Matthew 1:23

Isaiah 45:19 (also Isaiah 7:14 in Mt 1:23) Benjamin Raymond braymond at ipa.net
Sat Sep 5 21:34:28 EDT 1998

Compound subjects with hH? Present tence copulative verbs At 10:54 PM 9/4/98 +0000, you wrote:>On Fri 4 Sep 98 (15:31:55), cms at dragon.com wrote:>> Could the repetition be a scribal error or is it emphasis? Not >> knowing Hebrew, is the Hebrew repetitious? FWIW, the Vulgate has it:>> >> non in abscondito locutus sum in loc terrae tenebroso>> non dixi semini Iacob frustra quaerite me>> ego Dominus loquens iustitiam adnuntians recta>> >> with no repetition.> > Thank you, Cindy. It would appear that the repetition in Gramcord at Isa> 45:19 LXX is a dittogram. It happens today as well as in antiquity!<snip>The _Septuaginta_ (Alfred Rahlfs, 1979 ed.) contains the repetition in thetext with the following note in the apparatus:19 EGW EIMI 2o > ScCThe figure after the 2 is raised, which I don’t understand. I interpretthe note to mean “the repetition of EGW EIMI is omitted by the Sinaiticuscorrector and in Codex Ephraemi.”Curiously enough, KURIOS seems to be omitted in Alexandrinus.Hope this helps.Speaking of LXX variants, I came across something last night in Matthew’squotation from Isaiah 7:14 which puzzles me. The author is apparentlyquoting the LXX, but uses KALESOUSIN rather than KALESEIS. My NA27 textshows -SEIS appearing only in D (pauci), Bohairic MSS, Origen, and Eusebius.My Rahlfs LXX, on the other hand, reads -SEIS in the text with thefollowing apparatus:KALESEIS BAC (cf. Matth. 1:21 Luc. 1:31)] -SEI S, -SETE QL, -SOUSI(N) compl.Now where did Matthew get the 3rd plural reading? The author uses -SEIS in1:21, so why not in 1:23? Luke’s reference is a less reliant on the LXX,but the author uses -SEIS in Luke 1:31 just the same. I’m not much goodwith Hebrew at this point, but my Logos BHS has tagged WeQaRa’T as 3rdsingular (hope my transliteration of that is clear enough). There is,however, a variant reading WQR’ in my 1983 BHS if someone can help with theperson and number on it.Now I highly doubt that Matthew had an early draft of the ComputensianPolyglot in front of him. Anyone have an idea where the 3rd plural readingin Matthew 1:23 originated? Or even a later source for the Complutensis?All I can think of is that perhaps the author is making a theological pointthat “they” (all Israel? believers?) will call him Emmanuel, and not justJoseph. In turn, perhaps the Complutensis used Matthew’s form rather thanthe traditional LXX reading. My best guess, but I’m not overly satisfiedwith it.Thanks,Ben—————————————————————————Benjamin Raymondsenior, Harding University School of Biblical Studiesbraymond at ipa.netHU Box 11871, 900 E CenterSearcy, AR 72149-0001501-279-4820

Compound subjects with hH?Present tence copulative verbs

Isaiah 45:19 (also Isaiah 7:14 in Mt 1:23) Benjamin Raymond braymond at ipa.net
Sat Sep 5 21:34:28 EDT 1998

Compound subjects with hH? Present tence copulative verbs At 10:54 PM 9/4/98 +0000, you wrote:>On Fri 4 Sep 98 (15:31:55), cms at dragon.com wrote:>> Could the repetition be a scribal error or is it emphasis? Not >> knowing Hebrew, is the Hebrew repetitious? FWIW, the Vulgate has it:>> >> non in abscondito locutus sum in loc terrae tenebroso>> non dixi semini Iacob frustra quaerite me>> ego Dominus loquens iustitiam adnuntians recta>> >> with no repetition.> > Thank you, Cindy. It would appear that the repetition in Gramcord at Isa> 45:19 LXX is a dittogram. It happens today as well as in antiquity!<snip>The _Septuaginta_ (Alfred Rahlfs, 1979 ed.) contains the repetition in thetext with the following note in the apparatus:19 EGW EIMI 2o > ScCThe figure after the 2 is raised, which I don’t understand. I interpretthe note to mean “the repetition of EGW EIMI is omitted by the Sinaiticuscorrector and in Codex Ephraemi.”Curiously enough, KURIOS seems to be omitted in Alexandrinus.Hope this helps.Speaking of LXX variants, I came across something last night in Matthew’squotation from Isaiah 7:14 which puzzles me. The author is apparentlyquoting the LXX, but uses KALESOUSIN rather than KALESEIS. My NA27 textshows -SEIS appearing only in D (pauci), Bohairic MSS, Origen, and Eusebius.My Rahlfs LXX, on the other hand, reads -SEIS in the text with thefollowing apparatus:KALESEIS BAC (cf. Matth. 1:21 Luc. 1:31)] -SEI S, -SETE QL, -SOUSI(N) compl.Now where did Matthew get the 3rd plural reading? The author uses -SEIS in1:21, so why not in 1:23? Luke’s reference is a less reliant on the LXX,but the author uses -SEIS in Luke 1:31 just the same. I’m not much goodwith Hebrew at this point, but my Logos BHS has tagged WeQaRa’T as 3rdsingular (hope my transliteration of that is clear enough). There is,however, a variant reading WQR’ in my 1983 BHS if someone can help with theperson and number on it.Now I highly doubt that Matthew had an early draft of the ComputensianPolyglot in front of him. Anyone have an idea where the 3rd plural readingin Matthew 1:23 originated? Or even a later source for the Complutensis?All I can think of is that perhaps the author is making a theological pointthat “they” (all Israel? believers?) will call him Emmanuel, and not justJoseph. In turn, perhaps the Complutensis used Matthew’s form rather thanthe traditional LXX reading. My best guess, but I’m not overly satisfiedwith it.Thanks,Ben—————————————————————————Benjamin Raymondsenior, Harding University School of Biblical Studiesbraymond at ipa.netHU Box 11871, 900 E CenterSearcy, AR 72149-0001501-279-4820

Compound subjects with hH?Present tence copulative verbs

Isaiah 45:19 (also Isaiah 7:14 in Mt 1:23) Larry Swain swainl at calcite.rocky.edu
Sun Sep 6 11:32:07 EDT 1998

ANAGNWSEI ANDRES ADELPHOI On Sat, 5 Sep 1998, Benjamin Raymond wrote:> Speaking of LXX variants, I came across something last night in Matthew’s> quotation from Isaiah 7:14 which puzzles me. The author is apparently> quoting the LXX, but uses KALESOUSIN rather than KALESEIS. My NA27 text> shows -SEIS appearing only in D (pauci), Bohairic MSS, Origen, and Eusebius.> > Now where did Matthew get the 3rd plural reading? The author uses -SEIS in> 1:21, so why not in 1:23? Luke’s reference is a less reliant on the LXX,> but the author uses -SEIS in Luke 1:31 just the same. I’m not much good> with Hebrew at this point, but my Logos BHS has tagged WeQaRa’T as 3rd> singular (hope my transliteration of that is clear enough). There is,> however, a variant reading WQR’ in my 1983 BHS if someone can help with the> person and number on it.> > Now I highly doubt that Matthew had an early draft of the Computensian> Polyglot in front of him. Anyone have an idea where the 3rd plural reading> in Matthew 1:23 originated? Or even a later source for the Complutensis?Ben, There are three possibilities. 1) This is a textual variant to which Matthew is the only survivingwitness. Possible but of course uoltimately unprovable. But it is apossibility that must be entertained here. 2) “Scribal” error, although not quite in the way I think you mean. Theauthor of Matthew could simply have gotten the ending wrong-we see this ina lot of writings and quotations-close but not quite exact. 3) The possibility that Matthew changed the ending to underscore histheological point. Although I think the “they” is more likely those whosesins are forgiven in the preceeding verses rather than a more general”Israel”.Regards, Larry Swain

ANAGNWSEIANDRES ADELPHOI

Isaiah 45:19 (also Isaiah 7:14 in Mt 1:23) Larry Swain swainl at calcite.rocky.edu
Sun Sep 6 11:32:07 EDT 1998

ANAGNWSEI ANDRES ADELPHOI On Sat, 5 Sep 1998, Benjamin Raymond wrote:> Speaking of LXX variants, I came across something last night in Matthew’s> quotation from Isaiah 7:14 which puzzles me. The author is apparently> quoting the LXX, but uses KALESOUSIN rather than KALESEIS. My NA27 text> shows -SEIS appearing only in D (pauci), Bohairic MSS, Origen, and Eusebius.> > Now where did Matthew get the 3rd plural reading? The author uses -SEIS in> 1:21, so why not in 1:23? Luke’s reference is a less reliant on the LXX,> but the author uses -SEIS in Luke 1:31 just the same. I’m not much good> with Hebrew at this point, but my Logos BHS has tagged WeQaRa’T as 3rd> singular (hope my transliteration of that is clear enough). There is,> however, a variant reading WQR’ in my 1983 BHS if someone can help with the> person and number on it.> > Now I highly doubt that Matthew had an early draft of the Computensian> Polyglot in front of him. Anyone have an idea where the 3rd plural reading> in Matthew 1:23 originated? Or even a later source for the Complutensis?Ben, There are three possibilities. 1) This is a textual variant to which Matthew is the only survivingwitness. Possible but of course uoltimately unprovable. But it is apossibility that must be entertained here. 2) “Scribal” error, although not quite in the way I think you mean. Theauthor of Matthew could simply have gotten the ending wrong-we see this ina lot of writings and quotations-close but not quite exact. 3) The possibility that Matthew changed the ending to underscore histheological point. Although I think the “they” is more likely those whosesins are forgiven in the preceeding verses rather than a more general”Israel”.Regards, Larry Swain

ANAGNWSEIANDRES ADELPHOI

Isaiah 45:19 (also Isaiah 7:14 in Mt 1:23) Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Sun Sep 6 16:54:39 EDT 1998

Isaiah 45:19 James 2:15 (loosely connected to “Compound subjects with hH” [sic]) On Sat 5 Sep 98 (19:34:28), braymond at ipa.net wrote:> where did Matthew get the 3rd plural reading? The author uses -SEIS in> 1:21, so why not in 1:23? Luke’s reference is a less reliant on the LXX,> but the author uses -SEIS in Luke 1:31 just the same. I’m not much good> with Hebrew at this point, but my Logos BHS has tagged WeQaRa’T as 3rd> singular (hope my transliteration of that is clear enough). There is,> however, a variant reading WQR’ in my 1983 BHS if someone can help with> the person and number on it. Ben, The plural KALESOUSIN seems to be the indefinite 3rd pers pl, “and *They* shall call his name Immanuel”; “they” being the parents, or the nation Israel. The singular KALESEIS, “thou shalt call…”, is from the Hebrew WeQaRa’Th SheMiW `iMMaNuW ‘eL, “and *thou* shall call his name Immanuel”. This is 2nd pers fem sing Perfect Qal with Waw Consecutiva, creating the effect of the Imperfect, or future. It is a future prophecy. We can read this as an instruction to the mother to name the child accordingly. The Brenton LXX has KALESEIS, accurately rendering the Hebrew. JA Bengel, in his /Gnomon/, ad loc, writes (E.T.) “KALESOUSI, THEY /shall call/) Both the Hebrew and the LXX have ‘THOU shalt call,’ i.e., ‘THOU Virgin-Mother’. — ‘THOU shalt call,’ occurs also in ver. 21, addressed to Joseph: whence is now substituted ‘THEY /shall call/, i.e., all, thenceforth. The angel says to Mary, in Luke 1:28, /The Lord is with/ THEE. Not one or the other of His parents, however, but all who call upon His name, say, ‘/with/ US.’ — Cf. Luke 1:54. — Those words deserve particular attention in which the writers of the New Testament differ from the LXX., or even from the Hebrew.” (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1859, vol 1 p 117).> All I can think of is that perhaps the author is making a theological point> that “they” (all Israel? believers?) will call him Emmanuel, and not just> Joseph. In turn, perhaps the Complutensis used Matthew’s form rather than> the traditional LXX reading. My best guess, but I’m not overly satisfied> with it. Seems that your best guess is at least as good as Bengel’s! The only MSS which have KALESEIS are D (Bezae) pc d (a few italian codices from the 5th-6th centuries), and the variant d^c (c superscript, not o); and “d* vocabit”. c superscript indicates a “corrected” copy; * indicates an original unemended “clean” copy. Whence did Matthew get his KALESEUSIN? From the Holy Spirit, I should guess! ERRWSQE Ben (another Ben)– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

Isaiah 45:19James 2:15 (loosely connected to “Compound subjects with hH” [sic])

Isaiah 45:19 (also Isaiah 7:14 in Mt 1:23) Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Sun Sep 6 16:54:39 EDT 1998

Isaiah 45:19 James 2:15 (loosely connected to “Compound subjects with hH” [sic]) On Sat 5 Sep 98 (19:34:28), braymond at ipa.net wrote:> where did Matthew get the 3rd plural reading? The author uses -SEIS in> 1:21, so why not in 1:23? Luke’s reference is a less reliant on the LXX,> but the author uses -SEIS in Luke 1:31 just the same. I’m not much good> with Hebrew at this point, but my Logos BHS has tagged WeQaRa’T as 3rd> singular (hope my transliteration of that is clear enough). There is,> however, a variant reading WQR’ in my 1983 BHS if someone can help with> the person and number on it. Ben, The plural KALESOUSIN seems to be the indefinite 3rd pers pl, “and *They* shall call his name Immanuel”; “they” being the parents, or the nation Israel. The singular KALESEIS, “thou shalt call…”, is from the Hebrew WeQaRa’Th SheMiW `iMMaNuW ‘eL, “and *thou* shall call his name Immanuel”. This is 2nd pers fem sing Perfect Qal with Waw Consecutiva, creating the effect of the Imperfect, or future. It is a future prophecy. We can read this as an instruction to the mother to name the child accordingly. The Brenton LXX has KALESEIS, accurately rendering the Hebrew. JA Bengel, in his /Gnomon/, ad loc, writes (E.T.) “KALESOUSI, THEY /shall call/) Both the Hebrew and the LXX have ‘THOU shalt call,’ i.e., ‘THOU Virgin-Mother’. — ‘THOU shalt call,’ occurs also in ver. 21, addressed to Joseph: whence is now substituted ‘THEY /shall call/, i.e., all, thenceforth. The angel says to Mary, in Luke 1:28, /The Lord is with/ THEE. Not one or the other of His parents, however, but all who call upon His name, say, ‘/with/ US.’ — Cf. Luke 1:54. — Those words deserve particular attention in which the writers of the New Testament differ from the LXX., or even from the Hebrew.” (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1859, vol 1 p 117).> All I can think of is that perhaps the author is making a theological point> that “they” (all Israel? believers?) will call him Emmanuel, and not just> Joseph. In turn, perhaps the Complutensis used Matthew’s form rather than> the traditional LXX reading. My best guess, but I’m not overly satisfied> with it. Seems that your best guess is at least as good as Bengel’s! The only MSS which have KALESEIS are D (Bezae) pc d (a few italian codices from the 5th-6th centuries), and the variant d^c (c superscript, not o); and “d* vocabit”. c superscript indicates a “corrected” copy; * indicates an original unemended “clean” copy. Whence did Matthew get his KALESEUSIN? From the Holy Spirit, I should guess! ERRWSQE Ben (another Ben)– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

Isaiah 45:19James 2:15 (loosely connected to “Compound subjects with hH” [sic])

Isaiah 45:19 (also Isaiah 7:14 in Mt 1:23) Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Mon Sep 7 08:02:18 EDT 1998

James 2:15 (loosely connected to “Compound subjects with hH” [sic]) b-hebrew At 19:34 05/09/98 -0600, you wrote:: >Speaking of LXX variants, I came across something last night in Matthew’s>quotation from Isaiah 7:14 which puzzles me. The author is apparently>quoting the LXX, but uses KALESOUSIN rather than KALESEIS. My NA27 text>shows -SEIS appearing only in D (pauci), Bohairic MSS, Origen, and Eusebius.> > >Now where did Matthew get the 3rd plural reading? The author uses -SEIS in>1:21, so why not in 1:23? Luke’s reference is a less reliant on the LXX,>but the author uses -SEIS in Luke 1:31 just the same. I’m not much good>with Hebrew at this point, but my Logos BHS has tagged WeQaRa’T as 3rd>singular (hope my transliteration of that is clear enough). There is,>however, a variant reading WQR’ in my 1983 BHS if someone can help with the>person and number on it.Benjamin:In citing the Logos BHS tag, you seen to have forgotten that Hebrew has twoform for the 3rd pers. sing. — masculine and feminine.Maybe you would check the Logos tag again?My Bible Windows tagged BHS shows 3 pers. sing fem. — but, withoutfurther explanation, this is quite puzzling to someone who just knows thebasic verb paradigms.As so often, you then have to go to the Gesenius/Kautzsch grammar, to finda note in ss. 74g and 75m that the form in the BHS is an older form.The variant [ marked b-b in the BHS you quote ] is simply the normalparadigm Qual form of the 3rd pers. MASC — for whether it is an active ora passive form, see below. [Incidentaly, did you note that the two sourcescited for the variant are the Qumran Isaiah scroll and Sinaiticus?]There is also, as noted on p.151 of Raymond Brown’s ” Birth of the Messiah”, another Hebrew reading in the Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah [ 1 QIsa ] ” areading which can be translated ‘ he will be called’. Incidentally, this translation as a passive relies on the existence of anolder form too, this time of a Qual passive.So, as Brown summarises the matter, “they will call him” = he will becalled. But after remarking that the ‘most commonly accepted explanation’is that Matthew deliberately changed the LXX to suit his own narrative,Brown, in a footnote combines this explanation with the previous onederived from Qumran to venture the possibility that ” Matthew deliberatelysought out a reading different from the LXX to suit his own narrative.Hope this helpsMaurice Maurice A. O’Sullivan[ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie” Blessed he that neither tastes bitter wisdom from the Greeks,nor spits out the simple words of the men of Galilee!”——– St. Ephraim the Syrian

James 2:15 (loosely connected to “Compound subjects with hH” [sic])b-hebrew

Isaiah 45:19 (also Isaiah 7:14 in Mt 1:23) Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Mon Sep 7 08:02:18 EDT 1998

James 2:15 (loosely connected to “Compound subjects with hH” [sic]) b-hebrew At 19:34 05/09/98 -0600, you wrote:: >Speaking of LXX variants, I came across something last night in Matthew’s>quotation from Isaiah 7:14 which puzzles me. The author is apparently>quoting the LXX, but uses KALESOUSIN rather than KALESEIS. My NA27 text>shows -SEIS appearing only in D (pauci), Bohairic MSS, Origen, and Eusebius.> > >Now where did Matthew get the 3rd plural reading? The author uses -SEIS in>1:21, so why not in 1:23? Luke’s reference is a less reliant on the LXX,>but the author uses -SEIS in Luke 1:31 just the same. I’m not much good>with Hebrew at this point, but my Logos BHS has tagged WeQaRa’T as 3rd>singular (hope my transliteration of that is clear enough). There is,>however, a variant reading WQR’ in my 1983 BHS if someone can help with the>person and number on it.Benjamin:In citing the Logos BHS tag, you seen to have forgotten that Hebrew has twoform for the 3rd pers. sing. — masculine and feminine.Maybe you would check the Logos tag again?My Bible Windows tagged BHS shows 3 pers. sing fem. — but, withoutfurther explanation, this is quite puzzling to someone who just knows thebasic verb paradigms.As so often, you then have to go to the Gesenius/Kautzsch grammar, to finda note in ss. 74g and 75m that the form in the BHS is an older form.The variant [ marked b-b in the BHS you quote ] is simply the normalparadigm Qual form of the 3rd pers. MASC — for whether it is an active ora passive form, see below. [Incidentaly, did you note that the two sourcescited for the variant are the Qumran Isaiah scroll and Sinaiticus?]There is also, as noted on p.151 of Raymond Brown’s ” Birth of the Messiah”, another Hebrew reading in the Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah [ 1 QIsa ] ” areading which can be translated ‘ he will be called’. Incidentally, this translation as a passive relies on the existence of anolder form too, this time of a Qual passive.So, as Brown summarises the matter, “they will call him” = he will becalled. But after remarking that the ‘most commonly accepted explanation’is that Matthew deliberately changed the LXX to suit his own narrative,Brown, in a footnote combines this explanation with the previous onederived from Qumran to venture the possibility that ” Matthew deliberatelysought out a reading different from the LXX to suit his own narrative.Hope this helpsMaurice Maurice A. O’Sullivan[ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie” Blessed he that neither tastes bitter wisdom from the Greeks,nor spits out the simple words of the men of Galilee!”——– St. Ephraim the Syrian

James 2:15 (loosely connected to “Compound subjects with hH” [sic])b-hebrew

Isaiah 45:19 (also Isaiah 7:14 in Mt 1:23) Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Mon Sep 7 10:41:53 EDT 1998

James 2:15 (loosely connected to “Compound subjects with hH” [sic]) NT Idioms Benjamin:Just an addendum: I notice that the Jewish Publication Society translationtreats the form of the verb ‘to call, name’ as a Jussive, so that itsversion of Is. 7:14 reads:”Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the youngwoman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name himImmanuel.”Regards.MauriceMaurice A. O’Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie

James 2:15 (loosely connected to “Compound subjects with hH” [sic])NT Idioms

Isaiah 45:19 (also Isaiah 7:14 in Mt 1:23) Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Mon Sep 7 10:41:53 EDT 1998

James 2:15 (loosely connected to “Compound subjects with hH” [sic]) NT Idioms Benjamin:Just an addendum: I notice that the Jewish Publication Society translationtreats the form of the verb ‘to call, name’ as a Jussive, so that itsversion of Is. 7:14 reads:”Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the youngwoman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name himImmanuel.”Regards.MauriceMaurice A. O’Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie

James 2:15 (loosely connected to “Compound subjects with hH” [sic])NT Idioms

Isaiah 45:19 (also Isaiah 7:14 in Mt 1:23) Benjamin Raymond braymond at ipa.net
Mon Oct 5 01:20:21 EDT 1998

style Gal. 5:22 hO DE KARPOS TOU PNEUMATOS I’ve been been too occupied (read: lazy) to synthesize a response to thesehelpful posts from a while back. Time to get them out of my inbox.===============================Maurice O’Sullivan wrote:>Benjamin:>In citing the Logos BHS tag, you seen to have forgotten that Hebrew has two>form for the 3rd pers. sing. — masculine and feminine.>Maybe you would check the Logos tag again?Forgotten? You overestimate my capability in Semitic studies :-)>My Bible Windows tagged BHS shows 3 pers. sing fem. — but, without>further explanation, this is quite puzzling to someone who just knows the>basic verb paradigms.> > >As so often, you then have to go to the Gesenius/Kautzsch grammar, to find>a note in ss. 74g and 75m that the form in the BHS is an older form.>The variant [ marked b-b in the BHS you quote ] is simply the normal>paradigm Qual form of the 3rd pers. MASC — for whether it is an active or>a passive form, see below. [Incidentaly, did you note that the two sources>cited for the variant are the Qumran Isaiah scroll and Sinaiticus?]Nope. Thanks for the note.>There is also, as noted on p.151 of Raymond Brown’s ” Birth of the Messiah”>, another Hebrew reading in the Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah [ 1 QIsa ] ” a>reading which can be translated ‘ he will be called’. >Incidentally, this translation as a passive relies on the existence of an>older form too, this time of a Qual passive.>So, as Brown summarises the matter, “they will call him” = he will be>called. But after remarking that the ‘most commonly accepted explanation’>is that Matthew deliberately changed the LXX to suit his own narrative,>Brown, in a footnote combines this explanation with the previous one>derived from Qumran to venture the possibility that ” Matthew deliberately>sought out a reading different from the LXX to suit his own narrative.Interesting; a good possibility.Larry Swain wrote:>Ben, >There are three possibilities. > > >1) This is a textual variant to which Matthew is the only surviving>witness. Possible but of course uoltimately unprovable. But it is a>possibility that must be entertained here. > > >2) “Scribal” error, although not quite in the way I think you mean. The>author of Matthew could simply have gotten the ending wrong-we see this in>a lot of writings and quotations-close but not quite exact. > > >3) The possibility that Matthew changed the ending to underscore his>theological point. Although I think the “they” is more likely those whose>sins are forgiven in the preceeding verses rather than a more general>“Israel”.Yes, those are the three possibilities that I saw also. I suppose I tendto lean toward the third, and I think you’re probably correct in youridentification of “they”. Like I said elsewhere, that’s my best *guess*.Ben Crick wrote:>Ben,<snip>>Seems that your best guess is at least as good as Bengel’s! The only MSS>which have KALESEIS are D (Bezae) pc d (a few italian codices from the>5th-6th centuries), and the variant d^c (c superscript, not o); and “d*>vocabit”. c superscript indicates a “corrected” copy; * indicates an>original unemended “clean” copy.> > >Whence did Matthew get his KALESEUSIN? From the Holy Spirit, I should>guess!:-) Edgar Krentz wrote:>Let me see if I can clear up your reading of the Rahlfs apparatus to Isa>45:19.The 2 with the superscript o means the second occurence of EGW EIMI,>the > means “is omitted by” S = Sinaiticus, the superscript c after it>means the corrector of the Synaiticus, while the Italic C means, as Kevin>noted the recension in the”Catena magna in prophetas inventa,” id est the>great Latin commentary that is a chain (hence the Latin catena) of>citations from earlier commentaires. That means that you would need to find>the edition, look up the passage, determine who is cited, and then date>that scholar to evaluate the significance.Ah! Thanks for the clarifications.>Unlike Kevin, I think the apparatus is clear, provided one looks at the>list of abbreviations. Unfortunately, the key to the abbreviation printed>in the preface does not list the Rescensions of the text cited in the>apparatus; that is only on the separately printed “Explanatio Signorum”>–and there only in untranslated Latin. If you still have that separate>sheet, tip it into the real of your LXX with a bit of glue so that yhou>don’t lose it. It’s more complete than the liste in the bound pages.(Grumble) Gotcha; I assumed the sheet just duplicated the list in theConspectus Signorum. I won’t make that mistake again!Kevin Barney wrote:>Ben:> > >I would suggest one small correction to your interpretation of the Rahlfscritical note to Isaiah 45:19. Capital >C does refer to Codex Ephraemiwhen it is not italicized, but when italicized, as here, it refers tosomething >identified as “recensio in Catena magna in prophetas inventa”[whatever that is]. A similar problem exists >with the letter L; when notitalicized it refers to “Purpureus Vindobonensis,” but when italicized itrefers to >the Lucian recension. Personally, I think the editors shouldhave distinguished these texts in some way >other than italic type, whichis obviously very confusing. Yes, Edgar Krentz corrected me as well. Thanks.=========================================That was fairly painless, wasn’t it? Just wanted you folks to know Ididn’t forget your help.Ben—————————————————————————Benjamin Raymondsenior, Harding University School of Biblical Studiesbraymond at ipa.netHU Box 11871, 900 E CenterSearcy, AR 72149-0001501-279-4820

styleGal. 5:22 hO DE KARPOS TOU PNEUMATOS

Isaiah 45:19 (also Isaiah 7:14 in Mt 1:23) Benjamin Raymond braymond at ipa.net
Mon Oct 5 01:20:21 EDT 1998

style Gal. 5:22 hO DE KARPOS TOU PNEUMATOS I’ve been been too occupied (read: lazy) to synthesize a response to thesehelpful posts from a while back. Time to get them out of my inbox.===============================Maurice O’Sullivan wrote:>Benjamin:>In citing the Logos BHS tag, you seen to have forgotten that Hebrew has two>form for the 3rd pers. sing. — masculine and feminine.>Maybe you would check the Logos tag again?Forgotten? You overestimate my capability in Semitic studies :-)>My Bible Windows tagged BHS shows 3 pers. sing fem. — but, without>further explanation, this is quite puzzling to someone who just knows the>basic verb paradigms.> > >As so often, you then have to go to the Gesenius/Kautzsch grammar, to find>a note in ss. 74g and 75m that the form in the BHS is an older form.>The variant [ marked b-b in the BHS you quote ] is simply the normal>paradigm Qual form of the 3rd pers. MASC — for whether it is an active or>a passive form, see below. [Incidentaly, did you note that the two sources>cited for the variant are the Qumran Isaiah scroll and Sinaiticus?]Nope. Thanks for the note.>There is also, as noted on p.151 of Raymond Brown’s ” Birth of the Messiah”>, another Hebrew reading in the Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah [ 1 QIsa ] ” a>reading which can be translated ‘ he will be called’. >Incidentally, this translation as a passive relies on the existence of an>older form too, this time of a Qual passive.>So, as Brown summarises the matter, “they will call him” = he will be>called. But after remarking that the ‘most commonly accepted explanation’>is that Matthew deliberately changed the LXX to suit his own narrative,>Brown, in a footnote combines this explanation with the previous one>derived from Qumran to venture the possibility that ” Matthew deliberately>sought out a reading different from the LXX to suit his own narrative.Interesting; a good possibility.Larry Swain wrote:>Ben, >There are three possibilities. > > >1) This is a textual variant to which Matthew is the only surviving>witness. Possible but of course uoltimately unprovable. But it is a>possibility that must be entertained here. > > >2) “Scribal” error, although not quite in the way I think you mean. The>author of Matthew could simply have gotten the ending wrong-we see this in>a lot of writings and quotations-close but not quite exact. > > >3) The possibility that Matthew changed the ending to underscore his>theological point. Although I think the “they” is more likely those whose>sins are forgiven in the preceeding verses rather than a more general>“Israel”.Yes, those are the three possibilities that I saw also. I suppose I tendto lean toward the third, and I think you’re probably correct in youridentification of “they”. Like I said elsewhere, that’s my best *guess*.Ben Crick wrote:>Ben,<snip>>Seems that your best guess is at least as good as Bengel’s! The only MSS>which have KALESEIS are D (Bezae) pc d (a few italian codices from the>5th-6th centuries), and the variant d^c (c superscript, not o); and “d*>vocabit”. c superscript indicates a “corrected” copy; * indicates an>original unemended “clean” copy.> > >Whence did Matthew get his KALESEUSIN? From the Holy Spirit, I should>guess!:-) Edgar Krentz wrote:>Let me see if I can clear up your reading of the Rahlfs apparatus to Isa>45:19.The 2 with the superscript o means the second occurence of EGW EIMI,>the > means “is omitted by” S = Sinaiticus, the superscript c after it>means the corrector of the Synaiticus, while the Italic C means, as Kevin>noted the recension in the”Catena magna in prophetas inventa,” id est the>great Latin commentary that is a chain (hence the Latin catena) of>citations from earlier commentaires. That means that you would need to find>the edition, look up the passage, determine who is cited, and then date>that scholar to evaluate the significance.Ah! Thanks for the clarifications.>Unlike Kevin, I think the apparatus is clear, provided one looks at the>list of abbreviations. Unfortunately, the key to the abbreviation printed>in the preface does not list the Rescensions of the text cited in the>apparatus; that is only on the separately printed “Explanatio Signorum”>–and there only in untranslated Latin. If you still have that separate>sheet, tip it into the real of your LXX with a bit of glue so that yhou>don’t lose it. It’s more complete than the liste in the bound pages.(Grumble) Gotcha; I assumed the sheet just duplicated the list in theConspectus Signorum. I won’t make that mistake again!Kevin Barney wrote:>Ben:> > >I would suggest one small correction to your interpretation of the Rahlfscritical note to Isaiah 45:19. Capital >C does refer to Codex Ephraemiwhen it is not italicized, but when italicized, as here, it refers tosomething >identified as “recensio in Catena magna in prophetas inventa”[whatever that is]. A similar problem exists >with the letter L; when notitalicized it refers to “Purpureus Vindobonensis,” but when italicized itrefers to >the Lucian recension. Personally, I think the editors shouldhave distinguished these texts in some way >other than italic type, whichis obviously very confusing. Yes, Edgar Krentz corrected me as well. Thanks.=========================================That was fairly painless, wasn’t it? Just wanted you folks to know Ididn’t forget your help.Ben—————————————————————————Benjamin Raymondsenior, Harding University School of Biblical Studiesbraymond at ipa.netHU Box 11871, 900 E CenterSearcy, AR 72149-0001501-279-4820

styleGal. 5:22 hO DE KARPOS TOU PNEUMATOS

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>