Riverwind

No.

I am beginning to think, however, that he wants everyone else to prove it for him.

jgibson000

Ha! Now whatever gave you that idea?

Jeffrey

Nazaroo

Conclusions

At least one internet 'textual critic' has publicly remarked online,

And I think this is a good indicator of the state of things at this time. Recent studies have revealed previously unnoticed or poorly understood 'text-critical marks' in Codex Vaticanus (the so-called 'umlauts', because these horizontal pairs of dots in the margin resemble German pronunciation-marks.)


It really should be no surprise that Codex Sinaiticus would turn out to have similar text-critical markings, and many scholars have suspected this for years. In fact, textual critics have been quietly reversing the extreme hacking of previous generations, often replacing readings previously removed as 'interpolations'.

The simple fact is, a large number of textual critics and other scholars today suspect that the enthusiastic but over-zealous deleting and substitions of 50 to 100 years ago were simply a result of a naive and uncritical application of ancient witnesses like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, without duly appreciating the nature of these documents.

It is quite possible that textual critics have been suffering from a basic misunderstanding of how early scribes and correctors went about their business, and what the consequences of this are for textual critical methods.


The Single-Dots of Codex Sinaiticus

It appears to us that there is good evidence that the single 'DOT WITH SPACE' may have performed the same function in earlier times as the more sophisticated 'Umlauts' did in Codex Vaticanus shortly afterward.

We now think that the copyist responsible for Sinaiticus was copying a much earlier manuscript, and that his own professional technique ensured that he copied 'verbatum' what he found there. However, either he or his predecessors who copied the ancestor of his text seemed to have had a very simple but effective technique when executing a 'first pass'.

These early scribes would, whenever they noticed something they knew to be wrong (typically an accidental omission due to haplography or some similarly obvious error), they would insert a 'DOT AND SPACE' into the text, either at the point, or immediately afterward (as soon as the problem was noticed).

The scribe (or his corrector) would then be expected to take note of the spot and check an independant copy or a known 'correction-copy', and decide whether to insert the missing text in the margin.

In this way, the scribe could stay true to the text he was copying with a degree of fidelity unsurpassed, and at the same time warn future copyists of a potential problem. It would be up to the 'second-pass' man, the corrector, to apply an independant text to the question raised by the dot.

The inclusion of the dots of course would cause no immediate harm or change to the text, and if a corrector could not find anything of note at this point, he could and probably would simply ignore the dot.

This very simple system of copying would simultaneously guarantee the best fidelity to the text being copied, while flagging the most errors possible given the specialization which was developed to improve efficiency in copying.

Efficiency was needed, especially in times of persecution, to supply manuscripts, and this forced specialization, the splitting and assigning of the separate tasks of copying versus 'proofing'. Those best at copying would then be able to copy, while those best at proof-reading could practice their own talents.


Whoever developed this early 'dot-system' was brilliant. That it is perhaps the simplest and most elegant solution to the difficult problem of maintaining textual purity and efficiency seems self-evident.

jgibson000

And this "good evidence" is?

who is "we??

Is the omission of an entire pericope an error?

So why didn't he insert the PA if that's what he knew to be missing?

Who are you quoting here?

And given what is said above, doesn't the fact that the scribe added these "missing in my exemplar material" indicators mean that the exemplar that the scribe was copying from did not include the PA, thus attesting, as Metzger and others have noted, that it was not part of the earliest MSS tradition?

Moreover .. where do we find this "future" copyist, who must have known what the marks "meant", replacing the reputedly missing material?

And since the corrector did ignore the dot, doesn't that mean that he knew the PA was not a part of GJohn?

Again, why does this application of their "talents" not result in the inclusion of the PA in the MS where the dots appear or in any copies derived from it, as we would such application to do if the PA was known to proof readers to have been a part of GJohn?

And how does any of this do anything towards your providing evidence from elsewhere that dots indicate omission of whole pericopes?

So in the end --- another dodge.

JG
Whoever developed this early 'dot-system' was brilliant. That it is perhaps the simplest and most elegant solution to the difficult problem of maintaining textual purity and efficiency seems self-evident.[/QUOTE]

Nazaroo

Another premature interjection. No surprises there.


No. Its a significant and noticable variant, which was treated by the copyist according to the same strict rules he was operating under in regard to all other variants he noticed. Keep in mind this may not be the scribe of Sinaiticus, but could also be any one of the predecessors in the copying-line. Only *one* scribe need have handled the omission of the PA in this manner. But if so, then obviously at least *TWO* did, counting the copyist of Codex Vaticanus.


Because in the early 4th century it was not his job to do so. As a copyist, he was not permitted to alter the text he was copying on the first pass in any way, unless perhaps it was an obvious and easily resolved (and small) error of haplography that was already well-recognised, and which the scriptorium had a standing policy for.

It is quite plausible that there would be a list of common / known errors on the wall or on a shelf which copyists could consult when the scriptorium supervisor was on a lunchbreak.

But an omission like the PA could not be handled independantly at the discretion of a mere copyist. He just followed his orders, knowing he couldn't be faulted for standard procedure, even in an unusual case.
(What would *most* men avoiding personal responsibility do?)


No. Of course it means nothing of the kind. It only means precisely what it does: namely that an earlier exemplar was missing the verses for any number of possible reasons. And we already know this from P66 and P75. (and we might add, we already know that Aleph and B are descendants of some later copy of that text-type.)

The fact that the two closely related (from the same scriptorium) MSS Aleph and B omit the verses only means they were under the same orders or policy regarding this variant. (Namely Eusebius' direction at the possible instigation of Constantine).

The mere fact that this scriptorium copied the text and habits (including the DOT!) of the Egyptian text of P66 etc. does nothing to help us determine the authenticity or the origin of the text (except to say it probably did not originate in Egypt, unless we are talking about its omission ).

No. It might only mean he was using the same kind of Egyptian text-type as a correction-tool that the original copyist used to make Sinaiticus, which is an extremely high likelihood, since both of the MSS coming from this scriptorium have essentially the same text, even though they are obviously not made from the same exact master-copy.


Simple: At this late date (circa 330 A.D.) in this official 'establishment' professional scriptorium under the control of Eusebius/Constantine et al, they had no such freedom of choice to do anything, but follow their orders, including following the 'Alexandrian' text omitting the PA.


No one ever claimed the dots had a specific meaning, that of signifying the omission of a whole pericope. They had a preconceived use and purpose, which was simply a generic indicator of a variant reading. It was the only tool at hand with which to deal with the PA, but it would be ridiculous for you to expect me or anyone to produce multiple examples of whole pericopes left out of the Bible.

I'm sure you believe as I do that Mark 16 and John 8 are the ONLY two such cases of a significant amount of text being omitted from the Bible, unless you want to count Susanna or the Book of Enoch.

Your strawman is an unrealistic demand and an absurd one. The PA is the ONLY true pericope ever left out of a gospel. So the only place we should find the usage you are talking about is at John 7:52/8:12. And that is precisely where we find it.

matthewthomas

I don't see any good evidence that this is anything to do with textual criticism by the scribe. It could be all sorts of things.

I'd have to disagree here. The marks have all the appearance of little dots. Everything else is speculation. Perhaps the scribe was just marking his favourite bits so he could find them again easily... Who knows?

Sorry. Count me out of that 'us' group, whoever they are.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps they text critical marks. I just don't think I've seen any good evidence for that here.

Matthew

Nazaroo

Anything is possible. Of course we don't know with 100% certainty what the marks mean or meant to their originator, the copyist, or subsequent readers and copyists.

But we know from the history of classical Alexandrian scribes, and the activity of Origen (250 A.D.) and Jerome (380 A.D.) that textual criticism of a basic kind was practiced by the copyists of the early church, as far back as the 2nd century. We even have extant MSS which demonstrate this (e.g. P66, P75).

We have no evidence of any 'random' or capricious activity as suggested above. The complaints that are found by contemporaries like Jerome etc. is that 'certain' scribes abandoned their office as copyists and began practicing independant editing. But these were sporadic bursts of activity, usually under the authority of one or another religious leader who took on the task of 'correcting' the text periodically, such as Lucian etc.

Each of these 'editors' or rescensionists usually only had a limited influence over the text for a short time and in a localized area. No one had the sweeping powers as suggested for instance by MountainMan that supposedly Constantine is claimed to have exercised.

Certain readings came and went like local fads, and some popular omissions became entrenched, but there was no really significant corruption of the text for the known periods (represented by manuscripts). All corruption after the 1st or 2nd century was local, short-lived, or both.