P.Oxy 3.529 This letter lacks the name of the sender. It's otherwise intact. See if you can spot the agreement error. Otherwise, there is some familiar NT vocabulary, and the ending should remind you of similar language in the NT.
1 πρὸ μὲν [πάντων εὔχομαί σε
2 ὑγιαίνειν. κόμ[ισ]αι διὰ Κ[έ]ρ-
3 δωνος ὥστε Διονυσίῳ
4 χρίματος κοτύλας δ καὶ
5 σφυρίδιν τραγημάτων
6 ἔχων ἀρίθμια σῦκα ρ
7 κάρυα ρ καὶ ἐλαίου χοὸς
8 ἥμισυ ὃ δώσεις τῷ αὐ-
9 τῷ Διονυσίῳ κοτύλας
10 τέσσαρας καὶ σοὶ κοτύ-
11 λας δύο. ἄσπασαί σου
12 τὴν μητέρα καὶ
13 Μᾶτριν καὶ τὰ τέκνα
14 αὐτῆς καὶ τοὺς φιλοῦν-
15 τάς σε πάντας. ἐγὼ δὲ
16 εἰς Κόπτον μετὰ τοῦ
17 ἡγεμόνος εἶμι
Notes
4 δ = 4 κοτύλη unit of measurement, = 0.205 liters in the Ptolemaic system
6 ρ = 100
17 εἶμι pay attention to the accent!
The Weekend Papyrus 6-4-2021
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm
The Weekend Papyrus 6-4-2021
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 315
- Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm
Re: The Weekend Papyrus 6-4-2021
Hi Barry,
I'm so far going with ἔχων should be ἔχον as far as agreement errors go.
But I'm puzzling over how ὥστε is functioning here. I am possibly missing it's common 'so that' use but here it just seems to be redundant to the dative sense conveyed by Διονυσἰῳ. LSJ notes a usage like this, if I'm write, but it doesn't seem a common use, so I could be off here.
I'm a little unsure of the ὃ being in the accusative here if the following clause is dividing the oil up which mathematically seems correct. I would have expected genitive but that's probably my English if this is ok Greek.
Thx
D
I'm so far going with ἔχων should be ἔχον as far as agreement errors go.
But I'm puzzling over how ὥστε is functioning here. I am possibly missing it's common 'so that' use but here it just seems to be redundant to the dative sense conveyed by Διονυσἰῳ. LSJ notes a usage like this, if I'm write, but it doesn't seem a common use, so I could be off here.
I'm a little unsure of the ὃ being in the accusative here if the following clause is dividing the oil up which mathematically seems correct. I would have expected genitive but that's probably my English if this is ok Greek.
Thx
D
Re: The Weekend Papyrus 6-4-2021
You're right, LSJ does give "for" as a later Greek usage for ὤστε:Daniel Semler wrote: ↑June 5th, 2021, 3:39 pm But I'm puzzling over how ὥστε is functioning here. I am possibly missing it's common 'so that' use but here it just seems to be redundant to the dative sense conveyed by Διονυσἰῳ. LSJ notes a usage like this, if I'm write, but it doesn't seem a common use, so I could be off here.
b. c. dat., for, χρεία αὐτοῦ ἐστὶν ὥ. Πισικλεῖ it is needed for P., PCair.Zen.241 (iii B.C.); ὥ. τοῖς χησίν IG11(2).287 A 45 (iii B.C.).
Uncommon it certainly is. I'll see if I can find any of the other papyri which may use it this way.
Edit:
Check out P. Oxy. 6 934, the addressee for P. Oxy. 12 1488, and P. Oxy. 31 2593.
-
- Posts: 315
- Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm
Re: The Weekend Papyrus 6-4-2021
I really wrote write for right ?!?!?!? Donkey ! oh well.S Walch wrote: ↑June 5th, 2021, 5:53 pmYou're right, LSJ does give "for" as a later Greek usage for ὤστε:Daniel Semler wrote: ↑June 5th, 2021, 3:39 pm But I'm puzzling over how ὥστε is functioning here. I am possibly missing it's common 'so that' use but here it just seems to be redundant to the dative sense conveyed by Διονυσἰῳ. LSJ notes a usage like this, if I'm write, but it doesn't seem a common use, so I could be off here.
b. c. dat., for, χρεία αὐτοῦ ἐστὶν ὥ. Πισικλεῖ it is needed for P., PCair.Zen.241 (iii B.C.); ὥ. τοῖς χησίν IG11(2).287 A 45 (iii B.C.).
Uncommon it certainly is. I'll see if I can find any of the other papyri which may use it this way.
Edit:
Check out P. Oxy. 6 934, the addressee for P. Oxy. 12 1488, and P. Oxy. 31 2593.
The funny thing about it is that reading ὥστε this way seems fairly natural in this example, just rather unexpected, hence my question.
The addressing ones are really interesting - thanx. Not a generally usable addressing system today. The postman must have known the recipients or people who did - I wonder when envelopes first came in.
Thx
D
Re: The Weekend Papyrus 6-4-2021
I can't remember which book I read it in, but usually the letter was given to an acquaintance who would be travelling to the town a letter was intended for. Travelling down the Nile on boat wasn't a very pleasant experience, so it was usually done via necessity. So when you needed a letter to be delivered, you'd have to find someone you knew who was going that way (and likely had to give them a small fee).Daniel Semler wrote: ↑June 5th, 2021, 7:02 pmThe addressing ones are really interesting - thanx. Not a generally usable addressing system today. The postman must have known the recipients or people who did - I wonder when envelopes first came in.
There was a postal system of sorts - however this was usually only for State officials. The elite of course could afford messengers, but even in such a place as Oxyrhynchus, messengers were not very prevalent.
In Papyri and the Social World of the New Testament, Sabine R. Huebner gives a good overview of letters and travel in Greco-Roman Egypt (pp. 87-114).
Apparently E. J. Epp has a chapter on the same, "New Testament papyrus manuscripts and letter carrying in Greco-Roman times", in The Future of Early Christianity (Essay's in honour of H. Koester). I haven't read the book or Epp's chapter, so can't say much else.
-
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm
Re: The Weekend Papyrus 6-4-2021
ἔχων/ἔχον simply a spelling variation based on the two o-sounds merging. ὅ I think accusative by way of attraction to ἥμισυ its antecedent and also because χοός is the actual partitive, so throwing another genitive in might be a bit confusing.Daniel Semler wrote: ↑June 5th, 2021, 3:39 pm Hi Barry,
I'm so far going with ἔχων should be ἔχον as far as agreement errors go.
But I'm puzzling over how ὥστε is functioning here. I am possibly missing it's common 'so that' use but here it just seems to be redundant to the dative sense conveyed by Διονυσἰῳ. LSJ notes a usage like this, if I'm write, but it doesn't seem a common use, so I could be off here.
I'm a little unsure of the ὃ being in the accusative here if the following clause is dividing the oil up which mathematically seems correct. I would have expected genitive but that's probably my English if this is ok Greek.
Thx
D
I was intrigued by εἶμι. In the NT we only see it in compounds (all in Acts, as I recall), but here it is in simplex form, what we normally think of as a classical usage in living speech.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 315
- Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm
Re: The Weekend Papyrus 6-4-2021
Thanx for the references - I'll check them out once I'm through Sarri's and Head's papers.S Walch wrote: ↑June 6th, 2021, 4:53 amI can't remember which book I read it in, but usually the letter was given to an acquaintance who would be travelling to the town a letter was intended for. Travelling down the Nile on boat wasn't a very pleasant experience, so it was usually done via necessity. So when you needed a letter to be delivered, you'd have to find someone you knew who was going that way (and likely had to give them a small fee).Daniel Semler wrote: ↑June 5th, 2021, 7:02 pmThe addressing ones are really interesting - thanx. Not a generally usable addressing system today. The postman must have known the recipients or people who did - I wonder when envelopes first came in.
There was a postal system of sorts - however this was usually only for State officials. The elite of course could afford messengers, but even in such a place as Oxyrhynchus, messengers were not very prevalent.
In Papyri and the Social World of the New Testament, Sabine R. Huebner gives a good overview of letters and travel in Greco-Roman Egypt (pp. 87-114).
Apparently E. J. Epp has a chapter on the same, "New Testament papyrus manuscripts and letter carrying in Greco-Roman times", in The Future of Early Christianity (Essay's in honour of H. Koester). I haven't read the book or Epp's chapter, so can't say much else.
Thx
D
-
- Posts: 315
- Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm
Re: The Weekend Papyrus 6-4-2021
Thanx Barry - I was thinking ἔχον/ἔχων was spelling but then my thinking stalled out on what that implied.Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑June 6th, 2021, 7:35 amἔχων/ἔχον simply a spelling variation based on the two o-sounds merging. ὅ I think accusative by way of attraction to ἥμισυ its antecedent and also because χοός is the actual partitive, so throwing another genitive in might be a bit confusing.Daniel Semler wrote: ↑June 5th, 2021, 3:39 pm Hi Barry,
I'm so far going with ἔχων should be ἔχον as far as agreement errors go.
But I'm puzzling over how ὥστε is functioning here. I am possibly missing it's common 'so that' use but here it just seems to be redundant to the dative sense conveyed by Διονυσἰῳ. LSJ notes a usage like this, if I'm write, but it doesn't seem a common use, so I could be off here.
I'm a little unsure of the ὃ being in the accusative here if the following clause is dividing the oil up which mathematically seems correct. I would have expected genitive but that's probably my English if this is ok Greek.
Thx
D
I was intrigued by εἶμι. In the NT we only see it in compounds (all in Acts, as I recall), but here it is in simplex form, what we normally think of as a classical usage in living speech.
Thanx for the ὅ / ἤμισυ / χοός that makes things clearer.
Thx
D