This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of New Testament papyri article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
First of all this is a good start, and I commend Alastair Haines for putting the legwork into inputting all the data into the table. I have two suggestions. I think we should remove "AD" from the column. It just makes the column wider and is unnecessary according to the WP:MoS Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). What it is saying is that numbers after year 1 do not require any era notation unless in a range of dates that begin in BC. And since all NT manuscripts were written after Jesus' death, it is probably clear to our readers that none of the dates are BC. The Manual of Style also suggests using "c." for circa for approximations. Maybe we could just note at the top of the date column that all dates are approximated/rounded so we don't have to write ~ or c. before every date. Also, I am a little concerned over the wikilinking the books of the bible. Normally, you should avoid over wikification, and linking the book everytime it is mentioned seems like overkill. In fact, I think we could do without any linking, because the column to to explain what portion of the manuscript survives, and the links don't tell us any more about the specific surviving portion, but instead are about the entire book. Just a couple thoughts.- Andrew c 18:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The Wiki article is on the much more famous Egyptian Museum of Turin. That is why I didn't give a link. It also explains why I translated into English. It is more clear that it is a generic name -- Egyptian Museum, which exist in several cities in Italy. As it stands in Italian, it would appear to some readers that it refers to the Museo Egizio, which is not quite right. In fact, I couldn't be sure from my googling if the Papyrological Institute in Florence is actually a separate entity to the Egyptian Museum in that city. The two were refered to in close proximity, appearing almost synonymous in a couple of sites I checked.
I'll repeat my main argument for translating names of foreign institutions, once more. We are bound to be inconsistant if we don't translate, because we do not use the Arabic for the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (where Egyptian has a different meaning too, of course). We would run into serious transliteration issues with Cyrillic, Greek, Arabic etc., because there are no cannonical transliteration systems. Certainly there are multiple, widely used systems. Even the Egyptian Museum in Berlin is already not given in German, though we could render it more easily in ASCII. This is English language Wiki. It is not NA27, which is written for a universal audience. The "other languages" feature of Wiki is probably the place to use our knowledge of the autonyms of foreign institutions.
Love to hear your thoughts. Alastair Haines 02:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
What do editors think of the Distribution chart at the bottom? Do the parenthetical numbers work, or would it have been better to create a third column for the early numbers?- Andrew c 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
<unindent> Sorry to be thick but which book is this table from? The ref says Aland(1996). There is no such book. Suspecting a typo ie Aland(1995), I checked p.85. Sure enough the table is there BUT the numbers are different eg Matthew 18 (7). Has there been an update I'm not aware of? TIA Mercury543210 ( talk) 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC) PS The table is very useful.
I have updated the Distribution based on content section to provide more useful information. I retained the count for early manuscripts as well as total, while adding columns for the centuries to populate the Papyrus numbers. Many of these cannot be dated to a single century, so I used the colspan config to stretch these over the two possible centuries. ChickDaniels ( talk) 17:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I love the table. I'd love to see links to on-line images; dates using centuries or ranges (with reference to e.g. NA27). I don't particularly like the 'Elite status' discussion in the opening - it is not particularly true for a start (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus still exert the dominant influence on edited NT texts); and it obscures the fact that the papyri come from II-VII - they are not all early (as is acknowledged now only at the end).
But you guys are obviously workign on this page so I haven't done any edits, except to delete the 'pending' papyrus which is not on papyrus. PeterMHead 11:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It is time to complete List of NT papyri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leszek Jańczuk Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 09:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This is great stuff! - Ret.Prof ( talk) 21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as Unicode has a 𝔓 character, and Biblical studies is certainly an area where Unicode support is required for polytonic diacritics, why use an image for the blackletter P when we could use 𝔓 instead?-- Akhenaten0 ( talk) 17:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a lot of great information here, and I'd like to first thank the contributors for their hard work. But I do have a comment about the choice of the colors "beige" and "pink" to distinguish entries. As I assume you don't realize, about six percent of men are red-green colorblind and have difficulty distinguishing shades of these colors. As in happens, both of the colors chosen here look almost identical to me. Would it be possible for someone who is a little more Wiki-savvy than I am to choose a different color scheme here?
Thanks so much!
(And although I am the only one to note this, with over 6 billion people on this planet there are millions of colorbind men who will benefit from a simple change like this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.204.86 ( talk) 18:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere is the meaning of the † symbol explained. Presumably it carries meaning. Someone who knows might like to add a clarification. JohnHarris ( talk) 09:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of New Testament papyri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I have undertaken an update to this page to add page count, and most importantly links to hosting institutions where digital photos are available. This will both properly document everything and provide easy access to the primary sources. I am also going to supply correct separation of rows when needed, and correct numerous data errors where institution shelf numbers have changed, and so forth. It will take a few weeks, and I will update this message when finished. ChickDaniels ( talk) 18:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Work on this update is now complete, though I am still cleaning up some minor issues. ChickDaniels ( talk) 20:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of New Testament papyri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The references for the various papyri--for example Papyrus 44 (Matthew 17:1-3, 6-7, 18:15-17, 19, 25:8-10; John 10:8-14)--uses a different format (comma separates verse and chapters) than the one on their respective Wiki pages (dot separates different verses of same chapter, semicolon separate chapters).
Aaronshenhao ( talk) 07:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
would P.Yale 1 inv. 419 make it to this list? FuzzyMagma ( talk) 08:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there's any value in having the papyri broken into three tables like this. It makes the table less useful. I plan to combine them into a single table, so I'm inviting comment. Ordinary Person ( talk) 05:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of New Testament papyri article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
First of all this is a good start, and I commend Alastair Haines for putting the legwork into inputting all the data into the table. I have two suggestions. I think we should remove "AD" from the column. It just makes the column wider and is unnecessary according to the WP:MoS Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). What it is saying is that numbers after year 1 do not require any era notation unless in a range of dates that begin in BC. And since all NT manuscripts were written after Jesus' death, it is probably clear to our readers that none of the dates are BC. The Manual of Style also suggests using "c." for circa for approximations. Maybe we could just note at the top of the date column that all dates are approximated/rounded so we don't have to write ~ or c. before every date. Also, I am a little concerned over the wikilinking the books of the bible. Normally, you should avoid over wikification, and linking the book everytime it is mentioned seems like overkill. In fact, I think we could do without any linking, because the column to to explain what portion of the manuscript survives, and the links don't tell us any more about the specific surviving portion, but instead are about the entire book. Just a couple thoughts.- Andrew c 18:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The Wiki article is on the much more famous Egyptian Museum of Turin. That is why I didn't give a link. It also explains why I translated into English. It is more clear that it is a generic name -- Egyptian Museum, which exist in several cities in Italy. As it stands in Italian, it would appear to some readers that it refers to the Museo Egizio, which is not quite right. In fact, I couldn't be sure from my googling if the Papyrological Institute in Florence is actually a separate entity to the Egyptian Museum in that city. The two were refered to in close proximity, appearing almost synonymous in a couple of sites I checked.
I'll repeat my main argument for translating names of foreign institutions, once more. We are bound to be inconsistant if we don't translate, because we do not use the Arabic for the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (where Egyptian has a different meaning too, of course). We would run into serious transliteration issues with Cyrillic, Greek, Arabic etc., because there are no cannonical transliteration systems. Certainly there are multiple, widely used systems. Even the Egyptian Museum in Berlin is already not given in German, though we could render it more easily in ASCII. This is English language Wiki. It is not NA27, which is written for a universal audience. The "other languages" feature of Wiki is probably the place to use our knowledge of the autonyms of foreign institutions.
Love to hear your thoughts. Alastair Haines 02:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
What do editors think of the Distribution chart at the bottom? Do the parenthetical numbers work, or would it have been better to create a third column for the early numbers?- Andrew c 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
<unindent> Sorry to be thick but which book is this table from? The ref says Aland(1996). There is no such book. Suspecting a typo ie Aland(1995), I checked p.85. Sure enough the table is there BUT the numbers are different eg Matthew 18 (7). Has there been an update I'm not aware of? TIA Mercury543210 ( talk) 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC) PS The table is very useful.
I have updated the Distribution based on content section to provide more useful information. I retained the count for early manuscripts as well as total, while adding columns for the centuries to populate the Papyrus numbers. Many of these cannot be dated to a single century, so I used the colspan config to stretch these over the two possible centuries. ChickDaniels ( talk) 17:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I love the table. I'd love to see links to on-line images; dates using centuries or ranges (with reference to e.g. NA27). I don't particularly like the 'Elite status' discussion in the opening - it is not particularly true for a start (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus still exert the dominant influence on edited NT texts); and it obscures the fact that the papyri come from II-VII - they are not all early (as is acknowledged now only at the end).
But you guys are obviously workign on this page so I haven't done any edits, except to delete the 'pending' papyrus which is not on papyrus. PeterMHead 11:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It is time to complete List of NT papyri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leszek Jańczuk Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 09:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This is great stuff! - Ret.Prof ( talk) 21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as Unicode has a 𝔓 character, and Biblical studies is certainly an area where Unicode support is required for polytonic diacritics, why use an image for the blackletter P when we could use 𝔓 instead?-- Akhenaten0 ( talk) 17:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a lot of great information here, and I'd like to first thank the contributors for their hard work. But I do have a comment about the choice of the colors "beige" and "pink" to distinguish entries. As I assume you don't realize, about six percent of men are red-green colorblind and have difficulty distinguishing shades of these colors. As in happens, both of the colors chosen here look almost identical to me. Would it be possible for someone who is a little more Wiki-savvy than I am to choose a different color scheme here?
Thanks so much!
(And although I am the only one to note this, with over 6 billion people on this planet there are millions of colorbind men who will benefit from a simple change like this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.204.86 ( talk) 18:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere is the meaning of the † symbol explained. Presumably it carries meaning. Someone who knows might like to add a clarification. JohnHarris ( talk) 09:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of New Testament papyri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I have undertaken an update to this page to add page count, and most importantly links to hosting institutions where digital photos are available. This will both properly document everything and provide easy access to the primary sources. I am also going to supply correct separation of rows when needed, and correct numerous data errors where institution shelf numbers have changed, and so forth. It will take a few weeks, and I will update this message when finished. ChickDaniels ( talk) 18:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Work on this update is now complete, though I am still cleaning up some minor issues. ChickDaniels ( talk) 20:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of New Testament papyri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The references for the various papyri--for example Papyrus 44 (Matthew 17:1-3, 6-7, 18:15-17, 19, 25:8-10; John 10:8-14)--uses a different format (comma separates verse and chapters) than the one on their respective Wiki pages (dot separates different verses of same chapter, semicolon separate chapters).
Aaronshenhao ( talk) 07:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
would P.Yale 1 inv. 419 make it to this list? FuzzyMagma ( talk) 08:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there's any value in having the papyri broken into three tables like this. It makes the table less useful. I plan to combine them into a single table, so I'm inviting comment. Ordinary Person ( talk) 05:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)