The view of NA27 that the Sahidic supports επανηλθεν in Matthew 2:21 appears mistaken since the Sahidic appears to use the same rendering for απηλθεν in Matthew 9:7; Mark 6:46; 7:24; Luke 1:23; for ανεβη in Luke 9:28; Acts 2:34; 10:9; Ephesians 4:9 (cf. 4:10); for ανηλθεν in John 6:3; and for πορευθεις in 1 Peter 3:22. The last text is particularly interesting since it uses an unmarked verb of motion (one which does not state 'up' or 'down', etc.). In the nearest parallel to the context, namely Matthew 2:14, the same Sahidic phrase appears to render ανεχωρησεν.
Conclusion: the Sahidic phrase in question could probably represent ηλθεν or εισηλθεν.
A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
- Contributors
- Peter M. Head (ed)
- Tommy Wasserman (ed)
- P. J. Williams, and others
Nice sleuthing, Dr. Williams. Any suggested change in the apparatus would seem to be important.
ReplyDeleteWhat led you to this discovery, besides your particular interest in the relationship between translational issues and tc? On face value, this sort of discovery would seem to be the fruit of a specific endeavor, rather than an accidental find.
Jim Leonard
Southwestern Pennsylvania USA
'Tis not so hard to find these. You simply have to follow up what looks suspicious. To me the suggestion that one can confident enough to reconstruct επανηλθεν on the basis of a version is inherently suspicious. But there are other wrong notes on the Coptic in the same area.
ReplyDeleteIn Matthew 2:15 the Sahidic does not support an aorist rather than a historic present because it regularly translates a historic present with a first perfect. Other problems in Coptic notes include the note on 'and' in 3:10 and the suggestion that the Sahidic supports μαρια in 1:20. A search through Sahidica revealed that the Sahidic never uses μαριαμ.
Why not try to find your own suspicious notes?