Nazaroo

Great, lets move on then....

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

Other marks we need to recognise as independant and later additions are the 'Eusebian canons' and other marginal numberings designed for ecclesiastical use.

Like the 'Blue Squares' (DOT NO SPACE), i.e, reader's helps, these marginal markings (usually on the left side of a column) were always added later after a manuscript was copied, to prepare them for church service.


--------------------------------------------------------
That just about covers all the markings and special features of this page of
the manuscript, except for the remaining six (DOT AND SPACE) RED CIRCLES.

These are found two per column, excepting the 3rd column, and so for convenience we skip that column and move the 4th column over. Keep in mind that there is then a long paragraph (and two shorter ones) between the dots in the 2nd column and the 4th.

These, we noted previously, are the best candidates for markings that could
be plausibly and reasonably ascribed to the original copyist.

The first thing to note is that they are spaced so far apart and clustered seemingly randomly, and completely independant of recognizable paragraph or section beginnings /endings. At the same time, they are too infrequent to be standard grammatical markings.

Because the standard practice of a professional copyist on the 'first pass' is to copy verbatum everything he finds in the mastercopy (excluding obvious errors), there is strong precedent to attribute these six marks to the exemplar.

The scribe of Sinaiticus is a careful and accurate copyist, even when he
shows awareness of suspicion or error in his exemplar. This is part of the function of a 'second pass', in which corrections and notes are added by a
corrector.

All those who have studied Sinaiticus have come to similar conclusions about
quality of the original copyist. Early assessments of his 'sloppiness' or
'carelessness' were based upon a comparison of his text with that of the
Byzantine (traditional) text, without due consideration to the fact that he
was copying an earlier mastercopy complete with its errors and idiosyncrasies.

It is now widely recognized that the bulk of significant variants ('errors') in
Sinaiticus are traceable to his exemplar, which indicates the seriousness with
which he was willing to copy it, even when it made no sense.

This tendency of the original scribe of Sinaiticus to copy come hell or high-water means he is likely to have copied any marks or important variants as well, like the 'DOT AND SPACE' we see embedded in the text.

This may also explain why he only copies two colons, even though logic would dictate he copy three. If there was a missing colon in his mastercopy, his work-ethic may have caused him to reproduce the missing colon also.


Lets now look at the final six marks in isolation, and their position on the page:

Nazaroo

Examining the "DOT AND SPACE":


Lo and behold, when we come to examine the remaining six dots, which stand out by virtue of rather certainly being from the hand of the original scribe, we find just what Riverwind was demanding: each represents a serious and significant textual variant in the verse so marked.

-------------------------------
DOT 1: Obviously, the omission of 7:53-8:11, duly noted by the original scribe or his exemplar.

--------------------------------
DOT 2: (8:16 - line 42) - There are actually two serious variants here, both noted by the critical apparatus of UBS for instance, and one not so noted.

a) the contraction of kai ean to kan by Sinaiticus.

b) the substitution of alhqhV for alhqinh (incorrectly reported by UBS).

c) the omission of pathr by Aleph, along with codex D and the Syriac!

Given the ancient age of these variants and their diverse support, it is quite plausible that they were known and noted by Sinaiticus or his exemplar.

-------------------------------------------------------
DOT 3: (8:20 - column2 line 22) - the omission of a whole clause(!):

didaskwn en tw ierw .

This looks like an omission by haplography (similar ending to previous line), and would quite reasonably be marked for notice by the copyist.


-------------------------------------------------------
DOT 4: (8:21 - column 2 line 29) - again several variants all
in the same verse:

a) substitution of elegen for eipen .

b) omission of palin .

c) substitution of verb forms zhthsetai , dunasqai .

Enough serious variation in one verse to merit a DOT by the copyist once again.

------------------------------------
DOT 5: (8:34b/35a - column 4 line 16) - again an interesting variant:

Aleph has thV amartiaV, whereas Codex D, Italian, Coptic, Syriac MSS as well as Clement, Cyprian, Faustus and Gregory omit this phrase. It is plainly a very ancient reading, as is its variant.

Our verse numbers are of course modern divisions of the text, but the close proximity of the inclusion prior to the DOT shows its placement to be precisely similar in style as the others.

But the BIG eye-opener is the omission by Aleph of another whole clause, undocumented by UBS, right at the position of the DOT:

o uioV menei eiV ton aiwna.

This again is an incredibly significant error by haplography, duly marked by either the original scribe or the scribe of the master-copy he is following.

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

Nazaroo

Gibson complained about a lack of previous critics supporting our statements, so it is instructive to turn to Tischendorf, the principal editor of the famous Codex Sinaiticus, who created a special typefont in order to print an accurate and detailed facsimile of the manuscript (before there was reliable photographic methods).

Tischendorf, acknowledged world-wide as the person most familiar and knowledgeable about the manuscript, showed his critical judgement in
his decisions as to what markings to include and what to ignore as spurious,
in his careful printing.

And remarkably, Tishchendorf's judgment coincides almost identically with ours.

He also felt it only appropriate to include SIX single dots in his facsimile,
the same ones as ours, excepting one difference. He dismissed our DOT 3
as spurious, but included the DOT at the end of column 1 line 19.

We have marked this dot below. We are not claiming that Tischendorf necessarily agreed with our interpretation of the dots, or was even aware
of their potential meaning as text-critical marks.

However, as one of the few men who personally examined the manuscript
for many man-hours, we trust his judgement that these dots and only these,
were convincing to him as by the hand of the original scribe.

We may also note in passing that many of what appear to be 'dots' on the mediocre quality photos were in fact easily decipherable by Tischendorf as LETTERS completing or embellishing
a word, and correcting simple errors and omissions of single letters and/or endings.

Here is Tischendorf's printed version below (2 columns at a time):

Columns I and II:




Columns III and IV:

Nazaroo

Final Variant:

-------------------------------
DOT 6: (8:38 - column 4 line 30) - another complex variant

Here Sinaiticus reads:

a ego ewraka para tw patri MOU lalw (no punctuation dot here as in critical text)
kai umis (sp) oun a EWRAKATE (P66, D etc.) para tou patroV UMWN poieita (SPACE AND DOT HERE).

Unusual added words are capitalized.

Here the text, besides being much fuller (modifiers for 'Father'), agrees with the 2nd century P66 and D against both the majority of MSS and the critical text too.

That this place was recognized as a textual variant is shown by the attempt at a partial correction in the margin by a later (but still early) hand.

Another important and obviously very early Egyptian variant has been flagged by someone. Of note is the fact that the text is wordier overall, indicating that the original text is not always shorter, even in Alexandria.




kai

jgibson000

It is by no means obvious that this is what the scribe or exemplar is noting with these marks. And it won't be obvious until you show us that there are dots at places where whole pericopes, not minor textual variants, otherwise known to have appeared where the dots are.


Etc.

But are there textual variants in the parallels in other MSS to the lines in this MS where there are no dots?

JG

jgibson000

Umm .. I did no such thing. All I've done is to ask if there were any textual critics who agreed with you with regard to your claim about the significance of the dots in Sinaiticus that no one doubts or disputes are where you point them out to be.

If you know of a place where I did what you say I did, please point it out to me.

More importantly, let's note that what you've done in 4439072 -- producing material that shows where dots are -- is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

The question was never: Can you produce evidence that there are dots in MSS?

It is and always was: Can you support your claim about what those dots signify -- i.e., a signal of the omission by the scribe who made the dots of whole pericopes that were known to the scribe making the dots as actually belonging in the place where he made the dots?

So far you've produced absolutely nothing that shows your claim as having any merit whatsoever, let alone as being true.

JG

Nazaroo

Just saying it doesn't make it so. Readers can judge for themselves the merits of the evidence and weigh it without your 'guidance'.

The fact is, the marks have all the appearance of being text-critical markings. Until you can produce a more plausible alternate theory, this is the one that is going to have to remain the working hypothesis.

jgibson000

So far as I can tell, I don't think I've ever denied that the dots have "the appearance of texts critical makings".

But again, that's not, nor has it ever been, the issue. The issue is whether the dots ever signify the omission of pericopes, as you claim they do, and whether you have evidence to back up this claim.

And if I'm reading correctly what judgment the readers of this thread have come to so far concerning whether you've ever provided any evidence for this claim and whether your case has any merit, it is an entirely negative one.

What's more, it's interesting to note that your message above, in which once again you dodge the issue, provides them with another reason for saying that they are correct in their judgment.

Of course, I could be wrong in my estimation of this. So let me ask those who are still reading this thread:

Do you think that "Nazaroo" has actually provided any evidence in support of his specific claim that at least some of the "text critical" dots he points us to are intentional scribal markers that a scribe used to indicate the omission of pericopes that the scribe making the dots knew or thought belonged where he placed his marks?

JG

Ben C Smith

If the analysis of dot 2 is typical of the other dots, I would have to say no:

He here gives us three textual variants of varying weights in this one verse, but fails to mention that the dot in this verse does not appear at the spot where any of them would fall.

I have not checked the rest of the dots he explains. Are they similar to this, falling somewhere in the verse but not where the variants are?

Ben.

jgibson000

"Nazaroo" has also failed to tell us -- despite my asking him to do so -- whether there are known textual variants to lines in Sinaiticus where no scribe has placed any dots. If there are, then the case that the dots indicate known variants crumbles.

Jeffrey