From: Ben Crick (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Sep 06 1998 - 16:54:39 EDT
On Sat 5 Sep 98 (19:34:28), email@example.com wrote:
> 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.
The plural KALESOUSIN seems to be the indefinite 3rd pers pl, "and *They*
shall call his name Immanuel"; "they" being the parents, or the nation
Israel. The singular KALESEIS, "thou shalt call...", is from the Hebrew
WeQaRa'Th SheMiW `iMMaNuW 'eL, "and *thou* shall call his name Immanuel".
This is 2nd pers fem sing Perfect Qal with Waw Consecutiva, creating the
effect of the Imperfect, or future. It is a future prophecy. We can read
this as an instruction to the mother to name the child accordingly.
The Brenton LXX has KALESEIS, accurately rendering the Hebrew.
JA Bengel, in his /Gnomon/, ad loc, writes (E.T.) "KALESOUSI, THEY /shall
call/) Both the Hebrew and the LXX have 'THOU shalt call,' i.e., 'THOU
Virgin-Mother'. -- 'THOU shalt call,' occurs also in ver. 21, addressed to
Joseph: whence is now substituted 'THEY /shall call/, i.e., all,
thenceforth. The angel says to Mary, in Luke 1:28, /The Lord is with/ THEE.
Not one or the other of His parents, however, but all who call upon His
name, say, '/with/ US.' -- Cf. Luke 1:54. -- Those words deserve particular
attention in which the writers of the New Testament differ from the LXX.,
or even from the Hebrew." (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1859, vol 1 p 117).
> 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
> with it.
Seems that your best guess is at least as good as Bengel's! The only MSS
which have KALESEIS are D (Bezae) pc d (a few italian codices from the
5th-6th centuries), and the variant d^c (c superscript, not o); and "d*
vocabit". c superscript indicates a "corrected" copy; * indicates an
original unemended "clean" copy.
Whence did Matthew get his KALESEUSIN? From the Holy Spirit, I should
Ben (another Ben)
-- Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <firstname.lastname@example.org> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
--- 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