Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [GTh] Question about preferred rendering of the Coptic particle ngi-

Expand Messages
  • Judy Redman
    I am not following this carefully, but ... ... I am sure you re right about this, Mike. Given that the Copts didn t always borrow their Greek unaltered, if
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 21, 2009
      I am not following this carefully, but ...

      Mike writes:
      > EIMHTI has been a thorn in my side for a long time. Unless it be
      > regarded
      > as a single word, the nice count of 500 becomes an ugly count of 501 or
      > 502, and intentionality looks less probable. Unfortunately, the
      > authorities
      > seemed to be arrayed against me. Lambdin has it in his Glossary
      > of Greek Words as 'EI MH TI'. Layton has it as 'EI MHTI' in his list of
      > Words Borrowed from Greek. Trying to figure out which was right, I even
      > went so far as to pose the question on the B-Greek elist (via the good
      > offices of Jeffrey Gibson). Unfortunately, no one there seemed to know
      > the
      > answer. Then it occurred to me as I was mulling over my answer to your
      > question about the Coptic word 'enchi' (eN6I), that the answer didn't
      > lie
      > in how _Greek writers_ (or modern-day Greek experts) handled EI/MH/TI,
      > but
      > how _Coptic writers_ handled it.

      I am sure you're right about this, Mike. Given that the Copts didn't always
      borrow their Greek unaltered, if you are looking at what the Copts did with
      the MSS, it's what *they* did with the words that you need to worry about.
      They simply borrowed Greek words and used Coptic grammatical conventions
      with them. Layton says "Despite the large amount of Greek vocabulary in
      Coptic, little influence of Greek syntax is evident" (A Coptic Grammar,
      second edition, p 12)

      > So I turned to the Horner NT on the
      > Coptic
      > CD and (after some trouble using the "Find" function) discovered to my
      > delight that it's always presented therein as a single word, albeit
      > spelt
      > two different ways: in GMt, Rev, and Romans, it's EIMHTEI, but in GMk,
      > GLk,
      > Acts, and GJn, it's EIMHTI, just as its one occurrence in CGTh (L.35).

      It's of course a little difficult to be sure about this because what we have
      to do is to work backwards from MSS that have words separated to help us to
      work out how words were viewed in the times when all the letters were run
      together. There have been slippages in English in word separation in my
      lifetime, so I don't know that we can necessarily assume that it didn't
      happen in the time between when NH was written down and when the Horner NT
      texts were written. Given that these MSS are centuries newer than the
      originals and that people who wrote things down without spacings between
      words may well have had a different concept of what constitutes a word to
      ours, anyway.

      Sorry - just an observation, no conclusions.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.