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

The word "hoti" in Luke 22:70

Expand Messages
  • Dave Hamilton
    I need information concerning the presence of the word hoti ego eimi in Luke 22:70 in either the Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus. It exists in the
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 27, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I need information concerning the presence of the word "hoti ego eimi"
      in Luke 22:70 in either the Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus. It
      exists in the Stephanus 1550 text which is based on the byzantine
      text-types, however in the Young's literal the word "hoti" "that" is
      replaced by the word "because," if anybody has access to the Codex
      Vaticanus that would be helpful too.

      Thanks
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... After checking Swanson and von Soden, I cannot find any Greek manuscript that reads anything other than hOTI in Luke 22:70. To be explicit, hOTI is present
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 27, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        At 01:26 PM 4/27/2006 +0000, Dave Hamilton wrote:
        >I need information concerning the presence of the word "hoti ego eimi"
        >in Luke 22:70 in either the Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus. It
        >exists in the Stephanus 1550 text which is based on the byzantine
        >text-types, however in the Young's literal the word "hoti" "that" is
        >replaced by the word "because," if anybody has access to the Codex
        >Vaticanus that would be helpful too.

        After checking Swanson and von Soden, I cannot find any Greek
        manuscript that reads anything other than hOTI in Luke 22:70.
        To be explicit, hOTI is present in both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

        The issue with Young is one of translation, not text. Though
        hOTI can mean "because" in appropriate contexts, Luke 22:70 is
        not one of them. After a word of saying (here, LEGETE), it is
        usually translated as "that" (if followed by indirect discourse)
        or an open quotation mark (if followed by direct discourse).
        I'm afraid Young's literal did not get the right sense of hOTI
        here.

        Stephen Carlson

        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
        Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
      • gfsomsel@juno.com
        I see nothing in either the NA-27, Metzger or Tischendorf to indicate that there is any significant variant reading here. I think source text for your
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 27, 2006
        • 0 Attachment

          I see nothing in either the NA-27, Metzger or Tischendorf to indicate that there is any significant variant reading here.  I think source text for your _Young's [Not-so] Literal Translation_ and the critical translation are the same. 

          EIPAN DE PANTES, "SU OUN EI hO hUIOS TOU QEOU?" hO DE PROS AUTOUS EFH, " ** hUMEIS LEGETE hOTI ** EGW EIMI."

          It should be noted that hOTI is used not only to indicate the reason ("because") for something but is also used, particularly after verbs of communication (such as LEGW) as a marker of direct or indirect discourse.  In Lk 22.70 we have LEGETE which functions to introduce direct discourse with hOTI (i.e. here comes a quotation).  Jesus is here presented as quoting his interlocutors.  I think Young's is [not-so] literal because he misconstrues the hOTI.  It functions like quotation marks; it does not indicate the reason for anything -- it does not say, "You say (it) because I am."


          george
          gfsomsel
          _________

          -- "Dave Hamilton" <andoverpolo@...> wrote:
          I need information concerning the presence of the word "hoti ego eimi"
          in Luke 22:70 in either the Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus. It
          exists in the Stephanus 1550 text which is based on the byzantine
          text-types, however in the Young's literal the word "hoti" "that" is
          replaced by the word "because," if anybody has access to the Codex
          Vaticanus that would be helpful too.

          Thanks





        • Jack Kilmon
          Dave: I have e-mailed you privately the pages of Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as well as C. Bezae, Latin and Greek with Luke 22:70. Hope it helps. Jack ...
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 27, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Dave:

            I have e-mailed you privately the pages of Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as
            well as C. Bezae, Latin and Greek with Luke 22:70. Hope it helps.

            Jack


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Dave Hamilton" <andoverpolo@...>
            To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:26 AM
            Subject: [textualcriticism] The word "hoti" in Luke 22:70


            >I need information concerning the presence of the word "hoti ego eimi"
            > in Luke 22:70 in either the Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus. It
            > exists in the Stephanus 1550 text which is based on the byzantine
            > text-types, however in the Young's literal the word "hoti" "that" is
            > replaced by the word "because," if anybody has access to the Codex
            > Vaticanus that would be helpful too.
            >
            > Thanks
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • George Young
            Dear Dave: I have looked at the passage myself (I just couldn t help it). It is an intriguing and fascinating text, to say the least! The hOTI clause seems
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 27, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Dave:

              I have looked at the passage myself (I just couldn't
              help it). It is an intriguing and fascinating text,
              to say the least! The hOTI clause seems to function
              is its usual sense in ancient narrative, namely, it
              introduces direct speech. However, *here* in the
              Lukan narrative I hasten to add that Luke is trying to
              capture the...how shall I say it?...the KARMA of Jesus
              or the AURA of his presence...what his words did to
              people, his jestures, the tonal inflection of his
              words and so forth. In other words, the hOTI clause
              communicates what his ENEMIES could not stop
              themselves from saying..."Therefore, YOU ARE THE SON
              OF GOD!" >hO DE PROS AUTOUS EFH, hOTI EGW EIMI< The
              DE preceeding the HOTI clause, as well as the
              preposition preceeding the verb EFH, heightens his
              response and give the hOTI clause ***ULTIMATE*** and
              SOLEMN IMPORTANCE*** Jesus therefore reponds, "YOU SAY
              [EVEN NOW!] "I AM!"

              Hope this helps,

              Webber YOung.

              --- Dave Hamilton <andoverpolo@...> wrote:

              > I need information concerning the presence of the
              > word "hoti ego eimi"
              > in Luke 22:70 in either the Codex Vaticanus or Codex
              > Sinaiticus. It
              > exists in the Stephanus 1550 text which is based on
              > the byzantine
              > text-types, however in the Young's literal the word
              > "hoti" "that" is
              > replaced by the word "because," if anybody has
              > access to the Codex
              > Vaticanus that would be helpful too.
              >
              > Thanks
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >



              **************************************



              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com
            • Benjamin Pehrson
              George, Amen to noticing the affective effect of Jesus words here. In response to Stephen Carlson, I think we need to also recognize the grammatical ambiguity
              Message 6 of 7 , Apr 28, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                George,

                Amen to noticing the affective effect of Jesus' words here.

                In response to Stephen Carlson, I think we need to also recognize the
                grammatical ambiguity that is in this passage. This is hinted at by the only
                textual note in NA27 regarding the variant punctuation as a question, i.e.
                "Are you saying that I am?" rather than the statement "You are saying that I
                am." Likewise, the first question of vs. 70 could also be interpreted as a
                statement (sarcastic exclamation with interrogative overtones), and a
                question in response on the lips of Jesus would make for a powerful reading.
                Although most punctuation is probably a later scribal or editorial edition,
                can someone tell me if any TC resources record specific MS evidence for
                punctuation? It appears that NA27 only indicates the variant punctuation
                without the evidence, and that is understandable given the relative scarcity
                relevance of such indications in the MSS.

                The other ambiguity in the verse is the meaning of hOTI. While I agree that
                the normal use of hOTI after words of speech serve as the equivalent of
                quotation marks for direct quotation or the English word 'that' for indirect
                quotation, we must also recognize the common use of causal hOTI, and I don't
                think a verb of saying should absolutely rule that out. Of course, it would
                be much more clearly causal if we had GAR here than hOTI, but we don't.

                In the end isn't it an interpretive question, and not really a text critical
                one? hOTI is there and can legitimately be interpreted either way, but it is
                more likely (given the use of hOTI elsewhere) to simply introduce the
                content of the indirect quotation.

                Benjamin Pehrson


                -----Original Message-----
                From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of George Young
                Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 5:33 PM
                To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] The word "hoti" in Luke 22:70

                Dear Dave:

                I have looked at the passage myself (I just couldn't
                help it). It is an intriguing and fascinating text,
                to say the least! The hOTI clause seems to function
                is its usual sense in ancient narrative, namely, it
                introduces direct speech. However, *here* in the
                Lukan narrative I hasten to add that Luke is trying to
                capture the...how shall I say it?...the KARMA of Jesus
                or the AURA of his presence...what his words did to
                people, his jestures, the tonal inflection of his
                words and so forth. In other words, the hOTI clause
                communicates what his ENEMIES could not stop
                themselves from saying..."Therefore, YOU ARE THE SON
                OF GOD!" >hO DE PROS AUTOUS EFH, hOTI EGW EIMI< The
                DE preceeding the HOTI clause, as well as the
                preposition preceeding the verb EFH, heightens his
                response and give the hOTI clause ***ULTIMATE*** and
                SOLEMN IMPORTANCE*** Jesus therefore reponds, "YOU SAY
                [EVEN NOW!] "I AM!"

                Hope this helps,

                Webber YOung.

                --- Dave Hamilton <andoverpolo@...> wrote:

                > I need information concerning the presence of the
                > word "hoti ego eimi"
                > in Luke 22:70 in either the Codex Vaticanus or Codex
                > Sinaiticus. It
                > exists in the Stephanus 1550 text which is based on
                > the byzantine
                > text-types, however in the Young's literal the word
                > "hoti" "that" is
                > replaced by the word "because," if anybody has
                > access to the Codex
                > Vaticanus that would be helpful too.
                >
                > Thanks
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >



                **************************************



                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com






                Yahoo! Groups Links
              • Benjamin Pehrson
                How many MSS of James and the Catholic Letters are available at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research and how many were used in the ECM and Text und
                Message 7 of 7 , May 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  How many MSS of James and the Catholic Letters are available at the
                  Institute for New Testament Textual Research and how many were used in the
                  ECM and Text und Textwert? I don't currently have Text und Textwert
                  available to me, but I notice some discrepancies in the ECM Introduction and
                  in a few articles by Mink and Wachtel.

                  In the 1997 ECM installment for James, the editors refer on the 2nd page of
                  the Introduction to 522 complete MSS and larger fragments of the Catholic
                  Letters.

                  In Gerd Mink's 2004 article, "Problems of a highly contaminated tradition"
                  in Stemmatology II, he refers on p.18 to 552 MSS for the Catholic Letters
                  that were examined in the "Text und Textwert" project.

                  Is the difference between the references to 522 and 552 MSS in these two
                  sources due to an error, or perhaps to the exclusion of smaller fragments in
                  introductory discussion of the ECM. I think I am assuming correctly that
                  both the "Text und Textwert" project and the ECM project begin with the same
                  comprehensive number of MSS available at the Institute for New Testament
                  Textual Research.

                  To complicate (or perhaps resolve) this discrepancy, Klaus Wachtel refers to
                  553 (not 552) complete or fragmentary manuscripts that they had to deal with
                  for the first installment of the Muenster ECM in his 2004 article "Kinds of
                  variants in the manuscript tradition of the Greek New Testament" in
                  Stemmatology II. He seems to be talking about MSS of James specifically
                  since he refers to the first installment, but perhaps not, since they were
                  dealing in some ways with all of the Catholic Letters from the beginning of
                  the project. Mink explicitly refers to 535 MSS available for James in his
                  article.

                  Perhaps the discrepancy between 552 and 553 has to do with the correction
                  that was made in the 2nd printing of ECM installment 1 from 182 MSS included
                  for James to 181 after excluding the 372 MSS that attest the Majority text
                  in at least 90% of the test pasages. Accordingly, Wachtel's 553 would
                  correspond to the numbers before the correction (371 + 182 = 553), and
                  Mink's would correspond to the numbers after the correction (371 + 181 =
                  552).

                  Yet this indicates another discrepancy: the ECM Intro mentions 372 MSS that
                  attest the Majority text in at least 90% of the test passages, and Mink
                  refers to 371. Both Mink and the ECM Intro indicate that most of these were
                  excluded from consideration in the project, but not all. The math seems to
                  suggest that all of these 371 or 372 were excluded except for maybe one or
                  two.

                  But certainly not all of these 371 or 372 would have been excluded because
                  the Introduction of installment 1 says that these 372 were represented by a
                  relatively small selection. I would think that would include at least the 7
                  "nearly pure Byzantine manuscripts which rarely depart from the group"
                  (Supplement p. 9) if not more or all of the 97 MSS that are closest to the
                  Byzantine text of James (Supplement p. 8).

                  So what are the numbers? I'm especially perplexed with the 522 number for
                  Catholic Letters and the 535 number for James.

                  Grace & peace,
                  Benjamin
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.