PDA

View Full Version : 1 Pet 5:7 Lemma searches only NT or OT, not both



arggem
04-12-2012, 12:19 PM
I was reading 1 Peter 5:7 (BGT) and did a lemma search on ἐπιρίψαντες and got 2 hits: Luke 19:35 and 1 Peter 5:7. Nothing from the OT. No limits are set.

But in the analysis window, I see that Psalm 54:23 (55:22) also contains the verb. So I go to that verse, and redo the lemma search and get 13 hits, but all in the OT, none from the NT.

Other lemma searches work fine.

Is this an error, or is there something odd about this verb?

Thanks!

OS: Win 7
BW9.0.9c.1

Michael Hanel
04-12-2012, 12:32 PM
I was reading 1 Peter 5:7 (BGT) and did a lemma search on ἐπιρίψαντες and got 2 hits: Luke 19:35 and 1 Peter 5:7. Nothing from the OT. No limits are set.

But in the analysis window, I see that Psalm 54:23 (55:22) also contains the verb. So I go to that verse, and redo the lemma search and get 13 hits, but all in the OT, none from the NT.

Other lemma searches work fine.

Is this an error, or is there something odd about this verb?

Thanks!

OS: Win 7
BW9.0.9c.1

They probably should be corrected so that they both show up. The difference in lemmata is the inclusion or exclusion of the second ρ ἐπιρ(ρ)ίπτω. The reason why it's included in the Psalm form is because you can clearly see both rhos in the word. I assume that's the same reason why it was left off in the NT occurrences. It's not necessarily a tagging "error", but it probably would be better if they were the same from a searching perspective. If you look the word up in the lexica, you'll see that they too note the variant spelling.

arggem
04-12-2012, 12:44 PM
Ah, yes. I missed that. Since the same BDAG entry referred to both the OT form and the NT form I overlooked the spelling differences. Anyhow, should I report this to DB "errors" or not?

Michael Hanel
04-12-2012, 12:49 PM
Ah, yes. I missed that. Since the same BDAG entry referred to both the OT form and the NT form I overlooked the spelling differences. Anyhow, should I report this to DB "errors" or not?

You can and they can decide on it. Like I said, it's not really an error, but it can be misleading. It's one of the reasons we need to be aware of how we use electronic stuff. It's easy to ask a question and get an answer, but we have to know whether we're asking the right question. In this case, a simple check to the lexicon would have been more helpful than a lemma search.

DavidR
04-12-2012, 10:28 PM
And of course besides that Psalm verse (on which 1 Pet. 5:7 seems to draw), there are a dozen other OT occurrences of επιρριπτω.

Next question: is there a way of formatting a Command Line search that would find everything?

Michael Hanel
04-12-2012, 10:54 PM
And of course besides that Psalm verse (on which 1 Pet. 5:7 seems to draw), there are a dozen other OT occurrences of επιρριπτω.

Next question: is there a way of formatting a Command Line search that would find everything?

Only if you knew there were ambiguous lemmas like this. If you did, searching for .επιρ*ιπτω would find both.

DavidR
04-13-2012, 12:00 PM
And so it does, as does .επι*ριπτω. It is possible to be aware of such ambiguities: there is a definite rule in Greek compounding that when a preposition ending in a vowel is compounded with a word beginning with rho, the rho is doubled. (This is why there are two r's in "catarrh" and [pardon me] "diarrhea.") Koine tends to disregard the rule, hence the single rho in the NT words. But in fact there's a good deal of variation in the manuscripts. See Robertson, Grammar of the Greek NT, pp. 211-213, sec. 6.III.(d), Single or Double Consonants, with many NT examples (available in BW). Anyway, the extremely alert researcher would know to search on .επι*ριπτω or .επιρ*ιπτω; I'm not saying that I would be that researcher myself!