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.
Post Reply
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, 3:15 pm

Alan Bunning wrote:
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?
The article Wes points to is one possibility:

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blog ... f-p46.html
In that doorstop of a study Scribal Habits, James Royse discusses the singular reading επευξ of P46 in Heb 5:6. This is almost certainly nonsense as it stands, having replaced the normal ιερευς (‘priest’). Zuntz suggested that this reading is a Latin alphabet error, a replacement of Greek Rho ρ for a Latin ‘p’ which is then graphically represented as a Greek Pi, π. The Xi ξ is a ‘simple’ replacement of ς. Royse rejects this explanation (‘there appears to be no other evidence that our scribe was in any way influenced by Latin’) and treats the reading as an inexplicable error (though he treats the preceding ει as a separate variant).

First, I believe the whole variant is ειεπευξ for ιερευς. That is, the first syllable ει represents an itacistic reading of the initial iota of ιερευς.
Whoever crossed out the word and corrected it thought that's what it meant.
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, 3:47 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
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.
Well, for the extra disagreement, it is the first column, fourth line, and the fourth and fifth characters - ΘΝ, or the fourth, fifth and sixth characters - ΕΙΝ (depending on how it is read).
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

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, 4:09 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:
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.
Well, for the extra disagreement, it is the first column, fourth line, and the fourth and fifth characters - ΘΝ, or the fourth, fifth and sixth characters - ΕΙΝ (depending on how it is read).
Ah, I see it now. Honestly, I could read it either way. Comfort and Barrett read it as one word: τονειν.

How do the people who do this daily resolve such questions?
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, 4:14 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
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.
Perhaps I could say that the scribe, who transcribed the text onto this papyrus (P9) made an inaccurate transcription of the text they had in front of them, and had they known better (was not so ignorant of) Greek, may not have written the "word" ταπρισεν that we see faithfully and well reproduced in the various modern transcriptions including Allan's and "The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts".

The "sloppy copying of ἀγάπησεν" - to quote myself, is perhaps the fault of the illegible hand or bad state of the text that the scribe of P9 had in front of them. "ἀγ" was misread by the scribe of P9 as "τ", and they wrote that down, and Allan has faithfully reproduced the scribe's "τ". "η" was misread by the scribe of P9 as "ρι", and written as such and Allan has faithfully reproduced the scribe's "ρι".

Presumably, this scribe, the scribe of P9 was a copyist. I hope that his ego would not be too bruised by my comments about their knowledge or ignorance of Greek, or their sloppiness or application to the copying of the text. These two errors could only have arisen from mis-reading, not through mis-hearing.

My main point is that I think this is a non-word, and is the result of non-knowledgeable copying on the part of the ancient scribe, not a lack of an entry in BDAG or LSJ. There are better things to do than for somebody to spend the next half of their life time tracking down a meaning for ταπρισεν - the word which clearly stands written in P9.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

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, 4:21 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote: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.
Perhaps I could say that the scribe, who transcribed the text onto this papyrus (P9) made an inaccurate transcription of the text they had in front of them, and had they known better (was not so ignorant of) Greek, may not have written the "word" ταπρισεν that we see faithfully and well reproduced in the various modern transcriptions including Allan's and "The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts".

The "sloppy copying of ἀγάπησεν" - to quote myself, is perhaps the fault of the illegible hand or bad state of the text that the scribe of P9 had in front of them. "ἀγ" was misread by the scribe of P9 as "τ", and they wrote that down, and Allan has faithfully reproduced the scribe's "τ". "η" was misread by the scribe of P9 as "ρι", and written as such and Allan has faithfully reproduced the scribe's "ρι".

Presumably, this scribe, the scribe of P9 was a copyist. I hope that his ego would not be too bruised by my comments about their knowledge or ignorance of Greek, or their sloppiness or application to the copying of the text. These two errors could only have arisen from mis-reading, not through mis-hearing.

My main point is that I think this is a non-word, and is the result of non-knowledgeable copying on the part of the ancient scribe, not a lack of an entry in BDAG or LSJ. There are better things to do than for somebody to spend the next half of their life time tracking down a meaning for ταπρισεν - the word which clearly stands written in P9.
Ooops, I misunderstood you. I thought you had insulted a forum participant. I agree that it looks like whoever wrote P9 made some strange mistakes that a Greek speaker would not.

As far as I know, none of the original scribes participate on B-Greek, so their egos won't be bruised. Unfortunately, that also means they can't tell us what they intended. Pity.
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, 4:25 pm

The end of the fourth line of the recto of P9 has the very clearly written ἀγαπ... (half the π actually), of the scribe of this manuscript.

The basic question Allan is asking is "What verb is this from?". My suggestion is from ἀγαπάω. It does not look like what we expect because of a copying error. In that it is an error, it deviates from what is expected, and this error is not, I think, a chance recording of a non-standard, but understandable form as some of the others spelling and morphological errors are.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

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, 4:39 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:The basic question Allan is asking is "What verb is this from?"
I'm not sure what Alan wants here - what the scribe wrote, or what we think he intended. Alan, can you give us guidance?
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, 6:46 pm

Thanks so much for everyone’s help so far. Here is where I stand with round 2:

δερρην, δερρις (but wrong declension?)
διιστορων, διϊστορεω
δυδυμον, δίδυμος (δίδυμον)
εφνιδος, αίφνίδος (non-diminutive form αἰφνίδιος, but same in meaning?)
ειωντο, (what was the root? εαω?)
εκπρυξαμεν, κηρυσσω (εκηρυξαμεν)
εμμενως, (not sure I like ἐμμενέως here but it would work, other suggestions?)
επετων, επαιτεω (επαιτων)
επουξ (or rather επευξ), ιερευς
ερυσαμην, ρυομαι (ερρυσαμην)
ηρες, αιρω (ηρας)
κατε, κατα
λιων, λεγιών (seems plausible to me)
ταπρισεν, αγαπαω (ηγαπησεν)

And then there was this one left over from round 1:

απανπληθει, παμπληθει (erroneous “α”)
0 x

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, 7:32 pm

Alan Bunning wrote:ειωντο, (what was the root? εαω?)
I would think so.
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, 8:37 pm

For round 3, I have a list of words where the form or declension does not seem to exactly match the lexical entry in BDAG. It could be that I don’t know all of the declensions well enough. The 1st column is the word and the 2nd column is the lexical entry. I am not sure exactly what to do with these. For some of them I would either need to expand the lexical possibilities or call it an error. Please advise.

αντιοχεαν, αντιοχευς, GA-04, 05:06:05, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0506.htm#050605
απολλωνιδα, απολλωνια, GA-05, 05:17:01, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0517.htm#051701
χρυσαια, χρυσους, GA-01, 27:09:20, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/2709.htm#270920
διετειας, διετης, GA-05, 01:02:16, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0102.htm#010216
δοξεως, δοξα, GA-P40, 06:03:23, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0603.htm#060323
ειμιωρον, ημιωριον, GA-02, 27:08:01, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/2708.htm#270801
επιφανιω, επιφανεια, GA-02, 14:02:08, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/1402.htm#140208
επιστολω, επιστολη, GA-04, 07:16:03, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0716.htm#071603
ηρωδους, ηρωδης, GA-05, 01:02:01, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0102.htm#010201
λεπρωσου, λεπρος, GA-05, 01:26:06, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0126.htm#012606
μοιχαλιας, μοιχαλις, GA-01, 22:02:14, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/2202.htm#220214
νηρεαν, νηρευς, GA-02, 06:16:15, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0616.htm#061615
οινοφλυγιοις, οινοφλυγια, GA-03, 21:04:03, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/2104.htm#210403
παραδοσιαν, παραδοσις, GA-05^, 02:07:03, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0207.htm#020703
πλατιους, πλατεια, GA-032, 03:10:10, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0310.htm#031010
πλοιαι, πλοιον, GA-05, 02:04:36, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0204.htm#020436
ποδιων, πους, GA-P13, 19:10:13, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/1910.htm#191013
πρωφητω, προφητης, TM-61868, 06:01:02, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0601.htm#060102
θεμελιοτητα, θεμελιοτης, GA-P46, 19:06:01, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/1906.htm#190601
θυατειροις, θυατειρα, GA-01, 27:02:18, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/2702.htm#270218
σαδδουκαι, σαδδουκαιος, GA-01, 05:23:08, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0523.htm#052308
σαμαριτανων, σαμαριτης, GA-05, 01:10:05, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0110.htm#011005
σκευιου, σκευας, GA-P38, 05:19:14, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0519.htm#051914
σοφις, σοφια, GA-04, 07:02:04, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0702.htm#070204
συκομωρον, συκομορεα, GA-029+, 03:19:04, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0319.htm#031904
συρτην, συρτις, R-BYZ, 05:27:17, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0527.htm#052717
τρπεζης, τραπεζα, GA-P46, 07:10:21, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0710.htm#071021
υπερπερισσω, υπερπερισσως, GA-032, 02:07:37, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0207.htm#020737
ψευδομαρτυραν, ψευδομαρτυρια, GA-03, 01:26:59, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0126.htm#012659
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Projects”