PERMANENT SOURCE RECORD
ALL SOURCES ↗SOURCE
RECORD.
One work. Every claim that depends on it. No citation without a consequence you can inspect.
9 PUBLIC LINKS INTO THE GRAPH.
This count excludes duplicate dossier-path citations. Open the claims below to see exactly how the source is used.
Codex Argenteus facsimile 186 — folio 143v, Luke 6:25–30
- AUTHOR / EDITOR
- Uppsala University Library · Project Codex Argenteus Online
- YEAR
- 1927
- PUBLISHER
- Project Codex Argenteus Online
- DOI
- Not recorded
- SOURCE TYPE
- digitized primary source
- EXTERNAL RECORD
- OPEN ORIGINAL ↗
CONTRARIAN TRUTH CLAIMS
RANKED REVEALS THAT CITE THIS SOURCE
Gothic’s two hate verbs trade places across two passages.
The complete surviving hatan corpus contains only hatandane in Luke 1:71 and hatandans in Luke 6:27. In Luke 1, fijandam supplies enemies while hatandane supplies those hating; in Luke 6, hatandans supplies enemies while fijandam supplies those hating. Both Codex Argenteus pages are directly inspected. The lexical swap—and the class-III versus class-I dispute—cannot be represented by one timeless translation arrow.
*ḱeh₂d- → *ḱh₂d-es- → *hatiz- → *xatēnan ~ *xatōjanan → hatan
Folio 143v, line containing þans hatandans izwisProvides the second directly inspected manuscript object.
Enemy is a fossilized hater—but 21 Gothic tokens still refuse to choose.
Project Wulfila lists 42 candidates under fijan and 26 under the enemy noun fijands. Their intersection is exactly 21 surface tokens. Ayora Estevan explains the collision: *fi(j)and- had lexicalized as enemy before Gothic, while Gothic still possessed the productive present participle one who hates. Case and syntax resolve some passages; the remaining 21 stay public as noun-versus-participle ambiguity.
*peh₁- → *fi(j)ēn- → fijan
Folio 143v, ambiguous fijandamProvides a second directly inspected overlap token.
SCHOLARLY DISAGREEMENT
DISPUTE POSITIONS THAT CITE THIS SOURCE
Are hatjan and hatan two Gothic verbs or one fluctuating paradigm?
The located scholarship does not collapse to one answer. Project Wulfila gives separate class-I and class-III lemmas; Orel publishes distinct Germanic formations. Braune says hatan fluctuates between class III and class I, and Wright lists both under the same gloss.
Folio 143v, Luke 6:27, line containing “þans hatandans izwis”Provides the visually inspected parallel manuscript page for the class-III form.
Does the Codex Argenteus route map the spread of fijan?
No. Werden, Prague, Stockholm, Holland, and Uppsala trace custody of four inspected evidence objects long after Gothic ceased to be a living vernacular in those places.
Folio 143v facsimileIdentifies the fourth inspected object inside that route.
Does the Codex Argenteus route map the spread of hatan?
No. It maps custody of the two directly inspected evidence objects. The codex traveled through Werden, Prague, Stockholm, Holland, and Uppsala long after Gothic ceased to be a living vernacular in those places.
Folio 143v, facsimile 186Identifies the second directly inspected object inside the same codex.
CANONICAL RELATIONSHIP CLAIMS
EDGES THAT CITE THIS SOURCE
LEXICAL ATTESTATIONS
WITNESSES REPORTED BY THIS SOURCE
hatan
Codex Argenteus, Luke 6:27
OPEN WITNESS 264 ↗fijan
Codex Argenteus, Luke 6:27
OPEN WITNESS 288 ↗COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE
COGNATES, DESCENDANTS, AND RELATIVES
GEOGRAPHIC AND TEMPORAL CLAIMS
JOURNEY STAGES THAT CITE THIS SOURCE
NON-GENEALOGICAL CONNECTIONS
HISTORICAL CONTEXT, KEPT SEPARATE
WORD-FAMILY REUSE