Dear Carl and B-Greekers, [Ghilardi] > >MQ. 14:6 says, > > > >GENESIOIS DE GENOMENOIS TOU hHRWiDOU WRCHSATO hH QUGATHR THS > hHRWiDIADOS > >EN TWi MESWi KAI HRESEN TWi hHRWiDHi > > > >Now I know there is no such thing as a "dative absolute", but this > sure > >looks like one! I notice that there is considerable textual > variation > >here. But surely the reading above is the lectio difficilior (or > does it > >rise to the level of difficilima?) and best explains the origin of > the > >others: > > > >1) GENESIOIS DE AGOMENOIS -- f1 > >2) GENESIWN DE AGOMENWN -- W 0106 0136 f13 33 Maj > >3) GENESIWN DE GENOMENWN -- C K N theta 565 892 1241 1424 al > > > >GENESIOIS DE GENOMENOIS is supported by aleph B D L Z lect2211 > > > >I notice too that the following editions read the same as NA27: > >Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott/Hort, Merk, > Bover, > >NA25 while Griesbach, Wordsworth, Vogels agree with 2 above and von > Soden > >with 3 above. > > > >The parallel in MK 6:21 retains the dative TOIS GENESIOIS but this > has > >now become a dative of time referencing the "day" mentioned in the > >previous genitive absolute: GENOMENHS hHMERAS EUKAIROU. > > > >What am I missing here? [Conrad] > I've been thinking about > this and > I don't think it's a dative absolute. Wallace considers it a Dative > of > time, and I agree with this; I think that GENOMENOIS here is a > circumstantial participle and that the construction here is one that > is not > uncommon in literary narrative: At the birthday of Herod when it > came round > the daughter of Herodias danced ..." > GENESIOIS DE GENOMENOIS is the lectio difficilior and it is not by > any > means ungrammatical. [Ghilardi] I agree with you entirely, Carl. But this still leaves a question in my mind. Given MQ's fondness for the gen. abs. (he uses it in one of every 20 vss.; only Acts, 3 Jn, 1 Pt and 2 Pt use it as or more frequently), and Given that << he attempts to use the genitive the gen. absol. but fails to use it properly... often using it in place of the ptc. in the dative: 1:20; 5:1; 8:1,5,28; 9:10,18; 18:24; 21:23; 27:17. >> (Turner Style, p. 39), and Given that << ... there is no doubt that some of Matthew's changes make for smoother Greek...>> (Turner Style, p. 39), Could it be that MQ found MK 6:21 so awkward that he changed the gen. abs. to a circumstantial participle in the dative despite his fondness for the gen. abs. and despite his tendency to do just the opposite of what we find in 14:6, namely, to use a gen. abs. where he should have used a participle in the dative? Compare MK 6:21 with MQ 14:6: MK 6:21,22) KAI GENOMENHS hHMERAS EUKAIROU hOTE hHRWiDHS TOIS GENESIOIS AUTOU DEIPNON EPOIHSEN TOIS MEGISTASIN AUTOU K.T.L. 22) KAI EISELQOUSHS THS QUGATROS AUTOU hHRWiDIADOS KAI ORCHSAMENHS HRESEN TWi hHRWiDHi K.T.L. MQ 14:6) GENESIOIS DE GENOMENOIS TOU hHRWiDOU WRCHSATO hH QUGATHR THS hHRWiDIADOS EN TWi MESWi KAI HRESEN TWi hHRWiDHi I realize at this point we could get into a lot source criticism and form criticism or whatever. But it is not my intention (or interest) to do this. I simply wish to know whether anyone on this list besides myself finds MK 6:21 at least SLIGHTLY awkward, though grammatical enough. Is it awkward enough for MQ to alter the gen. abs. to a participle in the dative? I notice that MQ also eliminated the double gen. abs. in MK 6:22. Does anyone think that MQ's text is smoother because of these changes? I await your responses. Yours in His grace, Richard Ghilardi -- qodeshlayhvh@juno.com New Haven, CT USA Nibai kaurno hwaiteis gadriusando in airtha gaswiltith, silbo ainata aflifnith: ith jabai gaswiltith, manag akran bairith. --- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu