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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Problems with Phi 043

Expand Messages
  • Dirk Jongkind
    Are you sure this is not simply a mistake in the numbering of the pics on the CSNTM website? It would be the simplest solution. cheers dirk Comment by Wieland:
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 2, 2009
      Are you sure this is not simply a mistake in the numbering of the pics on the CSNTM website? It would be the simplest solution.

      cheers
      dirk

      Comment by Wieland:
      I agree and of course I thought about that, but this is not the case. Looking at the images it is clear that what they call "b" is the verso of "a".




      Wieland Willker wrote:
       

      Robert Relyea wrote:
      > After a page or two, you would quickly learn to look to the right
      > first then come back and finish on the left before turning the page.

      I now understand your model. That's in fact possible!
      But that would be a very strange book, wouldn't it?

      Tony Pope wrote:
      > Batiffol's 1886 edition of Phi/043 is available on-line and can be
      > downloaded as .pdf at
      >
      http://gallica. bnf.fr/ark: /12148/bpt6k9630 2s.image. r=Batiffol. langEN.f2. pagi
      nation

      Thank you very much for this link!
      That's very helpful!

      In the introduction I cannot find anything that points to reading from the
      right to the left. Also from the notation of the folio numbers in his text I
      take it that Batiffol did not see anything problematic in this codex. The
      text smoothly goes on from one folio to the next.

      The only other explanation I can come up with:
      As Daniel Buck has already pointed out, every folio consists of two sheets
      glued together.
      At some point in the history of the codex, after Batiffol, someone or
      something took them apart, perhaps water damage, and the sheets have then
      been put together in the wrong way. But is this reasonable?

      I still think that I have overlooked something.

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


      -- 
      Dirk Jongkind, PhD
      Fellow and Tutor, St. Edmund's College
      Research Fellow in New Testament Text and Language
      Tyndale House
      36 Selwyn Gardens
      Cambridge, CB3 9BA		Phone:(UK) 01223 566603
      United Kingdom			Fax:  (UK) 01223 566608
      
      
    • Daniel B. Wallace
      Well, the Chinese bound this MS, so maybe that explains things? dbw ... Sent: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 11:22:27 +0200 From: Wieland Willker To:
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 2, 2009
        Well, the Chinese bound this MS, so maybe that explains things?

        dbw

        ----- Start Original Message -----
        Sent: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 11:22:27 +0200
        From: "Wieland Willker" <wie@...>
        To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Problems with Phi 043

        >
        > Robert Relyea wrote:
        > After a page or two, you would quickly learn to look to the right
        > first then come back and finish on the left before turning the page.

        I now understand your model. That's in fact possible!
        But that would be a very strange book, wouldn't it?

        Tony Pope wrote:
        > Batiffol's 1886 edition of Phi/043 is available on-line and can be
        > downloaded as .pdf at
        >
        http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k96302s.image.r=Batiffol.langEN.f2.pagi
        nation

        Thank you very much for this link!
        That's very helpful!

        In the introduction I cannot find anything that points to reading from
        the
        right to the left. Also from the notation of the folio numbers in his
        text I
        take it that Batiffol did not see anything problematic in this codex. The
        text smoothly goes on from one folio to the next.

        The only other explanation I can come up with:
        As Daniel Buck has already pointed out, every folio consists of two
        sheets
        glued together.
        At some point in the history of the codex, after Batiffol, someone or
        something took them apart, perhaps water damage, and the sheets have then
        been put together in the wrong way. But is this reasonable?

        I still think that I have overlooked something.

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




        ----- End Original Message -----
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.