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

RE: [textualcriticism] Re: PISTEUSHTE in Jo 20:31 P66

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.