User talk:Stephen Walch

List of New Testament uncials

Thanks for your correction (Uncial 0232). Unfortunately this wrong data we can find in: K. Aland, B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Text Criticism, transl. E.F. Rhodes, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1995 (3th ed.), p. 126.

• 0232 John 1-9

but Gremanr edition has:

• 0232 2. Joh 1-9

Unfortunately in English translation (made by Erroll F. Rhodes) I found more than 20 errors and omissions. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks, Mr Jańczuk. I've been studying New Testament Papyri and Unicals, and noticed the error when I was trying to find more regarding the date ascribed to Unical 0232 (which I've seen dated as early as the 3rd Century CE (See Larry Hurtado: The Earliest Christian Artifacts (Manuscripts and Christian Origins) pp. 223))

Transcription of Early Greek NT Manuscripts

It is a very good idea. Yes I want to do that, but it is work for years. If you want something to help, you are welcome. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 842

Hi, I just reviewed your creation of an article at Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 842. Thank you for contributing to the encyclopedia. While I was able to find enough coverage in a Google Scholar search to likely establish the subject's notability, the article desperately needs more citations to reliable sources, as the current level of sourcing is inadequate. Information without a proper citation may be removed by future editors. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Change of mind by Gesenius?

In the second edition (1828) of his Handwörterbuch Gesenius said most commentators were for Yahwoh; others for Yahweh; Jehovah was defended by Reland, Simonis and Michaëlis.

In the 1833 Latin edition he still says the majority were for Yahwoh, mentions Relandus as a supporter not of Jehovah but of Yahweh, and gives only Michaelis as defending Jehovah.

In the "improved and enlarged" fourth edition (vol. 1, cols. 743–746) of his Handwörterbuch, he still says most were for Yahwoh, but says that Yahweh was more likely ("wahrscheinlicher"); he specifies the five who in Reland's book attacked Jehovah (and says Reland himself was of the same opinion) and those who in the book defended Jehovah', and he says Michaëlis held that the use of Jehovah predated the introduction of Masoretic pointing.

In his much fuller Thesaurus philologicus criticus linguae Hebraeae et Chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti, the section (from Yod to Mem) containing the YHWH entry (pp. 575–580) appeared in 1839. He no longer says "most" contemporaries favoured Yahwoh, but only multi, no longer plerique or die meisten. And he says there are grammatical reasons against that theory (p. 577). He seems to make no mention of supporters in his own time of the Jehovah interpretation – or am I missing something? He does mention the defenders of Jehovah in an earliler century whose works were reproduced by Relandus, but he uses very strong language in dismissing their arguments (p. 576).

It does seem to me that, towards the end of his studies and his life, Gesenius did express a view: he firmly excluded the Jehovah interprtation, and said Yahwoh is less likely than Yahweh. Am I wrong? I'll be grateful for your guidance. Bealtainemí (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)!

Thanks for your comments. Plerique is a bit ambiguous: it doesn't have to mean "the majority", but it can. It is decidedly stronger than multi. L&S gives as its English equivalents: "very many, a very great part, the most, most". There is no ambiguity in die meisten, and unless we think that Gesenius changed his mind between 1828 ("die meisten") to a different meaning of plerique in 1833 and back again to ("die meisten") in 1834, we have to admit that his choice of "multi" in 1839 indicates a deliberate change in his judgment concerning the then existing views.

At any rate, it is his 1839 view that we are discussing. Not what he may have said or thought before, but his conclusive final statement. In that, he is very clearly dismissive of the "Jehovah" view. He says: "In eorum argumentis [...] nullum est, quod aliquam ne dicam vim ad persuadendum sed veritatis tamen speciem habeat, praeter hoc, quod prior tetragrammati pars, quae saepe in nominibus propriis comparet, יהו effertur [...] sed etiam hanc formam ex ea nominis יהוה pronunciatione, quae maiore sui iure genuina habetur, explicari posse, infra videbimus". He could scarcely have been more dismissive of the idea. He says it clearly in a single sentence almost at the end of page 576, the very end of his section I.

Whatever his opinion on whether the Tetragrammaton in the Biblical texts represented "Yaho" or (what he declares more probable) "Yahweh", there is no doubt whatever about his view about its supposed origin as "Jehovah", an idea which in 1839 he attributed to no scholar.

Please don't wait until next year to read what Gesenius said in 1839. I would much prefer that you, rather than I, put it in the two (?) Wikipedia pages concerned. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those were the only two pages I had in mind. Surely you can report, paraphrasing Gesenius' declaration, what he said in 1839. Who could object? There is no need to quote an English translatioon of his Thesaurus (which, as you know, was completed by another after his death, when he had only got to the next-to-last letter of the alphabet. Nor do you have to go into details of his earlier publications, most of which were never published as such in English translation. You don't have to state that his ideas developed over the years. Of course they did. I imagine it was one or more of his students who pointed out to him that in 1828 he had wrongly made Relandus a supporter of the "Jehovah" interpretation. Over a century before Gesenius, Relandus had already shown that even then this was a minority interpretation, devoting to it only 131 pages compared with 432 for its opponents in his reproduction of ten authoritative works on the question, five on either side. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources, but in the absence of English-language sources does not outlaw sources in other languages, especially of better-known languages such as Latin. In many articles, Latin texts are quoted, often accompanied by an editor's English translation, which other editors can check. We are only reporting objectively what in 1839 G said. It isn't original research. If anyone does object, I'm sure an enquiry at a Wikipedia noticeboard will confirm its liceity. I'prefer not to seem to contradict you, but if you don't want to make the edit, I'll do it myself. Think about it until tomorrow. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You are quite right. The Gesenius page has never been on my watchlist, and I no longer know precisely what brought me to read its discussion page. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint. According to my memory, which may be inexact, of Robinson's introduction, that seems to have been an earlier attempt to produce a Thesaurus, put aside to concentrate on the Latin version and the expanded fourth edition of the Handbook; the more substantive Thesaurus appeared even later. I don't feel like hunting further just now (if ever?) on that topic. I haven't recognized from what precise work he drew that he calls Gesenius's "personal view". It was your reluctance to accept non-English sources that made me choose to accept it as it stood. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)