Talk:Papyrus 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: We should avoid WP:OR. We shouldn't publish claims not found in reliable sources. -Andrew c [talk] 15:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Red Herring

message: 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)
thread_title: Back to The "S" on the Recto

message: 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)
thread_title: Inaccurate Image of Photographs of p1

message: 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)
thread_title: Introductory Side-Box Note

message: 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)
thread_title: Manuscript Photos as Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Hoskier Variations

message: 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)
thread_title: Documentation of the Missing Top

message: 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)
thread_title: Suggestion for Improvement

message: 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)
thread_title: Unsupportable "Only"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alexandrian Text Type? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Welcome in the article Claremont Profile Method. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Claremont Profile Method

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Date of p1 

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

message: 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:
* 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)
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)
thread_title:  Short answer 

message: 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)
thread_title:  {{u|Lee82cha}}, what are you trying to accomplish 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Verso/Recto confusion? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mystery Solved