1Thessalonian Hapaxes
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 3:46 pm
Hello All ... I'm new to this Forum, and am looking forward to a few good scriptural discussions.
I'm not very good at argument, nor do I much care to engage in such, but I do enjoy a good
back and forth discussion, especially when it involves how a Pauline verse should be read.
My Greek is limited ... self taught, to some extext, but I have, over the past few years managed
to put together my own reading of Paul's 13 epistles, directly from the Greek, found in the "Byzantine
Textform 2005," by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont ... Granted, my English compilations may
not pass muster with some of those more formally educated in the subject, but they are not all that bad ...
and I'm always working at improving them as time goes by ... hence, my looking forward to a few good
discussions.
Again, it's the specific words of Paul, which I'm most interested in ... theology and doctrine are matters
that I do my best to not talk about, much ... that is, I know that Christ is my Lord and Savior, and that
faith and God's grace are pure gifts, not something that I've earned in any manner; I know that Christ died
on the cross for all of mankinds sins, so I simply find it most logical to to comprehand this as being all inclusive ...
As for the "nature" of God ... I'm a rather simple man, I know that God is our Father, and that Jesus is our
Lord, and I understand that there is a devine spirit involved in all of this, one that dwells within each believer ...
beyond that, I'm not willing or able to conjecture any further ... figure that when God, Himself wants me to
better understand the "nature" of such things, He will be the One to clue me in on all that ... hence, let's
dismiss with any discussions concerning trinity, pre-existenace, and the such; thank you.
But back to Pauline scripture ... I'm currently reviewing my efforts at compiling 1Thessaloinians, and am
very interested in it's 17 hapaxes (hapax legomenons), because, being unique, within the NT, there's not much
data at hand for us to best figure out how Paul actually intended for us to comprehend his use of these particular
words ... we can alway use outside sources, but I prefer to keep things as Pauline as possible, which sort of limites
us to only use the surrounding context of the verses where these hapaxes are found ... or not found, in some cases where
the source texts involve variants ... which brings me to a possible 18th hapax in 1Thes 5:27, and thus begins ... hopefully,
our first give and take, back and forth good discussion:
I like my scriptures as literal as possible ... that's, of course, why I've compiled my own readings directly from the Greek;
and I preferr the Byzantine over the Alexandrian (for good reasons, that we might have another topic thread about, later),
but rather than just jump right into a reading by robin, let's go with a more acceptable reading by Young (Young's Literal):
"I charge you [by] the Lord, that the letter be read to all the holy brethren" (5:27)
Ὁρκίζω ὑμᾶς τὸν κύριον, ἀναγνωσθῆναι τὴν ἐπιστολὴν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀδελφοῖς.
There are, actually, two text variants in this verse, so I'll just touch on the second, which isn't germain to the hapax topic ...
The second to last word in the above Greek ... ἁγίοις ... is the dative plural masculine adjective, often read as "holy"
(I really dont know what "holy" means, so I prefer the reading of "sanctified") ... What makes this a text variant is that not all
of the source texts include this word:
ἅγιος ἀδελφοῖς
p46vid א2 A K L P Ψ 075 0150 6 33 81 88 104 181 256 263 326 330 365 424 451 459 614 629 630 1175 1241 1319 1573 1739 1877 1881 1912 1962 2127 2200 2492 2495 Byz Lect itar itc itdem itdiv itx itz vg syrp syrh syrpal copbo goth arm (eth) geo2 Chrysostom Pelagius Theodorelat Euthaliusmss Theodoret John-Damascus ς ND Dio
ἀδελφοῖς
א* B D F G 431 436 1311 1907 2004 2464 itb itd ite itf itg itmon ito copsa geo1 slav Ambrosiaster Ephraem Euthalius Cassiodorus WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
Now that we've got that sorted out, let's get back to the topic at hand, that of the hapax or possible hapax ... and while we're at it, let's transliterate that
squiggle Greek, which is hard on the eyes, my old eyes, at least ...
Ὁρκίζω ὑμᾶς τὸν κύριον, ἀναγνωσθῆναι τὴν ἐπιστολὴν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀδελφοῖς.
orkizO humas ton kurion anagnOsthEnai tEn epistolEn pasin tois hagiois adelphois
So then, the word I'd now like to focus on, is the very first word in the above Greek ...Ὁρκίζω ... or ... orkizO
It's a verb, a present active indicative, first person singular (V-PAI-1S) verb, which Youung's is reading as .."I charge" ...
Rotherham also reads it this way, but the Dabhar ("The Writ") and the Concordant (CLNT) read it as "adjure" (which is also my preference,
seeing as how that word "charge" is better used for another Greek to English word); actually. the Dabhar reads it that way, the Concordant,
as always, tries to invoke some sort of odd ongoing participling "I am adjuring" ...
Moving right alone ... in the Strong’s and Goodrick/ Kohlenberger (GK) numbering systems, this verb is #3726 in Strongs, and #3991 in the GK,
which when you look it up, is found not only here in 1Thess, but also in Mark 5:7 and Acts 19:13 ... hence, being used three times, makes it not a hapax (unique).
But here's the rub, in Westcott and Hort, Tisehendorf, and the Greek New Testament SBL Edition GNTSBL" (similiar to the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum), the
verb is ...ἐνορκίζω ...
That is, and Alexandrian ...enorkizO ... instead of a Byzantine ...orkizO ...which is only found (in the Majority texts), here, in 1Thessalonians 5:27, and thus a hapax.
Now, the verb "enorkizO," either way, is still the same parsing/ declesion V-PAI-1S, but when that "en-" is added on to "orkizO" this makes it a differet word, a
combination word ... that is, instead of saying ..."I adjure" ... it says something like a hyphenated ..."I in-adjure" ..
(McReynold's, "Word Study Greek-English New Testament" even assignes it another Strong-like numbering #1774a)
What's the big deal? ... you're asking ... the verse still, basically, reads the same ... right?
"I in-adjure you ..."
"I adjure you ..."
"I charge you [by] the Lord, that the letter be read to all the holy brethren" (Youngs)
I dont know if it's a big deal or not ... I cant currently perceive any real difference, but there is a definite difference, which should only make us
curious as to why the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts include this difference ... what's the story behind this? And does the added/prefixed prepositiona
serve any purpose ...does it enhance or make the verb more emphatic, and if so, for what possible purpose?
My preference, of course, is the Byzantine reading, so my total hapaxes for 1Thes is only 17, not 18 ... but I'm still curious about this difference ... and
thought, perhaps, that some of you, too, might want to ponder over it a bit ... it makes, at least, for a good benign opening discussion between us, dont you think?
By the way, I think Young's could have left off that word he specifically added in brackets ..."[by]" ...
"I charge you [by] the Lord, that the letter be read to all the holy brethren" (Youngs)
Notice, too, that he also added the word ..."that" ... but failed to show this to his raeaders. Fie on you Robert!
Perhaps he had to add these two words because of was compelled to follow the grammatical rules for placement of the accusatives ...
That is the ..."humas ton kurion"... to you {1473 P-2AP} to the [One] {3588 T-ASM} to Lord {2962 N-ASM} ...
"I charge ...to you ... to the ... to Lord ... that"
Myself, I've found that our English rules of grammar ... or even our perceived ... conjectured ... rules for Koine Greek
are not always helpful; that is, just maybe, at times, it's better to break a perceived rule, if it helps to avoide our having
to editorially "enhance" our reading (like Robert did, here), just to stick to the grammar, as it is conjectured to be ...
Myself, I can read this verse without having to enhance it ... but I will be scolded for my poor grammar ... and yet my reading is more accurate ... your choice?
"To you, to the Lord I adjure, the epistle to be read unto all the sanctified brethren" (~Robin)
"I charge you [by] the Lord, that the letter be read to all the holy brethren" (Youngs)
I'm not very good at argument, nor do I much care to engage in such, but I do enjoy a good
back and forth discussion, especially when it involves how a Pauline verse should be read.
My Greek is limited ... self taught, to some extext, but I have, over the past few years managed
to put together my own reading of Paul's 13 epistles, directly from the Greek, found in the "Byzantine
Textform 2005," by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont ... Granted, my English compilations may
not pass muster with some of those more formally educated in the subject, but they are not all that bad ...
and I'm always working at improving them as time goes by ... hence, my looking forward to a few good
discussions.
Again, it's the specific words of Paul, which I'm most interested in ... theology and doctrine are matters
that I do my best to not talk about, much ... that is, I know that Christ is my Lord and Savior, and that
faith and God's grace are pure gifts, not something that I've earned in any manner; I know that Christ died
on the cross for all of mankinds sins, so I simply find it most logical to to comprehand this as being all inclusive ...
As for the "nature" of God ... I'm a rather simple man, I know that God is our Father, and that Jesus is our
Lord, and I understand that there is a devine spirit involved in all of this, one that dwells within each believer ...
beyond that, I'm not willing or able to conjecture any further ... figure that when God, Himself wants me to
better understand the "nature" of such things, He will be the One to clue me in on all that ... hence, let's
dismiss with any discussions concerning trinity, pre-existenace, and the such; thank you.
But back to Pauline scripture ... I'm currently reviewing my efforts at compiling 1Thessaloinians, and am
very interested in it's 17 hapaxes (hapax legomenons), because, being unique, within the NT, there's not much
data at hand for us to best figure out how Paul actually intended for us to comprehend his use of these particular
words ... we can alway use outside sources, but I prefer to keep things as Pauline as possible, which sort of limites
us to only use the surrounding context of the verses where these hapaxes are found ... or not found, in some cases where
the source texts involve variants ... which brings me to a possible 18th hapax in 1Thes 5:27, and thus begins ... hopefully,
our first give and take, back and forth good discussion:
I like my scriptures as literal as possible ... that's, of course, why I've compiled my own readings directly from the Greek;
and I preferr the Byzantine over the Alexandrian (for good reasons, that we might have another topic thread about, later),
but rather than just jump right into a reading by robin, let's go with a more acceptable reading by Young (Young's Literal):
"I charge you [by] the Lord, that the letter be read to all the holy brethren" (5:27)
Ὁρκίζω ὑμᾶς τὸν κύριον, ἀναγνωσθῆναι τὴν ἐπιστολὴν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀδελφοῖς.
There are, actually, two text variants in this verse, so I'll just touch on the second, which isn't germain to the hapax topic ...
The second to last word in the above Greek ... ἁγίοις ... is the dative plural masculine adjective, often read as "holy"
(I really dont know what "holy" means, so I prefer the reading of "sanctified") ... What makes this a text variant is that not all
of the source texts include this word:
ἅγιος ἀδελφοῖς
p46vid א2 A K L P Ψ 075 0150 6 33 81 88 104 181 256 263 326 330 365 424 451 459 614 629 630 1175 1241 1319 1573 1739 1877 1881 1912 1962 2127 2200 2492 2495 Byz Lect itar itc itdem itdiv itx itz vg syrp syrh syrpal copbo goth arm (eth) geo2 Chrysostom Pelagius Theodorelat Euthaliusmss Theodoret John-Damascus ς ND Dio
ἀδελφοῖς
א* B D F G 431 436 1311 1907 2004 2464 itb itd ite itf itg itmon ito copsa geo1 slav Ambrosiaster Ephraem Euthalius Cassiodorus WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
Now that we've got that sorted out, let's get back to the topic at hand, that of the hapax or possible hapax ... and while we're at it, let's transliterate that
squiggle Greek, which is hard on the eyes, my old eyes, at least ...
Ὁρκίζω ὑμᾶς τὸν κύριον, ἀναγνωσθῆναι τὴν ἐπιστολὴν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀδελφοῖς.
orkizO humas ton kurion anagnOsthEnai tEn epistolEn pasin tois hagiois adelphois
So then, the word I'd now like to focus on, is the very first word in the above Greek ...Ὁρκίζω ... or ... orkizO
It's a verb, a present active indicative, first person singular (V-PAI-1S) verb, which Youung's is reading as .."I charge" ...
Rotherham also reads it this way, but the Dabhar ("The Writ") and the Concordant (CLNT) read it as "adjure" (which is also my preference,
seeing as how that word "charge" is better used for another Greek to English word); actually. the Dabhar reads it that way, the Concordant,
as always, tries to invoke some sort of odd ongoing participling "I am adjuring" ...
Moving right alone ... in the Strong’s and Goodrick/ Kohlenberger (GK) numbering systems, this verb is #3726 in Strongs, and #3991 in the GK,
which when you look it up, is found not only here in 1Thess, but also in Mark 5:7 and Acts 19:13 ... hence, being used three times, makes it not a hapax (unique).
But here's the rub, in Westcott and Hort, Tisehendorf, and the Greek New Testament SBL Edition GNTSBL" (similiar to the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum), the
verb is ...ἐνορκίζω ...
That is, and Alexandrian ...enorkizO ... instead of a Byzantine ...orkizO ...which is only found (in the Majority texts), here, in 1Thessalonians 5:27, and thus a hapax.
Now, the verb "enorkizO," either way, is still the same parsing/ declesion V-PAI-1S, but when that "en-" is added on to "orkizO" this makes it a differet word, a
combination word ... that is, instead of saying ..."I adjure" ... it says something like a hyphenated ..."I in-adjure" ..
(McReynold's, "Word Study Greek-English New Testament" even assignes it another Strong-like numbering #1774a)
What's the big deal? ... you're asking ... the verse still, basically, reads the same ... right?
"I in-adjure you ..."
"I adjure you ..."
"I charge you [by] the Lord, that the letter be read to all the holy brethren" (Youngs)
I dont know if it's a big deal or not ... I cant currently perceive any real difference, but there is a definite difference, which should only make us
curious as to why the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts include this difference ... what's the story behind this? And does the added/prefixed prepositiona
serve any purpose ...does it enhance or make the verb more emphatic, and if so, for what possible purpose?
My preference, of course, is the Byzantine reading, so my total hapaxes for 1Thes is only 17, not 18 ... but I'm still curious about this difference ... and
thought, perhaps, that some of you, too, might want to ponder over it a bit ... it makes, at least, for a good benign opening discussion between us, dont you think?
By the way, I think Young's could have left off that word he specifically added in brackets ..."[by]" ...
"I charge you [by] the Lord, that the letter be read to all the holy brethren" (Youngs)
Notice, too, that he also added the word ..."that" ... but failed to show this to his raeaders. Fie on you Robert!
Perhaps he had to add these two words because of was compelled to follow the grammatical rules for placement of the accusatives ...
That is the ..."humas ton kurion"... to you {1473 P-2AP} to the [One] {3588 T-ASM} to Lord {2962 N-ASM} ...
"I charge ...to you ... to the ... to Lord ... that"
Myself, I've found that our English rules of grammar ... or even our perceived ... conjectured ... rules for Koine Greek
are not always helpful; that is, just maybe, at times, it's better to break a perceived rule, if it helps to avoide our having
to editorially "enhance" our reading (like Robert did, here), just to stick to the grammar, as it is conjectured to be ...
Myself, I can read this verse without having to enhance it ... but I will be scolded for my poor grammar ... and yet my reading is more accurate ... your choice?
"To you, to the Lord I adjure, the epistle to be read unto all the sanctified brethren" (~Robin)
"I charge you [by] the Lord, that the letter be read to all the holy brethren" (Youngs)