Isaiah 45:19 (also Isaiah 7:14 in Mt 1:23)
braymond at ipa.net
Mon Oct 5 01:20:21 EDT 1998
I've been been too occupied (read: lazy) to synthesize a response to these
helpful posts from a while back. Time to get them out of my inbox.
Maurice O'Sullivan wrote:
>In citing the Logos BHS tag, you seen to have forgotten that Hebrew has two
>form for the 3rd pers. sing. --- masculine and feminine.
>Maybe you would check the Logos tag again?
Forgotten? You overestimate my capability in Semitic studies :-)
>My Bible Windows tagged BHS shows 3 pers. sing fem. -- but, without
>further explanation, this is quite puzzling to someone who just knows the
>basic verb paradigms.
>As so often, you then have to go to the Gesenius/Kautzsch grammar, to find
>a note in ss. 74g and 75m that the form in the BHS is an older form.
>The variant [ marked b-b in the BHS you quote ] is simply the normal
>paradigm Qual form of the 3rd pers. MASC -- for whether it is an active or
>a passive form, see below. [Incidentaly, did you note that the two sources
>cited for the variant are the Qumran Isaiah scroll and Sinaiticus?]
Nope. Thanks for the note.
>There is also, as noted on p.151 of Raymond Brown's " Birth of the Messiah"
>, another Hebrew reading in the Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah [ 1 QIsa ] " a
>reading which can be translated ' he will be called'.
>Incidentally, this translation as a passive relies on the existence of an
>older form too, this time of a Qual passive.
>So, as Brown summarises the matter, "they will call him" = he will be
>called. But after remarking that the 'most commonly accepted explanation'
>is that Matthew deliberately changed the LXX to suit his own narrative,
>Brown, in a footnote combines this explanation with the previous one
>derived from Qumran to venture the possibility that " Matthew deliberately
>sought out a reading different from the LXX to suit his own narrative.
Interesting; a good possibility.
Larry Swain wrote:
>There are three possibilities.
>1) This is a textual variant to which Matthew is the only surviving
>witness. Possible but of course uoltimately unprovable. But it is a
>possibility that must be entertained here.
>2) "Scribal" error, although not quite in the way I think you mean. The
>author of Matthew could simply have gotten the ending wrong-we see this in
>a lot of writings and quotations-close but not quite exact.
>3) The possibility that Matthew changed the ending to underscore his
>theological point. Although I think the "they" is more likely those whose
>sins are forgiven in the preceeding verses rather than a more general
Yes, those are the three possibilities that I saw also. I suppose I tend
to lean toward the third, and I think you're probably correct in your
identification of "they". Like I said elsewhere, that's my best *guess*.
Ben Crick wrote:
>Seems that your best guess is at least as good as Bengel's! The only MSS
>which have KALESEIS are D (Bezae) pc d (a few italian codices from the
>5th-6th centuries), and the variant d^c (c superscript, not o); and "d*
>vocabit". c superscript indicates a "corrected" copy; * indicates an
>original unemended "clean" copy.
>Whence did Matthew get his KALESEUSIN? From the Holy Spirit, I should
Edgar Krentz wrote:
>Let me see if I can clear up your reading of the Rahlfs apparatus to Isa
>45:19.The 2 with the superscript o means the second occurence of EGW EIMI,
>the > means "is omitted by" S = Sinaiticus, the superscript c after it
>means the corrector of the Synaiticus, while the Italic C means, as Kevin
>noted the recension in the"Catena magna in prophetas inventa," id est the
>great Latin commentary that is a chain (hence the Latin catena) of
>citations from earlier commentaires. That means that you would need to find
>the edition, look up the passage, determine who is cited, and then date
>that scholar to evaluate the significance.
Ah! Thanks for the clarifications.
>Unlike Kevin, I think the apparatus is clear, provided one looks at the
>list of abbreviations. Unfortunately, the key to the abbreviation printed
>in the preface does not list the Rescensions of the text cited in the
>apparatus; that is only on the separately printed "Explanatio Signorum"
>--and there only in untranslated Latin. If you still have that separate
>sheet, tip it into the real of your LXX with a bit of glue so that yhou
>don't lose it. It's more complete than the liste in the bound pages.
(Grumble) Gotcha; I assumed the sheet just duplicated the list in the
Conspectus Signorum. I won't make that mistake again!
Kevin Barney wrote:
>I would suggest one small correction to your interpretation of the Rahlfs
critical note to Isaiah 45:19. Capital >C does refer to Codex Ephraemi
when it is not italicized, but when italicized, as here, it refers to
something >identified as "recensio in Catena magna in prophetas inventa"
[whatever that is]. A similar problem exists >with the letter L; when not
italicized it refers to "Purpureus Vindobonensis," but when italicized it
refers to >the Lucian recension. Personally, I think the editors should
have distinguished these texts in some way >other than italic type, which
is obviously very confusing.
Yes, Edgar Krentz corrected me as well. Thanks.
That was fairly painless, wasn't it? Just wanted you folks to know I
didn't forget your help.
senior, Harding University School of Biblical Studies
braymond at ipa.net
HU Box 11871, 900 E Center
Searcy, AR 72149-0001
More information about the B-Greek