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

Re: [textualcriticism] WS ENOMIZETO (Lk 3:23)

Expand Messages
  • Oun Kwon
    The presence of some mss in this regard was suggested in http://www.bahaullah.net/Baha_i_Links/jesus-genealogy.htm and I am curious about nailing down the
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 26, 2005
      The presence of some mss in this regard was suggested in
       
      http://www.bahaullah.net/Baha_i_Links/jesus-genealogy.htm

      and I am curious about nailing down the specific mss they mentioned. I don't think whether there are such alternative mss would affect their very convincing explanation of the difference in genealogies of Lk and Mt.
       
      Thank,
       
      Oun Kwon.
       
       Peter Head <pmh15@...> wrote:
      At 06:58 PM 10/24/05, you wrote:
      >Dear Listers,
      >
      >Lk 3:23 usually reads
      >
      >... WN UIOS WS ENOMIZETO IWSHF TOU HLI
      >
      >I like to know the source mss where the phrase WS ENOMIZETO comes
      >right after IWSHF, instead of its usual position.

      I don't see that there is any such reading.

      Peter

      Peter M. Head, PhD
      Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
      Tyndale House
      36 Selwyn Gardens                                       Phone: (UK) 01223
      566607
      Cambridge, CB3 9BA                                      Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
      http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
    • Daniel Buck
      ... And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli... (KJV) According to A.R.C.
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 26, 2005
        Here's the quote:
        ---------------------
        And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
        being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was
        the son of Heli... (KJV)

        According to A.R.C. Leaney ("A Commentary on the Gospel According to
        St. Luke,"1966), "(as was supposed)" was moved from its original
        position _behind_ Joseph's name to _precede_ it in the text. This
        move served to uphold the false doctrine that Jesus is not Joseph's
        son. In its original position, "(as was supposed)" made it clear
        that Joseph was "supposed" to be the son of Heli.

        According to the _Pocket Interlinear New Testament_ (1988), the
        Greek phrase for "as was supposed" is "hos nomizo." "Hos nomizo" was
        poorly translated to "as was supposed." "Hos nomizo," in truth,
        means "according to the law of Moses" (_Strong's Concordance_,
        1980). In other words, Luke 3:23 states Jesus' genealogy through
        Joseph comes from Heli _according to the law of Moses_, because
        Joseph was the son of Heli according to a law written in the Torah:
        --------------------------------
        Daniel Buck's reply:

        First of all, the GNT is misquoted. That alone should discredit the
        source.

        Secondly, no GREEK mss evidence is cited.

        Third, the Greek text actually supports the following rendering as
        well as any:

        "Jesus . . . being the son, (supposedly of Joseph) of Eli"

        It is, however, a notion of modern times that the Lucan genealogy is
        Mary's. Given Luke's unique emphasis on women and their special
        place in God's plan, it is surprising that no mention of this notion
        survived early Christianity.

        The Bahai argument is inconsistent, though, in claiming both that
        Jews only reckoned genealogy by the male line, then in pointing out
        that Mary & Elizabeth couldn't be cousins if Mary was of the house
        of David and Elizabeth of the house of Aaron. Obviously they could,
        if they were cognate cousins. Aaron himself married a daughter of
        Judah, and it didn't make his sons any less of his house or any more
        of Judah's.

        Oun Kwon originally wrote:
        >
        > The presence of some mss in this regard was suggested in
        >
        > http://www.bahaullah.net/Baha_i_Links/jesus-genealogy.htm

        > >
        > >Lk 3:23 usually reads
        > >
        > >... WN UIOS WS ENOMIZETO IWSHF TOU HLI
        > >
        > >I like to know the source mss where the phrase WS ENOMIZETO comes
        > >right after IWSHF, instead of its usual position.

        -----------------------------------------------
        > Peter Head's observation:
        >
        > I don't see that there is any such reading.
      • Peter Head
        It is great that some web page mentions manuscripts. Fantastic. As far as I can see in the resources available (namely Swanson and the IGNTP Luke) there is no
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 27, 2005
          It is great that some web page mentions manuscripts. Fantastic. As far as I
          can see in the resources available (namely Swanson and the IGNTP Luke)
          there is no such reading in the manuscripts.

          So, either this web page knows of manuscripts that neither Swanson, the
          IGNTP Luke and NA doesn't.; OR I am misreading the evidence; OR this web
          page is either wrong or being wrongly understood.

          My general rule is that web pages are wrong on any matter of dispute.

          My second rule is that readers of web pages can be wrong.

          After that I'd bet on my being wrong.

          I've checked the evidence. Go thou and do likewise.

          Pete

          At 05:40 PM 10/26/05, you wrote:
          >The presence of some mss in this regard was suggested in
          >
          ><http://www.bahaullah.net/Baha_i_Links/jesus-genealogy.htm>http://www.bahaullah.net/Baha_i_Links/jesus-genealogy.htm
          >
          >and I am curious about nailing down the specific mss they mentioned. I
          >don't think whether there are such alternative mss would affect their very
          >convincing explanation of the difference in genealogies of Lk and Mt.
          >
          >Thank,
          >
          >Oun Kwon.
          >
          > Peter Head <pmh15@...> wrote:
          >At 06:58 PM 10/24/05, you wrote:
          > >Dear Listers,
          > >
          > >Lk 3:23 usually reads
          > >
          > >... WN UIOS WS ENOMIZETO IWSHF TOU HLI
          > >
          > >I like to know the source mss where the phrase WS ENOMIZETO comes
          > >right after IWSHF, instead of its usual position.
          >
          >I don't see that there is any such reading.
          >
          >Peter
          >
          >Peter M. Head, PhD
          >Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
          >Tyndale House
          >36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
          >566607
          >Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
          ><http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm>http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >SPONSORED LINKS
          ><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Theology&w1=Theology&w2=Christianity&w3=Early+christianity&c=3&s=56&.sig=Vr7vNLHTjWC4I8sccR6CPg>Theology
          ><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Christianity&w1=Theology&w2=Christianity&w3=Early+christianity&c=3&s=56&.sig=XN8_OHVdvIu-PMUBDmrNjA>Christianity
          ><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Early+christianity&w1=Theology&w2=Christianity&w3=Early+christianity&c=3&s=56&.sig=MSMmQz4ehTLkdAqiLepQ2w>Early
          >christianity
          >
          >
          >----------
          >YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
          >
          > * Visit your group
          > "<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism>textualcriticism" on the web.
          > *
          > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > *
          > <mailto:textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > *
          > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
          > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          >
          >
          >----------

          Peter M. Head, PhD
          Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
          Tyndale House
          36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
          566607
          Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
          http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
        • Jan Krans
          ... Nice piece of advice, Pete. So let us take a look at the secondary evidence as well. Oun Kwon mentioned a website:
          Message 4 of 8 , Oct 27, 2005
            Peter Head wrote:

            > It is great that some web page mentions manuscripts. Fantastic. As far
            > as I can see in the resources available (namely Swanson and the IGNTP
            > Luke)
            > there is no such reading in the manuscripts.
            >
            > So, either this web page knows of manuscripts that neither Swanson, the
            > IGNTP Luke and NA doesn't.; OR I am misreading the evidence; OR this web
            > page is either wrong or being wrongly understood.
            >
            > My general rule is that web pages are wrong on any matter of dispute.
            > My second rule is that readers of web pages can be wrong.
            > After that I'd bet on my being wrong.
            >
            > I've checked the evidence. Go thou and do likewise.
            >
            > Pete

            Nice piece of advice, Pete. So let us take a look at the "secondary
            evidence" as well.

            Oun Kwon mentioned a website:
            http://www.bahaullah.net/Baha_i_Links/jesus-genealogy.htm and spoke about
            "their very convincing explanation of the difference in genealogies of Lk
            and Mt".

            But let me quote from that web page: "According to A.R.C. Leaney ("A
            Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke,"1966), "(as was supposed)"
            was moved from its original position _behind_ Joseph's name to _precede_
            it in the text. This move served to uphold the false doctrine that Jesus
            is not Joseph's son. In its original position, "(as was supposed)" made it
            clear that Joseph was "supposed" to be the son of Heli."

            On the basis of this information, Oun Kwon supposes that there are
            manuscripts with WS ENOMIZETO after IWSHF instead of before it (or even
            before UIOS). However it may very well be an example of "how to recognise
            a conjecture when you see one".

            Leaney, apparently, used the fact that the position of WS ENOMIZETO varies
            in the manuscripts between just before IWSHF and between WN and IWSHF as
            an argument to propose a conjectural emendation, according to which the
            words stood originally somewhere else, to wit after the word IWSHF.

            This is an interesting idea in itself, but it is problematic not only for
            its being no more than a conjecture. It is simply part of a long
            exegetical tradition, with many branches and variations, in which efforts
            are made to reconcile the conflicting genealogies of Matthew and Luke. The
            sheer amount of energy spent on these efforts shows - to me that is - that
            there is something wrong in the entreprise itself.

            The one who made the conjecture, however, is not even Leaney, as it seems.
            I was not able to check Leaney's 1966 commentary, but I consulted an
            earlier edition (of 1958). There he mentions the fact that the position of
            WS ENOMIZETO varies in the manuscripts (without giving any further
            information), but he does so in order to affirm that this variation cannot
            be used as an argument for the idea that the original text did not contain
            the words WS ENOMIZETO. Thus Leaney is opposed to yet another
            exegetical/conjectural tradition, a quite different one this time,
            according to which the concept of the virginal birth was somewhat less
            prominent in the original text of Luke's gospel than in its later textual
            tradition. One would tend to agree with Leaney: such a conjecture is
            interesting but highly problematic.

            These various pieces of information lead me to the following
            reconstruction, for what it is worth (in view of my lack of sources as
            well as time):
            1. someone proposed the conjecture to read Luke 3:23 without WS ENOMIZETO
            and to regard its inclusion as a case of orthodox corruption;
            2. Leaney mentioned this idea in his commentary, but only to dismiss it
            immediately. In passing, he mentioned the varying position of WS
            ENOMIZETO, without being specific;
            3. someone misunderstood (or mis-used) Leaney's comments and changed them
            into a different conjecture, according to which WS ENOMIZETO refers to
            Joseph being Eli's son "as was thought";
            4. this idea became part of a website which attempts - how interesting -
            to reconcile the genealogies of Matthew and Luke;
            5. someone (Oun Kwon) mistook the reference on this website to an
            "original position" as a reference to manuscript attestation;
            6. various people looked - in vain - for such manuscript attestation;
            7. ... etc.

            Finally, what is amusing - if I am correct somehow - is step 3 itself, for
            it combines a heterodox corruption with an orthodox one: on the one hand,
            by removing WS ENOMIZETO from where it stands in the manuscripts, the text
            is robbed of an indirect reference to the virginal birth; on the other
            hand, a high view of scriptural consistency is upheld by breaking the link
            between Joseph and Eli.

            Conclusion: Pete is right (as always), Oun Kwon did not recognise the
            conjecture, the website referred to is plain wrong, and everything else is
            interesting but wrong nevertheless, except Leaney perhaps. Maybe someone
            could check Leaney's 1966 edition in order to verify whether at least step
            2 of my reconstruction is more or less correct.

            Greetings,
            Jan Krans
            Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
          • Kent Clarke
            Well stated Peter!!! Can I quote you for the ³betterment² of my students?? Kent ... Re: [textualcriticism] WS ENOMIZETO (Lk 3:23) Well stated Peter!!! Can I
            Message 5 of 8 , Oct 28, 2005
              Re: [textualcriticism] WS ENOMIZETO (Lk 3:23) Well stated Peter!!! Can I quote you for the “betterment” of my students??

              Kent


              On 10/27/05 4:11 AM, "Peter Head" <pmh15@...> wrote:

              It is great that some web page mentions manuscripts. Fantastic. As far as I
              can see in the resources available (namely Swanson and the IGNTP Luke)
              there is no such reading in the manuscripts.

              So, either this web page knows of manuscripts that neither Swanson, the
              IGNTP Luke and NA doesn't.; OR I am misreading the evidence; OR this web
              page is either wrong or being wrongly understood.

              My general rule is that web pages are wrong on any matter of dispute.

              My second rule is that readers of web pages can be wrong.

              After that I'd bet on my being wrong.

              I've checked the evidence. Go thou and do likewise.

              Pete

              At 05:40 PM 10/26/05, you wrote:
              >The presence of some mss in this regard was suggested in
              >
              >MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "www.bahaullah.net" claiming to be <http://www.bahaullah.net/Baha_i_Links/jesus-genealogy.htm>http://www.bahaullah.net/Baha_i_Links/jesus-genealogy.htm
              >
              >and I am curious about nailing down the specific mss they mentioned. I
              >don't think whether there are such alternative mss would affect their very
              >convincing explanation of the difference in genealogies of Lk and Mt.
              >
              >Thank,
              >
              >Oun Kwon.
              >
              >  Peter Head <pmh15@...> wrote:
              >At 06:58 PM 10/24/05, you wrote:
              > >Dear Listers,
              > >
              > >Lk 3:23 usually reads
              > >
              > >... WN UIOS WS ENOMIZETO IWSHF TOU HLI
              > >
              > >I like to know the source mss where the phrase WS ENOMIZETO comes
              > >right after IWSHF, instead of its usual position.
              >
              >I don't see that there is any such reading.
              >
              >Peter
              >
              >Peter M. Head, PhD
              >Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
              >Tyndale House
              >36 Selwyn Gardens                                       Phone: (UK) 01223
              >566607
              >Cambridge, CB3 9BA                                      Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
              ><http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm>http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >SPONSORED LINKS
              >MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "groups.yahoo.com" claiming to be <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Theology&w1=Theology&w2=Christianity&w3=Early+christianity&c=3&s=56&.sig=Vr7vNLHTjWC4I8sccR6CPg>Theology
              >MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "groups.yahoo.com" claiming to be <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Christianity&w1=Theology&w2=Christianity&w3=Early+christianity&c=3&s=56&.sig=XN8_OHVdvIu-PMUBDmrNjA>Christianity
              >MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "groups.yahoo.com" claiming to be <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Early+christianity&w1=Theology&w2=Christianity&w3=Early+christianity&c=3&s=56&.sig=MSMmQz4ehTLkdAqiLepQ2w>Early
              >christianity
              >
              >
              >----------
              >YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
              >
              >    *  Visit your group
              > "MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "groups.yahoo.com" claiming to be <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism>textualcriticism" on the web.
              >    *
              >    *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              >    *
              > <mailto:textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >    *
              >    *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
              > MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "docs.yahoo.com" claiming to be <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              >
              >
              >----------

              Peter M. Head, PhD
              Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
              Tyndale House
              36 Selwyn Gardens                                       Phone: (UK) 01223
              566607
              Cambridge, CB3 9BA                                      Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
              http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm




               
               

              YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


               



            • Oun Kwon
              Thanks for replies to my inquiry. Thanks Jan, As you pointed out (list #5) it is me who mistook the reference when quoting the Bahai webpage. I should have
              Message 6 of 8 , Oct 29, 2005

                Thanks for replies to my inquiry.

                 

                Thanks Jan,

                 

                As you pointed out (list #5) it is me who mistook the reference when quoting the Bahai webpage. I should have given careful attention to their wording to reflect what they said correctly.

                 

                My apology for misquoting. 

                 

                Oun Kwon.

                 

                P.S.

                 

                By the way, their explanation that the geology in Lk cannot be of Mary's line is plausible to me.  (A catholic commentary in Korean never mentioned this possiblity of Mary's line; however, it did not offer any explanation of the difference.

                 

                And the very common rendering of the word WS ENOMIZETO 'as supposed of' seems, by it-self, from much of conjecture than more literal 'according to law' which is law of levirate.

                 



                Jan Krans <jlhkrans@...> wrote:

                 
                Oun Kwon mentioned a website:
                http://www.bahaullah.net/Baha_i_Links/jesus-genealogy.htm and spoke about
                "their very convincing explanation of the difference in genealogies of Lk
                and Mt".

                But let me quote from that web page: "According to A.R.C. Leaney ("A
                Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke,"1966), "(as was supposed)"
                was moved from its original position _behind_ Joseph's name to _precede_
                it in the text. This move served to uphold the false doctrine that Jesus
                is not Joseph's son. In its original position, "(as was supposed)" made it
                clear that Joseph was "supposed" to be the son of Heli."

                On the basis of this information, Oun Kwon supposes that there are
                manuscripts with WS ENOMIZETO after IWSHF instead of before it (or even
                before UIOS). However it may very well be an example of "how to recognise
                a conjecture when you see one".

                Leaney, apparently, used the fact that the position of WS ENOMIZETO varies
                in the manuscripts between just before IWSHF and between WN and IWSHF as
                an argument to propose a conjectural emendation, according to which the
                words stood originally somewhere else, to wit after the word IWSHF.

                This is an interesting idea in itself, but it is problematic not only for
                its being no more than a conjecture. It is simply part of a long
                exegetical tradition, with many branches and variations, in which efforts
                are made to reconcile the conflicting genealogies of Matthew and Luke. The
                sheer amount of energy spent on these efforts shows - to me that is - that
                there is something wrong in the entreprise itself.

                The one who made the conjecture, however, is not even Leaney, as it seems.
                I was not able to check Leaney's 1966 commentary, but I consulted an
                earlier edition (of 1958). There he mentions the fact that the position of
                WS ENOMIZETO varies in the manuscripts (without giving any further
                information), but he does so in order to affirm that this variation cannot
                be used as an argument for the idea that the original text did not contain
                the words WS ENOMIZETO. Thus Leaney is opposed to yet another
                exegetical/conjectural tradition, a quite different one this time,
                according to which the concept of the virginal birth was somewhat less
                prominent in the original text of Luke's gospel than in its later textual
                tradition. One would tend to agree with Leaney: such a conjecture is
                interesting but highly problematic.

                These various pieces of information lead me to the following
                reconstruction, for what it is worth (in view of my lack of sources as
                well as time):
                1. someone proposed the conjecture to read Luke 3:23 without WS ENOMIZETO
                and to regard its inclusion as a case of orthodox corruption;
                2. Leaney mentioned this idea in his commentary, but only to dismiss it
                immediately. In passing, he mentioned the varying position of WS
                ENOMIZETO, without being specific;
                3. someone misunderstood (or mis-used) Leaney's comments and changed them
                into a different conjecture, according to which WS ENOMIZETO refers to
                Joseph being Eli's son "as was thought";
                4. this idea became part of a website which attempts - how interesting -
                to reconcile the genealogies of Matthew and Luke;
                5. someone (Oun Kwon) mistook the reference on this website to an
                "original position" as a reference to manuscript attestation;
                6. various people looked - in vain - for such manuscript attestation;
                7. ... etc.

                Finally, what is amusing - if I am correct somehow - is step 3 itself, for
                it combines a heterodox corruption with an orthodox one: on the one hand,
                by removing WS ENOMIZETO from where it stands in the manuscripts, the text
                is robbed of an indirect reference to the virginal birth; on the other
                hand, a high view of scriptural consistency is upheld by breaking the link
                between Joseph and Eli.

                Conclusion: Pete is right (as always), Oun Kwon did not recognise the
                conjecture, the website referred to is plain wrong, and everything else is
                interesting but wrong nevertheless, except Leaney perhaps. Maybe someone
                could check Leaney's 1966 edition in order to verify whether at least step
                2 of my reconstruction is more or less correct.

                Greetings,
                Jan Krans
                Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.