Acts 13:46b D Bezae

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.

Acts 13:46b D Bezae

Postby Stirling Bartholomew » December 5th, 2013, 4:33 pm

this is NOT a TC question.

An isolated reading in Acts 13:46 D Bezae drops a significant word: αναγκαιον.

Acts 13:46b SBLGNT:
Υμιν ην αναγκαιον πρωτον λαληθηναι τον λογον του θεου· επειδη απωθεισθε αυτον και ουκ αξιους κρινετε εαυτους της αιωνιου ζωης, ιδου στρεφομεθα εις τα εθνη·

Acts 13:46 Bezae at Cambridge
ϋμειν πρωτον ην λαληθηναι τον λον του θυ
επιδη ⸆ απωθεισθαι αυτον
και ουκ αξιους κρεινατε εαυτους
της αιωνιου ζωης
ϊδου στρεφομεθα εις τα εθνη

The commentaries I have on hand don't give any notice to this. It seems to me the omission of the word αναγκαιον alters the sense of passage. But the 1923/1924 translation of Acts Bezae doesn't show this.

It was right that the word of God should first be spoken to you: but seeing ye thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.


It is an isolated reading so I can understand it being ignored. However I am trying to represent the difference in English and find the 1924 rendering troubling. Probably something obvious about ην with the infinitive λαληθηνα, I was thinking about rendering it

“It was to you that the word of God was spoken first." fronting the pronoun for discourse reasons.

I don't have Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger commentary on hand at the moment. And goggle doesn't serve up the page I need to read. All I am interested in is the impact of the omission of the word αναγκαιον on the translation. Nothing else.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
 
Posts: 170
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Acts 13:46b D Bezae

Postby cwconrad » December 5th, 2013, 5:42 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:this is NOT a TC question.

An isolated reading in Acts 13:46 D Bezae drops a significant word: αναγκαιον.

Acts 13:46b SBLGNT:
Υμιν ην αναγκαιον πρωτον λαληθηναι τον λογον του θεου· επειδη απωθεισθε αυτον και ουκ αξιους κρινετε εαυτους της αιωνιου ζωης, ιδου στρεφομεθα εις τα εθνη·

Acts 13:46 Bezae at Cambridge
ϋμειν πρωτον ην λαληθηναι τον λον του θυ
επιδη ⸆ απωθεισθαι αυτον
και ουκ αξιους κρεινατε εαυτους
της αιωνιου ζωης
ϊδου στρεφομεθα εις τα εθνη

The commentaries I have on hand don't give any notice to this. It seems to me the omission of the word αναγκαιον alters the sense of passage. But the 1923/1924 translation of Acts Bezae doesn't show this.

It was right that the word of God should first be spoken to you: but seeing ye thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.


It is an isolated reading so I can understand it being ignored. However I am trying to represent the difference in English and find the 1924 rendering troubling. Probably something obvious about ην with the infinitive λαληθηνα, I was thinking about rendering it

“It was to you that the word of God was spoken first." fronting the pronoun for discourse reasons.

I don't have Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger commentary on hand at the moment. And goggle doesn't serve up the page I need to read. All I am interested in is the impact of the omission of the word αναγκαιον on the translation. Nothing else.

I don't have any of those resources at hand either, but I'm hard put to find this expression, ϋμειν πρωτον ην λαληθηναι τον λον του θυ , meaningful Greek at all. Without any predicate adjective I would expect ὑμῖν ἦν to mean something like, "was your responsibility"/"fell to you" -- but an active infinitive (λαλῆσαι) would seem more appropriate for that, and, of course, that meaning doesn't fit with the rest of the verse. I don't see any way to understand this text as meaningful as it stands.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἄτοπον, ἔφη, λέγεις εἰκόνα καὶ δεσμώτας ἀτόπους.
ὁμοίους ἡμῖν, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ. Plato, Rep. 7 (515a)
cwconrad
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714

Re: Acts 13:46b D Bezae

Postby Stirling Bartholomew » December 6th, 2013, 1:08 pm

cwconrad wrote:I don't have any of those resources at hand either, but I'm hard put to find this expression, ϋμειν πρωτον ην λαληθηναι τον λον του θυ , meaningful Greek at all. Without any predicate adjective I would expect ὑμῖν ἦν to mean something like, "was your responsibility"/"fell to you" -- but an active infinitive (λαλῆσαι) would seem more appropriate for that, and, of course, that meaning doesn't fit with the rest of the verse. I don't see any way to understand this text as meaningful as it stands.


Well Ropes didn't mark it with daggers so I am assuming he found it at least marginally coherent. If we take ἦν as equivalent to ἐγένετο L&N 1304, 1307 to happen, then we don't need a predicate adjective. Culy & Parsons (Acts, p258) suggest that ἦν as equivalent to ἐγένετο where the infinitive clause functions as the subject of ἦν. However they are dealing with the Alexandrian reading not Bezae and the existence of the predicate adjective makes a difference as you have pointed out. What I am suggesting is just a "working hypothesis" for making sense out of it "as it stands" in Bezae. Anyone else have a suggestion about ϋμειν πρωτον ην λαληθηναι τον λο<γο>ν του θεου ?

Thanks, CSB
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
 
Posts: 170
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Acts 13:46b D Bezae

Postby cwconrad » December 6th, 2013, 3:07 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
cwconrad wrote:I don't have any of those resources at hand either, but I'm hard put to find this expression, ϋμειν πρωτον ην λαληθηναι τον λον του θυ , meaningful Greek at all. Without any predicate adjective I would expect ὑμῖν ἦν to mean something like, "was your responsibility"/"fell to you" -- but an active infinitive (λαλῆσαι) would seem more appropriate for that, and, of course, that meaning doesn't fit with the rest of the verse. I don't see any way to understand this text as meaningful as it stands.


Well Ropes didn't mark it with daggers so I am assuming he found it at least marginally coherent. If we take ἦν as equivalent to ἐγένετο L&N 1304, 1307 to happen, then we don't need a predicate adjective. Culy & Parsons (Acts, p258) suggest that ἦν as equivalent to ἐγένετο where the infinitive clause functions as the subject of ἦν. However they are dealing with the Alexandrian reading not Bezae and the existence of the predicate adjective makes a difference as you have pointed out. What I am suggesting is just a "working hypothesis" for making sense out of it "as it stands" in Bezae. Anyone else have a suggestion about ϋμειν πρωτον ην λαληθηναι τον λο<γο>ν του θεου ?

Thanks, CSB

I'd still like to know what others think about this. After looking at L&N, I'm not sure about your references; perhaps you meant 13.104 and 13.107. I find:
13.104 εἰμίd: to occur, of an event — ‘to be, to happen.’ μὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ, μήποτε ἔσται θόρυβος τοῦ λαοῦ ‘we must not do it during the feast in order that there may not be a riot’ Mk 14:2.

and
13.107 γίνομαιd; ἐπιγίνομαι: to happen, with the implication that what happens is different from a previous state — ‘to happen, to occur, to come to be.’
γίνομαιd: γίνεται λαῖλαψ μεγάλη ἀνέμου ‘a strong wind came up’ Mk 4:37.
ἐπιγίνομαι: μετὰ μίαν ἡμέραν ἐπιγενομένου νότου ‘the next day a wind came up from the south’ Ac 28:13.

I don't see either of these as calling for an acc. + infinitive as the subject of ἦν or ἐγένετο or indicating anything that is really parallel to the supposed construction in the text cited from Codex Bezae. Moreover, it seems to me that ὑμῖν before the verb should indicate the person(s) to whom the event occurred -- i.e. ὑμῖν should be construed with ἦν, not with λαληθῆναι. The formulation in Codex Bezae still looks fishy to me; I think the scribe accidentally omitted the predicate adjective ἁναγκαῖον.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἄτοπον, ἔφη, λέγεις εἰκόνα καὶ δεσμώτας ἀτόπους.
ὁμοίους ἡμῖν, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ. Plato, Rep. 7 (515a)
cwconrad
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714

Re: Acts 13:46b D Bezae

Postby Stirling Bartholomew » December 6th, 2013, 3:35 pm

All I am suggesting is that HN is not functioning in Bezae as a Copula. I don't see any problem with the dative. Perfectly normal use of the dative to mark the persons who were experiencers of the action.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
 
Posts: 170
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Acts 13:46b D Bezae

Postby Tony Pope » December 7th, 2013, 4:45 pm

Tony Pope
 
Posts: 44
Joined: July 14th, 2011, 6:20 pm

Re: Acts 13:46b D Bezae

Postby Stirling Bartholomew » December 7th, 2013, 6:19 pm

Tony Pope wrote:The link below to an earlier version of Rius-Camps & Read-Heimerdinger may perhaps be helpful.


http://www.bsw.org/Filologia-Neotestamentaria/Vol-21-2008/The-Variant-Readings-Of-The-Western-Text-Of-The-Acts-Of-The-Apostles-Xx-Acts-13-44-52/526/article-p143.html



Many thanks. Saved me a trip to SPU library. Thier analysis of D: [ HN + dative of person + infinitive ] "which expresses possibility" it also modifies the sense of the adverb PRWTON "you were the first for whom it was possible … to be spoken."

This is very useful. Thanks again.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
 
Posts: 170
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Acts 13:46b D Bezae

Postby Stirling Bartholomew » December 8th, 2013, 3:20 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
Tony Pope wrote:The link below to an earlier version of Rius-Camps & Read-Heimerdinger may perhaps be helpful.


http://www.bsw.org/Filologia-Neotestamentaria/Vol-21-2008/The-Variant-Readings-Of-The-Western-Text-Of-The-Acts-Of-The-Apostles-Xx-Acts-13-44-52/526/article-p143.html

Thier analysis of D: [ HN + dative of person + infinitive ] "which expresses possibility" it also modifies the sense of the adverb PRWTON "you were the first for whom it was possible … to be spoken."



Another take on this is found in:

Cooper (Attic Greek Prose Syntax v.1 48.3.0 pp. 275-276) says that the dative standing in the predicate of EIMI or GIGNOMAI does not strictly speaking indicate possession nor is it semantically identical to the genitive in this construction. Rather the dative may indicate nothing more than the referent stands in a "clear relation to the subject."
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
 
Posts: 170
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Acts 13:46b D Bezae

Postby cwconrad » December 9th, 2013, 6:47 am

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
Tony Pope wrote:The link below to an earlier version of Rius-Camps & Read-Heimerdinger may perhaps be helpful.


http://www.bsw.org/Filologia-Neotestamentaria/Vol-21-2008/The-Variant-Readings-Of-The-Western-Text-Of-The-Acts-Of-The-Apostles-Xx-Acts-13-44-52/526/article-p143.html

Thier analysis of D: [ HN + dative of person + infinitive ] "which expresses possibility" it also modifies the sense of the adverb PRWTON "you were the first for whom it was possible … to be spoken."



Another take on this is found in:

Cooper (Attic Greek Prose Syntax v.1 48.3.0 pp. 275-276) says that the dative standing in the predicate of EIMI or GIGNOMAI does not strictly speaking indicate possession nor is it semantically identical to the genitive in this construction. Rather the dative may indicate nothing more than the referent stands in a "clear relation to the subject."

I'm not really so much troubled by either the dative or the πρῶτον, but rather with this usage of the verb εἶναι, especially in the imperfect indicative; this doesn't seem to be a usage of εἶναι in the sense, "it happens/comes to pass" but rather this usage of the verb is being understood here in the sense that ἔστιν = ἔξεστιν:
BDAG:
7. to exist as possibility ἔστιν w. inf. foll. it is possible, one can (Περὶ ὕψους 6; Diog. L. 1, 110 ἔστιν εὑρεῖν=one can find; Just., A I, 59, 10 ἔστι ταῦτα ἀκοῦσαι καὶ μαθεῖν; D. 42, 3 ἰδεῖν al.; Mel., P. 19, 127); neg. οὐκ ἔστιν νῦν λέγειν it is not possible to speak at this time Hb 9:5. οὐκ ἔστιν φαγεῖν it is impossible to eat 1 Cor 11:20 (so Hom. et al.; UPZ 70, 23 [152/151 BC] οὐκ ἔστι ἀνακύψαι με πώποτε . . . ὑπὸ τῆς αἰσχύνης; 4 Macc 13:5; Wsd 5:10; Sir 14:16; 18:6; EpJer 49 al.; EpArist 163; Jos., Ant. 2, 335; Ath. 22, 3 ἔστιν εἰπεῖν).

LSJ:
VI. ἔστι impers., c. inf., it is possible, ἔστι γὰρ ἀμφοτέροισιν ὀνείδεα μυθήσασθαι Il.20.246; ἔστι μὲν εὕδειν, ἔστι δὲ τερπομένοισιν ἀκούειν Od.15.392; εἴ τί πού ἐστι (sc. πιθέσθαι) 4.193; τοιάδε .. ἐστὶν ἀκοῦσαι A.Pr.1055 (anap.); ἔστι τεκμήρια ὁρᾶν X.An.3.2.13, cf. Ar.Ra.1163, Aeschin.3.105, D.18.272, Arist.Ath.53.6, etc.; so in opt., and subj., μυρία ἂν εἴη λέγειν Pl.Plt.271e; ὅπως ἂν ᾖ δρᾶν IG2.1054.91: more freq. in neg. clauses, Il.6.267, etc.; folld. by ὥστε c. inf., S.Ph.656: c. acc. et inf., ἁδόντα δʼ εἴη με τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ὁμιλεῖν Pi.P.2.96; ἔστιν ἐκπεσεῖν ἀρχῆς Δία A.Pr.757: sts. not impers. in this sense, θάλασσα δʼ οὐκέτʼ ἦν ἰδεῖν Id.Pers.419.
b. ἔστω in argument, let it be granted, ἔστω τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἶναι D.H.Comp.25; ἔστω σοι τοῦθʼ οὕτως Plu.2.987b; ἔστω εἶναί τινα τοιοῦτον D.Chr.74.24.

At any rate, the likelihood of the sense intended in the proposed Englishing of this text in Codex Bezae seems low to me; I still find it easier to think that ἀναγκαῖον was negligently omitted by the scribe.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἄτοπον, ἔφη, λέγεις εἰκόνα καὶ δεσμώτας ἀτόπους.
ὁμοίους ἡμῖν, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ. Plato, Rep. 7 (515a)
cwconrad
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714

Re: Acts 13:46b D Bezae

Postby Stirling Bartholomew » December 9th, 2013, 4:58 pm

cwconrad wrote:At any rate, the likelihood of the sense intended in the proposed Englishing of this text in Codex Bezae seems low to me; I still find it easier to think that ἀναγκαῖον was negligently omitted by the scribe.


I have no problem with that. The proposed english was just a thread starter. After reading Cooper and Rius-Camps & Read-Heimerdinger I have abandoned that proposal. I am not totally won over by Rius-Camps & Read-Heimerdinger treatment of the passage. I read samples from their first two volumes and found their exegesis "interesting" but not compelling. Coopers notes are almost inscrutable and at times he is more opaque than BDF which is hard to imagine. The one useful item that was mined from Cooper is that construction isn't always used of possession.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
 
Posts: 170
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Next

Return to New Testament

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests