Dave,
Thank you for the additional information. We could be arguing at some
length about whether or not iota appeared at the end of the second word
John actually wrote c100AD. In the circumstances, therefore, the
decisive argument in favour of it being there is the numerical one,
thus:
1) Gen.1:1 and John 1:1 are textually parallel.
2) Gen.1:1 = 2701 = 37 x 73; John 1:1 (with iota) = 3627 = 39 x 93;
John 1:1 (without iota) = 3617 (prime)
Comment: the reflective factors in each case suggest a purposeful
numerical link.
3) Gen.1:1 = 2701 = 73rd triangular number; Gen.1:1 + John 1:1 (with
iota) = 2701 + 3627 = 6328 = 112th triangular number.
Comment: John 1:1 may be realised as a numerical trapezium which
functions perfectly as a a plinth for Gen.1:1. Without the iota, no
trapezium, and no plinth.
4) John 1:1 (with iota) yields e when the formula (as used in Gene.1:1
to yield pi) is applied; John 1:1 (without iota) spoils the pattern.
I suggest that in the absence of direct knowledge vis-a-vis John's
original, or his intention, these numerical facts must be decisive.
Regards,
Vernon
D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
>
> Vernon,
> I do not understand your argument. All Greek MSS until about the 9th
> cent. were uncial. Then the cursive hand began to be used, with the
> uncial forms used strictly as capitals. Thus IHC (approximately) was an
> abbreviation of "Jesus." The later full form would capitalize the iota
> and use l.c. for the rest of the word, which might be abbreviated. So
> something that looked like X with a superscript p was the abbreviation
> for christos. It might also have the case ending in the superscript.
>
> The gospels fall into the period when there were no capital letters (it
> was later when uncial forms were used for capitals), and when the
> improper diphthongs were not necessarily written. "Corrected" Greek
> (modern version) inserted iota subscripts where very ancient Greeks would
> have written a following letter. But this does not establish that John
> would have written the iota in his uncial version. The only evidence I
> have is that it was not written in two places in a verse from Esther in a
> 4th cent MS. I do not know whether it was the same scribe who transcribed
> the gospels and parts of the Old Testament. As I understand your
> argument, because it was written before 100 B.C. and after A.D. 1200, and
> might have been written during the intervening period, it should be
> counted. Should I insist that final sigma must be counted as 6 rather
> than 200, I'd be as reasonable.
> Dave
>
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2001 20:34:35 +0100 Vernon Jenkins
> <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> writes:
> > 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
> >
> > http://www.otherbiblecode.com
> >
> >
> > 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 : Wed Jul 11 2001 - 18:10:36 EDT