Jump to content


Photo

ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω - let the reader of which text understand?


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 jkgayle

jkgayle

    Bronze

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x
  • Platforms:Windows

Posted 13 March 2018 - 03:14 AM

When we readers of Matthew 24:15 read the address to the reader to understand, then which text do we understand this to be directing readers to?

ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω 

 

To some other text of τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου?

 

Or to Matthew's record of the words of Jesus?


  • Abram K-J likes this

#2 Abram K-J

Abram K-J

    Mithril

  • Super Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greater Boston, MA
  • Accordance Version:12.x
  • Platforms:Mac OS X, iOS

Posted 13 March 2018 - 08:09 AM

I started to answer this, but then realized the answer to another question may be required first: is ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω an aside by Matthew or still part of Jesus's speech?

 

If the latter, Jesus is speaking to listeners, who couldn't read his words at that moment, per se, so the Daniel text (which they could "read") would seem to be in view. If the former, I suppose it could be either, since both Daniel and Jesus's words would have been recorded at that point.

 

Still, didn't both Daniel and Matthew in the first century have more "listeners" than "readers" anyway? Or maybe "reader" is meant more colloquially as "one who takes in and processes this text" and the medium is less in view.

 

A possible theological interpretation is that Jesus or Matthew (whoever owns that aside) is intending this for some future "readers" they have in view.


Abram K-J
Pastor, Writer, Editor, Blogger
Web: Words on the Word

#3 jkgayle

jkgayle

    Bronze

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x
  • Platforms:Windows

Posted 13 March 2018 - 12:22 PM

Still, didn't both Daniel and Matthew in the first century have more "listeners" than "readers" anyway? Or maybe "reader" is meant more colloquially as "one who takes in and processes this text" and the medium is less in view.

I don't know. How do you read this from the first century novel by Chariton (with the English translation by 
G. P. Goold)?


τότε δὲ πάντας ἀπαλλαγῆναι κελεύσασα καὶ μόνον τὸν εὐνοῦχον παρεῖναι, διηγεῖτο τὰ ἐν Ἀράδῳ, τὰ ἐν Κύπρῳ, καὶ τελευταίαν ἔδωκε τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τὴν Χαιρέου. βασιλεὺς δὲ ἀναγινώσκων μυρίων παθῶν ἐπληροῦτο· καὶ γὰρ ὠργίζετο διὰ τὴν ἅλωσιν τῶν φιλτάτων καὶ μετενόει διὰ τὸ παρασχεῖν αὐτομολίας ἀνάγκην, καὶ χάριν δὲ αὐτῷ πάλιν ἠπίστατο ὅτι τὴν βασιλίδα ἀπολάβοι· ἐλυπεῖτο δὲ ὅτι καλλιρόην μηκέτι δύναιτο θεάσασθαι. μάλιστα δὲ πάντων φθόνος ἥπτετο αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔλεγε “μακάριος Χαιρέας, εὐτυχέστερος ἐμοῦ.”

Then, after telling the rest to withdraw and only the eunuch to stay, she described what had happened in Aradus and Cyprus, and finally gave him Chaereas’ letter. On reading it, the king was overcome with a variety of emotions. He was angry at the capture of what he held most dear and he regretted forcing Chaereas to desert him; then again he was grateful to him for recovering the queen, but he was grieved that he should not be seeing Callirhoe any more; and, above all, he was filled with envy, and muttered, “Happy Chaereas, he is luckier than I!”

 

and this is much older it seems, fragments on or from Protagoras (edited and translated by André Laks and Glenn W. Most):


“σπάνια δὲ τὰ τῶν πρὸ τοῦ Πλάτωνος γεγονότων βιβλία, ἐπεὶ ἴσως πλείους ἄν τις ἐφώρασε τοῦ φιλοσόφου κλοπάς. ἐγὼ δ’ οὖν ᾗ κατὰ τύχην περιπέπτωκα Πρωταγόρου τὸν Περὶ τοῦ ὄντος ἀναγινώσκων λόγον πρὸς τοὺς ἓν τὸ ὂν εἰσάγοντας τοιαύταις αὐτὸν εὑρίσκω χρώμενον ἀπαντήσεσιν· ἐσπούδασα γὰρ αὐταῖς λέξεσι τὰ ῥηθέντα μνημονεύειν.”

καὶ ταῦτ’ εἰπὼν διὰ πλειόνων τίθησι τὰς ἀποδείξεις.

“The surviving books of those who were born before Plato are rare, for otherwise one would perhaps have detected more of the philosopher’s thefts. But as for me, by chance I ran into Protagoras’ discourse On What Is against those who introduce the thesis that what is is one, and when I read it I discovered that he [i.e. Plato] makes use of the same kind of replies. For I took the trouble to memorize the terms verbatim.”

And after he has said this, he provides numerous proofs.

 

Are the translators into English just being anachronistic by making the letter and the book more textual, allowing for silent or aloud reading?

On your other point, I love the possibility that Jesus is saying aloud something to the "reader."



 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users