tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post8063944321374693606..comments2024-03-29T07:11:17.775+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Hebrews 5.6 in P46P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-55445638754666151642014-02-04T17:46:47.581+00:002014-02-04T17:46:47.581+00:00Is there a consensus on the hand of the correction...Is there a consensus on the hand of the correction? Original scribe, contemporary, one later in the 3d cent.?Jonathan C. Borlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-59502969807127045212014-02-04T04:03:40.984+00:002014-02-04T04:03:40.984+00:00I thought I had a good idea to contribute. But I s...I thought I had a good idea to contribute. But I see that Dirk beat me to what I was going to say.<br /><br />Another possibility, besides active for middle, is that the scribe thought he was writing a participle. An aorist participle wouldn't warrant the Xi, but I think could have an -eis ending for a deponent. A future participle would have the xi, but wouldn't end in -eis. So that wouldn't work, but it might be a way to explain it. A participle would allow the scribe to have something substantive there.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559055709208918638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-86215801907438889452014-02-03T23:37:57.068+00:002014-02-03T23:37:57.068+00:00Whereas in both 7.17 and 21 'SU EI IEREUS'...Whereas in both 7.17 and 21 'SU EI IEREUS' is all on the same line ('SU EI' is not part of the 'IEREUS' phrase in 7.1).<br /><br />What do you make of the lighter spot over the 'I' in 'IEREUS' in 7.17 where we would expect the two dots?<br /><br />Julie<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-8066381163639622982014-02-03T21:30:10.136+00:002014-02-03T21:30:10.136+00:00The repetition of the 'I', in 'SU EI&#...The repetition of the 'I', in 'SU EI' (at the end of the previous line) and 'IEREUS' in P46's exemplar may have contributed to the copy error here. <br /><br />JulieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-12661460969962712652014-02-03T15:09:27.706+00:002014-02-03T15:09:27.706+00:00Combined with the following εις it is possible to ...Combined with the following εις it is possible to construct a future active form of επευχομαι, viz. επευξεις 'you will vow'. I assume that Gignac may well have found examples of active for a middle forms (haven't checked!).Dirk Jongkindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08088443923816293794noreply@blogger.com