Ev. Marc. 1,11

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
1

Ev. Marc. 1,11 reads as follows:

“καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν· σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.”

This translates approximately:
‘and voice came from the heavens: you are my beloved son, I am pleased with you.’

The meaning should be quite clear, but why do we have εὐδόκησα instead of ηὐδόκησα as the aorist, i.e. without the augment? In Homer this would be no problem, of course. I doubt that it is an ancient augmentless remnant as the verb is dated only to 2nd c. BCE in the LS (to Polybius). The long diphthong ηυ shouldn’t be forbidden in the New Testament.

2

It’s a spelling thing, phonetic too no doubt. ευ- for ηυ- is standard in this era, and much earlier too, cf. e.g. ευδοκιμησα, ευρον etc.

3

Teodorsson – and Horrocks following him – argues that phonetically ευ/ηυ are already by mid-2nd century BC:

/iw/ ηυ
/ew/ ευ

If so, common exchange of ηυ/ευ surprises me. What I would guess would be erosion of the quantity/accent distinction between long diphthongs and normal diphthongs apparently preceding later quality changes.

4

Thanks. I have previously been told (a few times, actually) that long diphthongs are in general unstable in languages (beside Greek I always think first of the word Bēowulf). And I do need to read the Horrocks sometime.

Slightly strange though about spelling vacillation ΕΥ ~ ΗΥ, even though the pronuncial unstability must be to blame. I think that Ev. Marc. is from ca. 70 CE, so already a few hundred years in for the new pronunciation /iw/, if we trust Teodorsson.

5

A number of factors in play? ηυ difficult to pronounce? But augmented αυ- is regularly ηυ- I think. εὖ-prefixed compounds more resistant to augment? But I wouldn’t be surprised if ηυ->ευ- was early across the board. Some editors are willing to print ευ- already for 5th and 4th cent. authors, esp.(?) for ευρον ευρηκα etc. How can we tell? Manuscripts worthless except for papyri, where ευ- is the norm. Epigraphic evidence where eta is not written Ε? But ηυ- could always be due to those with Timothean sensibilities?