Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [textualcriticism] a little brain teaser

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Buck
    In a message dated 1/11/7 7:15:46 AM, Dan Wallace wrote:
    Message 1 of 34 , Jan 12, 2007
      In a message dated 1/11/7 7:15:46 AM, Dan Wallace wrote:

      << can someone who does not know Greek--in fact, recreates the text
      so poorly that he or she produces chicken scratches where letters
      are meant to go--create a meaningful nomen sacrum?>>

      I welcome the opportunity to risk making a fool of myself, for I do
      not feel that we have at all exhausted the subject.

      I was able to enter this study far enough along to read through all
      the posts to date in a single sitting, knowing in advance (from its
      presence in the Files) that P46 somehow would enter into the
      discussion.

      It's interesting how many learned minds proffered their wisdom
      before someone finally stated the obvious: this papyrus is a hand-
      drawn pseudofacsimile of a precise sheet of a celebrated ancient
      manuscript. Looking at the two images now, I can see that without a
      question.

      Addressing some other questions that do not perhaps lend themselves
      to so satisfactory a conclusion, I approached this mss as someone
      fluently literate only in the Latin alphabet, but able to decipher
      the standard forms of half a dozen other scripts.

      What immediately leaped out to me was the word "POISON" in the
      fourth line. Upon closer inspection, however, it turned out to be an
      optical illusion; the 'N' is not really 'IS'. So my first theory,
      that the scribe was literate in English, was tossed out.

      Moving down that line, though, I can see that the scribe could not
      have been familiar with Greek letters or Nomina Sacra. Each letter
      is drawn as s/he best perceives it to have stood in the original,
      and only incidently do these result in legible Greek characters.
      Note that the superscript is broken in between the letters UU rather
      than forming a solid line. Many characters are broken up in this way
      due to the poor quality of the exemplar. 'H' is mistaken
      for 'N', 'U' for 'O', etc.

      In an interesting reverse of the usual process, note the NS for QU
      in the 3rd line. The superscript is unbroken in the original, but
      broken in the facsimile. This lends credence to the intermediate-
      copy hypothesis. But looking more closely, it would appear that the
      break may have been caused by a dirty lens on Dan Wallace's digital
      camera. Suffice it to say, we are dealing with a multi-generational
      copy here!

      I have one question: How can we be sure that this final copy is a
      printout rather than a ms? The rough surface of papyrus would seem
      to preclude such a consistent laydown of ink. Has any analysis been
      done of the ink?


      Daniel Buck
    • Daniel Buck
      In a message dated 1/11/7 7:15:46 AM, Dan Wallace wrote:
      Message 34 of 34 , Jan 12, 2007
        In a message dated 1/11/7 7:15:46 AM, Dan Wallace wrote:

        << can someone who does not know Greek--in fact, recreates the text
        so poorly that he or she produces chicken scratches where letters
        are meant to go--create a meaningful nomen sacrum?>>

        I welcome the opportunity to risk making a fool of myself, for I do
        not feel that we have at all exhausted the subject.

        I was able to enter this study far enough along to read through all
        the posts to date in a single sitting, knowing in advance (from its
        presence in the Files) that P46 somehow would enter into the
        discussion.

        It's interesting how many learned minds proffered their wisdom
        before someone finally stated the obvious: this papyrus is a hand-
        drawn pseudofacsimile of a precise sheet of a celebrated ancient
        manuscript. Looking at the two images now, I can see that without a
        question.

        Addressing some other questions that do not perhaps lend themselves
        to so satisfactory a conclusion, I approached this mss as someone
        fluently literate only in the Latin alphabet, but able to decipher
        the standard forms of half a dozen other scripts.

        What immediately leaped out to me was the word "POISON" in the
        fourth line. Upon closer inspection, however, it turned out to be an
        optical illusion; the 'N' is not really 'IS'. So my first theory,
        that the scribe was literate in English, was tossed out.

        Moving down that line, though, I can see that the scribe could not
        have been familiar with Greek letters or Nomina Sacra. Each letter
        is drawn as s/he best perceives it to have stood in the original,
        and only incidently do these result in legible Greek characters.
        Note that the superscript is broken in between the letters UU rather
        than forming a solid line. Many characters are broken up in this way
        due to the poor quality of the exemplar. 'H' is mistaken
        for 'N', 'U' for 'O', etc.

        In an interesting reverse of the usual process, note the NS for QU
        in the 3rd line. The superscript is unbroken in the original, but
        broken in the facsimile. This lends credence to the intermediate-
        copy hypothesis. But looking more closely, it would appear that the
        break may have been caused by a dirty lens on Dan Wallace's digital
        camera. Suffice it to say, we are dealing with a multi-generational
        copy here!

        I have one question: How can we be sure that this final copy is a
        printout rather than a ms? The rough surface of papyrus would seem
        to preclude such a consistent laydown of ink. Has any analysis been
        done of the ink?


        Daniel Buck
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.