From: Benjamin Raymond (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Sep 05 1998 - 21:34:28 EDT
At 10:54 PM 9/4/98 +0000, you wrote:
>On Fri 4 Sep 98 (15:31:55), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> Could the repetition be a scribal error or is it emphasis? Not
>> knowing Hebrew, is the Hebrew repetitious? FWIW, the Vulgate has it:
>> non in abscondito locutus sum in loc terrae tenebroso
>> non dixi semini Iacob frustra quaerite me
>> ego Dominus loquens iustitiam adnuntians recta
>> with no repetition.
> Thank you, Cindy. It would appear that the repetition in Gramcord at Isa
> 45:19 LXX is a dittogram. It happens today as well as in antiquity!
The _Septuaginta_ (Alfred Rahlfs, 1979 ed.) contains the repetition in the
text with the following note in the apparatus:
19 EGW EIMI 2o > ScC
The figure after the 2 is raised, which I don't understand. I interpret
the note to mean "the repetition of EGW EIMI is omitted by the Sinaiticus
corrector and in Codex Ephraemi."
Curiously enough, KURIOS seems to be omitted in Alexandrinus.
Hope this helps.
Speaking of LXX variants, I came across something last night in Matthew's
quotation from Isaiah 7:14 which puzzles me. The author is apparently
quoting the LXX, but uses KALESOUSIN rather than KALESEIS. My NA27 text
shows -SEIS appearing only in D (pauci), Bohairic MSS, Origen, and Eusebius.
My Rahlfs LXX, on the other hand, reads -SEIS in the text with the
KALESEIS BAC (cf. Matth. 1:21 Luc. 1:31)] -SEI S, -SETE QL, -SOUSI(N) compl.
Now where did Matthew get the 3rd plural reading? The author uses -SEIS in
1:21, so why not in 1:23? Luke's reference is a less reliant on the LXX,
but the author uses -SEIS in Luke 1:31 just the same. I'm not much good
with Hebrew at this point, but my Logos BHS has tagged WeQaRa'T as 3rd
singular (hope my transliteration of that is clear enough). There is,
however, a variant reading WQR' in my 1983 BHS if someone can help with the
person and number on it.
Now I highly doubt that Matthew had an early draft of the Computensian
Polyglot in front of him. Anyone have an idea where the 3rd plural reading
in Matthew 1:23 originated? Or even a later source for the Complutensis?
All I can think of is that perhaps the author is making a theological point
that "they" (all Israel? believers?) will call him Emmanuel, and not just
Joseph. In turn, perhaps the Complutensis used Matthew's form rather than
the traditional LXX reading. My best guess, but I'm not overly satisfied
senior, Harding University School of Biblical Studies
HU Box 11871, 900 E Center
Searcy, AR 72149-0001
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:03 EDT