Nazaroo

here is a photo of the first page of John from P75 (the only photo I can find on the net):



As you can see, there are also 'dot and space' marks on this page. The edges give a good indication of the deterioration of the manuscript on outer page edges, and the potential for vertical cracks (as in page 57 above).

Note however, that the center of the page is in good shape, as it was not exposed to the environment in the same way, nor did it suffer undue wear from peculiar handling.


Here is a close up of the 'dot and space' markings for John 1:1-8 in P75:



The first an most obvious thing is that the dots now appear to be functioning as public reading pauses, or breathing stops. They are still not sentences. The first 'verse' contains at least two, and likewise the second 'verse' (created by the division of text from the dots).

The true sentence stop for the second dot should be sooner:

"This one was in the beginning with God. (true period falls here)
All things through Him were created,
and without Him was created nothing in (DOT) the whole creation.(true period here)
In Him was life, and the life was the Light of Men. (another period missed)"

The second dot is badly misplaced, breaking up the last clause, and mistakenly attaching the last phrase to the following verse, where it makes no real sense.

Thus the 'dot and space' may be functioning as 'verse' markers in this manuscript. But this hardly affects our thesis. In fact it creates an even bigger problem for those waving P75 about as an 'early' witness.

From this rather advanced 'versification' of the text, it is likely that the manuscript has been dated too early. In fact, it is probably a 3rd century manuscript. Both its good condition and these relatively 'modern' markings betray a much later date than the one its promoters have sought for it based upon the paleography of the scribe.

Riverwind

Not getting off that easy... I don't think Gibson is gonna let you off that easy either.

The "umlauts" that Willker has reasearched are found in Codex Vaticanus and refer to the "umlaut"-looking marks (ie. two dots found together that look like an umlaut).

This does not explain, or back up, any of the claims you've made with respect to the single dots found (all throughout) the more ancient manuscripts, which happen to be punctuation marks (ie. "periods").

This is one of my favorite arguments. If no one supports your unique views, just claim you are doing original and "cutting-edge" research. Not!

Fine. Offer them up.

Huh? No sematic games here. What you are noticing are punctuation marks (with the possible exception of the so-called "umlauts" in Codex Vaticanus).

Fine. Don't call them "periods" if you don't want to. Nowhere have I said they are "modern periods", but they do function somewhat similarly, and you seem to understand the concept.

I think you are caught and are trying to wriggle out of the problem. It is ok that you apparently didn't notice that they are all throughout the documents you are looking at, but now you know, so just admit it and be done with it.

If you don't think that these single dots represent the end of coherent streams of thought or places where a reader should breath/break (hmmm...what is the function of a "modern period' anyway??), then you are fooling yourself.

Go ahead and examine each one of those single dots and notice how they line up with "modern periods"...

I KNOW!! However, what you don't seem to understand is why those dots were placed there in the first place! In Comfort and Barrett's book, they make note of scribal marks in the text (w/ double brackets) and explain them in the margins. Why didn't they specifically note the one dot that you happened to pick out amongst all the other similar dots?

BECAUSE IT IS A COMMON PERIOD....

Riverwind

Sorry, but this is "hare-brained".

What the heck is the difference between a "dot and space" and a "dot", pray tell?

If you don't recognize this as a very familiar punctuation "difficulty" in the field of textual criticism that causes differences in modern translations, then you really should not be talking about this stuff (but then that was already proven by the talk of deliberately defaced manuscripts and one common "dot and space" scribal mark somehow being different that all the other puntuation dots).

I honestly do not understand how someone can study so much and not see the obvious. Just go look at Metzger's MSS, Thompson's Intro, Kenyon's, and other reputable sources and they will explain that you are wrong.

Oooops. Wait, I forgot, you're doing "cutting-edge" research, so they are all wrong and you are the only one in 2,000 years to figure it all out. :banghead:

Nazaroo

Good. We can move on then.

I'll keep presenting reasonable evidence, and you can do the critiquing.

Nazaroo

You are correct that this misplacement in punctuation has been followed in some modern (Roman Catholic) translations which follow the Westcott/Hort Greek critical text (1886) for the Revised Version.

But its clownish mistakes like this that make modern translations a laughingstock of serious analysis of the Greek text.


But this is just one of many obvious blunders in the text where Hort slavishly follows Codex Vaticanus (and here also P75).

It has long been recognized that P75 and Vaticanus are closely related - another reason to re-date P75 as late 3rd century at the earliest.

Here Vaticanus has copied again one of the many mistakes that were made in the original archtype behind P75, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

I wouldn't use anything Metzger has done to so much as wipe my ass.

If you think he's a 'reputable source' you need to increase your own reading skills.

Riverwind

No, we cannot because you still have provided absolutely ZERO evidence for your claim about the single dot or "dot and space" (whatever that is) as being some sort of text critical scribal notation. As has been pointed out, Willker's "umlauts" refer to two dots and to something unique in Codex Vaticanus. We on the other hand, are asking for support for your claim of the single dot, specifically this one (as somehow unique from all the others), being a text critical notation.

Are you going to respond or dodge for the Nth time?

Nazaroo

Nobody is dodging on THIS side of the issue.

I'm the one who is providing all the photos and evidence, and analysis. Nobody else has offered anything at all worth a shit.

Why don't YOU go look at the photos and fascimile of Codex Sinaiticus which I clearly posted?

That is all the evidence anyone should need that the 'dot and space' was used to indicate textual variants. If photos of codex Sinaiticus and the opinion of Tischendorf aren't good enough for you, this is a waste of time.

But if this is just another case of "I'm just barging in too late in the thread to know what has been already hashed out, but I have all these questions...",

then why don't you just take a minute (or twenty minutes) to read carefully through the whole thread before blurting out this kind of nonsense?

Riverwind

P66, P75, and Sinaiticus all have the common single dot scribal punctuation.

Vaticanus is the only manuscript that allows your argumentation to bear any weight at all, and that is only due to Willker's interpretation of the so-called "umlauts".

If you can't beat 'em, smear 'em. Another common tactic of those who can't get around the obvious.

What book am I referring to? Do you even know of it? Are you familiar with Thompson? What about Kenyon?

Reading skills...bah...try working on reading comprehension. :wave:

jgibson000

But you have have not given me any evidence whatsoever. What you have presented me with is data which you have interpreted in a particular way.

When I ask for evidence, I'm asking you to produce something that shows that your interpretation of the data is valid, or at least worthy of consideration.

And what is that something? It would be the replication of what you say is going on in P 66 -- that is to say, the appearance in a MS of a dot at a place in that MS where we know with certainty that a given pericope belongs but which is absent at the place in that MS where that MS copyist has placed a dot.

Can you point us to any examples of this?

If you cannot, then you are obliged as the scientist you claim to be to admit that there is no evidence that supports your interpretation and that in the absence of confirmatory evidence, there is no good reason that anyone should accept what you say the dot represents.

JG

Riverwind

Now, above, you first mention the "marks" in both P66 and P75. Then, you go on to associate them (on what basis no one knows) with the "umlauts" analyzed by Willker. And by bringing up Willker's "recent" analysis of "umlauts" in Codex Vaticanus, you seem to imply that this is somehow support for your theory of the "dot and space" (yeah...define this "space" for me, please), which it is not. And I doubt very much that Willker (who is not a scholar in the field of textual criticism anyway, though he is a well-respected and involved layman) would agree with you.

PLEASE ANSWER:

(1) So again, where is the support for the claim that these "dot and space" thingys are scribal text critical notations?

(2) How do you define the "space" in the "dot and space"?

(3) How does one distinguish between a regular punctuation dot (and space) and your text critical "dot and space"?

P.S. - This line of argumentation sounds just like RISA