Rom 12:2 part 1 function of KAI

Jürg Buchegger j.buchegger at datacomm.ch
Wed Jan 6 02:29:45 EST 1999


Maurice A. O'Sullivan wrote:
>Given that for almost 1500 years Paul's text was not divided into verses,
>would you care to re-phrase your question?


Hello Maurice,
it is exactly as you say, that without the "modern" punctuation (almost
everybody makes two seperate sentences out of V.1-2) one should take the
both verses as one sentence. So the two verses are connected with the KAI at
the beginning of verse 2. What function does this KAI have here? (see also
the posting No 13 by Clayton Stirling Bartholomew on Dec 22, 1998 and No 13
by C.W.Conrad on Jan 4, 1999 concerning my question). Everything clear now?
Best wishes from Juerg
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: Hosea 6:7 and Mt 9:13; 12:7
>From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" <mauros at iol.ie>
>Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 13:26:12 +0000
>X-Message-Number: 11
>
>At 22:25 03/01/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>Denny wrote:
>>>>Dear Greekers,  Denny Diehl here
>>
>>with a question concerning Jesus' quote of Hosea 6:7
>>recorded in Mt 9:13 and Mt 12:7.
>>
>>In Hosea 6:7 the comparison reads:
>>
>>"ELEOS QELW H QUSIAN"
>>
>>which Jesus quotes as:
>>
>>"ELEOS QELW KAI OU QUSIAN"<<
>>
>>I agree with the comments that Matthew quoted the Hebrew. As for the greek
>>copies, my Brenton's (Hos 6:6) reads as you quote it. However, my online
>>Rahlf's reads exactly with Mat 9:13 and 12:7:
>>
>>ELEOS QELW KAI OU QUSIAN
>>
>>Does my online Rahlf's read in harmony with the printed version? (I don't
>>have Rahlf's here at home). If not, I need to report this to the
publishers
>>to get it corrected.
>
>Wes:
>Relax, the hard copy is identical with the e-version
>
>BTW, you are right on the verse citation; in both, the reference is Ho.6:6,
>not :7
>
>As to the use of Brenton's version, a _lot_ of water has flowed  between
>his and Rahlfs' edition, and of course the work on the entire LXX corpus
>has been going ever since Rahlfs.
>
>Regards,
>Maurice
>
>
>Maurice A. O'Sullivan  [ Bray, Ireland ]
>mauros at iol.ie
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: Beautiful to God and Ethical Datives - Ethical???
>From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
>Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:18:56 -0600
>X-Message-Number: 12
>
>This is an interesting question; while I don't want to get into the
>question of the LXX paraphrasing of a Hebrew text, the other parts
>nevertheless deserve some comment.
>
>At 11:23 PM -0700 1/3/99, Wes Williams wrote:
>>I have several questions resulting from the grammar found at Acts 7:20,
that
>>Moses was ASTEIOS TWi QEWi.
>>
>>Some translations of this expression are:
>>exceeding fair
>>no ordinary child
>>lovely in the sight of God
>>divinely beautiful
>>
>>This is similar to the expression in Jonah 3:3, that Ninevah was POLIS
>>MEGALH TWi QEWi. ("Great to God" or "exceedingly great").
>>
>>This is perhaps a Hebraism from LeElohim, as in "River of God," "Mountain
of
>>God, etc." Applying to Moses, one application is that "in the opinion of
>>God," Moses was beautiful. Thus arises the superlative.
>
>
>First: the word ASTEIOS is itself a fascinating one; originating simply as
>an adjective from ASTU to designate a person from the ASTU rather than from
>the AGROS but thereby characterizing the person (or thing) as sophisticated
>in its urban cultural context as opposed to the rough-hewn agrarian
>character of the AGROIKOS, it passes on (acc. LSJ) to "(2) of thoughts and
>words, refined, eleegant, witty ...; (3) as a general word of praise, of
>things and persons, pretty charming ...(b) ironically[!]; ...; (4) of
>outward appearance, pretty, graceful [LXX citations here] ...; (5) good of
>its kind ...
>
>The article in the full LSJ (I looked at the web Perseus) repays reading; I
>can't check the new edition with appendix by Glare because it's at the
>office and I'm snowbound today like most midwesterners--streets are open
>but not drivable! I think, however, that this overview of the LSJ shows how
>all of the attempts above can be justified. Think of the range of meanings
>attaching to English colloquial "smart"!
>
>>My question is that some grammars classify this is an Ethical Dative
rather
>>than a Dative of Reference (e.g. BDF 192). Why? What is "ethical" about
it?
>>>From whence does "ethical" come? Smyth/ Meyer is silent on this one.
>>
>>Second, is distinguishing between the ethical and referential datives
really
>>as simple as one is a person (ethical) and the other a "thing"
(reference)?
>
>This, I think, is the easier question to answer. While I must confess that
>I've never understood the appellation "ethical" (more commonly, but not
>more unintelligiby, "ethic") dative, I do know that it refers to what might
>better be called a "sentence dative" where the dative, normally of a
>person, is the one to whom the fact indicated in the sentence as a whole is
>relevant: e.g. TOUTO SOI ESTI GENNAION TI YEUDOS, "Here's a whopper of a
>lie for you"--where the SOI depends upon ESTI rather than on GENNAION or
>more properly indicates that "you" are the one who will appreciate the
>proposition stated in this statement. In the passage under consideration,
>Acts 7:20, EN hWi KAIRWi EGENNHQH MWUSHS KAI HN ASTEIOS TWi QEWi, the
>question would be whether TWi QEWI is to be understood in the sense "neat
>in God's perspective" (dative of reference) or "he was a beaut, so thought
>God, at any rate" ("ethic" dative). I think there are sentences where this
>distinction is much more meaningful than it is in this instance.
>
>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
>WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: Rom 12:2 part 1 function of KAI
>From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
>Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:31:52 -0600
>X-Message-Number: 13
>
>At 12:07 PM +0000 1/4/99, Maurice A. O'Sullivan wrote:
>>At 10:12 04/01/99 +0100, you wrote:
>>>of grammar or syntax). So here is my first questions:
>>>
>>>1. What can be said about the function of the KAI in Rom 12:2, connecting
>>>V.1 and V.2. As far as I know, on the grammatical level there are the two
>>>main options: a) either KAI is a normal conjunction or b) the beginning
of a
>>>new sentence (hebr. -waw). -
>>
>>Given that for almost 1500 years Paul's text was not divided into verses,
>>would you care to re-phrase your question?
>
>Maurice is, of course, and as usual,right in this regard, but I'd rephrase
>that question as how, if KAI links the expressions set forth in what later
>became verses 1 and 2 respectively, how are those expressions related.
>Perhaps this is too simple an answer, but I'd say that in verse 1 we have
>an "indirect" formulation of the command: PARAKALW hUMAS PARASTHSAI TA
>SWMATA, while the command becomes a direct imperative in verse 2: KAI MH
>SUSCHMATIZESQE ...
>
>However, I think one might also see in this second verse an intensification
>of what was stated in verse 1 as an urgent admonition; I've always thought
>that the phrasing of MH SUSCHMATIZESQE ... ALLA METAMORFOUSQE is a
>rephrasing in terms of apocalyptic eschatology of the Deuteronomic warning
>against "becoming like the nations"--and so one might say that the KAI
>doesn't simply link a second and different bit of advice but an intensified
>form of the initial admonition, so that one might translate: "and don't
>even pattern yourselves in terms of this world-age, but ..." or "an in
>fact, you should not pattern yourselves ..."
>
>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
>WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: Rom 12:2 part 2 - PARAKALW + Infinitive KAI Imperatives
>From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
>Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:37:12 -0600
>X-Message-Number: 14
>
>At 10:12 AM +0100 1/4/99, J=FCrg Buchegger wrote:
>>This is my second question on Rom 12:2:
>>2. What about the unusual continuing of the PARAKALW+Infinitive phrase (in
>>V.1) with the Imperatives in V.2? - Is it correct to say, that one would
>>expect Infinitves in V.2? What would you call this anomaly? A "oratio
>>variata" (Winer p.509f)?
>
>I think I've already commented on this in my message on the KAI. I'm not
>sure exactly what the phrase "oratio variata" is intended to mean, but I
>think there's really something more than an "in-other-words" reformulation
>of the PARAKALW PARASTHSAI construction, even if it IS a reformulation: to
>use the phrase of one of the deconstructionists, it is a "repetition with
>significant addition."
>
>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
>WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: Rom 12:2 part 6 - Verb+Dative+Genitive
>From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
>Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:12:32 -0600
>X-Message-Number: 15
>
>At 10:14 AM +0100 1/4/99, J=FCrg Buchegger wrote:
>>This is my final question on Rom 12:2:
>>
>>6. The verb + dative + genitive in V.2 (METAMORPHOUSTHE TH
>>ANAKAINWSEI TOU NOOS) makes me to stop and think intensely about who is
>>doing what through what and where? How to interpret that? Again, how would
>>you go on methodologically to decide what kind of dative we have here and
>>how the genitive is to be interpreted?
>
>While some might have preferred to have all these questions about Rom 12:2
>in one longer message, I think your having split them makes response easier
>and also should militate against the reckless incorporation of everything
>previously stated in a thread, whether or not it's relevant.
>
>I've said that I think METAMORFOUSQE is middle but that it represents a
>mutuality of divine initiative and believer participation: "submit
>yourselves to re-shaping"; in keeping with this, I'd understand THi
>ANAKAINWSEI as an instrumental dative indicating HOW the re-shaping is to
>take place, and finally I'd understand TOU NOOS as an objective genitive
>with the noun of verbal notion. (I've also always been fascinated by Paul's
>occasional, if not regular, use of a 3rd declension form of this noun NOUS,
>which is regularly 2nd declension in earlier usage, so far as I recall). Is
>this an Ionic form?
>
>At any rate, I'd understanding the ANAKAINWSIS as mutual, just as is the
>METAMORFOUSQE: the "renovation" of a mentality requires both the divine
>initiative and the conscious and willing participation of the believer.
>
>
>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
>WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: Rom 12:2 part 4 - ANAKAINWSIS pauline neologism
>From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
>Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:04:32 -0600
>X-Message-Number: 16
>
>At 10:13 AM +0100 1/4/99, J=FCrg Buchegger wrote:
>>Here is my fourth question on Rom 12:2:
>
>But I'm also responding to the fifth, about ANA in the verbal compound.
>
>>4. What can be said about pauline neologisms? Are there any?
>>I'm aware of the statistical problem and the question of the innovative
>>force of Christianity. Again my interest here is in contributions from the
>>perspective of the Greek language. My research so far showed, that
>>ANAKAINOW/WSIS (V.2) seems definitly to be such a pauline neologism. What
>>can one say about the appearing of new words in Greek (I have read some
>>general remarks on the invention of new words especially in the time of
>>Koine  through the encounter with other cultures and parts and countries
of
>>the world (broadening of the physical horizon brings broadening of the
>>Wortschatz?) Are there other explanations? Literature about this? Is there
=
>a
>>specialist in the history and development of the Greek language (or
another
>>comparable language) out there?
>
>This is a very good question--quite obviously, I think. And I don't think
>there's any ready-to-hand answer; if it hasn't already been done, it's meat
>for someone's dissertation research (or life's scholarly project?).
>
>At this point I thrown in what is no more than a gut-feeling. It wouldn't
>surprise me to find that ANAKAINOW reflects a Latin verb RENOVARE and that
>the ANA- prefix functions precisely as does the RE- prefix in the Latin
>verb.
>
>My other gut feeling about Pauline neologism or creative thinking: what
>impresses me most about Pauline diction is the brilliant usage of metaphors
>to convey notions about what transcends space and time in terms applicable
>to space and time--as when in Phil he uses the metaphor of running the race
>(as competitive and individualistic a Greek sport as any there ever was)
>for a personal life's career on the DIAULON wherein he is in relationship
>to no competitor but only in relation to the God in Christ who sets his
>finish-line--or in 1 Cor 13:12 where he talks about the ultimate GNWSIS as
>a TOTE BLEPEIN PROSWPON PROS PROSWPON--and then plays upon it with the verb
>EPIGINWSKW in the opposition of middle (EPIGNWSOMAI) and passive
>(EPEGNWSQHN)--and in this instance I have no doubt that EPEGNWSQHN is
>passive--the antithesis of tense (future vs. aorist) as well as that of
>voice (middle vs. passive) is a remarkable creative formulation.
>
>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
>WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: Rom 12:2 part 3 - METASXHMATIZW medium or passiveImpv
>From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
>Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:48:01 -0600
>X-Message-Number: 17
>
>At 10:13 AM +0100 1/4/99, J=FCrg Buchegger wrote:
>>This is my third question on Rom 12:2:
>>3. V.2 has two imperative passive verbs (formally they could be medium
too,
>>and NEV, NIV, NJB take the first as such). - In my opinion, the second
verb
>>is unquestionably a passive. Are there hints on the formal level of
languag=
>e
>>to decide medium/passive? - And: What does an Imperative passive want to
>>say, means how much can I make a point on the theological level out of the
>>fact that here we have an imperative and at the same time this is a
passive=
>?
>>Anyone have a hint to a good treatment of this form of a verb (imp pass)?
>
>I can't resist this, as anyone who has read my harangues on Greek voice
>will anticipate! I think both METASCHMATIZESQE and SUMMORFOUSQE are middle;
>I'm inclined to think one should always start out interpreting a MP
>morphology as middle unless it has an agent construction with hUPO or an
>instrumental, and often even then. I've suggested that I read MH
>METASCHMATIZESQE as "don't model yourselves upon"--reading it as a
>transposition of the OT common warning against "becoming like "ha goyyim"
>into eschatological terms. I think that SUMMORFOUSQE has to be understood
>in the same context: there's a passive element in it in that the
>readers/listeners are admonished to permit GOD to reshape their
>hearts/minds; nevertheless, it seems to me that we have here (as regularly
>in Paul) an implicit formulation recognizing both divine initiative and
>personal participation in the process of the transformation of selfhood
>into what one was always meant to be. Indeed, SUMMORFOUSQE has a
>Deuteronomic antecedent also, I think, just as does MH METASCHMATIZESQE: it
>is "circumcize the foreskins of your hearts."
>
>My own inclination is to understand all forms (including those with -QH-
>morphology) as middle unless one can see compelling grounds in the context
>or in normal usage for understanding them as passive.
>
>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
>WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: RE: Rom 12:2 part 1 function of KAI
>From: "wross" <wross at farmerstel.com>
>Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:23:26 -0600
>X-Message-Number: 18
>
>There is a school of thought that says "God has a good will, an acceptable
>will and a perfect will and we might do one (i.e. His acceptable will) but
>not the other (i.e. his perfect will)."
>
>Of course KAI would not support this, eh? I mean that would be ALLA, no?
>
>Philosophically, a will is tied to one's ultimate goal and that is one. God
>doesn't have multiple wills.
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Mt 9:13
>From: dd-1 at juno.com
>Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:59:40 -0600
>X-Message-Number: 19
>
>Greekers,  Denny Diehl here
>
>Thanks to all for the helpful comments on Mt 9:13 in
>regard to the quotation of Hos 6:6 (7).  I would like to
>note what Jesus stated:
>
> "ELEOS QELW KAI OU QUSIAN" -Mt 9:13
>
>I believe this is a comparison of two choices, one
>choice desired above the other (rather than one is
>correct, the other is absolutely wrong).  Is there a
>definitive way grammatically that shows this to be
>the case, or is it just a matter of interpretation?
>
>Thanks again for all the help.
>
>Denny
>___________________________________________________________________
>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
>or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: Mt 9:13
>From: Jim West <jwest at Highland.Net>
>Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 14:39:44 +0000
>X-Message-Number: 20
>
>At 12:59 PM 1/4/99 -0600, you wrote:
>>Greekers,  Denny Diehl here
>>
>>Thanks to all for the helpful comments on Mt 9:13 in
>>regard to the quotation of Hos 6:6 (7).  I would like to
>>note what Jesus stated:
>>
>> "ELEOS QELW KAI OU QUSIAN" -Mt 9:13
>>
>>I believe this is a comparison of two choices, one
>>choice desired above the other (rather than one is
>>correct, the other is absolutely wrong).  Is there a
>>definitive way grammatically that shows this to be
>>the case, or is it just a matter of interpretation?
>>
>>Thanks again for all the help.
>>
>>Denny
>
>Denny-  I heartily recommend Bill Loader's book- "Jesus' Attitude Towards
>the Law".  Bill therein discusses every possible NT ref. to Jesus and the
>law, as well as extra-biblical materials.  On page 192f Bill covers Mt
9:9-13.
>
>Regarding grammar- your interpretation is as likely as any- and in fact it
>is my own view as well.
>
>Best,
>
>Jim
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Jim West, ThD
>Quartz Hill School of Theology
>
>jwest at highland.net
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: 2 Tim 1.12--subjective or objective genitive?
>From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net>
>Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:44:34 +0400
>X-Message-Number: 21
>
>Carl Conrad responded to Perry Stepp:
>
>>At 12:26 PM -0500 1/2/99, Perry L. Stepp wrote:
>>>Re. the phrase THN PARAQHKHN MOU in 2 Tim 1.12: what are the ins and outs
of
>>>translating it as an objective genitive ("he is able to keep the things
>>>entrusted to me") rather than a subjective genitive ("he is able to keep
the
>>>things I've entrusted to him")?  I've seen it translated both ways in
>>>English Bibles, usually with a footnote offering the other translation as
an
>>>alternative.
>>
>>I'm not sure that this question is decidable in any absolute terms: you
>>have to make your own judgment in terms of the context. Grammatically
>>speaking, "subjective genitive" and "objective genitive" are just the
names
>>we give to ordinary adnominal genitives attached to nouns of verbal sense.
>>I would only add that I personally think the "subjective" reading of a
>>postpositive genitive personal pronoun is more common and perhaps more
>>natural: "what I have entrusted" rather than "what has been entrusted to
>>me."
>
>Carl is right on all counts, context, postpositive use of gen. pronoun, &
>the difficulty of making a clear decision.
>
>I would just add that I tend to emphasize the immediate context in dealing
>with this verse, keeping in mind that the major translations disagree here.
>
>The context focuses our attention on the word PARAQHKH and its verb
>PARATIQHMI. The verses are I Tim. 6:20, the noun clearly referring to what
>had been deposited with Timothy; II Tim. 1:12; II Tim. 1:14, clearly what
>had been deposited with Timothy; II Tim. 2:2, using the verb for depositing
>to "PISTOIS ANQRWPOIS what you heard from me through many witnesses." Given
>the interest of the Pastorals in this body of teaching, I tend to take the
>less common interp. of the pron. MOU as being objective, as does the ASV,
>RSV, but not the KJV & NRSV.
>
>
>Carlton L. Winbery
>Fogleman Professor of Religion
>Louisiana College
>Pineville, LA 71359
>winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net
>winbery at andria.lacollege.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Mark 3:33,35 5:42 abnormalities?
>From: Tim Duke <tduke at westpac.com.au>
>Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 12:48:07 +1000
>X-Message-Number: 22
>
>I have noticed some places in my Nestles (4th Rev Ed) where italicised
>brakcets enclose a word or phrase, but absolutely no mention is made of
>it in the apparatus below. Two that I have chosen at random are Mark
>3:33,35 and 5:42.
>When I look at the intro, it says these refer to "an abnormality
>reproduced exactly from the original".  Does this mean that there is an
>error in the greek which has persisted in every single ancient
>manuscript?  If so, what is the error in these three cases?  I can't see
>it.  Where have I gone wrong?
>These seem to be quite frequent in Mark (more so than other books).  Any
>reason?
>
>Tim Duke
>Sydney
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: Mark 3:33,35 5:42 abnormalities?
>From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net>
>Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 20:21:38 +0400
>X-Message-Number: 23
>
>Tim Duke wrote;
>
>>I have noticed some places in my Nestles (4th Rev Ed) where italicised
>>brakcets enclose a word or phrase, but absolutely no mention is made of
>>it in the apparatus below. Two that I have chosen at random are Mark
>>3:33,35 and 5:42.
>>When I look at the intro, it says these refer to "an abnormality
>>reproduced exactly from the original".  Does this mean that there is an
>>error in the greek which has persisted in every single ancient
>>manuscript?  If so, what is the error in these three cases?  I can't see
>>it.  Where have I gone wrong?
>>These seem to be quite frequent in Mark (more so than other books).  Any
>>reason?
>>
>Tim if you do have a Nestle 4th edition, you have an old one.  I started
>with Nestle 21 in 1955. Two of the passages you are looking at involve the
>omission of words [MOU & GAR].  Both are omitted in B which Nestle took
>very seriously. I would guess that that is the reason for the italics,
>perhaps. In the third instance the omission of EUQUS is likely though the
>Nestle-Aland prints it in square brackets.
>
>Just guessing.
>
>
>
>Carlton L. Winbery
>Fogleman Professor of Religion
>Louisiana College
>Pineville, LA 71359
>winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net
>winbery at andria.lacollege.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: re: mk 3:33, etc.
>From: Jim West <jwest at Highland.Net>
>Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 21:10:39 +0000
>X-Message-Number: 24
>
>At 12:48 PM 1/5/99 +1000, you wrote:
>>I have noticed some places in my Nestles (4th Rev Ed) where italicised
>>brakcets enclose a word or phrase, but absolutely no mention is made of
>>it in the apparatus below. Two that I have chosen at random are Mark
>>3:33,35 and 5:42.
>
>Hmmm... No such thing occurs in Nestle/Aland 27.
>
>I looked at the 4th ed. of the GNT and suspect that all the brackets in the
>thing are italicised- the whole text is!
>
>>When I look at the intro, it says these refer to "an abnormality
>>reproduced exactly from the original".
>
>I suspect this merely means that when you see something in brackets you
>should be aware of the fact that some ancient mss. differ as to the
reading.
>To find the various mss you should check the apparatus.
>
>> Does this mean that there is an
>>error in the greek which has persisted in every single ancient
>>manuscript?
>
>No- such a thing would mean the editors are offering a reading not
supported
>by ANY mss... something they simply do not do.
>
>>If so, what is the error in these three cases?  I can't see
>>it.  Where have I gone wrong?
>
>I think your simply seeing these brackets as especially italicized- but
>again- the WHOLE text is in italics- so the brackets are too.
>
>>These seem to be quite frequent in Mark (more so than other books).  Any
>>reason?
>>
>
>Well dunno about that.  Take a gander at Rev. where textual variants
abound.
>Get ya a copy of NA 27 and you will be better off anyway.  The apparatus is
>better and the print is certainly easier to read.
>
>>Tim Duke
>>Sydney
>
>Best,
>
>Jim
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Jim West, ThD
>Quartz Hill School of Theology
>
>jwest at highland.net
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: Mark 3:33,35 5:42 abnormalities?
>From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson at mindspring.com>
>Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 22:13:55 -0500
>X-Message-Number: 25
>
>At 12:48 PM 1/5/99 +1000, Tim Duke wrote:
>>I have noticed some places in my Nestles (4th Rev Ed) where italicised
>>brakcets enclose a word or phrase, but absolutely no mention is made of
>>it in the apparatus below. Two that I have chosen at random are Mark
>>3:33,35 and 5:42.
>>When I look at the intro, it says these refer to "an abnormality
>>reproduced exactly from the original".  Does this mean that there is an
>>error in the greek which has persisted in every single ancient
>>manuscript?  If so, what is the error in these three cases?  I can't see
>>it.  Where have I gone wrong?
>>These seem to be quite frequent in Mark (more so than other books).  Any
>>reason?
>
>The variants chosen for treatment in UBS4 (not Nestles) in the apparatus
>is by no means complete.  Instead, the choice is directed to those
>instances which are "of significance for translators and other readers."
>[p. 2*].
>
>The meaning of the brackets is different in the text than in the apparatus.
>
>In the text, the brackets signify less certain readings, not an
"abnormality."
>You may find page 2* helpful in this regard, which I quote at length:
>
>   "[ ] Brackets in the text indicate that the enclosed word, words,
>   or parts of words may be regarded as part of the text, but that
>   in the present state of New Testament textual scholarship this
>   cannot be completely certain.  Such passages have a C-rating in
>   the critical apparatus.  If the variant is of minor grammatical
>   significance with no appreciable bearing on translation, no note
>   is taken of it in the apparatus.  However, the number of bracketed
>   passages receiving attention has been considerably increased
>   over the Third Edition (corrected)."
>
>Your examples of Mk3:33 35 and 5:42 fall into this category.  If you
noticed
>a greater occurrence of these in Mark, I think it is probably due to poorer
>attestation of Mark within the MSS.
>
>In the apparatus, on the other hand, the brackets [] have a different
meaning.
>These brackets enclose certain selected Byzantine MSS (pp. 18*).  The
Master
>List on page 47* explains the dual nature of this punctuation.
>
>There is also the notation "[sic]" (note the "sic" in italics), discussed
on
>pages 19* and 51*, that indicates an "abnormality reproduced exactly from
the
>original."  This is probably what you were thinking of, but for this
notation
>there must be a "sic" and the examples of Mk3:33 35 and 5:42 do not fall
into
>this category.  You can see an example of this notation at Rv15:6 n.2
(LINOUS
>[sic] for Alpha -- the real acc. pl. is LINA) and at Rv16:4 n.1 (EGENENTO
[sic]
>for either EGENETO or EGENONTO in 2062).
>
>Stephen Carlson
>
>
>--
>Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson at mindspring.com
>Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
>"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: Mark 3:33,35 5:42 abnormalities?
>From: Greg Kilbrai <gkilbrai at dlcwest.com>
>Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 21:44:49 -0600
>X-Message-Number: 26
>
>Tim Duke wrote:
>
>>
>
>> I have noticed some places in my Nestles (4th Rev Ed) where italicised
>
>> brakcets enclose a word or phrase, but absolutely no mention is made of
>
>> it in the apparatus below. Two that I have chosen at random are Mark
>
>> 3:33,35 and 5:42.
>
>> When I look at the intro, it says these refer to "an abnormality
>
>> reproduced exactly from the original".  Does this mean that there is an
>
>> error in the greek which has persisted in every single ancient
>
>> manuscript?  If so, what is the error in these three cases?  I can't see
>
>> it.  Where have I gone wrong?
>
>> These seem to be quite frequent in Mark (more so than other books).  Any
>
>> reason?
>
>>
>
>> Tim Duke
>
>> Sydney
>
>>
>
>
>
>Tim:
>
>
>
>I believe the answer is on page 2* of UBS version 4 introduction where
>
>it states that such passages have a C-rating and if the variant is of
>
>minor grammatical significance with no appreciable bearing on the
>
>translation, no note of it is taken in the apparatus.
>
>I think you are looking at page 19* which discusses [sic] "an
>abnormality reproduced exactly from the original" which is different
>from your examples.
>
>
>
>Greg Kilbrai
>
>Canadian Theological Seminary
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: EPEITA in Gal 1.18, 21 and 2.1
>From: Jack Painter <jackp at amdg.com.ph>
>Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 11:45:55 +0800
>X-Message-Number: 27
>
>I have a question regarding the sequence of events in Galatian 1 and 2. The
>temporal adverb EPEITA occurs three times in 1.18, 21 and 2.1. Longenecker,
>Galatians, 45, argues " the probablity is that the three years of 1.18 and
>the fourteen years of 2.1 are to be understood concurrently, not
>consecutively--that is, that both are to be measured from Paul's conversion
>and not that the fourteen years are to be counted from his first Jerusalem
>visit." Longenecker give no external examples to undergird his proposition.
>J.L. Martyn, Galatians, 180-182, comes to roughly the same position.
>
>Bauer and LSJ seem to imply that EPEITA used in a temporal sequence denotes
>succession (consecutive events) not concurrency. In Paul's other use of the
>term this way, succession is the impication (1Cor 15.5-8). Are there any
>examples in Greek literature to anyone's knowledge that would indicate
>concurrency?
>
>R. Jackson Painter, Ph.D.
>Acting Academic Dean
>Alliance Biblical Seminary
>Manila, Philippines
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>
>END OF DIGEST
>
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
>You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: j.buchegger at datacomm.ch
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
>
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list