenues par une comparaison avec la transmission du texte d'un autre auteur latin, Catulle. / The state of the text of the Latin author Propertius has been the subject of debate for several centuries now. Its deteriorated condition has given rise to numerous hypotheses about its transmission. This dissertation macroscopically evaluates the validity of the hypothesis which supposes that, in the archetype of the extant Propertius manuscripts or in an antecedent of it, an interpolator altered the corrupt verses to make them metrically regular again. To do so, the author surveys the state of textual criticism surrounding Propertius as well as the state of the question with respect to metrical interpolation specifically. She then presents a summary of the relevant data, found in the tables in the appendix, where are collected on the one hand metrical errors and on the other hand corruptions unanimously identified by four main editors of Propertius' text. Observations on the results are subsequently presented and supported by a comparison with the transmission of the text of another Latin author, Catullus.