- On the ETC blog the variant ESTAI/ESTIN in Jo 14:17 came up and I revisited the question of P75 again. Have a look here:Message 1 of 5 , Sep 3, 2009View Source
On the ETC blog the variant ESTAI/ESTIN in Jo 14:17 came up and I revisited the question of P75 again.
Have a look here:
Comments very welcome!
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
- ... revisited ... Hello, Group! I m new here. I ve reviewed all of your messages during the past several weeks, but this is my first contribution. Dr.Message 2 of 5 , Sep 3, 2009View Source--- In email@example.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...> wrote:
>Hello, Group! I'm new here. I've reviewed all of your messages during the past several weeks, but this is my first contribution.
> On the ETC blog the variant ESTAI/ESTIN in Jo 14:17 came up and I revisited
> the question of P75 again.
> Have a look here:
Dr. Willker: I'm new here and while I agree with your conclusion on the link you provided, I don't see the importance to the average Bible reader of knowing the exact verb recorded in P75. Jesus' point in John14:17 appears clear even without a futuristic "he will be" or "he shall be" verb (cp., e.g., TEV and Weymouth, and my rendering of he is in and with you today (present tense in case the verb is ÎµÏÏÎ¹Î½) and tomorrow (future tense in case the verb is ÎµÏÏÎ±Î¹).
I see that Strong translated the disputed verb as ÎµÏÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹ (1 pers sing fut mid ind; see Strong's #G2071), perhaps because he thought Jesus was speaking to only Philip in 14:8-21? I see, too, that W&H preferred ÎµÏÏÎ¹Î½ (3 pers sing pres act ind based on P66*, 03, and speculated inP75) while TR and NA show ÎµÏÏÎ±Î¹ (3 pers sing fut mid ind based on P66c,01, and 02).
For those readers who haven't yet seen it, the NET Bible translators commented, in part:
"Some early and important witnesses have ÎµÏÏÎ¹Î½ instead of ÎµÏÏÎ±Î¹ here, while other weighty witnesses ( as well as several versions and fathers), read the future tense. When one considers transcriptional evidence, ÎµÏÏÎ¹Î½ is the more difficult reading and better explains the rise of the future tense reading, but it must be noted that both Ì66and D were corrected from the present tense to the future. If ÎµÏÏÎ¹Î½ were the original reading, one would expect a few manuscripts to be corrected to read the present when they originally read the future, but that is not the case. When one considers what the author would have written, the future is on much stronger ground. The immediate context(both in 14:16 and in the chapter as a whole) points to the future, and the theology of the book regards the advent of the Spirit as a decidedly future event (see, e.g., 7:39 and 16:7). The present tense could have arisen from an error of sight on the part of some scribes or more likely from an error of thought as scribes reflected upon the present role of the Spirit. Although a decision is difficult, the future tense is most likely authentic .."
An interesting puzzle for the theologian? Yes. Important to the average Bible reader's understanding of Jesus` words in John 14:17? With respects, not so much.
- Dear Wieland, I am starting with your first image. The 4th line from the bottom has OTI ZW EGW KAI YMEIS ZHSETE ktl. It is clear that the fragments are notMessage 3 of 5 , Sep 3, 2009View SourceDear Wieland,
I am starting with your first image.
The 4th line from the bottom has OTI ZW EGW KAI YMEIS ZHSETE ktl.
It is clear that the fragments are not arranged well. Between OTI and ZW
the line does not continue well. ZW lies higher than OTI. The space
between OTI and ZW is too large, like it is too large in the line above,
where only a little O should fill the space between ME and UKETI.
The fragment containing OTI cannor be moved to the top for it touches
the fragment above it.
Then the fragment with ZW EGW ktl. should be moved a little to the
bottom; i.e. only the left part. At the right side of it the line
continues well on the third fragment, with ZHSETE.
But if we move the left side of the fragment with ZW, the top of it (the
area we are interested in!!) moves too. So we get another situation.
On the left we see large black areas, clearly dirt. I think at the top
of the fragment with ZW there is dirt too, like there is dirt somewhat
to the right above TIMEI.
But above the place we are interested in there are black traces under
AUTO. It seems to me that that is ink. And then we have a correction
between the lines.
Your second image consists of three times the same text with different
possibilities. I think UK (of OUK) in the first possibility could be
right. Then we have on the upper fragment the upper part of a little O
(of OUK). The lower fragment seems to have some dirt and something like
a full stop in ink. When we imagine that the top of that fragment should
be lying more to the left (as I showed in the beginning of my message) ,
we have in the "full stop" the lower part of a stroke: an I or the right
part of a N. .......ESTAI or ESTIN we shall never know.
Of course I cannot be too sure. Comments are welcome.
Wieland Willker schreef:
> On the ETC blog the variant ESTAI/ESTIN in Jo 14:17 came up and I
> revisited the question of P75 again.
> Have a look here:
> Comments very welcome!
> Best wishes
> Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
- Dear heterodoxus, you wrote: I don t see the importance to the average Bible reader of knowing the exact verb recorded in P75 But this is a textual criticismMessage 4 of 5 , Sep 3, 2009View SourceDear heterodoxus,you wrote: "I don't see the importance to the average Bible reader of knowing the exact verb recorded in P75"But this is a textual criticism discussion group and most of the subscribers are probably interested in this and similar problems. Not all average Bible readers should do textual criticism. A relatively small number of people are involved in this particular area of investigation defined as textual criticism, and all average Bible readers may gain from that fact as they harvest some of the results.With respects,Tommy Wasserman3 sep 2009 kl. 20.50 skrev heterodoxus:
- Thank you Arie for your comments. I put the image into Photoshop and made the individual fragments separate layers so that I could move them around freely.Message 5 of 5 , Sep 4, 2009View SourceThank you Arie for your comments.
I put the image into Photoshop and made the individual fragments separate
layers so that I could move them around freely. This way I was able to get a
better fit. It does not change anything dramatically though. It only becomes
even more clear that one cannot base anything on the ink remains at that
I have reworked my PDF somewhat to allow for the new arrangement.
> ESTAI or ESTIN we shall never know.Agree.
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany