Jump to content

Talk:Egerton Gospel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apostrophe

[edit]

The article currently says one of the manuscripts contains an "apostrophe." There is, to my knowledge, no such thing as an apostrophe in Greek. There are things that look like apostrophes, but those have proper names. Are we talking about a rough breathing mark or what? Thanatosimii 13:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original paper about this fragment which revised the dating has the German "Apostroph". So apostrophe seems to be our best translation of that. I don't beleive it is a breathing mark, but instead a dot used to separate consonants. See my most recent changes to the article, and the source I provided.-Andrew c 14:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what does it say?

[edit]

Lots of interesting information here but there's next to nothing on what the document actually says. Pimlottc 14:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

[edit]

If one accepts the "Q" hypothesis (as most scholars appear to do, and it makes sense), how would this affect the Egerton Gospel?

Judging from "Contents" it would seem to be based on Mark but perhaps not "Q", the "Signs Gospel", and maybe another lost source (but maybe not, asssuming differing uses of "Q" by Mark and Luke, a parallel situation would of course be possible for Egerton and John). But what I cannot tell without additional discussion of content is whether the synoptical parallels have "Q-elements", or whether they are based on Mark/"Secret Mark" (if you accept this as genuine)/"proto-Mark" (ditto) without any need to invoke "Q".

As an evolutionary biologist, I find this papyrus highly fascinating; it certainly would deserve to be treated as the Archaeopteryx of textual scholarship it is. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OIC - it is apparently not based on "Signs" but on John's "other" source, whatever that was. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papyrus Köln VI 255

[edit]

This piece located in Cologne is another part of the same manuskript, it continues axact at the same line where the first fragment ends. First edition by M. Gronewald 1987. T. Nicklas in: T.J. Kraus, M.J.Kruger, T.Nicklas, fragments, 9-120, (with transaltion and tables of the fragments). This has improved the understanding, the reconstruction of the text and the translation. Markschies, Antike christliche Apokryphen, I. Band Evangelien, p.366-367.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Giftzwerg 88: You point being what, exactly? Egerton Gospel#Dating the manuscript has all this + an image. Primaler (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
O thank you, I overlooked this part, my fault. I just created the German article to this fragment and searched for the article in other languages to find a possible corresponding Wikidata item. I could not find it because I used the string Papyrus Köln VI 255 and the article has Köln 255.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Giftzwerg 88: Oh, great, I remember looking for articles on the the fragment and not finding any, either %) I've just linked it to the commons category via wikidata, then. You can add images of both sides to your article, btw. Primaler (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I´ll use this pictures for my article too and link it to Wikidata. This is great stuff! I just can´t get enough of this old manuskripts. Btw Wikidata item Q20898354 --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

external source

[edit]

"EGERTON PAPYRUS 2 homepage" link has been dead since (according to Wayback Time Machine) between 21Sep 2013 and 12Mar 2014. not sure if smuggling that archive into a link is kosher? here's the latest snap: http://web.archive.org/web/20130921200335/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Egerton/Egerton_home.html TheNuszAbides (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Egerton Gospel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Egerton Gospel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Egerton_Gospel&oldid=1196538636"