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

Glendon Gross gross at xinetd.ath.cx
Sat Sep 28 14:30:58 EDT 2002



The only reason I had thought that Simeon's priesthood and piety
would be relevant is that Simeon would have known the scripture from
Isaiah.  It probably was second nature to him. It would have been quite
natural for him to have quoted it.

I was speculating that possibly the author of Luke might have put the
quote in Simeon's mouth as a literary device to increase the authority of
the passage.  I find it difficult to believe that the author of Luke was an
eyewitness to the events, although I suppose that is possible.  The
prophetic utterance could have been repeated by witnesses and recorded
by the author of Luke.  But doesn't the inclusion of EQNWN imply a larger
scope of the prophecy than if it is excluded?  If so, I can't help
wondering if any  manuscripts of Luke other than Codex Bezae omit this word.

Also, if FWS EIS APOKALUYIN has been added, then I find it interesting to
note that this phrase also serves to expand the scope of the prophecy.
Incidentally, I don't understand my footnote in the NASB translation that
says "or resurrection" if the word is APOKALUYIN.

If there is other textual evidence for the omission of EQNWN from Luke
2:32, then that would seem to strengthen the idea that the word was added
later, would it not?  But if Codex Bezae is the only manuscript that omits
the word EQNWN from Luke 2:32, would it not be more probable to consider it an
oversight on the part of the scribe who transcribed Codex Bezae?

Glendon Gross
Amateur Greek Student

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Carl W. Conrad wrote:

> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:38:13 -0400
> From: Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
> To: Biblical Greek <b-greek at franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
> Cc: George Somsel <Polycarp66 at aol.com>,
>      "Sylvie Chabert [iso-8859-1] d'Hyères" <laodicy at ifrance.com>
> Subject: [b-greek] Re: Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN  (Luke in Codex Bezae)
>
> At 8:50 AM -0400 9/27/02, Polycarp66 at aol.com wrote:
> >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?
>
> The point which I think you missed, George, is that Sylvie referred
> (you/us) to Lk 2:30-32 in Codex Bezae, where EQNWN is not present; I don't
> see any good evidence that the form of the expression, FWS EIS APOKALUYIN
> KAI DOXAN LAOU SOU ISRAHL derives at all from the LXX ttext of Isaiah 42:6.
> You seem to be making the assumption that EQNWN was in the original text of
> Luke and has been omitted by the copyist of Codex Bezae; that may be true,
> but it would have to be demonstrated first, wouldn't it?
> --
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
> Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [gross at xinetd.ath.cx]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-145365E at franklin.oit.unc.edu
> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
>
>
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list