Riverwind

Unless you can directly answer the questions asked (no, you know you haven't), then yes, I guess we are sadly done...

Sauron

Why?

What makes it a later addition, vs being from the hand of the original scribe?

You mention "methodologically elimination". What methodology?

Nazaroo

Fair question:

Its not that it IS necessarily by the hand of another scribe, but simply that we can't verify that a correction is by the hand of the original scribe. And that means that we have to be skeptical and give dots added later secondary status and weight.

We simply can't establish whether a simple dot added later to the text was added in 320 A.D. or 1500 A.D., and that means its useless for a discussion of original readings.

Sauron

But how do you know that it was added later in the first place?
That's the methodology I'm asking about.

Nazaroo

Oh yeah. We're done <edit>

Nazaroo

We don't. But scientific method requires that we don't rely upon 'evidence' that cannot be substantiated.

Imagine if we did.

Let's say you write me a cheque for $100.

And I add two more zeroes to it.

Obviously the bank (if its on the ball) will say "No." This looks like it was added, so you'll have to get the original signer's initial or autograph to confirm the change.

Otherwise any idiot could empty your bankaccount without a legitimate mandate.

Sauron

Still not with you here; your bank check example isn't helping. Let me start over to make sure:

1. You claim there are two sets of dots:

(a) those from the original scribe, and
(b) those added later - maybe a few years later, or maybe centuries later. Whatever.

2. You claim to be able to tell the difference in this picture, as to which kind of dots these are.

How are you doing that?

Nazaroo

The key is the SPACE. Did the scribe allow a space for the dot, or was the dot crammed in later, and can we see that if the dot is removed, there is no leftover space.

While the lack of a discernable space doesn't "prove" the dot is NOT original, there is no evidence that the dot IS original without the space.

Sauron

But that doesn't seem to work.

True or false: the lack of a discernable space is insufficient to prove the dot is a later addition. It might *still* be original.

If so, then original dots can appear with, or without, a discernable space. Spacing cannot be used to detect original dots vs. later additions.

Nazaroo

It works quite well. and for your checks too.

If the two extra zeros look like they've been crammed into a space that the original cheque-writer didn't allow room for, the bank assumes the check has been tampered with.

It may not have been tampered with, but the bank puts its money on the original handwriting, color of pen, and fluiditiy and coherence and planning of the execution of the writing on the cheque.

Sure, you could have added the extra zeroes yourself as an afterthought, but if you are in your right mind, you don't want any bank to cash that cheque anyway. You want to rip it up and start again, and if you don't, you still want the bank to.


You keep putting it backwards. We use what can be established with certainty, and if there is enough GOOD evidence that we can establish some kind of probability for the rest, great, we can account for that too.

Lets try a different example, since you are so bad at understanding cheques and how banks work.

Suppose your ex-girlfriend (or your bosses wife) accuses you of fathering her child.

Are you just going to go "Okay, that must be mine." because you can't PROVE it isn't? Aren't paternity suits ruled the other way around? Don't you want her to prove it really is your child first, before granting the child status as your heir?