qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
Mon Aug 27 13:12:32 EDT 2001
Dear Carl and B-Greekers,
> >MQ. 14:6 says,
> >GENESIOIS DE GENOMENOIS TOU hHRWiDOU WRCHSATO hH QUGATHR THS
> >EN TWi MESWi KAI HRESEN TWi hHRWiDHi
> >Now I know there is no such thing as a "dative absolute", but this
> >looks like one! I notice that there is considerable textual
> >here. But surely the reading above is the lectio difficilior (or
> does it
> >rise to the level of difficilima?) and best explains the origin of
> >1) GENESIOIS DE AGOMENOIS -- f1
> >2) GENESIWN DE AGOMENWN -- W 0106 0136 f13 33 Maj
> >3) GENESIWN DE GENOMENWN -- C K N theta 565 892 1241 1424 al
> >GENESIOIS DE GENOMENOIS is supported by aleph B D L Z lect2211
> >I notice too that the following editions read the same as NA27:
> >Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott/Hort, Merk,
> >NA25 while Griesbach, Wordsworth, Vogels agree with 2 above and von
> >with 3 above.
> >The parallel in MK 6:21 retains the dative TOIS GENESIOIS but this
> >now become a dative of time referencing the "day" mentioned in the
> >previous genitive absolute: GENOMENHS hHMERAS EUKAIROU.
> >What am I missing here?
> I've been thinking about
> this and
> I don't think it's a dative absolute. Wallace considers it a Dative
> time, and I agree with this; I think that GENOMENOIS here is a
> circumstantial participle and that the construction here is one that
> is not
> uncommon in literary narrative: At the birthday of Herod when it
> came round
> the daughter of Herodias danced ..."
> GENESIOIS DE GENOMENOIS is the lectio difficilior and it is not by
> means ungrammatical.
I agree with you entirely, Carl. But this still leaves a question in my
Given MQ's fondness for the gen. abs. (he uses it in one of every 20
vss.; only Acts, 3 Jn, 1 Pt and 2 Pt use it as or more frequently), and
Given that << he attempts to use the genitive the gen. absol. but fails
to use it properly... often using it in place of the ptc. in the dative:
1:20; 5:1; 8:1,5,28; 9:10,18; 18:24; 21:23; 27:17. >> (Turner Style, p.
Given that << ... there is no doubt that some of Matthew's changes make
for smoother Greek...>> (Turner Style, p. 39),
Could it be that MQ found MK 6:21 so awkward that he changed the gen.
abs. to a circumstantial participle in the dative despite his fondness
for the gen. abs. and despite his tendency to do just the opposite of
what we find in 14:6, namely, to use a gen. abs. where he should have
used a participle in the dative?
Compare MK 6:21 with MQ 14:6:
MK 6:21,22) KAI GENOMENHS hHMERAS EUKAIROU hOTE hHRWiDHS TOIS GENESIOIS
AUTOU DEIPNON EPOIHSEN TOIS MEGISTASIN AUTOU K.T.L. 22) KAI EISELQOUSHS
THS QUGATROS AUTOU hHRWiDIADOS KAI ORCHSAMENHS HRESEN TWi hHRWiDHi K.T.L.
MQ 14:6) GENESIOIS DE GENOMENOIS TOU hHRWiDOU WRCHSATO hH QUGATHR THS
hHRWiDIADOS EN TWi MESWi KAI HRESEN TWi hHRWiDHi
I realize at this point we could get into a lot source criticism and form
criticism or whatever. But it is not my intention (or interest) to do
this. I simply wish to know whether anyone on this list besides myself
finds MK 6:21 at least SLIGHTLY awkward, though grammatical enough. Is it
awkward enough for MQ to alter the gen. abs. to a participle in the
dative? I notice that MQ also eliminated the double gen. abs. in MK 6:22.
Does anyone think that MQ's text is smoother because of these changes? I
await your responses.
Yours in His grace,
Richard Ghilardi -- qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
New Haven, CT USA
Nibai kaurno hwaiteis gadriusando in airtha gaswiltith,
silbo ainata aflifnith: ith jabai gaswiltith, manag akran bairith.
More information about the B-Greek