ἀνάπεσαι = ἀνάπεσε?

Post Reply
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

ἀνάπεσαι = ἀνάπεσε?

Post by cwconrad »

In working through a database of verb-forms in the GNT, I have come to a form ἀνάπεσαι that is tagged as Aorist middle imperative 2 sg. of ἀναπίπτω. So far as I can tell, this is a variant reading for ἀνάπεσε in Luke 17:7 --

Luke 17:7 Τίς δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν δοῦλον ἔχων ἀροτριῶντα ἢ ποιμαίνοντα, ὃς εἰσελθόντι ἐκ τοῦ ἀγροῦ ἐρεῖ αὐτῷ· εὐθέως παρελθὼν ἀνάπεσε ...

πίπτω and its compounds are irregular enough, but my understanding is that this verb is middle in the sense "fall" only in the future (πεσοῦμαι), while the present, aorist and perfect tenses have active forms only (quite apart from the fact that πέτομαι, "fly" is pretty clearly a middle form of the same root ΠΕΤ/ΠΟΤ/ΠΤ).

In my judgment this variant form ἀνάπεσαι has been mis-tagged: it's not an aorist middle 2 sg. but simply a variant spelling of the aorist active 2 sg. ἀνάπεσε. We do know that "ε' and "αι" were pronounced alike in NT Koine Greek.

Any thoughts on this?
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Ken M. Penner
Posts: 881
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada
Contact:

Re: ἀνάπεσαι = ἀνάπεσε?

Post by Ken M. Penner »

Tischendorf has the following to say at Luke 17:7:
αναπεσει Gb’) cum אBDΛΠ unc al plus … ϛ αναπεσαι (L ανπεσαι) cum ALMΔ al mu Antioch, X αναπαυσαι … Γ al fere Chr αναπεσον :: cf ad 14:10
and the following at Luke 14:10:
αναπεσε (Gb’ Sz; Schulzio “scribendi errore” pro - σαι ortum videbatur) cum אAB*EHKSUVΓΠ al fere … Gb αναπεσαι cum B3GLMXΔΛ al plus (editum et. Antioch) … ϛ αναπεσον cum minusc pauc … D Clem (vide ante) αναπειπτε :: quum in N. T. πεσεν cum compositis saepissime, nusquam vero πεσασθαι sit adhibitum, αναπεσαι scriptura tantum a αναπεσε differre censendum est, quemadmodum innumeris locis αι et ε promiscue in antiquissimis cdd posita sunt. Eandem prorsus rationem 17:7 habet, ubi similiter testes mu -σαι pro -σε praebent.
He also wrote:
Lc 14:10 17:7 codices optimi inter αναπεσε et αναπεσαι fluctuant. Sed illud prius a paulo pluribus confirmatum eo magis praeferri debet quoniam ανεπεσεν 11:37 22:14 haud dubie a Luca scriptum est, cui si ανεπεσαμην (neque Iohanni, Marco, Matthaeo probatum) placuisset, non unum imperativum αναπεσαι placuisse probabile est.
Ken M. Penner
Professor and Chair of Religious Studies, St. Francis Xavier University
Co-Editor, Digital Biblical Studies
General Editor, Lexham English Septuagint
Co-Editor, Online Critical Pseudepigrapha pseudepigrapha.org
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: ἀνάπεσαι = ἀνάπεσε?

Post by Stephen Carlson »

I'm confident that ἀνάπεσαι is merely a variant spelling of ἀνάπεσε. In fact, it is the spelling found in manuscript 2, which Erasmus used for his edition of the Greek NT.

Based on my experience collating MSS of Galatians, the interchange between ε and αι is very common--especially at the end of verbs--as far back as we have witnesses.

TLG gives no instance of ἀνάπεσαι in its database of Greek texts. The uncompounded πέσαι is found only three times, at least two of which seem to be a late, first aorist form of the second aorist infinitive πεσεῖν.

Stephen
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Ken M. Penner
Posts: 881
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada
Contact:

Re: ἀνάπεσαι = ἀνάπεσε?

Post by Ken M. Penner »

Stephen Carlson wrote:the interchange between ε and αι is very common--especially at the end of verbs--as far back as we have witnesses.
This is also my experience with scribe B of the Codex Sinaiticus. I have had to treat any textual variants interchanging ε and αι as insignificant.
Ken M. Penner
Professor and Chair of Religious Studies, St. Francis Xavier University
Co-Editor, Digital Biblical Studies
General Editor, Lexham English Septuagint
Co-Editor, Online Critical Pseudepigrapha pseudepigrapha.org
George F Somsel
Posts: 172
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 10:11 am

Re: ἀνάπεσαι = ἀνάπεσε?

Post by George F Somsel »

While reading ἀναπέσαι in the TR as being the equivalent to the aor impv ἀνάπεσε is quite possible, perhaps most likely, it is also possible that it was intended to be an aor inf. I'm thinking of a construction with the verb λέγω where the inf is used to indicate the content of what is being said as in Ac 23.12

Γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας ποιήσαντες συστροφὴν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀνεθεμάτισαν ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντες μήτε φαγεῖν μήτε πιεῖν ἕως οὗ ἀποκτείνωσιν τὸν Παῦλον.
george
gfsomsel



… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.



- Jan Hus
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: ἀνάπεσαι = ἀνάπεσε?

Post by Stephen Carlson »

But the "proper" aorist infinitive should be ἀναπεσεῖν (see Matt 15:35; Mark 8:6; John 6:10). So we're either talking about an orthographic irregularity or a morphological irregularity. Given the frequency of the former, my money's not on the latter.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
George F Somsel
Posts: 172
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 10:11 am

Re: ἀνάπεσαι = ἀνάπεσε?

Post by George F Somsel »

Stephen Carlson wrote
But the "proper" aorist infinitive should be ἀναπεσεῖν (see Matt 15:35; Mark 8:6; John 6:10). So we're either talking about an orthographic irregularity or a morphological irregularity. Given the frequency of the former, my money's not on the latter.
That is correct. It would need to be an unusual form, but there are quite a number of verbs which have an aor inf with the ending ·σαι so it is possible that such a form was what the scribe had in mind.
george
gfsomsel



… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.



- Jan Hus
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: ἀνάπεσαι = ἀνάπεσε?

Post by RandallButh »

Good catch, Carl.
I'm with Ken, Stephen and Carl on this.
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”