From: Bill Ross (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Mar 22 1998 - 00:44:05 EST
From: Bill Ross <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Brad Tengler <email@example.com>; clayton stirling bartholomew
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; Geoffrey Hart <Tburgharts@aol.com>;
David and Cindy Wilson <email@example.com>; Lambert Dolphin
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tough Question Of the Quarter <email@example.com>;
Sherwin and Nancy Vischer <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Kevin Holsaplle
Date: Saturday, March 21, 1998 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: Leviticus 19:2 and 1 Peter 1:16 - Kevin's Reply
>** Bill responds:
>** Thanks for your reply to this my first question.
>** There exists in Hebrew an imperative that Moses could have used, but he
>didn't. The Septuagint could have used an imperative and didn't. Peter, if
>the ESESQE could have used an imperative, but didn't. If the indicative
>this verse is all about, then rather being a requirement or a goal, it is
>instead a strong promise. It becomes a succinct version of Isaiah 62.
>From: KEVIN HOLSAPPLE <email@example.com>
>To: Bill Ross <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Date: Saturday, March 21, 1998 7:48 AM
>Subject: Re: Leviticus 19:2 and 1 Peter 1:16
>>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
>>[This is my FIRST contribution - - if it be a contribution - - to
>>B-Greek, after lurking off and on for two years. Here goes:]
>>You might be looking for a distinction in the wrong place. The Hebrew
>>clause you have cited is very short. Indeed, the Septuagint translates
>>it exactly as it is cited in I Peter - - but it could well have been
>>translated by the author of I Peter with those very same words. It's a
>>pretty straightforward little piece of Hebrew, and a pretty
>>straightforward piece of Greek.
>>Fr Kevin Holsapple
>>Parish of St John's
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:14 EDT