Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae)
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 26 10:03:47 EDT 2002
Forwarded for George Somsel:
From: Polycarp66 at aol.com
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:57:31 EDT
In a message dated 9/26/2002 7:06:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu forwards on behalf of Mme Chabert d'Hyères
who writes:
>Reply to George Somsel
>
>>>Lk 2:32:
>- D05 : FWS EIS APOKALUYIN KAI DOXAN
>>> - NA27: FWS EIS APOKALUYIN EQNWN KAI DOXAN
>
>>A. T. Robertson in his _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament_, pp. 499 ff.
>>speaks of the 'objective genitive'. ...Similarly he notes that in Acts 4.9
>EPI EUERGESIAi ANQRWPOU ASQENOUS it is a good deed which is done 'to' the
>sick man.
>
>A propos de EUERGESIAi , BDAG précise : "with the obj. gen. of the one
>who benefits by it (Pla., Leg 850b EUERGESIAi POLEWS). Luc s'est donc servi
>d'une tournure idiomatique qui ne peut pas rendre compte du génitif EQNWN
>en Lk 2:32.
>
>With regard to EUERGESIAi, BDAG states: "with the obj. gen. of the one who
>benefits by it (Pla., Leg 850b EUERGESIAi POLEWS). Luke thus employed an
>idiomatic nuance which cannot account for the genitive EQNWN in Lk 2:32.
>
>"In
>>Col 2:18, QRHSKEIAi TWN AGGELWN, it is worship 'paid to' angels, while EIS
>>THN hUPAKOUHN TOU XRISTOU (2 Cor. 10:5) is obedience 'to' Christ.
>
>BDAG likewise notes QRHSKEIAi with genitive and hUPAKOUHN with genitive.
>
>>Dan Wallace in _Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics_, pp. 116 ff. notes that
>>the key to the identification of the objective genitive is the ability to
>>convert a noun having a verbal idea into a verbal form and turn the
>>genitive into the direct object. He also notes that "A simpler and less
>>fool-proof method is to supply for the word *of* the words *for, about,
>>concerning, toward,* or sometimes *against*."
>>
>>In the case at hand we have a noun which has a verbal idea -- FWS
>>(FWTIZW). It works quite well to convert this to "to enlighten the
>>gentiles". The problem is that APOKALUYIS has been inserted to define the
>>purpose of the 'enlightenment.'
>
>So the problem of EQNWN remains. I think that the term was
>added with the initial sentence, what do you think about it?
>
I tend to think the question is fairly well settled. EQNWN is "the obj.
gen. of the one who benefits by it." It was derived from the use of the
LXX translation of Is 42.6
EGW KURIOS hO QEOS EKALESA SE EN DIKAIOSUNHi KAI KRATHSW THS XEIROS SOU KAI
ENISXUSW SE KAI EDWKA SE EIS DIAQHKHN GENOUS,
** EIS FWS EQNWN **
What has been inserted is EIS APOKALUYIN. I would understand this
insertion to function as an explication of the function of FWS.
gfsomsel
Polycarp66 at aol.com
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list