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

Reconstruction of POxy 4448 (P109)

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    Dear friends, I have a question regarding the reconstruction of P.Oxy. 4448, which is NT papyrus P109. On the recto there are two dots after an Epsilon which
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 9, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear friends,

      I have a question regarding the reconstruction of P.Oxy. 4448, which is NT papyrus P109.
      On the recto there are two "dots" after an Epsilon which are difficult to interpret. These are either letters, or an error, or just filler dots.

      Please have a look at the evidence here:
      http://tinyurl.com/4ooj5p

      I would like to know your opinion.

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      ------------------------------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:wie@...
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... From: Wieland Willker To: Papy-list ; Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008
      Message 2 of 3 , Oct 9, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Wieland Willker" <wie@...>
        To: "Papy-list" <papy@...>;
        <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:48 AM
        Subject: [textualcriticism] Reconstruction of POxy 4448 (P109)


        > Dear friends,
        >
        > I have a question regarding the reconstruction of P.Oxy. 4448, which is NT
        > papyrus P109.
        > On the recto there are two "dots" after an Epsilon which are difficult to
        > interpret. These are either letters, or an error, or just filler dots.
        >
        > Please have a look at the evidence here:
        > http://tinyurl.com/4ooj5p
        >
        > I would like to know your opinion.
        >
        > Best wishes
        > Wieland


        I think the scribe, who may have had variant exemplars, was not sure it
        should have been ELE of EI and put dots for the corrector to decide..that's
        one possibility.
        There is also a dot after ALLOC (the ink damage makes C look like an I). On
        the line in question, I have seen an I hung on a trail from an epsilon
        before which may be the first "dot" which is the I of EIPEN and the E in DE
        is closer to the D and damaged. The second "dot" does not look like the
        intended scribal dot after ALLOC and may be either the remains of a P or the
        scribe "over inked" a dot that means "continued on next line." I would like
        to see this badly damaged fragment under UV or some of the new imaging
        techniques to bring up rubbed off ink.

        Jack
      • codex_05
        Will you allow a response from an obvious outsider, but one that has had a long standing interest in papyrology and palaeography and a former member of the
        Message 3 of 3 , Oct 9, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Will you allow a response from an obvious outsider, but one that has
          had a long standing interest in papyrology and palaeography and a
          former member of the American Society of Papyrologists. Based on the
          writing habits of this scribe as seen on the verso where the top
          cross stroke of one tau conjoins a following eta, making the
          assumption that on the recto one of your "dots", if it follows the
          accepted text, could be the middle stroke of an epsilon crossing an
          iota. I admit the second dot does look a bit unusual. With it in the
          margin one wonders if it is a marginal notation symbol of some sort.
          It certainly does resemble our old "division" symbol.



          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Dear friends,
          >
          > I have a question regarding the reconstruction of P.Oxy. 4448,
          which is NT papyrus P109.
          > On the recto there are two "dots" after an Epsilon which are
          difficult to interpret. These are either letters, or an error, or
          just filler dots.
          >
          > Please have a look at the evidence here:
          > http://tinyurl.com/4ooj5p
          >
          > I would like to know your opinion.
          >
          > Best wishes
          > Wieland
          > <><
          > ------------------------------------------------
          > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          > mailto:wie@...
          > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          > Textcritical commentary:
          > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.