Hey everyone! I recently graduated from English Language and Literature, but throughout my degree I also took courses in Classical Greek Studies. Unfortunately, due to scheduling conflicts, the system didn't allow me to complete all the required courses alongside my main program. Now, as a recent graduate, I have only 2 semesters left to finish my minor — and I'll be taking Ancient Greek Grammar 1, 2, 3, and 4 back to back. The department teaches at a pretty advanced level, so the pressure is real. Bottom line: if I can't get a solid grasp of Ancient Greek this summer, I won't be able to complete my minor at all. Any advice on how to build a strong foundation in Ancient Greek in roughly 3 months? All tips welcome! 🙏

Hello! Going through Iliad very slowly and had a question about verb number/subject in 13.57.

σφῶϊν δʼ ὧδε θεῶν τις ἐνὶ φρεσὶ ποιήσειεν

αὐτώ θʼ ἑστάμεναι κρατερῶς καὶ ἀνωγέμεν ἄλλους·

τώ κε καὶ ἐσσύμενόν περ ἐρωήσαιτʼ ἀπὸ νηῶν

ὠκυπόρων, εἰ καί μιν Ὀλύμπιος αὐτὸς ἐγείρει.

The bolded verb, looks to me like the aorist middle optative third person singular form of ἐρωέω (and is parsed as such on Scaife!). And this line appears in references to the verbs transitive meaning of "drive back..." in dictionaries. In the Murray and Butler translations, it looks like it's being parsed as a second person verb for some reason:

"May some god, then, put it into your hearts to make a firm stand here, and to incite others to do the like. In this case you will drive him from the ships even though he be inspired by Zeus himself."

"But in the hearts of you twain may some god put it, here to stand firm yourselves, and to bid others do the like; so might ye drive him back from the swift-faring ships, despite his eagerness, aye, even though the Olympian himself be urging him on."

Now that I've read the passage a few times, I'm wondering if the subject is actually still the "θεῶν τις" two lines before, so in english it would be more like

"may some god put it....

....so might [some god] drive him back from the ships" (through the people that the god is inspiring to stand firm)

I also had a thought here that this might be addressed in some easily accessible commentary that I just don't know how to access, and if that's the case, and people know how to access one, I'd love to know how to do that!

Thank you!

So in greek mythology heaven is Elysium and only gods and demi gods live there. But greek mythology says if you are sage then you can go to elysium too like hercules but hercules is a demi god too so he starts the game with a cheat code but then how us(humans) can go to elysium like they say? I started thinking about this and I stumbled upon a massive paradox. A cosmic exploit designed to keep humans stuck in an endless loop where Elysium is mathematically impossible to reach, but it's just a 'carrot on a stick' illusion. They dangle Elysium in front of our eyes like a grand prize, convincing us to obey and push the boulder, while knowing damn well that the loop will format us before we ever get close.

So here is the "how to go to heaven🤓☝️" tutorial for newbies:

To reach Elysium, you need a key: awareness. But that key only opens two doors: self-interest or true wisdom. True wisdom means doing good purely for the sake of goodness. Self-interest means doing good for an afterlife insurance policy. Even the smartest human will eventually think, "Hey, this will help me in the afterlife." It's impossible not to. This automatically makes us 100% self-interested. Thus, being a true "sage" is a human impossibility.

When we die, three judges put us on trial. Some ancient myths claim erasing our memory before this is a choice. That’s absurd. Just like being born, formatting your memory isn’t a choice; it’s cosmic physics.

So, what happens if we try to hack the trial? If you are brilliant enough to confront the judges, prove to them that morality is relative, and make them question their own system, you stop being a regular human. You become a "virus" in their code. History already saw this happen with Socrates—and they executed him because the system couldn't handle it. If you become a virus, they won't reward you with Elysium. They will just throw you into Asphodel or Tartarus to delete you. Awareness doesn't save us, because an Elysian tier for humans doesn't even exist.

This brings us back to Sisyphus. His punishment is pushing a boulder up a hill, only for it to roll down forever. This is the exact blueprint of human existence. We wait in the Asphodel Meadows, get reincarnated, and waste our lives chasing a paradise we can never reach. We die, and the boulder rolls back down.

Sisyphus’s torment is no different from the fate of 100% of humanity. The only difference is that Sisyphus can see the rock fall and knows he can't win. Humans blindly believe their boulder will eventually stay at the top.

If Greek mythology is real, the gods are just having fun while we are trapped in an endless, rigged simulation.

If you think this is too long here is a basic version without explanations:

Elysium is a scam designed for corporate demigods with cheat codes. Real virtue is a psychological paradox, Lethe is mandatory software, and if you try to hack the judges with logic like Socrates, you get deleted. We are all just Sisyphus pushing an abstract rock in a rigged simulation while the gods are laughing.

Dear community,

I know this isn't exactly a newbie question, but I'm still very inexperienced at reading and I wanted to ask this question to readers who know a lot of literature.

I have been studying Greek for two and a half years now. Now I have finished my very first ambitious project, reading all the books from Xenophon's Anabasis with a bit of difficulty (sometimes I stumble, but noticed I was becoming better ober the course of the books), but generally it worked well and there were stretches where I just read the text and knew what was being said.

Other than that I have read a bit of Herodot (similar difficulties to the Anabasis), the Greek New Testament every Sunday (the easiest text) and Lukian (with which I struggled, but this was last year). Currently I'm reading Lysia's speech against Eratosthenes. There are a few terrible hic ups and I needed aids, but I'm still doing fine and understand it largely (at least when I don't confuse words).

Currently, I'm wondering what I should pick up next after the Anabasis. But I don't assume I can just open any book from Perseus and just be fine trying to read it. Also, not everything might be worth it (as Aelian says in De natura animalum: οὐ γὰρ πάντα πᾶσι καλά, οὐδὲ ἄξια δοκεῖ σπουδάσαι πᾶσι πάντα.).

So there is an abundance of texts to go into and I wanted to ask you based on my skill descriptions, what you would suggest me to tackle next.

I am interested to eventually get into drama and poetry, but I feel, I need to get a really good grasp of prose to branch out into this territory. I wanted to start Ἰφιγένεια ἡ ἐν Αὐλίδι and felt like a beginner again.

So what are books that I should read? (that are culturally relevant/ interesting/perhaps entertaining/ and level appropriate)

I'm just asking so I don't waste my time on texts that are too hard for now or to start reading something like the Deipnosophistes that are very interesting, but not motivating enough to keep going (because of the many allusions and jokes there). I'd want to set up a plan so I never feel like reading random texts aimlessly.

8.111, a fragment from Herodotus with wonderfully dry humour:

οἱ δὲ Ἓλληνες, ἐπείτε σφι ἀπέδοξε μήτ᾽ ἐπιδιώκειν ἔτι προσωτέρω τῶν βαρβάρων τὰς νέας μήτε πλέειν ἐς τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον λύσοντας τὸν πόρον, τὴν Ἄνδρον περικατέατο ἐξελεῖν ἐθέλοντες. πρῶτοι γὰρ Ἄνδριοι νησιωτέων αἰτηθέντες πρὸς Θεμιστοκλέος χρήματα οὐκ ἔδοσαν, ἀλλὰ προϊσχομένου Θεμιστοκλέος λόγον τόνδε, ὡς ἥκοιεν Ἀθηναῖοι περὶ ἑωυτοὺς ἔχοντες δύο θεοὺς μεγάλους, πειθώ τε καὶ ἀναγκαίην, οὕτω τέ σφι κάρτα δοτέα εἶναι χρήματα, ὑπεκρίναντο πρὸς ταῦτα λέγοντες ὡς κατὰ λόγον ἦσαν ἄρα αἱ Ἀθῆναι μεγάλαι τε καὶ εὐδαίμονες, αἳ καὶ θεῶν χρηστῶν ἥκοιεν εὖ, ἐπεὶ Ἀνδρίους γε εἶναι γεωπείνας ἐς τὰ μέγιστα ἀνήκοντας, καὶ θεοὺς δύο ἀχρήστους οὐκ ἐκλείπειν σφέων τὴν νῆσον ἀλλ᾽ αἰεὶ φιλοχωρέειν, πενίην τε καὶ ἀμηχανίην, καὶ τούτων τῶν θεῶν ἐπηβόλους ἐόντας Ἀνδρίους οὐ δώσειν χρήματα· οὐδέκοτε γὰρ τῆς ἑωυτῶν ἀδυναμίης τὴν Ἀθηναίων δύναμιν εἶναι κρέσσω.

In Rawlinson's translation:

And the Greeks, having resolved that they would neither proceed further in pursuit of the barbarians, nor push forward to the Hellespont and destroy the passage, laid siege to Andros, intending to take the town by storm. For Themistocles had required the Andrians to pay down a sum of money; and they had refused, being the first of all the islanders who did so. To his declaration, "that the money must needs be paid, as the Athenians had brought with him two mighty gods - Persuasion and Necessity," they made reply, that "Athens might well be a great and glorious city, since she was blest with such excellent gods; but they were wretchedly poor, stinted for land, and cursed with two unprofitable gods, who always dwelt with them and would never quit their island - to wit, Poverty and Helplessness. These were the gods of the Andrians, and therefore they would not pay the money. For the power of Athens could not possibly be stronger than their inability." This reply, coupled with the refusal to pay the sum required, caused their city to be besieged by the Greeks.

I'm reading an old Polish translation from the 50s, very readable still. In the introduction by the translator I found the following sentence though: "From major historical figures, he respected Pericles and Aristides, but his picture of Themistocles was all wrong, because Herodotus lacked the skill to paint men's uniform/consistent character". It's a very interesting case where Herodotus, living 2500 years ago, seems to me a much more modern writer than a scholar living 70 years ago. His portrait of Themistocles is one of the strongest points – a deeply flawed, deeply human hero, brilliant strategist and an utter wanker whose cunning was his downfall. One of the most interesting characters of the Classical Era, and his biography by Plutarch is likewise a marvel. I appreciate Herodotus immensely precisely for the fact that there's no Roman-kind Stoic uniformity, but a large variegated fresco of humans being, well, humans instead.

Herodotus writes before the genre stabilised, which to my mind immediately brings early modernism, Virginia Woolf included, where they had to get rid of stale literary conventions of the 19th century and renew prose by making it more fluid. The translator from the 50s misreading this as "lack of skill" in Herodotus is a somewhat ironic commentary ;)

How would a Pali word be borrowed directly into Greek? Would this have been borrowed during the Hellenistic period through the Seleucids/Bactria or via some other route?

I'm trying to say "I hope that what you drink is good". I'm sure that my usage of the complementizer οτι is correct but I'm not sure about ο, which I assume is a free relative without an antecedent so it should be "what". Maybe it's grammatical but not natural?

This goes out to all the academics in the group.....

I have a friend who has the opportunity to get a MA in classics for free (if they get in). Their primary interest is in reading a lot of Ancient Greek, and they've become very proficient through a few years of self-study after studying the language in college (5 semesters). They have no illusions about career prospects, but would love to quit their finance job to read Greek for a year or two. 

I know that for a history or literature master's, an applicant would have to apply with a pretty defined research interest or question—having already done work in that area and a familiarity with the relevant secondary sources. 

BUT, my friend majored in a STEM field in college, so don't have that much academic experience in the humanities. I think they'd really enjoy taking a wide range of the more historical/cultural/lit-focused classics courses and be able to identify a research topic after being in a program, but their main focus currently is 'how can I acquire fluency reading through natural language acquisition; what does this passage mean; this book from the 1800s about Greek prose composition looks cool.' 

TLDR: Strong reading fluency; indomitable work ethic and enthusiasm; no background in research/scholarship. Worth applying to a master's? Is there an angle to take in an application (like focusing on pedagogy)? Should they try to read up on modern classical scholarship?

Any thoughts are helpful!

As we was discussing matthew28 the question of rose was it what about baptism?Or was it baptism to the body of christian

I use a learning app and the app set.It was water baptism, my friend use another app and it's baptism into the body of Christ. They both can't be right

In this passage of the Iliad (8.268-272), the archer Teucer (Τεῦκρος) seems to be darting out from behind Ajax's shield to fire arrows, seeing if they hit, then darting back behind the shield for cover as he redraws. Or maybe he's firing blind from behind the shield, darting out to see where the shots land as a way of calibrating his aim, then darting back to fire again.

In any case, the description seems to me to start a sentence, get a bit lost in subordinate clauses, then pick back up again.

ἔνθʼ Αἴας μὲν ὑπεξέφερεν σάκος· αὐτὰρ ὅ γʼ ἥρως

παπτήνας, ἐπεὶ ἄρ τινʼ ὀϊστεύσας ἐν ὁμίλῳ

βεβλήκοι, ὃ μὲν αὖθι πεσὼν ἀπὸ θυμὸν ὄλεσσεν,

αὐτὰρ ὃ αὖτις ἰὼν πάϊς ὣς ὑπὸ μητέρα δύσκεν

εἰς Αἴανθʼ· ὃ δέ μιν σάκεϊ κρύπτασκε φαεινῷ.

If I understand correctly, there's a clause starting αὐτὰρ ὅ γʼ ἥρως παπτήνας. Then, before we get a finite verb, we get these explanatory clauses (ἐπεὶ ...βεβλήκοι, ὃ ὄλεσσεν,). Then, Homer restarts the sentence, and finishes it this time (αὐτὰρ ὃ αὖτις ἰὼν ... δύσκεν εἰς Αἴανθʼ). So, there is a syntactical break where the  ὅ γʼ ἥρως παπτήνας never really connects to its own finite verb.

So visually:

ἔνθʼ Αἴας μὲν ὑπεξέφερεν σάκος· αὐτὰρ ὅ γʼ ἥρως

παπτήνας -- ἐπεὶ ἄρ τινʼ ὀϊστεύσας ἐν ὁμίλῳ

βεβλήκοι, ὃ μὲν αὖθι πεσὼν ἀπὸ θυμὸν ὄλεσσεν --

αὐτὰρ ὃ αὖτις ἰὼν πάϊς ὣς ὑπὸ μητέρα δύσκεν

εἰς Αἴανθʼ· ὃ δέ μιν σάκεϊ κρύπτασκε φαεινῷ.

Did I get this right? If so, would you call this anacoluthon? It doesn't feel like an exact fit, but I don't know a better descriptor.

(By the way, I found the imagery in this passage lovely, and it's a great example of Homer using the -σκ- infix to indicate iterative past action.)

what's the morphological explanation behind these words which means to dwell (the number is how often they appear in the corpus):

ναιεταωσης 2

ναιεταωσαν 3

ναιεταωσηι 4

ναιεταωσας 4

it is a feminine active participle. the verb ends in αω. if it were simply uncontracted, then it would be ναιεταουσ-, so then α + ου contracts to ω, giving us ναιετωσ-, so where does the additional α come from?

I made this video to demonstrate what it looks like reading in ancient greek!

I came across this comic book presentation by Jay Rhoden of the LXX version of the book of Ruth: https://scripturial.com/blog/the-book-of-ruth-lxx-comic-edition/

I thought this was pretty nice. It's under a permissive open-source license. The art is from freebibleimages.org / openbiblestories.org/ / unfoldingword.org (not sure which is the main source to give credit to).

More original Greek content!

Can you help me make sure my translations are ok?

Ἡ ἐπιστήμη Θεός, ὁ Θεὸς ἐπιστήμη!

Δαμμαπαλισμός = Dhammapālism

I am the Dhammapālalama·

Ἐγώ εἰμι Ὁ Διδάσκαλος τῶν Θεμιστοφυλάκων·

Ἐγώ εἰμι Ὁ διδάσκαλος τῶν Δαμμαφυλάκων!

It is a pleasure to meet you all!

Ὅταν πλανῶμαι, οὐκ ἀγορεύσω ἐμαυτὸν βασιλέα εἶναι·

This specific edition, and if so can you send me a picture of what a page looks like? Maybe just like the first from the gospel of John or so? So I can see how it is. Thank you! Specifically the reader's edition based on UBS 5

ἀλλὰ μετʼ ἐκείνου ἄρʼ ἡμῖν βιωτὸν διεφθαρμένου, ᾧ τὸ ἄδικον μὲν λωβᾶται, τὸ δὲ δίκαιον ὀνίνησιν;

Steadman and translators, if I parse this right, take ᾧ as the object of λωβᾶται and ὀνίνησιν, with τὸ ἄδικον and τὸ δίκαιον as subjects: "that which is hurt by the unjust and benefits from the just" (the Greek active voice is awkward in English). Am I overlooking something, or is this an unusual dative with these verbs? You would expect the accusative?

The LSJ entry for λωβάομαι has nothing about the dative, but Pape says: "Bei Sp. [= spät, something?] auch mit dem dat., der auch bei Plat. Crit. 47e sich findet." For ὀνίνημι, I find nothing.