David,
Concerning your question re the 'iota subscript', I have today contacted
a friend and former Professor of Classics who informs me as follows:
Before c100BC, the iota (involved with alpha, eta or omega as second
vowel of a dipthong) was invariably written on the line. However, around
this time the articulation of this letter began to disappear;
consequently, over the succeeding centuries it was frequently omitted
from written Greek texts.
This situation continued until c1200AD when, with the revival of
scholarship, it was thought appropriate and grammatically correct to
restore the missing iota - but now as a subscript to the first vowel of
the dipthong. The one exception to this rule was that capitalised words
(the so-caled 'uncial' script) would have the iota on the line.
Clearly, while we will never know John's precise rendering of the
written Greek, we do know from our understanding of classical Greek
grammar that the dipthong concerned has iota as its second element.
These facts, taken with the other evidences to which Iain has recently
alluded, surely confirm the legitimacy of our reading of John 1:1.
Regards,
Vernon
D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
>
> Peter,
> I have to question the counting of iota. In the _Westminster
> Dictionary of the Bible_ (1944), p. 622, there is a reproduction of
> Esther 2:6-8 of the LXX from the Codex Sinaiticus (4th cent.). The
> modern text has subscript iotas on TOUTO and AUTE (v. 7). The ancient
> text does not have iotas. I do not know when datives were modified
> with the iota subscript, but they are not part of the original sacred
> text. Is not using a modernized text to make things come out right
> illegitimate?
> Dave
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 09 2001 - 15:34:20 EDT