Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

tc-list OURWN - 1 Sam. 25:34 LXX

Expand Messages
  • Carlton Winbery
    While making a list of words that occur in the LXX but not in the GNT I discovered that OURWN in Accordance (at 1 Sam. 25:34) is parsed as Nom. fem. plur. gen
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 25, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      While making a list of words that occur in the LXX but not in the GNT I
      discovered that OURWN in Accordance (at 1 Sam. 25:34) is parsed as Nom.
      fem. plur. gen of OURA. In the other occurances of this participle in the
      LXX Accordance parses it correctly. Here it should also be parsed as a
      pres. act. ptc. nom. masc. sg. as it is the subject of the passive verb.
      Due to this incorrect parsing, Accordance also leaves it out when you look
      for the occurrances of this word in the LXX.

      I have no idea what I will do with such a list except share it with Greek
      students who can't afford Liddell, Scot, Jones.


      Carlton L. Winbery
      Fogleman Professor of Religion
      Louisiana College
      Pineville, LA 71359
      winberyc@...
      winbery@...
    • Prof. Ron Minton
      On Fri, 25 Dec 1998, Carton Winbery wrote:... ... When I find this sort of thing, I try to send the info in to be corrected in the next edition. When Hans
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 26, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, 25 Dec 1998, Carton Winbery wrote:...
        > discovered that OURWN in Accordance (at 1 Sam. 25:34) is parsed as Nom.
        > fem. plur. gen of OURA. In the other occurances of this participle in the
        > LXX Accordance parses it correctly. Here it should also be parsed as a
        > pres. act. ptc. nom. masc. sg. as it is the subject of the passive verb.
        > Due to this incorrect parsing, Accordance also leaves it out when you look
        > for the occurrances of this word in the LXX.
        > I have no idea what I will do with such a list except share it with Greek
        > students who can't afford Liddell, Scot, Jones.


        When I find this sort of thing, I try to send the info in to be corrected
        in the next edition. When Hans parsing guide came out, I found a number
        of errors just by checking a few books. I suggest you finish your project
        and share all corrections with Gramcord.

        Ron Minton
        5379 North Farm Road 179
        Springfield, MO 65803
        (417)833-9581
      • William L. Petersen
        Re Jean Valentin s note: There is a well-known variant here in the Judaic-Christian gospels. Depending upon which edition you use, the fragment may be
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 26, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          Re Jean Valentin's note:

          There is a well-known variant here in the Judaic-Christian gospels.
          Depending upon which edition you use, the fragment may be attributed to the
          GHebrews, GNazoraeans, or GEbionites. I don't recall the reading exactly
          (I'm on the road at the moment, and away from my sources), but it is
          usually attributed to GHebrews, as I recall, and has "oil-fried cakes"
          instead of "locusts"--and this has usually been taken to be an Encratite
          variant, and also evidence for a Greek origin of the GHebrews (the two
          words are very similar in Greek). Check out Klijn's *Jewish Christian
          Gospel Tradition* (SuppVigChr 17) or any NT Apocyrpha
          (Henneck-Schneemelcher, or Elliott).

          However: to the best of my knowledge, there is no obvious Diatessaronic
          reading here. Note that Boismard (cp. my comments on the work you cite in
          *Tatian's Diatessaron,* pp. 348-356) refers to Syriac Fathers (if your
          recitation of his evidence is correct), not the Diatessaron; check
          Plooij's edition of the Liege Harmony, which will give any significant
          variants.

          --Petersen, Penn State University.


          At , you wrote:
          >Just discovered this variant in an Arabic ms of the XIth century, ms Sinai
          >Arabic 106.. According to the standard Greek text, John the Baptist ate
          >"locusts and wild honey". So is it also in most manuscripts of this Arabic
          >version on which I'm working, except this one.
          >
          >Here it is written that John "ate tree blades and herbs" (wa-yaakul atraaf
          >ash-shajar wa-ahsheesh). Notably, from the copy of the ms in my possession,
          >it can be clearly seen that it is a correction: the original text of the ms
          >(probably the one we find in the other mss) is erased and replaced by these
          >words. To those interested, I can try to send a scanning of that page.
          >
          >Is this reading diatessaronic? I hesitate. From a footnote in Boismard's "Le
          >Diatessaron de Tatien à Justin" (p.75) I learn that Syriac fathers quoting
          >the Diatessaron read in it that John ate "milk and honey".
          >
          >Nevertheless, the reading of my Arabic ms is strictly vegetarian. Locusts
          >are animals. Milk and honey are derived or produced by animals. On the
          >contrary, tree blades and herbs have no connection whatsoever with animals.
          >This sounds like a very strict encratism.
          >
          >Now the questions are: why would a corrector of the XIth century or later,
          >probably working in the scriptorium of the very orthodox Mount Sinai
          >monastery, bother to introduct such an idiosyncratic reading (did forms of
          >encratisme survive for such a long time in monastic circles?), and where
          >would he have taken it from?
          >
          >Any insights?
          >
          >Jean V.
          >
          >Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique
          >e-mail : jgvalentin@...
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.