Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae)

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Sep 27 13:40:14 EDT 2002


From: Polycarp66 at aol.com
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:50:56 EDT

In a message dated 9/27/2002 7:03:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Sylvie
Chabert d'Hyères writes:

>Reply to George Somsel.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Except that there is no scriptural evidence for this insertion.
>
>Have you looked at the "Canticle" of Symeon in D05, which doesn't have EQNWN?
>
>30  hOTI EIDON hOI OFTALMOI MOU
>            TO SWTHRION SOU
>31  ...hO hHTOIMASAS KATA PROSWPON PANTWN TWN LAWN
>32         FWS  EIS  APOKALUYIN
>    KAI  DOXAN LAOU SOU ISRAEL
>
>Yet v. 32 can be understood as outlined thus:
>
>32     FWS EIS
>        APOKALUYIN  KAI DOXAN
>                LAOU SOU ISRAEL
>
>Don't forget that Symeon, who was a priest (he blessed people in the
>Temple), was, in Luke's words, DIKAIOS KAI EULABHS (v. 25)
>


How can you say that there is no scriptural evidence for the insertion of
EIS APOKALUYIN when the quotation is from the LXX of Is 42.6 where EQNWN is
present and EIS APOKALUYIN is not.  The author of the Gospel According to
Luke clearly inserted it.  I think he was making a clarification of the
purpose of the FWS.
I don't see what Simeon's righteousness and piety has to do with the
question.  Am I missing something?

gfsomsel



More information about the B-Greek mailing list