Uri Yiftach-Firanko

Member since April 1st, 2011
Usage Stats By User

P.Oxy. 10 1283 (2012/09/23-07.19.20) (archived)   I corrected a typo in the word μητροπολιτικῶν in line 5. September 03, 2012 12:17
PSI 13 1310 (2012/09/23-07.19.20) (archived)   typo in line 14. ὑπάρχοντα and not πάρχοντα September 17, 2012 20:28
P.Ryl. 2 287 (committed)   typο. ̓Ισιδώρωι September 24, 2012 20:37
P.Laur. 3 74 (committed)   In the lacuna in line 21 πάντα and not πάντε July 18, 2021 20:18
P.Paris 21 (2021/08/07-11.27.33) (archived)   In line 48 the formula usually runs τὸν ἐπελευσόμενον ἢ ἐμποιησόμενον. I offer to add the 'right' reading in the notes. July 19, 2021 14:51
SB 6 8987 (committed)   line 33 [ὑμῖ]ν τι ποιηθησόμενόν is replaced by [ἢ ἀ]ντιποιησόμενόν. Compare, e.g., P.Dubl. 32.11 et mult.cet. July 19, 2021 18:27
Chrest.Mitt. 265 (committed)   in the appartus criticus to lines 14 and 15 ἀποστήσoμεν, ἐκδικήσoμεν July 20, 2021 14:24
P.Koeln 5 232 (committed)   line 14 in the app. crit., ἀποστήσoμεν, ἐκδικήσoμεν July 20, 2021 14:29
SB 1 4777 (2021/07/21-15.45.55) (archived)   [.?][ ἢ] ἐπελευσόμενον <:ἀποστήσoμεν|reg|ἀποστήσωμεν:> [.?] July 20, 2021 14:33
CPR 7 44 (committed)   In the apparatus criticus to line 26: l. ἐποικοδομῆσαι July 23, 2021 09:01
BGU 8 1738 (submitted)   the ends of lines 22-23 have been edited as P.Bingen 53 July 28, 2021 10:26
SB 6 9618 (submitted)   <:ἐπε[λεύσεσθαι]|reg|ἐπι[λεύσεσθαι]:> line 17. I am not sure that this is not a SB typo, or even a typo in the paper of Gerstinger. If it isn't, a note in the AC is due I think. July 28, 2021 14:28
Chrest.Mitt. 159 (committed)   In line 25, in the clause where the vendor pledges himself not to sue the purchaser on account of the object, one very commonly uses to present and the future tense of εγκαλεω. see, e.g., SB XX 14379.26-27 (320, Karanis). The aorist, on the other hand, is not used anywhere in this context, and its reading is also doubtful in this text. I think that future tense is also palaeographically plausible. July 28, 2021 16:40
BGU 8 1740 (submitted)   The clause prohibiting the vendor from claiming the alienated object also refer, in the documents from first-century BCE Herakleopolis to the introduction of litigation. In BGU 1736.15: μηδὲ κατάστα̣σ[ιν ποιήσειν σοί , as well as in P.Bingen 51.3-4, where Brashear has restored: μηδὲ κατ]άστασιν [ποιήσασθαί σοι. Brashear has assumed that P.Bingen 51 belongs to our text. Even if it does not, it may still be possible to use it as a parallel. The aorist seems certain to me, and if the restoration is accepted in this case, one could considering emending the lacuna in BGU 1736, as well. July 29, 2021 12:07
P.Horak 80 (committed)   The formula for chresis is entokos, not atokos, which is restored, as far as I know, only in the present text. In many cases, in which the chresis is called entokos, the clause recording the loan does not report the interest. See, e.g., P.FAM.TEBT. 4.4-12 (94, Teb) [2b, ent., grain]; 16.4-12 (116, ArsN) [2c, ent.]; 22.3-11 (122, Teb) [2b, ent., keph.]. The reason is possibly that the interested was already reckonned the amount of the principal. August 04, 2021 10:23
SB 6 9110 (committed)   ll. 18-19: accent is wrong: change to κα-λάμου August 10, 2021 16:25
SB 6 9562 (editing)   The combination θρύον, κάλαμος is indeed well documented in the clause anticipating the return of landed property after the period of lease, but my impression is that the adjective katharos precedes it and does not follow it. Cf. e.g. P.BERL.LEIHG. I 19.35-39 (221/2 or 225/6 Kerkesêphis) [L: mtchr., parad. (fut.ind.), arour.kathar., θρύον, κάλαμος, ἄγρωστις, δεῖσα]. But what we have here is a completely different expression, recording the work to be executed before the land is returned to the lessor: ἀπὸ ἀναπαύματος χόρτου, ἀπὸ συνκομιδῆς πυροῦ, ἀπὸ κοπῆς χόρτου etc. ἀπὸ καλάμης πυροῦ is recorded in BGU II 661.22-23 (140, ArsN). ἄγρωστις δεῖσα August 10, 2021 17:32
SB 20 14110 (committed)   in the notes to line 16 βουλ(η)θ(είη)τε and not βουχ(μ)θ(είη)τε August 13, 2021 11:23
PSI 1 31 (committed)   line 26: τὰς ἀρούρας ἀπὸ καταβρόμα̣[τος] (l. καταβρωμα̣[τος]) instead of τὰς ἀρούρας ἀπὸ καλα. .ομ. See picture. Comapre P.Kron. 34 l. 32. August 14, 2021 12:48
PSI 1 31 (committed)   changes have now been encoded. August 14, 2021 16:53
CPR 1 2 (submitted)   In line 7, the formula runs the infinitive ἐνέχεσθαι does not derive from the preceding bebaiosis clause, but is independent, going back to the now lost ομολογεω. Such seems to be the case wherever the formula is intact. See, in particular, CPR VI 73.28-29. If admitted, the same change should be made in other cpr I documents as well. August 15, 2021 15:47
P.Mert. 1 17 (committed)   typo in the lacuna in line 50. [τὸ ἥμισυ καὶ ἀπ απ] change to [τὸ ἥμισυ καὶ ἀπ] August 22, 2021 17:44
BGU 3 725 (committed)   Line 27, in the editio princeps the text is in Latin: di emu Petru August 24, 2021 14:31
P.Oxy. 16 1957 (committed)   line 23, Latin letters di em[u .?]. See editio princeps, p. 220. August 24, 2021 15:41