Daniel, thank you very much. This helps a lot, and in particular the thumbnails show the nature of the leaf in question in a way that no textual reconstructionMessage 1 of 5 , Apr 12View Source
Daniel, thank you very much. This helps a lot, and in particular the thumbnails show the nature of the leaf in question in a way that no textual reconstruction ever could (It’s a shame that this can’t always be done). It confirms what I already thought likely, which is that Comfort & Barrett did not ‘reconstruct’ Lk 6:5-10, instead they simply filled in the gap between 6:4 and 6:11 with text from a standard edition. Although I can see why this is useful where there are smaller lacunae, I don’t think it is helpful here, where the top 2/3 of the leaf is completely missing. The same applies, I would argue, to any lacuna that spans a known important variant (and I’m not defining ‘important’ here!). Perhaps I’m being picky, but in this kind of situation I would much prefer to either see no reconstruction, or a reconstruction with a brief note indicating that there is a variant (I don’t expect full details). Anyway, again, thank you.
David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
From: David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>
My copy of Comfort & Barrett indicates that P75 includes Lk 5:37-6:4 and 6:10-7:32, i.e. that it does not include Lk 6:5-9. However, the reconstruction of leaf 13 shows something a little different.
· Leaf 13 verso: “Location of upper margin is uncertain,” followed by 17 lines containing Lk 5:37-6:4a
· Leaf 13 recto: 22 lines containing a reconstruction of Lk 6:4b-6:10 (except last word), then 17 lines containing the end of Lk 6:10, then 6:11-15
I have three questions regarding this:
· If it is possible to reconstruct the first 22 lines of leaf 13 recto, why is it not possible to reconstruct at least some of the earlier lines of leaf 13 verso?
· On what basis have Lk 6:5-9 been reconstructed? How certain can we be that this was the text that was actually present on leaf 13 recto?
· Is there enough space on leaf 13 recto for Lk 6:5D to have been present instead of Lk 6:5?
Can anyone provide me with any more information about the contents of leaf 13 of P75 in order to help answer these questions?
David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
I'm probably reinventing the wheel here, but I went ahead and reconstructed the first few leaves of p75, based on the published text and images linked to below. Let me also say that it's standard practice to reconstruct using the UBS text, which in some cases is clearly not reasonable (where UBS follows Byz spellings, for instance).
The first extant folio of p75 consisted originally of two sheets, the first of which now exists in three fragments (two of them tiny), filling approximately the middle third of the sheet.
On the front the text ran approximately Luke 3:13-27, of which only vv. 18-22 (from the middle third of the sheet) are extant.
The back side contained 3:28-38, 4:1-4, of which parts of 33-38 are extant.
The other sheet is missing, but would have contained approximately 4:5-18 on the front and 19-33 on the back.
The second folio's first sheet still contains text from 4:36-44 on the front and 5:1-10 on the back (it probably ran to v.12).
The second sheet, containing 5:13-35, is also missing (this may indicate that I configured my folios wrongly)
We now come to the sheet in question, which would begin at 5:36 and run to about 6:8. It is extant for 5:37-6:4, with the text of 6:11-16 showing on the other side.
There are still thumbnails visible on this page (the page in question, though, appears to be mislabeled), along with the following transcription.
1 [εγενετο] [δε] [εν] [σαββατω] [δ]ι̣απορευ̣ε̣[σθαι] [αυτον] [δια] [σπορι]μ̣ω̣ν και ε̣τι̣[λλον] [οι] [μαθηται] [αυτου] [κ]α̣ι ησθιον̣ [τους] [σταχ]υ̣[ας] [ψωχοντες] τ̣αις χερ̣σ̣[ιν] 2 [τινες] [δε] τ[ων] φ[αρισαι]ων̣ ε̣ι̣π̣[αν] [τι] [ποι]ει̣[τε] [ο] [ουκ] ε̣ξεσ[τ]ι̣ν̣ τ̣οι̣ς̣ σ̣[αββα]σ[ιν] 3 κ̣[αι] [απ]οκρι̣[θεις] [προς] [αυ]τ[ους] [ει]π[ε]ν̣ ο ις̣̅ [ου]δε τ̣[ουτο] [ανεγνωτε] [ο] [εποιησεν] – 4 – [ει]ς τ̣[ον] [οικον] [του] [θυ̅] [και] [τους] [αρτους] [τ]η̣ς προ̣[θεσεως] [λαβων] [εφαγεν] [και] –
11 – ανοιας· και δ̣[ιελαλο]υ̣ν̣ π̣ρ̣[ο]ς̣ [αλλη]λους τι αν π̣[οιη]σαιεν τω ιη̅[υ]
... I don t have the book with me, but IIRC that s basically what their preface admits. Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke) Post-Doctoral Fellow,Message 2 of 5 , Apr 12View SourceOn Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:33 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...> wrote:
It confirms what I already thought likely, which is that Comfort & Barrett did not ‘reconstruct’ Lk 6:5-10, instead they simply filled in the gap between 6:4 and 6:11 with text from a standard edition.I don't have the book with me, but IIRC that's basically what their preface admits.Stephen--Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)Post-Doctoral Fellow, Theology, Uppsala