Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgibson000 · 05-07-2007, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

The short answer is that we have less surety about it than a case where a space is left in the middle of a line where the normal practice is not even to put spaces between words, and even to break up words over to the next line.

Yes, the space at the end of the line (a couple of letters in size) has a significant appearance, but its very rarity works against its weighting. lines are left unfilled by letters so rarely that we must admit the sampling is an order in magnitude smaller in size (per unit text) than the normal case of a space in midline.

Some of the strength in the type of phenomenon comes from its statistical base or 'sample size'. Even if we can't quantify such features with hard numbers, we can at least order them in terms of relative magnitude and importance.

We can always say that examining the cases of 'space and dot' in the middle of lines will give us more reliable information, because there are more cases.

Another thing works in our favour here too. Because the case of a dot at the end of a line is so much rarer, we can ignore it with less worry about the result of our analysis.

This is not to say that we should or need to ignore any data, but you are perfectly familiar I am sure, of the idea of the relative weight of different qualities and kinds of witness to a fact.

We can ignore the handful of cases of a dot at the end of a line, because they are so rare and relatively insignificant for our question of what MOST of the dots are doing.

We should ignore this handful of cases, because we are less sure that they are from the original hand, since we have a less certain indicator than a simple single space tailored to the size of the dot.

Is there anyone among all of the recognized professional text critics, from Aland to Ehrman, from Elliot to Robinson, from Robinson to Warren, from Wieland to Williams, anyone among those who have worked on the UBS and the NA texts and/or who now work at the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung or the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, who backs you up on these matters?

Yes or no?

JG

Ben C Smith · 05-07-2007, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

...failing to fill a line is as rare as putting a dot inline to the text.

Here is the image in question (second dot):

And here are some scans of the first page of John in Sinaiticus, folio 48a, each showing a line that has failed to be filled in all the way to the margin:

(The faint letters in the space at the end of the line are not erasures; they are showing through from the other side of the folio, 48b.)

There are other unfilled lines from the first page of John; these are not all. At any rate, how rare is rare?

Here are some more suspended dots that appear in the middle of a line and appear to have space left for them:

These four scans are all from folio 48b.

Ben.

Nazaroo · 05-07-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

The problem is that there is another factor, one that you mentioned in another context. This is the same book, the same manuscript, the same page. (And the dot is almost surely the same scribe.) Ergo such an example is far more significant in trying to understand how this scribe meant the dot than most others in the forthcoming data set. Same scribe, same text, same time.

You might weigh it a smidgen less because it is end-of-line rather than mid-line. However the upsides above are more important than being at the end-of-line. Especially as we can see immediately that the end-of-line spacing is ususual for that scribe on that page. We can compare it visually with eight other lines and note that it has an extra character off all of them, a strong marker for the dot being related to the first scribe's text.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

If you want to include this dot in the group to take under consideration initially, fine. I said from the beginning my inclination was that it was by the original scribe. Either way I don't think it will significantly affect the final results in terms of evaluating the range of meanings possible for the 'space and dot' in Sinaiticus.

One important point (and it should be underlined) is that it is extremely likely that the scribe is here copying the dots from his master-copy, hence the variation in the position of the dots and the length of a less than complete line ending with a dot or a full 'colon'. That is, these marks are not invented by the scribe of Sinaiticus, nor is their meaning.

Quote:

Is there anyone among all of the recognized professional text critics, from Aland to Ehrman, from Elliot to Robinson, from Robinson to Warren, from Wieland to Williams, anyone among those who have worked on the UBS and the NA texts and/or who now work at the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung or the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, who backs you up on these matters?

Yes or no?

Who cares? Textual critics are primarily a bunch of upper class rich kids = twits, too stupid to succeed in real sciences that involve mathematics and abstract thinking.

The Cambridge Five come to mind as the pentultimate example of what English universities breed.

Although the 'Oxford' movement, which subverted a massive number of retarded English protestants back into medieval Catholicism complete with spanking and other extreme penance is a good runner-up for what is best in university settings.

Quote:

These four scans are all from folio 48b.

Ben.

Good work Ben. You are aware I am sure that we are now expanding our investigation with these pictures to include the usage of the full colon. (not Colin Powell's colon thank God.)

jgibson000 · 05-07-2007, 11:47 AM

I wrote:
I
s there anyone among all of the recognized professional text critics, from Aland to Ehrman, from Elliot to Robinson, from Robinson to Warren, from Wieland to Williams, anyone among those who have worked on the UBS and the NA texts and/or who now work at the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung or the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, who backs you up on these matters?

Yes or no?

"Nazaroo" replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Who cares?

Which, in effect means, no, not a single one.

He then went on to say:

Quote:

Textual critics are primarily a bunch of upper class rich kids = twits, too stupid to succeed in real sciences that involve mathematics and abstract thinking.

I now reply:

How you know this is beyond me. Seems to me that it's right up there in truth value with your claim to know with certainty that "Ehrman's people" dunnd your website, and we all know how much truth value there was in that claim.

And even if it were the case that the social status of text critics is what you claim it to be, it's irrelevant to the question of the truth of what they say.

And the fact remains that no text critic, no matter what their social standing and background, has ever though or believed or proclaimed that the dots and spaces that you point to has the significance you claim they have.

Now it may very well be that you have come accross something no one has ever seen. But it also might be -- and I think that this is more likely the case -- that your claim has no merit whatsoever.

Too bad you won't admit this, even as a possibility. A sure sign of a crank.

JG

Nazaroo · 05-07-2007, 11:53 AM

Oh I don't know. Lets look then at the significance of the fact that a Roman Catholic Cardinal is the head of the editing commitee for the UBS 'modern' critical edition.

Or better yet, lets look into the Oxford movement in more detail:

Secret History of the Oxford Movement <-- Click here for your free copy.

Sauron · 05-07-2007, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

One important point (and it should be underlined) is that it is extremely likely that the scribe is here copying the dots from his master-copy, hence the variation in the position of the dots and the length of a less than complete line ending with a dot or a full 'colon'. That is, these marks are not invented by the scribe of Sinaiticus, nor is their meaning.

This doesn't seem to follow.

If these *were* an invention of the scribe of Sinaiticus, then I'd still expect the placement to be less than perferct. Simple human imperfection at work.

RED DAVE · 05-07-2007, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Oh I don't know. Lets look then at the significance of the fact that a Roman Catholic Cardinal is the head of the editing commitee for the UBS 'modern' critical edition.

Or better yet, lets look into the Oxford movement in more detail:

Secret History of the Oxford Movement <-- Click here for your free copy.

How far is it from here to the Illuminati and the Raelian lizards?

RED DAVE

Nazaroo · 05-08-2007, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

How far is it from here to the Illuminati and the Raelian lizards?

RED DAVE

Quite a distance: are you lost?

matthewthomas · 05-08-2007, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Who cares? Textual critics are primarily a bunch of upper class rich kids = twits, too stupid to succeed in real sciences that involve mathematics and abstract thinking

The Cambridge Five come to mind as the pentultimate example of what English universities breed.

Hmmm.
First, it seems a little harsh to damn all Cambridge scholarship for five traitors. True, they are starting to lag behind some American universities in recent years, but Trinity College alone (the one pictured in your link) still has more Nobel Prizes than France (31 to 28 by 2002, IIRC), not to mention the other colleges.
In any case, it's not as if selling secrets to the enemy is a purely Cambridge affair: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/01...t.exclude.html

Second, your implied characterisation of English Universities as full upper class rich twits displays only your ignorance and your prejudice. Sure, there are plenty of well-off public school* types, but many of them are hard-working dedicated students (I know how hard they work because I taught some of them when I was there), and a large proportion of students are from less well-off state-school backgrounds, who are similarly hard-working.

If this post of yours is what you consider a reasoned argument then no wonder you attract the strong criticism you do on this forum

MT

*For traditional reasons, in the UK, public school refers to fee-paying, private schools. Confusing, I know.

Nazaroo · 05-08-2007, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Second, your implied characterisation of English Universities as full upper class rich twits displays only your ignorance and your prejudice.

Your reading skills need work: I did not characterize all university students as upper class rich twits. Merely textual critics.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-07-2007, 11:53 AM	#45
Nazaroo Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 528	Oh I don't know. Lets look then at the significance of the fact that a Roman Catholic Cardinal is the head of the editing commitee for the UBS 'modern' critical edition. Or better yet, lets look into the Oxford movement in more detail: Secret History of the Oxford Movement <-- Click here for your free copy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.