Concordance including all the versions?

Tell us about interesting projects involving biblical Greek. Collaborative projects involving biblical Greek may use this forum for their communication - please contact jonathan.robie@ibiblio.org if you want to use this forum for your project.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 19th, 2016, 12:02 am

Alan Bunning wrote:δυδυμον, ?, GA-05, 3:06:15, 30615
Δίδυμον
0 x


Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Alan Bunning
Posts: 268
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Alan Bunning » January 19th, 2016, 12:04 am

Wes Wood wrote:I think επουξ may be an error in your listing. It didn't match my transcription of P46. When I did a search to find the section in question (for some reason I couldn't find it in CSNTM), I stumbled on this article which has a clear picture of the text in question. For what little it's worth, I agree with him that the reading seems clear. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blog ... n-p46.html
My collation keeps all readings, corrected and uncorrected, as long as they occur before 400 AD.In this case επουξ is the uncorrected reading, and it was not corrected by the original author, but by a later hand who corrected it to ιερευσ. The question is, what did the original reading of επουξ mean? What it merely a mispelling of ιερευσ or did it have a different meaning?
0 x

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

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 19th, 2016, 12:31 am

Alan Bunning wrote:εφνιδος, ?, GA-04, 3:21:34, 32134
αἰφνίδιος.
I don't know why the iota would be missing here.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

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

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 19th, 2016, 12:48 am

Alan Bunning wrote:ειωντο, ?, GA-05, 5:05:16, 50516
ἐϊῶντο "they were healed"
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

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

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 19th, 2016, 1:46 am

Alan Bunning wrote:
Wes Wood wrote:I think επουξ may be an error in your listing. It didn't match my transcription of P46. When I did a search to find the section in question (for some reason I couldn't find it in CSNTM), I stumbled on this article which has a clear picture of the text in question. For what little it's worth, I agree with him that the reading seems clear. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blog ... n-p46.html
My collation keeps all readings, corrected and uncorrected, as long as they occur before 400 AD.In this case επουξ is the uncorrected reading, and it was not corrected by the original author, but by a later hand who corrected it to ιερευσ. The question is, what did the original reading of επουξ mean? What it merely a mispelling of ιερευσ or did it have a different meaning?
It may not really be Greek. If someone not knowing Hebrew tried to recognise and copy a cursive hand of אַתָּֽהכֹהֵ֥ן while assuming that it was a Greek word, what would they copy? The shape of επουξ is not entirely dissimilar, if you are looking to find Greek letters in the Hebrew.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

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

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 19th, 2016, 2:43 am

Alan Bunning wrote:λιων, ?, GA-05, 3:08:36, 30836
λεγιών
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

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

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 19th, 2016, 2:54 am

Alan Bunning wrote:ηρες, ?, GA-05, 4:20:15, 42015
ἦρες for ἦρας
cf. Modern Greek έγραφες / έγραψες for the 2nd singular imperfective / perfective.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

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

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 19th, 2016, 3:48 am

Alan Bunning wrote:διιστορων, ?, GA-05, 5:17:23, 51723
Why is this one here? διϊστορέω is a perfectly good verb and διϊστορῶν is what we would expect.

Perhaps you are using the Perseus site ... One of the major drawbacks in using that site to find forms is that words with a diaireses don't show up in searches. To circumvent that issue, search for a similar word, by using the "Stating with" option in the search button. In this case, you can search for "dik" - kappa being the letter of the Greek alphabet subsequent to iota. The first word to be returned is δίκα, but it is in a different dictionary, so go for δικαδία. Click on "LSJ" next to δικαδία.

Now, look at the top. There are highlights in the three layers of indexing. Hover over the third blue highlighting - the one for the actual word. Move to the left, the hover will flash up διϊχνεύω, but you can't click into that page because of the diairesis problem. What you can do is click on the left arrow (above or below the dictionary entry). Repeat that till you get to διϊστορέω "relate". It is a pain the proverbial to have to navigate like that, but that is the way that it is. The problem is the website's processing of the indexing, not the indexing data itself.
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: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Wes Wood » January 19th, 2016, 7:46 am

Alan Bunning wrote:
Wes Wood wrote:I think επουξ may be an error in your listing. It didn't match my transcription of P46. When I did a search to find the section in question (for some reason I couldn't find it in CSNTM), I stumbled on this article which has a clear picture of the text in question. For what little it's worth, I agree with him that the reading seems clear. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blog ... n-p46.html
My collation keeps all readings, corrected and uncorrected, as long as they occur before 400 AD.In this case επουξ is the uncorrected reading, and it was not corrected by the original author, but by a later hand who corrected it to ιερευσ. The question is, what did the original reading of επουξ mean? What it merely a mispelling of ιερευσ or did it have a different meaning?
Have you looked at the papyri for your collations? More specifically, have you looked at this one? Besides the discussion about what the word might mean in the comments (they aren't sure it was ever a word, but the discussion might help with your question) the link I gave provides the relevant portion of papyrus. I don't see επουξ written by any hand. The first hand appears, to my highly untrained eye, to have written epeux. No offense intended, but after reading your response I feel my time yesterday would've been better spent doing something else.
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3628
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Jonathan Robie » January 19th, 2016, 9:17 am

Wes Wood wrote:I stumbled on this article which has a clear picture of the text in question. For what little it's worth, I agree with him that the reading seems clear. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blog ... n-p46.html

!!! SNIP !!!

Besides the discussion about what the word might mean in the comments (they aren't sure it was ever a word, but the discussion might help with your question) the link I gave provides the relevant portion of papyrus. I don't see επουξ written by any hand. The first hand appears, to my highly untrained eye, to have written epeux.
Alan Bunning wrote:My collation keeps all readings, corrected and uncorrected, as long as they occur before 400 AD.In this case επουξ is the uncorrected reading, and it was not corrected by the original author, but by a later hand who corrected it to ιερευσ. The question is, what did the original reading of επουξ mean? What it merely a mispelling of ιερευσ or did it have a different meaning?
Let's take a look:

Image

I'm not good at reading papyrii. To me, it definitely looks the correction ιερευϲ was written over another word, which could plausibly be επευξ ... Alan reads this as επεοξ. Can we find a plausible meaning for either? What other alternatives are there?
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Post Reply

Return to “Projects”