ok, gotcha (though Miosi had XΟΕΙϹ in his article, copy-paste of the relevant paragraph from that pdf provided ϪΟΕΙϹ and copy-paste of ⲭ︦ⲥ︦ provided ϪϹ - ie. without the superlinear line - but I went off to https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/coptic.htm and made it ⲭ︦ⲥ︦ - Doh! (I blame concurrently watching Aryna Sabalenka starting to match it with Elena Rybakina in the second set: amazing tennis).mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:35 am
[...You did set me on the wrong foot there with the X instead of the djanja, but hey - I should have noticed the reference to Peter and Mary]
This last word ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ starts with the djanja Ϫ , not the X that we know from "normal languages": Ϫ Ⲭ - check the difference.
.
Which ⲭ̅ⲥ̅ should be read as ϫ̅ⲥ̅ here ?mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:35 am
About Acts of Peter
We find the Acts in the Berolinensis Gnosticus 8502, and this word [ ϪΟΕΙϹ ] occurs 5 times:
BG 10,11.12.17; 131,13; 138,19
I struggle with that as the BG for Peter starts at 128, but the first leaf is Mary's. But indeed 131:13 has ϫ̅ⲥ̅ according to the transcription yet I can't locate the BG papyrus, even though it is almost certain that no mistake could possibly have been made here, yet this would be the single exception to anything that I'm aware off (which arguably is not a lot but still more than most).
And likewise the transcription for 138:18 contains ϫ̅ⲥ̅ - and this is as rare as it is unprecedented, as argued below.
Mary then? Yes, 10:11,12 and 17 contain the same - and it is stupendous really, and if only I could find the papyrus although there can be very little doubt that it will likely have what it is stated
About Eugnostos / Sophia
A different case of "abbreviation" would be a misunderstanding introduced by Brill:
And here you see what I put in my mind when I read this post: it would seem that ⲭ̅ⲥ̅ should be read as ϫ̅ⲥ̅ here
.
The third one referring to the first? Thus?:
ⲭⲣⲓⲧⲟⲥ . ⲭ︦ⲣ︦ⲥ︦ III 104,22. ⲭ̅ⲥ̅ BG 99,9.16: 101,9; ⲭ̅ⲥ̅ where it is perhaps an
...error for [ϫ̅ⲥ̅] (ie. ⲭⲟεⲓⲥ , q.v.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ⲭ̅ⲥ̅ in BG 112,15 four times, and 112,17 twice
...is clearly an error.) See further ⲓⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ.
.
Just as well I didn't try putting a superlinear over the djanja - Ϫ - !mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:35 am
which is quite the (dumb-ass) assumption because we would be having two phenomena here in that case: an extremely rare (and wholly unprecedented) occurrence of ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ being abbreviated for the first time ever since the coming of mankind...NEXT TO the fact that either the full or the abbreviated form of ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ is being treated as 'a thingy' by placing a whole superlinear on all the letters involved. I mean look at it, I got these from the Coptic keyboard and the djanja can't even have a superlinear, it is awfully skewed compared to the sigma
.
mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:35 am
What motivates this ignorant assumption? Well, the different versions of one and the same text that are being discussed here:
From the very top, left to right, diplomatic transcription and translation where the left text is leading:
Said-she to-him, namely Mariham(me)
: Oh the-master / the -XS
your-disciples have-they-come whence or
they-will {go} whence or they-will-do them
in-that-lace .
ⲃⲱⲕ is present in the text on the right and represented by {go} in the one on the left
So what we have here is a very simple case of one text using "kurios" as vocative, and the other using XS - and naturally I have counted this as such in my detailed outlining of all IS and XS in the entire NHL
There is no mistake here at all whatsoever, no misspelling, no anomaly - this is a very human and grammatically sublime case of redaction, whether intentional or not, because stories happen to get told also, and it is evident that these two stories diverge although this sample here is very verbatim - but on the same page they fan out, and it is certain that one does not serve as scribal source for the other in any way
[AGAIN, I got it wrong and there indeed are 5 cases where ϫ̅ⲥ̅ is abbreviated and even contains superlinears, and Miosi missed this but so did I; yet these are confined to one single MS, while more than most interesting indeed]
.
mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:35 am
Hi Mac, let's discuss the words first:
ⲥⲁϩ - https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C3982
Look at the bottom of that page there and it is evident that the verb plays a most significant role: 'writer', from ⲥϩⲁⲓ - https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C3972
ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ - https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C7376
And that's the Coptic default for master, lord, owner (of the household), etc. Naturally we owe 'lord' to a more complicated system of ownership, namely that of feudalism / heraldy / kingdomry whatever, but there is only one binary to all of this: me master, you slave. And the more subtle relation is between a teacher and his student, a master of arts and his apprentice, etc, and perhaps a 'writer' specifies the manner in which someone masters someone else.
.