body { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, Palatino, ‘Book Antiqua’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 2em; max-width: 900px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; }
h2, h3 { color: #333; margin-top: 1.5em; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 0; padding-left: 1em; color: #555; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 2em; margin-bottom: 1em; }
li { margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
An Exegetical and Text-Critical Analysis of ἐχέρα(σ)μα in 2 Peter 2:22
This exegetical study of An Exegetical and Text-Critical Analysis of ἐχέρα(σ)μα in 2 Peter 2:22 is based on a b-greek discussion from Wed Jan 2 14:15:43 2002. The initial inquiry concerned a minor text-critical issue in 2 Peter 2:22 regarding the Greek word describing the “vomit” of the dog in the proverb. Most of the primary New Testament witnesses read τὸ ἴδιον ἐξέραμα, while a significant number of minuscules, alongside Codex Bezae (D), attest to τὸν ἴδιον ἐχέρασμα. A third alternative, τὸν ἴδιον ἔμετον, found in some minuscules and patristic citations, was noted as readily explainable. The primary difficulty, however, centered on the morphological and etymological origin of the form ἐχέρασμα, which was not easily accounted for by standard linguistic tools.
The central exegetical issue thus revolves around establishing the most probable original reading of 2 Peter 2:22, specifically concerning the precise Greek noun used to describe the “vomit” or “ejecta” of the dog. This task requires careful navigation of the textual variants—ἐξέραμα, ἐχέρασμα, and ἔμετον—and, crucially, a thorough linguistic investigation into the legitimacy and formation of ἐχέρασμα, a form that appears to be rarely attested in other Greek literature. The resolution of this textual and morphological ambiguity directly impacts the precision with which the biblical author’s stark metaphor of apostasy is understood and translated.
Greek text (Nestle 1904)
συνβέβηκεν αὐτοῖς τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς παροιμίας, Κύων ἐπιστρέψας ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον ἐξέραμα, καὶ ὗς λουσαμένη εἰς κυλισμὸν βορβόρου.
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The SBLGNT (2010) text for 2 Peter 2:22 reads τὸ ἴδιον ἐξέραμα, aligning with the Nestle 1904 text and the vast majority of manuscript evidence.
- The primary textual variant under discussion, ἐχέρασμα, is not adopted into the main text of SBLGNT, indicating its assessment as a less probable original reading by critical editors.
- The third variant, ἔμετον, is also not present in the main SBLGNT text, further confirming the strong scholarly consensus for ἐξέραμα.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)
The textual apparatus of the Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) provides a comprehensive overview of the variants for 2 Peter 2:22, which are the subject of this discussion:
- ἐξέραμα (exerama): This reading is strongly supported by a wide range of significant manuscripts, including uncials such as א (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus), B (Vaticanus), C (Ephraemi Rescriptus), Ψ, and numerous minuscules (e.g., 81, 104, 326, 330, 614, 629, 1241, 1739, 1881, 2495), as well as Byzantine and Lect texts. This extensive support renders ἐξέραμα the critically preferred reading.
- ἐχέρασμα (exerasma): This variant is attested by Codex Bezae (D) and a collection of minuscules. While its manuscript support is less weighty than that for ἐξέραμα, its existence necessitated linguistic scrutiny. The original discussion highlighted that this form presented a challenge to standard dictionary searches. However, expert analysis identified it as a potential morphological variant of ἐξέραμα, formed by the insertion of an epenthetic sigma (σ) before the suffix -μα, a phenomenon documented in Greek morphology (e.g., Smyth, Greek Grammar §836). Examples include σπάσμα from σπάω and κέλευσμα from κελεύω. Despite this morphological explanation, its rarity in literature outside this specific textual variant contributes to its lower probability as the original reading.
- ἔμετον (emetos): This synonym for “vomit” is found in some later uncials (K, L, P, 048, 0137), numerous minuscules, and cited by some Church Fathers. While semantically identical, its textual support is not as robust as ἐξέραμα. It likely represents a scribal substitution for clarity or familiarity.
Lexically, BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature) defines:
- ἐξέραμα: “that which is vomited, vomit” (BDAG, 2nd ed., p. 350). This term derives from the verb ἐξεράω, meaning “to vomit out.” Its singular occurrence in the New Testament makes it a unique lexical item within the corpus, though its root is clear.
- ἔμετος: “vomit, that which has been vomited” (BDAG, 2nd ed., p. 326). This word is also rare in the NT (occurring only as a variant here) but is a common classical Greek term for vomit.
- ἐχέρασμα: As noted, this form is not typically listed as a distinct entry in standard lexicons like BDAG or Kittel (G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament), precisely because its existence is primarily confined to this textual variant and its morphological origin as a variant of ἐξέραμα. Its meaning, however, would be semantically equivalent to “vomit” or “ejected matter,” based on its proposed derivation from ἐξεράω with the epenthetic sigma.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The textual variants—ἐξέραμα and ἐχέρασμα—do not introduce significant semantic divergence, as both refer to “vomit” or “that which has been vomited.” However, their grammatical formation and textual support are crucial. The variant ἔμετον is a direct synonym and would yield an identical translation.
- τὸ ἴδιον ἐξέραμα: This is the most grammatically regular and textually supported reading. ἐξέραμα is a neuter noun, and τὸ ἴδιον is the appropriate neuter definite article and possessive adjective, signifying “its own.” The noun perfectly captures the visceral image of a dog returning to its own vomit, a powerful and repugnant metaphor for apostasy.
- τὸν ἴδιον ἐχέρασμα: This reading presents a grammatical peculiarity. While ἐχέρασμα, if accepted as a morphological variant of ἐξέραμα, would also be a neuter noun (nouns ending in -μα are typically neuter). Therefore, the accompanying article and adjective should be neuter (τὸ ἴδιον), not masculine (τὸν ἴδιον). The presence of the masculine accusative τὸν with a likely neuter noun suggests a scribal anomaly. This could be due to:
- Scribal error, perhaps influenced by the masculine noun κύων (dog) earlier in the sentence, or a misunderstanding of the gender of ἐχέρασμα.
- The possibility that the scribe understood ἐχέρασμα as a masculine noun, though this is less common for -μα suffixes.
Rhetorically, the image remains the same, but the grammatical irregularity with the article/adjective further diminishes the likelihood of ἐχέρασμα being the original reading, reinforcing the strength of ἐξέραμα.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on the overwhelming manuscript evidence and the linguistic regularity of the form, ἐξέραμα is demonstrably the most probable original reading of 2 Peter 2:22. While ἐχέρασμα can be morphologically explained as a variant, its limited attestation and the grammatical anomaly of its accompanying article/adjective (τὸν instead of τὸ) reduce its credibility as the original. The variant ἔμετον, while semantically equivalent, possesses weaker textual support.
Therefore, translations should primarily reflect ἐξέραμα, conveying the graphic and impactful imagery intended by the author:
- The dog returns to its own vomit.
This translation prioritizes fidelity to the dominant textual tradition (`ἐξέραμα`) and the graphic simplicity of the metaphor. It captures the directness and vulgarity inherent in the Greek. - A dog, having turned back, returns to its own ejected matter.
This offers a slightly more formal rendering, acknowledging the verbal root `ἐξεράω` (to eject, vomit out) while still accurately representing the noun. It may be preferred in contexts where “vomit” is deemed too colloquial or crude. - The dog returns to what it had thrown up.
This option rephrases the noun as a verbal clause, emphasizing the action and maintaining the core meaning without using the noun “vomit” explicitly, which can sometimes be preferred in certain modern translations for stylistic reasons.