This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Papyrus 1 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I undeleted this page because it was deleted far too hastily, without giving the page's original author time to respond. It's likely that this material can be edited or changed to a stub, rather than deleting it less than 24 hours later. But regardless of the final outcome, there should be a bit more chance for discussion before the entire page is deleted like that. (Note that there was no prior comment on this page at all.) Wesley 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Ha who knew wikipedia had their own saints. LoveMonkey 23:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the system Papyrus # is best. P# (papyrus) is awkward. I'm keen to adopt the existing system. The Magdalen papyrus and John Rylands papyrus should probably be moved to the locations currently held by redirects. Any comments? Alastair Haines 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree. LoveMonkey 23:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Alistair here's a list of all of the articles I was going to write but they got deleted by Andrew c twice. [1] LoveMonkey 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The text of the article says, "p1 is much like the text of Codex Vaticanus, from which it rarely varies." I am thinking that someone, perhaps even myself, should examine this (no doubt valid) claim and come up with a quantitative statement, instead of "rarely varies"; like, "There are 300 visible letters in p1 and 295 are the same as in the same as in Vaticanus. Moreover, only the meaning of 1 word is affected. As to orthography, itacistic variations are the same, but p1 has one moveable ν, lacking in Vaticanus." (I just pulled those statements and numbers out of the air as an example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnochBethany ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Andrew look what you quoted: "P1 as a "strict" text. These transmit the text of an exemplar with meticulous care (e.g., P75) and depart from it only rarely."
From what you quote, Aland is not saying anything about Vaticanus or p1's agreement with Vaticanus. When Aland implies that p1 transmits the text of an exemplar, that exemplar is not Vaticanus! It cannot be since Vaticanus is long after p1. The word "rarely" has nothing to do with Vaticanus only rarely departing from p1. p1 could not "follow" or "depart from" Vaticanus at all, since B was not yet written. For crying out loud! Your reference to Aland has nothing to do with the differences between B and p1 being rare.
Why insist on the word rare? Why not just state that p1 and Vaticanus differ on 17-20 words, differences spread over 2 pages of text. Best wishes.( EnochBethany ( talk) 22:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
Yes, the statement is a red herring in this discussion, since nobody is advocating that one does not follow reliable sources. No one ever advocated that. What I advocate is following the most reliable sources, which in this case are 1) the photographes and 2) the delineated list of variations which was thankfully added to this article. You seem to have 2 sources in conflict: the one that says "rarely varies" and the source that give 20 variations! IMHO the 2nd source is most reliable. And it can be confirmed by anyone who follows the most reliable source, which is the photographs. The photographs are practically a primary source. Comfort is a secondary source. Prefer primary sources is a standard historical axiom.( EnochBethany ( talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
I would have expected a β, but that S-shaped character doesn't seem to be reconcilable to beta. Also, I have been unable to find another example of that character in the text of p1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnochBethany ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
OK Andrew, I won't call you Queeny. How about Your majesty? LOL. Well that S interpreted as beta bugs me, so I have sent an email that hopefully Phillip Comfort will respond to me on and tell me why he took it for a beta (except that it is page 2).( EnochBethany ( talk) 01:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
Well, Andrew, thanks for telling me about W's policy. I already had written it off as a reliable source of information. But now, I realize it is worse than I thought.
Let's hope that someone comes up with an explanation of the "S" on the recto in a secondary source to move this article more in the direction of truth, tho I realize Wikipedia hardly insists on truth. Best wishes for a happy day. Post script: I now think that one should deem the photo a highly reliable secondary source, which was published with associated secondary source commentary.( EnochBethany ( talk) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
I only stated my education because you seemed to call me a layman. Yes, we can neither assume that person is an expert nor a layman on this internet site. Yes, follow reliable sources. Sources can be divided into 2 main categories: 1) Primary and 2) Secondary. A primary historical source is an actual document (or the like) for a time period addressed. In this case the actual papyrus is the primary source. Photographs are quasi-primary sources. Secondary sources can be divided into 2 groups a) those that are based on and reference primary sources, and b) those that do not (e.g., typical history textbooks without footnotes).
Primary sources must be preferred to secondary sources. In this case the primary source is the photographs of the mss, not the comments on them made 2,000 years latter. I hope that my improvements to the article are acceptable in that they point out the source responsible for the statement and leave both intact.
Reading an ancient primary source and quoting what it says is not presenting one's own ideas any more than quoting what a modern secondary is not presenting one's own ideas. Best wishes.( EnochBethany ( talk) 16:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
The attached top of article image of p1 is defective, as can be seen by going to the links at the bottom of the article, links to the actual photographs of p1. The attached image cuts off the top with straight lines, as if the original top margin and edge of p1 were intact. Could whoever made that image correct it so the image is complete?( EnochBethany ( talk) 17:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
In the side-box there appears this note:
Suggested revision:
"Vaticanus differs from p1 on 17-20 words."( EnochBethany ( talk) 18:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
Try this POV for size:
It is obvious that a photo from a reliable source is of higher probative value than mere commentary. In the case of papyri photos, in the literal sense they are indeed secondary sources (though having almost the same probative value as a primary source, the actual manuscript). Moreover, the photo of p1 is deemed a reliable secondary source. Neither does Wikipedia shrink from posting photos on the grounds that they are primary sources. In the case of the p1 photo promulgated by a reliable secondary source, it must be considered of higher authority than Comfort's transcription, unless Comfort states why he had given something contrary to what is on reliable photo of the manuscript. Moreover, both the Vaticanus photo and the p1 photo are put out by reliable secondary sources. Thus it is reasonable that anyone who reads Greek should compare them with his eyes and make a conclusion as to the variations between them. When one reads Comfort, one likewise uses one's eyes to read Comfort and make conclusions as to what Comfort says.
Also it is following a reliable secondary source to state that the top of a manuscript page is missing based on the photo of a reliable secondary source. At least that is how I see it. Shalom.( EnochBethany ( talk) 20:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
My guess is that some scholars would be interpreted as negation that Vaticanus closely related to to p1. Probably a reference to the contrary opinion to Comfort is in order here.( EnochBethany ( talk) 20:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
p1 does not follow Vaticanus. One might claim that Vaticanus follows p1. p1 was written long before Vaticanus according to the most reliable sources.( EnochBethany ( talk) 20:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
The photo supplied is defective, in that some how the top of the mss photo has been cropped off to show straight lines where there are none. Commentary on it may not be necessary if the image is corrected. Does anyone object to a better photo. Andrew, would you like to put a better photo up?
Here is the reference University of Pennsylvania, "Library Images,"
The same thing is at the below addy, but seems not quite as high a quality as the U of Pa above. Universität Munster Institüt,
I inserted what I thought was proper documentation for the comment that the top of the mss was missing on the article page. Someone reverted it. What is wrong with my documentation? The reverter acted imperious, giving me an order to stop editing and made no comment on the talk page to explain his revert.
While some users may (rightly so, or not) have problems with our photo. Adding text to an encyclopedia article, which is basically commentary on a specific photo, is not appropriate. Imagine a print or mobile or text only or spoken version of Wikipedia that for any number of reasons does not show images. This commentary would be useless. The only place for image comments would be in captions. This is for accessibility purposes, and to keep an encyclopedic style and tone. We should not add personal commentary on specific images in the body text of an article. That said, if someone wants to propose a new image, or wants to revise the image caption, that may be more along the lines of what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Just keep in mind, if you are reading say the Encyclopedia Britannica, are you going to find similar commentary in the body text of an article? Of course not. I see no reason for us to have such text here (though, if there are specific issues with an image, let's address them, and try to fix them, outside of the article text). - Andrew c [talk] 17:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Would you allow a statement in an email from Comfort? What will you accept before I knock myself out. If you are concerned about a quality article, why would I be the only one to seek the documentation? ( EnochBethany ( talk) 18:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
Because of copyright issues, I refrained from changing the photo myself. I suggest that if you cannot put an accurate photo, none should be supplied or it should be stated that the top was cropped off. Given that the top is cropped off in the supplied photo, does anyone insist that it should stay, since it is misleading? If the top of p1 has worn off (or been torn off) over the millennia, does anyone a prioi insist that this article cannot make mention of the fact somehow, even meeting the pettifogging technical objections that keep coming up? I know that Wikipedia is not committed to truth, but is there an objection to something turning out to be true?
If the top of p1 is missing, this is important. For so far as I know, all the other early mss of gospels have a title included, e.g., Kata Maththaion. To be sure Vaticanus does not put the title at the start, but at the end of Matthew -- and such could have been the case with p1. But it seems to me that there should be some way to state that the top is missing, if it is. I can't believe that Wikipedia has a rule against stating that the top of a mss is missing. If you know that the top was cropped off, because you did it! Why won't you just say that?
What is the difference between basing a statement on words (Prof Gizmo says it) and basing a statement on a photo (Photo by Prof Gizmo shows it)?
So, if you can't follow what the photos say (excellent secondary sources -- both U. of Pa and U Munster), then if this article is going to be excellent, it should find some way to state that the top is missing (or it isn't). Instead of my continually trying to get this into the article and someone then continually objecting, why not think positive. How can this statement get incorporated without violating some shibboleth? Or are you opposed to the idea since it was not put in there by the original committee, and how dare someone suggest an improvement? Andrew, I don't see you as that kind of person. ( EnochBethany ( talk) 18:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
Since the article as now written supplies an opinion on the closeness of Vaticanus to p1 (historical order, B to p1, not vice versa) and since one of the main differences in these 2 papyrus pages we have of p1, is the itacism of Vaticanus, methinks a statement about that distinction needs to be in the article as support for closeness or distinctness. (BTW, I do not have any ax to grind in this.) Probably some reliable source (if truly there exists much beside polemics in any biblical field) should be found on the significance of itacism relative to text family. Is it an established fact that itacism is a good way to establish genealogy or is it truly irrelevant, as an accident of spelling in an age that didn't have that concept -- acceptable personal whim of copyist.( EnochBethany ( talk) 19:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
The article presently reads on Hoskier: "Only Herman C. Hoskier (see below), who finds 17-20 word variations, contested close agreement with Vaticanus."
There is no documentation to prove the "Only" claim. In fact the "only" is impossible to support, as it is exceeding difficult to prove a negative. How do we know that the Chinese scholar Sum Sing Wing Wong does not also contest the reading? One simply cannot poll all students to establish the "only" claim. And it is unreasonable to assume that no one follows Hoskier.
As to the word, "contested," that seems to require reliable sources to prove which view was first: close agreement or distinctive difference. (And is that worth the effort?) I suggest a more neutral POV word: "denied," instead of "contested."
Suggested revision: "Herman C. Hoskier (see below), who finds 17-20 word variations, denied close agreement stating that the agreement between Vaticanus and p1, is both spasmodic and overrated."
Again, let me ask the other editors to consider if they really want to say that the agreement is close. Are you sure you would not rather just say what the differences are and leave out taking sides on the opinion? I think that a better statement would be "relatively close," if you can document that by establishing that reliable sources say that relatively speaking the agreement between B and p1 is closer than between most other 2 mss (hard to prove). Or one might say, (if one can support it from reliable sources) that the agreement between B and p1 is greater than between B and א. But is that worth the effort?( EnochBethany ( talk) 07:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC))
In the article it is stated: "The Greek text-type of this codex is a representative of the Alexandrian."
There is no footnote to this sentence, although there is to the following sentence. But I went to p. 96 of the Aland book on Google books and found no claim that p1 was Alexandrian. Yes, Aland cagegorizes p1 as "Category I," but I see no proof that Category I means "Alexandrian." Should the Alexandrian claim be deleted until a reliable source be found, which source over-rules the Aland dictum that no text-types existed at the time of p1? I am holding off on putting a request for citation on the page to see what others have found, and if I have overlooked something. Is there some proof that being classified as Category I implies Alexandrian? I don't think so. The linked Wikipedia article says, "This category represents the earliest manuscripts. Fourth century and earlier papyri and uncials are in this category, as are manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type." Note that this sentence says "as are", not that earlier papyri are Alexandrian.
At the same time I am thinking that if a source says that something is of X text-type, that source also should have to say why it is of that text-type in order to be considered reliable. I mean any one can just say something, ipse dictus. It seems to me that if a source is reliable, the author should have reasonable criteria for classification and tell us what they are. A source (below) says that the Alands don't recognize text-types as in existence at the time of p1.
In the case of p1, many of its variations from B are itacisms. I have been searching for canons that have been used to establish text-type and family. It is easy to find canons of textual criticism. But who has laid down specifically canons for family determination to which reference could be made in support of family designation? For example, how much does orthographic variation count? The full stop (full mute) transformation of a fricative (dissimilation) before its matching fricative (or neglect of said transformation) is another example, besides itacism. For example, some mss will have ΜΑΘΘΑΙΟΝ instead of ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ (after ΚΑΤΑ) or whatever. Has any scholar ever come up with a systematic way to evaluate the weight of such difference in determining family? What would count more, the essential percent of words that agree (regardless of orthography) or conformity with orthography? At any rate, a source which actually gives the reasons for family classification would be better than one that just says so, IMHO.( EnochBethany ( talk) 20:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC))
Thus far this is the closest thing I have found to what I am after. But it seems to merely tabulate "disagreements," without weighing the type of disagreement. And a criticism of the CPM is that
I came across this claim which invalidates giving p1 a text-type at http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TextTypes.html#Fn03
"The age of the text-types has also been questioned. Some -- e.g. the Alands -- hold that there were no text-types before the fourth century.[*3]"
"3. See, e.g. Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (English translation by Erroll F. Rhodes, Eerdmans, 1989). On p. 56, in discussing text-types, they say "In the fourth century a new era begins." On p. 65, the claim is even more forceful: "The major text-types trace their beginnings to the Diocletianic persecution and the Age of Constantine which followed." See, e.g. Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (English translation by Erroll F. Rhodes, Eerdmans, 1989). The Aland book is available on Google books, BTW.( EnochBethany ( talk) 21:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC))
Elwell, Walter A. and Comfort, Philip Wesley: "The Text of the New Testament," in Tyndale Bible Dictionary, p. 193: "But various scholars have demonstrated that there was no Alexandrian recension before . . . B . . . ." Yet having said that, E & C then go on to speak about "Early Alexandrian text" reflected in p75 and others. (The use of the term "reflected" is problematical, since "reflected" doesn't quite say that a text was early Alexandrian, but suggests some kind of vague influence.) Moreover, if then one reads on very carefully E & C, one sees that they do call p1 (c. 200 AD!) an extremely good copy but do not appear to say that p1 even reflects Alexandrian text. The Tyndale Bible Dictionary is on Google books.
At this point I am wondering if the other editors wish to persist in labeling p1 as Alexandrian. If so, methinks that reliable sources need to be cited for that opinion and that some reference to the view that p1 cannot be called Alexandrian, should be made. I myself, would drop the Alexandrian attribution. (Another reason for dropping the Alexandrian attribution might be the use of ει for long ι as an Alexandrian distinctive which p1 does not have?) ( EnochBethany ( talk) 01:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC))
At the start of the article the date is given as "the early 3rd century." Yet in the box under the photo the date is given as ~250, which means "around mid-3rd century." ( I note that Elwell and Comfort date p1 as ~200 AD.) Those two statements "early" and (in effect) "mid" seem to be in conflict.
It is observed that as it now stands, this article has two conflicting dates of p1. Since a "reliable source" (Elwell and Comfort) says c. 200, I suggest that date be introduced with a footnote to the source: Elwell, Walter A. and Comfort, Philip Wesley: "The Text of the New Testament," in Tyndale Bible Dictionary, p. 193
Suggested revision of " It is a papyrus manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew dating palaeographically to the early 3rd century." change to " It is a papyrus manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew dating palaeographically to c. AD 200."
Suggested revision of "~250" in the box under the photo to "~200."( EnochBethany ( talk) 17:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC))
As I looked at the Hoskier disagreement page (page xi) I noticed something striking. He seems to say that there are only 11 words that are in agreement between B and p1!!! Probably what he means is that there are 11 words where textual variation exists among mss. (in addition to those in his disagreement column) and that in those 11 instances p1 and B agree. Thus p1 supports B in only 11 instances where B requires support.
This bears more examination to make sure that as agreements Hoskier is not restricting his count to words that have no lacunae in them. Perhaps what he means is that within the 28-31 v.l. words in that exist in p1, p1 supports B in only 11 instances. Perhaps a definitive statement would be of this type:
"Out of 28-31 words where B might be supported against other mss, Hoskier finds 11 p1 readings that support B and 17-20 readings that do not support B." ( EnochBethany ( talk) 05:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC))
Incidentally, I find Hoskier easier to read at The Christian Classics Etheral Library http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hoskier/codexb1/Page_xiii.html .( EnochBethany ( talk) 23:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC))
We use dating of the INTF. Alexandrian, stricte text, normal text... Yes Aland had different point of view, also Aland's Byzantine text is different that majority of scholars. Aland almost did not use term "Alexandrian text". German scholars have a little different point of view in many cases. According to the present scholars there was not textual recension in the 4th century in Alexandria. Gordon Fee in 1992 wrote the article "P75, P66, and Origen: The Myth of Early Textual Recension in Alexandria". Present generation of scholars have different point of view. Of course it should be explained in the article Alexandrian text-type, but actually I do not have time for it. The same problem we have with the Byzantine text-type. Aland's point of view also was different. These problems are explained satisfactory in the wikipedian articles. Do you have time for these articles. They are still not good.
There is no 17-20 differences between P1 and Vaticanus because in two cases it was result of using abbreviated forms. It is not difference. Itacistic errors are not important. In 4th century itacistic errors were more frequent then in the 3rd century. Spelling of names? Not important. P1 does not follow Vaticanus, only agrees with Vaticanus in... P1 is fragmentary, Vaticanus is extant, that is why we compare fragmentary manuscripts with Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Bezae, etc. The same method is used in every ancient work. If you want to know more read these books:
And please no more questions. We have no time for detailed discussion. Believe me I have no time. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 21:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The manuscript very often were written from the hearing. The itacistic errors arose in that way. In one scriptorium, in the same time, could written two copies from the same manuscript, but with these kind of differences (itacistic, spelling the names), but the text-type is stil just the same. That is why P1 is still very close to Vaticanus. Differences between these two manuscripts are not intentional, and they are not a result of recension. I hope it is enough. You can copy-edit manuscript articles, if you have time. Can you improve English in Codex Sinaiticus, especially this section Codex Sinaiticus#Scribes and correctors. It will great. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 11:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Here? It doesn't seem useful to have a two page PDF embedded as an image with no explanation. If there's something in here that adds value, can you at least explain what it is and we can figure out a more useful way to include the information?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The image labeled "verso" has a filename with "recto" in it.
/info/en/?search=Papyrus_1#/media/File:Papyrus_1_-_recto.jpg
- Fred Sprinkle
UPenn gives the following information with the images from which this sample was taken:
The image appended to this entry is clearly "numbered" at the top with a Greek α, or page 1 or verso, but the file is named, by staff at UPenn?, "Papyrus_1_-_recto". To be fair, that alpha looks suspiciously like a "2".
In [/Recto_and_verso | right-to-left language books]:
Here is a nice image of a Medieval Book where you can see that fat margin on the left side of the left page and the fat margin on the right side of the right page.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Papyrus 1 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I undeleted this page because it was deleted far too hastily, without giving the page's original author time to respond. It's likely that this material can be edited or changed to a stub, rather than deleting it less than 24 hours later. But regardless of the final outcome, there should be a bit more chance for discussion before the entire page is deleted like that. (Note that there was no prior comment on this page at all.) Wesley 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Ha who knew wikipedia had their own saints. LoveMonkey 23:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the system Papyrus # is best. P# (papyrus) is awkward. I'm keen to adopt the existing system. The Magdalen papyrus and John Rylands papyrus should probably be moved to the locations currently held by redirects. Any comments? Alastair Haines 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree. LoveMonkey 23:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Alistair here's a list of all of the articles I was going to write but they got deleted by Andrew c twice. [1] LoveMonkey 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The text of the article says, "p1 is much like the text of Codex Vaticanus, from which it rarely varies." I am thinking that someone, perhaps even myself, should examine this (no doubt valid) claim and come up with a quantitative statement, instead of "rarely varies"; like, "There are 300 visible letters in p1 and 295 are the same as in the same as in Vaticanus. Moreover, only the meaning of 1 word is affected. As to orthography, itacistic variations are the same, but p1 has one moveable ν, lacking in Vaticanus." (I just pulled those statements and numbers out of the air as an example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnochBethany ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Andrew look what you quoted: "P1 as a "strict" text. These transmit the text of an exemplar with meticulous care (e.g., P75) and depart from it only rarely."
From what you quote, Aland is not saying anything about Vaticanus or p1's agreement with Vaticanus. When Aland implies that p1 transmits the text of an exemplar, that exemplar is not Vaticanus! It cannot be since Vaticanus is long after p1. The word "rarely" has nothing to do with Vaticanus only rarely departing from p1. p1 could not "follow" or "depart from" Vaticanus at all, since B was not yet written. For crying out loud! Your reference to Aland has nothing to do with the differences between B and p1 being rare.
Why insist on the word rare? Why not just state that p1 and Vaticanus differ on 17-20 words, differences spread over 2 pages of text. Best wishes.( EnochBethany ( talk) 22:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
Yes, the statement is a red herring in this discussion, since nobody is advocating that one does not follow reliable sources. No one ever advocated that. What I advocate is following the most reliable sources, which in this case are 1) the photographes and 2) the delineated list of variations which was thankfully added to this article. You seem to have 2 sources in conflict: the one that says "rarely varies" and the source that give 20 variations! IMHO the 2nd source is most reliable. And it can be confirmed by anyone who follows the most reliable source, which is the photographs. The photographs are practically a primary source. Comfort is a secondary source. Prefer primary sources is a standard historical axiom.( EnochBethany ( talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
I would have expected a β, but that S-shaped character doesn't seem to be reconcilable to beta. Also, I have been unable to find another example of that character in the text of p1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnochBethany ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
OK Andrew, I won't call you Queeny. How about Your majesty? LOL. Well that S interpreted as beta bugs me, so I have sent an email that hopefully Phillip Comfort will respond to me on and tell me why he took it for a beta (except that it is page 2).( EnochBethany ( talk) 01:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
Well, Andrew, thanks for telling me about W's policy. I already had written it off as a reliable source of information. But now, I realize it is worse than I thought.
Let's hope that someone comes up with an explanation of the "S" on the recto in a secondary source to move this article more in the direction of truth, tho I realize Wikipedia hardly insists on truth. Best wishes for a happy day. Post script: I now think that one should deem the photo a highly reliable secondary source, which was published with associated secondary source commentary.( EnochBethany ( talk) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
I only stated my education because you seemed to call me a layman. Yes, we can neither assume that person is an expert nor a layman on this internet site. Yes, follow reliable sources. Sources can be divided into 2 main categories: 1) Primary and 2) Secondary. A primary historical source is an actual document (or the like) for a time period addressed. In this case the actual papyrus is the primary source. Photographs are quasi-primary sources. Secondary sources can be divided into 2 groups a) those that are based on and reference primary sources, and b) those that do not (e.g., typical history textbooks without footnotes).
Primary sources must be preferred to secondary sources. In this case the primary source is the photographs of the mss, not the comments on them made 2,000 years latter. I hope that my improvements to the article are acceptable in that they point out the source responsible for the statement and leave both intact.
Reading an ancient primary source and quoting what it says is not presenting one's own ideas any more than quoting what a modern secondary is not presenting one's own ideas. Best wishes.( EnochBethany ( talk) 16:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
The attached top of article image of p1 is defective, as can be seen by going to the links at the bottom of the article, links to the actual photographs of p1. The attached image cuts off the top with straight lines, as if the original top margin and edge of p1 were intact. Could whoever made that image correct it so the image is complete?( EnochBethany ( talk) 17:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
In the side-box there appears this note:
Suggested revision:
"Vaticanus differs from p1 on 17-20 words."( EnochBethany ( talk) 18:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
Try this POV for size:
It is obvious that a photo from a reliable source is of higher probative value than mere commentary. In the case of papyri photos, in the literal sense they are indeed secondary sources (though having almost the same probative value as a primary source, the actual manuscript). Moreover, the photo of p1 is deemed a reliable secondary source. Neither does Wikipedia shrink from posting photos on the grounds that they are primary sources. In the case of the p1 photo promulgated by a reliable secondary source, it must be considered of higher authority than Comfort's transcription, unless Comfort states why he had given something contrary to what is on reliable photo of the manuscript. Moreover, both the Vaticanus photo and the p1 photo are put out by reliable secondary sources. Thus it is reasonable that anyone who reads Greek should compare them with his eyes and make a conclusion as to the variations between them. When one reads Comfort, one likewise uses one's eyes to read Comfort and make conclusions as to what Comfort says.
Also it is following a reliable secondary source to state that the top of a manuscript page is missing based on the photo of a reliable secondary source. At least that is how I see it. Shalom.( EnochBethany ( talk) 20:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
My guess is that some scholars would be interpreted as negation that Vaticanus closely related to to p1. Probably a reference to the contrary opinion to Comfort is in order here.( EnochBethany ( talk) 20:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
p1 does not follow Vaticanus. One might claim that Vaticanus follows p1. p1 was written long before Vaticanus according to the most reliable sources.( EnochBethany ( talk) 20:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
The photo supplied is defective, in that some how the top of the mss photo has been cropped off to show straight lines where there are none. Commentary on it may not be necessary if the image is corrected. Does anyone object to a better photo. Andrew, would you like to put a better photo up?
Here is the reference University of Pennsylvania, "Library Images,"
The same thing is at the below addy, but seems not quite as high a quality as the U of Pa above. Universität Munster Institüt,
I inserted what I thought was proper documentation for the comment that the top of the mss was missing on the article page. Someone reverted it. What is wrong with my documentation? The reverter acted imperious, giving me an order to stop editing and made no comment on the talk page to explain his revert.
While some users may (rightly so, or not) have problems with our photo. Adding text to an encyclopedia article, which is basically commentary on a specific photo, is not appropriate. Imagine a print or mobile or text only or spoken version of Wikipedia that for any number of reasons does not show images. This commentary would be useless. The only place for image comments would be in captions. This is for accessibility purposes, and to keep an encyclopedic style and tone. We should not add personal commentary on specific images in the body text of an article. That said, if someone wants to propose a new image, or wants to revise the image caption, that may be more along the lines of what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Just keep in mind, if you are reading say the Encyclopedia Britannica, are you going to find similar commentary in the body text of an article? Of course not. I see no reason for us to have such text here (though, if there are specific issues with an image, let's address them, and try to fix them, outside of the article text). - Andrew c [talk] 17:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Would you allow a statement in an email from Comfort? What will you accept before I knock myself out. If you are concerned about a quality article, why would I be the only one to seek the documentation? ( EnochBethany ( talk) 18:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
Because of copyright issues, I refrained from changing the photo myself. I suggest that if you cannot put an accurate photo, none should be supplied or it should be stated that the top was cropped off. Given that the top is cropped off in the supplied photo, does anyone insist that it should stay, since it is misleading? If the top of p1 has worn off (or been torn off) over the millennia, does anyone a prioi insist that this article cannot make mention of the fact somehow, even meeting the pettifogging technical objections that keep coming up? I know that Wikipedia is not committed to truth, but is there an objection to something turning out to be true?
If the top of p1 is missing, this is important. For so far as I know, all the other early mss of gospels have a title included, e.g., Kata Maththaion. To be sure Vaticanus does not put the title at the start, but at the end of Matthew -- and such could have been the case with p1. But it seems to me that there should be some way to state that the top is missing, if it is. I can't believe that Wikipedia has a rule against stating that the top of a mss is missing. If you know that the top was cropped off, because you did it! Why won't you just say that?
What is the difference between basing a statement on words (Prof Gizmo says it) and basing a statement on a photo (Photo by Prof Gizmo shows it)?
So, if you can't follow what the photos say (excellent secondary sources -- both U. of Pa and U Munster), then if this article is going to be excellent, it should find some way to state that the top is missing (or it isn't). Instead of my continually trying to get this into the article and someone then continually objecting, why not think positive. How can this statement get incorporated without violating some shibboleth? Or are you opposed to the idea since it was not put in there by the original committee, and how dare someone suggest an improvement? Andrew, I don't see you as that kind of person. ( EnochBethany ( talk) 18:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
Since the article as now written supplies an opinion on the closeness of Vaticanus to p1 (historical order, B to p1, not vice versa) and since one of the main differences in these 2 papyrus pages we have of p1, is the itacism of Vaticanus, methinks a statement about that distinction needs to be in the article as support for closeness or distinctness. (BTW, I do not have any ax to grind in this.) Probably some reliable source (if truly there exists much beside polemics in any biblical field) should be found on the significance of itacism relative to text family. Is it an established fact that itacism is a good way to establish genealogy or is it truly irrelevant, as an accident of spelling in an age that didn't have that concept -- acceptable personal whim of copyist.( EnochBethany ( talk) 19:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
The article presently reads on Hoskier: "Only Herman C. Hoskier (see below), who finds 17-20 word variations, contested close agreement with Vaticanus."
There is no documentation to prove the "Only" claim. In fact the "only" is impossible to support, as it is exceeding difficult to prove a negative. How do we know that the Chinese scholar Sum Sing Wing Wong does not also contest the reading? One simply cannot poll all students to establish the "only" claim. And it is unreasonable to assume that no one follows Hoskier.
As to the word, "contested," that seems to require reliable sources to prove which view was first: close agreement or distinctive difference. (And is that worth the effort?) I suggest a more neutral POV word: "denied," instead of "contested."
Suggested revision: "Herman C. Hoskier (see below), who finds 17-20 word variations, denied close agreement stating that the agreement between Vaticanus and p1, is both spasmodic and overrated."
Again, let me ask the other editors to consider if they really want to say that the agreement is close. Are you sure you would not rather just say what the differences are and leave out taking sides on the opinion? I think that a better statement would be "relatively close," if you can document that by establishing that reliable sources say that relatively speaking the agreement between B and p1 is closer than between most other 2 mss (hard to prove). Or one might say, (if one can support it from reliable sources) that the agreement between B and p1 is greater than between B and א. But is that worth the effort?( EnochBethany ( talk) 07:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC))
In the article it is stated: "The Greek text-type of this codex is a representative of the Alexandrian."
There is no footnote to this sentence, although there is to the following sentence. But I went to p. 96 of the Aland book on Google books and found no claim that p1 was Alexandrian. Yes, Aland cagegorizes p1 as "Category I," but I see no proof that Category I means "Alexandrian." Should the Alexandrian claim be deleted until a reliable source be found, which source over-rules the Aland dictum that no text-types existed at the time of p1? I am holding off on putting a request for citation on the page to see what others have found, and if I have overlooked something. Is there some proof that being classified as Category I implies Alexandrian? I don't think so. The linked Wikipedia article says, "This category represents the earliest manuscripts. Fourth century and earlier papyri and uncials are in this category, as are manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type." Note that this sentence says "as are", not that earlier papyri are Alexandrian.
At the same time I am thinking that if a source says that something is of X text-type, that source also should have to say why it is of that text-type in order to be considered reliable. I mean any one can just say something, ipse dictus. It seems to me that if a source is reliable, the author should have reasonable criteria for classification and tell us what they are. A source (below) says that the Alands don't recognize text-types as in existence at the time of p1.
In the case of p1, many of its variations from B are itacisms. I have been searching for canons that have been used to establish text-type and family. It is easy to find canons of textual criticism. But who has laid down specifically canons for family determination to which reference could be made in support of family designation? For example, how much does orthographic variation count? The full stop (full mute) transformation of a fricative (dissimilation) before its matching fricative (or neglect of said transformation) is another example, besides itacism. For example, some mss will have ΜΑΘΘΑΙΟΝ instead of ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ (after ΚΑΤΑ) or whatever. Has any scholar ever come up with a systematic way to evaluate the weight of such difference in determining family? What would count more, the essential percent of words that agree (regardless of orthography) or conformity with orthography? At any rate, a source which actually gives the reasons for family classification would be better than one that just says so, IMHO.( EnochBethany ( talk) 20:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC))
Thus far this is the closest thing I have found to what I am after. But it seems to merely tabulate "disagreements," without weighing the type of disagreement. And a criticism of the CPM is that
I came across this claim which invalidates giving p1 a text-type at http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TextTypes.html#Fn03
"The age of the text-types has also been questioned. Some -- e.g. the Alands -- hold that there were no text-types before the fourth century.[*3]"
"3. See, e.g. Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (English translation by Erroll F. Rhodes, Eerdmans, 1989). On p. 56, in discussing text-types, they say "In the fourth century a new era begins." On p. 65, the claim is even more forceful: "The major text-types trace their beginnings to the Diocletianic persecution and the Age of Constantine which followed." See, e.g. Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (English translation by Erroll F. Rhodes, Eerdmans, 1989). The Aland book is available on Google books, BTW.( EnochBethany ( talk) 21:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC))
Elwell, Walter A. and Comfort, Philip Wesley: "The Text of the New Testament," in Tyndale Bible Dictionary, p. 193: "But various scholars have demonstrated that there was no Alexandrian recension before . . . B . . . ." Yet having said that, E & C then go on to speak about "Early Alexandrian text" reflected in p75 and others. (The use of the term "reflected" is problematical, since "reflected" doesn't quite say that a text was early Alexandrian, but suggests some kind of vague influence.) Moreover, if then one reads on very carefully E & C, one sees that they do call p1 (c. 200 AD!) an extremely good copy but do not appear to say that p1 even reflects Alexandrian text. The Tyndale Bible Dictionary is on Google books.
At this point I am wondering if the other editors wish to persist in labeling p1 as Alexandrian. If so, methinks that reliable sources need to be cited for that opinion and that some reference to the view that p1 cannot be called Alexandrian, should be made. I myself, would drop the Alexandrian attribution. (Another reason for dropping the Alexandrian attribution might be the use of ει for long ι as an Alexandrian distinctive which p1 does not have?) ( EnochBethany ( talk) 01:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC))
At the start of the article the date is given as "the early 3rd century." Yet in the box under the photo the date is given as ~250, which means "around mid-3rd century." ( I note that Elwell and Comfort date p1 as ~200 AD.) Those two statements "early" and (in effect) "mid" seem to be in conflict.
It is observed that as it now stands, this article has two conflicting dates of p1. Since a "reliable source" (Elwell and Comfort) says c. 200, I suggest that date be introduced with a footnote to the source: Elwell, Walter A. and Comfort, Philip Wesley: "The Text of the New Testament," in Tyndale Bible Dictionary, p. 193
Suggested revision of " It is a papyrus manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew dating palaeographically to the early 3rd century." change to " It is a papyrus manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew dating palaeographically to c. AD 200."
Suggested revision of "~250" in the box under the photo to "~200."( EnochBethany ( talk) 17:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC))
As I looked at the Hoskier disagreement page (page xi) I noticed something striking. He seems to say that there are only 11 words that are in agreement between B and p1!!! Probably what he means is that there are 11 words where textual variation exists among mss. (in addition to those in his disagreement column) and that in those 11 instances p1 and B agree. Thus p1 supports B in only 11 instances where B requires support.
This bears more examination to make sure that as agreements Hoskier is not restricting his count to words that have no lacunae in them. Perhaps what he means is that within the 28-31 v.l. words in that exist in p1, p1 supports B in only 11 instances. Perhaps a definitive statement would be of this type:
"Out of 28-31 words where B might be supported against other mss, Hoskier finds 11 p1 readings that support B and 17-20 readings that do not support B." ( EnochBethany ( talk) 05:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC))
Incidentally, I find Hoskier easier to read at The Christian Classics Etheral Library http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hoskier/codexb1/Page_xiii.html .( EnochBethany ( talk) 23:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC))
We use dating of the INTF. Alexandrian, stricte text, normal text... Yes Aland had different point of view, also Aland's Byzantine text is different that majority of scholars. Aland almost did not use term "Alexandrian text". German scholars have a little different point of view in many cases. According to the present scholars there was not textual recension in the 4th century in Alexandria. Gordon Fee in 1992 wrote the article "P75, P66, and Origen: The Myth of Early Textual Recension in Alexandria". Present generation of scholars have different point of view. Of course it should be explained in the article Alexandrian text-type, but actually I do not have time for it. The same problem we have with the Byzantine text-type. Aland's point of view also was different. These problems are explained satisfactory in the wikipedian articles. Do you have time for these articles. They are still not good.
There is no 17-20 differences between P1 and Vaticanus because in two cases it was result of using abbreviated forms. It is not difference. Itacistic errors are not important. In 4th century itacistic errors were more frequent then in the 3rd century. Spelling of names? Not important. P1 does not follow Vaticanus, only agrees with Vaticanus in... P1 is fragmentary, Vaticanus is extant, that is why we compare fragmentary manuscripts with Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Bezae, etc. The same method is used in every ancient work. If you want to know more read these books:
And please no more questions. We have no time for detailed discussion. Believe me I have no time. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 21:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The manuscript very often were written from the hearing. The itacistic errors arose in that way. In one scriptorium, in the same time, could written two copies from the same manuscript, but with these kind of differences (itacistic, spelling the names), but the text-type is stil just the same. That is why P1 is still very close to Vaticanus. Differences between these two manuscripts are not intentional, and they are not a result of recension. I hope it is enough. You can copy-edit manuscript articles, if you have time. Can you improve English in Codex Sinaiticus, especially this section Codex Sinaiticus#Scribes and correctors. It will great. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 11:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Here? It doesn't seem useful to have a two page PDF embedded as an image with no explanation. If there's something in here that adds value, can you at least explain what it is and we can figure out a more useful way to include the information?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The image labeled "verso" has a filename with "recto" in it.
/info/en/?search=Papyrus_1#/media/File:Papyrus_1_-_recto.jpg
- Fred Sprinkle
UPenn gives the following information with the images from which this sample was taken:
The image appended to this entry is clearly "numbered" at the top with a Greek α, or page 1 or verso, but the file is named, by staff at UPenn?, "Papyrus_1_-_recto". To be fair, that alpha looks suspiciously like a "2".
In [/Recto_and_verso | right-to-left language books]:
Here is a nice image of a Medieval Book where you can see that fat margin on the left side of the left page and the fat margin on the right side of the right page.