εχερα(σ)μα 2Peter 2:22 Thomas ψ. Kraus tj.kraus at gmx.de
Wed Jan 2 14:15:43 εστ 2002
Septuagint Septuagint Dear colleagues,there is a minor textcritical issue related to 2Peter 2:22 where most andthe best of the witnesses read το ιδιον EXERAMAHowever, there is quite a number of minuscules together with Codex Bezae whoattestTON ιδιον εχερασμα[α third alternative is τον ιδιον εμετον in some minuscules and presented bysome fathers, which is no problem to be explained].Well, the form εχερασμα has made me ponder for a while: where does itoriginate from? All my tools did not have a satisfying answer. Definitely,εχεραμα derived from εχ+εραω, is very rare (Disc. de venen. 19).Furthermore, there is εχερασισ, –εωσ (vomiting; Eust. 1856.5) which mighthelp to find out more about εχερασμα. But no matter how ι try ι 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 (ι doubt that because of the features of the several witnesses) orthey mixed up paradigmata of word formation from εχ+εραω to εχερασμα then.But how?ι welcome any comment on that. Up to now ι have not found any other usage ofEXERASMA in literal texts, inscriptions, or documentary papyri.Thomas ψ. Kraus (in need of help)–Dr. Thomas ψ. 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
εχερα(σ)μα 2Peter 2:22 Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jan 2 19:12:40 εστ 2002
Septuagint εχερα(σ)μα 2Peter 2:22 At 8:15 πμ +0100 1/2/02, Thomas ψ. Kraus wrote:>Dear colleagues,> >there is a minor textcritical issue related to 2Peter 2:22 where most and>the best of the witnesses read> >το ιδιον εχεραμα> >However, there is quite a number of minuscules together with Codex Bezae who>attest> >τον ιδιον εχερασμα> >[α third alternative is τον ιδιον εμετον in some minuscules and presented by>some fathers, which is no problem to be explained].> >Well, the form εχερασμα has made me ponder for a while: where does it>originate from? All my tools did not have a satisfying answer. Definitely,>εχεραμα derived from εχ+εραω, is very rare (Disc. de venen. 19).>Furthermore, there is εχερασισ, –εωσ (vomiting; Eust. 1856.5) which might>help to find out more about εχερασμα. But no matter how ι try ι cannot bring>εχερασμα 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 (ι doubt that because of the features of the several witnesses) or>they mixed up paradigmata of word formation from εχ+εραω to εχερασμα then.>But how?> >ι welcome any comment on that. Up to now ι have not found any other usage of>εχερασμα in literal texts, inscriptions, or documentary papyri.In fact εχερασμα is just a variant of εχεραμα; 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 υρλ):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 ω. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington University (Emeritus)Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
SeptuagintEXERA(σ)μα 2Peter 2:22
εχερα(σ)μα 2Peter 2:22 λ. Tichy tichy at cmtfnw.upol.cz
Fri Jan 4 10:58:34 εστ 2002
Dungan, David λ (οφφ τοπιξ – νο Discussion!!) How much daily reading is sufficient? On 2 Jan 02 at 20:15, Thomas ψ. Kraus wrote:> > Dear colleagues,> > there is a minor textcritical issue related to 2Peter 2:22 where most and> the best of the witnesses read> > το ιδιον εχεραμα> > However, there is quite a number of minuscules together with Codex Bezae who> attest> > τον ιδιον εχερασμα> > [α third alternative is τον ιδιον εμετον in some minuscules and presented by> some fathers, which is no problem to be explained].> > Well, the form εχερασμα has made me ponder for a while: where does it> originate from? All my tools did not have a satisfying answer. Definitely,> εχεραμα derived from εχ+εραω, is very rare (Disc. de venen. 19).> Furthermore, there is εχερασισ, –εωσ (vomiting; Eust. 1856.5) which might> help to find out more about εχερασμα. But no matter how ι try ι cannot bring> εχερασμα 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 (ι doubt that because of the features of the several witnesses) or> they mixed up paradigmata of word formation from εχ+εραω to εχερασμα then.> But how?> > ι welcome any comment on that. Up to now ι have not found any other usage of> εχερασμα in literal texts, inscriptions, or documentary papyri.> > Thomas ψ. Kraus (in need of help)> εχεραμα is formed regularly from the verb εχεραω. εχερασμα, which Icould not find in any dictionary, would be derived from the verb*εχεραζω or *εχερασσω.Ladislav TichyFaculty of TheologyPalacky UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic
Dungan, David λ (οφφ τοπιξ – νο Discussion!!)How much daily reading is sufficient?
Sat Jan 5 16:38:22 εστ 2002
εχερα(σ)μα 2Peter 2:22 Septuagint Many thanks, especially to Carl and Dennis for their contributions!Thomas ψ. Kraus–Dr. Thomas ψ. 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
εχερα(σ)μα 2Peter 2:22Septuagint
εχερα(σ)μα 2Peter 2:22 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Sat Jan 5 17:12:30 εστ 2002
εσβ How much daily reading? a bigger question In a message dated 1/4/02 9:59:45 αμ, tichy at cmtfnw.upol.cz writes:On 2 Jan 02 at 20:15, Thomas ψ. Kraus wrote:> >> >> Dear colleagues,>> >> there is a minor textcritical issue related to 2Peter 2:22 where most>and>> the best of the witnesses read>> >> το ιδιον εχεραμα>> >> However, there is quite a number of minuscules together with Codex Bezae>who>> attest>> >> τον ιδιον εχερασμα>> >> [α third alternative is τον ιδιον εμετον in some minuscules and presented>by>> some fathers, which is no problem to be explained].>> >> Well, the form εχερασμα has made me ponder for a while: where does it>> originate from? All my tools did not have a satisfying answer. Definitely,>> εχεραμα derived from εχ+εραω, is very rare (Disc. de venen. 19).>> Furthermore, there is εχερασισ, –εωσ (vomiting; Eust. 1856.5) whichmight>> help to find out more about εχερασμα. But no matter how ι try ι cannot>bring>> εχερασμα 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 (ι doubt that because of the features of the several witnesses)>or>> they mixed up paradigmata of word formation from εχ+εραω to εχερασμα>then.>> But how?>> >> ι welcome any comment on that. Up to now ι have not found any otherusage>of>> εχερασμα in literal texts, inscriptions, or documentary papyri.>> >> Thomas ψ. Kraus (in need of help)> >εχεραμα is formed regularly from the verb εχεραω. εχερασμα, which ι>could not find in any dictionary, would be derived from the verb>*εχεραζω or *εχερασσω.> >Ladislav Tichyι think that εχερασμα would come from εχεραω in the same way that κελευσμα(an order of command) comes from κελευω (to give an order or command).The difference between the two choices in the mss, etc. would be a matterof choice. The σ before a suffix starting with μ or θ 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 μα,ματοσ makes the noun refer to the thing done, hence the verb εχεραω (toeject, vomit) with the addition (σ)μα refers to that which is ejected.It seems ι remember Carl talking last week about the addition of σ in suchcases. ι haven’t had time to check. My wife says that ι can’t rememberpeople unless they lived 2000 years ago. ι hope that’s not medically significant.Carlton WinberyLouisiana College
ESVHow much daily reading? a bigger question