From: Ben Crick (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Feb 23 1998 - 13:20:20 EST
On Mon 23 Feb 98 (09:39:13), email@example.com wrote:
> In the quote of Enoch 1, I find both N-A and UBS texts using the phrase
> ELEGXAI PASAN YUCHN PERI PANTWN TWN ERGWN ASEBEIAS AUTWN. Again, I
> find no variant listed. Yet commentaries seem to indicate that,
> instead of YUCHN, there is actually a form of ASEBEIS, and, instead of
> ELEGXAI, the word was EXELEGXAI. KJV and other major versions follow
> this reading. The alternate form of the verb does not seem to cause
> major translation problems, but what support is there for this
> conviction only of all the ungodly as opposed "all souls"?
In my copy of the Nestle-Kilpatrick BFBS text, the text reads:
POHSAI KRISIN KATA PANTWN KAI ELEGCAI [PANTAS TOUS ASEBEIS] ktl. (15a, my
parentheses). In the App Crit it lists:
15 PANTAS TOUS ASEBEIS] (Romans 2:9; 13:1) PASAN YUCHN Aleph Psi 1852
The text continues:
PERI PANTWN TWN ERGWN [ASEBEIAS AUTWN] hWN HSEBHSAN KAI PERI PANTWN
TWN SKLHRWN hWN ELALHSAN KAT' AUTOU hAMARTWLOI ASEBEIS. (15b, my
parentheses). In the App Crit it reads:
15 ASEBEIAS AUTWN] omit Aleph al sy^ph; omit ASEB. C al dem| SKLHRWN] add
LOGWN Aleph 1611 1739 al p vg(4) sy sa.
Would it not seem that there has been some "correction" of the text to
make it correspond more closely to the 1 Enoch verse you quote?
Or, conservative hands, not wishing to follow Jewish pseudepigraphical
legends, have assimilated the text to the verses in Romans referred to
in the Apparatus Criticus?
Charles Bigg, in his ICC volume on the Epistles of St Peter and St Jude,
ducks the issue altogether by jumping in his commentary from verse 14
directly to verse 16. No help there. His comment on verse 14 identifies
the quotation as 1 Enoch 1:9; but only cites it in RH Charles' translation,
"... and will convict all flesh...". Is Flesh a good translation of YUCH?
Would it not be SARX? The Gnostics were always exalting the Soul (YUCH)
over the body (SARX, SWMA); is RH Charles right here?
Thomas Manton, in his /Exposition on the Epistle of Jude/, (on the King
James text) observes: "Some say the 14th verse doth only contain the
prophecy of Enoch, and that these words are the apostle's application or
explication of it; but improbably, the words running on in a continued
sense or form of speech, and the application is at the 16th verse" (op cit,
reprint Banner of Truth Trust, 1958, page 294).
Over to the b-greek Gurus...
-- Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <firstname.lastname@example.org> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:06 EDT