And what about this one? There is not so much to it so I'll give you front and back (or is it back and front?).
A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
Here's my options:
ReplyDeleteThe top (front) one is the Jn. 19.17-18 -
ὃ λέγεται Ἑ]β̣ραϊστὶ Γ̣[ολγοθα, ὅπου αὐτὸν
ἐσταύρωσα]ν, καὶ με̣[τ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἄλλους
δύ]ο ἐντεῦ[θεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν,
Bottom (back) Jn. 19.25-26 -
Μαγδαληνή] Ῑς̄ οὖν ϊ[δὼν τὴν μητέρα
καὶ τὸν μα]θητὴν π̣[αρεστῶτα ὃν
ἠγάπα λέ]γ̣ει τῇ μ̄ρ̄̈̈[ῑ̣ γύναι, ἴδε ὁ ῡς̄ σου.
Line spacing just my approximations.
(although entered in unicode, none of my diacritical marks showed up in my browser when I posted the comment) so here it is without...
ReplyDeleteThe top (front) one is the Jn. 19.17-18 -
ὃ λέγεται Ἑ]βραϊστὶ Γ[ολγοθα, ὅπου αὐτὸν
ἐσταύρωσα]ν, καὶ με[τ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἄλλους
δύ]ο ἐντεῦ[θεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν,
Bottom (back) Jn. 19.25-26 -
Μαγδαληνή] Ῑς οὖν ϊ[δὼν τὴν μητέρα
καὶ τὸν μα]θητὴν π[αρεστῶτα ὃν
ἠγάπα λέ]γει τῇ μρ[ι γύναι, ἴδε ὁ ῡς σου.
Rick, nice work. I'm not saying yours is wrong, but in the top image the rho (of BRAISTI) does not match your rho in the bottom image (MR[I]). (Could the nomen sacrum be MI [without rho]?)Also, after your BRAISTI in the top image, the next letter, to me, seems to be a rounded one, maybe an epsilon? But I can't see how Jn 19.20f. would fit, certainly not as well as your Jn 19.17-18, anyway. With several variants for this passage, I'm not certain enough yet.
ReplyDeletein the top image the rho (of BRAISTI) does not match your rho in the bottom image (MR[I]). (Could the nomen sacrum be MI [without rho]?)
ReplyDeleteIt's faint, but if you zoom in the Ρ is definitely plausible. The nomina sacra could be rendered differently, but from the other options I saw in the apparatus, the ρ was constant.
Also, after your BRAISTI in the top image, the next letter, to me, seems to be a rounded one, maybe an epsilon?
The letter you mention is questionable, but an epsilon doesn't seem possible. I'd have to see another example of a Γ by this same hand to agree with you here, which we don't have.
JCB: the rho (of BRAISTI) does not match your rho in the bottom image (MR[I])
ReplyDeleteI think that if you click on the photos to enlarge and look very closely at the bottom MP[I] you will see the remnants of the same type of Rho as appears in [E]BRAISTI.
And the bottom text is clearly Jn 19:25-26 as noted by Rick.
Wow, so enlarging the photo really does help. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteGood work Rick.
ReplyDeleteI would change your line 2 on the top to render it as a nomen sacrum (note the over bar):
ESTR]N KAI ME[T ...
This might also make the line lengths a bit more consistent - there is an obvious problem in your transcription that line 2 has 9 letters missing to the left, while line 3 has only 2.
The bottom piece has some traces of a top line that might bit able to fit something like: TOU KLWPA
It is a good size lower margin too.
ReplyDelete