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

Re: P75 at Jo 14:17 ESTIN or ESTAI?

Expand Messages
  • heterodoxus
    ... 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 1 of 5 , Sep 3, 2009
      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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:
      >
      > <http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/prob/Jo-14-17-P75.pdf>

      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. 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 εστιν) and tomorrow (future tense in case the verb is εσται).

      I see that Strong translated the disputed verb as εσομαι (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 εστιν (3 pers sing pres act ind based on P66*, 03, and speculated inP75) while TR and NA show εσται (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 εστιν … instead of εσται … here, while other weighty witnesses (… as well as several versions and fathers), read the future tense. When one considers transcriptional evidence, εστιν 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 εστιν 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.

    • A. Dirkzwager
      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 not
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 3, 2009
        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 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.

        Arie

        A. Dirkzwager
        Hoeselt, Belgium



        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:
        >
        > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/prob/Jo-14-17-P75.pdf
        > <http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/%7Ewie/TCG/prob/Jo-14-17-P75.pdf>
        >
        >
        >
        > Comments very welcome!
        >
        >
        >
        > Best wishes
        >
        > Wieland
        >
        > <><
        >
        > --------------------------
        >
        > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        >
        > .
        >
        >
      • Tommy Wasserman
        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 criticism
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 3, 2009
          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 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 Wasserman


          3 sep 2009 kl. 20.50 skrev heterodoxus:


          --- In textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...> wrote:
          >
          > 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:
          >
          > <http://www-user. uni-bremen. de/~wie/TCG/ prob/Jo-14- 17-P75.pdf>

          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. 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 ÎµÏƒÏ„ιν) and tomorrow(future tense in case the verb is ÎµÏƒÏ„αι).

          I see that Strong translated the disputed verb as ÎµÏƒÎ¿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 ÎµÏƒÏ„ιν (3 pers sing pres act ind based on P66*, 03, and speculated inP75) while TR and NA show ÎµÏƒÏ„αι (3 pers sing futmid 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 εστιν … instead of εσται … here, while other weighty witnesses (… as well as several versions and fathers), read the future tense. When one considers transcriptional evidence, εστιν 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 εστιν 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.



        • Wieland Willker
          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 4 of 5 , Sep 4, 2009
            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. 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
            junction.
            I have reworked my PDF somewhat to allow for the new arrangement.


            > ESTAI or ESTIN we shall never know.

            Agree.


            Best wishes
            Wieland
            <><
            --------------------------
            Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
            mailto:wie@...
            http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
            Textcritical commentary:
            http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.