Template talk:New Testament sigla legend

List of Manuscripts - Include Papyri?

@Nederlandse Leeuw: Do we want to include a list of the more important/larger papyri ( 𝔓⁴⁵, 𝔓⁴⁶, 𝔓⁴⁷, 𝔓⁶⁶, 𝔓⁷², 𝔓⁷⁵ ) in this template? We have quite a few of the uncials listed (several of which one may argue aren't exactly "noteable"), and all these papyri are consistently cited in NA/UBS/TH critical editions. Stephen Walch (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Stephen, I don't think inclusion of specific papyri into this list would have added value. The purpose of the legend is to make it easier to understand the abbreviations or symbols used by scholars (and by extension Wikipedia) to indicate the manuscript in which a particular textual variant has been found. The siglum "${\mathfrak {P}}$" already covers all papyri, we only need to explain that symbol once. However, which other symbols we include in or exclude from the 'Notable manuscripts' is open to question. It looks like back in 2013 I was actually the first to create an ad hoc list of symbols I kept running into. It was never intended to be definitive or exhaustive, just a handy reminder for myself and any other editor or reader who is not familiar with the symbols, and to whom the information here would become a lot more valuable with such a simple legend. Because of its ad hoc and non-exhaustive nature, what should be in or out of it depends a lot on how often each siglum is likely to feature in a textual variants analysis article of any of the 27 New Testament books. Where we should draw the line may end up being somewhat arbitrary. Therefore, I'm very much open to suggestions, and if you or any other editor thinks some entries in this legend need to be changed, that is very welcome. Sometimes we'll probably have to reach a consensus in favour or against a particular entry. E.g. several sigla relevant to the Gospels may not be to the Epistles, and vice versa.

As I noticed already when I templated each of the 27 articles' legends, the Textual variants in the Epistle of James had several papyri, uncials and the León palimpsest listed as relevant to this particular book. I decided to not merge them into the template, but only remove all the duplicates and leave a separate list of the book-specific manuscripts listed there. I'm not sure if there is much added value to listing all the papyri in a legend, because (again) it's the same symbol, and the average reader can count, so it seems superfluous for a legend section. Listing the other manuscripts' abbreviations seems very helpful, however. If the purpose of listing all these papyri is to indicate the textual witnesses to a particular book, then I don't think a legend section is the appropriate place for that. Besides, we would be doing double work; textual witnesses sections are already established by book chapter articles such as James 1#Textual witnesses. I think you'll agree with me on that. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Nederlandse Leeuw. You're absolutely right that the siglum ${\mathfrak {P}}$ covers all papyri basis. Guess I'm more thinking we should not state the uncials listed as "notable manuscripts", but possibly just under the heading as "Uncial legend"? Notable to me would seem to indicate the other manuscripts not specifically cited in the list aren't worth as much as the ones which have been. Stephen Walch (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right, "notable manuscripts" may not be the most appropriate subsection heading, because it is somewhat of a subjective statement. I guess we should go for a description that is relevant to the legend's purpose. How about "Frequently used uncial sigla"? After all, the justification for this legend being non-exhaustive is that we're trying to cover the most frequently used sigla, so that the reader needs to look up as little as possible using external sources, but not to waste too much space on rare sigla which the reader could look up if they really wanted to. In other words, we're not looking for how notable each manuscript is, but how frequently its siglum is used in these Wikipedia articles.

Come to think of it, the opening sentence "A guide to the symbols (sigla) used in the body of this article." could be improved to "...the symbols (sigla) most frequently used...", "New Testament sigla" to "Frequently used general sigla", and "Notable critical editions" to "Frequently used critical editions". On the other hand, the opening sentence may already be enough to indicate the '(most) frequently used' bit, so that we can shorten the headings to "General sigla", "Uncial sigla" and "Critical editions". I think I like the last option best, how about you? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm very much in favour of General Sigla ; Uncial sigla ; Critical Editions. As long as no one else objects, think they should be good for the purpose of this template. Stephen Walch (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright then, let's do it! :D Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

PS: Done! I've also taken the liberty of changing the opening sentence to "the sigla (symbols and abbreviations)". I think that's a better way of saying it; sigla can either be symbols or abbreviations/acronyms with letters. Thanks for pointing this issue out and helping me solve it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Excellent stuff, Nederlandse Leeuw! Looking good. Stephen Walch (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)