1 Tim 5:9 Scope of μή

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.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: 1 Tim 5:9 Scope of μή

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:As suggested by my parenthesised "yet", it seems that you are reading the meaning of μήπω too easily into the μή, when you read the μή with the γεγονυῖα. Is that justifiable?
No, I don't think the difficulty is here. And the adverbs seem equivalent.
Perhaps in some circumstances they are. If μήπω were to have been used, it would have to be taken with the γεγονυῖα, because it goes with verbs only, not adjectives / adverbs.

If it were an ουκ, then I suppose it would go with ἔλαττον, because ου is less likely to go with a participle than μή and it ordinarily goes with ἔλαττον, but ου is not used here. It is unlikely that there was a conscious choice to use μή rather than ου, except that if the writer wanted to make clear that the negative was not with ἔλαττον.
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I take γεγονυῖα to mean "if she has become".
Why not "if she is"?
It is a lot to hang things on that point of interpretation of the tense. If the γεγονυῖα is taken with the negative μή and it's sense is "is", then "if she is in the state of not being less than sixty years old" makes sense, but in that case wouldn't the predicate be adjectival, or the verb be έχουσα?
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I'm surprised by the accusative following the ἔλαττον rather than a genitive. I think that suggests that μὴ ἔλαττον is additional to the originally intended syntax.
Huh? ἐτῶν is genitive plural and ἑξήκοντα is indeclinable. There is no accusative in sight.
Yes, you are right. That statement, that statement can be entered directly into the Stephen Hughes' dumb quotes Starwalk of infamy. Such a silly thing to say is a clear indication of how well I am acquainted with the Greek at this point.
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I can't answer the question why μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα is used rather than ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα ή μείζον. If that second option (which wouldn't have this ambiguity) was available, and wasn't taken, then it might suggest that μὴ was intended to be taken with γεγονυῖα, but not necessarily.
That's not my question. Perhaps "not less than" is more idiomatic in such kinds of rule making. One would need to do a proper study of legalistic terminology, and that won't answer the original question.
I don't have the Rudder here to work with you on the study of legal phrasing.

If we ignore for a moment that this is probably very fixed legal phraseology, we could rearrange it more freely as, Χήραv μή καταλέγησον ει μὴ ου ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖαν / ούσαν if that helps you see it in 3-D.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: 1 Tim 5:9 Scope of μή

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

cwconrad wrote:There's no accusative, but I've always assumed that this is a Greek equivalent to the Latin expression, "LX annos natus" = "60 years old"'; I take the expression μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = ἥκιστά γε ἑξήκοντα ἔτη γεγονυῖα. cf. LSJ s.v. γίγνομαι
1 of persons, to be born , … freq. with Numerals, ἔτεα τρία καὶ δέκα γεγονώς Hdt.1.119 ; ἀμφὶ τὰ πέντε ἢ ἑκκαίδεκα ἔτη γενόμενος X.Cyr.1.4.16 ; γεγονὼς ἔτη περὶ πεντήκοντα D. 21.154 ; οἱ ὑπὲρ τὰ στρατεύσιμα ἔτη γεγονότες those of an age beyond . ., X.Cyr.1.2.4 : c. gen., γεγονὼς πλειόνων ἐτῶν ἢ πεντήκοντα Pl.Lg. 951c , etc.: rarely with ordinals, ὀγδοηκοστὸν ἔτος γεγονώς Luc.Macr. 22 , cf. Plu.Phil.18 .
I simply took it as a "genitive of time within which..."
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Randall Tan
Posts: 24
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 12:44 pm

Re: 1 Tim 5:9 Scope of μή

Post by Randall Tan »

When Jonathan first brought this discussion to my attention, my initial impression was that our current treebank analysis "was a bug," as Jonathan suggested. As a general comment, our trees were initially generated automatically using our rule-based grammar & then were manually checked by different annotators prior to my involvement as editor. Even though I did check through the whole NT in my editorial role, I only revised the annotation in places where I noticed a definite problem. So, for any remaining problematic places, it is possible that I may have overlooked the problem or that I may have allowed an annotator's suggestion to stand (even if I personally prefer a different analysis), if I thought the suggestion was worthy of consideration (even if it should ultimately be changed after more mature reflection & discussion). We definitely appreciate your feedback to alert us to any problematic analyses in our trees. We would also appreciate suggestions for alternative analyses, where more than one analysis seems viable.

After reviewing our records & looking at the text more carefully, it seems that the annotation is actually our suggestion to solve some problems we see with taking μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα together, as is commonly done. Our suggestion may not be correct & I'd be happy to revise the annotation if it becomes clear that our suggestion is untenable.

The first problem we noticed was the question, "What is the scope of μή?" (much like the question posed in Stephen Carlson's initial post for this thread). Then, we also noticed similar problems to what Stephen Hughes discussed in his "April 28th, 2014, 7:02 am" post above (though we did consider taking μὴ in the sense of μήπω & γεγονυῖα in the sense of ὤν as Stephen Carlson further suggested). In addition, οὐ would have been expected over μή, if the scope of the negation was just the nominative complement ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα.

Our suggestion is to still assume that μή negates a participial clause, only it is [ὤν] ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα (adverbial participial clause with elided ὤν--the first of three parallel "conditional" participial clauses, which are then followed by five parallel "conditional" clauses introduced by εἰ). Then, we take γεγονυῖα ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή together to form the second adverbial participial clause--having been (i.e., having possessed the characteristic of being) the wife of one husband (presumably this additional condition is meant to disqualify widows who had remarried & came into their current widowhood from having lost more than one husband or to disqualify widows who could be discredited as having been unfaithful to their deceased husband[s]). A final note: γεγονυῖα appears to us to make sense with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή. Without γεγονυῖα, ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή seems to dangle grammatically. One could assume an elided participle--but γεγονυῖα is actually what would need to be elided, not ὤν (a widow is not currently the wife of one husband)--but the contextually-easily-supplied ὤν is more likely to be elided than the more affected form γεγονυῖα in the first place. This consideration contributed further to our conclusion that ὤν was elided in relation to ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα & that γεγονυῖα belongs with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.

Again, we welcome additional feedback & would be happy to revise the analysis. Thanks.

P.S. Our current tree for 1 Tim 5:9 actually doesn't quite fully reflect the analysis I gave above. The analysis I gave above was the reason why I let the current tree of a previous annotator stand (because it approximated my analysis & seemed plausible too). However, instead of AdvNP & an adverbial accusative noun phrase as in the current tree, my analysis above actually would call for ADV-P & an adverbial clause.
Randall Tan
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: 1 Tim 5:9 Scope of μή

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Stephen Hughes wrote:If it were an ουκ, then I suppose it would go with ἔλαττον, because ου is less likely to go with a participle than μή and it ordinarily goes with ἔλαττον, but ου is not used here. It is unlikely that there was a conscious choice to use μή rather than ου, except that if the writer wanted to make clear that the negative was not with ἔλαττον.
I was kind of wondering whether that was going on. Note that LSJM (not the best source for grammar) says:
LSJM 1123-4 μή wrote:D. POSITION of μή. When the neg. extends its power over the whole clause, μή prop. precedes the Verb. When its force is limited to single words, it precedes those words.
If this is right, so it would behave just as ούκ would, and can scope over the just the complement, which immediately follows it in 1 Tim 5:9. But I have to say that my feel for μή is not quite as strong as that for οὐ.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: 1 Tim 5:9 Scope of μή

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Thanks for your comments, Randall. I appreciate your taking a look at this, as well as your scholarship generally.
Randall Tan wrote:The first problem we noticed was the question, "What is the scope of μή?" (much like the question posed in Stephen Carlson's initial post for this thread). Then, we also noticed similar problems to what Stephen Hughes discussed in his "April 28th, 2014, 7:02 am" post above (though we did consider taking μὴ in the sense of μήπω & γεγονυῖα in the sense of ὤν as Stephen Carlson further suggested). In addition, οὐ would have been expected over μή, if the scope of the negation was just the nominative complement ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα.
I have this concern as well. I was assuming that μή has to scope over a participle (or else be οὐ), but I began to wonder whether that was just an assumption I was making. Maybe it can take scope over a smaller constituent but takes its form as μή instead of οὐ because it is within the scope of some irrealis or other kind of operator.
Randall Tan wrote:One could assume an elided participle--but γεγονυῖα is actually what would need to be elided, not ὤν (a widow is not currently the wife of one husband)--but the contextually-easily-supplied ὤν is more likely to be elided than the more affected form γεγονυῖα in the first place. This consideration contributed further to our conclusion that ὤν was elided in relation to ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα & that γεγονυῖα belongs with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.
I suppose γενομένη could be supplied to get the appropriate sense.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: 1 Tim 5:9 Scope of μή

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Carlson wrote:Thanks for your comments, Randall. I appreciate your taking a look at this, as well as your scholarship generally.
Randall Tan wrote:The first problem we noticed was the question, "What is the scope of μή?" (much like the question posed in Stephen Carlson's initial post for this thread). Then, we also noticed similar problems to what Stephen Hughes discussed in his "April 28th, 2014, 7:02 am" post above (though we did consider taking μὴ in the sense of μήπω & γεγονυῖα in the sense of ὤν as Stephen Carlson further suggested). In addition, οὐ would have been expected over μή, if the scope of the negation was just the nominative complement ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα.
I have this concern as well. I was assuming that μή has to scope over a participle (or else be οὐ), but I began to wonder whether that was just an assumption I was making. Maybe it can take scope over a smaller constituent but takes its form as μή instead of οὐ because it is within the scope of some irrealis or other kind of operator.
Randall Tan wrote:One could assume an elided participle--but γεγονυῖα is actually what would need to be elided, not ὤν (a widow is not currently the wife of one husband)--but the contextually-easily-supplied ὤν is more likely to be elided than the more affected form γεγονυῖα in the first place. This consideration contributed further to our conclusion that ὤν was elided in relation to ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα & that γεγονυῖα belongs with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.
I suppose γενομένη could be supplied to get the appropriate sense.
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what this is all about. It seems to me that γεγονυῖα is an integral part of the idiomatic expression meaning "x years old", while construing γεγονυῖα with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή -- a Greek equivalent of the idiomatic Latin laudatory epithet univira, "committed life-long to one husband" -- strikes me as absurd. I think that the μὴ does qualify just the phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα and that the genitive phrase is clearly a genitive of comparison construed with ἔλαττον. I see no problem with assuming an elliptical ὢν with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή. I guess I must be missing something.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4165
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: 1 Tim 5:9 Scope of μή

Post by Jonathan Robie »

So if I understand Carl correctly:

ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = 60 years old
ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = less than 60 years old
μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = not less than 60 years old

And μὴ negates the entire phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα, not just ἔλαττον?
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: 1 Tim 5:9 Scope of μή

Post by cwconrad »

Jonathan Robie wrote:So if I understand Carl correctly:

ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = 60 years old
ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = less than 60 years old
μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = not less than 60 years old

And μὴ negates the entire phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα, not just ἔλαττον?
Yes, that's precisely how i understand it. I believe that the perfect ptc. with an adverbial expression indicating number of years bears the sense "X years old."
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: 1 Tim 5:9 Scope of μή

Post by Stephen Hughes »

cwconrad wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Randall Tan wrote:One could assume an elided participle--but γεγονυῖα is actually what would need to be elided, not ὤν (a widow is not currently the wife of one husband)--but the contextually-easily-supplied ὤν is more likely to be elided than the more affected form γεγονυῖα in the first place. This consideration contributed further to our conclusion that ὤν was elided in relation to ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα & that γεγονυῖα belongs with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.
I suppose γενομένη could be supplied to get the appropriate sense.
It seems to me that γεγονυῖα is an integral part of the idiomatic expression meaning "x years old", while construing γεγονυῖα with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή -- a Greek equivalent of the idiomatic Latin laudatory epithet univira, "committed life-long to one husband" -- strikes me as absurd. I think that the μὴ does qualify just the phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα and that the genitive phrase is clearly a genitive of comparison construed with ἔλαττον. I see no problem with assuming an elliptical ὢν with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.
People are duscussing the relatives strengths of the (merel hypothetical /conjectured) participles, I would like to change that emphasis. I think that the strength (or recognisability ) of the element with which the particle is used will have bearing on the tendencies for elision.

If ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή was a readily recognisable laudatory epithet (as claimed) (virtually = adjectival unit) for an older woman (alive or no longer alive) then it would be less likely to need the aid of the (a) participle to bring attention to bear on it's meaning, than the variable phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα would need.

I think the force of the statement ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή requires a participle that can give the force of "she has always been". The ούσα suggested above may or may not convey that, and I feel that the suggestion of
γενομένη might do so, but the best would be a doubling of the γεγονυῖα.

If it was doubled, then it would be lost from the strongest (independent - self-standing) element and retained by the weakest (non-independent, the one that needs help to stand, least-able-stand-by-itself) element.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Age idioms

Post by Stephen Hughes »

The first example of age to spring to mind is
John 8:57 wrote:Πεντήκοντα ἔτη οὔπω ἔχεις
You are not yet fifty years old.
There is a more flexible construction in
Matthew 2:16 wrote:ἀπὸ διετοῦς καὶ κατωτέρω
from two years and under
Adapting that gives us
  • ἀπὸ ἑξηκονταετοῦς καὶ ἀνωτέρω.
    from sixty years and over
Stephen Carlson wrote:I was kind of wondering whether that was going on. Note that LSJM (not the best source for grammar) says:
LSJM 1123-4 μή wrote: D. POSITION of μή. When the neg. extends its power over the whole clause, μή prop. precedes the Verb. When its force is limited to single words, it precedes those words.
That thing about single words may be truer than expected.

It seems that in the papyri, the age is expressed withὡς "about". The papyri do not use a verbal form with the age. Contrary to what I wanted the papyri evidence to have proved, the consistent non-use of the verbal form with ages, leads to the conclusion that it is with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή. [Parallel with 1 Timothy 3:2 μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, cf. verse 12 of the same chapter were it's used in the plural, and significantly in a list of adjectives.]

The logical conclusion in terms of SC's question is that μή only extends to the age, not to the verb. Perhaps even further than that, perhaps since in the papyri age is ways in the genitive, then the μὴ only actually extends toἔλαττον. Or does it??

I think that μὴ only actually extends toἔλαττον, creating an adverbial unit that goes with γεγονυῖα. The age in its papyrus quoted form is placed parenthetically between the adverb and verb.

Now for the brave hearted, here are two payrus examples.

First, here is a list of guild members including their ages from Arsinoites from the early first century CE. If you need the spelling standardised, you can travel by hyperlink to the website. If you know course numerals, this should cause no difficulties.
[url=http://www.papyri.info/hgv/25173]P. Mich. 5 247[/url], lines 1 - 5 wrote:ἡγούμενο(ς) Φεμνᾶσις Ψονσεῦτους ὡς (ἐτῶν) λϛ, οὐ(λὴ) τραχήλ(ῳ) ἐκ δεξιῶν
Φεμνᾶσις Ὀρσευς(*) Σβηβις(*) ὡς (ἐτῶν) λε οὐ(λὴ) ἀντικ(νημίῳ) δεξιῷ
Σιγῆρις Πετσίρος(*) ὡς (ἐτῶν) λα οὐ(λὴ) γαστροκνη(μίᾳ) ἀριστερᾷ
Παποντῶς Παβελλήους ὡς (ἐτῶν) λθ οὐ(λὴ) φάκος ὀφρύει(*) ἀριστερᾷ
5Νῖλος Λαβήσιος ὡς (ἐτῶν) κβ οὐ(λὴ) πήχι(*) δεξιῷ

President: Phemnasis, son of Psonseus, about 36 years old, with a scar on the right side of his neck.;Phemnasis, son of Orseus, grandson(?) of Sbebis, about 35 years old, with a scar on his right shin.;Sigeris, son of Petsiris, about 31 years old, with a scar on his left calf.;Papontos, son of Pabelles, about 39 years old, having as a mark a mole on his left eyebrow.;Nilos, son of Labesis, about 22 years old, having a scar on his right forearm.;
Another longer example is this receipt for vegetables from the same location, from 50 or 51 CE. If you know your numbers, this should cause no difficulties to follow following the cues from the translation .
Quittung für τιμὴ χόρτου SB 20 15089 wrote:τ̣[ο]υ̣[ς] ἑ̣ν̣δ̣ε̣κ̣ά̣τ̣[ο]υ̣ Τ̣ι̣β̣ε̣ρ̣ί̣ο̣υ̣ Κ̣λαυδ̣ί̣ο̣υ Κ̣α̣ί̣σ̣α̣ρ̣ο̣ς̣ Σ̣ε̣[βα]σ̣τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ Γ̣ε̣ρ̣μ̣α̣[νικοῦ] Α̣ὐ̣τ̣ο̣κ̣ρ̣ά̣τ̣ο̣ρ̣ο̣ς̣ [  ̣]  ̣  ̣  ̣
- ca.21 - ἐ̣ν̣ Κ̣ε̣ρ̣κ̣ε̣σ̣ο̣ύ̣χο̣ι̣[ς] τ̣ῆ̣[ς] Ἡ̣ρ̣α̣κ̣λ̣ε̣ίδ[ο]υ με̣ρί̣δ̣ο̣[ς] τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ Ἀ̣[ρσινοείτ]ο̣υ̣ ν̣[ομοῦ. ὁμο-]
λ̣ο̣γ̣ο̣ῦ̣σ̣ι̣ν̣ Π̣α̣σ̣ῆ̣ς̣ Σ̣α̣κ̣α̣ῶ̣ν̣ο̣ς̣ ὡ̣ς̣ ἐτῶ̣ν̣ ὀγδο̣ή̣κ̣ο̣ν̣τ̣α τ̣ρ̣ι̣ῶν οὐληὶ ἀνκ̣ῶ̣νι(*) δ̣ε̣ξι̣ῶ̣ι̣ ἡ̣[γο]ύ̣μ̣ε̣[νος]
προσοδικῶν γεωρ̣γ̣ῶ̣ν̣ τ̣ῆ̣ς̣ προγεγρα̣μ̣μένης κώμης καὶ Ἡρακ̣λ̣ῆς Σοκμήνιος ὡ̣ς̣ ἐτῶν
5τεσ̣σα̣[ρ]άκοντ̣[α   ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣ οὐ]λ̣η̣ι̣(*) δ̣α̣κ̣τύλωι μικρῶι χειρὸς ἀριστερᾶς καὶ Πετεεῦς Πεκμήιτος
ὡ̣ς̣ ἐ̣τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ τ̣ε̣σ̣σ̣α̣ρ̣ά̣κ̣ο̣ν̣τ̣α̣ ο̣ὐ̣ληι(*) μετώπωι ἐξ ἀριστερῶν καὶ Πνεφερῶς Σακαῶνο̣ς̣ ὡ̣ς̣
ἐ̣τ̣ῶ̣ν τ̣ε̣σ̣[σα]ρ̣[ά]κοντα̣ π̣έ̣ν̣τ̣ε̣ ο̣ὐ̣ληι(*) ἀντικνημίωι δεξιῶι καὶ Παυσεῖρις Στοτήτιος ὡς
ἐ̣τ̣[ῶν ἑ]ξ̣ή̣κ̣ο̣ν̣τ̣α̣ ἓ̣ξ̣ οὐληι(*) [δα]κ̣τύλωι μικρῶι χειρὸς ἀριστερᾶς καὶ Πεκμῆις Φανομγέως
ὡς̣ ἐ̣τ̣ῶν τριάκοντ̣α̣ π̣έ̣ν̣τε οὐληι(*) μετώπωι ἐξ ἀριστερῶν καὶ Πετῆσις Πεκμήιτος
10ὡ̣ς̣ ἐ[τῶν τ]ριά̣κ̣ο̣ντα̣ π̣έ̣ντε οὐληι(*) ποδὶ δεξιῶι καὶ Πεκμῆις Πεκμήιτος ὡς ἐτῶν τεσ̣-
σα̣ράκ̣ον̣[τ]α̣ ο̣ὐ̣ληι(*) πήχει ἀριστερῶι καὶ Πεκμῆις Ἀλεξάνδρου ὡς ἐτῶν πε̣ν̣τ̣ήκοντα οὐληι(*)
ἀ̣ν̣τ̣ί̣χ̣ι̣ρ̣ι(*) ἀριστερᾶι οἱ̣ ἐννέα πρεσβύτεροι προσοδικῶν γεωργῶν τῆς αὐτῆς̣ κ̣ώμης
Ἁτρῆι Ἁρπα[γά]θ̣[ο]υ ὡ[ς] ἐτῶν πεντήκοντα οὐληι(*) πήχει ἀ[ρ]ιστερῶι καὶ Ἀμμωνίωι Πετεεῦτος
ὡς ἐ̣τῶν π̣ε̣ν̣τ̣ήκο̣ν̣τα πέντε οὐληι(*) ὀφρύι δεξιᾷ ἀπέχε̣ι̣ν παρʼ αὐτῶν πυρο̣ῦ μέτρωι̣
15δρόμωι ἀρτάβ[α]ς δέκα ὀκτὼι(*) αἵ εἰσιν τιμηι(*) χόρτου ἀρουρῶν τριῶν ἢ ὅ̣σων ἐὰν ὦσι̣ν̣
οὗ κα̣ταβέβ̣ρ̣ω̣κ̣εν αὐτ̣ῶ̣ν̣ τὰ βο̣[ϊκὰ κτή]ν̣η̣ ἐ̣ν̣ τῶι ἐν̣ε̣σ̣τ̣ῶ̣τ̣ι̣ ἑ̣ν̣δ̣ε̣κά[τ]ωι ἔτι(*) Τ̣ι̣β̣[ερ]ί̣ο̣[υ]
Κλαυ[δ]ίο̣υ̣ Κ̣α̣ί̣σ̣αρος Σ̣ε̣β̣α̣σ̣τοῦ Γερμα̣ν̣ικο[ῦ Α]ὐτοκράτορος ἐν οἷς γεωργεῖ Ἁ̣ρπαῆσις Ἁρπα̣-
ήσιος προ̣σ̣ο̣δ̣ι̣κ̣ὸ̣ς̣ γ̣ε̣ωργὸς ἀνακεχωρηκὼς προσοδικοῖς ἐδάφεσι περὶ τὴν αὐτὴ̣ν
κώμην ἐπὶ τῆς πέ̣μ̣πτης ὁδοῦ ἐν μιᾷ σφραγῖδι, ὑπὲρ ὧν καὶ μηδὲ τοὺς ὁμολογοῦντα̣ς
20μ̣[ηδ]ὲ τοὺς̣ παρʼ αὐτῶ̣ν̣ ἐνκαλεῖν(*) μηδὲ ἐνκαλέσιν(*) τοῖς περὶ τὸν Ἁτ̣ρῆν μ̣ηδὲ τοῖς παρʼ αὐτῶν
χ̣ό̣ρ̣του χ̣[ά]ρ̣[ιν τ]ρ̣ό̣[πω]ι̣ μη[δ]ε̣νί. ὑπογραφ̣[εῖ]ς̣ τ̣ῶν μὲν ὁμολογούντ̣ω̣ν̣ Ἰσίδ̣ωρος Πτολε-
μ̣[αίο]υ̣ π̣ρ̣[εσ]β̣ύ̣τ̣ε̣ρ̣ο̣ς̣ γ̣ε̣ω̣ρ̣[γ]ῶν τῆς [αὐ]τ̣ῆς προσόδ[ο]υ ὡς ἐτῶν εἴκοσι ἑπτὰ οὐληι(*) ἀντι-
κ̣[νημ]ίωι̣ ἀ̣ριστ[ε]ρῶι, τῶν δὲ περὶ̣ τ̣[ὸν Ἁτ]ρῆν Ἑρμογέν̣ης Πτολεμαί̣ο̣υ ὡς ἐτῶν ἑβδο-
μήκοντα δ̣ύο̣ οὐλ̣ηι(*) [κ]αρπῶι ἀριστερ\ῶ/ι̣. (hand 2) Π̣α̣σ̣ῆς Σ̣α̣κ̣αῶνος ἡγούμενος προσοδικῶν γεωργῶν̣
25Κ̣ερκεσ̣ο̣ύχ̣ω̣ν̣ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ Ἡρα[κ]λ̣ῆ̣ς̣ Σ̣ο̣κ̣μήνιος κ̣α̣ὶ Πετεεῦς Πεκμήιτος καὶ Πνε̣φ̣ε̣ρ̣ῶς Σακαῶνος καὶ
Πα̣[υ]σ̣εῖρις Στο̣τ̣ο̣ήτιος̣ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ Πεκμῆις Φανομγέως καὶ Πετῆσις Πεκμήιτο(ς) καὶ Πεκμῆις Πεκμή(ιτος)
καὶ Π̣ε̣κ̣μ̣ῆ̣ι̣[ς] Ἀλεξ[ά]ν̣[δρου οἱ] ἐ̣ννέα πρεσ̣βύτεροι προσοδικῶν γεωργῶν τῆς αὐτῆς κώμης
ὁμολογοῦμεν ἀπ̣έ̣χ̣ε̣ι̣ν̣ π̣α̣ρ̣ὰ̣ Ἁτρ̣ή̣ους τοῦ Ἁρπαγάθ[ου καὶ Ἀμμωνίου τοῦ Πε]τ̣ε̣εῦτο̣(ς) πυρο(ῦ)
[μέτρωι δρόμωι ἀρτάβας δέκα ὀκτὼ αἵ εἰσιν τιμὴ χόρτου ἀρουρῶν τριῶν ] ἢ ὥσ̣ω̣ν̣(*) ἐ-
30[ὰν ὦσιν -ca.?- ]
"In year 11 of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator ... in Kerkesoucha in the Herakleides division in the Arsinoite nome. Pases, son of Sakaon, ca. 33 years old, with a scar on the left elbow, head of the prosodikoi georgoi of the aforesaid village, and Herakles, son of Sokmenis, ca. forty... years old, with a scar on the little finger of the left hand, and Peteeus, son of Pekmeis, ca. forty years old, with a scar on the left of the forehead, and Pnepheros, son of Sakaon, ca. forty-five years old, with a scar on the right shin, and Pauseiris, son of Stotoetis, ca. 66 years old, with a scar on the little finger on the left hand, and Pekmeis, son of Phanomgeus, ca. 35 years old, with a scar on the left of the forehead, and Petesis, son of Pekmeis, ca. 40 years old, with a scar on the left forearm, and Pekmeis, son of Alexander, ca. 50 years old, with a scar on the right eyebrow, all the nine oldest of the prosodikoi georgoi in the same village acknowledge to Hatres, son of Harpagathes, ca. 50 years old, with a scar on the left forearm, and to Ammonios, son of Peteeus, ca. 55 years old, with a scar on the right eyebrow to have received from them 18 artabs of wheat according to the Dromos-measure, a price which equals that of grass from three arouras of land - or however much it may be - which their cattled has devoured in the course of the 11th year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Germanicus Imperator in the prosodika fields at the same village and at the 5th road of a parcel, farmed by Harpaesis, son of Harpaesis, a deflected prosodikos georgos. Consequently neither the acknowledging party nor their successors have any debt claim against the party of Hatres or their successors as far as the grass in any form is concerned and there will be none. Signatures: for the acknowledging party: Isidoros, son of Ptolemaios, the oldest of the farmers of the same prosodos, ca. 27 years old, with a scar on the left shin; for the party of Hatres: Hermogenes, son of Ptolemaios, ca. 72 years old, with a scar on the left wrist. (2nd hand): We, Pases, son of Sakaon, head of the prosodikoi georgoi of Kerkesoucha, and Herakles, son of Sokmenis, and Peteeus, son of Pekmeis, and Pnepheros, son of Sakaon, and Pauseiris, son of Stotoetis, and Pekmeis, son of Phanomgeus, and Petesis, son of Pekmeis, and Pekmeis, son of Alexander, all nine eldest of the of the prosodikoi georgoi of the aforesaid village acknowledge to have received from Hatres, the son of Harpagathes and Ammonios, the son of Peteeus, 18 artabs of wheat according to the Dromos-measure, equalling the price of grass from three arouras of land - or however much it may be ..."
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”