• Dear TCers, Question regarding p115 and uncial letters used as numbers such as in p115 where XIC = 616. Here s the image of p115 with the number 616 (3rd
Message 1 of 16 , Feb 5, 2010
View Source
• 0 Attachment

Dear TCers,

Question regarding p115 and uncial letters used as numbers such as in p115 where "XIC" = 616. Here's the image of p115 with the number 616 (3rd line upper left hand corner) where C = 6.

As I look at Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, p. 9... the number 6 can be either a digamma or a final sigma. The number 200 is a regular sigma. So in Greek uncial writing, what does the difference between a regular sigma (200) look like compared to a final sigma (6)?

Part of the reason I'm asking is because J. Neville Birdsall wrote an excellent essay on the ms evidence for 616 (pp. 349-59 in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis, 2002) and he suggests GAIOS KAISAR = 616... 3 + 1 + 10 + 70 + 200 + 20 + 1 + 10 + 200 + 1 + 100 = 616. But shouldn't the sigma in GAIOS be a final sigma (6, not 200) and the sigma in KAISAR be a regular sigma (200)... and if so, wouldn't GAIOS KAISAR = 422, not 616?

Jeff Cate
Riverside, CA

____________________________________________________________
Home Improvement Projects
Do it right the first time. Click to find contractors to work on your home improvement project.

• ... I think this is refering to miniscule writing. digamma looks like a final sigma with an elongated top. In practice, when written, digamma often looked a
Message 2 of 16 , Feb 5, 2010
View Source
• 0 Attachment
On 02/05/2010 09:18 AM, Jeff Cate wrote:

Dear TCers,

Question regarding p115 and uncial letters used as numbers such as in p115 where "XIC" = 616. Here's the image of p115 with the number 616 (3rd line upper left hand corner) where C = 6.

As I look at Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, p. 9... the number 6 can be either a digamma or a final sigma. The number 200 is a regular sigma.

I think this is refering to miniscule writing. digamma looks like a final sigma with an elongated top. In practice, when written, digamma often looked a lot like sigma. You usually told the difference by context.

So in Greek uncial writing, what does the difference between a regular sigma (200) look like compared to a final sigma (6)?

There is none. 6 would be digamma, which is a squarish sigma, but often scribes where not that neat.

Part of the reason I'm asking is because J. Neville Birdsall wrote an excellent essay on the ms evidence for 616 (pp. 349-59 in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis, 2002) and he suggests GAIOS KAISAR = 616... 3 + 1 + 10 + 70 + 200 + 20 + 1 + 10 + 200 + 1 + 100 = 616.But shouldn't the sigma in GAIOS be a final sigma (6, not 200) and the sigma in KAISAR be a regular sigma (200)... and if so, wouldn't GAIOS KAISAR = 422, not 616?

The difference between final sigma and sigma wasn't readily appearant to someone writting at the time of revelation, So the sigma in GAIOS would still be 200.

Jeff Cate
Riverside, CA

____________________________________________________________
Home Improvement Projects
Do it right the first time. Click to find contractors to work on your home improvement project.

• Thanks, Bob. A couple more questions. I imagine that in p115 that C = 6 (and not 200) because it s in the one s spot? And if the scribe of p115 wanted to write
Message 3 of 16 , Feb 5, 2010
View Source
• 0 Attachment

Thanks, Bob. A couple more questions. I imagine that in p115 that C = 6 (and not 200) because it's in the one's spot? And if the scribe of p115 wanted to write the number 206 (for instance) the two letters would be identical... "CC"?

Thanks again,
--Jeff Cate,
Riverside, CA

I think this is refering to miniscule writing. digamma looks like a final sigma with an elongated top. In practice, when written, digamma often looked a lot like sigma. You usually told the difference by context.

So in Greek uncial writing, what does the difference between a regular sigma (200) look like compared to a final sigma (6)?

There is none. 6 would be digamma, which is a squarish sigma, but often scribes where not that neat.

Part of the reason I'm asking is because J. Neville Birdsall wrote an excellent essay on the ms evidence for 616 (pp. 349-59 in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis, 2002) and he suggests GAIOS KAISAR = 616... 3 + 1 + 10 + 70 + 200 + 20 + 1 + 10 + 200 + 1 + 100 = 616.But shouldn't the sigma in GAIOS be a final sigma (6, not 200) and the sigma in KAISAR be a regular sigma (200)... and if so, wouldn't GAIOS KAISAR = 422, not 616?

The difference between final sigma and sigma wasn't readily appearant to someone writting at the time of revelation, So the sigma in GAIOS would still be 200.

Jeff Cate
Riverside, CA

____________________________________________________________
Home Improvement Projects
Do it right the first time. Click to find contractors to work on your home improvement project.

• Hi Jeff. In the uncials Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus, the final sigma is the same as a sigma in the middle of a word: both look like our capital C.
Message 4 of 16 , Feb 5, 2010
View Source
• 0 Attachment
Hi Jeff.

In the uncials Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus, the final sigma is the same as a sigma in the middle of a word: both look like our capital C.

By the way, the Muenster Institute says that Papyrus 115 reads Chi Xi Sigma H Chi Iota Sigma, that is, "666 or 616."  The capital H letter before the 616 is a word that means "or."

David Robert Palmer

Jeff Cate wrote:

<< So in Greek uncial writing, what does the difference between a regular sigma (200) look like compared to a final sigma (6)?
• Thanks, David and thanks for sending me the link. That s certainly interesting. I m wondering about how the INTF has the evidence for p115 listed on Rev.
Message 5 of 16 , Feb 7, 2010
View Source
• 0 Attachment

Thanks, David and thanks for sending me the link. That's certainly interesting. I'm wondering about how the INTF has the evidence for p115 listed on Rev. 13:18.

http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv (Revelation 13:18)

When you move the cursor over "åîçêïíôá" at the top, in the right window they list p115 as evidence for "åîçêïíôá" along with N-A27 p47 01 02. It seems (at least to me), that the evidence for p115 should be listed as p115-vid at the most. Yes, there's an eta before "XIC" in p115, but there's no number extant before the eta. Is it possible that this is a typo in the INTF system?

I do see that they have "ç åîáêïóéïé åêêáéäåêá" on the left as a variant reading.

Sincerely,

--Jeff Cate,
Riverside, CA

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "David Robert Palmer" <davekanaka@...>
To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Uncial letters as numbers and p115
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:17:24 -0800

Hi Jeff.

In the uncials Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus, the final sigma is the same as a sigma in the middle of a word: both look like our capital C.

By the way, the Muenster Institute says that Papyrus 115 reads Chi Xi Sigma H Chi Iota Sigma, that is, "666 or 616."  The capital H letter before the 616 is a word that means "or."

David Robert Palmer

Jeff Cate wrote:

<< So in Greek uncial writing, what does the difference between a regular sigma (200) look like compared to a final sigma (6)?

____________________________________________________________

• Yes, but then at the bottom left screen, you see that it shows the number 616 as an addition, in addition to 666, along with the eta. It is very clear to me
Message 6 of 16 , Feb 8, 2010
View Source
• 0 Attachment
Yes, but then at the bottom left screen, you see that it shows the number 616 as an addition, in addition to 666, along with the eta.  It is very clear to me that this is what they say P115 reads: "666 or 616."

From: Jeff Cate
Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Uncial letters as numbers and p115

Thanks, David and thanks for sending me the link. That's certainly interesting. I'm wondering about how the INTF has the evidence for p115 listed on Rev. 13:18.

When you move the cursor over "åîçêïíôá" at the top, in the right window they list p115 as evidence for "åîçêïíôá" along with N-A27 p47 01 02. It seems (at least to me), that the evidence for p115 should be listed as p115-vid at the most. Yes, there's an eta before "XIC" in p115, but there's no number extant before the eta. Is it possible that this is a typo in the INTF system?

I do see that they have "ç åîáêïóéïé åêêáéäåêá" on the left as a variant reading.

Sincerely,

--Jeff Cate,
Riverside, CA

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "David Robert Palmer" <davekanaka@live. com>
To: <textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com>
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Uncial letters as numbers and p115
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:17:24 -0800

Hi Jeff.

In the uncials Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus, the final sigma is the same as a sigma in the middle of a word: both look like our capital C.

By the way, the Muenster Institute says that Papyrus 115 reads Chi Xi Sigma H Chi Iota Sigma, that is, "666 or 616."  The capital H letter before the 616 is a word that means "or."

David Robert Palmer

Jeff Cate wrote:

<< So in Greek uncial writing, what does the difference between a regular sigma (200) look like compared to a final sigma (6)?

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ ___

• Jeff, There is a certain amount of dittography that creeps into the INTF website (for instance, at Matthew 27:17) Now that I think of it, that also involved
Message 7 of 16 , Feb 8, 2010
View Source
• 0 Attachment
Jeff,

There is a certain amount of dittography that creeps into the INTF website (for instance, at Matthew 27:17) Now that I think of it, that also involved the letter H used as "or." It might be due to some flaw in the programming. At any rate, you can sort through the evidence, especially using the "show original spelling" function, to tease out the real story. In the "verse by verse" screen, INTF reads for p115:
εξακοσιοι εξηκοντα εξ η εξακοσιοι εκκαιδεκα
that is, EXAKOSIOI EXHKONTA EX H EXADOSIOI EKKAIDEKA
Going over to "show original spelling" on the Word Collation screen, it shows P47 as reading χξϚ that is, superscribed CXS,
and p115 as reading χξϚ that is, superscribed CXS [vid].
But p115 is also listed for χιϚ that is, superscribed CIS.

And it's a little disengenuous to claim a unique spelling for Aleph just because Aleph actually spells it out. For all we know that's the spelling the other scribes had in mind when they wrote it in numerals.

It is confusing. Fortunately there are printed facsimilies of this figure so we know it really reads 616, nothing particularly vid about it.

Daniel Buck

From: Jeff Cate <Jeffcate@...>
To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, February 7, 2010 10:46:01 PM
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Uncial letters as numbers and p115

Thanks, David and thanks for sending me the link. That's certainly interesting. I'm wondering about how the INTF has the evidence for p115 listed on Rev. 13:18.

When you move the cursor over "χξ̅Ϛ" at the top, in the right window they list p115 as evidence for "χξ̅Ϛ" along with N-A27 p47 01 02. It seems (at least to me), that the evidence for p115 should be listed as p115-vid at the most. Yes, there's an eta before "XIC" in p115, but there's no number extant before the eta. Is it possible that this is a typo in the INTF system?

I do see that they have "η εξακοσιοι εκκαιδεκα " on the left as a variant reading.

Sincerely,

--Jeff Cate,
Riverside, CA

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "David Robert Palmer" <davekanaka@live. com>
To: <textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com>
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Uncial letters as numbers and p115
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:17:24 -0800

Hi Jeff.

In the uncials Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus, the final sigma is the same as a sigma in the middle of a word: both look like our capital C.

By the way, the Muenster Institute says that Papyrus 115 reads Chi Xi Sigma H Chi Iota Sigma, that is, "666 or 616."  The capital H letter before the 616 is a word that means "or."

David Robert Palmer

Jeff Cate wrote:

<< So in Greek uncial writing, what does the difference between a regular sigma (200) look like compared to a final sigma (6)?

• Thanks, Daniel. (And my apologies for the gibberish in my earlier post... I thought it would copy and paste unicode... should ve checked before posting...
Message 8 of 16 , Feb 8, 2010
View Source
• 0 Attachment

Thanks, Daniel. (And my apologies for the gibberish in my earlier post... I thought it would copy and paste unicode... should've checked before posting... should've just used transliteration)

Bill Warren pointed out to me offline in an email that ms 1854 has the eta before the number... but it's used as a direct article (not the conjunction "or"). The entire sentence in ms 1854 reads "O ARIQMOS AUTOU ESTI H EXAKOSIOI EXHKONTA EX." So if eta is used as a direct article in ms 1854 (even though 666 in the sentence is a predicative nominative), wouldn't it be speculation to think that p115 reads "666 or 616" like the INTF seems to indicate when no text is extant before the eta?

I'm not aware of any ms of Rev that include two numbers as an either/or situation in that verse. Irenaeus discusses both 616 and 666 in Adv. Haer. 5.30.1-4... but he doesn't mention any mss that have both numbers. I don't know of a ms that has two options for the number. (And unfortunately, I don't have Hoskier's collations at hand to double check)

Thanks again.

Jeff Cate,
Riverside, CA

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Daniel Buck <bucksburg@...>
To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Uncial letters as numbers and p115
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:35:38 -0800 (PST)

Jeff,

There is a certain amount of dittography that creeps into the INTF website (for instance, at Matthew 27:17) Now that I think of it, that also involved the letter H used as "or." It might be due to some flaw in the programming. At any rate, you can sort through the evidence, especially using the "show original spelling" function, to tease out the real story. In the "verse by verse" screen, INTF reads for p115:
ÎµÎ¾Î±ÎºÎ¿ÏƒÎ¹Î¿Î¹ ÎµÎ¾Î·ÎºÎ¿Î½Ï„Î± ÎµÎ¾ Î· ÎµÎ¾Î±ÎºÎ¿ÏƒÎ¹Î¿Î¹ ÎµÎºÎºÎ±Î¹Î´ÎµÎºÎ±
that is, EXAKOSIOI EXHKONTA EX H EXADOSIOI EKKAIDEKA
Going over to "show original spelling" on the Word Collation screen, it shows P47 as reading Ï‡Î¾Ïš that is, superscribed CXS,
and p115 as reading Ï‡Î¾Ïš that is, superscribed CXS [vid].
But p115 is also listed for Ï‡Î¹Ïš that is, superscribed CIS.

And it's a little disengenuous to claim a unique spelling for Aleph just because Aleph actually spells it out. For all we know that's the spelling the other scribes had in mind when they wrote it in numerals.

It is confusing. Fortunately there are printed facsimilies of this figure so we know it really reads 616, nothing particularly vid about it.

Daniel Buck

From: Jeff Cate <Jeffcate@juno. com>
To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sun, February 7, 2010 10:46:01 PM
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Uncial letters as numbers and p115

Thanks, David and thanks for sending me the link. That's certainly interesting. I'm wondering about how the INTF has the evidence for p115 listed on Rev. 13:18.

When you move the cursor over "Ï‡Î¾Ì…Ïš" at the top, in the right window they list p115 as evidence for "Ï‡Î¾Ì…Ïš" along with N-A27 p47 01 02. It seems (at least to me), that the evidence for p115 should be listed as p115-vid at the most. Yes, there's an eta before "XIC" in p115, but there's no number extant before the eta. Is it possible that this is a typo in the INTF system?

I do see that they have "Î· ÎµÎ¾Î±ÎºÎ¿ÏƒÎ¹Î¿Î¹ ÎµÎºÎºÎ±Î¹Î´ÎµÎºÎ± " on the left as a variant reading.

Sincerely,

--Jeff Cate,
Riverside, CA

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "David Robert Palmer" <davekanaka@live. com>
To: <textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com>
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Uncial letters as numbers and p115
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:17:24 -0800

Hi Jeff.

In the uncials Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus, the final sigma is the same as a sigma in the middle of a word: both look like our capital C.

By the way, the Muenster Institute says that Papyrus 115 reads Chi Xi Sigma H Chi Iota Sigma, that is, "666 or 616."  The capital H letter before the 616 is a word that means "or."

David Robert Palmer

Jeff Cate wrote:

<< So in Greek uncial writing, what does the difference between a regular sigma (200) look like compared to a final sigma (6)?

____________________________________________________________
Diet Help

• Okay, I think I ve figured this out. Note that in the image of p115, H CIS is all that is visible on the line. The INTF folks apparently are hypothesizing that
Message 9 of 16 , Feb 8, 2010
View Source
• 0 Attachment
Okay, I think I've figured this out. Note that in the image of p115, H CIS is all that is visible on the line. The INTF folks apparently are hypothesizing that the line originally read CXS H CIS, that is, "666, or 616." In other words, a gloss was inserted into the text. So what is 'vid' is the portion of the line EXAKOSIOI EXHKONTA EX that precedes H EXADOSIOI EKKAIDEKA. I think 'vid' is claiming too much here, especially since Aleph, which spells out the number, omits και ο αριθμος αυτου (KAI O ARIQMOS AUTOU) right before it.

What do you think?

Daniel Buck

From: Daniel Buck <bucksburg@...>
To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, February 8, 2010 3:35:38 PM
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Uncial letters as numbers and p115

Jeff,

There is a certain amount of dittography that creeps into the INTF website (for instance, at Matthew 27:17) Now that I think of it, that also involved the letter H used as "or." It might be due to some flaw in the programming. At any rate, you can sort through the evidence, especially using the "show original spelling" function, to tease out the real story. In the "verse by verse" screen, INTF reads for p115:
εξακοσιοι εξηκοντα εξ η εξακοσιοι εκκαιδεκα
that is, EXAKOSIOI EXHKONTA EX H EXADOSIOI EKKAIDEKA
Going over to "show original spelling" on the Word Collation screen, it shows P47 as reading χξϚ that is, superscribed CXS,
and p115 as reading χξϚ that is, superscribed CXS [vid].
But p115 is also listed for χιϚ that is, superscribed CIS.

And it's a little disengenuous to claim a unique spelling for Aleph just because Aleph actually spells it out. For all we know that's the spelling the other scribes had in mind when they wrote it in numerals.

It is confusing. Fortunately there are printed facsimilies of this figure so we know it really reads 616, nothing particularly vid about it.

Daniel Buck

From: Jeff Cate <Jeffcate@juno. com>
To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sun, February 7, 2010 10:46:01 PM
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Uncial letters as numbers and p115

Thanks, David and thanks for sending me the link. That's certainly interesting. I'm wondering about how the INTF has the evidence for p115 listed on Rev. 13:18.

When you move the cursor over "χξ̅Ϛ" at the top, in the right window they list p115 as evidence for "χξ̅Ϛ" along with N-A27 p47 01 02. It seems (at least to me), that the evidence for p115 should be listed as p115-vid at the most. Yes, there's an eta before "XIC" in p115, but there's no number extant before the eta. Is it possible that this is a typo in the INTF system?

I do see that they have "η εξακοσιοι εκκαιδεκα " on the left as a variant reading.

Sincerely,

--Jeff Cate,
Riverside, CA

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "David Robert Palmer" <davekanaka@live. com>
To: <textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com>
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Uncial letters as numbers and p115
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:17:24 -0800

Hi Jeff.

In the uncials Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus, the final sigma is the same as a sigma in the middle of a word: both look like our capital C.

By the way, the Muenster Institute says that Papyrus 115 reads Chi Xi Sigma H Chi Iota Sigma, that is, "666 or 616."  The capital H letter before the 616 is a word that means "or."

David Robert Palmer

Jeff Cate wrote:

<< So in Greek uncial writing, what does the difference between a regular sigma (200) look like compared to a final sigma (6)?

• Daniel, I think you are right about dittography. There must be some flaw in the scripts or software that makes it display things it shouldn t, in several of
Message 10 of 16 , Feb 8, 2010
View Source
• 0 Attachment
Daniel, I think you are right about dittography.  There must be some flaw in the scripts or software that makes it display things it shouldn't, in several of the views.  I have now concluded that the surest way to find a reading for a manuscript, is to click on the name of the manuscript itself, in the "word by word" view.  When you do that for p115, it reads: [5-8] [χξ̅Ϛ] η χι̅Ϛ   That is, with the 666 in square brackets, and in red.  It seems to give a letter count of what is missing, and it just fills in what the NA27 reads, for convenience.  Also, it pops up messages about "wits" and that NA27.  Does anyone know what these "wits" are?

So, Jeff, I changed my mind about what the site indicates.  I think it indicates the reading of p115 as Eta Chi Iota Sigma only.

Again, does anyone know what these "wits" are?

Thanks.

David Robert Palmer

Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Uncial letters as numbers and p115

Jeff,

There is a certain amount of dittography that creeps into the INTF website
• Yes, I have heard that theory about H in p115 being the definite article. Hoskier does not indicate that 1854 has H . Mr. Warren, could you please tell us
Message 11 of 16 , Feb 8, 2010
View Source
• 0 Attachment
Yes, I have heard that theory about H in p115 being the definite article.  Hoskier does not indicate that 1854 has "H".  Mr. Warren, could you please tell us what is your source for that reading?  Do you have images of the MS yourself?  Or do you have the the editio princeps?

Thanks.

David Robert Palmer

• I have presented my view on the matter here: http://tinyurl.com/yatzb6e Conclusion: We cannot know. :-) Best wishes Wieland
Message 12 of 16 , Feb 9, 2010
View Source
• 0 Attachment
I have presented my view on the matter here:
http://tinyurl.com/yatzb6e

Conclusion: We cannot know. :-)

Best wishes
Wieland
<><
--------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:wie@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
• The reading is based on the images that we have at the CNTTS, with the reading being very clear in 1854. paz y gracia, Bill Warren, Ph.D. Director of the
Message 13 of 16 , Feb 9, 2010
View Source
• 0 Attachment
The reading is based on the images that we have at the CNTTS, with the reading being very clear in 1854.

paz y gracia,

Bill Warren, Ph.D.

Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies

Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

On Feb 9, 2010, at 1:47 AM, David Robert Palmer wrote:

Yes, I have heard that theory about H in p115 being the definite article.  Hoskier does not indicate that 1854 has "H".  Mr. Warren, could you please tell us what is your source for that reading?  Do you have images of the MS yourself?  Or do you have the the editio princeps?

Thanks.

David Robert Palmer

=
• I have heard that Bill Warren says the MS 1854 has an eta before the 666. Hoskier does not mention an eta in MS 1854, but does have something interesting. He
Message 14 of 16 , Feb 9, 2010
View Source
• 0 Attachment
I have heard that Bill Warren says the MS 1854 has an eta before the 666.  Hoskier does not mention an eta in MS 1854, but does have something interesting.  He says that there is a marginal note, "LATEINOS."  I gather that this means the scribe or a commentator of 1854 is commenting that the number 666 stands by gematria for the Roman Empire.  That is, L = 30, A = 1, T = 300, E = 5, I = 10, N = 50, O = 70, S = 200, which add up to 666.

Irenaeus considered the theory of Titus (TEITAN) to be the most likely, and LATEINOS the second most likely.

At any rate, if there is an eta before the 666 in 1854, would this have some meaning as an article in light of the fact the scribe thinks it refers to the Roman Empire?

David Robert Palmer

• Thanks, Wieland. That s the kind of reconstruction and analysis for which I was searching and had yet to locate. Nice job on the reconstruction. It s
Message 15 of 16 , Feb 9, 2010
View Source
• 0 Attachment
Thanks, Wieland. That's the kind of reconstruction and analysis for which I was searching and had yet to locate. Nice job on the reconstruction. It's interesting that ms 1854 has ESTI before the eta, but ESTI still wouldn't fit the gap as you've reconstructed it.

Jeff Cate,
Riverside, CA

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Wieland Willker" <wie@...>
To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Uncial letters as numbers and p115
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:44:33 +0100

I have presented my view on the matter here:
http://tinyurl. com/yatzb6e

Conclusion: We cannot know. :-)

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/

____________________________________________________________
Nutrition
Improve your career health. Click now to study nutrition!

• Some possibilities to fill the gap in p115: Perhaps p115 first had the 616 number spelled out, that is, EXAKOSIOI DEKA EX then H then XIC. This would make the
Message 16 of 16 , Feb 9, 2010
View Source
• 0 Attachment
Some possibilities to fill the gap in p115:

Perhaps p115 first had the 616 number spelled out, that is, EXAKOSIOI DEKA EX then H then XIC.  This would make the H as "or" make sense.  Is there any other example of a MS using both the ligature and the spelled out number separated by "H"?  (If even more space is left, try EXAKOSIOI KAI DEKA KAI EX.)

Readings of other mss that might fill the gap:

TOU QHRIOU ESTIN in place of AUTOU  (MS 2016)
ESTI KAI O ARIQMOS AUTOU  (MS 2021)

David Robert Palmer
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.