Re: Heb.4:2

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 02 1998 - 10:05:54 EST


<x-rich><color><param>0000,7777,0000</param>At 7:40 AM -0500 12/2/98, Theodore
H. Mann wrote:

<excerpt>Greetings:

(Heb.4:2) "...because it [the Good News] was not united by faith in
those

who heard."

I recently read that only the Codex Sinaiticus can be rendered as
above.

All other ancient MSS read: "...they [referring to those who heard the

word] not being mixed together [or united] by faith with those who
heard

[referring to Caleb and Joshua]." Is there any justification for such
a

reading? Many thanks.

</excerpt>

UBS3: KAI GAR ESMEN EUHGGELISMENOI KAQAPER KAKEINOI. ALL' OUK WFELHSEN
hO LOGOS THS AKOHS EKEINOUS MH SUGKEKERASMENOUS THi PISTEI TOIS
AKOUSASIN.

Actually the MSS show a wide range of forms here, most of them show a
plural acc. SUGKEKERASMENOUS or SUGKEKRAMENOUS, some of them a
nominative singular (SUGKEKERASMENOS, SUGKEKRAMENOS, SUGKEKERAMENOS,
one even a nominative plural, SUGKEKRAMENOI. Sinaiticus does indeed
have SUGKEKERASMENOS but it is not alone.

Of course the nominative sg. would have to construe with hO LOGOS, the
accusative plural with EKEINOUS. The nominative plural could only
construe with EUHGGELISMENOI in the opening clause of the verse, but
that seems grammatically impossible.

Metzger's textual commentary on UBS3 says: "SUGKEKERASMENOUS (C):
"Among the bewildering variety of readings preserved among the MSS, the
one which best explains the origin of the others is SUGKEKERASMENOUS.
Supported by early and diverse testimony representing both the
Alexandrian and the Western types of text (p13,46 A B C Dgr* Psi (33)
81, 1739 al), as the more difficult reading it would naturally have
been altered to the easier nominative singular (Aleph/Sinaiticus 57
(102) (itd) syrp copsa Ephraem; Lucifer al)."

I find this verb interesting: it seems to have been used initially of
blending wine and water and then to have been established in a
metaphorical sense referring to any kind of fusing together of
elements, especially when used as here, in the passive, including the
establishment of intimate personal relationships such as friendship and
marriage.

Upon looking more closely at this verse it looks to me as if a more
interesting question is raised by the fact that SUGKEKERASMENOUS is
followed by two datives. IF I've understood the usage of the verb
correctly, and IF the reading of the participle as an accusative plural
is right, then should we understand TOIS AKOUSASIN as governed by the
prefix in SUGKEKERASMENOUS? That would seem more in keeping with the
common usage of SUGKERANNUMI--but the larger context of this verse
seems to require that we understand THi PISTEI as the dative construed
with the prefix of SUGKERANNUMI and that we understand TOIS AKOUSASIN
as a dative of reference: the gospel did not avail those who were not
blended with faith in the ones who heard (it). To me it is the last
dative plural phrase here that is most puzzling grammatically. I don't
really think it can be a dative of agent with the passive
participle--and--at least on the surface--it looks like TOUS
SUGKERASMENOUS ought to refer to the same persons as those referred to
by ATOIS AKOUSASIN. I think I'm missing something here. The only thing
at all that is clear to me here is that the confusion in the text is
probably itself a factor accounting for the variety of MS forms of of
the perfect participle of SUGKERANNUMI. </color>

Carl W. Conrad

Department of Classics/Washington University

One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018

Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649

cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us

WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

</x-rich>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:09 EDT