Talk:Papyrus 1

Restoration of page
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)


 * Thanks I tried to write 5 or so articles on the ancient papyrus manuscripts and was deleted before I could go into the articles and update them.
 * LoveMonkey 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, providential. I just thought I'd put time into building up a series of articles on the same topic. I've put up a table at New Testament papyrus. As we write articles, we can add links to them in the table. I set up the infobox also. Several of the manuscripts relate to one-another, which will give cross-linking. I'll also put some work into stubs for the Libraries that house the papyri, that'll give some extra links in to these pages also. Alastair Haines 17:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha who knew wikipedia had their own saints. LoveMonkey 23:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention
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)


 * Consistency isn't always the first consideration, according to wikipedia naming conventions. We are supposed to use the most common name. And I think Magdalen may be more common than P64/67. Consider the uncials, some of them have very common names, while others are just numbers or letters. For example, it would be inappropriate to change the name of Codex Claromontanus to Uncial 06. Therefore, I think we should consider each papyrus individually, and determine what is the most common name for the manuscript. We can always create redirects and disambiguation pages to help those who may be searching for a less common name.-Andrew c 15:19, 18 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.  LoveMonkey 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are still welcome to write articles on those papyri. My removing (different from deleting) of redlinks (which I only did once on that article, mind you) has no bearing on your ability to start new articles. I'd really appreciate it if you could try not to take jabs at me whenever possible. Thanks.-Andrew c 20:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Concordance of p1 and Vaticanus
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)
 * We should avoid WP:OR. We shouldn't publish claims not found in reliable sources. -Andrew c [talk] 15:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rarely Varies?

 * "Rarely varies" is a vague statement. Its propriety is questionable since p1 is one leaf of a papyrus compared with Vaticanus.  There is no way to know how p1 in its orginal state agreed with or disagreed with Vaticanus.   What is wrong with being precise?  "not found in reliable sources" is a red herring in this discussion. Find it in a reliable source is suggested.  However, since Vaticanus is on line for anyone to see and so is p1, why do you object to someone just counting quantitatively the agreement and disagreement and reporting on it?  The reliable source is the photos of the documents.


 * Instead of "rarely varies," the degree of variation would best be delineated. By all means, do it on the basis of "reliable sources," to wit the documents as posted.(EnochBethany (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC))


 * In view of the fact that now this article has been greatly improved by delineating 20 word variations between Vaticanus and p1, it appears to me that "rarely varies" must be changed. Suggested change:


 * "varies on 20 words" (an average of 10 word variations per page)."


 * In order to put some kind of interpretive statement to replace "rarely," one needs documentation as to how much (allegedly) closely related mss vary. For example, is "10 words per page" imply as close an agreement as ever exists?  If we had 2 books which varied at the rate of 10 words per page, it would be improper to say that the was only rare variation between them.   In fact variation would be frequent.


 * A possible way to approach this would be with a statement like:


 * "Vaticanus and p1 differ at the rate of 10 words per page. This implies a an agreement better than between any other 2 Alexandrian mss."


 * or


 * "Vaticanus and p1 differ at the rate of 10 words per page. This is a higher state of agreement than between א and B."


 * And by all means follow reliable sources!(EnochBethany (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC))


 * "not found in reliable sources" is not a red herring. It is a core policy of Wikipedia. We cannot compare two ancient texts and publish our own thoughts on them. If Aland or whoever else says specifically that the two texts rarely vary, then we have no reason to question Aland, unless we have competing sources. You do not know better than Aland. Anonymous Wikipedia users don't get to second guess reliable sources. However, if there is scholarly debate, or competing sources, then we clearly need to present them as such. (and of course, we need to verify our sources do indeed say "rarely vary", as if they don't, I'd then agree for the removal). -Andrew c [talk] 16:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Our cited source says "Where there are major variants, P1 agrees with the best Alexandrian witnesses, especially B, from which it rarely varies." -Andrew c [talk] 16:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But you have a better source, the delineated specific variations now part of this article. That list is a much more reliable source than someone's statement that they rarely vary. (EnochBethany (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Again, this goes back to WP:NOR. Our editors do not know better than published sources. We don't publish novel synthesis of data. I'd urge you to find a source which puts forth your claim, in dispute of Comfort. That is the only way we can "correct" Comfort's claim, per Wikipedia rules. I'm sorry. Again, you are welcome to seek additional input from say the original research noticeboard WP:ORN. -Andrew c [talk] 16:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I opened up Aland, since we are citing Comfort on this, to see if there was any discrepancy. Aland lists P1 as a "strict" text. These transmit the text of an exemplar with meticulous care (e.g., P75) and depart from it only rarely. Aland also uses the word "rarely" and lists P1 as a "strict" text. So far, based on these two sources, I am comfortable with following Comfort and the phrasing we use in the article. I have seen no evidence otherwise (other than personal opinion that 20 seems more than "rare"). -Andrew c [talk] 17:07, 22 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))

Red Herring
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))


 * Wikipedia does not generally prefer primary sources. I already linked to WP:PRIMARY. If you don't want to read it, so be it ;) As for source conflict, if, hypothetically, P1 has 20 variations with B, but say hundreds of variations with every other manuscript, how would you describe that situation? Or perhaps the variants are minor, or speculative due to lacunae, or any number of other factors which lead Comfort to that conclusion. What you may think is not rare, could be considered rare by a different set of criteria. We need to follow the published experts (unless we have conflicts in our sources, where one is saying X and another saying Y). -Andrew c [talk] 16:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me that Wikipedia does not prefer primary sources. That is hard to believe.  But at any rate, the 17-20 differences are quantitative instead of subjective, and quite verifiable.  The other stuff you present is a editorial judgment (even if Comfort made it), and is not verifiable, at least for most of us in one life time.  17-20 differences is what has been presented from a verifiable source in this matter.(EnochBethany (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

What is the "S" at the Top of the Verso?
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)
 * It doesn't matter what you can decipher from the document, or what you think letters look like. We only follow what our sources say. I mean this in all good spirits. I'm sorry if it's blunt, but really I didn't know a better way to phrase it. No hard feelings, hopefully. Do we have any sources which discuss this letter at the top? What do our sources say. -Andrew c [talk] 15:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your reasoning. The sources are the photos of p1.  The sources (without dispute?) show an alpha at the top of the recto and an S shaped character at the top of the verso. I was hoping that someone knew of an interpretation of the "S" (it is probably not a sigma. Since the sources clearly show an alpha at the top of the recto and a S at the top of the verso, why not show these on the transcription?  As the article was posted it has 2 errors in the transcription, immediately visible from the sources (the photos), an alpha and a "S" are omittted from the transcription.


 * Why the "What do our sources say" routine? Of course, check the sources for an interpretation.  That is a suggestion for improving the article.  Did I say speculate?  No hard feelings.   (EnochBethany (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC))


 * WP:PRIMARY. As a non-expert, we could be misreading the photographs. Maybe this was a notation added by the photographer? Maybe there is some other reason to explain the mark on the page. We do not know, and we should not publish that it is part of the original text without citing a source that says as much. We should err on the side of caution, and leave it out of the article unless we can find some scholarly commentary on it. While it is clearly plausible it is part of the original text, we, as lay readers, do not know for sure what it is, or what it means, and should not speculate. -Andrew c [talk] 16:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Comfort book we cite does include α and β in their transcription. No "S". I've updated the article. If you have a source that says "S" instead of β, then we can discuss that, but there is no reason to question Comfort's transcription based on personal speculation, you know? -Andrew c [talk] 16:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The photographs are the best source. What others say about them is not, unless they point out that they have seen the document and that the photos are in error.  You may as well argue that you can't use any source because you decypher it as you read it. It is not speculation to look at a source and report what it says. It is possible that both the photos and the commentary on the photos could be wrong.  But that is not the issue.  The issue is to follow the best sources, which in this case are the photos.  To publish a transcription which omits 2 symbols clearly visible on the photos is to refuse to follow reliable sources.  No one says that the photos could not be wrong.  What is alleged is that they are the most reliable sources available. (EnochBethany (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC))


 * OK, if you are saying that you are giving Comfort's transcription, so be it. However, as posted the article doesn't have the alpha and beta that you say Comfort has.  But then add a comment that Comfort's alleged beta looks like a S, not a beta from the photos which are the closest to a primary source that one has.  It doesn't take an expert to see that the recto's S doesn't look like a beta.  I am not a layman.  I hold 5 graduate degrees, one of which is in Greek.  I am not an expert in paleography, I grant you. But I do have eyes for Greek.  Beta is what I would have expected on the recto, but it just doesn't look like a beta when one compares it to beta in the rest of the ms. Yes, perhaps Comfort used x-rays or something to see a beta.  So OK, put β if you are presenting Comfort's transcription.  But why no note that it looks like an S, not a beta on the photos?(EnochBethany (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
 * You have 5 degrees? I'm the queen of England. It doesn't matter. We are all anonymous Wikipedia editors. This isn't Citizendium. We don't verify anyone's identity, we don't give experts more weight, and we don't allow anyone to publish original ideas. Wikipedia is made so that anyone can edit it, and our rules are fabricated so that all content needs to be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. Publishing a novel interpretation of a primary source is called "original research" and is not allowed. You don't have to take my word for it though, I'd be glad to raise this issue at WP:ORN to get more input. Comfort very well may be wrong, but we can't say that unless we can cite a source saying it. We follow sources because we are an encyclopedia, and because anyone can edit (and therefore we don't allow anyone's ideas, just published ideas). This is just the way Wikipedia works, and it works rather well once you get the hang of it! -Andrew c [talk] 16:48, 22 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))

Back to The "S" on the Recto
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))

Reliable Sources
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))

Inaccurate Image of Photographs of p1
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))

Introductory Side-Box Note
In the side-box there appears this note:


 * "Note close agreement with Codex Vaticanus"


 * Why insist on that imprecise statement? Why not use the source cited in the article which lists 17-20 word differences between p1 and B?  A quantitative description is better than an imprecise evaluative statement.  Whether or not a 17-20 word variation still permits one to say "close agreement" is a editorial comment, whether or not Comfort says it and it is his editorial.  Hoskier has the quantitative statement, non-judgmental and easily verifiable.  Comfort's statement is hard to verify.

Suggested revision:

"Vaticanus differs from p1 on 17-20 words."(EnochBethany (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

Manuscript Photos as Sources
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))

The Hoskier Variations
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))
 * 17-20 word variation but half of them are errors of itacism. Hoskier is only one scholar according to whom p1 is not close to Vaticanus. Hoskier is also one scholar according to whom Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not close. Are you textual critic? How many manuscripts did you examine? I see you have not experience. DO you know how many differences between other manuscripts. Stop your destructive editing. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Here is no place for Original Research. You can do these things in other places. You wrote: "According to Comfort and Barrett p1 has the text type of Codex Vaticanus". Not only according to Comfort and Barrett, other scholars think the same. I think you even do not understand subject. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Hoskier variations are posted in the article, and not by me. They are verifiable by anyone who knows Greek just by comparing the texts. I didn't say that Hoskier said that p1 was not close to Vaticanus.  I said that he lists 17-20 word differences.  This is not merely my original research, just observing what is already in the article and how one can be quantitatively explicit instead of giving an opinion.  How do you know what experience I have?  Instead of "follows closely," the article should just say what the differences are.  If someone wants to opine that relatively speaking Vaticanus has a text much more like p1 than to other mss, OK, but that involves a lot of work to prove on a relativistic basis. And it requires documentation.  Kindly stop talking down as if that establishes your POV.  I say leave off the imprecise unverifiable opinion and just state the actual differences.  And if you want to write off half of the errors as itacism, you still have the burden to document that disagreement on itacism is irrelevant to establishing text relationship. Put a footnote on that. Kindly stop characterizing my editing as destructive.  It is very constructive.  I hope that no one's vanity gets in the way of correcting flaws in an article.(EnochBethany (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

Relative Chronology of p1 and Vaticanus
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))
 * Keep your impressions for yourself. You are not expert. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that p1 predates Vaticanus is is not "my impression." Look right here on Wikipedia for the dates given p1 and Vaticanus. How do you know how much of an expert I am?  These relative dates are common knowledge among students of the Greek New Testament. Just because you say I am no expert, I inform you I hold 5 graduate degrees, have taught seminary and university.  No, I am not a specialist in paleography.  (Of course there is no way I will give you info to verify my education -- so ignore it.)  I direct you to an authoritative source:


 * Aland, Kurt, et al.: The Greek New Testament, 3rd ed. (Münster: United Bible Societies, 1975), pp. xiii-xv.(EnochBethany (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC))


 * You wrote "According to Comfort and Barrett p1 has the text type of Codex Vaticanus" it means you do not know the subject. Can you give an example of the manuscript closer to p1 than Vaticanus? How many manuscripts have text closer than Vaticanus? 5 graduate degrees? It is not enough. Grenfell & Hunt also decipher B. Forget about S. Not a specialist in paleography? In Textual Criticism too. Here is no place for Original Research. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I was following the documentation given in the article which I thought indicates that Comfort & B was the support for the statement. The point is not relative closeness of texts, it is the assertion that p1 follows Vaticanus (impossible) and that p1 rarely differs from Vaticanus.  The point is that it varies in only 2 pages on 17-20 words; so just leave it at that.  If this is a smaller variation than all other variations, then document it.  It is not my burden to prove anything I don't post; it is the burden of the article writers to document their claims.  As a matter of fact, until I called attention to the deficit in the transcription (leaving off the page numbers), they were entirely omitted here.  I am glad to see that now they have been added.


 * Kindly avoid talking down and making personal attacks,. They have no place here and they diminish your believability. That apparent S-shaped letter bears further investigation. Indeed beta is expected.  Glad to see you checked it with Grenfell and Hunt. Look at it yourself and see if you think that S could be a β.  I'm not saying to make a decision based on your view of the S/β; just use it as a basis for whether or not you think it is worth checking out further.  I think that one should look to see if someone has an explanation as to the interpretation as beta.  No, I don't claim to be a specialist, but I did teach Greek and have investigated textual variations for many years.


 * Do you you admit that p1 could not possibly follow Vaticanus? Is that observation destructive? (except to the ego of its author, who should be above such ego concerns) (EnochBethany (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

Defective Photo
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,"


 * http://images.library.upenn.edu/mrsidsceti/bin/image_jpeg2.pl?coll=manuscripts;subcoll=e2746;image=e2746_wk1_body0001.sid;level=1;degree=0

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,


 * http://intf.uni-muenster.de/vmr/NTVMR/viewer/viewerCodex01.php

Documentation of the Missing Top
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.


 * Thanks for correcting the photo.(EnochBethany (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

Image commentary
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)


 * Andrew, if EB hires an expert and he supplies a photo (the best he has) and the photo is cropped off and misleading, yet needed; I cannot imagine EB stopping him from commenting on the photo. I assume that EB is more committed to the truth than to shibboleths.(EnochBethany (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Andrew, are you willing to post a better photo; or shall I?(EnochBethany (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC))


 * (after edit conflict)I don't believe we can post the photo you proposed as is due to copyright violations. It would need to be cropped. I'd be glad to do that, but I won't be on a computer with photoshop for another 9 hours or so. Furthermore, we should probably make sure there is consensus for a change before implementing it. Would you like to make a formal proposal here, or shall I?-Andrew c [talk] 18:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you object to my listing a reference to a secondary source which states that the top of the ms is missing?(EnochBethany (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
 * That would be great. What secondary source states that specifically? -Andrew c [talk] 18:05, 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))


 * I'm not sure where to reply, as your response formatting is a bit wonky. I'm replying to the comment directly above this. Would you allow a statement in an email from Comfort? Unfortunately, this is against Wikipedia policy. WP:V. An e-mail is not considered a "published" source, and users would not have access to that e-mail. Comfort may post publicly in a blog (or better yet, something that isn't WP:V), and then we may possibly be able to cite that instead. But personal correspondences are not without our standards for citation. -Andrew c [talk] 20:15, 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))


 * Photos don't say anything. The photo doesn't say "The top half of the manuscript was burnt in a 9th century monastery fire." Nor does the photo say "The top half is simply worn around the edges, but is predominantly intact, and no text is missing". Looking at the photo, and trying to draw original interpretations based on it is against Wikipedia policy (WP:SYN). A photo is not a secondary source. WP:SECONDARY. It seems like a lot of the issues we are running into end up with me trying to explain basic Wikipedia policies. I'd urge you to familiarize yourself with our policy pages. Take a night or weekend, and read through them. Five pillars and Policies and guidelines. It may be a bit overwhelming, but I'm sure you will have a rewarding experience. If you have any questions or concerns, I'd be glad to help you (as many many other users and admins besides me would gladly assist as well, see the help desk WP:HD).


 * With that said, I do appreciate that you are trying to help, and I clearly acknowledge your intentions are only to improve the article. In fact, I'd really like you to be able to help out, but I think you need to be a little more familiar with our guidelines and policies to be a bit more productive. And I honestly mean that in the best way possible. There is a learning curve to Wikipedia, some catch on fast, some take a while to learn the ropes, and a few give up before figuring it all out. I know it may not be easy, but I'm sure you can do it!


 * Now back to the topic. I think we could clearly add in a caption to the image that the photo is cropped. To me, it is clearly apparent that it is cropped on all 4 sides (though the bottom has only minimal cropping). So that is why this isn't that big of a deal to me. But perhaps I should recognize that maybe not everyone can easily tell the image is cropped, and so I'd present two options to try to address your concerns. Option 1) caption the photo to make it clear it is a cropped photo or Option 2) upload a new version that is not cropped. Before we do option 2, I just want to make sure that Leszek, and anyone else watching this article, is OK with the proposed image replacement (again the proposal would be to replace the cropped image, with an image that does not crop the manuscript edges). Hopefully one of these options is a satisfactory compromise to address your concerns. -Andrew c [talk] 20:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So you don't agree that a picture is worth 1,000 words? Your 2nd option is best, don't you think? The margins are important. However, the first suggestion is acceptable to me.  "This image of the ms photograph has been cropped on all sides."  Thanks for bearing with me.(EnochBethany (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC))


 * I'll mess around later with trying to crop one of the larger images to include the boarder, and it will probably look akin to File:Papyrus 37 - recto.jpg. If we are in agreement, and everyone likes my crop, we can change out the photos, but for the time being, I've added a caption explaining the image is cropped. -Andrew c [talk] 02:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See File:Papyrus 1 - recto.jpg. Any objections to switching out the images? Is my crop satisfactory?-Andrew c [talk] 15:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That image I see on your reference is beautiful, much better than satisfactory. I look forward to seeing it on the article page.  Thanks a lot.  It must have taken you some time.(EnochBethany (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC))
 * I hope you don't mind, I removed the header you added, as it interrupted the flow of the discussion. I took the image you linked to me, opened it in photoshop, used the crop tool (which is similar to clicking on your desktop, and dragging your cursor to create a selection box), hit enter, then hit save. Took basically a few seconds. Let's give it maybe 24 hours since I made the replacement proposal, and then, if there are no objections, assume there is consensus. -Andrew c [talk] 20:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for Improvement
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))

Unsupportable "Only"
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))

Alexandrian Text Type?
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))

The Claremont Profile Method
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
 * ". . . the CPM does not have a definition of what constitutes a true group. It is not rigorous. There are no necessary and sufficient conditions to group profiles into families, clusters, text-types. This doesn't matter when dealing with tightly-clustered manuscripts (which all show nearly identical profiles, alleviating the need for precise definitions), but it means that the CPM is ill-equipped to deal with amorphous groups such as the Alexandrian text, where all members of the group are mixed and there often is no true 'group reading'."http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/CPM.html(EnochBethany (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Welcome in the article Claremont Profile Method. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Is p1 Too Early to Be Given a "Text-Type"?
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))

The Date of p1
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))

Again: Do p1 and B Even Agree on the Majority of Their v.l. Words?
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))

Short answer
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)
 * Parker: An Introduction to the NT Manuscripts and Their Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008
 * Elton Jay Epp: Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2005
 * Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, ed. by David Aland Black, Baker Academic (2002)

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. It will great. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Itacistic error

, what are you trying to accomplish
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?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Verso/Recto confusion?
The image labeled "verso" has a filename with "recto" in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_1#/media/File:Papyrus_1_-_recto.jpg

- Fred Sprinkle

Mystery Solved
UPenn gives the following information with the images from which this sample was taken:


 * Pages of a codex, written on both sides. The text is Saint Matthew's gospel, Chapter I, vv. 1-9, 12, 14-20. The pages are numbered at the top with a Greek α (page 1) and β (page 2).

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]:


 * First page = verso = left
 * Second page = recto = right

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.

Fb2ts (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)