2 Peter 2:22

EXERA(S)MA 2Peter 2:22 Thomas J. Kraus tj.kraus at gmx.de
Wed Jan 2 14:15:43 EST 2002

 

Septuagint Septuagint Dear colleagues,there is a minor textcritical issue related to 2Peter 2:22 where most andthe best of the witnesses read TO IDION EXERAMAHowever, there is quite a number of minuscules together with Codex Bezae whoattestTON IDION EXERASMA[A third alternative is TON IDION EMETON in some minuscules and presented bysome fathers, which is no problem to be explained].Well, the form EXERASMA has made me ponder for a while: where does itoriginate from? All my tools did not have a satisfying answer. Definitely,EXERAMA derived from EX+ERAW, is very rare (Disc. de venen. 19).Furthermore, there is EXERASIS, -EWS (vomiting; Eust. 1856.5) which mighthelp to find out more about EXERASMA. But no matter how I try I cannot bringEXERASMA in a clear etymological or morpholical line to explain itsformation.Of course, there is the same root to count on. Maybe, the scribes made amistake (I doubt that because of the features of the several witnesses) orthey mixed up paradigmata of word formation from EX+ERAW to EXERASMA then.But how?I welcome any comment on that. Up to now I have not found any other usage ofEXERASMA in literal texts, inscriptions, or documentary papyri.Thomas J. Kraus (in need of help)–Dr. Thomas J. Kraustj.kraus at gmx.de (groups)t.j.kraus at web.de (private)Amberger Str. 2c92318 NeumarktTelef. +49 91 81 46 25 14Mobile +49 17 05 82 11 62

 

SeptuagintSeptuagint

EXERA(S)MA 2Peter 2:22 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jan 2 19:12:40 EST 2002

 

Septuagint EXERA(S)MA 2Peter 2:22 At 8:15 PM +0100 1/2/02, Thomas J. Kraus wrote:>Dear colleagues,> >there is a minor textcritical issue related to 2Peter 2:22 where most and>the best of the witnesses read> >TO IDION EXERAMA> >However, there is quite a number of minuscules together with Codex Bezae who>attest> >TON IDION EXERASMA> >[A third alternative is TON IDION EMETON in some minuscules and presented by>some fathers, which is no problem to be explained].> >Well, the form EXERASMA has made me ponder for a while: where does it>originate from? All my tools did not have a satisfying answer. Definitely,>EXERAMA derived from EX+ERAW, is very rare (Disc. de venen. 19).>Furthermore, there is EXERASIS, -EWS (vomiting; Eust. 1856.5) which might>help to find out more about EXERASMA. But no matter how I try I cannot bring>EXERASMA in a clear etymological or morpholical line to explain its>formation.>Of course, there is the same root to count on. Maybe, the scribes made a>mistake (I doubt that because of the features of the several witnesses) or>they mixed up paradigmata of word formation from EX+ERAW to EXERASMA then.>But how?> >I welcome any comment on that. Up to now I have not found any other usage of>EXERASMA in literal texts, inscriptions, or documentary papyri.In fact EXERASMA is just a variant of EXERAMA; Smyth has a good account ofthis phenomenon–the addition of a Sigma to a vocalic verb stem before asuffix in Mu (watch out for word-wrap if clicking on the URL):http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007&layout=&loc=837§836. Insertion of sigma.–Between root (or stem) and suffix s is oftenfound, and in some cases it has become attached to the suffix. Thisparasitic letter spread from the perfect middle, where it is properly inplace only in stems in t, d, th, or s; as in schi-s-mo-s cleaving with sfrom e-schi-s-mai by analogy to e-schis-tai for e-schid-tai (schizôcleave). In -s-tês the transference was made easier by words like schis-toscloven for schid-tos. This s appears before many suffixes, and usuallywhere the perfect middle has acquired it (489).ma: spa-s-ma spasm (spaô rend, espasmai), keleu-s-ma command (keleu-ôcommand, kekeleusmai), mia-s-ma stain (miainô stain, memiasmai).–mo:spa-s-mos spa-s-ma, keleu-s-mos command.–mê: du-s-mê setting (du_ôset).–tês: keleus-tês signal-man, orchê-s-tês dancer (orch-e-omai dance),duna-s-tês lord (duna-mai am able). Also in dra-s-têrios efficacious (dra-ôdo), orchê-s-tra_ dancing-place, plê-s-monê fulness. -s-m has displaced dm,-th-m (832) in osmê odour (earlier odmê), rhu-s-mos (and rhu-th-mos) rhythm.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington University (Emeritus)Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

SeptuagintEXERA(S)MA 2Peter 2:22

EXERA(S)MA 2Peter 2:22 L. Tichy tichy at cmtfnw.upol.cz
Fri Jan 4 10:58:34 EST 2002

 

Dungan, David L (OFF TOPIC – NO Discussion!!) How much daily reading is sufficient? On 2 Jan 02 at 20:15, Thomas J. Kraus wrote:> > Dear colleagues,> > there is a minor textcritical issue related to 2Peter 2:22 where most and> the best of the witnesses read> > TO IDION EXERAMA> > However, there is quite a number of minuscules together with Codex Bezae who> attest> > TON IDION EXERASMA> > [A third alternative is TON IDION EMETON in some minuscules and presented by> some fathers, which is no problem to be explained].> > Well, the form EXERASMA has made me ponder for a while: where does it> originate from? All my tools did not have a satisfying answer. Definitely,> EXERAMA derived from EX+ERAW, is very rare (Disc. de venen. 19).> Furthermore, there is EXERASIS, -EWS (vomiting; Eust. 1856.5) which might> help to find out more about EXERASMA. But no matter how I try I cannot bring> EXERASMA in a clear etymological or morpholical line to explain its> formation.> Of course, there is the same root to count on. Maybe, the scribes made a> mistake (I doubt that because of the features of the several witnesses) or> they mixed up paradigmata of word formation from EX+ERAW to EXERASMA then.> But how?> > I welcome any comment on that. Up to now I have not found any other usage of> EXERASMA in literal texts, inscriptions, or documentary papyri.> > Thomas J. Kraus (in need of help)> EXERAMA is formed regularly from the verb EXERAW. EXERASMA, which Icould not find in any dictionary, would be derived from the verb*EXERAZW or *EXERASSW.Ladislav TichyFaculty of TheologyPalacky UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic

 

Dungan, David L (OFF TOPIC – NO Discussion!!)How much daily reading is sufficient?

EXERA(S)MA 2Peter 2:22 Thomas J. Kraus tj.kraus at gmx.de
Sat Jan 5 16:38:22 EST 2002

 

EXERA(S)MA 2Peter 2:22 Septuagint Many thanks, especially to Carl and Dennis for their contributions!Thomas J. Kraus–Dr. Thomas J. Kraustj.kraus at gmx.de (groups)t.j.kraus at web.de (private)Amberger Str. 2c92318 NeumarktTelef. +49 91 81 46 25 14Mobile +49 17 05 82 11 62

 

EXERA(S)MA 2Peter 2:22Septuagint

EXERA(S)MA 2Peter 2:22 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Sat Jan 5 17:12:30 EST 2002

 

ESV How much daily reading? a bigger question In a message dated 1/4/02 9:59:45 AM, tichy at cmtfnw.upol.cz writes:On 2 Jan 02 at 20:15, Thomas J. Kraus wrote:> >> >> Dear colleagues,>> >> there is a minor textcritical issue related to 2Peter 2:22 where most>and>> the best of the witnesses read>> >> TO IDION EXERAMA>> >> However, there is quite a number of minuscules together with Codex Bezae>who>> attest>> >> TON IDION EXERASMA>> >> [A third alternative is TON IDION EMETON in some minuscules and presented>by>> some fathers, which is no problem to be explained].>> >> Well, the form EXERASMA has made me ponder for a while: where does it>> originate from? All my tools did not have a satisfying answer. Definitely,>> EXERAMA derived from EX+ERAW, is very rare (Disc. de venen. 19).>> Furthermore, there is EXERASIS, -EWS (vomiting; Eust. 1856.5) whichmight>> help to find out more about EXERASMA. But no matter how I try I cannot>bring>> EXERASMA in a clear etymological or morpholical line to explain its>> formation.>> Of course, there is the same root to count on. Maybe, the scribes made>>a>> mistake (I doubt that because of the features of the several witnesses)>or>> they mixed up paradigmata of word formation from EX+ERAW to EXERASMA>then.>> But how?>> >> I welcome any comment on that. Up to now I have not found any otherusage>of>> EXERASMA in literal texts, inscriptions, or documentary papyri.>> >> Thomas J. Kraus (in need of help)> >EXERAMA is formed regularly from the verb EXERAW. EXERASMA, which I>could not find in any dictionary, would be derived from the verb>*EXERAZW or *EXERASSW.> >Ladislav TichyI think that EXERASMA would come from EXERAW in the same way that KELEUSMA(an order of command) comes from KELEUW (to give an order or command).The difference between the two choices in the mss, etc. would be a matterof choice. The S before a suffix starting with M or Q is called an epentheticS, i.e., used to smooth the pronunciation of the word. In some cases, atleast, the transformation of a verb to a noun by adding the suffix MA,MATOS makes the noun refer to the thing done, hence the verb EXERAW (toeject, vomit) with the addition (S)MA refers to that which is ejected.It seems I remember Carl talking last week about the addition of S in suchcases. I haven’t had time to check. My wife says that I can’t rememberpeople unless they lived 2000 years ago. I hope that’s not medically significant.Carlton WinberyLouisiana College

 

ESVHow much daily reading? a bigger question

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>