Matthew 6:12

Matthew 6:12 Kevin Smith kgs at iafrica.com
Mon Sep 20 16:57:18 EDT 1999

 

“Grammatical” Categories Matthew 6:12 Dear friends,In UBS4 Matthew 6:12 reads,KAI AFES hHMIN TA OFEILHMATA hHMWN, hWS KAI hHMEIS **AFHKAMEN** TOIS OFEILETAIS hHMWNI am mystified as to why UBS4 does not even list the variant readings for AFHKAMEN, namely, AFIEMEN and AFIOMEN. In his Textual Commentary, Metzger (1994:13) says, “… a majority of the Committee preferred AFHKAMEN,” thereby implying that the editors of UBS4 themselves were not unanimous. I certainly agree that AFHKAMEN is the more likely reading, but I would have thought the variants should at least by cited, especially if the editors were divided. Regards,Kevin SmithPort ElizabethSouth Africakgs at iafrica.com————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990920/e93146ff/attachment.html

 

“Grammatical” CategoriesMatthew 6:12

Matthew 6:12 Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Mon Sep 20 18:09:27 EDT 1999

 

Matthew 6:12 Matthew 6:12 At 22:57 20/09/99 +0200, you wrote:> certainly agree that AFHKAMEN is the more likely reading, but I would > have thought the variants should at least by cited,Another good reason for using N/A27, where they are cited — and besides are clearly printed in a decent font.MauriceMaurice A. O’Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie[ subscribed to MSN Messengero_sullivanmauric at hotmail.com ]

 

Matthew 6:12Matthew 6:12

Matthew 6:12 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Mon Sep 20 18:11:38 EDT 1999

 

Matthew 6:12 Deissman article available online At 10:57 PM 9/20/99 +0200, you wrote:>Dear friends,> >In UBS4 Matthew 6:12 reads,>KAI AFES hHMIN TA OFEILHMATA hHMWN, hWS KAI hHMEIS **AFHKAMEN** TOISOFEILETAIS hHMWN> >I am mystified as to why UBS4 does not even list the variant readings forAFHKAMEN, namely, AFIEMEN and AFIOMEN. In his Textual Commentary, Metzger(1994:13) says, “… a majority of the Committee preferred AFHKAMEN,”thereby implying that the editors of UBS4 themselves were not unanimous. > >I certainly agree that AFHKAMEN is the more likely reading, but I wouldhave thought the variants should at least by cited, especially if theeditors were divided.afiomen- D, L, W, Delta, Theta, 565 afiemen- Aleph (1st corrector), Fam 13, Byz maj.afhkamen- Aleph (original), B, Z, Fam 1, some vulgate and syriac mss.The weight of the latter reading is such that it is most likely the closestto “the original”.I dont think that the editors of UBS should be faulted for not listing thevariants- for a couple of reasons. First, the UBS texts are designed forstudents and not scholars of the text. Second, there really is nolikelyhood at all that the variants can claim superior attestation- so therereally is no need to list them.best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

Matthew 6:12Deissman article available online

Matthew 6:12 Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com
Tue Sep 21 01:28:51 EDT 1999

 

Baker withdraws Comfort book theopneustos —– Original Message —–From: Kevin Smith <kgs at iafrica.com>Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 3:57 PM> I am mystified as to why UBS4 does not even list the variant readings for> AFHKAMEN, namely, AFIEMEN and AFIOMEN. In his Textual Commentary, Metzger> (1994:13) says, “… a majority of the Committee preferred AFHKAMEN,”> thereby implying that the editors of UBS4 themselves were not unanimous. > > I certainly agree that AFHKAMEN is the more likely reading, but I wouldhave> thought the variants should at least by cited, especially if the editors> were divided.The UBS4 is aimed especially/primarily at translators, so the variantsdeemed of special interest in the translation task are its focus. For thosevariants it lists, it gives a more complete critical apparatus than doesNA27.Variants omitted are apparently not deemed important for translationpurposes; I suppose this is either because:1. the variants do not carry significant weight to be seriously considered.2. if they do carry significant weight, they may not alter the meaning ofthe passage significantly enough to merit inclusion.I guess the AFHKAMEN variants might fall under this second reason: thedifference is Present vs. Perfect tense. The context prescribes logicalprecedence of ‘my forgiving’ before ‘God’s forgiving’ by the comparisonintroduced by hWS. Chronological precedence is added by the Perfect tensereading, but may still be implied in the Present tense reading.Of course, such decisions about inclusion are always a judgement call. It’sgood to use both UBS4 and NA27!God Bless!Joe FribergArlington, TX

 

Baker withdraws Comfort booktheopneustos

Matthew 6:12 Kevin Smith kgs at iafrica.com
Tue Sep 21 06:01:46 EDT 1999

 

theopneustos Philippians 1:9-11 Dear Jim,You wrote, “…there really is no likelyhood at all that the variants can claim superior attestation- so there really is no need to list them.” What do you make of Metzger’s comment that only “… a majority of the Committee preferred AFHKAMEN”? (1994:13)Though a rank amateur when it comes to textual criticism, I agree with you that AFHKAMEN seems an obvious choice. Nevertheless, from what I can make out, Metzger only refers to “a majority of the Committee” when they are divided. Presumably all the committee members are expert textual critics from a similar “school” of textual criticism. Why do you think they would not have been unanimous here?Regards,Kevin SmithSouth Africakgs at iafrica.com—–Original Message—–From: Jim West <jwest at highland.net>To: Kevin Smith <kgs at iafrica.com>Cc: at franklin.oit.unc.edu < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Date: 21 September 1999 00:11Subject: Re: Matthew 6:12>At 10:57 PM 9/20/99 +0200, you wrote:>>Dear friends,>> >>In UBS4 Matthew 6:12 reads,>>KAI AFES hHMIN TA OFEILHMATA hHMWN, hWS KAI hHMEIS **AFHKAMEN** TOIS>OFEILETAIS hHMWN>> >>I am mystified as to why UBS4 does not even list the variant readings for>AFHKAMEN, namely, AFIEMEN and AFIOMEN. In his Textual Commentary, Metzger>(1994:13) says, “… a majority of the Committee preferred AFHKAMEN,”>thereby implying that the editors of UBS4 themselves were not unanimous.>> >>I certainly agree that AFHKAMEN is the more likely reading, but I would>have thought the variants should at least by cited, especially if the>editors were divided.> >afiomen- D, L, W, Delta, Theta, 565>afiemen- Aleph (1st corrector), Fam 13, Byz maj.>afhkamen- Aleph (original), B, Z, Fam 1, some vulgate and syriac mss.> >The weight of the latter reading is such that it is most likely the closest>to “the original”.> >I dont think that the editors of UBS should be faulted for not listing the>variants- for a couple of reasons. First, the UBS texts are designed for>students and not scholars of the text. Second, there really is no>likelyhood at all that the variants can claim superior attestation- sothere>really is no need to list them.> >best,> >Jim> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++>Jim West, ThD>email- jwest at highland.net>web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest> > ————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990921/0797b76a/attachment.html

 

theopneustosPhilippians 1:9-11

Matthew 6:12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Sep 21 06:37:13 EDT 1999

 

Baker withdraws Comfort book Wallace’s Grammar available in electronic book format At 12:28 AM -0500 9/21/99, Joe A. Friberg wrote:>—– Original Message —–>From: Kevin Smith <kgs at iafrica.com>>Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 3:57 PM> >> I am mystified as to why UBS4 does not even list the variant readings for>> AFHKAMEN, namely, AFIEMEN and AFIOMEN. In his Textual Commentary, Metzger>> (1994:13) says, “… a majority of the Committee preferred AFHKAMEN,”>> thereby implying that the editors of UBS4 themselves were not unanimous.> >> > I certainly agree that AFHKAMEN is the more likely reading, but I would>have>> thought the variants should at least by cited, especially if the editors>> were divided.> >The UBS4 is aimed especially/primarily at translators, so the variants>deemed of special interest in the translation task are its focus. For those>variants it lists, it gives a more complete critical apparatus than does>NA27.> >Variants omitted are apparently not deemed important for translation>purposes; I suppose this is either because:>1. the variants do not carry significant weight to be seriously considered.>2. if they do carry significant weight, they may not alter the meaning of>the passage significantly enough to merit inclusion.> >I guess the AFHKAMEN variants might fall under this second reason: the>difference is Present vs. Perfect tense. The context prescribes logical>precedence of ‘my forgiving’ before ‘God’s forgiving’ by the comparison>introduced by hWS. Chronological precedence is added by the Perfect tense>reading, but may still be implied in the Present tense reading.I’m curious here; I haven’t checked the evidence from the lexica for theforms as yet, but I’m wondering: Is AFHKAMEN to be considered perfect tenseor aorist? Or is this one of those relatively common verbs whosemorphological idiosyncracies seems to promote the fusion of the perfect andaorist tenses? Here’s what the Perseus web LSJ offers, but I’d want tocheck BAGD when I get to my office:aphiêmi, 2sg. aphiês Plat. Phileb. 50d, etc., 3sg. aphiêsi, also aphiei,Ion. apiei Hdt. 2.96, 1pl. aphiemen Aristoph. Cl. 1426; imper. aphieiIDEM=Aristoph. Wasps 428: impf. aphiein, with double augm. êphiein Plat.Euthyd. 293a; 3sg. aphiei Hom. Il. 1.25, IG22.777.15, Dem. 6.20, Ion. apieiHdt. 4.157, êphiei Thuc. 2.49, Plat. Lysis 222b, êphie Ev.Marc.11.16; 2pl.aphiete Dem. 23.188; 3pl. aphiesan Eur. Heraclid. 821, Thuc. 2.76, Dem.21.79, etc., êphiesan Xen. Hell. 4.6.11, êphioun Isaeus 6.40 (dub.): fut.aphêsô Hom. Il. 2.263, etc., Ion. ap- Hdt. 7.193: pf.apheika Xen. Anab.2.3.13, Dem. 56.26: aor. I aphêka, Ion.ap-, Ep.apheêka, used in ind. only,Hom. Il. 23.841, etc.: aor. 2 ind. only in dual and pl., aphetên, apheimen,apheite or aphete, apheisan or aphesan; imper. aphes, subj. aphô, opt.apheiên (2pl. apheite Thuc. 1.139), inf. apheinai, part. apheis:–Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 3170 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990921/940795be/attachment.bin

 

Baker withdraws Comfort bookWallace’s Grammar available in electronic book format

Matthew 6:12 Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Tue Sep 21 14:46:11 EDT 1999

 

Errors in Reference works on Greek Love One Another At 18:11 20/09/99 -0400, Jim West <jwest at highland.net> wrote:>afiomen- D, L, W, Delta, Theta, 565>afiemen- Aleph (1st corrector), Fam 13, Byz maj.>afhkamen- Aleph (original), B, Z, Fam 1, some vulgate and syriac mss.> >The weight of the latter reading is such that it is most likely the closest>to “the original”.Zerwick & Grosvenor comment:” AFHKAMEN …… prsupposing forgiveness on man’s part, unless it represents a Semitic perfect, which in certain circumstances may have present sense”There follows a cross-reference to s. 260 of Zerwick’s “Biblical Greek”This paragraph is actually considering the Magnificat in Luke, where he comments ” we have the remarkable aorist (HGGELIASEN ) in obvious paralellism with the present ( MEGALUNEI ) This has been explained as a servile version of a Hebrew inverted future (wayyiktol ) which, though it commonly refers to the past, can itself take a present value after a participle with that value “RegardsMauriceMaurice A. O’Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie[ subscribed to MSN Messengero_sullivanmauric at hotmail.com ]

 

Errors in Reference works on GreekLove One Another

Matthew 6:12 Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com
Tue Sep 21 16:13:38 EDT 1999

 

Love One Another DE —– Original Message —–From: Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 5:37 AM> I’m curious here; I haven’t checked the evidence from the lexica for the > forms as yet, but I’m wondering: Is AFHKAMEN to be considered perfecttense> or aorist? Or is this one of those relatively common verbs whose> morphological idiosyncracies seems to promote the fusion of the perfectand> aorist tenses? Here’s what the Perseus web LSJ offers, but I’d want to> check BAGD when I get to my office:You are correct, all the “lexica” (that I’ve checked–including BAGD) listthis form as aorist! No Active perfect forms are given for this verb.Nevertheless–and this I ask not to defend my initial blooper–when theperfect form is wanting, what form takes over the meanings usually carriedby the perfect? The aorist seems a likely candidate (could the present?).Glancing through Mt, there are several Active Indicative aorist forms, somefound in straight narrative where the aorist sense is expected, but otherswhich are usually translated as though they were perfects: Mt 19.27,29,23.23, and perhaps others.Joe Friberg

 

Love One AnotherDE

Matthew 6:12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Sep 21 17:43:31 EDT 1999

 

DIAFERW (was “Re: Philippians 1:9-11”) DE At 3:13 PM -0500 9/21/99, Joe A. Friberg wrote:>—– Original Message —–>From: Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>>Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 5:37 AM> >> I’m curious here; I haven’t checked the evidence from the lexica for the> > forms as yet, but I’m wondering: Is AFHKAMEN to be considered perfect>tense>> or aorist? Or is this one of those relatively common verbs whose>> morphological idiosyncracies seems to promote the fusion of the perfect>and>> aorist tenses? Here’s what the Perseus web LSJ offers, but I’d want to>> check BAGD when I get to my office:> >You are correct, all the “lexica” (that I’ve checked–including BAGD) list>this form as aorist! No Active perfect forms are given for this verb.> >Nevertheless–and this I ask not to defend my initial blooper–when the>perfect form is wanting, what form takes over the meanings usually carried>by the perfect? The aorist seems a likely candidate (could the present?).>Glancing through Mt, there are several Active Indicative aorist forms, some>found in straight narrative where the aorist sense is expected, but others>which are usually translated as though they were perfects: Mt 19.27,29,>23.23, and perhaps others.That is precisely the point I’m interested in: that the aorist, partlybecause it already subsumes functions of the pluperfect, partly because ofits function to express the telic sense, does seem to be supplanting theperfect in Hellenistic Greek, to some extent at least–or perhaps,following the course of earlier Latin developments, the two tenses arefusing into one in the Koine, and perhaps the older -KA aorists such asAFHKA and EDWKA and the sense that the Alpha endings really belong to theaorist are factors contributing to this amalgamation–for want of a betterword. Admittedly this is all speculation, of course; it would take a lot ofwork to prove this notion.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

DIAFERW (was “Re: Philippians 1:9-11”)DE

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>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.