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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.