Talk:Papyrus Fouad 266

This article needs to explain

1. Based on the opening paragraph, it would appear that this manuscript was written in Greek. However, in the third paragraph appears the statement that its scribe "used the Tetragrammaton in Aramaic square Hebrew script". So was it written in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic?
2. "There is a discussion about this manuscript, is it or not a later recension" -- a later recension of what? Is it a copy of the Septuagint, the autograph of the Septuagint (a rather bold claim), or a variant edition of the Septuagint? What is the basis for this "discussion" over its relationship to the Septuagint -- or whatever text it is related to?
3. Or was the above sentence an attempt to say that this is the oldest surviving witness to the text of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible? (I'm not going to quibble over what to call this portion of the Bible.)
4. Why is the appearance of "ΚΥΡΙΟΣ" significant?
5. If this is a 1st century BC scroll, why does this article talk about codexes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.242.181 (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
6. Why does this article deserve a "High" importance value? A reading of the article should make this apparent, but all I can gather from this article is that this papyrus is a very old copy of a fragment of Deuteronomy -- which in itself is not very important.

Until these questions are answered in clear language -- or this is rewritten into understandable English -- this article is not that useful. -- llywrch (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ad 1) It is written in Greek, with Tetragrammaton in Hebrew. There are more manuscripts like this.

Ad 2) According to some scholars it could be a recension. There is no agreement between scholars.

Ad 3) The second oldest.

Ad 4) Tetragrammaton is written in Hebrew, ΚΥΡΙΟΣ in Greek.

Ad 5) Because of its age - 117 fragments of Deuteronomy. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So why did you not rewrite the article & include the answers to these questions? For example, the sentence I complain about in #2 still stands as I had found it. Not everyone who reads a Wikipedia article will also look to the talk page. -- llywrch (talk)

The wise readers always do, llywrch ;). I've made some further edits in the interest of clarity for the non-specialist reader, whom we are talking to in the article. It seems ambiguous whether this is the second oldest -- what is the oldest, by the way? it doesn't say-- Greek Old Testament manuscript altogether, or whether it's simply the second oldestone that uses the Hebrew tetragrammaton. The importance of the ms fragment is an essential missing element. Is my edit "the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in Aramaic "square" or Ashuri script" correct?--Wetman (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Mistakes

The article has many more mistakes. A few will be deleted soon, but there remain holes. Why has "the papyrus (sg.!)" three Rahlfs sigla? Maybe because the editors realised that the fragments belong to 3 originally different manuscripts? Oh, yes, therefore Hurtado writes about P.Fouad 266a-c. Why does the author who quotes from Hurtado not give that information to the reader? Such sloppy editing is no service to the reader, it is misinformed misinformation. Listing all occurrences of the "divine name" is useless in wikipedia and nothing btu a very specific religious POV. I am going to delete that passage. There is more, but I won't waste more time here. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Allow me to respectfully contradict you, but to say that "listing all occurrences of the "divine name" is useless in wikipedia and nothing but a very specific religious POV" is a POV, since doesn't seem like a compelling argument based on Wikipedia policy [1]. The manuscript is relevant because it contains the divine name, and because its age, as highlighted in the references of great scholars.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

No, the manuscript is relevant because it is an old manuscript. The reduction of the relevance of old manuscripts to the point that "they contain the divine name" fulfills the definition of religious POV. And what "doesn't seem like a compelling argument" to you is irrelevant. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

If you can't argue why it's POV, then there's no reason to keep your changes in the article.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It cannot be seen what relationship is to show the existence of the name YHWH in a manuscript with "a very specific religious POV", when only evidence is presented.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

That is a deliberate misrepresentation and misunderstanding of what I wrote. You show again that you are not interested in a serious exchange of thoughts.

Eventually it is your changes (from 2015) that are not accepted here and you have to argue why they should be in there. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Your doubling of sentences within the article comes close to vandalism. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Second oldest manuscript.

The Papyrus Rylands 458, used to be the oldest Septuagint manuscript according to that article. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls change that fact. Nonetheless, this article does not imply that statement. Here, this papyrus (266) is still the second oldest.

Can anyone check this, please?

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)