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

Heb. 4:2 Textual Criticism

Expand Messages
  • Webb
    Dear List Members, This is my first post, having just joined the list. KAI GAR ESMEN EUHGGELISMENOI KAQAPER KAKEINOI ALL OUK WFELHSEN hO LOGOS THS AKOHS
    Message 1 of 8 , May 15, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear List Members,

      This is my first post, having just joined the list.

      KAI GAR ESMEN EUHGGELISMENOI KAQAPER KAKEINOI ALL OUK WFELHSEN hO LOGOS THS
      AKOHS EKEINOUS MH SUGKEKERASMENOUS [SUGKEKERASMENOS, 01 etc.] THi PISTEI
      TOIS AKOUSASIN

      Looking at the apparatus in my UBSGNT and Metzger's commentary, the
      extremely difficult reading SUGKEKERASMENOUS seems to have an obvious edge
      over the easily intelligible SUGKEKERASMENOS. Is there anything in the
      pattern of ancient versional witnesses that suggests any hope that the
      singular nominative SUGKEKERASMENOS might be original? Does
      Aleph/001/Sinaiticus have any particular claim to an exceptionally close
      relationship with the original in Hebrews?

      One commentary says that many have concluded that there's been a very early
      corruption, and I am certainly tempted to agree. The text as it stands in
      P13, 46, A B C D (uncorrected) seems far clumsier and vaguer than the
      typical craftsmanlike diction of Hebrews.

      Any thoughts would be appreciated,

      Webb Mealy
    • yennifmit
      Dear Webb, I collect various commentators opinions on this at BASIS FOR CRITERIA DATA , Heb 4.2 , in part 2 of my dissertation
      Message 2 of 8 , May 16, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Webb,

        I collect various commentators' opinions on this at "BASIS FOR
        CRITERIA DATA", "Heb 4.2", in part 2 of my dissertation
        (http://purl.org/tfinney/PhD/PDF/part2.pdf). (Warning: file size is
        8.4 MB.)

        Best

        Tim Finney

        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Webb" <webb@...> wrote:
        >
        > Dear List Members,
        >
        > This is my first post, having just joined the list.
        >
        > KAI GAR ESMEN EUHGGELISMENOI KAQAPER KAKEINOI ALL OUK WFELHSEN hO
        LOGOS THS
        > AKOHS EKEINOUS MH SUGKEKERASMENOUS [SUGKEKERASMENOS, 01 etc.] THi PISTEI
        > TOIS AKOUSASIN
        >
        > Looking at the apparatus in my UBSGNT and Metzger's commentary, the
        > extremely difficult reading SUGKEKERASMENOUS seems to have an
        obvious edge
        > over the easily intelligible SUGKEKERASMENOS. Is there anything in the
        > pattern of ancient versional witnesses that suggests any hope that the
        > singular nominative SUGKEKERASMENOS might be original? Does
        > Aleph/001/Sinaiticus have any particular claim to an exceptionally close
        > relationship with the original in Hebrews?
        >
        > One commentary says that many have concluded that there's been a
        very early
        > corruption, and I am certainly tempted to agree. The text as it
        stands in
        > P13, 46, A B C D (uncorrected) seems far clumsier and vaguer than the
        > typical craftsmanlike diction of Hebrews.
        >
        > Any thoughts would be appreciated,
        >
        > Webb Mealy
        >
      • Webb
        Thanks, Tim. Of course, the puzzle is where the difficulty of a reading crosses over from recommending it to arguing against it. I love it when a reading is
        Message 3 of 8 , May 16, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks, Tim.

          Of course, the puzzle is where the "difficulty" of a reading crosses over from recommending it to arguing against it. I love it when a reading is difficult in the sense that a sleepy copyist will trip over it or mis-hear it as something more familiar, but then it makes perfect sense on a second look. In the present case, the best-attested reading is so difficult that it makes an intelligent and attentive reader stop cold and say, "What??"

          The accusative reading just simply can't be original, in my opinion, because time and time again in the portion of Hebrews that precedes this verse, the author talks about people hearing (AKOUW) but not being saved, or not believing. In order for 4:2 to make any sense, TOIS AKOUSASIN would require AKOUW suddenly "and uniquely in Hebrews" to carry the stronger sense of "really listen", "heed" (BAGD mng 4). The author is far too sophisticated to make that kind of blunder.

          So I'm forced to agree with those who think SUGKEKERASMENOUS can't be correct, even if it goes back to a copy that is parent to everything we have. Mistakes, after all, get made in every single ms, including the oldest ones.

          Webb Mealy

          ________________________________________
          From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of yennifmit
          Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:20 AM
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Heb. 4:2 Textual Criticism

          Dear Webb,

          I collect various commentators' opinions on this at "BASIS FOR
          CRITERIA DATA", "Heb 4.2", in part 2 of my dissertation
          (http://purl.org/tfinney/PhD/PDF/part2.pdf). (Warning: file size is
          8.4 MB.)

          Best

          Tim Finney
        • Mark Thunderson
          Dear Webb: Your conclusion is well received (at least among those who think along similar lines). To be sure, check out the comparisons of Vaticanus and
          Message 4 of 8 , May 16, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Webb:

            Your conclusion is well received (at least among those
            who think along similar lines). To be sure, check out
            the comparisons of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus at this
            site.

            http://www.geocities.com/good.seed/AlephandVaticanus.html

            I created the site simply to draw out what you have
            concluded through grammatical reasoning.

            Hence, in this instances (Heb. 4:2), Sinaiticus trumps
            all others.

            Sincerely,

            Mark Thunderson.


            --- Webb <webb@...> wrote:

            > Thanks, Tim.
            >
            > Of course, the puzzle is where the "difficulty" of a
            > reading crosses over from recommending it to arguing
            > against it. I love it when a reading is difficult in
            > the sense that a sleepy copyist will trip over it or
            > mis-hear it as something more familiar, but then it
            > makes perfect sense on a second look. In the present
            > case, the best-attested reading is so difficult that
            > it makes an intelligent and attentive reader stop
            > cold and say, "What??"
            >
            > The accusative reading just simply can't be
            > original, in my opinion, because time and time again
            > in the portion of Hebrews that precedes this verse,
            > the author talks about people hearing (AKOUW) but
            > not being saved, or not believing. In order for 4:2
            > to make any sense, TOIS AKOUSASIN would require
            > AKOUW suddenly "and uniquely in Hebrews" to carry
            > the stronger sense of "really listen", "heed" (BAGD
            > mng 4). The author is far too sophisticated to make
            > that kind of blunder.
            >
            > So I'm forced to agree with those who think
            > SUGKEKERASMENOUS can't be correct, even if it goes
            > back to a copy that is parent to everything we have.
            > Mistakes, after all, get made in every single ms,
            > including the oldest ones.
            >
            > Webb Mealy
          • Webb
            Dear Mark, I m not sure at all that I understand your conjecture. Is it this: 1. The exemplar for Aleph is the same as that of B 2. The common exemplar had
            Message 5 of 8 , May 16, 2007
            • 0 Attachment

              Dear Mark,

               

              I’m not sure at all that I understand your conjecture. Is it this:

               

              1. The exemplar for Aleph is the same as that of B

              2. The common exemplar had line endings as shown in Aleph in this place

              3. D reproduced the OUS ending from the line above by dittography

               

              Sorry if I’m missing something…

              Webb Mealy

               

               


              From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Thunderson
              Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:20 PM
              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Heb. 4:2 Textual Criticism

               

              Dear Webb:

              Your conclusion is well received (at least among those
              who think along similar lines). To be sure, check out
              the comparisons of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus at this
              site.

              http://www.geocitie s.com/good. seed/AlephandVat icanus.html

              I created the site simply to draw out what you have
              concluded through grammatical reasoning.

              Hence, in this instances (Heb. 4:2), Sinaiticus trumps
              all others.

              Sincerely,

              Mark Thunderson.

              --- Webb <webb@selftest. net> wrote:

              > Thanks, Tim.
              >
              > Of course, the puzzle is where the "difficulty" of a
              > reading crosses over from recommending it to arguing
              > against it. I love it when a reading is difficult in
              > the sense that a sleepy copyist will trip over it or
              > mis-hear it as something more familiar, but then it
              > makes perfect sense on a second look. In the present
              > case, the best-attested reading is so difficult that
              > it makes an intelligent and attentive reader stop
              > cold and say, "What??"
              >
              > The accusative reading just simply can't be
              > original, in my opinion, because time and time again
              > in the portion of Hebrews that precedes this verse,
              > the author talks about people hearing (AKOUW) but
              > not being saved, or not believing. In order for 4:2
              > to make any sense, TOIS AKOUSASIN would require
              > AKOUW suddenly "and uniquely in Hebrews" to carry
              > the stronger sense of "really listen", "heed" (BAGD
              > mng 4). The author is far too sophisticated to make
              > that kind of blunder.
              >
              > So I'm forced to agree with those who think
              > SUGKEKERASMENOUS can't be correct, even if it goes
              > back to a copy that is parent to everything we have.
              > Mistakes, after all, get made in every single ms,
              > including the oldest ones.
              >
              > Webb Mealy

            • yennifmit
              Dear Webb, ... over from recommending it to arguing against it. I love it when a reading is difficult in the sense that a sleepy copyist will trip over it or
              Message 6 of 8 , May 17, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Webb,

                >
                > Of course, the puzzle is where the "difficulty" of a reading crosses
                over from recommending it to arguing against it. I love it when a
                reading is difficult in the sense that a sleepy copyist will trip over
                it or mis-hear it as something more familiar, but then it makes
                perfect sense on a second look. In the present case, the best-attested
                reading is so difficult that it makes an intelligent and attentive
                reader stop cold and say, "What??"

                Indeed.

                >
                > The accusative reading just simply can't be original, in my opinion,
                because time and time again in the portion of Hebrews that precedes
                this verse, the author talks about people hearing (AKOUW) but not
                being saved, or not believing. In order for 4:2 to make any sense,
                TOIS AKOUSASIN would require AKOUW suddenly "and uniquely in Hebrews"
                to carry the stronger sense of "really listen", "heed" (BAGD mng 4).
                The author is far too sophisticated to make that kind of blunder.

                I agree that the author is sophisticated. But, even he (Apollos?
                Timothy?) or she (Priscilla?) was capable of writing something that
                gives the reader pause.

                The nominative produces "but the word they heard did not profit them,
                because it was not united by faith in those who heard" (NASB) whereas
                the accusative results in "but the message they heard failed to
                benefit them, because they were not one in faith with those who gave
                heed to it" (Weymouth) The nominative does seem a better fit to the
                author's line of reasoning, but the accusative is not without
                resonances of its own. E.g. AKOUSASIN (4.2) can be compared with
                AKOUSANTWN (2.3, referring to those who heard Christ speak).

                That the accusative reading requires AKOUW to be construed in a unique
                way is a strong argument in favour of the nominative. Mind you, the
                author of Hebrews makes use of different shades of meaning for the
                same word in other places: e.g. DIAQHKH.

                >
                > So I'm forced to agree with those who think SUGKEKERASMENOUS can't
                be correct, even if it goes back to a copy that is parent to
                everything we have. Mistakes, after all, get made in every single ms,
                including the oldest ones.

                I think that "can't be correct" is a mite too strong. Surely any
                mortal, even the author of Hebrews--whom I hold in high esteem--is
                capable of a real or perceived clanger. I agree that human error can
                affect any MS.

                Best

                Tim Finney
              • Mark Thunderson
                Dear Webb: Your understanding of my own conjecture is for the most part sound, although I am not certain about your reference to ҄Ӯ Anyway, to recap in
                Message 7 of 8 , May 17, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Webb:

                  Your understanding of my own conjecture is for the
                  most part sound, although I am not certain about your
                  reference to ҄Ӯ

                  Anyway, to recap in detail, what I was indicating is
                  that to understand the variant in Vaticanus, it is
                  helpful to have a theory concerning the exemplar. As
                  you probably know, Sinaiticus claims its exemplar came
                  from Pamphilius the Martyr who in turn claimed his
                  exemplar came to him from Origin. My suspicion is
                  that both OriginÕ³ and PamphiliusÕ exemplars had four
                  (4) columns. Sinaiticus has four (4) columns because
                  its scribal intention is to reproduce - not just the
                  words Рbut the presentation of the words of its
                  exemplar. This is why we see so many logograms and
                  pictorial augments to the text in Sinaiticus that
                  compliment what the actual words convey. This is
                  also why Sinaiticus and Vaticanus share so many common
                  lines Рexcept that the transposition in Vaticanus
                  from 4 columns to 3 columns skewed the *presentation.*
                  Yet, at the time of production, the scribes of
                  Vaticanus still esteemed the presentation of the
                  sacred text as important. This is context in which
                  the rouge ending at Hebrews 4:2 makes its appearance.
                  This is also why I would argue against dittography,
                  although that is certainly a possibility. However,
                  that Mss. A, C, D, et. al., follow Vaticanusat 4:2
                  suggests that this new Ò°resentationÓ had currency
                  among Christians belonging to the New State Religion
                  of Emperor Constantine. In other words, if one did
                  not belong to Ò´he groupÓ (TOIS AKOUSASIN) then their
                  faith is of no benefit to them. Returning to Codex
                  Vaticanus, the appearance, the presentation, the
                  display of the miniature case ending ҏYSӠlooks like
                  the exemplar, however upon closer examination it is a
                  corruption.

                  Sincerely,

                  Mark Thunderson.


                  --- Webb <webb@...> wrote:

                  > Dear Mark,
                  >
                  > I'm not sure at all that I understand your
                  > conjecture. Is it this:
                  >
                  >
                  > 1. The exemplar for Aleph is the same as that of B
                  >
                  > 2. The common exemplar had line endings as shown in
                  > Aleph in this place
                  >
                  > 3. D reproduced the OUS ending from the line above
                  > by dittography
                  >
                  >
                  > Sorry if I'm missing something.
                  >
                  > Webb Mealy
                • George F Somsel
                  καὶ γάρ ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι καθάπερ κἀκεῖνοι· ἀλλʼ οὐκ ὠφέλησεν ὁ λόγος τῆς
                  Message 8 of 8 , May 20, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    καὶ γάρ ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι καθάπερ κἀκεῖνοι· ἀλλʼ οὐκ ὠφέλησεν ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς ἐκείνους μὴ συγκεκερασμένους τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασιν.
                     
                    KAI GAR ESMEN EUHGGELISMENOI KAQAPER KAKEINOI; ALL' OUK WFELHSEN hO LOGOS THS AKOHS EKEINOUS MH SUGKEKERASMENOUS THi PISTEI TOIS AKOUSASIN
                     
                    Regardless of your inclination to understand AKOUW in this passage as "to carry the stronger sense of 'really listen', 'heed'", I think it is obvious that the author intends that the reader understand that they, in fact, did NOT really listen and heed since it OUK WFELHSEN "was of no benefit."  As regards the acc pl SUGKEKERASMENOUS, I don't see that it is "so difficult that it makes an intelligent and attentive reader stop cold and say, 'What??'"  It is in agreement with EKEINOUS who are thus said to have not been united with faith.  Perhaps the problem is that you are attempting to relate it to hO LOGOS ?
                     
                    george
                    gfsomsel
                     
                    Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth,
                    learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                    defend the truth till death.
                     
                    - Jan Hus
                    _________


                    ----- Original Message ----
                    From: Webb <webb@...>
                    To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:16:24 PM
                    Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Heb. 4:2 Textual Criticism

                    Thanks, Tim.

                    Of course, the puzzle is where the "difficulty" of a reading crosses over from recommending it to arguing against it. I love it when a reading is difficult in the sense that a sleepy copyist will trip over it or mis-hear it as something more familiar, but then it makes perfect sense on a second look. In the present case, the best-attested reading is so difficult that it makes an intelligent and attentive reader stop cold and say, "What??"

                    The accusative reading just simply can't be original, in my opinion, because time and time again in the portion of Hebrews that precedes this verse, the author talks about people hearing (AKOUW) but not being saved, or not believing. In order for 4:2 to make any sense, TOIS AKOUSASIN would require AKOUW suddenly "and uniquely in Hebrews" to carry the stronger sense of "really listen", "heed" (BAGD mng 4). The author is far too sophisticated to make that kind of blunder.

                    So I'm forced to agree with those who think SUGKEKERASMENOUS can't be correct, even if it goes back to a copy that is parent to everything we have. Mistakes, after all, get made in every single ms, including the oldest ones.

                    Webb Mealy

                    ____________ _________ _________ _________ _
                    From: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
                    [mailto:textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of yennifmit
                    Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:20 AM
                    To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
                    Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Heb. 4:2 Textual Criticism

                    Dear Webb,

                    I collect various commentators' opinions on this at "BASIS FOR
                    CRITERIA DATA", "Heb 4.2", in part 2 of my dissertation
                    (http://purl. org/tfinney/ PhD/PDF/part2. pdf). (Warning: file size is
                    8.4 MB.)

                    Best

                    Tim Finney




                    Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
                    Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.