Re: Leviticus 19:2 and 1 Peter 1:16

From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sat Mar 21 1998 - 04:49:16 EST


> Bill Ross wrote:
>
> In the KJV, Leviticus 19:2 reads "Ye shall be holy"
>
> In the Hebrew, "Ye shall be" is not an imperative, but an imperfect:
> "You are".
>
> In the KJV, 1 Peter 1:16 reads "Because it is written: Be ye holy".
>
> In the Textus Receptus (TR), this is an imperative. But there are
> several manuscripts, used in some modern translations, that use a
> different word which is in the indicative.
>
> * What does the Septuagint say for Leviticus 19:2?
>
> * Which NT manuscript should I trust here: TR? or the ones that agree
> with Leviticus?
>
> I think that if the NT agrees with the OT form, it is for a powerful
> reason.

BILL,

The LXX says: hAGIOI ESESQE hOTI EGW hGIOS KURIOS hO QEOS hUMWN

The text of 1 Pet 1:16 is riddled with variants. Let's focus just on ESESQE.
There are three readings:

GENESQE (2nd PL IM AO2) K P 049
GINESQE (2nd PL IM PR) Maj
ESESQE (2nd PL IND FU) Aleph A B C . . . vg

Note that the LXX in Lev 19:2 agrees with the third reading ESESQE. Now I am
not a Hebrew expert but isn't the imperfect in the MT sometimes rendered as a
future in the LXX?

Having looked at the evidence, I would conclude that the actual semantic
significance of the textual variants in 1 Pet 1:16 is not very great. I don' t
think it matters a great deal for exegesis if this is an indicative future or
an imperative. No doubt someone will take issue with this remark.

-- 
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:14 EDT