κυρειαν

Semantic Range, Lexicography, and other approaches to word meaning - in general, or for particular words.
Post Reply
Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

κυρειαν

Post by Wes Wood » September 16th, 2014, 12:07 pm

I am reading Bel and the Dragon today, and I came across this word. I can't find it in a lexicon that I have. I am fairly confident that it means something like "lordship," but I want to be sure. It is so similar to κυρειον that it has me second-guessing myself. Is there any possibility the similarity is intentional?

Thanks in advance for the help. Here is the whole verse (5?) sorry there are no accents:
Ο δε ειπεν, οτι οu σεβομαι ειδωλα χειροποιητα, αλλα τον ζωντα Θεον, τον κτισαντα τον ουρανον και την γην και εχοντα πασης σαρκος κυρειαν.
0 x


Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: κυρειαν

Post by Stephen Hughes » September 16th, 2014, 12:42 pm

Yes, Bel and the Dragon 1:5
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1631
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: κυρειαν

Post by Barry Hofstetter » September 17th, 2014, 6:06 am

Wes Wood wrote:I am reading Bel and the Dragon today, and I came across this word. I can't find it in a lexicon that I have. I am fairly confident that it means something like "lordship," but I want to be sure. It is so similar to κυρειον that it has me second-guessing myself. Is there any possibility the similarity is intentional?

Thanks in advance for the help. Here is the whole verse (5?) sorry there are no accents:
Ο δε ειπεν, οτι οu σεβομαι ειδωλα χειροποιητα, αλλα τον ζωντα Θεον, τον κτισαντα τον ουρανον και την γην και εχοντα πασης σαρκος κυρειαν.
The LSJ defines it as "proprietary rights."

κῡριεία
κῡρι-εία, ἡ,
proprietary rights, Mitteis Chr.31 v 37 (ii B.C.), IG22.1006.28 (ii B.C.), SIG685.133 (pl., Magn.Mae., ii B.C.), BGU1187.7 (i B.C.):—written κυριήα Mon. Anc.Gr.17.22:—later contr. κυρεία, κυρία (q.v.).


My LEH LXX lexicon gives:

κυριεία,-ας N1F 0-0-1-7-3=11
Is 40,10; DnLXX11,3.4; DnTh4,22 (19); 6,27
authority, power Is 40,10; dominion, lordship, empire DnLXX11,3
Cf. WALTERS 1973, 40


Lust, J., Eynikel, E., & Hauspie, K. (2003). A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint : Revised Edition. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart.

Also under LSJ, if you follow the little clue they give you above...

κῡρία
κῡρί-α, ἡ,
authority, power, Arist.Mir.837a5, etc.; possession, control, οἴνου Plb.6.11A.4; ταμιείου Id.6.13.1; τοῦ ἐπαποστεῖλαι στρατηγόν Id.6.15.6; κυρίαν ἔχειν περί τινος Id.6.14.10.—The form κυρεία is freq. found in Pap. and Inscrr. from i B.C., as BGU1123.6 (i B.C.), PAmh.2.95i6(ii A.D.), and codd., as Plb.6.11A.4, LXX Da.11.5, Thd. Da.4.19, 6.26(7), Ph.2.52 (v.l.), Ath.10.440f(v.l.), EM427.9, and is required by metre in Man.4.606: contr. from κυριεία (q.v.).

So your instinct was right...
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: κυρειαν

Post by Wes Wood » September 17th, 2014, 7:14 am

My thanks to both of you. I just noticed the spelling error in this post. It's no wonder I didn't find it in LSJ :oops:. As someone else in this thread would say, "forgive my low I.Q."
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: κυρειαν

Post by Stephen Hughes » September 18th, 2014, 11:16 am

Wes Wood wrote:My thanks to both of you. I just noticed the spelling error in this post. It's no wonder I didn't find it in LSJ :oops:.
It is not a speling eror. Perhaps just the simplification of the spelling in a way the reflects (aka was logical for) the pronunciation system of the letters at that time. Most contractions that we learn in grammar made sense a few hundred (or even a thousand) years earlier, and varies from dialect to dialect - most dialectical differences before the Attic Koine (dialect-diverse) Greece were in the vowels.

[The were other "Koines" in Greece for some time too, such as the Achaean Doric Koine and the Northwest Doric Koine, but they also eventually gave way to the Attic Koine - the Koine we use that spread with the learning that Alexander took to the known world.]
Wes Wood wrote:As someone else in this thread would say, "forgive my low I.Q."
By "someone else", I guess you are not referring to Barry.

Wes, if I said forgive my IQ, that was unintended. IQ is not something that an individual can control - it is something like height or gender, so is not forgivable as such. I am sure I've said I'm sorry about it - that is expressing a personal feeling, to which others may or may not react to.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: κυρειαν

Post by Wes Wood » September 18th, 2014, 8:26 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote: It is not a speling eror. Perhaps just the simplification of the spelling in a way the reflects (aka was logical for) the pronunciation system of the letters at that time. Most contractions that we learn in grammar made sense a few hundred (or even a thousand) years earlier, and varies from dialect to dialect - most dialectical differences before the Attic Koine (dialect-diverse) Greece were in the vowels.
Unfortunately for me, it was. I was intending to write "κυριειαν" instead of "κυρειαν." The word I was holding in mind was wrong. I am not quite sure what the exact cause of this was or why I messed it up so many times.
Stephen Hughes wrote: Wes, if I said forgive my IQ, that was unintended. IQ is not something that an individual can control - it is something like height or gender, so is not forgivable as such. I am sure I've said I'm sorry about it - that is expressing a personal feeling, to which others may or may not react to.
I did not mean to cause offense here, if I have. I believe I remember your use of this phrase before, but I thought that you had used it intentionally. I found it clever, so it stuck with me. If you hadn't brought it to my attention now, I would still think it to be intentional. However, I readily understand how what I had intended to be a tip of the hat might have been construed as a thrust of the spear. I hope that you know that I have more respect for others, not at all least to you, than to be malicious or inconsiderate. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

You didn't need to explain that you understand what I.Q. is for my benefit. Ironically, it was my confidence that you knew what you were talking about that led me to conclude that you were being facetious. 8-)

Editor's Note: I deleted my previous post. This one gives a more detailed, less hurried response.
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: κυρειαν

Post by Stephen Hughes » September 19th, 2014, 12:59 am

Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote: It is not a speling eror. Perhaps just the simplification of the spelling in a way the reflects (aka was logical for) the pronunciation system of the letters at that time. Most contractions that we learn in grammar made sense a few hundred (or even a thousand) years earlier, and varies from dialect to dialect - most dialectical differences before the Attic Koine (dialect-diverse) Greece were in the vowels.
Unfortunately for me, it was. I was intending to write "κυριειαν" instead of "κυρειαν." The word I was holding in mind was wrong. I am not quite sure what the exact cause of this was or why I messed it up so many times.
Now I see your point about the spelling being wrong.

I also checked the spelling when I checked the reference, but gave more attention to the reason why, rather than to checking it. I saw (mistakenly that) the spelling in the text as κυρειαν and didn't visually notice the iota WAS in the text.

I remember thinking that if it were κυριεια then that would be a regular noun corresponding to κυριεύειν. I called to mind the New Testament verse;
Luke 22:25 wrote:Οἱ βασιλεῖς τῶν ἐθνῶν κυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν
noting that the word seems to have a bad connotation there, so I (mentally) marked this nominal form as also possibly having a bad connotation and probably not having a good connotation.

I then wondered whether the form had been derived directly from κῦρος, (= a strengthened form of κυρεσ + an abstract noun ending ία, with the loss of an inter-vocalic sigma as happened with the genitive κύρεσος -> κύρεος) but I remembered that this word only really became productive in its adjectival form κύριος. So I looked for other reasons such as the contemporary interchange between -ειον / -ιον forms, which seemed plausible, and the much later change from -αῖος to -είος in adjectives which seemed irrelevant.

After following that thought process through, and the issue of whether the form you presented was the same as the form in the text had become a non-issue in my thinking. So much so that I misunderstood, your "spelling mistake" comment to be referring to the scribe, not to yourself.

Although the form that we have been talking about was - as you say - a "mistake", it was still an interesting discussion that I have learnt from.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Post Reply

Return to “Word Meanings”