From: clayton stirling bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
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
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