[B-Greek] ANEPILHMPTON/ANEPILHPTON in 1 Timothy 3:2
cwconrad at ioa.com
cwconrad at ioa.com
Wed Jul 21 12:51:06 EDT 2004
>[B-Greek] ANEPILHMPTON/ANEPILHPTON in 1 Timothy 3:2
>Larry Overton lgo at larryoverton.com
>Wed Jul 21 11:18:07 EDT 2004
>
>My question involves the differing readings of
>ANEPILHMPTON/ANEPILHPTON in 1 Timothy 3:2, but
>it is not primarily (to my mind, at least) a question
>of textual criticism. First, the passage.
>
>DEI OUN TON EPISKOPON ANEPILHMPTON EINAI MIAS GUNAIKOS
>ANDRA NHFALIO SWFRONA KOSMION FILOXENON DIDAKTIKON
>
>At what point did the reading ANEPILHMPTON arise?
>Liddell-Scott (Perseus, LSJ; BibleWorks, LS Abridged)
>does not recognize this form with its retention of the Mu.
>Furthermore, the lexical entry in Thayer is ANEPILHPTOS,
>not ANEPILHMPTOS. On the other hand, Thayer references
>the retention of the Mu in the Alexandrian text type,
>and the lexical entry in BAGD is ANEPILHMPTOS.
>
>Could someone please shed some more light on this issue?
>I am aware that textual criticism is involved here, as
>there are variations to the text. But is the reason behind
>the differing readings more a matter of etymology or grammar?
>
>Thanks in advance.
I may not be answering your real question, but perhaps I'm
not sure just what that real question is. This is primarily
a matter of earlier and later spellings of LAMBANW compounds.
The older spelling does not have the M which is found in the
present stem only and which really doesn't belong to the root
of the verb LAB. Later spellings of the verbal adjective and
the aorist passive participle carry over the epenthetic M of
the present stem. There is of course no difference in meaning.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list