Talk:List of New Testament papyri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of New Testament papyri article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Format issues 2 Museo Egizio 3 Distribution based on content 4 A few suggestions 5 New papyri

[edit] Format issues

First of all this is a good start, and I commend Alastair Haines for putting the legwork into inputting all the data into the table. I have two suggestions. I think we should remove "AD" from the column. It just makes the column wider and is unnecessary according to the WP:MoS Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). What it is saying is that numbers after year 1 do not require any era notation unless in a range of dates that begin in BC. And since all NT manuscripts were written after Jesus' death, it is probably clear to our readers that none of the dates are BC. The Manual of Style also suggests using "c." for circa for approximations. Maybe we could just note at the top of the date column that all dates are approximated/rounded so we don't have to write ~ or c. before every date. Also, I am a little concerned over the wikilinking the books of the bible. Normally, you should avoid over wikification, and linking the book everytime it is mentioned seems like overkill. In fact, I think we could do without any linking, because the column to to explain what portion of the manuscript survives, and the links don't tell us any more about the specific surviving portion, but instead are about the entire book. Just a couple thoughts.-Andrew c 18:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, I was in two minds about including AD. The only reason to include it was because people are unused to three digit years. At least I am! ;) Anyway, I'm happy to see it go. I love simplicity, just won't surrender it unless clarity isn't thrown out with the bathwater. As I said, I'm content. Explaining the "nearest 50 years" rule is great. :)

Also, I was going to explain the contents were only as specific as chapter. You have done this in a very neat and clear way, thank you! Great to have you at work on things!

Yes, I thought about linking the books or not. The main argument against was that it took so long to enter them! However, the point of linking every repeated entry in a sortable list imo is that people may sort on city, for example, to see manuscripts near their home, say. If they see that Thessalonians is in a university library 125 miles away, maybe they will click on the link to Thess to see what Wiki editors have said about the book. Instead of looking for the first instance of Thessalonians in the table, or trying to decipher the abbreviation they just click on the field in the record they are looking at.

I agree about not over-Wiki-ing, especially in the body of an article, and especially if different words are given the same link. Tables, by their nature are speedy reference systems, I like the idea of giving people just one click to follow up locating a record of interest.

One example of how I might use the table is to add a "Textual criticism" section to articles on NT books that don't have one already. I'd sort the table by the Contents field (I know it's not perfect), view the data relevant to a book and click through to it.

Another use is to check just what 1 Corinthians chapters 10-11 contain. That article actually has links to specific chapters. Some of us know what's in chapters, most won't. Though, admittedly, not all articles on NT books go to specifics on chapters, but maybe in time they will.

Now the work is done, it seems like a pity to lose it. Rest assured, I'm not going to be writing articles with every second word Wikified. ;) Alastair Haines 02:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Museo Egizio

The Wiki article is on the much more famous Egyptian Museum of Turin. That is why I didn't give a link. It also explains why I translated into English. It is more clear that it is a generic name -- Egyptian Museum, which exist in several cities in Italy. As it stands in Italian, it would appear to some readers that it refers to the Museo Egizio, which is not quite right. In fact, I couldn't be sure from my googling if the Papyrological Institute in Florence is actually a separate entity to the Egyptian Museum in that city. The two were refered to in close proximity, appearing almost synonymous in a couple of sites I checked.

I'll repeat my main argument for translating names of foreign institutions, once more. We are bound to be inconsistant if we don't translate, because we do not use the Arabic for the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (where Egyptian has a different meaning too, of course). We would run into serious transliteration issues with Cyrillic, Greek, Arabic etc., because there are no cannonical transliteration systems. Certainly there are multiple, widely used systems. Even the Egyptian Museum in Berlin is already not given in German, though we could render it more easily in ASCII. This is English language Wiki. It is not NA27, which is written for a universal audience. The "other languages" feature of Wiki is probably the place to use our knowledge of the autonyms of foreign institutions.

Love to hear your thoughts. Alastair Haines 02:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Update. I just found the Italian Wiki article on the Egyptian Museum in Florence. If I've understood it correctly, the Papyrological Institute is indeed a sub-branch of the museum. It specializes in Coptic art and documents. I've linked to this Italian article, simply translating it into English would create a stub at English Wiki, which we could then link to from this table. I'll do that soon enough, unless you beat me to it, and be my guest in doing that! :) Alastair Haines 03:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distribution based on content

What do editors think of the Distribution chart at the bottom? Do the parenthetical numbers work, or would it have been better to create a third column for the early numbers?-Andrew c 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The above post is referring to this version. The current version is another option. After spending the time to make the table look 'prettier', I think the improvement in look is minimal, and the addition of the extra code is detrimental to readability in the edit window (assuming another editor wants to come along and update the table and isn't familiar with coding).-Andrew c 18:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the newer version, the parentheses interupt the smooth look of the alternative text. It's a great table to give a neat summary of the data. It raises questions for my mathematical mind -- Luke and Acts are 28 chapters long. Colossians and Philippians only 4 chapters long. If all books were copied at the same rate and decayed at the same rate, what would the percentages look like? But the data you've gathered mean I can do those calculations on a spreadsheet. Your table provides verifiable information, which suggests trajectories for further thinking, without indulging in speculation. Thanks Andrew, it might also stimulate someone to research a little regarding popularity of particular New Testament books -- dates of inclusion in the canon, earliest dates of quotation in church fathers, ... John's gospel seems to have been fairly popular. I wonder why? ;) Cheers Alastair Haines 12:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few suggestions

I love the table. I'd love to see links to on-line images; dates using centuries or ranges (with reference to e.g. NA27). I don't particularly like the 'Elite status' discussion in the opening - it is not particularly true for a start (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus still exert the dominant influence on edited NT texts); and it obscures the fact that the papyri come from II-VII - they are not all early (as is acknowledged now only at the end).

But you guys are obviously workign on this page so I haven't done any edits, except to delete the 'pending' papyrus which is not on papyrus. PeterMHead 11:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New papyri

• p¹¹⁹ Oxyrhynchus 4803, John 1:21-28.33-44; 3th century, Oxford.
• p¹²⁰ Oxyrhynchus 4804, John 1:25-28.33-38.42-44; 4th century, Oxford.
• p¹²¹ Oxyrhynchus 4805, John 19:17-18.25-26; 3th century, Oxford.
• p¹²² Oxyrhynchus 4806, John 21:11-14.22-24; 4/5th century, Oxford.

It is time to complete List of NT papyri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leszek Jańczuk Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding up to P124. Thanks for the heads up.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)