Talk:Dura Parchment 24

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dura Parchment 24/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: two disambiguations were fixed.diff

Linkrot: no dead links found.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is generally literate, although a little dense in places.

   Generally, it has been regarded as a fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron (Gospel harmony). Needs a little explanation, also cleaning up "Generally, it has been regarded" is not good grammar, also who regards it thus? What is "Gospel harmony"?

   The text was written one column per page, 15 (or more) lines per page, 30–35 letters per line, in uncial letters., please explain "uncial letters"

   In Luke 23:49 it contains a unique reading: "the wives of those who had been his disciples" I'm guessing that "it" refers to the manuscript that is the article subject, but this needs to be made clear.

   In Matthew 27:57, the city Arimathea, normally spelled Αριμαθαια, is spelled Ερινμαθαια (Erinmathea). What is the significance of this?

   Lots of single sentences here, please consolidate into paragraphs.

   The text twice agrees with Codex Vaticanus and Bohairic against everything else... What is "everything else"?

   First syrsin shares with Codex Bezae... What is "syrsin"?

   The text-type of this manuscript is no longer classifiable, because of the Diatessaric character of text (likewise Papyrus 25). Even so, Aland placed it in Category III. Context is needed for this.

   Who is this Kraeling? Context is needed.

   History of the manuscript I think that this section would be better placed before Description to aid understanding.

   A little bit of information about the Hopkins', Kareling, Bradford Welles is needed. Most readers will never had heard of them.

   In March 5th, 1933, during the excavations conducted by Clark Hopkins amongst the ruins of a Roman border-town, Dura-Europos, on the lower Euphrates, a little more geographic information is needed. e.g. in wahat is now known as Syria. An a location near a modern town or city.

   It was re-edited, with a minor corrections... "a minor corrections"?

   was a copy of Tatian's Diatessaron. Context, who or what is "Tatian's Diatessaron"?

   different from Diatessaron "different to"?

   Jan Joosten criticised the methods employed by Taylor, Goodacre, and Parker, according to him, these methods would have eliminated many other Tatianic witnesses because of diversity and variability in these witnesses Who are all of these people and why is their opinion important?

   Dura Parchment does not constitute evidence of non-Diatessaronic composition. "The Dura parchment"? And why not?

   The surviving leaf of the scroll or codex described here, was found in 1933, during excavations among the ruins of Dura-Europos," Wea were told this at the beginning of the last section.

   The time between Tatian's original composition and the production of this copy could not have been longer than 80 years Why not?

   "Diatessaron" needs explaing when first introduced. I know that there is a wikilink earlier, but that really is not sufficient.

   The fragment does not help in the discussion of a Greek or Syriac origin of the Diatesaron. Why not?

   "Burkitt" Who is he? Why is opinion important.

   Likewise "Baumstark"?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The references appear reliable, online sources check out.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The main problem here is a lack of context. Many terms are introduced, some with wikilinks but without explanation. Please remember that Wikipedia is aimed at the general reader who may not be familiar with some of the terms used here. Wikilinking alone is not enough, sufficient context and explanation needs to be provided, without going into too much detail. There is no explanation of why this fragment is important to Biblical scholarship.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Two images used, correctly licensed and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article is not currently ready for good article status, so I will not be listing it at this time. Please consider the points raised above and after working on it, take it to WP:Peer review and then please renominate at WP:GAN. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Kraeling's Text

I don't have time to go through and fix it but the wikipedia article badly misrepresents Kraeling's reconstruction of the text (pg 12-13 of Kraeling). Furthermore, the subsequent reconstruction of Parker/Goodacre/Taylor is the most commonly used "edition" of the text (see Crawford and Watson's recent publications) but is unrepresented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.96.146 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Curious significance of the text

It seems that the author of this fragment are making a point that Joseph of Arimathea, in a particular state of mind even, when the light of the early dawn is coming, it is still Pareskeyn. The author identifies Pareskeyn as Prosabbathon, and that Sabbath comes in the morning, at dawn. The word identified and translated as dawn here are clearly descriptive of 'a coming of light', ἐπέϕωσκεν. This is curious, since Jewish tradition today hold Sabbath to begin at dusk. This story confirms, or at least isn't in conflict with the four canonical gospels, on that Joseph of Arimathea takes Jesus' body and burries him before Sabbath. It is thus evident that these christians (of Dura-Europos) hold that, not only them, but even that Jews of the time of the cruxifiction of Jesus, see Sabbath as beginning at dawn, not dusk. It cannot be a mere later interpolation, in that it is of importance, apparantly, that the crucified person must be taken off the cross before Sabbath. It is actually quite a huge twist that early Christians hold it as a Jewish tradition that Sabbath begins at daybreak, in the morning. I'm not stating here anything about what actually happened on that day of Preparation, Pareskeyn, merely that it is evident that some christians about the time of the writing of this parchment, actually believe that it was Jewish tradition to see Sabbath beginning at dawn. Which is amazing. My mind may be diluted, so please correct me if my reasoning are erring. --Xact (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dura Parchment 24. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726013659/http://ecwar.org/Chapter5Tatian.pdf to http://ecwar.org/Chapter5Tatian.pdf

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) 22:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)