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

PISTEUSHTE in Jo 20:31 P66

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    In the first ending of the Gospel of John, 20:31, there is the question if the verb is PISTEUSHTE or PISEUHTE, Aorist or Present. A lot can be made of this,
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 9, 2011
    • 0 Attachment

      In the "first" ending of the Gospel of John, 20:31, there is the question if the verb is PISTEUSHTE or PISEUHTE, Aorist or Present. A lot can be made of this, actually as far as what audience the Gospel of John was written for, believers or non believers. In their extensive treatment of these questions on the ending of John, Carson and Fee stress the "notable early support" from P66 for the Present PISTEUHTE. NA have it as "vid".

      I looked into the issue and am not convinced. 

      Here's my file:

      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/prob/Jo-20-31-P66.pdf

       

      What do you think?

       

       

      Best wishes

          Wieland

          <><

      --------------------------

      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany

      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie

      Textcritical commentary:

      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

       

    • George F Somsel
      I think I d need to see the ms with my own eyes -- perhaps even under some special lighting.  george gfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth,
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 9, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        I think I'd need to see the ms with my own eyes -- perhaps even under some special lighting.
         
        george
        gfsomsel


        … search for truth, hear truth,
        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
        defend the truth till death.


        - Jan Hus
        _________



        From: Wieland Willker <wie@...>
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wed, March 9, 2011 10:41:27 AM
        Subject: [textualcriticism] PISTEUSHTE in Jo 20:31 P66

         

        In the "first" ending of the Gospel of John, 20:31, there is the question if the verb is PISTEUSHTE or PISEUHTE, Aorist or Present. A lot can be made of this, actually as far as what audience the Gospel of John was written for, believers or non believers. In their extensive treatment of these questions on the ending of John, Carson and Fee stress the "notable early support" from P66 for the Present PISTEUHTE. NA have it as "vid".

        I looked into the issue and am not convinced. 

        Here's my file:

        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/prob/Jo-20-31-P66.pdf

         

        What do you think?

         

         

        Best wishes

            Wieland

            <><

        --------------------------

        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany

        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie

        Textcritical commentary:

        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

         


      • yennifmit
        Wieland, I started off thinking you were right about the trace before the H being from sigma. Then I played with the line in question (using Gimp) trying to
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 13, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Wieland,

          I started off thinking you were right about the trace before the H being from sigma. Then I played with the line in question (using Gimp) trying to fit a couple of the examples of PISTEU- words you gave. The letters TE nicely fit the remnant in the first triangle-shaped piece, which would make the remnant preceding the clear H more likely to be U. (There does not then seem to be enough room for S as well.) The spot above and right of the H is consistent with a fault in the papyrus. Examples of these faults can be seen in other parts of the same sheet.

          Best,

          Tim Finney

          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...> wrote:
          >
          > In the "first" ending of the Gospel of John, 20:31, there is
          > the question if the verb is PISTEUSHTE or PISEUHTE, Aorist
          > or Present. A lot can be made of this, actually as far as
          > what audience the Gospel of John was written for, believers
          > or non believers. In their extensive treatment of these
          > questions on the ending of John, Carson and Fee stress the
          > "notable early support" from P66 for the Present PISTEUHTE.
          > NA have it as "vid".
          >
          > I looked into the issue and am not convinced.
          >
          > Here's my file:
          >
          > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/prob/Jo-20-31-P66.pdf
          >
          >
          >
          > What do you think?
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Best wishes
          >
          > Wieland
          >
          > <><
          >
          > --------------------------
          >
          > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          >
          > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          >
          > Textcritical commentary:
          >
          > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
          >
        • Wieland Willker
          Thanks Tim for taking the time to look into this. I have uploaded an image here. This is how I see it: http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/P2.jpg What do you
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 14, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks Tim for taking the time to look into this.

            I have uploaded an image here.
            This is how I see it:
            http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/P2.jpg

            What do you think?


            Best wishes
            Wieland
            <><
            --------------------------
            Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
            http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
            Textcritical commentary:
            http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
          • A. Dirkzwager
            Dear Wieland, I am sorry that I am not convinced. The end of the line INA PIS seems to be very narrowly written in comparision to the habits of the copist. I
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 14, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Wieland,

              I am sorry that I am not convinced.
              The end of the line INA PIS seems to be very narrowly written in comparision to the habits of the copist. I think he would have written only INA in that line.

              Then there should be room for PISTEU(S)HTE in the next line. I think PISTEUSHTE is impossible then. In my opinion what you see as the beginning of the U was probably the beginning of an E.
              In your images EU is written with a high E and a lower U.  So the trace before the H in which you see a part of a small S can be the end of the U.
              Before my E there is a horizontal line. That could be the horizontal stroke of a T. In your images the T allways is written lower than a following E.

              With apologies,

              Arie

              A. Dirkzwager
              Hoeselt, Belgium


              Op 9-3-2011 18:41, Wieland Willker schreef:
               

              In the "first" ending of the Gospel of John, 20:31, there is the question if the verb is PISTEUSHTE or PISEUHTE, Aorist or Present. A lot can be made of this, actually as far as what audience the Gospel of John was written for, believers or non believers. In their extensive treatment of these questions on the ending of John, Carson and Fee stress the "notable early support" from P66 for the Present PISTEUHTE. NA have it as "vid".

              I looked into the issue and am not convinced. 

              Here's my file:

              http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/prob/Jo-20-31-P66.pdf

               

              What do you think?

               

               

              Best wishes

                  Wieland

                  <><




            • Wieland Willker
              ... So ... S ... Thanks, Arie, good suggestions! Yes, this is also possible. The advantage is that it fits better on the line. The disadvantage is that it does
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 14, 2011
              • 0 Attachment

                A. Dirkzwager wrote:

                > In your images EU is written with a high E and a lower U.  So

                > the trace before the H in which you see a part of a small S

                > can be the end of the U.

                > Before my E there is a horizontal line. That could be the

                > horizontal stroke of a T. In your images the T allways is

                > written lower than a following E.

                 

                Thanks, Arie, good suggestions!  

                Yes, this is also possible.

                The advantage is that it fits better on the line.

                The disadvantage is that it does not fit so nicely with the other examples of PISTEUSHTE.

                 

                I have posted updated images here:

                http://tcg.iphpbb3.com/forum/64774768nx21631/new-testament-variants-discussion-f20/pisteushte-in-jo-2031-p66-t228.html

                 

                So the argument is: Since PIS does not fit well at the end of the previous line, and other word divisions are very improbable, it must be at the beginning of the next line. But then the space is too small for the longer PISTEUSHTE.

                 

                Yes, I’m almost convinced.

                 

                Best wishes

                    Wieland

                    <><

                --------------------------

                Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany

                http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie

                Textcritical commentary:

                http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

                 

              • A. Dirkzwager
                Dear Wieland, Thank you !! You wrote The disadvantage is that it does not fit so nicely with the other examples of PISTEUSHTE. That is true. But we are
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 14, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Wieland,

                  Thank you !!

                  You wrote " The disadvantage is that it does not fit so nicely with the
                  other examples of PISTEUSHTE. "

                  That is true. But we are not dealing with the probability of the
                  original text by John. We are looking for possibilities of what the
                  copist of p66 could have done. We all know that copists can be tired and
                  are making mistakes. Then the consistency in matters of grammar is less
                  important. Leider....

                  Arie

                  A. Dirkzwager
                  Hoeselt, Belgium
                  www.dirkzwagerarie.be
                • yennifmit
                  Hi Wieland, I took the line in question and superimposed PISTEU from the third words for comparison you gave. (I used GIMP -- www.gimp.org -- to scale down
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 14, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Wieland,

                    I took the line in question and superimposed PISTEU from the third "words for comparison" you gave. (I used GIMP -- www.gimp.org -- to scale down the PISTEU, make it transparent, and lower its contrast.) Here's the result:

                    http://www.tfinney.net/Jo-20-31-P66.jpg

                    While the trace of a letter to the left of the intact H is consistent with U or S, I think that considerations of space favour U in this case.

                    Best,

                    Tim Finney


                    --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Thanks Tim for taking the time to look into this.
                    >
                    > I have uploaded an image here.
                    > This is how I see it:
                    > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/P2.jpg
                    >
                    > What do you think?
                    >
                    >
                    > Best wishes
                    > Wieland
                    > <><
                    > --------------------------
                    > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                    > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                    > Textcritical commentary:
                    > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
                    >
                  • Wieland Willker
                    Thanks Tim and Arie, I have updated the file once again. Have a look here: http://tcg.iphpbb3.com/forum/64774768nx21631/new-testament-variants-discussi
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 15, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Thanks Tim and Arie,

                      I have updated the file once again.

                      Have a look here:

                      http://tcg.iphpbb3.com/forum/64774768nx21631/new-testament-variants-discussion-f20/pisteushte-in-jo-2031-p66-t228.html

                       

                      Do you think that a “vid” is justified for PISTEUHTE?

                       

                      Best wishes

                          Wieland

                          <><

                      --------------------------

                      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany

                      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie

                      Textcritical commentary:

                      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

                       

                      Please check out the TC forum:

                      http://tcg.iphpbb3.com

                       

                    • yennifmit
                      Hi Wieland, I think that your article does a good job of showing the possibilities. I agree with your conclusion that
                      Message 10 of 11 , Mar 16, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Wieland,

                        I think that your article does a good job of showing the possibilities. I agree with your conclusion that "πιστεύσητε cannot be ruled out completely, but it appears more improbable, because the letters must be written more cramped, especially the Y has to be narrower than usual."

                        Concerning whether it deserves a "vid.", as you know, no doubt, "vid." is short for "ut videtur" which means "so it appears" or "so it seems". As I believe it is fair to say that P66 seems to have πιστεύητε here, "vid." is justified (vid.).

                        However, "vid.", along with the sublinear dot, is a very rubbery expression. We in the humanities do not have any useful conventions on quantifying uncertainty. You, as a scientist, may feel the same consternation as me when you see assertions made without a robust statement of the associated confidence level. (As you can see, I am on my hobby horse.) I would prefer to see a graded scale like this:

                        A = beyond reasonable doubt
                        B = preferred option among two viable alternatives,
                        C = preferred option among a few (three to five?) viable alternatives,
                        D = preferred option among many (more than five?) viable alternatives.

                        This roughly parallels the A-D grades used to indicate editorial confidence in preferred readings for the UBS apparatus, a good system (vid.).

                        In these days of marked up text, the graded approach is entirely feasible. The above could be marked up like this:

                        <choice>
                        <option>PISTEUHTE</option>
                        <option>PISTEUSHTE</option>
                        </choice>

                        Rank is implicit if you order the readings according to your perception of their viability. In this case, the algorithm used to select the editor's preferred text would just choose the top word at each choice then calculate a grade based on the number of viable alternatives, in this case "B" because there are only two. One could estimate numbers to indicate viability (e.g. 0.75 for the first, 0.25 for the second) but I prefer not to. These numbers are, after all, pulled out of the air.

                        Best,

                        Tim Finney

                        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Thanks Tim and Arie,
                        >
                        > I have updated the file once again.
                        >
                        > Have a look here:
                        >
                        > http://tcg.iphpbb3.com/forum/64774768nx21631/new-testament-variants-discussi
                        > on-f20/pisteushte-in-jo-2031-p66-t228.html
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Do you think that a "vid" is justified for PISTEUHTE?
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Best wishes
                        >
                        > Wieland
                        >
                        > <><
                        >
                        > --------------------------
                        >
                        > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                        >
                        > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                        >
                        > Textcritical commentary:
                        >
                        > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Please check out the TC forum:
                        >
                        > http://tcg.iphpbb3.com
                        >
                      • Wieland Willker
                        ... I agree, something like that would be helpful. The best way would be to illustrate the case with images, so that everyone could judge for themselves.
                        Message 11 of 11 , Mar 18, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Tim Finney suggested:
                          > A = beyond reasonable doubt
                          > B = preferred option among two viable alternatives,
                          > C = preferred option among a few (three to five?) viable alternatives,
                          > D = preferred option among many (more than five?) viable alternatives.


                          I agree, something like that would be helpful.
                          The best way would be to illustrate the case with images, so that everyone
                          could judge for themselves. Therefore I created the paleography site as a
                          companion to the commentary. So far about 80 cases are covered.

                          The question is when should a non secure witness be cited? Even if it is not
                          secure, people are biased by its citation. Compare Fee and Carson, for them
                          P66 was the deciding factor.

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

                          Please check out the TC forum:
                          http://tcg.iphpbb3.com
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.