I came across this variant morphological form in Βίος:
§385 Ἐγὼ δ ̓ ἀκούσας ἠπόρουν, τίνα τρόπον ἐξαρπάσω τὴν
Τιβεριάδα τῆς Γαλιλαίων ὀργῆς. ἀρνήσασθαι γὰρ οὐκ ἐδυνάμην
μὴ γεγραφέναι τοὺς Τιβεριεῖς καλοῦντας τὸν βασιλέα· ἤλεγχον γὰρ
αἱ παρ ̓ ἐκείνου πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἀντιγραφαὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν.
Niese's apparatus reads:
γεγραφηκέναι MW
I never expected to see this form for γράφω's perfect infinitive. Perseus won't parse it and I only see four other instances in the Duke Databank Papyri. Am I just seeing a desire by the scribe (and the four papyri authors) to regularize this perfect infinitive to the -κα paradigm? When I see -κε- I normally think pluperfect, but that can't be the case with the infinitive.
Anyway, more than anything else, I'm just curious to hear what other think of this particular morphological creation.
Thoughts?
Variant Reading in Josephus
Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Variant Reading in Josephus
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
- Location: Burnsville, MN, USA
- Contact:
Re: Variant Reading in Josephus
I find at least 15 occurances of γεγραφηκέναι versus 213 of γεγραφέναι.
Re: Variant Reading in Josephus
Are you searching TLG? Or something else?
My search for the form was in Logos' edition of Perseus.
My search for the form was in Logos' edition of Perseus.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
- Location: Burnsville, MN, USA
- Contact:
Re: Variant Reading in Josephus
Yes, TLG.
-
- Posts: 881
- Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
- Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Variant Reading in Josephus
That would be my guess as well. Βιος has a couple more instances of γεγραφέναι (in 358-359), with no variants noted.MAubrey wrote:γεγραφηκέναι MW
... Am I just seeing a desire by the scribe (and the four papyri authors) to regularize this perfect infinitive to the -κα paradigm?
BDAG does list a -κα- form (γεγραφήκαμεν in 2 Macc 1:7). LSJ says "later γεγράφηκα; IG11(4).1026 (Delos, ii B.C.); PHib.1.78.2 (iii B.C.)."
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
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
Re: Variant Reading in Josephus
Perhaps this has already been answered to the satisfaction of Mike. I don't really understand what the problem is. The verb γράφειν has a 1st perfect γέγραφα and a 2nd perfect γεγράφηκα, just as it has a 1st passive ἐγράφθην and a 2nd passive ἐγράφην. The perfect infinitive ending is -έναι. I would expect that one might find both forms in this era when some are beginning to Atticize -- and Josephus falls into that category, doesn't he? That being the case, he would choose the older perfect stem.
It's always seemed a bit amusing to me that the older aorists, perfect, and passives are called "second" and the newer forms are called "first." I realize that "first" here must mean "more common" -- but it still seems to me that the earlier form ought to be called "first" and the later one "second." I remember having to do a second take with Aristotle's distinction of two senses of πρῶτος: "first" in the natural order, and "first" in relation to ourselves.
It's always seemed a bit amusing to me that the older aorists, perfect, and passives are called "second" and the newer forms are called "first." I realize that "first" here must mean "more common" -- but it still seems to me that the earlier form ought to be called "first" and the later one "second." I remember having to do a second take with Aristotle's distinction of two senses of πρῶτος: "first" in the natural order, and "first" in relation to ourselves.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)