Lk 2:32 EN TOIS … (Luke in Codex Bezae issue) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Sep 25 16:55:32 EDT 2002
Lk 2:42: age of Jesus in the Temple (Luke in Codex Bezae issue) Genitive plural non-determinitve Corrected: earlier post indicated Lk 2:49D05 :FWS EIS APOKALUYIN KAI DOXANNA27: FWS EIS APOKALUYIN EQNWN KAI DOXANChabert: What justification is there for the usual translation: “a lightfor revelation to the Gentiles” (e.g. NET), with genitive EQNWN regarded asa dative of interest?– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Lk 2:42: age of Jesus in the Temple (Luke in Codex Bezae issue)Genitive plural non-determinitve
Lk 2:32 EN TOIS … (Luke in Codex Bezae issue) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Sep 25 19:53:17 EDT 2002
Genitive plural non-determinitve Lk 2:49 EN TOIS … (Luke in Codex Bezae issue) For George Somsel:>From: Polycarp66 at aol.com>Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 19:46:19 EDT>In a message dated 9/25/2002 4:57:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:> >> >>D05 :FWS EIS APOKALUYIN KAI DOXAN>>NA27: FWS EIS APOKALUYIN EQNWN KAI DOXAN>> >>Chabert: What justification is there for the usual translation: “a light>>for revelation to the Gentiles” (e.g. NET), with genitive EQNWN regarded as>>a dative of interest?>> > > >Lk 2.32 is, of course, a reference to the LXX of Is 42.6 which is a>translation of the MT> >W:):eT.eN:Kf LiB:RiT (fM L:)W.R G.oWYiM> >which literally is>“I have made you by covenant a people for light of the gentiles”> >Here the construct relation between L:)W.R and G.oWYiM parallels the>relationship between APOKALUYIN and EQNWN. It is not FWS which is>followed by the genitive (comparable to the construct relation in Hebrew).>APOKALUYIN has been interjected to define what the function of FWS is to>be — a light FOR REVELATION. This does not, however, answer the question>of the function of the genitive in this construction but pushes it back>one level to the translator(s) of the LXX. The translators might have>simply chosen the genitive due to certain similarities between the status>constructus in Hebrew and the genitive in Greek. It does not completely>answer the question of what function the genitive serves in the>construction.> >A. T. Robertson in his _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament_, pp. 499 ff.>speaks of the ‘objective genitive’. He notes that in Mk 11.22 EXETE>PISTIN QEOU is rightly translated “have faith IN God” though the genitive>does not mean ‘in’. Similarly he notes that in Acts 4.9 EPI EUERGESIAi>ANQRWPOU ASQENOUS it is a good deed which is done ‘to’ the sick man. “In>Col 2:18, QRHSKEIAi TWN AGGELWN, it is worship ‘paid to’ angels, while EIS>THN hUPAKOUHN TOU XRISTOU (2 Cor. 10:5) is obedience ‘to’ Christ.> >Dan Wallace in _Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics_, pp. 116 ff. notes that>the key to the identification of the objective genitive is the ability to>convert a noun having a verbal idea into a verbal form and turn the>genitive into the direct object. He also notes that “A simpler and less>fool-proof method is to supply for the word *of* the words *for, about,>concerning, toward,* or sometimes *against*.”> >In the case at hand we have a noun which has a verbal idea — FWS>(FWTIZW). It works quite well to convert this to “to enlighten the>gentiles”. The problem is that APOKALUYIS has been inserted to define the>purpose of the ‘enlightenment.’> >gfsomsel
Genitive plural non-determinitveLk 2:49 EN TOIS … (Luke in Codex Bezae issue)
Lk 2:32 EN TOIS … (Luke in Codex Bezae issue) Glendon Gross gross at xinetd.ath.cx
Thu Sep 26 02:40:47 EDT 2002
Uses of GAR Uses of GAR I may be out of my depth here, but again I can’t help noticing a footnotein one of my translations, a NASB, which lists this verse in all capitals,meaning the footnote implies that the writer is quoting Isaiah 42:6-7,which appears as follows in my LXX:EGO KURIOS hO QEOS EKALESA SE EN DIKAIOSUNH, KAI KRATHSW THS XEIROS SOU,KAI ENISXUSW SE, KAI EDWKA SE EIS DIAQHKHN GENOUS,EIS FWS EQNWN, ANOIXAI OFQALMOUS TUFLWN, EXAGAGEIN EK DESMWN DEDEMENOUSKAI EX OIKOU FULAKAS, KAI KAQHMENOUS EN SKOTEI.Because these are the words of Simeon after having laid eyes on the Christchild, it may have been important for the author of Luke to show thesignificance of the child “to the nations”, since the author of Luke iscoming from such a literary, cosmopolitan perspective. My received textfor Luke 2:32 uses the same word, EQNWN.Another possibility (also a footnote in my NASB) is that Simeon [inLuke’s Eyes] is quoting Isaiah 49:6, where my LXX readsKAI EIPE MOI, MEGA SOI ESTI TOU KLHQHNAI SE PAIDA MOU, TOU STHSAI TASFULAS IAKWB, KAI THN DIASPORAN TOU ISRAHL EPISTREPSAI. IDOU DEDWKA SE EISDIAQHKHN GENOUS, EIS FWS EQNWN, TOU EINAI SE EIS SWTHRIAN hEWS ESXATOU THSGHS.Clearly this was a concept that would have appealed to the politicalradicals in Luke’s audience. Those who had the nationalistic fervor wereexpecting this baby to unite the Jewish nation and defeat Rome, were theynot? If so, then it seems an appropriate literary device for the authorof Luke to put these words in Simeon’s mouth, since this is theexplanation for why the old man can now go to his grave in peace. He hasactually seen “EIS FWS EQNWN”. [the light of the nations.] As an old manabout to die, one would expect Simeon to be familiar with the LXX and I amsure it would not be surprising to an audience of his contemporaries tohear him quote this scripture, being the religious man that he was. Myfeeling is that the presence of “EQNWN” strengthens the idea that Simeonis quoting a prophecy from Isaiah.I would speculate that if EQNWN is omitted in Codex Bezae, then maybeit is omitted because it was added later? Without knowing the backgroundsurrounding Codex Bezae, I am intrigued by the idea that EQNWN may havebeen added later since the KJV translators used much later manuscripts,dating from the 12th century if I am not mistaken. Does anyone know ifthere are other manuscripts that agree with Codex Bezae in the omission ofthe word EQNWN from Luke 2:32?On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 16:55:32 -0400> From: Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>> To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.metalab.unc.edu>> Cc: “Sylvie Chabert [iso-8859-1] d’Hyères” <laodicy at ifrance.com>> Subject: [] Lk 2:32 EN TOIS … (Luke in Codex Bezae issue)> > Corrected: earlier post indicated Lk 2:49> > D05 :FWS EIS APOKALUYIN KAI DOXAN> NA27: FWS EIS APOKALUYIN EQNWN KAI DOXAN> > Chabert: What justification is there for the usual translation: “a light> for revelation to the Gentiles” (e.g. NET), with genitive EQNWN regarded as> a dative of interest?> > —> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)> Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [gross at xinetd.ath.cx]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave–145365E at franklin.oit.unc.edu> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >
Uses of GARUses of GAR
Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 26 07:04:44 EDT 2002
Lk 2:42: age of Jesus in the Temple Lk 2:49 EN TOIS … (Luke in Codex Bezae issue) Englished and submitted for Mme Chabert d’Hyères:Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 08:39:26 +0000From: “S Chabert d’Hyères” <laodicy at ifrance.com>Reply to George Somsel>>Lk 2:32: – D05 : FWS EIS APOKALUYIN KAI DOXAN>> – NA27: FWS EIS APOKALUYIN EQNWN KAI DOXAN>A. T. Robertson in his _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament_, pp. 499 ff.>speaks of the ‘objective genitive’. …Similarly he notes that in Acts 4.9EPI EUERGESIAi ANQRWPOU ASQENOUS it is a good deed which is done ‘to’ thesick man.A propos de EUERGESIAi , BDAG précise : “with the obj. gen. of the onewho benefits by it (Pla., Leg 850b EUERGESIAi POLEWS). Luc s’est donc servid’une tournure idiomatique qui ne peut pas rendre compte du génitif EQNWNen Lk 2:32.With regard to EUERGESIAi, BDAG states: “with the obj. gen. of the one whobenefits by it (Pla., Leg 850b EUERGESIAi POLEWS). Luke thus employed anidiomatic nuance which cannot account for the genitive EQNWN in Lk 2:32.”In>Col 2:18, QRHSKEIAi TWN AGGELWN, it is worship ‘paid to’ angels, while EIS>THN hUPAKOUHN TOU XRISTOU (2 Cor. 10:5) is obedience ‘to’ Christ.BDAG likewise notes QRHSKEIAi with genitive and hUPAKOUHN with genitive.>Dan Wallace in _Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics_, pp. 116 ff. notes that>the key to the identification of the objective genitive is the ability to>convert a noun having a verbal idea into a verbal form and turn the>genitive into the direct object. He also notes that “A simpler and less>fool-proof method is to supply for the word *of* the words *for, about,>concerning, toward,* or sometimes *against*.”> >In the case at hand we have a noun which has a verbal idea — FWS>(FWTIZW). It works quite well to convert this to “to enlighten the>gentiles”. The problem is that APOKALUYIS has been inserted to define the>purpose of the ‘enlightenment.’So the problem of EQNWN remains. I think that the term was added with theinitial sentence, that do think about it you think?Thanks for your valuable research,Sylvie Chabert d’Hyères
Lk 2:42: age of Jesus in the TempleLk 2:49 EN TOIS … (Luke in Codex Bezae issue)
Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 26 07:17:24 EDT 2002
Lk 2:49 EN TOIS … (Luke in Codex Bezae issue) adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43? An obvious correctionAt 7:04 AM -0400 9/26/02, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>Englished and submitted for Mme Chabert d’Hyères:>So the problem of EQNWN remains. I think that the term was added with the>initial sentence, that do think about it you think?This should be: “So the problem of EQNWN remains. I think that the term wasadded with the initial sentence, what do you think about it?– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Lk 2:49 EN TOIS … (Luke in Codex Bezae issue)adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43?
Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 26 10:03:47 EDT 2002
adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43? Mark 2:28 (KURIOS) Forwarded for George Somsel:From: Polycarp66 at aol.comDate: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:57:31 EDTIn a message dated 9/26/2002 7:06:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time,cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu forwards on behalf of Mme Chabert d’Hyèreswho writes:>Reply to George Somsel> >>>Lk 2:32:>– D05 : FWS EIS APOKALUYIN KAI DOXAN>>> – NA27: FWS EIS APOKALUYIN EQNWN KAI DOXAN> >>A. T. Robertson in his _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament_, pp. 499 ff.>>speaks of the ‘objective genitive’. …Similarly he notes that in Acts 4.9>EPI EUERGESIAi ANQRWPOU ASQENOUS it is a good deed which is done ‘to’ the>sick man.> >A propos de EUERGESIAi , BDAG précise : “with the obj. gen. of the one>who benefits by it (Pla., Leg 850b EUERGESIAi POLEWS). Luc s’est donc servi>d’une tournure idiomatique qui ne peut pas rendre compte du génitif EQNWN>en Lk 2:32.> >With regard to EUERGESIAi, BDAG states: “with the obj. gen. of the one who>benefits by it (Pla., Leg 850b EUERGESIAi POLEWS). Luke thus employed an>idiomatic nuance which cannot account for the genitive EQNWN in Lk 2:32.> >“In>>Col 2:18, QRHSKEIAi TWN AGGELWN, it is worship ‘paid to’ angels, while EIS>>THN hUPAKOUHN TOU XRISTOU (2 Cor. 10:5) is obedience ‘to’ Christ.> >BDAG likewise notes QRHSKEIAi with genitive and hUPAKOUHN with genitive.> >>Dan Wallace in _Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics_, pp. 116 ff. notes that>>the key to the identification of the objective genitive is the ability to>>convert a noun having a verbal idea into a verbal form and turn the>>genitive into the direct object. He also notes that “A simpler and less>>fool-proof method is to supply for the word *of* the words *for, about,>>concerning, toward,* or sometimes *against*.”>> >>In the case at hand we have a noun which has a verbal idea — FWS>>(FWTIZW). It works quite well to convert this to “to enlighten the>>gentiles”. The problem is that APOKALUYIS has been inserted to define the>>purpose of the ‘enlightenment.’> >So the problem of EQNWN remains. I think that the term was>added with the initial sentence, what do you think about it?> I tend to think the question is fairly well settled. EQNWN is “the obj.gen. of the one who benefits by it.” It was derived from the use of theLXX translation of Is 42.6EGW KURIOS hO QEOS EKALESA SE EN DIKAIOSUNHi KAI KRATHSW THS XEIROS SOU KAIENISXUSW SE KAI EDWKA SE EIS DIAQHKHN GENOUS,** EIS FWS EQNWN **What has been inserted is EIS APOKALUYIN. I would understand thisinsertion to function as an explication of the function of FWS.gfsomselPolycarp66 at aol.com
adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43?Mark 2:28 (KURIOS)
Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Sep 27 07:01:54 EDT 2002
Lk 2:49 EN TOIS … (Luke in Codex Bezae issue) DIAKON- For Mme Chabert:Reply to George Somsel.> > I tend to think the question is fairly well settled. EQNWN is “the obj.> gen. of the one who benefits by it.” It was derived from the use of the> LXX translation of Is 42.6> > EGW KURIOS hO QEOS EKALESA SE EN DIKAIOSUNHi KAI KRATHSW THS XEIROS SOU KAI> ENISXUSW SE KAI EDWKA SE EIS DIAQHKHN GENOUS,> ** EIS FWS EQNWN **> > What has been inserted is EIS APOKALUYIN.Except that there is no scriptural evidence for this insertion.Have you looked at the “Canticle” of Symeon in D05, which doesn’t have EQNWN?30 hOTI EIDON hOI OFTALMOI MOU TO SWTHRION SOU31 …hO hHTOIMASAS KATA PROSWPON PANTWN TWN LAWN32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN KAI DOXAN LAOU SOU ISRAELYet v. 32 can be understood as outlined thus:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN KAI DOXAN LAOU SOU ISRAELSans oublier que Syméon qui était prêtre (il bénissait les personnes dansle Temple) était selon Luc DIKAIOS KAI EULABHS (v25).Don’t forget that Symeon, who was a priest (he blessed people in theTemple), was, in Luke’s words, DIKAIOS KAI EULABHS (v. 25)Sylvie Chabert d’Hyèreshttp://bezae.ifrance.com
Lk 2:49 EN TOIS … (Luke in Codex Bezae issue)DIAKON-
Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Sep 27 13:40:14 EDT 2002
Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae) DIAKON- From: Polycarp66 at aol.comDate: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:50:56 EDTIn a message dated 9/27/2002 7:03:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, SylvieChabert d’Hyères writes:>Reply to George Somsel.> >> >> I tend to think the question is fairly well settled. EQNWN is “the obj.>> gen. of the one who benefits by it.” It was derived from the use of the>> LXX translation of Is 42.6>> >> EGW KURIOS hO QEOS EKALESA SE EN DIKAIOSUNHi KAI KRATHSW THS XEIROS SOU KAI>> ENISXUSW SE KAI EDWKA SE EIS DIAQHKHN GENOUS,>> ** EIS FWS EQNWN **>> >> What has been inserted is EIS APOKALUYIN.> >Except that there is no scriptural evidence for this insertion.> >Have you looked at the “Canticle” of Symeon in D05, which doesn’t have EQNWN?> >30 hOTI EIDON hOI OFTALMOI MOU> TO SWTHRION SOU>31 …hO hHTOIMASAS KATA PROSWPON PANTWN TWN LAWN>32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN> KAI DOXAN LAOU SOU ISRAEL> >Yet v. 32 can be understood as outlined thus:> >32 FWS EIS> APOKALUYIN KAI DOXAN> LAOU SOU ISRAEL> >Don’t forget that Symeon, who was a priest (he blessed people in the>Temple), was, in Luke’s words, DIKAIOS KAI EULABHS (v. 25)> How can you say that there is no scriptural evidence for the insertion ofEIS APOKALUYIN when the quotation is from the LXX of Is 42.6 where EQNWN ispresent and EIS APOKALUYIN is not. The author of the Gospel According toLuke clearly inserted it. I think he was making a clarification of thepurpose of the FWS.I don’t see what Simeon’s righteousness and piety has to do with thequestion. Am I missing something?gfsomsel
Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae)DIAKON-
Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Sep 27 13:38:13 EDT 2002
DIAKON- Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae) At 8:50 AM -0400 9/27/02, Polycarp66 at aol.com wrote:>In a message dated 9/27/2002 7:03:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Sylvie>Chabert d’Hyères writes:> >>Reply to George Somsel.>> >>> >>> I tend to think the question is fairly well settled. EQNWN is “the obj.>>> gen. of the one who benefits by it.” It was derived from the use of the>>> LXX translation of Is 42.6>>> >>> EGW KURIOS hO QEOS EKALESA SE EN DIKAIOSUNHi KAI KRATHSW THS XEIROS SOU KAI>>> ENISXUSW SE KAI EDWKA SE EIS DIAQHKHN GENOUS,>>> ** EIS FWS EQNWN **>>> >>> What has been inserted is EIS APOKALUYIN.>> >>Except that there is no scriptural evidence for this insertion.>> >>Have you looked at the “Canticle” of Symeon in D05, which doesn’t have EQNWN?>> >>30 hOTI EIDON hOI OFTALMOI MOU>> TO SWTHRION SOU>>31 …hO hHTOIMASAS KATA PROSWPON PANTWN TWN LAWN>>32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN>> KAI DOXAN LAOU SOU ISRAEL>> >>Yet v. 32 can be understood as outlined thus:>> >>32 FWS EIS>> APOKALUYIN KAI DOXAN>> LAOU SOU ISRAEL>> >>Don’t forget that Symeon, who was a priest (he blessed people in the>>Temple), was, in Luke’s words, DIKAIOS KAI EULABHS (v. 25)>> > >How can you say that there is no scriptural evidence for the insertion of>EIS APOKALUYIN when the quotation is from the LXX of Is 42.6 where EQNWN>is present and EIS APOKALUYIN is not. The author of the Gospel According>to Luke clearly inserted it. I think he was making a clarification of the>purpose of the FWS.>I don’t see what Simeon’s righteousness and piety has to do with the>question. Am I missing something?The point which I think you missed, George, is that Sylvie referred(you/us) to Lk 2:30-32 in Codex Bezae, where EQNWN is not present; I don’tsee any good evidence that the form of the expression, FWS EIS APOKALUYINKAI DOXAN LAOU SOU ISRAHL derives at all from the LXX ttext of Isaiah 42:6.You seem to be making the assumption that EQNWN was in the original text ofLuke and has been omitted by the copyist of Codex Bezae; that may be true,but it would have to be demonstrated first, wouldn’t it?– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
DIAKON-Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae)
Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae) Glendon Gross gross at xinetd.ath.cx
Sat Sep 28 14:30:58 EDT 2002
The implied verb in Eph 2:8 SUGCEW & SUGCUSIS Acts 19:29,32 Gen 11:7,9 The only reason I had thought that Simeon’s priesthood and pietywould be relevant is that Simeon would have known the scripture fromIsaiah. It probably was second nature to him. It would have been quitenatural for him to have quoted it.I was speculating that possibly the author of Luke might have put thequote in Simeon’s mouth as a literary device to increase the authority ofthe passage. I find it difficult to believe that the author of Luke was aneyewitness to the events, although I suppose that is possible. Theprophetic utterance could have been repeated by witnesses and recordedby the author of Luke. But doesn’t the inclusion of EQNWN imply a largerscope of the prophecy than if it is excluded? If so, I can’t helpwondering if any manuscripts of Luke other than Codex Bezae omit this word.Also, if FWS EIS APOKALUYIN has been added, then I find it interesting tonote that this phrase also serves to expand the scope of the prophecy.Incidentally, I don’t understand my footnote in the NASB translation thatsays “or resurrection” if the word is APOKALUYIN.If there is other textual evidence for the omission of EQNWN from Luke2:32, then that would seem to strengthen the idea that the word was addedlater, would it not? But if Codex Bezae is the only manuscript that omitsthe word EQNWN from Luke 2:32, would it not be more probable to consider it anoversight on the part of the scribe who transcribed Codex Bezae?Glendon GrossAmateur Greek StudentOn Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:38:13 -0400> From: Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>> To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.metalab.unc.edu>> Cc: George Somsel <Polycarp66 at aol.com>,> “Sylvie Chabert [iso-8859-1] d’Hyères” <laodicy at ifrance.com>> Subject: [] Re: Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae)> > At 8:50 AM -0400 9/27/02, Polycarp66 at aol.com wrote:> >In a message dated 9/27/2002 7:03:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Sylvie> >Chabert d’Hyères writes:> >> >>Reply to George Somsel.> >>> >>>> >>> I tend to think the question is fairly well settled. EQNWN is “the obj.> >>> gen. of the one who benefits by it.” It was derived from the use of the> >>> LXX translation of Is 42.6> >>>> >>> EGW KURIOS hO QEOS EKALESA SE EN DIKAIOSUNHi KAI KRATHSW THS XEIROS SOU KAI> >>> ENISXUSW SE KAI EDWKA SE EIS DIAQHKHN GENOUS,> >>> ** EIS FWS EQNWN **> >>>> >>> What has been inserted is EIS APOKALUYIN.> >>> >>Except that there is no scriptural evidence for this insertion.> >>> >>Have you looked at the “Canticle” of Symeon in D05, which doesn’t have EQNWN?> >>> >>30 hOTI EIDON hOI OFTALMOI MOU> >> TO SWTHRION SOU> >>31 …hO hHTOIMASAS KATA PROSWPON PANTWN TWN LAWN> >>32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN> >> KAI DOXAN LAOU SOU ISRAEL> >>> >>Yet v. 32 can be understood as outlined thus:> >>> >>32 FWS EIS> >> APOKALUYIN KAI DOXAN> >> LAOU SOU ISRAEL> >>> >>Don’t forget that Symeon, who was a priest (he blessed people in the> >>Temple), was, in Luke’s words, DIKAIOS KAI EULABHS (v. 25)> >>> >> >How can you say that there is no scriptural evidence for the insertion of> >EIS APOKALUYIN when the quotation is from the LXX of Is 42.6 where EQNWN> >is present and EIS APOKALUYIN is not. The author of the Gospel According> >to Luke clearly inserted it. I think he was making a clarification of the> >purpose of the FWS.> >I don’t see what Simeon’s righteousness and piety has to do with the> >question. Am I missing something?> > The point which I think you missed, George, is that Sylvie referred> (you/us) to Lk 2:30-32 in Codex Bezae, where EQNWN is not present; I don’t> see any good evidence that the form of the expression, FWS EIS APOKALUYIN> KAI DOXAN LAOU SOU ISRAHL derives at all from the LXX ttext of Isaiah 42:6.> You seem to be making the assumption that EQNWN was in the original text of> Luke and has been omitted by the copyist of Codex Bezae; that may be true,> but it would have to be demonstrated first, wouldn’t it?> —> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)> Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [gross at xinetd.ath.cx]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave–145365E at franklin.oit.unc.edu> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >
The implied verb in Eph 2:8SUGCEW & SUGCUSIS Acts 19:29,32 Gen 11:7,9