Lk 1:64 PARACRHMA Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Sep 10 08:06:29 EDT 2002
GNWSIS vs EPIGNWSIS Lk 1:79 FWS (Codex Bezae 05) I hereby submit the eleventh of the questions concerned with distinctivereadings of Codex Bezae in the text of Luke’s gospel.Lk 1:63-4NA27/USB4: KAI AITHSAS PINAKIDION EGRAYEN LEGWN: IWANNHS ESTIN ONOMA AUTOU.KAI EQAUMASAN PANTES. (64) ANEWiCQH DE TO STOMA AUTOU PARACRHMA KAI hHGLWSSA AUTOU, KAI ELALEI EULOGWN TON QEON ;D05: … EGRAYEN IWANHS ESTIN TO ONOMA AUTOU KAI PARACRHMA ELUQH H GLWSSAAUTOU KAI EQAUMASAN PANTESPARACRHMA indicates the simultaneity of two events:(1) according to D05, at the instant at which Zacharias was writing hisson’s name he recovered his speech and this coincidence is what amazed thepeople who observed it;but (2) according to the critical text, the simultaneous occurrences arethe unbinding of his mouth and tongue and his speaking in praise of God.Have I rightly described the functioning of PARACRHMA in these considerablyvariant formulations?I suppose it might be possible to read the critical text as indicating thatthe simultaneous events indicated by PARACRHMA are the unbinding of hismouth and of his tongue. But it seems to me rather that we shouldunderstand TO STOMA AUTOU and hH GLWSSA AUTOU as shared subjects of ofANEWiCQH (there is, of course, no violation of the concords here since hHGLWSSA AUTOU is a subject appended to the original subject-predicatesequence) and that the function of PARACRHMA here is to indicate thatZacharias spoke out in praise of God AS SOON AS he was able to speak.I haven’t transcribed here the larger context, but what follows in bothCodex Bezae and in the critical text is an indication of awe in theneighborhood and the hill country of Judea as word spread of this.– 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/
GNWSIS vs EPIGNWSISLk 1:79 FWS (Codex Bezae 05)
Lk 1:64 PARACRHMA Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Tue Sep 10 09:35:29 EDT 2002
Lk 1:79 FWS (Codex Bezae 05) GNWSIS vs EPIGNWSIS In a message dated 9/10/02 7:41:18 AM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:>I hereby submit the eleventh of the questions concerned with distinctive>readings of Codex Bezae in the text of Luke’s gospel.> >Lk 1:63-4>NA27/USB4: KAI AITHSAS PINAKIDION EGRAYEN LEGWN: IWANNHS ESTIN ONOMA AUTOU.>KAI EQAUMASAN PANTES. (64) ANEWiCQH DE TO STOMA AUTOU PARACRHMA KAI hH>GLWSSA AUTOU, KAI ELALEI EULOGWN TON QEON ;>D05: … EGRAYEN IWANHS ESTIN TO ONOMA AUTOU KAI PARACRHMA ELUQH H GLWSSA>AUTOU KAI EQAUMASAN PANTES> >PARACRHMA indicates the simultaneity of two events:> >(1) according to D05, at the instant at which Zacharias was writing his>son’s name he recovered his speech and this coincidence is what amazed>the>people who observed it;> >but (2) according to the critical text, the simultaneous occurrences are>the unbinding of his mouth and tongue and his speaking in praise of God.> >Have I rightly described the functioning of PARACRHMA in these considerably>variant formulations?> >I suppose it might be possible to read the critical text as indicating>that>the simultaneous events indicated by PARACRHMA are the unbinding of his>mouth and of his tongue. But it seems to me rather that we should>understand TO STOMA AUTOU and hH GLWSSA AUTOU as shared subjects of of>ANEWiCQH (there is, of course, no violation of the concords here since>hH>GLWSSA AUTOU is a subject appended to the original subject-predicate>sequence) and that the function of PARACRHMA here is to indicate that>Zacharias spoke out in praise of God AS SOON AS he was able to speak.> >I haven’t transcribed here the larger context, but what follows in both>Codex Bezae and in the critical text is an indication of awe in the>neighborhood and the hill country of Judea as word spread of this.>— I have looked at the larger context in Beza and I agree with your analysis. This is not unusual for Beza and the old Latin, that the miraculous is emphasized. The scribes often use synonyms and word order to strengthen Luke’s emphasis on the maraculous.Carlton WinberyLouisiana College
Lk 1:79 FWS (Codex Bezae 05)GNWSIS vs EPIGNWSIS
Lk 1:64 PARACRHMA Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Sep 10 19:31:28 EDT 2002
Anarthrous Lk 1:79 FWS (Codex Bezae 05) I am forwarding to the list the response of Mme. Chabert d’Hyères,Englished as best I could muster, to my message of this morning:In a message dated 9/10/02 7:41:18 AM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:>>I suppose it might be possible to read the critical text as indicating>>that the>simultaneous events indicated by PARACRHMA are the unbinding of his mouth>and of his tongue. But it seems to me rather that we should>>understand TO STOMA AUTOU and hH GLWSSA AUTOU as shared subjects of ANEWiCQH>(there is, of course, no violation of the concords here since hH GLWSSA>AUTOU is a subject appended to the original subject-predicate sequence) and>that the function of PARACRHMA here is to indicate that Zacharias spoke out>in praise of God AS SOON AS he was able to speak.Along with instantaneity, PARACRHMA seems to indicate the simultaneity oftwo actions whereby a “sign” was discerned (Numb 6,9); elsewhere, apartfrom Numb 12:4 and in the prophets it marks divine intervention or angerfalling upon the people unexpectedly (Is 29:5, 48:3). Luke took up anewthis “frightening” adverb, adapting it to his gospel where it served tomark the exceptional character of healings occurring immediately upon aword of Jesus (Lk 4:39D; 5:25; 8:44, 55; 13:13;18:43 etc.) or the imminentarrival of the Kingdom (19:11). That is why the position of PARACRHMA in Lk1 according to D05 seems to me better to correspond to Luke’s habitualusage, since it it underlines the moment when, as he confirmed the name ofhis son, Zacharias recovered his speech according to the sign given by theangel in Lk 1;20; in the others mss (critical text) simultaneity intervenesbetween the same gestures of Zacharie (its mouth its lips and its prayer),gestures which are not precisely unexpected or surprising.S Chabert d’Hyères
AnarthrousLk 1:79 FWS (Codex Bezae 05)
Lk 1:64 PARACRHMA Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 12 08:31:13 EDT 2002
GNWSIS vs EPIGNWSIS Lk 1:76 At 7:31 PM -0400 9/10/02, S. Chabert d’Hyères wrote (in a message forwardedby me to the list):>In a message dated 9/10/02 7:41:18 AM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:> >>>I suppose it might be possible to read the critical text as indicating>>>that the>>simultaneous events indicated by PARACRHMA are the unbinding of his mouth>>and of his tongue. But it seems to me rather that we should>>>understand TO STOMA AUTOU and hH GLWSSA AUTOU as shared subjects of ANEWiCQH>>(there is, of course, no violation of the concords here since hH GLWSSA>>AUTOU is a subject appended to the original subject-predicate sequence) and>>that the function of PARACRHMA here is to indicate that Zacharias spoke out>>in praise of God AS SOON AS he was able to speak.> >Along with instantaneity, PARACRHMA seems to indicate the simultaneity of>two actions whereby a “sign” was discerned (Numb 6,9); elsewhere, apart>from Numb 12:4 and in the prophets it marks divine intervention or anger>falling upon the people unexpectedly (Is 29:5, 48:3). Luke took up anew>this “frightening” adverb, adapting it to his gospel where it served to>mark the exceptional character of healings occurring immediately upon a>word of Jesus (Lk 4:39D; 5:25; 8:44, 55; 13:13;18:43 etc.) or the imminent>arrival of the Kingdom (19:11). That is why the position of PARACRHMA in Lk>1 according to D05 seems to me better to correspond to Luke’s habitual>usage, since it it underlines the moment when, as he confirmed the name of>his son, Zacharias recovered his speech according to the sign given by the>angel in Lk 1;20; in the others mss (critical text) simultaneity intervenes>between the same gestures of Zacharie (its mouth its lips and its prayer),>gestures which are not precisely unexpected or surprising.I don’t find this quite convincing. While it is true that PARACRHMA seemsto be a preferred Lucan adverb (17 of the 18 instances in the GNT are to befound in the gospel of Luke and in Acts, the single other instance in Mt21:19), I think this is a stylistic preference, nor am I convinced that weshould view the usage of PARACRHMA here as a distinct Lucan association ofit with healings. While several of the usages in Luke’s gospel are indeedassociated with divine intervention. Louw & Nida note a number ofsynonymous adverbs used thus (7.113 AIFNIDIOS, EXAIFNHS, EXAPINA, EXAUTHS,AFNW, ARTI, PARACRHMA) and comments: “pertaining to an extremely shortperiod of time between a previous state or event and a subsequent state orevent – ‘suddenly, at once, immediately’ (in a number of contexts there isthe implication of unexpectedness, but this seems to be a derivative of thecontext as a whole and not a part of the meaning of the lexical items).”Moreover, perhaps I have overlooked something, but I think that thepositioning of PARACRHMA in the “critical text” of NA27/USB4 is not lessexpressive of the miraculous nature of Zacharias’ recovery of speech thanthe positioning in D05. Perhaps this is a difference of opinion, but remaincontent with my original understanding as indicated above.– 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/
GNWSIS vs EPIGNWSISLk 1:76
Lk 1:64 PARACRHMA Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Sep 13 08:23:48 EDT 2002
Lk 1:76 Lk 1:64 PARACRHMA Englished from the French original message and forwarded to onbehalf of Mme Chabert d’Hyères:At 8:31 AM -0400 9/12/02, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> I don’t find this quite convincing. While it is true that PARACRHMA seems> to be a preferred Lucan adverb (17 of the 18 instances in the GNT are to be> found in the gospel of Luke and in Acts, the single other instance in Mt> 21:19), I think this is a stylistic preference, nor am I convinced that we> should view the usage of PARACRHMA here as a distinct Lucan association of> it with healings. While several of the usages in Luke’s gospel are indeed> associated with divine intervention. Louw & Nida note a number of> synonymous adverbs used thus (7.113 AIFNIDIOS, EXAIFNHS, EXAPINA, EXAUTHS,> AFNW, ARTI, PARACRHMA) and comments: “pertaining to an extremely short> period of time between a previous state or event and a subsequent state or> event – ‘suddenly, at once, immediately’ (in a number of contexts there is> the implication of unexpectedness, but this seems to be a derivative of the> context as a whole and not a part of the meaning of the lexical items).”> Moreover, perhaps I have overlooked something, but I think that the> positioning of PARACRHMA in the “critical text” of NA27/USB4 is not less> expressive of the miraculous nature of Zacharias’ recovery of speech than> the positioning in D05. Perhaps this is a difference of opinion, but remain> content with my original understanding as indicated above.It is indeed useful to compare with the use of the synonyms; and Luke usesEUQEWS as frequently in his gospel as he does PARACRHMA. Since PARACRHMAand the corresponding Hebrew “pitôm” are used of the same events, I checkedto see whether there were rabbinical comments on the matter. Myinvestigations have been limited thus far to Rashi, who is laconic onNumbers 12:4.What were people astonished by in Lk 1:63?- According to NA27/USB4 they were astonished because that Zacharias wrotethe name of John which means: “God makes grace.” Were they astonished atthe fact that God makes grace? Probably not; rather, they seemed to disputethe paternal authority of Zacharias.- According to D05 they were astonished that Zacharias recovered his speechat the very moment in which he wrote the name of John = “God makes grace.”They were astonished–were filled with wonder by seeing the grace grantedto Zacharias, IMMEDIATELY (PARACRHMA).Isn’t it a pity that this reading of Codex Bezae D05 isn’t indicated byBibles in their notes?Sylvie Chabert d’Hyèreshttp://bezae.ifrance.com
Lk 1:76Lk 1:64 PARACRHMA
Lk 1:64 PARACRHMA Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Sep 13 08:30:38 EDT 2002
Lk 1:64 PARACRHMA KURIOS in the LXX At 8:23 AM -0400 9/13/02, in a message Englished from the French originalmessage and forwarded to on behalf of Mme Chabert d’Hyères, shewrote:> >What were people astonished by in Lk 1:63?> >– According to NA27/USB4 they were astonished because that Zacharias wrote>the name of John which means: “God makes grace.” Were they astonished at>the fact that God makes grace? Probably not; rather, they seemed to dispute>the paternal authority of Zacharias.> >– According to D05 they were astonished that Zacharias recovered his speech>at the very moment in which he wrote the name of John = “God makes grace.”>They were astonished–were filled with wonder by seeing the grace granted>to Zacharias, IMMEDIATELY (PARACRHMA).> >Isn’t it a pity that this reading of Codex Bezae D05 isn’t indicated by>Bibles in their notes?Frankly I think this is a questionable interpretation of what the two Greeksequences actually indicate.NA27/UBS4: Lk 1:63-65 (63) KAI AITHSAS PINAKIDION EGRAYEN LEGWN: IWANNHSESTIN ONOMA AUTOU. KAI EQAUMASAN PANTES. (64) ANEWiCQH DE TO STOMA AUTOUPARACRHMA KAI hH GLWSSA AUTOU, KAI ELALEI EULOGWN TON QEON. (65) KAIEGENETO EPI PANTAS FOBOS TOUS PERIOIKOUNTAS AUTOUS, KAI EN hOLHi THiOREINHi THS IOUDAIAS DIELALEITO PANTA TA hRHMATA TAUTA.D05: Lk 1:63-65 (63) KAI AITHSAS PINAKIDA EGRAYEN: IWANHS ESTIN TO ONOMAAUTOU. (64) KAI PARACRHMA ELUQH hH GLWSSA AUTOU KAI EQAUMASAN PANTES,ANEWiCQH DE TO STOMA AUTOU KAI ELALEI EULOGWN TON QEON. (65) KAI EGENETOFOBOS MEGAS EPI PANTAS TOUS PERIOIKOUNTAS AUTON, KAI EN hOLHi THi OREINHiTHS IOUDAIAS DIELALEITO PANTA TA hRHMATA TAUTA.It is true that KAI EQAUMASAN PANTES in the critical text is a reaction toZecharias’ writing the name “John” on the note pad, whereas in D05 itfollows upon the instantaneous loosening of Zacharias’ tongue. But in facthis recovery of speech and praise of God FOLLOWS upon the words, KAIEQAUMASAN PANTES.(1) I don’t believe that the text intends to imply that onlookers werethinking of the etymology of the name IWANNHS; moreover, (2) there is noclear indication in the critical text the minds of those who EQAUMASAN weredisputing Zacharias’ choice of a name for his son.There are, in fact, TWO significant differences between the critical textand the reading of Codex Bezae: one is the position of PARACRHMA; the otheris the position of the clause KAI EQAUMASAN PANTES. Perhaps I amexcessively hard-headed here, but I remain unconvinced that a fundamentallydifferent understanding of the sequence of events is intended by thedifferent positioning of these two elements in the two forms of the MStradition.– 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 1:64 PARACRHMAKURIOS in the LXX