Codex Bezae (D05) Reading #9
Clwinbery at aol.com
Clwinbery at aol.com
Fri Aug 23 10:38:33 EDT 2002
In a message dated 8/23/02 7:27:05 AM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:
>Further reflections: I still think that this reading in D05 is an error
>for
>
>EMNHSTEUMENHN, but as I pondered the matter I recollected there's a Homeric
>
>verb MNAOMAI for "court, woo" from which MNHSTHS (e.g. those wretched
>
>"suitors" upon whom Odysseus so horribly--and justly--takes vengeance)
>and
>
>MNHSTEUOMAI derive. Upon checking BDAG this morning, I find this entry:
>
>
>
>MNAOMAI (from MIMNHSKW in the sense 'woo' [so DELG and Frisk s.v. the
>
>latter, and LfgrE s.v. MNAOMAI] via special development of the primary
>
>sense of MNAOMAI 'be mindful of', which does not appear in our lit.; for
>
>other derivations s. lit. cited in Frisk II 240f and LfgrE III 232; cp.
>
>Hom. MNHSTHR 'suitor'; since Hom., also Philo) woo, court for one's bride
>
>pf. ptc. MEMNHSMENH of the woman engaged, betrothed Lk 1:27 D.
>
>
>
>The surprise to me here is that this verb is in fact derived from the root
>
>MNA/MNH "remember" and is a special extended usage of that root.
>
>Nevertheless two factors still seem to me to make this reading in D05
>
>problematic: (1) why the perfect passive of a verb that only appears in
>the
>
>middle voice and that is used of the man courting a woman? and (2)
>
>according to LSJ-G (s.v. MNAOMAI II. 2), after Homer, the verb is used
>in
>
>the sense, "sue for, solicit a favor, office, etc."
>
>
>
>At 9:01 PM -0400 8/22/02, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
>>>9 - Lk 1:27 NA27/USB4: EMNHSTEUMENHN ANDRI hWi ONOMA IWSHF; D05:
>
>>>MEMNHSMENHN instead of EMNHSTEUMENHN
>
>>>Selon D05 Marie était simplement "promise en mariage" ; selon les autres
>
>>>manuscrits qui reprennent le terme du Dt, elle était "officiellement
>
>>>fiancée" . Quelles conséquences dégager du choix de l'un ou de l'autre
>
>>>terme? Autre question: pourquoi le parfait? ["According to D05 Mary was
>
>>>simply 'promised in marriage'; according to the other MSS which echo
>the
>
>>>term from Deuteronomy, she was 'officially engaged.' What follows from
>the
>
>>>choice of the one over the other term? Another question: Why the perfect
>
>>>tense?"]
>
>>
>
>>I don't understand how MEMNHSMENHN can be understood as "promise en
>
>>mariage" or "promised in marriage." This perfect MP participle can only
>be
>
>>derived from MIMNHSKOMAI which is regularly middle in later Greek and
>ought
>
>>to be understood as middle in this form: "remembering" (or "having
>
>>remembered"). While the form doesn't normally have that -S- in the stem,
>
>>the -S- is often enough added to vowel-stems before non-thematic endings.
>
>>This really looks to me like an error for EMNHSTEUMENHN.
>
I do not have Metzger, Textual Commentary with me, but I know the committee
often saw the difficult reading as the cause of the other readings. Is the
truncated EMNHSTEUMENH (But remember the morphology in which a word whose
stem begins with a double consonant like MN or ST often simply added E for
reduplication - EGNWKA) the cause of two corrections? Caesarean
MEMNHSTEUMENHN and western - MEMNHSMENHN as Carl has pointed out from BDAG.
Metzger describes the Western scribes as having a tendency to substitute
synonyms without much cause. The other instances cited so far are indeed
mostly synonyms. I think the D reading is both a correction of a perceived
error and use of a word actually more appropriate to the context.
Carlton Winbery
Louisiana College
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list