Jump to content

Psalm 2:1 lemma question


Lorinda H. M. Hoover
 Share

Recommended Posts

Working in Psalm 2:1, I noticed that BDAG and LEH offer different lemmas for ἐφρύαξαν. BDAG (and the tagging) specify φρυάσσω, while LEH lists it as φρυαττω. There don't seem to be any notations in my Accordance tools about variants in the spelling of the lemma. Can anyone shed some light on this?

 

Lorinda

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for bringing this up! I didn't notice it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Lorinda,

 

If I'm not mistaken this is an Attic variant spelling.

This happens in a number of words. Check τεσσαρεσ also I believe. Yeah LSJ notes this in the treatment of it :

 

τέσσᾰρες, οἱ, αἱ , τέσσαρα, τά , gen. ων: dat. τέσσαρσι(ν) Th. 2.21, Act.Ap. 12.4, etc.; poet. τέτρᾰσι Hes. Fr. 188, Pi. O. 8.68, al., and in late Prose, as LXX Jd. 9.34, Str. 13.1.3, Hermog. Meth. 29, Alex.Aphr. in Top. 208.12, in Sens. 54.18, PSI 10.1126.9 (iii A.D.), v.l. in Act.Ap. 11.5 (cod. D), and in good codd. of Arist. IA 704a11, al., Theol.Ar. 19, etc.; also τέταρσι SIG 729.3 (Delph., i B.C.), PSI 9.1028.10 (i A.D.):— Att. τέττᾰρες, τέττᾰρα, dat. τέτταρσιν Isoc. 12.3 ; also τάρων (v. τάρες) for τεττάρων; Phocian dat. τεττάροις IG 9(1).32.78 (Stiris, ii B.C.):— Ion. and later Gr. τέσσερες, τέσσερα, SIG 57.25 (Milet., v B.C.), Schwyzer 289.120 (Rhodian, ii B.C.),

 

Regarding φρυασσω LSJ only notes the middle but with the same τ for σ.

 

φρυ-άσσομαι, Att. φρυ-άττομαι, prop. of spirited, high-fed horses, neigh, whinny and prance, Call. Lav.Pall. 2, AP 5.201 ( Asclep. or Posidipp. ), cf. Thom. Mag. p.381R.; φ. πρὸς τοὺς ἀγῶνας neigh eagerly for the race, Plu. Lyc. 22; also of a cock, Ael. NA 7.7, cf. infr. 11.

 

Interesting the meaning given given the gloss that Accordance provides. I'll have to work on that one a bit.

 

Thx
D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Daniel. I don't have LSJ, so I apprecte you sharing that info. Figured it would be there. I noticed earlier that the gloss and the definitions in BDAG and LEH didn't match up all that well. I wonder if the Hebrew is influencing the gloss choice? I'll explore that more when I'm home tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome - I checked a little on the meaning. Do you have Louw/Nida ? It has an interesting bit on this.

I'm still not exactly satisfied on this one. I think I may add it to my list to check in the Brill online service in the Greek Etymological dictionary and see if that sheds any light.

.

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the spelling, I remember my greek teacher back in undergrad explaining that you will find words spelled with both σς and ττ, e.g., θαλασσα/θαλαττα. He'd read somewhere it may actually be two different conventions for representing a sh sound.

 

BDAG notes that the active only occurs in Ps 2 and citations of it. I'd love to follow that up in TLG. Maybe later today I'll have a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this in Thackeray

 

Φρυάσσω (-άττομαι): post–class. = “neigh” of horses and met. “be insolent” or “proud”: in LXX only in the latter sense, in the act. (unrecorded elsewhere) ἐφρύαξαν ἔθνη Ψ ii. 1, and in mid–pass. φρυαττόμενος -αγμένος, § 18, 3 (iii). The subst. φ

 

here I take it the ττ in place of the σσ is a local variant - Daniel may be right and it’s Attic. I like Tony’s teacher’s theory though. I wish i could find something on that...

 

It’s only listed as Φρυάττω in LEH - Thackeray does not mention that form of the lemma except as noted above.

Edited by Ken Simpson
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not going to believe the coincidence but I just picked up Carl Darling Buck's The Greek Dialects (which I got the library to get for me to investigate Doric futures) and it contains a couple of pages on ss and tt, and related things in the Phonology chapter. Let me look that over and I'll get back to you on it.

 

Thx

D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks all. And Daniel, what a coincidence indeed!

 

I do have Thackery, which was somewhat helpful. I missed it because I initially only did a research search for φρυαττω.

 

In terms of meaning, I did check on the underlying Hebrew, and that word means turmoil, restless, troubled, etc. Many of the words had a motion component to them, so I can see how LXX translators would have chosen a word that implies as much movement/physical response as φρυάσσω. Still not sure why "rage" seems so prevalent as a translation/gloss for this passage when the lexicons point elsewhere. Even those lexicons that suggest rage in some circumstances don't seem to make a supported case for it. The base meaning (or the metaphorical base meaning) makes sense to me in this context, without needing to resort to "rage."

 

Never mind that I have the aria from the Messiah running through my head every time I work on this verse.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok this is complicated and Buck's notes do not immediately explain the phonological changes. What he says is that Attic had ττ from the earliest times and that the later σσ is an Ionic influence. He states that σσ comes from χ + consonantal ι but he does not describe the transition. Here is a brief quote which I have to type by hand ( can we get Buck in Acc please ? ) :

-----------------

81 σσ, ττ

 

....

Inscriptions show that Attic had ττ from the earliest times., the σσ of earlier writers being due to Ionic influence. But in the later χοινη, σσ is more common than ττ. Most of the dialects agree with Ionic, but ττ, as in Attic, is also in Boetian (φυλάττω, θάλαττα, τέτταρες, [something I cannot type])ת Cretan (....) and Euboean, at least in Styra, Eretria, Oropus (έλαττων, πρήττω, Κιττιής).

 

------------------

 

Interestingly late Cretan shows such things θάλασσα showing Attic-Ionic or Doric χοιωη influence. Other chapters in the book distinguish various χοινη types - Attic, Doric, Northwest. Clearly the three weeks I have this on loan will not be enough to absorb it all. I shall have to get a copy I think. It's very dense too.

 

There is also something in Robertson it seems.

 

-----------------------

Already Thucydides and others had borrowed σσ from the Ionic.

A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Accordance electronic ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1919), 54.

 

Phonetics and Orthography. It is in pronunciation that the most serious differences appear in the κοινή (Moulton, Prol., p. 5). We do not know certainly how the ancient Attic was pronounced, though we can approximate it. The modern Greek vernacular pronunciation is known. The κοινή stands along the path of progress, precisely where it is hard to tell. But we know enough not to insist too strongly on “hair-splitting differences hinging on forms which for the scribe of our uncials had identical value phonetically, e. g. οι, η, ῃ, υ, ι =ee in feet, or αι=ε (Angus, op. cit., p. 79). Besides itacisms the ι -monophthongizing is to be noticed and the equalizing of ο and ω. The Attic ττ is σσ except in a few instances (like), (ἐλάττων, κρείττων). The tendency is toward deaspiration except in a few cases where the reverse is true as a result of analogy (or a lost digamma). Cf. ἐφ᾿ ἑλπίδι. Elision is not so common as in the Attic, but assimilation is carried still further (cf. ἐμμέσῳ). There is less care for rhythm in general, and the variable final consonants ν and ς appear constantly before consonants. The use of – ει – for – ιει – in forms like πεῖν, and ταμεῖον probably comes by analogy. Οὐθείς and μηθείς are the common forms till 100 B. C. when οὐδείς and μηθείς begin to regain their ascendency.

A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Accordance electronic ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1919), 71-72.

 

-----------------------

 

If you do a quick search in Robertson for σσ in Greek Content you will find 11 hits and it seems they support Buck regarding Attic and Ionic. Oh and here is a corker from a footnote in Robertson :

 

----------------------

 

6 Cf. Thumb, Hellen., pp. 53, 78 ff.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 125; Nachm., Magn. etc., p. 95 f.; Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 32; Prol., p. 45; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 23; Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 148; Reinhold, De Grace. etc., p. 43 f. Giles (Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 115) thinks that the σσ in Athens was a literary mannerism and pronounced just like ττ.


A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Accordance electronic ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1919), 245.

 

-------------------------

 

Can I go now ?

If all the Psalm's are like this it's gonna kill me :)

 

Thanx for a great question.

Back to my flashcards and then Hebrews.

 

See ya

D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wait till you get to 2:12!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, Daniel! Thanks for such complete research! I have Robertson, but didn't think to run a search for σσ.

 

Lorinda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most welcome. It was fun to try to get closer to the bottom of the issue. The Doric future thing isn't looking so good though. Oh well.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...