[B-Greek] Matthwe 18:2 called a little child unto him, Semitic idiom ?
jason at jhronline.com
Sat Jun 7 14:40:35 EDT 2003
I'm really confused by your question for several
>Codex D has: kai proskalesamenoj o ihs paidion
As Carl has noted to another poster, it would make it
a great deal to understand your reference if your
would use the transliteration scheme as it is on the
B-Greek homepage: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/
Secondly, this reading that you mention does not
appear in any of the references that I have consulted:
/A Commentary on the Greek New Testament/ (Metzger),
UBS4, NA27 or the Interlinear TR.
However, the TR (which you prefer, I know) moves the
hEN from verse 18.5 to a different location. This
verse reads thus in the TR:
KAI hOS EAN DEXHTAI PAIDION TOIOUTON hEN EPI TWi
And whoever receives one such child in my name...
KAI hOS EAN DEXHTAI hEN PAIDION TOIOUTO EPI TWi
The word hEN (one) is not removed, but simply
transferred: hEN PAIDION TOIOUTO >> PAIDION TOIOUTON
Check your references and let us know if you still
have a question about 18.2 (which, so far as I can
tell, has no hEN in it in any version).
--- Schmuel <schmuel at escape.com> wrote:
> Hello b-Greek,
> Matthew 18:2
> And Jesus called **a little child** unto him, and
> set him in the midst of them,
> There is some variation in the verse between the
> Byzantine Text, and the Alexandrian,
> but they agree on "a little child", the point at
> Putting aside for a moment the question as to
> whether there can be
> said to be a "western" text-type, and the big
> differences between the
> Codex Bezae Greek and any other manuscripts....
> It seems "Western" (ie in Greek, Codex D) has its
> own reading as follows...
> >Codex D has: kai proskalesamenoj o ihs paidion
> >And Iesus called the one boy
> It is claimed that this maintains a "Semitic idiom"
> as is also used in the Old Syriac
> (Peshitto) text, which "has no place in the Greek
> The Byzantine and Alexandrian readings are
> >kai proskalesamenoj paidion...
> >And he called a boy
> Ergo, it is claimed that the Codex D (Bezae) reading
> is a "clear semitism" supporting the
> idea that this reading was "part of the original
> Essentially the following reasons are conjectured..
> 1) Bezae represents a Semitic to Greek translation
> .. AND/OR
> 2) Bezae has the "harder Greek reading" that was
> smoothed later in the
> great majority of Greek manuscripts. (by the
> much-debated "harder reading" principle)
> Would anyone like to comment on this idea that Codex
> D has readings like this
> that should be attributed to being from older, more
> semitic manuscripts ?
> Perhaps (if in fact it is "no place" Greek) other,
> simpler Ocaam Razor reasons are
> offered for such readings (eg weak Greek, Old Latin
> influence, Semitic background of the scribe)
> So, using this as a fairly straightforward
> "test-case" I would like to hear what
> our Greek experts feel about the Codex Bezae
> "semitic reading" here.
> Thanks :-) (If more appropriate on textcrit, I will
> jump over, but it is largely Greek-based :-)
> Steven Avery
> Queens, NY
> schmuel at escape.com
> Messianic_Apologetic-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the B-Greek