From: clayton stirling bartholomew (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Nov 18 2000 - 16:26:03 EST
Larry Swain wrote:
> I hope I have the same facsimile you do, I don't own one so I checked the
> image online. You are quite right in noting that the H of ZWH has been skipped
> and a superscript H has been added to correct the error. Obviously a minor
> case of eye-skip on the part of the copiest--seeing two H side by side copied
> only the second, presumably. The superscript I think is later, although how
> much later I couldn't tell from the photograph. But if you note the shape of
> the H is different, with shorter ascender/descender strokes and guessing from
> the picture, which view may need to be corrected were I looking at the real
> mccoy, it seems to me that the nib of the pen is cut a bit thicker causing the
> appearance of a "fatter" stroke. You'll also notice in the rest of the line
> that the scribe is getting somewhat careless in the shape of his H which are
> beginning to look a lot like his N; look at the middle of the line with the
> ZWH HV TO PHWS where the two H are very close in form to the N of HN; so close
> that unless I knew the language I would say they are about the same, only the
> crossbar on the H is not as slanted as the N, that's the only give away.
> So to answer your question, looking at the photograph I would say that the
> correction is later (although I have no clue from the photograph how much
> later) and done by someone else. I also don't know what has been published on
> this, so you may want to check and see if someone has done a study or
> transcription of this papyrus from a paleographical point of view. I would be
> interested in your results.
> To determine the date of the correction one would look at shape of the letter
> to determine not only a different hand but is it a different script as well,
> ink (is it blacker, browner, bluer?), erasures, and so on.
> I hope that helps at least somewhat.
I looked at the facsimile of p75. The superlinear H is a bit on the stout
side. I wonder how significant this is. I think one would need to at the
very minimum study all the corrections in p75 before making a judgement
about this. I suspect that the corrections squeezed between the lines will
typically look somewhat different than the rest of the text. This is of
course a question for specialists.
Comfort & Barrett seem to think that the corrections in p75 were the scribes
own work. See their comments in their introduction to p75.
Gordon Fee*, while not addressing this question specifically argues that p75
was not subjected to extensive correction by later editors/correctors. The
general drift of his discussion seems to assume that the bulk of the
corrections were made by the original scribe. Again, I could not find any
explicit statement in Fee about this, just reading between the lines.
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
*see page 260 of Epp, Eldon J. and Gordon D. Fee: Studies in the Theory and
Method of New Testament Textual Criticism ; Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans, 1993
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:41 EDT