“`html
body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; max-width: 800px; margin: auto; padding: 20px; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
h2 { text-align: center; }
blockquote { border-left: 5px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
ol { margin-left: 20px; }
Textual and Morphological Analysis of Augment Placement in New Testament προφητεύω Variants
This exegetical study of Textual and Morphological Analysis of Augment Placement in New Testament προφητεύω Variants is based on an online discussion regarding Greek textual criticism. The initial point of discussion concerns the orthographical variation in the aorist indicative forms of the compound verb προφητεύω (to prophesy), specifically highlighting the divergence between επροφητευσαμεν and προεφητευσαμεν. While a minority of early and later manuscripts (including ℵ B* C L W Z f13 33 pc) present the augment (ε-) before the preposition (προ-), the majority of witnesses (such as B2 E G K M O S U V X Δ Π Σ Φ Ω 047. 0211 Byz f1.35 565. 1424. 1500. 2224) exhibit the more standard placement of the augment after the preposition, resulting in προεφητευσαμεν.
The main exegetical issue lies in this orthographical and morphological variation of augment placement in compound verbs. While the general rule in classical and Koine Greek is for the augment to be placed after a prefixed preposition (e.g., προεφητεύω → προεφητευσαν), there is notable manuscript evidence for the preposed augment (επροφητευσαν) in προφητεύω and similar verbs, especially from the Egyptian textual tradition (e.g., Papyri, ℵ, B). This variation is significant for textual criticism as it reflects different scribal practices and orthographical preferences within early Christian communities, prompting critical editions like NA27/28 to make nuanced decisions about preferred readings across various passages. Though semantically identical, the presence of these distinct forms offers insights into the linguistic fluidity and scribal transmission of the New Testament text.
Greek text (Nestle 1904)
For Jude 1:14:
Προεφήτευσεν δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἔβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ Ἑνὼχ λέγων· Ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν Κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ,
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The primary reading of προεφήτευσεν in Jude 1:14 is consistent between Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010. Both editions adopt the form where the augment follows the preposition.
- The differences lie in the manuscript apparatus, where SBLGNT, like NA28, notes the significant variants επροφητευσεν (attested by p72 B*) and προεπροφητευσεν (attested by ℵ), which are explicitly discussed in the source material. These variants represent the morphological phenomenon under investigation, rather than a divergence in the primary text chosen by these critical editions for this specific verse.
Textual criticism (NA28), lexical notes (KITTEL, BDAG):
The textual issue revolves around the augment placement in the aorist indicative of the compound verb προφητεύω (to prophesy). In Jude 1:14, the NA28 critical edition, like Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT, adopts προεφήτευσεν as the preferred reading, supported by a strong majority of manuscripts (A B2 C Ψ 049 Byz f35 1424). However, the apparatus of NA28 notes the significant variant επροφητευσεν, attested by important early witnesses such as p72 and B*. Additionally, Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ) presents a unique triple compound form, προεπροφητευσεν.
The original post highlights an interesting observation regarding NA27/28’s editorial decisions, noting that while it rejects επροφητευσεν from p72 B* in Jude 14, it accepts similar preposed augments in other passages (e.g., Matt 11:13, Matt 15:7, Mark 7:6, Luke 1:67, John 11:51, Acts 19:6). This suggests that the editors weigh individual manuscript evidence and contextual usage rather than adhering to a strict, universal rule for augment placement in compound verbs across the entire New Testament corpus. The prevalence of preposed augments in the Egyptian textual tradition (e.g., ℵ, B, p72) is acknowledged, contrasting with the majority Byzantine tradition’s preference for the augment after the preposition.
Lexically, προφητεύω (BDAG: 878-879) means “to speak under inspiration and thus to reveal the will of God, to prophesy.” It implies both foretelling and forth-telling, with the prefix προ- carrying a sense of “before” (temporally or spatially) or “in public.” The aorist indicative, as seen in προεφήτευσεν or επροφήτευσεν, denotes a simple, punctiliar past action: “he prophesied.” The variation in augment placement (e.g., προεφήτευσεν vs. επροφήτευσεν) does not alter the fundamental semantic meaning of the verb. KITTEL (TWNT) (VI, 781-861) further elaborates on the concept of prophecy in the Old and New Testaments, emphasizing its divine origin and function as a conduit for God’s word. The morphological variation discussed is primarily an orthographical and grammatical phenomenon, not one that significantly impacts the theological or semantic understanding of the prophetic act itself.
Translation Variants with grammatical & rhetorical analysis
The grammatical analysis of προεφήτευσεν versus επροφήτευσεν in Jude 1:14 centers on the morphology of compound verbs in Koine Greek. The verb προφητεύω is formed from the preposition πρό (before) and the verb φημί (to speak). In the aorist indicative, a temporal augment (ε-) is typically added. The general rule for compound verbs is that the augment appears between the preposition and the verb stem (e.g., προ-ε-φητευ-σεν). This is the form found in the majority of manuscripts and adopted by most critical editions for Jude 1:14.
However, the existence of επροφήτευσεν (with the augment preposed to the entire compound verb) reflects an alternative, though less common, morphological development or scribal convention. This phenomenon, where the augment appears before the preposition, is attested in various Greek authors, particularly in earlier periods and certain dialectal or scribal traditions (often associated with Egyptian manuscripts like Papyrus 72 and Codex Vaticanus B* for this specific instance). The third variant, προεπροφητευσεν from ℵ, is a hyper-augmented form, potentially a scribal error or an attempt to combine both augmentation rules.
Rhetorically, the choice between προεφήτευσεν and επροφήτευσεν carries no discernible impact on the meaning or emphasis of the text. Both forms convey the simple past action of “he prophesied.” The variation is purely an orthographical and morphological matter, providing valuable data for textual criticism and the study of Greek linguistics, specifically the evolution and flexibility of augment placement in compound verbs. It highlights the diversity in scribal practices and the lack of absolute standardization in certain grammatical features during the early transmission of the New Testament.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The analysis of augment placement in προφητεύω variants, exemplified by Jude 1:14, reveals a fascinating aspect of New Testament textual criticism and Koine Greek morphology. While the standard rule dictates the augment appearing after the preposition in compound verbs (προεφήτευσεν), a significant minority of early and important manuscripts preserve forms with the augment preposed (επροφήτευσεν). This variation, though semantically neutral, underscores the dynamic nature of Greek grammar during the New Testament period and the diverse scribal traditions influencing manuscript transmission. Critical editions make nuanced decisions based on the weight of evidence and the specific context of each passage.
Given that the augment placement does not alter the meaning of the verb, modern English translations typically reflect the action of prophesying without indicating the underlying Greek morphological debate. The following translation suggestions therefore reflect the single, unambiguous semantic content, while acknowledging the textual-critical issue:
- “Even for these, Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads,'”
This translation adheres to the commonly accepted meaning of προφητεύω, rendering the aorist indicative simply as a past action. - “And about these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, did prophesy, saying, ‘Look, the Lord arrived with His holy myriads,'”
This rendering uses “did prophesy” to emphasize the completion of the past action, a nuance sometimes conveyed by the aorist. The focus remains on the completed act of prophecy. - “Enoch, the seventh in line from Adam, spoke prophetically concerning them, saying, ‘See! The Lord has come with His countless holy ones,'”
This option offers a slightly more expansive rendering of προφητεύω (“spoke prophetically”) to capture its full semantic range, which includes both foretelling and forth-telling. The perfect tense “has come” for ἦλθεν reflects the enduring consequence of the Lord’s coming. Despite the grammatical variation in Greek manuscripts, the meaning of Enoch’s prophetic utterance remains consistent across the textual traditions.
“`