[B-Greek] DEUTEROPRWTWi in Luke 6:1

George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 8 01:23:54 EDT 2010

On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to support our contention that δευτεροπρωτω DEUTEROPRWTW is a corruption.  
First, let us deal with Liddell.  What you are citing is not Liddell-Scott-Jones, the estemed lexicon of the Greek language, but rather the Intermediate Greek Lexicon which was an abridgement of the full lexicon and designed for school use.  The unabridged lexicon states
BDAG statesσάββατον, τό, prob. corrupt in Ev.Luc.6.1 (no expl. is satisfactory).
δευτερόπρωτος, ον
and Moulton and Milligan state
It is almost superfluous to say that we have found no support for this famous vox nihili(Lk 6:1), the only interest of which to-day is the curious problem of its early entrance into the text. (Note that W is now added to the MSS rejecting it.) Grimm’s superficially parallel δευτερέσχατος“second last, last but one,” is no help: “first but one” is δεύτεροςsimply. Δεκάπρωτος, “one of ten πρῶτοι,” is clearly not parallel. One of the most ingenious explanations is that of F. C. Burkitt (Gosp. Hist.p. 81n.), that the βαof σαββάτῳwas repeated at the beginning of a new line, and then βατωexpanded as δευτερο- πρώτῳ—cf. ιβμήνουcited above under δεκαδύο. 

I don't seem to have Jerome's epistles or I would quote the one referenced in BDAG.

Now, regarding the evidence that δευτεροπρωτω DEUTEROPRWTW is a corruption.  Both the best manuscripts, Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (א) lack the word.  These are generally the two best witnesses to the original text.  Not only, however, do Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (א) lack the word, but also P4 which dates from probably 150-175 lacks it as well.  This is pretty convincing evidence.
Regarding ἄφρων AFRWN or ἄφρον AFRON, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.  The one appears in the critical text of Lk 12.20 while the other appears in the Byz Maj text.  Perhaps you are simply attempting to defend the Byz Maj text in this passage as well as Lk 6.1?  In this case the attestation for the critical text is likewise strong (as a matter of fact, even stronger than for Lk 6.1).  
If you wish to further discuss textual critical questions, I would suggest that you bring it up on the textualcriticism list (www.groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism).


… search for truth, hear truth, 
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, 
defend the truth till death.

- Jan Hus

From: Nikolaos Adamou <nikolaos.adamou at hotmail.com>
To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; theomann at comcast.net; b-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>; Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>; Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Sent: Wed, April 7, 2010 9:14:57 PM
Subject: RE: [B-Greek] DEUTEROPRWTWi in Luke 6:1

δευτεροπρῶτος (ὁ) DEUTEROPRWTOS as  Metzger wrongly accents it
may not be a word (masculine noun) but
(τὸ) δευτερόπρωτον (neuter noun) is a word and appear in
Liddell & Scott
Page 156, left column, 7th entry
δευτερό-πρωτον, σάββατον, το, the first Sabbath after the second day
of the feast of unleavened bread.
The same explanation is also give in the following source.
[The next verse helps to explain an expression in Luke 6: 1, about
which very likely some here present have found difficulty, as
certainly most people elsewhere. "And it came to pass on the second
sabbath after the first, that he went through the cornfields: and his
disciples plucked the ears of corn and did eat, rubbing them in their
hands." What is the force of '`the second sabbath after the first"? To
explain this it is of little use to send you to the commentators: for
they are all at sea about it, as too often about difficulties for
which help would be welcome. Some have had recourse to a harsh way of
getting out of the difficulty by cutting out the word (for in Greek it
is only a single word, δευτεροπρώτῳ): a very dangerous principle where
the Bible is concerned. One celebrated critic thus guilty repented,
virtually confessing the fault by replacing it. But it is no bad moral
lesson for us when we can say, "I do not know." This at least is true
and lowly: and if one looks up for light, it is well; for thus God can
give what is lacking.]
The two Metzger's assumptions that Carl& George sited in the related quotation
are just assumptions with no evidence to support them.
The word δευτερόπρωτον exists and identifies the Sabbath (DEUTERON)
after Passover (PRWTON),
between April and May, where the fields in Palestine, the Middle East
and places around Mediterranean start producing grains.
στάχυς is the head of grain as
gives not corn that was unknown to that area at that time BUT the top of grain in general.
So, it may not be “probable corrupted” but specific and clear.  I do
have doubts for the text that from 1904 to 2010 was revised several
times in its 27 editions, and as we heard in this group, its 28th
edition adopts writing that does not exists in any Greek manuscript
ever (2 Peter 3:10‏) with a clear demonstration of arbitrariness and
not to the text (Andoniades) that remained unchanged since its
publication in 1904 (the same year that biblical society started the
distribution of Nestle’s text).  Another example Luke 12:20 Adjective
Masculine Singular Vocative Ἄφρων or ἄφρον?

Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how. a word of doubtful mng., only in the phrase ἐν σαββάτῳ δ. Lk 6:1 v.l.; many editions (but not Tdf.), following most mss., omit the word or put it in brackets. Even many ancient interpreters, understandably, could make nothing of it (Jerome, Epistle 52, 8, 2), and it may owe its origin solely to a scribal error. It might correspond (but s. M-M.) to δευτερέσχατος(=next to the last) and mean first but one (?)(cp. Epiphan., Haer. 30, 32; 51, 31 δευτερόπρωτον= δεύτερον σάββατον μετὰ τὸ πρῶτον; Eustratius, Life of Eutychius [MPG LXXXVI 2381] ἡ δευτεροπρώτη κυριακή=the first Sunday after Easter Sunday), reckoned from Passover.—CTrossen, ThGl 6, 1914, 466–75, esp. 470f; HMeulenbelt, Lk 6:1: NThSt 5, 1922, 140–42; ASchlatter, D. Ev. des Lk ’31, 67f; Goodsp., Probs. 83–85;
 JBover, Estudios Ecclesiasticos 7, 1928, 97–106; J-P Audet, Jésus et le ‘Calendrier sacerdotal ancien’, Sciences Ecclésiastiques (Montreal) 10, ’58, 361–83; GBuchanan-CWolfe, JBL 97, ’78, 259–62.—M-M. 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list