Riverwind

dartsec,

Nazaroo is not giving enough information to lend probability to his case. In fact, I would wager that most here who know something about the manuscripts would say has hasn't even come close to making his case about these "space and dot" thingys.

He needs to provide more examples similar to the one unique one that he has found or provide better evidence that all the other dots in the manuscripts are later scribal additions.

I don't really know why anyone is bothering with him anymore since he has consistently refused to go any further with his analysis.

darstec

Never mind. I was looking at the wrong dot rather than the circled one.

Nazaroo

Thanks for the open mind darstec.

It would be so much more productive if others contributed to the analysis and the evidence like Ben Smith has.

I guess we'll have to hobble along without too much serious effort on the contributions, and far too much effort on the armchair critiquing. Criticism is so much easier than scientific investigation, and so much more emotionally rewarding for the immature, that I expect things will go on as they have.

Riverwind

{Emotionally banging head against screen...very hard...it hurts...}

Nazaroo, the rest of us might be open as well if you'd just back up or even elaborate a bit more on the following claims:

(1) ...that the "space and dot" is a truly a "space and dot" as opposed to a "space dot space", "space dot no space", or "no space dot no space"
(2) ...that the "space and dot" where John 7:53-8:11 should be is actually a text-critical mark intentionally acknowledging and marking the absense of those verses.
(3) ...that at least one (preferably more) other of these dots ("space and dots" or whatever) marks another variant somewhere in the New Testament (anywhere, Nazaroo!)
(4) ...that every dot besides the one after John 7:52 is from a different scribal hand

This ain't "armchair critiquing", Nazaroo, it's simply asking for some shred of evidence to back up your highly imaginative but subjective claims.

Dartsec, these are the claims that Nazaroo has brought up in this thread (and in another) and he has yet to actually back up any of the claims in the least after constant requests from others.

Why, again, is anyone continuing to bother with this? Because it is fun to rail on someone and play the part of Socrates? Hmm...don't get it.

jgibson000

Excuse me, but are you actually saying that you are waiting for others to provide you with evidence that you yourself don't have?

One would think that, unless you were exploring a possiblity about the significace of scribal markings in early MSS -- which nothing in this thread suggest is the case -- rather than claiming, as you demonstrably have been doing, that you already know what their significance is, you would have already gathered the evidence that proves your claim and been able to provide it.

But it seems here that you are admitting that you have done no such thing.

So which is it? For that matter, do you even know what evidence would support your claim that certain scribal marks indicate the absence of a passage that was known by scribes ordinarily to appear at the place where they've made dots?

Do we have any other clear instances of MSS that lack pericopes that were known by these MSS' scribes to be a part of the text they were copying also having the sorts of marks that you claim signal that the known pericope belongs where the marks are?

It's a simple yes or no question.

JG

Nazaroo

I have explained this to you twice before, in more than one post,
but here goes, once more:

You can't conform the evidence to your own notions of categories.
Your categories are largely inefficient and unnecessary groupings,
that probably can't be sustained by the nature of the physical picture.

All I ever claimed to be able to distinguish with reasonable certainty in most cases,
is this: There are dots that show no signs of the original scribe
allowing a space to accomodate, and hence are suspected of being added later,
either by the same scribe performing a different task, or else a different 'corrector'
entirely. Which might be the case is by its very nature indeterminable,
and so these dots ("dot no space") cannot be used in the same way that dots
clearly in the hand of the original scribe can be.

End of story.

The second kind of dot is that which CAN be determined with reasonable
certainty to be by the original scribe, since he appears to have left a space for it.
Whatever the purpose of these dots ("space and dot" - not to be understood
as being in some particular order, but a much simpler idea: a dot occupying a space,
usually in about the middle, or perhaps with a little more space on the right),
whatever their purpose, this can be determined by examination and analysis,
but this discovery cannot be carried over to dots (e.g. "dot no space")
that can't be determined to be by the original scribe.

If anything is to be made of the dots that CAN'T be identified as by the original scribe,
it must be done separately, and with far less surety, all else being equal.

These can be investigated by and by. Its hardly a requirement
that I do *everything* for you. You are perfectly capable of
doing this yourself.

Number 4 is an absurdity, and not even worth a response.

-------------------------------------------

Now lets turn to the very page under consideration:
Folio 53a of John for Codex Sinaiticus.

Here are the first two columns at a reasonable resolution,
with the following highlights:

(1) "DOT AND SPACE" - meaning a dot with ample space, indicating it was
planned and executed by the original scribe who spaced out the letters.
These we have highlighted with a RED Circle. there are only SIX on the
entire page of four columns that can be so identified with reasonable surety.

(2) "DOT NO SPACE" - meaning dots with all the appearance of being added
later on a second pass, either by the original scribe or a second hand.
There is no way of determining the case.
These we have marked with a BLUE SQUARE. There are at least 36 such marks
squeezed inbetween the letters penned by the original scribe,
averaging over TEN per Column.

(3) "DOT at End of Line" - meaning a SINGLE DOT at the end of a line,
whether the line is shorter, or the same length and average # of letters
as other lines. There are again only FIVE of these. There are almost a
dozen cases of a very small sigma ("C" in uncial script) or an omicron ("o"),
but these should not be confused with the DOTS, which are not letters.

There we have marked with a GREEN TRIANGLE.

There are three plain lines that fall far short of a full line of letters,
and they seem to indicate paragraph or section endings copied from
the original exemplar. Two are marked with a COLON (NOT a dot),
and one is unmarked.

In NO CASE was a line filled to the end with a dot, row of dots,
or other glyph for the apparent purpose of preventing further additions,
or decoration. This means that the idea of the DOT as a short End Of Line
Marker is a complete dud.





And here is the second half of the page:

Nazaroo

Initial Analysis:


(1) One observation immediately apparent concerns the 'BLUE SQUARE' dots (the DOT NO SPACE type) which appear to have been added later. A large majority of them appear to be marking the separation of words, and sometimes clauses, for the simple purpose of assisting in reading the manuscript. This is a very good indication that whoever added these dots was NOT the original scribe, (because the original scribe forsaw no problem in reading the MS as he penned it).

Thus we seem to be able to distinguish a difference in the ability of the reader who added this group of dots and the original scribe, a professional Greek reader and calligrapher. These dots may have been added for liturgical use (i.e. public reading), anticipating the difficulty volunteer readers might experience. They could even have been added by an appointed reader.

This would also allow for the possibility of a large space of time between the penning of the MS and the addition of these particular dots.

-------------------------------------------

Next, as we remarked earlier, there is no indication that the dots are 'decorative' or added for the purpose of thwarting additions or emendations. The three largest blank lines have no SINGLE DOTS at all, and plenty of space.

------------------------------------------

A relatively large number of single dots can be identified clearly as indicators that a word, a group of letters, or a single letter are to be inserted into the text at the DOT point. These we have left unmarked, as their meaning and purpose is not under serious dispute. It is important to note however that the main or 1st Corrector of the MS used the 'SINGLE DOT' (no space) this exact way: that is for TEXTUAL EMENDATIONS TO THE TEXT.

Thus this single page of the MS supplies a significant number of examples where the DOT (no space) is a TEXTUAL MARKER, not an indicator of any grammatical morpheme, such as a modern semi-colon, colon, or period. For examples see column Two line 8 and 34 end.

This evidence that the DOTS used by True Correctors are for the most part TEXTUAL in nature should satisfy even skeptics like Riverwind.

------------------------------------------

On several contractions of Jesus (IS) a dot as well as an overline is added, probably again by a second hand. Here once again, the dot has a purpose, but it is not a grammatical mark or accent, but rather a generic indicator for the reader to look more closely (and notice the Noma Sacra).

Riverwind

Ok. Now we're getting somewhere. This is a better explanation than I have seen put forward by you before. Now I better understand the whole "space and dot" thing, but it still seems like it could just be due to scribal inconsistency. Be that as it may, you've finally clarified this to my satisfaction.

This "whatever the purpose of these dots" is probably the key to understanding you. It seems that you are merely putting forward your theory for others to investigate and that is fine. However, much of the wording was taken by many to indicate that you putting forward the claim, as a sort of expert, that these "space and dots" are definitely what you claim them to be.

Again, this explanation is much more precise. And again, I note the "whatever their purpose" as the key to understanding that you are merely saying "I think that they are...", which I don't have a problem with. Thank you for the clarification.

I don't agree with the "CAN'T" in the above statement. More reason would have to be given. Mere scribal inconsistency could certainly account for the difference in spaces and dots.

So, again, it seems from this statement that you have not fully investigated the claims you are making. Are you, then, merely putting the idea forward and asking for an investigation by others in which you participate? If so, no problem....

Perhaps, then, it was a misinterpretation of something you wrote earlier.

I appreciate the highlighted images, and I'll look at them.

One final thing...if we are all investigating this issue with you, then what criteria do you believe we should use/set to determine the probability of the mark you've originally pointed out having a passable probability of being a text-critical mark denoting an acknowledged absense of John 7:53 - 8:11?

See...I told you I could be reasonable if the information was presented in such a way that discussion, and apparently cooperative investigation, could reasonably continue.

Nazaroo

My methodology is fairly simple here. I am examining all that can be examined piece by piece, for the purpose of eliminating the trivial, the obvious, the reasonably certain, and categorizing whatever is left over that needs accounting for in the most plausible manner.

------------------------------------------------

To continue in this vein, I want to consider next the SINGLE DOTS at the end of a line:

These dots could be grouped as EITHER "DOT AND SPACE" (original scribe) or "DOT NO SPACE" (possible later corrector). The problem is, there is no demarcation AFTER the dot to tell us if the original scribe planned the dot.

In fact, almost half of these (unmarked on photos) are at the end of a line that has NO space on it (missing letters) and look suspiciously like later additions. Again this fits in well with our observed purpose of the "DOT NO SPACE" (Blue squares) already discussed above. For examples see Column One line 17 etc. They again seem to be reader's marks, indicating clause endings, or pauses.

-----------------------------------------------

We may also mention the 'real' colons, marking apparent paragraph endings. Although one paragraph end is missing a colon, the others (judging by the fading) appear to be either original or at least very ancient (unlike the majority of DOT NO SPACE which seem too dark and clear to be that old).

Thus one colon seems to be almost disappearing.

-----------------------------------------------

On the topic of inserted letters or short words, in many cases, no DOT or other mark is used, but rather the letters are inserted in whatever space is available when possible, even if the letters must be written so small as to risk being mistaken for a DOT!

In these cases, we may suspect a few corrections made long after the original scribe wrote and proofread his MS. Sometimes a mini-scroll is used in a way similar to the "Obelisk" found in Codex Vaticanus. In any case the meaning is clear: the marginal letters are to be inserted into the manuscript as corrections. Its worth noting that apparently 90% of the mistakes caught by the corrector(s) are accidental omissions of a letter or two, or a short word. But the Pericope de Adultera cannot be classed as 'accidental' in this period (3rd - 4th century), so this is not directly applicable to our problem.

----------------------------------

The original scribe (and apparently subsequent correctors) was frugal with accents, averaging one true accent (pronunciation assist) every 2 to 5 lines. The following correctors (and Tischendorf apparently identified nine or more) did not add much to this, even if they are responsible for most of the accents now extant.

----------------------------------

One last comment is in regard to the use of an upper 'mini-scroll' to represent the 'Moveable N' at the ends of words. Interestingly, most of these seem to fall at the end of the line, and this indicates that the original scribe is responsible for at least the bulk of them. (the moveable n is sometimes dropped but replaced with a small mark to keep a neat appearance and constant width for most lines in the MS.) It is at the end of a line that this opportunity presents itself, and the timing (spacing) can be anticipated somewhat by the original scribe.

This contradicts the usage of a very similar 'mini-scroll' by the corrector, and seems to indicate two different people responsible for the two uses.

matthewthomas

You misunderstand me. I do not quote Dr Gibson because of any view of him as an 'authority of impeccable reputation'. I quote his words because, in light of your views on universities, I happen to agree with him that matter.

As it happens, I also agree with Riverwind's recent post:
Matthew