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, 9:30 am

Jonathan Robie wrote: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.
Here is a transcription from somebody, who (presumably) is good at reading papyri.
Heb 5:1-10 [url=https://sites.google.com/site/literaltranslationofthebible/home/bible-papyrus-p46]P46 from Literal Translation of the Bible[/url] wrote: 1 πας γαρ αρχιερευς εξ ανθρωπων λαμβανομενος υπερ ανθρωπων καθιστ̣αται προς τον θν̅ ινα προσφερη δωρα και θυσιας περι αμαρτιων 2 μετρ̣ιοπαθειν δυναμενος τοις αγνοουσι και πλανωμενοις επει και αυτος περικειται ασθενειαν 3 και δι αυτην οφειλει καθως περι του λαου ουτως και περι αυτου προσ̣φερει π[ερι] αμαρτιων 4 και ουχ εαυτω τις λα̣μβανε̣ι̣ τ̣η̣ν τειμην αλλα καλουμενος υπο τ[ο]υ θυ̅ καθωσπερ και ααρων 5 ουτως και ο χρ̅ς ουχ̣ εαυτον εδ̣ο̣ξασεν γενηθηναι αρχιερεα αλλα ο λαλη̣σ̣α̣ς̣ προς αυτον υι̅ς μου ει συ εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε 6 καθως και εν ετερ̣ω λεγει συ ει επευξ εις τον αιωνα κατα την ταξι̣ν̣ μελχισεδεκ 7 ος εν ταις ημεραις τ[ης] [σαρ]κος αυτου δεησεις τε και ικετηρ̣ι̣[ας] [προς] τον δυναμενο̣ν σ̣ωζειν αυτο̣[ν] [εκ] [θανατου] μετα κρ̣αυγ̣η̣[ς] [ι]σ̣χ̣υρ̣α̣[ς] [και] [δακρυων] – 8 –

την υπακοην 9 και τελειωθεις εγενετο πασιν τοις υπακουουσιν αυτω αιτιος σωτηριας αιωνιου 10 προσαγορευθεις υπο του θυ̅ συ ει αρχιερευς κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ
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, 9:50 am

Alan Bunning wrote:δερρην, ?, GA-05, 2:01:06, 20106
This looks like an alternative declension of the noun δέρρις, which is related to the verb δέρω "to skin" / "flay an animal". cf. δέρμα
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3610
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Jonathan Robie » January 19th, 2016, 9:53 am

According to "The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts" by Philip Comfort and David Barrett, "επευξ was deleted by dots above the letters, and ιερευς was added superlinearly". That explains the dots.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

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

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 19th, 2016, 9:56 am

Alan Bunning wrote:εκπρυξαμεν, ?, GA-04, 5:15:36, 51536
Logically, this should of course be ἐκηρύξαμεν "we preached".
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, 10:06 am

Alan Bunning wrote:ερυσαμην, ?, GA-P48, 5:23:27, 52327
Is the doubling of the rou always a requirement of verbs beginning with rou? The form is of course ἐρρυσάμην.
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, 10:10 am

Alan Bunning wrote:κατε, ?, GA-P46, 6:15:33, 61533
κατά. Perhaps this reflects the way it was pronounced in this situation at that time.
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, 10:44 am

On Wes' topic of disagreeing with transcriptions, I wonder about 1 John 4:12, where P9 is said to have ΤΟΝ ΕΙΝ. In the picture also here the "ΕΙ" (epsilon iota - as read by the editors) are, in my opinion, touching each other, thus forming a Θ (theta). ΘΝ, then, that we see in the text is the accusative singular of the nomina sacra.
Alan Bunning wrote:ταπρισεν, ?, GA-P9, 23:04:11, 230411
This is a sacred example of ignorant transcription. A sloppy transcription of "ΑΓ" (alpha gamma) has resulted in a "Τ" (tau). Each half messily written "Η" (eta) has been copied as individual words Ρ (rou) and Ι (iota) as "ΡΙ".

It is a sloppy copying of ἀγάπησεν.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3610
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Jonathan Robie » January 19th, 2016, 11:13 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:On Wes' topic of disagreeing with transcriptions, I wonder about 1 John 4:12, where P9 is said to have ΤΟΝ ΕΙΝ. In the picture also here the "ΕΙ" (epsilon iota - as read by the editors) are, in my opinion, touching each other, thus forming a Θ (theta). ΘΝ, then, that we see in the text is the accusative singular of the nomina sacra.
Here it is:

Image

We're talking about the first line on the upper left.
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Alan Bunning wrote:ταπρισεν, ?, GA-P9, 23:04:11, 230411
This is a sacred example of ignorant transcription. A sloppy transcription of "ΑΓ" (alpha gamma) has resulted in a "Τ" (tau). Each half messily written "Η" (eta) has been copied as individual words Ρ (rou) and Ι (iota) as "ΡΙ".

It is a sloppy copying of ἀγάπησεν.
I wouldn't be so quick to call this ignorant transcription, it's at least the same as the transcription in "The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts":
ο θς ταπρισεν ημας
It's certainly true that the other early manuscripts read ηγαπησεν here, so it's possible that you're right. There must be articles discussing this from various sides.

And can we lose insulting terms like "ignorant", please, they violate the respectful discourse rule on B-Greek, and make it harder to brainstorm constructively about what a given text might say without bruising each other.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

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, 2:46 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:
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.
Thanks for that tip!
0 x

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, 2:49 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote: 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?
Yes, my bad. I think it should read επευξ. Do we have a meaning for that or is it a mispelling?
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Projects”