From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sat Jul 11 1998 - 08:24:32 EDT
James Hardy Ropes and Bruce Manning Metzger agree that Codex Beza's omission
of APELUSAN in Acts 13:3 ruins the syntax of the verse. Now when Ropes and
Metzger agree who would dare to question?
I am wondering if the Acts 13:3 in Codex Beza is really impossible to read.
TOTE NHSTEUSANTES KAI PROSEUXAMENOI PANTES
KAI EPIQENTES TAS CEIRAS AUTOIS
If we were left with only this text of Acts 13:3, I suspect we could find a
way to make sense out of it.
If we read the first two participles as circumstantial and the second KAI as
an adverb then EPIQENTES might function as a finite verb. This is reaching a
little. The second KAI is a problem. The received text (NA27) is much easier
to scan. Perhaps Luke's exemplary style makes us intolerant of irregularities
that we might accept if they appeared in 2nd Peter or Jude.
I have been working through some passages in Agamemnon where one is forced to
mount siege works against the text to coerce some meaning out of it. For
example lines 105-107 where J.D. Denniston comments "the following jumble of
words . . . defies interpretation." By comparison to this Acts 13:3 in Codex
Bezae doesn't really look all that impossible.
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062"I reckon you think you been redeemed." Hazel Motes
"Wise Blood", Flannery O'Connor
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to unsubscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:53 EDT