Fwd: Re : Lk 1:76 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Sep 11 08:50:49 EDT 2002
Lk 1:79 FWS (Codex Bezae 05) Fwd: Re : Lk 1:76 CWC forwarding note: I am forwarding to the list the response of Mme.Chabert d’Hyères, Englished as well as I was able, to another part of mymessage of yesterday:In a message dated 9/10/2002 8:41:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu wrote:>1:76 (PRO PROSWPOU KURIOU in D05 where ENWPION KURIOU is the reading of the>critical text: PROPOREUSHi gar ENWPION (or PRO PROSWPOU KURIOU) hETOIMASAI>hODOUS AUTOU. On the other hand, I think it might reasonably be argued that>PRO PROSWPOU with KURIOU is strictly idiomatic and means simply “ahead of>“or “preceding” as in the texts cited regularly with accounts of the>appearance of John the Baptist as “the messenger sent ahead of the Lord”; if>that is so, then PRO PROSWPOU KURIOU is hardly different in meaning from>ENWPION KURIOU.What is strange, Carl, it is that in the parallel that you cite with Johnthe Baptist in Lk 7:27: APOSTELLW TON AGGELON MOU PRO PROSWPOU SOU, thepronoun SOU does not appear in D05. Contrary to Ex 23:20 whence thisquotation is drawn, PRO PROSWPOU is taken by Luc with the absolute sense “Isend my messenger in front of the Face”.Moreover in Lk 1, the choice of the prepositions ENWPION, ENANTI and PROPROSWPOU appears gradual. ENWPION TOU QEOU in 1:6 – according to D05 – doesnot comprise the nuance of opposition or confrontation which EN-ANTI-ON(accepted in the “critical text”) holds. EN-ANTI TOU QEOU in Lk 1:9 refersto the service performed by the high priest entering the Holy of Holies;ENANTI stressed the religious fear inspired by the divine presence (Ex28:12, 30 etc., chiefly according to MS A). Could PRO PROSWPOU in 1:76 bechosen to mark a difference between these two verses, a difference whichmight be explained by Lk 7:27D would explain … ?Sylvie Chabert d’Hyèreshttp://bezae.ifrance.com
Lk 1:79 FWS (Codex Bezae 05)Fwd: Re : Lk 1:76
Fwd: Re : Lk 1:76 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Sep 11 10:17:49 EDT 2002
Fwd: Re : Lk 1:76 Lk 1:76 At 8:50 AM -0400 9/11/02, Sylvie Chabert d’Hyères wrote:> >In a message dated 9/10/2002 8:41:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu wrote:> >>1:76 (PRO PROSWPOU KURIOU in D05 where ENWPION KURIOU is the reading of the>>critical text: PROPOREUSHi gar ENWPION (or PRO PROSWPOU KURIOU) hETOIMASAI>>hODOUS AUTOU. On the other hand, I think it might reasonably be argued that>>PRO PROSWPOU with KURIOU is strictly idiomatic and means simply “ahead of>>“or “preceding” as in the texts cited regularly with accounts of the>>appearance of John the Baptist as “the messenger sent ahead of the Lord”; if>>that is so, then PRO PROSWPOU KURIOU is hardly different in meaning from>>ENWPION KURIOU.> >What is strange, Carl, it is that in the parallel that you cite with John>the Baptist in Lk 7:27: APOSTELLW TON AGGELON MOU PRO PROSWPOU SOU, the>pronoun SOU does not appear in D05. Contrary to Ex 23:20 whence this>quotation is drawn, PRO PROSWPOU is taken by Luke with the absolute sense “I>send my messenger in front of the Face”.I really can’t take this perspective very seriously; even if the pronounSOU does not appear in Codex Bezae, I believe that the sense of APOSTELLWTON AGGELON MOU PRO PROSWPOU would be simply “I send my messenger inadvance.” I don’t think that the idiomatic adverbial expression PROPROSWPOU can be separated into its etymological components. Louw & Nida,whiie acknowledging the literal sense of PROSWPON in the idiom,nevertheless point to the idiomatic usage of the phrase:67.19 PRO PROSWPOU: (an idiom, literally ‘before the face,’ equivalent inmeaning to pro/b ‘before,’ 67.17, but a somewhat more elaborate phraserhetorically) a point of time, possibly only a short time before anotherpoint of time – ‘before, previous.’ PROSKHRUXANTOS IWANNOU PRO PROSWPOU THSEISODOU ‘before the coming (of Jesus), John preached’ Ac 13:24.>Moreover in Lk 1, the choice of the prepositions ENWPION, ENANTI and PRO>PROSWPOU appears gradual. ENWPION TOU QEOU in 1:6 – according to D05 – does>not comprise the nuance of opposition or confrontation which EN-ANTI-ON>(accepted in the “critical text”) holds. EN-ANTI TOU QEOU in Lk 1:9 refers>to the service performed by the high priest entering the Holy of Holies;>ENANTI stressed the religious fear inspired by the divine presence (Ex>28:12, 30 etc., chiefly according to MS A). Could PRO PROSWPOU in 1:76 be>chosen to mark a difference between these two verses, a difference which>might be explained by Lk 7:27D would explain … ?Quite frankly I am dubious about this endeavor to differentiate what seemto me essentially to be synonymous expressions. Again I cite Louw & Nida(who are the more useful here in that they ARE grouping expressions insemantic domains):83.33 EMPROSQENa; ENWPIONa; ENANTIONa; ENANTIa; KATENWPIONa; PROa;PROSWPON, OU n.: a position in front of an object, whether animate orinanimate, which is regarded as having a spacial orientation of front andback – ‘in front of, before.’13EMPROSQENaÚ AFES EKEI TO DWRON SOU EMPROSQEN TOU QUSIAASTHRIOU ‘leave yourgift there in front of the altar’ Mt 5:24; hO DE IHSOUS ESTAQH EMPROSQENTOU hHGEMONOS ‘Jesus stood before the governor’ Mt 27:11; EXHLQEN EMPROSQENPANTW ‘he went away in front of everyone’ or ‘ while they all watched’ Mk2:12.ENWPIONaÚ IDOU ANHR ESTH ENWPION MOU ‘suddenly a man stood in front of me’Ac 10:30; EGW EIMI GABRIHL hO PARESTHKWS ENWPION TOU QEOU v ‘I am Gabriel,who stands before God’ Lk 1:19.ENANTIONa Ú hWS AMNOS ENANTION TOU KEIRANTOS AUTON AFWNOS ‘like a lamb dumb before its shearer’ Ac 8:32.ENANTIa Ú hIERATEUEIN … ENANTI TOU QEOU v ‘serving as a priest beforeGod’ Lk 1:8.KATENWPIONa Ú KATENWPION THS DOXHS AUTOU AMWMOUS EN AGALLIASEI ‘faultlessand joyful before his glorious presence’ Jd 24.PROa Ú hESTANAI TON PETRON PRO TOU PULWNOS ‘Peter stood in front of thegate’ Ac 12:14.PROSWPONfÚ TWN EQNWN hWN EXWQEN hO QEOS APO PROSWPOU TWN PATERWN hHMWN ‘thenations that God drove out in front of our ancestors’ (literally ‘ fromthe face of our ancestors’) Ac 7:45; APESTEILEN AUTOUS … PRO PROSWPOUAUTOU ‘he sent them out (to go) ahead of him’ Lk 10:1.– 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/
Fwd: Re : Lk 1:76Lk 1:76
Lk 1:76 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Sep 11 10:23:06 EDT 2002
Fwd: Re : Lk 1:76 Gal 6:2 I forward this response of George Somsel to the list; it is a reply not tome, of course, but rather to the message of Sylvie Chabert d’Hyères which Ihad forwarded to the list.In a message dated 9/11/2002 8:51:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:>Moreover in Lk 1, the choice of the prepositions ENWPION, ENANTI and PRO>PROSWPOU appears gradual. ENWPION TOU QEOU in 1:6 – according to D05 – does>not comprise the nuance of opposition or confrontation which EN-ANTI-ON>(accepted in the “critical text”) holds. EN-ANTI TOU QEOU in Lk 1:9 refers>to the service performed by the high priest entering the Holy of Holies;>ENANTI stressed the religious fear inspired by the divine presence (Ex>28:12, 30 etc., chiefly according to MS A). Could PRO PROSWPOU in 1:76 be>chosen to mark a difference between these two verses, a difference which>might be explained by Lk 7:27D would explain … ?> Carl,This somewhat misrepresents the case. ENANTI TOU QEOU is used 3 time inthe LXX — Ex 28.29; Num 10.10; Jer 3.25. In Ex 28.29 it might possiblyrefer to the entrance into the inner sanctum or it might simply refer toAaron’s service in the tabernacle/temple generally. In Num 10.10, however,we readKAI EN TAIS hHMERAIS THS EUFROSUNHS hUMWN KAI EN TAIS hEWRTAIS hUMWNSALPIETE TAIS SALPIGCIN EPI THS hOLOKAUTWMASIN KAI EPI TAIS QUSIAS TWNSWTHRIWN hUMWN, KAI ESTAI hUMIN ANAMNHSIS ENANTI TOU QEOU hUMWN, EGW KURIOShO QEOS hUMWN.Here it is plain that the burnt offerings over which the trumpets were tobe sounded were not sacrificed in the Holy of Holies, but outside. also in Jer 3.25 we readEKOIMHQHMEN EN THi AISXUNHi hHMWN, KAI EPEKALUYEN hHMAS hH ATIMIA hHMWN,DIOTI ENANTI TOU QEOU hHMWN hHMARTOMEN hHMEIS KAI hOI PATERES hHMWN APONEOTHTOS hEWS THS hHMERAS TAUTHS KAI OUX hUPHKOUSAMEN THS FWNHS KURIOU TOUQEOU hHMWN.Surely Jeremiah is not envisioning the entire city of Jerusalem enteringinto the Holy of Holies to commit sins in the very presence of God! I’mafraid we have a case of convenient theologizing here.gfsomsel
Fwd: Re : Lk 1:76Gal 6:2
Lk 1:76 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Sep 11 17:35:50 EDT 2002
Sabbatos Derivation of BARBAROS CWC forwarding note: I am forwarding to the list the response of Mme.Chabert d’Hyères, Englished–hopefully without gross misrepresentation–,to earlier messages in the thread sent by George Somsel and myself:Thank you Carl and George for your remarks which call for clarification oramplification of the thought.>> Quite frankly I am dubious about this endeavor to differentiate what seem to>me essentially to be synonymous expressions. Again I cite Louw & Nida…> ENANTIONa: hWS AMNOS ENANTION TOU KEIRANTOS AUTON AFWNOS>> ‘like a lamb dumb before its shearer’ Ac 8:32.The Greek-French dictionary of Bailly gives two senses for the adverbENANTION: (1) in front of, opposite, in the presence of ( w. genitive) (2)vis-a-vis, with idea of hostility (with or without movement w. genitive)Luke in his gospel and according to D05 kept ENANTION for confrontationbetween the emissary of the authorities of the Temple and the people (Lk20:26) OUK ISCUSAN EPILABESQAI AUTOU hRHMATOS ENANTION TOU LAOU. Baillydoes not make this distinction for ENWPION, which it translates as”opposite.” All things considered, the author who does not wish to allow anotion of hostility will use ENWPION in preference to ENANTION.>> ENANTIa: hIERATEUEIN … ENANTI TOU QEOU v ‘serving as a priest before>> God’ Lk 1:8.Bailly gives for ENANTI only biblical references such as those of Ben Sirach:–Ben Sirach 38:15 on the recognition of sins before God, a text comparableto Jer 3:25, cited by George Somsel.–Ben Sirach 51:14 on the prayer of the priest for the people before theHoly of Holies, a text which can be associated with Ex 28:12 and 29. If anassociation can be made between Ben Sirach and some verses of the Torah,would it be inappropriate to give weight to Luke’s verse by comparison withthese texts? ENANTI is rather infrequent to count; however in the HebrewMt, “lifnei”, the equivalent of ENANTI, is very frequent and does not callfor comment. Also I wonder whether ENANTI would not form part of avocabulary specific to a sacerdotal context – of Alexandria or elsewhere -and is discernible in the introductions of certain Psalms of the LXX,indicating, for example, the day of the week; PS 91: EIS THN hHMERAN TOUSABBATOU. PS 93 TETRADI SABBATWN.Sylvie Chabert d’Hyères
SabbatosDerivation of BARBAROS
Lk 1:76 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Sep 11 20:56:56 EDT 2002
Derivation of BARBAROS Lk 1:76 Forwarded for George Somsel:>In a message dated 9/11/2002 5:36:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu forwards on behalf of Sylvie Chabert d’Hyères:> >–Ben Sirach 51:14 on the prayer of the priest for the people before the>Holy of Holies, a text which can be associated with Ex 28:12 and 29. If an>association can be made between Ben Sirach and some verses of the Torah,>would it be inappropriate to give weight to Luke’s verse by comparison with>these texts? ENANTI is rather infrequent to count; however in the Hebrew>Mt, “lifnei”, the equivalent of ENANTI, is very frequent and does not call>for comment. Also I wonder whether ENANTI would not form part of a>vocabulary specific to a sacerdotal context – of Alexandria or elsewhere –>and is discernible in the introductions of certain Psalms of the LXX,>indicating, for example, the day of the week; PS 91: EIS THN hHMERAN TOU>SABBATOU. PS 93 TETRADI SABBATWN.>_____________________Sirach speaks of ENANTI NAOU “before the temple”, not the “Holy of Holies”specifically and exclusively. You are correct that LIF:N”Y is quite frequentin the Hebrew. It does not seem, however, to BY ITSELF have a cultic sense.We have, e.g., in Gen 6.11WaT.i$fX”T Hf)fRe+ LiF:N”Y ) Ha):eLoHiYMAnd the earth was corrupt before Godbut it not only has a locative usage, but a temporal one as well as in Gen13.10LiF:N”Y $aX”T YHWH )eT_SeDoMbefore YHWH destroyed Sodomor a locative usage in regard to other men as in Gen 23.12LiF:N”Y (aM Hf)fRe+before the people of the landPS 91: EIS THN hHMERAN TOU SABBATOU [Heb Ps 92]would seem to indicate “On [or ‘For’] the Sabbath” andPS 93 TETRADI SABBATWN [Heb Ps 94]might be “On [or ‘For’ — dat.] the fourth Sabbath”??What puzzles me is what has EIS to do with ENANTI? These appear to betemporal statements.gfsomselPolycarp66 at aol.com
Derivation of BARBAROSLk 1:76
Lk 1:76 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 12 06:50:57 EDT 2002
Lk 1:76 Derivation of BARBAROS George Somsel wrote:>> Sirach speaks of ENANTI NAOU “before the temple”, not the “Holy of Holies”>> specifically and exclusively.>According to the Gospel of Luke hIERON designates the Temple in the broad>sense of the term, and NAOS the part reserved with the Holy. The evangelist>did not use TO AGION, even in 1:9 when Zacharias entered to burn incense.Why ? is there any rule about TO hAGION?Sylvie Chabert d’Hyèreshttp://bezae.ifrance.com
Lk 1:76Derivation of BARBAROS
Lk 1:76 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 12 08:36:23 EDT 2002
Lk 1:64 PARACRHMA TETRACHLISMENA forwarded to for George Somsel:>In a message dated 9/12/2002 6:51:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu forwards on behalf of Sylvie Chabert d’Hyères:> >>George Somsel wrote:>> >>>> Sirach speaks of ENANTI NAOU “before the temple”, not the “Holy of Holies”>>>> specifically and exclusively.>>>According to the Gospel of Luke hIERON designates the Temple in the broad>>>sense of the term, and NAOS the part reserved with the Holy. The evangelist>>>did not use TO AGION, even in 1:9 when Zacharias entered to burn incense.>> >>Why ? is there any rule about TO hAGION?>> > > >I’m afraid I do not understand your question. I will nevertheless attempt>to respond to what I think you might intend.> >I would assume that by TO hAGION you are NOT referring simply to ‘holy’ or>‘sacred’ things as in Jesus’ statement> >MN DWTE TO hAGION TOIS KUSIN (Mt 7.6)> >but rather the usage of Lev 16.2, 3> >KAI EIPEN KURIOS PROS MWUSHN LALHSON PROS AARON TON ADELFON SOU KAI MH>EISPOREUESQW PASAN hWRAN EIS TON hAGION ESWTERON TOU KATAPETASMATOS EIS>PROSWPON TOU hILASTHRIOU, hO ESTIN EPI THS KIBWTOU TOU MARTURIOU . . .> >I still am uncertain what you mean by “_is there any rule about_ TO>hAGION.” If you mean “When does it refer to the “Holy of Holies”, only>the context can determine that. The article here serves to turn the>adjective hAGIOS, -A, -ON into a noun — “the HOLY (place/thing)”. By>your statement “According to the Gospel of Luke hIERON designates the>Temple in the broad sense of the term, and NAOS the part reserved with the>Holy.” I assume you mean that Lk used NAOS to refer to TO hAGION or the>“Holy of Holies.” This is clearly not the case unless you wish to make>Zacarias the High Priest and unless you wish to place the altar of incense>within the ‘Holy of Holies’ itself. Such was clearly not intended.> >gfsomsel
Lk 1:64 PARACRHMATETRACHLISMENA
Lk 1:76 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 12 14:03:25 EDT 2002
Re. BDAG – where are *-*? menu problem Forwarded to the list by CW Conrad for Mme Chabert d’Hyères (I may add thatI may have contributed to the confusion because I Englished “le Saint” as”Holy of Holies.” in her earlier messages):George ,Sorry for my unclear question>> I assume you mean that Lk used NAOS to refer to TO hAGION or the”Holy ofHolies.”No, but NAOS as the square of the men and that of the priests with theHoly.TO hAGION according to Hebrews :(NKJV) Hebrews 9:1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances ofdivine service and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For a tabernacle was prepared:the first part, in which [was] the lampstand, the table, and the showbread,which is called the sanctuary (hAGIA); 3 and behind the second veil, thepart of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, (hAGIA hAGIWN) …6 Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always wentinto the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services.For me, TO hAGION = hAGIA + hAGIA hAGIWN>> unless you wish to place the altar of incense>>within the ‘Holy of Holies’ itself. Such was clearly not intended.Where exactly was this altar? I thought this altar, too, was in thesanctuary, hAGIA… So I was wondering why Luke used neither TO hAGION norhAGIA.Sylvie Chabert d’Hyèreshttp://bezae.ifrance.com
Re. BDAG – where are *-*?menu problem
Lk 1:76 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 12 20:52:18 EDT 2002
Anyone know of this book Lk 1:64 PARACRHMA Forwarded for George Somsel:>In a message dated 9/12/2002 2:05:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, S. Chabert>d’Hyères writes:> > >>No, but NAOS as the square of the men and that of the priests with the>>Holy.>>TO hAGION according to Hebrews :>>(NKJV) Hebrews 9:1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of>>divine service and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For a tabernacle was prepared:>>the first part, in which [was] the lampstand, the table, and the showbread,>>which is called the sanctuary (hAGIA); 3 and behind the second veil, the>>part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, (hAGIA hAGIWN)>>…6 Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went>>into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services.>> >>For me, TO hAGION = hAGIA + hAGIA hAGIWN>> > > >This is not correct. TO hAGION <> hAGIA hAGIWN. hAGIA hAGIWN = SKHNH>which is META DE TO DEUTERON KATAPETASMA. The tent which is the ‘Holy of>Holies cannot be both “behind the second curtain” and be inclusive of the>second curtain and all that is before it which is TO TE hAGION (Heb>9.1-3). The LUXNIA (lampstand), hH TRAPEZA (the table [of incense]), and>the PROQESIS TWN ARTWN (Bread of the Presence). According to Ex 30.1, 6>the altar of incense is outside the veil before one reaches the Holy of>Holies.> >W:(f&iYTf MiZB.”aX MiQ:+aR Q:+oReT . . .>KAI POIHSEIS QUSIASTHRION QUMIAMATOS . . .>And you shall make an altar for incense of smoke . . .> >W:NTaT.fH )oToH LiF:N”Y HaP.fRoKeT )a$eR (aL_):aRoN Hf(“DuT . . .>KAI QHSEIS AUTO APENANTI TOU KATAPETASMATOS TOU ONTOS EPI THS KIBWTOU TWN>MARTURIWN . . .>and you shall place it before the second curtain that is before the ark of>the covenant> >Thus the two cannot be considered to be equivalent.> >“No, but NAOS as the square of the men and that of the priests with the>Holy.” confuses me even more. What do you mean by “the square of the men>and that of the priests . . .”?> >gfsomsel
Anyone know of this bookLk 1:64 PARACRHMA
Lk:1:76 Temple Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Sep 13 15:44:07 EDT 2002
A “Timeless” Aorist? A “Timeless” Aorist? Englished and forwarded by CWC to for S. Chabert d’Hyères:George Somsel wrote:>>What do you mean by “the square of the men>>and that of the priests . . .”?I used the word “square” instead of “court”.Thanks for preparing a lexicon of the terms relating to this plan of the Templehttp://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/Preaching/Temple.GIFMoving back and forth through four different languages doesn’t make it easyfor me to manage and correct the erroneous scheme that I have in mind.Sylvie Chabert d’Hyèreshttp://bezae.ifrance.com
A “Timeless” Aorist?A “Timeless” Aorist?
Lk:1:76 Temple Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Sep 13 19:08:32 EDT 2002
A “Timeless” Aorist? A “Timeless” Aorist? Forwarded for George Somsel:>In a message dated 9/13/2002 3:46:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:>>Englished and forwarded by CWC to for S. Chabert d’Hyères:>> >>George Somsel wrote:>>>>What do you mean by “the square of the men>>>>and that of the priests . . .”?>> >> >>I used the word “square” instead of “court”.>> >>Thanks for preparing a lexicon of the terms relating to this plan of the>>Temple>>http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/Preaching/Temple.GIF>> >>Moving back and forth through four different languages doesn’t make it easy>>for me to manage and correct the erroneous scheme that I have in mind.>> > >I can appreciate the difficulty you experience with several languages>being involved. I apparently am haveing enough trouble with English>alone. When you wrote “square of the men and priests” my mind went to>mathmatical terms (The square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of>the squares of the other two sides). From that point I was lost and never>recovered. It was my mistake to not consider another meaning of “square”,>viz. a public square. My apologies.> >I will attempt to provide a wordlist of the terms used in the diagram you>referenced, but it may be a couple of days before I am able to get to it.> >gfsomsel
A “Timeless” Aorist?A “Timeless” Aorist?