Riverwind

Nazaroo says that there are critical marks in p66, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus that indicate the knowledge of those scribes that there was a John 8:1-11. I don't want to argue whether John 8:1-11 was really there or not. I want to address these critical marks again.

I will give him the "umlauts" in Vaticanus as possible text critical marks, but I disagree that the marks in p66 and Sinaiticus are text critical marks that denote that John 8:1-11 was known. The reason I disagree is that, in spite of the fact that Nazaroo's image did not show any of the other marks, the marks that he mentions are found all throughout the text of both p66 and Sinaiticus, not just in areas that would mark textual variations.

So, I guess my question to Nazaroo would be, "Can you present one of the other marks and explain how it is a textual variation, or if it is not a textual varation what it is and how one can tell the difference (ie. when the marks do or do not represent a text critical note)?" I assume that you want to be honest in your presentation and not misrepresent material simply to bolster your points, so I would request that you explain these marks in general and perhaps quote a scholar who happens to agree with your point of view. Thanks.

Nazaroo

Thanks to Riverwind, for creating a special thread for this question.

I would begin by re-posting the relevant photographs, and the discussion already covered so far:



Here is the page, with John 7:52 ending at the top, and John 8:12 beginning near the end of line 2 just after the 'space and dot'.

Nazaroo

Next we can post the entire page:

From a simple examination, we find there are actually three similar dots on this page, and some other diacritical and punctuation-marks which we can examine in more detail.

Nazaroo

Just to show that we are not 'inventing' these observations, I am also posting the printed text from the Principal Edition of this manuscript. All I have done here is highlight the dots of interest for easy locating:

Nazaroo

For simple contrast, and to provide an example of the later (and for a short period of time a standard) use of the 'space and dot', I am also posting the first part of John's gospel from a different manuscript, P75.

In this manuscript (P75) the use of the 'space and dot' is not really in any dispute. It is both explicable and rather tame: The marks do NOT really indicate ordinary punctuation here either, but conform very closely to modern 'verse' divisions (!). - which is another reason to date P75 much later than it has been, as a 3rd century document and not a 2nd century one.

It is already conceded that P75 is at least 50, possibly 100 years 'newer' than P66, the document under our main investigation:

Nazaroo

To clear the way of any other distractions, we can first examine and eliminate from consideration the *other* marks on the keypage of P66:

This scribe is sloppy with contractions (as in line 6: all' ). In fact this scribe shows no concern even for the division of words, preferring to fill up each line with letters rather than end lines on a word. In Line 17 for instance, leaves half the word oudena ( on the previous line just before the last Space and Dot.

The special Space and Dot mark is not a breathing mark, or a grammatical or punctuation mark. In both other cases (line 12 and 17), this mark improperly divides two sentences, while the correct end of sentence is left to run on, as do sentences elsewhere on the page:

Line 12:
kan egw marturw peri emautou alhqhV estin h marturia
mou (dot) oti oida poqen hlqon kai pou upagw. (sentence end)
"Even though I witness of Myself my witness is true
since I know where I came from and where I go." (Jn 8:14b)

Line 17:
umeiV kata thn sarka krinetai. egw ou krinw oudena (dot) kai ean krinw de egw h krisiV h emh alhqhV estin oti...
"You judge according to the flesh. (sentence end)
I don't judge anyone, but if I were to judge my judgement would be true,
since..." (Jn 8:15-16)

In both cases, the Space and Dot split up the compound sentences unnaturally, breaking the line of thought in each sentence. Taken along with the failure to mark the true end of the sentence this simply confounds the argument in favour of some kind of 'punctuation mark'.

In these last two cases however, the connection of the Space and Dot to known textual variants is naturally hampered. Although there are variants nearby, the mark should naturally refer to what precedes it, either the word or phrase, and here we have nothing obvious in a typical critical apparatus. The bigger problem is of course that this is the oldest and the only MS to compare to. Only searching quotations of Early fathers might turn up a match. (a critical apparatus will only show the variants of extant MSS, mostly centuries newer than this, the earliest known copy of John).

But a more plausible connection is right in front of us: We have the omitted Pericope de Adultera, duly marked, and two strongly related clauses, also clearly marked:

Pericope de Adultera (dot 1) => omitted

"My Witness is true!" (dot 2) => John 8:7

"I judge no one!" (dot 3) => John 8:11

Even if the scribe of P66 himself isn't trying to tell us something, he may have accidentally copied the partial notes of the previous scribe from his exemplar.

Even though we lack a complete explanation for the dots, they appear to be strong evidence that the scribe of P66 himself or the scribe of his exemplar had knowledge of the Pericope de Adultera.

Nazaroo

In summary then, for the case of P66, there is no convincing case that the 'space and dot' is performing any kind of grammatical or 'breathing/stop' function.

Although each of the three dots does fall at the end of a clause, dozens of clauses (most) are not so marked, and this appears to be a mere coincidence, or simply the most convenient place for the dot in its original function.

The scribe seems however to be following and copying the dots from his exemplar, and the reason for believing this is that he includes them inside the text in the first pass. We already know that the exemplar had a different number of letters per line than the surviving copy. The 'space and dot' may have fallen in the margin on the original master-copy our scribe used.

Since P66 does NOT use the 'space and dot' in the same way as P75 does (as a verse division), P75 cannot give us any guidance as to what P66 or his mastercopy is doing. All we really know is that P66 came first, being 50-100 years older than P75. This means that the *original* use or meaning of the dots is more likely to be found with P66 than P75.

Nazaroo

Next we may turn to Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest known copy of the entire Bible. If this much later (early 4th century) manuscript used the marks in the same manner as P75, then it wouldn't be of much help.

However, the peculiar thing about Codex Sinaiticus is that it indeed seems to use the 'space and dot' in the same way as P66, and NOT as a verse-divider like P75 or later MSS.

This coincidentally is strong evidence for the idea that Codex Sinaiticus is a copy of a much older manuscript itself, reaching back to the time when the 'space and dot' had this older more primitive function (the time of P66).

First, lets have a look at Codex Sinaiticus:

Here again, the 'Space and Dot' appears in exactly the same spot: the place where John 7:53-8:11 would have appeared.

Nazaroo

The 'Space and Dot' is even rarer in Codex Sinaiticus than it is in P66.

To show that we are not simply exaggerating this or ignoring other marks, we can consult the Principal Editor of this manuscript, Tischendorf:

Here Tischendorf carefully notes the 'Space and Dot' for John 7:53-8:11 and puts it in the published transcription. Also evident is Tishendorf's refusal to give dots added by a second hand or subsequent corrector the same status.

Riverwind

You have established that there area dots. Two issues that I'd like to see directly addressed to:

(1) Please address what the marks mean in the other instances in which they are used in both p66 (there are more than just the three on that one page) and Sinaiticus (where there are also more of those marks throughout the manuscript).

(2) Please present your criteria for deciding what constitutes a "dot and space" as opposed to a "space and dot" or a "space dot space" or a "no space dot no space" (ie. how much space constitutes a space?).

Does anyone else care, or should I just shut up? I find it interesting, but I can't figure out why the dot pointed to by Nazaroo necessarily means that it is a text critical note (what proves this? can it be admitted that it is merely speculation?)