From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Mon Jan 26 1998 - 06:57:20 EST
Simon Magus is a colorful figure surrounded by lots of stories and
speculation. In Acts 8:24 Codex Bezae is 50% longer than the received text
(NA26/UBS3) and the end of the verse (in Bezae) includes a relative clause
which has given pause to a number of commentators. Bezae reads:
APOKREIQEIS DE hO SIMWN EIPEN PROS AUTOUS:
PARAKALW, DEHQHTE hUMEIS PERI EMOU PROS TON QEON
hOPWS MHDEN EPELQHi MOI,
TOUTWN TWN KAKWN hWN EIRHKATE MOI,
hOS POLLA KLAIWN OU DIELIMPANEN.
The last line causes several commentators to complain about the placement of
this clause, how awkward it is (e.g., Metzger's textual commentary). My
question is simple. If lines 2-4 are the contents of Simon's response, is it
really all that hard to connect hOS in line 5 with it's antecedent hO SIMWN in
line one? The distance between the relative and it's antecedent is a problem
only if you ignore the narrative structure. If you simply factor out Simon's
speech, as a subordinate element in the narrative structure, then the distance
between the relative and it's antecedent is not problematic at all. I have
tried to illustrate this point visually in my citation above.
Where am I going wrong here?
-- 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 - 15:39:00 EDT