Pierluigi Piovanelli reports on PaleoJudaica.com:
". . . I attended the Annual Meeting of the AELAC in Dole (France),
together with Francois Bovon, Stanley Jones, Nicole Kelly, Stephen
Shoemaker, as well as many French, Italian, and Swiss colleagues.
The AELAC meeting was, as usual, very interesting, but it was today
[Thursday], during the 8th International Congress of Coptic Studies,
here in Paris, that I heard of a new and exciting "apocryphal"
discovery, that I would like to share with you.
Rodolphe Kasser (University of Geneva) announced that he is going to
publish a Coptic papyrus codex of 31 folios (62 pages). The manuscript
is written in Sahidic and can be dated, on paleographical grounds, to
the 4th/5th century. It is rather damaged and in poor and fragmentary
conditions. It comes from Muhazafat Al Minya, in Middle Egypt, and is
presently hold by a Swiss Foundation.
The codex contains three "treatises": (1) the Epistle of Peter to
Philip, (2) the First Apocalypse of James (both of them are also present
among the NHC but, according to Kasser, in a "different version"), and
(3) ca. 31 pages of the previously unknown Gospel of Judas!
For Kasser there are no doubts that we have here the text of the
"blasphemous" work bearing the same title that Irenaeus criticized in
his Refutation of All the Heresies.
Kasser's publication is (hopefully) scheduled for the end of 2005.
In the discussion, James Robinson pointed out that, some years ago,
Stephen Emmel had already seen such a codex and made a brief mention of
it. Could it be a new and previously unknown NHC?
In any case, this is a major discovery not only for Coptic, Gnostic or
apocryphal studies, but also for ancient Judaism and early
Christianity."
--------------------------------------
End of quote
--------------------------------------

The Gospel of Judas is today only known as a title through Irenaeus
(adv. haer. I 31,1) and Epiphanius.
Acc. to Schneemelcher it's a book of the so called Kainites, a group
associated with the Nikolaites, Karpokrates and similar Gnostics. The
Gospel probably contains a Passion account which explains the MUSTHRION
PRODOSIAS, that Judas through his betrayal allows for the universal
salvation.
Schneemelcher dates the Gospel roughly to 130-170 CE.


Best wishes
     Wieland
       <><
------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

A detailed critique of the Gospel of Thomas edition in the SQE (1996) is
given in a new article:

PETER NAGEL
"Die Neuübersetzung des Thomasevangeliums in der Synopsis quattuor
Evangeliorum und in Nag Hammadi Deutsch Bd.1"
ZNW 95 (2004) 209-257 (49 pages!)


Best wishes
     Wieland
        <><
------------------------------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

I am confused with the reading of Cod. Vatic. here.  NA27 says B* and B2 support
the _txt_
(IDEIN PROFHTHN), while B1 supports the inversion (PROFHTHN IDEIN).

H. von Soden < http://rosetta.reltech.org/Ebind/docs/TC/vonSodenSNTv2/hi-res/
d0034.jpg >, says B ("d1") supports IDEIN PROFHTHN without comment on
correctors?

But Tischendorf's 8th ed., < http://rosetta.reltech.org/Ebind/docs/TC/
TischendorfNTG8v1/hi-res/a55.jpg >, lists B in support of PROFHTHN IDEIN without
comment on correctors.

Tischendorf's Cod. Vatic. transcription on PROFHTHN IDEIN in the _txt_ says,
"litterae PROF
rescriptae et sub P latet I. Hinc sine dubio scriptor IDEIN ante PROF daturus
erat."  From
this I conceive that Tisch. only believes that B's original scribe started to
write IDEIN first
but corrected himself and wrote PROFHTHN first instead.

Is it really possible to be certain that PROFHTHN was indeed actually underneath
the IDEIN
that was erased and had PROFHTHN written on top of it? I think that is what NA27
editors
are saying, unless I am mistaken?  I really enjoy a picture of this to look at.

??? (Bai Jian Sheng)

The listing of B in NA is problematic. NA lists B-c1 for PROFHTHN IDEIN
and B* for IDEINPROFHTHN. I have once checked this at the facsimile. p.
1248: There are two dots above the P of PROFHTHN, which may indicate
that the scribe wanted to write first a Iota (of IDEIN), but then noted
his error and changed it into P. Nothing else can be seen except the two
dots. It is not clear wether he wrote anything more than the Iota. At
the right margin there is a small check.
The error in B indicates that scribes expected IDEIN after EXHLQATE,
possibly as a harmonization to Lk. There would have been no reason to
change the txt reading (B*) into the WH reading (B-c1).


Best wishes
     Wieland
        <><
------------------------------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

Hi Bai,

I have posted an image of the passage in question online --
http://www.musar.com/Vaticanus_Mt_xi9.html -- scanned from the 1999
Codex Vaticanus facsimile.

T. A. Brown
Franconia, New Hampshire  USA



Bai Jiansheng wrote:

>I am confused with the reading of Cod. Vatic. here.  NA27 says B* and B2
support the _txt_
>(IDEIN PROFHTHN), while B1 supports the inversion (PROFHTHN IDEIN).
>
>H. von Soden < http://rosetta.reltech.org/Ebind/docs/TC/vonSodenSNTv2/hi-res/
>d0034.jpg >, says B ("d1") supports IDEIN PROFHTHN without comment on
correctors?
>
>But Tischendorf's 8th ed., < http://rosetta.reltech.org/Ebind/docs/TC/
>TischendorfNTG8v1/hi-res/a55.jpg >, lists B in support of PROFHTHN IDEIN
without
>comment on correctors.
>
>Tischendorf's Cod. Vatic. transcription on PROFHTHN IDEIN in the _txt_ says,
"litterae PROF
>rescriptae et sub P latet I. Hinc sine dubio scriptor IDEIN ante PROF daturus
erat."  From
>this I conceive that Tisch. only believes that B's original scribe started to
write IDEIN first
>but corrected himself and wrote PROFHTHN first instead.
>
>Is it really possible to be certain that PROFHTHN was indeed actually
underneath the IDEIN
>that was erased and had PROFHTHN written on top of it? I think that is what
NA27 editors
>are saying, unless I am mistaken?  I really enjoy a picture of this to look at.
>
>??? (Bai Jian Sheng)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you to T. A. Brown who posted the image!  I am not a palaeographer. Can
someone
tell if the letters of B's text, PROFHTHNIDEIN, are the same hand as the rest of
the letters
on the page and the MS? To me it looks like the same. I can definitely see the
dots above P
where I used to be, and some discoloring from P to F where IDEIN might have
been, but no
discoloration afterwards where an original or first PROFHTEIN after IDEIN would
have been.
Does anyone agree?

I can see how B* (meaning the intention of the original scribe) might be cited
as saying
IDEINPROFHTHN, but how to know the same original scribe did not correct his own
mistake.  Is the handwriting different enough?

And what about B2 in NA, for IDEINPROFHTHN?  Can anyone see any marks that would
indicate B2 support this reading?  He could have written the change intra raso,
or erased
and rewritten in the right order, could he not?

??? (Bai Jian Sheng)

> Can someone tell if the letters of B's text, PROFHTHNIDEIN, are the
> same hand as the rest of the letters on the page and the MS?

It very probably is. And note that "B1" is a designation for both the
original scribe or a scribe roughly contemporary to him.


> And what about B2 in NA, for IDEINPROFHTHN?  Can anyone see
> any marks that would indicate B2 support this reading?

I don't understand this, too. As I noted there is a small check at the
right margin, but I don't know its meaning. Possibly B2 is an error in
NA and should actually be with B1, indicating that also B2 (the
enhancer) supported the PROFHTHN IDEIN reading. Hmm ...

Best wishes
     Wieland
        <><
------------------------------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

Peter M. HEAD,
"The Habits of New Testament Copyists. Singular Readings in the Early
Fragmentary Papyri of John"
Biblica 85(2004) 399-408

Available online at:
http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl85/Bib85Ani12.pdf


Best wishes
     Wieland
        <><
------------------------------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker"
<willker@c...> wrote:
> Peter M. HEAD,
> "The Habits of New Testament Copyists. Singular Readings in the
Early
> Fragmentary Papyri of John"
> Biblica 85(2004) 399-408
>
> Available online at:
> http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl85/Bib85Ani12.pdf
>
>
> Best wishes
>     Wieland
>        <><
> ------------------------------------------------
> Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
> mailto:willker@c...
> http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
> Textcritical commentary:
> http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

Could similar scribal considerations apply to singular readings in
the synoptics, e.g. Juda (Iouda) of Luke 1:39 which is usually
translated Judah, but which a friend of mine thinks should be
transcribed something like Yuwtah or Yuttah meaning the town of
Juttah in Hebron?

Geoff

I thought to have another look at the NA28 prototype page at:
http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv

and found that they now have added full transcripts of 01, A and B for
all four Gospels! This is cool!
Unfortunately the site is a bit difficult to download, it takes a while,
there are more than 20.000 small files. I haven't looked into this yet,
so I don't know why this is so. And, of course :-), you need some
special font, too.
I will try to convert the files into something useful (e.g. Bibleworks
compatible files).

Best wishes
     Wieland
       <><
------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

This NA28 is amazing! But I tried to Cut and Paste some text of Cod. Sinai., but
it is
Unicode. Can anyone convert this to regular text to use in simple word
processing
program?

Yours,

Bai Jiansheng

Very interesting article. But if all the scribal habits before the 4th c. show
that scribes
frequently transposed, omitted rather than added, how to know if the more
reliable MSS
that come later, i.e. 01 B L 33, do not have the same characteristics? Most
variations are
transpositions, syntax alteration, omission/addition. We cannot know the
Byzantines
added without the shorter Alexandrians, but if the Alexandrians before the 4th
c. were
omitting text, what is the gauge for telling the difference?

Bai Jiansheng


> Peter M. HEAD,
> "The Habits of New Testament Copyists. Singular Readings in the Early
> Fragmentary Papyri of John"
> Biblica 85(2004) 399-408
>
> Available online at:
> http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl85/Bib85Ani12.pdf

NA27 cites that D pc vg-ms sy-s bo-ms omit the verse, Mt. 5:30. I cannot read
Syriac and
Bohairic. But it does seem to me that the Gk. witnesses, at least, could not
have omitted
the verse without the alternate reading at the end of the v., BLHQH EIS GEENNAN,
by (L) W
Theta 0233 f13 Byz f vg-ms sy-p.h sa. If this is true, does this allow the
latter alternate
reading more weight for being original?

Bai Jiansheng

Images of the NT manuscripts owned by the Bibelmuseum Muenster are now
available at
<http://www.uni-muenster.de/NTTextforschung/
Handschriften_Bibelmuseum.html>

Klaus Wachtel, INTF

I'm wondering if anyone has specific information on the transmission
of the so-called "Anti-Marcionite" Prologues in Latin?  Which
manuscripts, if any and when?  I'm attempting to source some
information on Luke from an eleventh century collection of saint's
lives and some of the information mentioned is shared by both the
Anti-Marcionite prologues and the Monarchian.  I can place some
biblical mss with the Monarchian prologues in the date and provenance
of the ms I'm working on, but haven't so far with the Anti-
Marcionite.  Am I assuming that the Anti-Marcionite prologues made it
into Latin and were transmitted?  Could the Monarchian prologues
(probably by Priscillan of Aquila, fourth century) depend on the Anti-
Marcionite?

Many thanks for any pointers!

Larry Swain

Forgive duplication as this is going out to several lists.

At 07:57 PM 8/18/2004 +0000, Larry J. Swain wrote:
>I'm wondering if anyone has specific information on the transmission
>of the so-called "Anti-Marcionite" Prologues in Latin?  Which
>manuscripts, if any and when?  I'm attempting to source some
>information on Luke from an eleventh century collection of saint's
>lives and some of the information mentioned is shared by both the
>Anti-Marcionite prologues and the Monarchian.  I can place some
>biblical mss with the Monarchian prologues in the date and provenance
>of the ms I'm working on, but haven't so far with the Anti-
>Marcionite.  Am I assuming that the Anti-Marcionite prologues made it
>into Latin and were transmitted?  Could the Monarchian prologues
>(probably by Priscillan of Aquila, fourth century) depend on the Anti-
>Marcionite?

Larry,

According to my secondary materials, you may find the following
helpful in answering your specific questions:

J. Regul, Die Antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe (Vetus Latina
    Series; Freiburg: Herder, 1969).

A. Harnack, "Die ältesten Evangelein prologe und die Bildung des
    NTs," SPAW. Phil. Hist. 24 (1928): 322-41.

J. Chapman, Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels
    (Oxford: 1908): 217-88.

H. Lietzmann, Kleine Texte, no. 1 (1902; 4th ed. 1933).

"Monarchian Prologures," Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
    (2d ed.; Oxford: 1974).

R. G. Heard, "The Old Latin Gospel Prologues," JTS ns 6 (1956): 1-16.

D. de Bruyne, "Les plus anciens prologues latin des Evangiles,"
    Rev. Ben. 40 (1928): 193-214.

The "Anti-Marcionite" prologue to Luke is attested in Greek and in three
fairly similar Latin recensions.  I think the assumption, probably safe,
is that the Monarchian prologues are dependent on the A-M prologues.  As
for specific MSS, Regul is probably what you want.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Weblog:    http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

First, what are some good reasons that h.t. error did not cause omission of WS
DE
EPOREUONTO APAGGEILAI TOIS MAQHTAIS AUTOU in Mt 28:9.

Second, what MSS does the pc symbol signify? Are they always Byzantine MSS that
depart
from that tradition?

Bai Jiansheng

> First, what are some good reasons that h.t. error did not
> cause omission of WS DE EPOREUONTO APAGGEILAI TOIS
> MAQHTAIS AUTOU in Mt 28:9.

Define "good".
An argument would be that the support for the omission is quite diverse
and strong.
It is possible that the words have been repeated from the previous
verse.
Also the WS temporalis is un-Matthean.
The following KAI IDOU is strange. 41 minuscules omit KAI.


> Second, what MSS does the pc symbol signify? Are they always
> Byzantine MSS that depart from that tradition?

There is no "pc" symbol in Mt 28:9. If you mean the "al" symbol, it
refers to about 180 Byz MSS.

Best wishes
     Wieland
       <><
------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

I came across the following singular reading (Sinaiticus) Colossians
2:14 UPENANTION HMWN for the normal UPENANTION HMIN. The confusion after
UPENANTION might be more widespread in Greek so I checked TLG: three
hits for churchfathers who cited this verse with the genitive. I am just
wondering how many of the so-called singular readings are really singular.

NT textual criticism could do with an exhaustive apparatus

Regards,
Dirk Jongkind

I'm looking the fragment of P52, and I wonder if P52 should perhaps be listed as
P52vid
under Mt 18:33 variant "2-4" with 33. 1424 instead of with txt.

Here's what I see:
OI IOUDAI (ln. 1) to OUDENA (ln. 2) is 34 letters.
OUDENA (ln. 2) to PEN SHMAINW (ln. 3) is 34 letters.
PEN SHMAINW (ln. 3) to QNHSKEIN EIS (ln. 4) is 31 letters.
QNHSKEIN EIS (ln. 4) to RION O P (ln. 5) is either 30 or 35 letters (depending
on variant).
RION O P (ln. 5) to ioudaIWn (ln. 6) is 31 letters.

So I see 34, 34, 31, ___, 31.  What goes in the blank? 30 is close to
surrounding 31 and 31,
but 35 is close to the first 34 and 34.  With this kind of situation, isn't it
best to leave the
variant undecided rather than to put words into the mouth of the earliest MS
ever found?

Bai Jiansheng

At 01:22 PM 9/1/2004 +0000, Bai Jiansheng wrote:
>I'm looking the fragment of P52, and I wonder if P52 should perhaps be
>listed as P52vid under Mt 18:33 variant "2-4" with 33. 1424 instead
>of with txt.

I'm assuming John 18:33 is meant, as P52 does not (presently) have
any text of Matthew.  I'm also assuming that the issue is whether
P52vid should be listed under txt, which includes PALIN, or under
variant 2-4, which lacks PALIN.

>Here's what I see:
>OI IOUDAI (ln. 1) to OUDENA (ln. 2) is 34 letters.
>OUDENA (ln. 2) to PEN SHMAINW (ln. 3) is 34 letters.
>PEN SHMAINW (ln. 3) to QNHSKEIN EIS (ln. 4) is 31 letters.
>QNHSKEIN EIS (ln. 4) to RION O P (ln. 5) is either 30 or 35 letters
>(depending on variant).
>RION O P (ln. 5) to ioudaIWn (ln. 6) is 31 letters.
>
>So I see 34, 34, 31, ___, 31.  What goes in the blank? 30 is close to
>surrounding 31 and 31, but 35 is close to the first 34 and 34.  With
>this kind of situation, isn't it best to leave the variant undecided
>rather than to put words into the mouth of the earliest MS ever found?

Actually, the letter count for line 4 is 29 or 34, because the initial
vowel of EISHLQEN is spelled with the a single iota: IS[HLQEN, making
the letter count less ambiguous than the calculations above would
indicate.  Another factor to consider is that line 4 has five iotas, so
the line itself is a little shorter than what was computed above using
a fixed-width character assumption.  As a result, the choice between
the two options is much more clear (e.g. 28.5 or 33.5) than what the
analysis above suggests.  Moreover, the use of the notation "vid" in
the apparatus adequately informs the reader that the designation of
P52's support is based on inference.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Weblog:    http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

Baarda has analyzed the new Codex Shoyen (Coptic, mae-2) of the Gospel
of Mt and comes basically to the conclusion:
"In our pericope it certainly does not prove that the Schøjen text is a
rendering of an independent Greek text."

MT. 17:1-9 IN ‘CODEX SCHØJEN’
TJITZE BAARDA
Novum Testamentum 46 (2004) 265 - 287

The article will be available for a few days at:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Baarda.pdf

Codex Shoyen is included in the TCG commentary with the notation
"mae-2".

Best wishes
     Wieland
        <><
------------------------------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

The following book is out now:

Das Petrusevangelium und die Petrusapokalypse
Die griechischen Fragmente mit deutscher und englischer Übersetzung.
Neutestamentliche Apokryphen I
Hrsg. v. Kraus, Thomas J. / Nicklas, Tobias
2004. 24 x 17 cm. X, 153 Seiten. 27 Faksimiles. Leinen. Euro [D] 49.95 /
sFr 80.00 / approx. US$ 60.00. *
ISBN 3-11-017635-1

The book presents diplomatic transcriptions (in Greek) and translations
(in German and English) of all the known textual fragments which can be
attributed to what is known as the Gospel of Peter and the Apocalypse of
Peter or which scholars are discussing as possible elements of these
texts. In addition, the documentation of the texts in ancient times is
considered, and there is a brief discussion of the philological problems
involved. With concordances.

Best wishes
     Wieland
        <><
------------------------------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

In Luke 1:26, Gabriel is sent to POLIN THS GALILAIAS. According to NA27
there are a few (/pc/) minuscules that read IOUDA. These are not
mentioned in the IGNTP of Luke. Tischendorf gives 255, von Soden does
not mention IOUDA either.
It seems to me that /pauci /suggests more than one. Does anyone know of
any others?

Regards,
Dirk Jongkind

I am wondering if someone can shed some light on the following variant:
Luke 17:12 KAI EISERCOMENOU AUTOU EIS TINA KWMHN APHNTHSAN [AUTW] DEKA
LEPROI ANDRES, OI ESTHSAN PORRWQEN

Some witnesses read for ESTHSAN:
ANESTHSAN B, F, 157, 579, pc

The meaning is different for the two variants.
"who stood up at a distance"
"who stood --- at a distance" (txt)

The variation is curious, there is no obvious reason for it. With
ESTHSAN the meaning is clear and normal. There would be no reason for a
change. On the other hand, why should one change ANESTHSAN ?
Perhaps  ANESTHSAN has been inspired by the previous APHNTHSAN ?
The support by F is strange and suggests an error.

Any other idea?

Best wishes
     Wieland
        <><
------------------------------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

A probably interesting article on the Vaticanus umlauts is in the
Journal for the Study of the New Testament:

"The Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special
Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35: A Response to J. Edward Miller"
http://www.continuumjournals.com/journals/artdetails.asp?jref=1&issref=1
279&artref=11706


If someone could PLEASE send me the article, since our library does not
have a subscription?

There also is the earlier article which I need, too:
http://www.continuumjournals.com/journals/artdetails.asp?jref=1&issref=1
246&artref=11451

Best wishes
     Wieland
        <><
------------------------------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

Hello Andrew,

there was a discussion on the TC-list a few years ago, on the issue of dating
P52, which should be available from the TC-list archives,
http://rosetta.reltech.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl

Unfortunately, however, things are not as they used to be, and authorization
is requested for access to the archives, so maybe someone on this list have
saved that thread and could share it with you.

With kind regards

Tommy Wasserman
Centre for Theology and Religious Studies
Lund University
Sweden

>-- Original Message --
>To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
>From: "sarban" <sarban@...>
>Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:46:14 +0100
>Subject: [textualcriticism] P52 and Schmidt
>Reply-To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>I was discussing on another group when John was written
and the relevance of P52 and Schmidt's redating of this
papyrus came up.

Schmidt apparently dates P52 to around 170 CE in
A. Schmidt, Zwei Anmerkungen zu P.Ryl.III 457, APF 35, 1989


>This appears to be a minority position but does anyone
know either what were Schmidt's main grounds for redating
and/or whether there has been any detailed criticism of
Schmidt's position ?

Andrew Criddle