Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Dec 2 10:05:54 EST 1998
At 7:40 AM -0500 12/2/98, Theodore H. Mann wrote:
> (Heb.4:2) "...because it [the Good News] was not united by faith in those
> who heard."
> I recently read that only the Codex Sinaiticus can be rendered as above.
> All other ancient MSS read: "...they [referring to those who heard the
> word] not being mixed together [or united] by faith with those who heard
> [referring to Caleb and Joshua]." Is there any justification for such a
> reading? Many thanks.
UBS3: KAI GAR ESMEN EUHGGELISMENOI KAQAPER KAKEINOI. ALL' OUK WFELHSEN hO
LOGOS THS AKOHS EKEINOUS MH SUGKEKERASMENOUS THi PISTEI TOIS AKOUSASIN.
Actually the MSS show a wide range of forms here, most of them show a
plural acc. SUGKEKERASMENOUS or SUGKEKRAMENOUS, some of them a nominative
singular (SUGKEKERASMENOS, SUGKEKRAMENOS, SUGKEKERAMENOS, one even a
nominative plural, SUGKEKRAMENOI. Sinaiticus does indeed have
SUGKEKERASMENOS but it is not alone.
Of course the nominative sg. would have to construe with hO LOGOS, the
accusative plural with EKEINOUS. The nominative plural could only construe
with EUHGGELISMENOI in the opening clause of the verse, but that seems
Metzger's textual commentary on UBS3 says: "SUGKEKERASMENOUS (C): "Among
the bewildering variety of readings preserved among the MSS, the one which
best explains the origin of the others is SUGKEKERASMENOUS. Supported by
early and diverse testimony representing both the Alexandrian and the
Western types of text (p13,46 A B C Dgr* Psi (33) 81, 1739 al), as the more
difficult reading it would naturally have been altered to the easier
nominative singular (Aleph/Sinaiticus 57 (102) (itd) syrp copsa Ephraem;
I find this verb interesting: it seems to have been used initially of
blending wine and water and then to have been established in a metaphorical
sense referring to any kind of fusing together of elements, especially when
used as here, in the passive, including the establishment of intimate
personal relationships such as friendship and marriage.
Upon looking more closely at this verse it looks to me as if a more
interesting question is raised by the fact that SUGKEKERASMENOUS is
followed by two datives. IF I've understood the usage of the verb
correctly, and IF the reading of the participle as an accusative plural is
right, then should we understand TOIS AKOUSASIN as governed by the prefix
in SUGKEKERASMENOUS? That would seem more in keeping with the common usage
of SUGKERANNUMI--but the larger context of this verse seems to require that
we understand THi PISTEI as the dative construed with the prefix of
SUGKERANNUMI and that we understand TOIS AKOUSASIN as a dative of
reference: the gospel did not avail those who were not blended with faith
in the ones who heard (it). To me it is the last dative plural phrase here
that is most puzzling grammatically. I don't really think it can be a
dative of agent with the passive participle--and--at least on the
surface--it looks like TOUS SUGKERASMENOUS ought to refer to the same
persons as those referred to by ATOIS AKOUSASIN. I think I'm missing
something here. The only thing at all that is clear to me here is that the
confusion in the text is probably itself a factor accounting for the
variety of MS forms of of the perfect participle of SUGKERANNUMI.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.us
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 3676 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/19981202/5a50f824/attachment.bin
More information about the B-Greek