danielrr at eresmas.net
Fri Sep 7 21:10:58 EDT 2001
Jim West wrote:
>this does have to do with greek so i'm going to say on list what i said in
>private to a number of folk.
Yes, we can take some lessons about valid and invalid lexicographic
procedures from here.
Jim West wrote:
>lk 4 says nothing of the sort that is generally claimed for it. in
>lk jesus is
>handed a scroll opened to a text and then he procedes to *recite* the text.
>the verb *anaginwskw* properly means *recite* rather than *read*. why?
>because literally the verb is a compound with a preposition. the preposition
>*ana* means *again* or *down*. now, if we take this seriously it means *to
>know again, to know down* which is much closer in meaning to the english word
>*recite* than *read*.
From here you can take two ways. Either consult a good
lexicon, or carry on a large research (at least several days,
probably more than a week) at a good specialised library on the use
of A)NAGIGNW/SKW. I think both ways will take you to the same
conclusion. I'll tell you what you can find an the DGE (a lexicon
covering Greek literature and non literary documents until 7th
century AD, without any religious bias []). This information can
be completed with the BDAG for full NT testimonies. Somebody can go
the other, harder way to tell us if he found things being the other
A)NAGIGNW/SKW with the meaning *recognise* (hardly *know again*) is
found in the best authors from Homer to the 5th century BC, specially
in attic writers, and latter in the prose of the atticists, but I
don't see it documented in papyri or inscriptions. With the meaning
*read*, A)NAGIGNW/SKW if a verb far more frequent, with testimonies
that spans from Pindar to the 6th century AD, very common in
inscriptions and papyri from 3rd century BC to II century AD, at
least. There is no question about the validity of such interpretation
in most cases: the verb is used many times for the reading of whole
BIBLI/A, and for personal letters, and it is the formulary word used
by officials to declare that they have read a document.
The sense fits perfectly with the context of Eu.Luc.14, where Jesus
unrolls the scroll until he finds the passage in question: as CWC and
others have already said, this is not what you would expect from some
illiterate who is to just about recite a text.
The context asks for "read"; the parallels offer a very strong
argument about "read" and against "recognise", and almost no parallel
for "recite" (the closest case would be Pindar I.2.23); I'll refrain
from mentioning other data that makes it very difficult to sustain
the idea that Jesus was illiterate, that seems to be the only reason
why you would ask here for "recite" instead of "read". It seems to me
that somebody who tries to prove that the meaning of A)NAGIGNW/SKW is
"recite" has to bear the burden of the proof: and he has to prove it
*against* the apparent testimony in Eu.Luc.14, not with it.
David Haeuser already mentioned the "etymological fallacy" as a
probable cause for this (IMO) unmotivated misconstruction of the text
of Eu.Luc.14. But, I should add, if such is the case, it is a
specially grave example of fallacy, because what gave the basis for
the semantic evolution of the word, from *re-cognise* to *read*, was
*not* the recognition of the *text* on a document, but the
recognition of its *code* (the letters).
[] So unbiased that this text is not even recorded (!). In view of
the documentation, such omission is nothing but an unforgivable
Daniel Riaño Rufilanchas
POR FAVOR, tomad nota de mi nueva dirección de correo: danielrr at eresmas.net
More information about the B-Greek