Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Sinaiticus' Scribes and the Metobelus

Expand Messages
  • George Young
    Dear James Snapp: ... Not really. My gut feeling is that some contemporary textual critics ignore the critical signs in the ancient MSS saying, they are all
    Message 1 of 17 , May 13, 2006
      Dear James Snapp:

      You wrote:

      > When one observes that at Mark 16:6 a metobelus is
      > both in the
      > margin, and in the text where the missing phrase
      > belongs, it's
      > obvious that the metobelus is being used in a
      > capacity beyond what an
      > obelus meant in the Hexapla. This is even more
      > obvious when we
      > consider the instances in Matthew where the
      > metobelus is used.

      Not really. My gut feeling is that some contemporary
      textual critics ignore the critical signs in the
      ancient MSS saying, "they are all additions anyway."

      > The same use of the [obelus]
      > mark is made
      > in Vaticanus, too, btw -- for instance in Matthew
      > 25:40, where the
      > phrase "adelfwn mou twn" is missing in the text (due
      > to
      > parablepsis). The notion of a "textual exorcism"
      > doesn't work very
      > well there.

      Actually, I had a look at the place in Matthew, but
      I'm not convinced that its a Metobelus. Compare the
      Metobelus seen at the home page for textual criticism:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/

      Here you will see a good example of the Metobelus in
      Vaticanus.

      > It is interesting that in Mark 1:24, IHSOU is
      > uncontracted in B. But
      > that's about all it is.

      I reiterate what was said by another on this list that
      its too bad there is no scholarship on this
      phenomenon.

      > In Vaticanus, there is also in the left margin
      > two verticle
      > dots (the Umlates), and in the right margin one dot,
      > and between the
      > dots the words "HLQESAPOLESAI HMAS".

      What links both instances of the uncontracted form of
      the Sacred Name in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus is the
      name NAZARHNOS. Furthermore, in the Gospel of Mark it
      appears as though only the *enemies of Jesus* call him
      by this name.

      One other thing. To answer your question about the
      dimple marks in the Gospel of Mark, I have looked at
      them carefully, and my tentative conclusion is that
      the dimple marks are placed beside a line of text that
      has more than one reading. I have provided three
      examples of this phenomenon at:

      http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/

      Thank you for your comments.

      Sincerely,

      Webber Young.


      **************************************



      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • gfsomsel@juno.com
      I was looking at your three examples and had the thought that these dimple marks seem to serve a similar purpose to our hyphen. In the 2nd and 3rd examples
      Message 2 of 17 , May 14, 2006

        I was looking at your three examples and had the thought that these dimple marks seem to serve a similar purpose to our hyphen.  In the 2nd and 3rd examples this seems quite logical

        2.  XITW-

        NA

        3. KATE-

        KRINAN

        This doesn't seem to work in quite the same way for example 1.  There could probably be no confusion regarding the association here

        1. KAI OYESQE TON-

        hUION TOU ANQRWPOU

        Nevertheless, the TON would be construed with hUION.


        george
        gfsomsel
        _________

        -- George Young <webber_young@...> wrote:

        One other thing.  To answer your question about the
        dimple marks in the Gospel of Mark, I have looked at
        them carefully, and my tentative conclusion is that
        the dimple marks are placed beside a line of text that
        has more than one reading.  I have provided three
        examples of this phenomenon at:

        http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/

        Thank you for your comments.

        Sincerely,

        Webber Young.

         

      • George Young
        Dear George: It seems to me there are several possibilities, including some association to our hyphen. However, my initial take on the dimple marks is as
        Message 3 of 17 , May 14, 2006
          Dear George:

          It seems to me there are several possibilities,
          including some association to our hyphen. However, my
          initial take on the dimple marks is as follows:

          1. It probably doesn't function in the same way as
          the asterisk.

          2. Similarly, it probably doesn't function in the
          same way as the metobelus.

          3. It does seem to signal something with the line or
          lines among which it is placed.

          4. It seems very probable that the scribe is
          manipulating the text, both in which the dimple mark
          is written and the surrounding lines. I.e., he is
          lining up the characters in such a way as to "inflect"
          meaning. Perhaps phonetic (if the text is being read
          out loud), and/or graphic (if the text is being read),
          or some combination between the two.

          5. If the previous point carries any probability,
          then the dimple mark might be understood as either (a)
          a cautionary sign warning the reader to read
          correctly, or (b) a marker to prod the read to seek
          more meaning from the line(s).

          I have looked at several of the other instances in the
          Gospel of Mark, and there does seem to be *both*
          phonetic and graphic implications to the signs. Still
          more, in Mark 14:63 you have a ptcp. (nom. case)
          working with an acc. noun. You can view the image at:


          http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/

          Why the discord in grammar? Surely the scribe would
          have seen this, which does seem tied to the dimple
          mark. The scripture at this juncture seems to invite
          further reading. Yet, in this example, to find
          further meaning one must read "the son" in contracted
          form. Moreover, the context of the dimple marks is,
          of course, the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of
          Jesus. My hunch is that the context has a bearing
          upon the appearance of the dimple marks too. Any
          speculation you might have regarding the dimple marks
          I would greatly welcome.

          Sincerely,

          Webber Young.



          --- "gfsomsel@..." <gfsomsel@...> wrote:

          > I was looking at your three examples and had the
          > thought that these dimple marks seem to serve a
          > similar purpose to our hyphen. In the 2nd and 3rd
          > examples this seems quite logical
          > 2. XITW-
          > NA
          > 3. KATE-
          > KRINAN
          > This doesn't seem to work in quite the same way for
          > example 1. There could probably be no confusion
          > regarding the association here
          > 1. KAI OYESQE TON-
          > hUION TOU ANQRWPOU
          > Nevertheless, the TON would be construed with hUION.
          >
          >
          > george
          > gfsomsel
          > _________
          >
          > -- George Young <webber_young@...> wrote:
          >
          > One other thing. To answer your question about the
          > dimple marks in the Gospel of Mark, I have looked at
          > them carefully, and my tentative conclusion is that
          > the dimple marks are placed beside a line of text
          > that
          > has more than one reading. I have provided three
          > examples of this phenomenon at:
          >
          > http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/
          >
          > Thank you for your comments.
          >
          > Sincerely,
          >
          > Webber Young.
          >
          >



          **************************************



          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        • James Snapp, Jr.
          Dear George Y., The arrowhead-mark is usually called diple, not dimple. The can serve a couple of purposes: (a) to fill space. This is how the
          Message 4 of 17 , May 16, 2006
            Dear George Y.,

            The arrowhead-mark is usually called "diple," not "dimple."

            The ">" can serve a couple of purposes:

            (a) to fill space. This is how the diorthotes of Aleph used it.

            (b) to indicate the presence of quotations from the OT. (In this
            capacity it may be accompanied with a "<" mark, so as to enclose both
            sides of a column.)

            If you consider how the > is consistently used by the diorthotes of
            Aleph -- i.e., if you look for one explanation which explains its
            presence wherever it shows up in Aleph -- I think it should be clear
            that ">" is -- as Lake said -- merely a space-filler. And that's
            that.

            This does raise an interesting question, though: why would a
            diorthotes, or any scribe, feel the need to fill space? Here we may
            be in the realm of speculation. My own guess is that this diorthotes
            had seen, somewhere, sometime, a MS in which the scribe had left
            blank spaces at the ends of lines, in which a "corrector" had added
            embellishments. And so he added the >'s to prevent that sort of
            thing.

            Yours in Christ,

            James Snapp, Jr.
            Curtisville Christian Church
            Elwood, Indiana (USA)
            www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
          • George F. Somsel
            Webber, It might have been wiser if I had consulted Tischendorf previously rather than speculating regarding the use of the dipple mark. Here is what little
            Message 5 of 17 , May 18, 2006
              Webber,

              It might have been wiser if I had consulted Tischendorf previously
              rather than speculating regarding the use of the "dipple" mark. Here
              is what little he has to say on the subject. I imagine it should be
              verified though I should think he knew whereof he spoke.

              " signum in margine indicat ea quae ex Vetere Testamento citantur"

              It would be advisable therefore to see if in each case an OT
              quotation is marked by this.

              george
              gfsomsel
              _________

              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, George Young
              <webber_young@...> wrote:
              >
              > Dear George:
              >
              > It seems to me there are several possibilities,
              > including some association to our hyphen. However, my
              > initial take on the dimple marks is as follows:
              >
              > 1. It probably doesn't function in the same way as
              > the asterisk.
              >
              > 2. Similarly, it probably doesn't function in the
              > same way as the metobelus.
              >
              > 3. It does seem to signal something with the line or
              > lines among which it is placed.
              >
              > 4. It seems very probable that the scribe is
              > manipulating the text, both in which the dimple mark
              > is written and the surrounding lines. I.e., he is
              > lining up the characters in such a way as to "inflect"
              > meaning. Perhaps phonetic (if the text is being read
              > out loud), and/or graphic (if the text is being read),
              > or some combination between the two.
              >
              > 5. If the previous point carries any probability,
              > then the dimple mark might be understood as either (a)
              > a cautionary sign warning the reader to read
              > correctly, or (b) a marker to prod the read to seek
              > more meaning from the line(s).
              >
              > I have looked at several of the other instances in the
              > Gospel of Mark, and there does seem to be *both*
              > phonetic and graphic implications to the signs. Still
              > more, in Mark 14:63 you have a ptcp. (nom. case)
              > working with an acc. noun. You can view the image at:
              >
              >
              > http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/
              >
              > Why the discord in grammar? Surely the scribe would
              > have seen this, which does seem tied to the dimple
              > mark. The scripture at this juncture seems to invite
              > further reading. Yet, in this example, to find
              > further meaning one must read "the son" in contracted
              > form. Moreover, the context of the dimple marks is,
              > of course, the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of
              > Jesus. My hunch is that the context has a bearing
              > upon the appearance of the dimple marks too. Any
              > speculation you might have regarding the dimple marks
              > I would greatly welcome.
              >
              > Sincerely,
              >
              > Webber Young.
              >
              >
              >
              > --- "gfsomsel@..." <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
              >
              > > I was looking at your three examples and had the
              > > thought that these dimple marks seem to serve a
              > > similar purpose to our hyphen. In the 2nd and 3rd
              > > examples this seems quite logical
              > > 2. XITW-
              > > NA
              > > 3. KATE-
              > > KRINAN
              > > This doesn't seem to work in quite the same way for
              > > example 1. There could probably be no confusion
              > > regarding the association here
              > > 1. KAI OYESQE TON-
              > > hUION TOU ANQRWPOU
              > > Nevertheless, the TON would be construed with hUION.
              > >
              > >
              > > george
              > > gfsomsel
              > > _________
              > >
              > > -- George Young <webber_young@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > One other thing. To answer your question about the
              > > dimple marks in the Gospel of Mark, I have looked at
              > > them carefully, and my tentative conclusion is that
              > > the dimple marks are placed beside a line of text
              > > that
              > > has more than one reading. I have provided three
              > > examples of this phenomenon at:
              > >
              > > http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/
              > >
              > > Thank you for your comments.
              > >
              > > Sincerely,
              > >
              > > Webber Young.
              > >
              > >
            • George Young
              Dear James Snapp: I was unaware that diple was the scholarly term used for these strange marks. Critical terms are important and do carry and convey meaning
              Message 6 of 17 , May 19, 2006
                Dear James Snapp:

                I was unaware that "diple" was the scholarly term used
                for these strange marks. Critical terms are important
                and do carry and convey meaning in debate. However, I
                am going to rename these marks *dimples* for the
                following reasons:

                1. The word "diple" or "dipple" does not exist in the
                English language, nor does it have any Latin or Greek
                root.

                2. However, the word "dimple" does exist is the
                English language and we know what it means.

                3. Moreover, Codex Sinaiticus was written upon
                *skins* of Antelopes, hence *dimple* seems more
                appropriate because, not only do they looks like
                dimples, but dimples appear upon the surface of the
                skin. Moreover, they are features that are usually
                admired by others.

                With respect to the use of the dimple sign in the
                Gospel of Mark and elsewhere, filling space does not
                seem to explain the use of the sign. Indeed, the more
                I look at its use in the trial, crucifixion and
                resurrection account in the Gospel of Mark, the more I
                am intrigued by its appearance (ch.14ff). Observe, for
                instance, that the dimple sign appears 60 times in
                this section of the Gospel. Previously I had given
                examples of how the sign might indicate anagrams in
                the line(s) to which it is placed.

                However, perhaps I need to back up for a moment in my
                discussion. One needs to acknowledge the *culture* of
                Sinaiticus' Scribes in order to fully appreciate how
                they viewed their own vocation and work to which they
                applied themselves. In other words, the vellum, the
                page, the leaves of the codex were viewed as sacred
                space, upon which the scribe would write the Sacred
                Signs, the Hieroglyphic Message. That the text of the
                Gospel is more than linear is evident from the many
                logograms throughout Sinaiticus. Even more
                interesting, though, is the fact that logograms
                (pictograms?), even the face of the text itself at
                times conveys/corresponds to the Message. See for
                example the image at:

                http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/

                The Scribes would have probably seen themselves at
                part of a much older lineage, perhaps even associating
                themselves with the "Wisemen," the MAGOI of old.
                Hence, they would have acquired various signs and
                symbols that meant something to them, but to us they
                are hieroglyphic - they are hard to read and
                understand. Furthermore, it is helpful to keep in
                mind too that when this document was written it comes
                at the end of a long line of martyrs (ca. 250 years).
                Secret signs, symbols and so forth were a part of this
                early Christian culture. We see evidence of this in
                Sinaiticus.

                Still more, the fidelity to the ancient Scripture, and
                in the case of the ending chapters of Mark, is of
                utmost importance to the scribe. For example, have
                you noticed that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus
                end ***exactly*** the same way? Have you noticed that
                many lines in both codices end exactly the same, some
                of which have a dimple mark? The discussion spills
                over into many areas, but I point this out simply to
                indicate that the Scribe would have know the original
                ending, how it ended and the cues that would indicate
                the original ending. Using four columns to write the
                Holy Text allows the Scribe to manipulate the text in
                a way that would *draw,* not only an authoritative
                ending, but a text where *medium* and *message* cross
                paths.

                Sincerely,

                Webber Young.


                --- "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...> wrote:

                > Dear George Y.,
                >
                > The arrowhead-mark is usually called "diple," not
                > "dimple."
                >
                > The ">" can serve a couple of purposes:
                >
                > (a) to fill space. This is how the diorthotes of
                > Aleph used it.
                >
                > (b) to indicate the presence of quotations from the
                > OT. (In this
                > capacity it may be accompanied with a "<" mark, so
                > as to enclose both
                > sides of a column.)
                >
                > If you consider how the > is consistently used by
                > the diorthotes of
                > Aleph -- i.e., if you look for one explanation which
                > explains its
                > presence wherever it shows up in Aleph -- I think it
                > should be clear
                > that ">" is -- as Lake said -- merely a
                > space-filler. And that's
                > that.
                >
                > This does raise an interesting question, though:
                > why would a
                > diorthotes, or any scribe, feel the need to fill
                > space? Here we may
                > be in the realm of speculation. My own guess is
                > that this diorthotes
                > had seen, somewhere, sometime, a MS in which the
                > scribe had left
                > blank spaces at the ends of lines, in which a
                > "corrector" had added
                > embellishments. And so he added the >'s to prevent
                > that sort of
                > thing.
                >
                > Yours in Christ,
                >
                > James Snapp, Jr.
                > Curtisville Christian Church
                > Elwood, Indiana (USA)
                > www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >



                **************************************



                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com
              • George Young
                Dear George: The Dimple Mark (or *sign* as Tischendorf pointed out), was perplexing for him and others as well. In his Prolegomena to Sinaiticus he notes what
                Message 7 of 17 , May 19, 2006
                  Dear George:

                  The Dimple Mark (or *sign* as Tischendorf pointed
                  out), was perplexing for him and others as well. In
                  his Prolegomena to Sinaiticus he notes what appears to
                  him to have been its function in the manuscript.
                  Interestingly enough, he does (in a footnote) mention
                  its association with the "T" (p. 8*, note #1). In
                  other words, the letter T and the > sign seem to
                  function at times, or be associated with, anagrams
                  and/or logograms, and/or pictograms. *See the example
                  I provide at

                  http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/

                  as well as my reply to James Snapp re: Dimples.

                  However, I am suspicious that content and context,
                  message and medium are at play here in the scribes
                  mind. The Dimple Sign may have its origin in some
                  other set of signs besides the Greek alphabet. It has
                  correlations withg other Near Eastern scripts. A
                  close up of the sign suggests that it must be written
                  with one, maybe two strokes of the stylus. I am still
                  analyzing the mark and gathering information. I will
                  have more to say later. But it is also interesting to
                  observe that a similar sign is used in the margins of
                  Codex Alexandrinus, although being a different scribe
                  and a different codex and a different time might
                  render this observation unfruitful.

                  Thank you for your comments.

                  Sincerely,

                  Webber Young



                  --- "George F. Somsel" <gfsomsel@...> wrote:

                  > Webber,
                  >
                  > It might have been wiser if I had consulted
                  > Tischendorf previously
                  > rather than speculating regarding the use of the
                  > "dipple" mark. Here
                  > is what little he has to say on the subject. I
                  > imagine it should be
                  > verified though I should think he knew whereof he
                  > spoke.
                  >
                  > " signum in margine indicat ea quae ex Vetere
                  > Testamento citantur"
                  >
                  > It would be advisable therefore to see if in each
                  > case an OT
                  > quotation is marked by this.
                  >
                  > george
                  > gfsomsel
                  > _________
                  >
                  > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, George
                  > Young
                  > <webber_young@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Dear George:
                  > >
                  > > It seems to me there are several possibilities,
                  > > including some association to our hyphen.
                  > However, my
                  > > initial take on the dimple marks is as follows:
                  > >
                  > > 1. It probably doesn't function in the same way
                  > as
                  > > the asterisk.
                  > >
                  > > 2. Similarly, it probably doesn't function in the
                  > > same way as the metobelus.
                  > >
                  > > 3. It does seem to signal something with the line
                  > or
                  > > lines among which it is placed.
                  > >
                  > > 4. It seems very probable that the scribe is
                  > > manipulating the text, both in which the dimple
                  > mark
                  > > is written and the surrounding lines. I.e., he is
                  > > lining up the characters in such a way as to
                  > "inflect"
                  > > meaning. Perhaps phonetic (if the text is being
                  > read
                  > > out loud), and/or graphic (if the text is being
                  > read),
                  > > or some combination between the two.
                  > >
                  > > 5. If the previous point carries any probability,
                  > > then the dimple mark might be understood as either
                  > (a)
                  > > a cautionary sign warning the reader to read
                  > > correctly, or (b) a marker to prod the read to
                  > seek
                  > > more meaning from the line(s).
                  > >
                  > > I have looked at several of the other instances in
                  > the
                  > > Gospel of Mark, and there does seem to be *both*
                  > > phonetic and graphic implications to the signs.
                  > Still
                  > > more, in Mark 14:63 you have a ptcp. (nom. case)
                  > > working with an acc. noun. You can view the image
                  > at:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/
                  > >
                  > > Why the discord in grammar? Surely the scribe
                  > would
                  > > have seen this, which does seem tied to the dimple
                  > > mark. The scripture at this juncture seems to
                  > invite
                  > > further reading. Yet, in this example, to find
                  > > further meaning one must read "the son" in
                  > contracted
                  > > form. Moreover, the context of the dimple marks
                  > is,
                  > > of course, the trial, crucifixion, and
                  > resurrection of
                  > > Jesus. My hunch is that the context has a bearing
                  > > upon the appearance of the dimple marks too. Any
                  > > speculation you might have regarding the dimple
                  > marks
                  > > I would greatly welcome.
                  > >
                  > > Sincerely,
                  > >
                  > > Webber Young.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- "gfsomsel@..." <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > I was looking at your three examples and had the
                  > > > thought that these dimple marks seem to serve a
                  > > > similar purpose to our hyphen. In the 2nd and
                  > 3rd
                  > > > examples this seems quite logical
                  > > > 2. XITW-
                  > > > NA
                  > > > 3. KATE-
                  > > > KRINAN
                  > > > This doesn't seem to work in quite the same way
                  > for
                  > > > example 1. There could probably be no confusion
                  > > > regarding the association here
                  > > > 1. KAI OYESQE TON-
                  > > > hUION TOU ANQRWPOU
                  > > > Nevertheless, the TON would be construed with
                  > hUION.
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > george
                  > > > gfsomsel
                  > > > _________
                  > > >
                  > > > -- George Young <webber_young@...> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > One other thing. To answer your question about
                  > the
                  > > > dimple marks in the Gospel of Mark, I have
                  > looked at
                  > > > them carefully, and my tentative conclusion is
                  > that
                  > > > the dimple marks are placed beside a line of
                  > text
                  > > > that
                  > > > has more than one reading. I have provided
                  > three
                  > > > examples of this phenomenon at:
                  > > >
                  > > > http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/
                  > > >
                  > > > Thank you for your comments.
                  > > >
                  > > > Sincerely,
                  > > >
                  > > > Webber Young.
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >



                  **************************************



                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com
                • Bob Dietel
                  ....[13] * Diple*. Hanc scriptores nostri adponunt in libris ecclesiasticorum virorum ad separanda vel [ad] demonstranda testimonia sanctarum Scripturarum.
                  Message 8 of 17 , May 20, 2006
                    "....[13] > Diple. Hanc scriptores nostri adponunt in libris ecclesiasticorum virorum ad separanda vel [ad] demonstranda testimonia sanctarum Scripturarum. [14] ·> Diple peri sticon. Hanc pri[m]us Leogoras Syracusanus posuit Homericis versibus ad separationem Olympi a caelo. [15] >: Diple periestigmenh, id est cum geminis punctis. Hanc antiqui in his opponebant quae Zenodotus Ephesius non recte adiecerat, aut detraxerat, aut permutaverat. In his et nostri ea usi sunt. [16] »- Diple wbelismenh interponitur ad separandos in comoediis vel tragoediis periodos. [17] Aversa wbelismenh, quotiens strophe et antistrophus infertur. [18] <- Adversa cum obelo ad ea ponitur quae ad aliquid respiciunt, ut (Virg. Aen. 10,88)...."

                    -- recorded by the 7th century Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiarum libri XX


                    George Young wrote:
                    Dear James Snapp:
                    
                    I was unaware that "diple" was the scholarly term used
                    for these strange marks.  Critical terms are important
                    and do carry and convey meaning in debate.  However, I
                    am going to rename these marks *dimples* for the
                    following reasons:
                    
                    1.  The word "diple" or "dipple" does not exist in the
                    English language, nor does it have any Latin or Greek
                    root.
                    [snip]
                    
                       --Bob Dietel
                    
                       --dietelb@...
                     
                       --North Cascades Episcopal Missions
                          -- St Aidan Episcopal Church, Camano Island, WA
                          -- Church of the Transfiguration, Darrington, WA
                          -- St Martin & St Francis Episcopal Church, Rockport, WA
                    
                  • Stephen C. Carlson
                    ... The word diple is found in the Oxford English Dictionary, and its Greek root is DIPLOUS. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson
                    Message 9 of 17 , May 20, 2006
                      At 05:45 AM 5/19/2006 -0700, George Young wrote:
                      >1. The word "diple" or "dipple" does not exist in the
                      >English language, nor does it have any Latin or Greek
                      >root.

                      The word "diple" is found in the Oxford English Dictionary,
                      and its Greek root is DIPLOUS.

                      Stephen Carlson

                      --
                      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                      Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                      Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
                    • George Young
                      How interesting! As it turns out, Diple does exist! Its absence in many dictionaries, indicates that its not used very often. But I find it helpful to know
                      Message 10 of 17 , May 22, 2006
                        How interesting! As it turns out, Diple does exist!
                        Its absence in many dictionaries, indicates that its
                        not used very often. But I find it helpful to know
                        that it does have a Greek root. Even more interesting
                        is that the root suggests a "doubling" effect.

                        Sincerely,

                        Webber Young.

                        --- "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
                        wrote:

                        > At 05:45 AM 5/19/2006 -0700, George Young wrote:
                        > >1. The word "diple" or "dipple" does not exist in
                        > the
                        > >English language, nor does it have any Latin or
                        > Greek
                        > >root.
                        >
                        > The word "diple" is found in the Oxford English
                        > Dictionary,
                        > and its Greek root is DIPLOUS.
                        >
                        > Stephen Carlson
                        >
                        > --
                        > Stephen C. Carlson
                        > mailto:scarlson@...
                        > Weblog:
                        > http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                        > Author of: The Gospel Hoax,
                        > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >



                        **************************************



                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com
                      • George Young
                        Dear Bob: Thank you for the exerpt from Isidorus Hispalensis. Very helpful, indeed. I take it that diple in this instance is a loan word taken over into
                        Message 11 of 17 , May 22, 2006
                          Dear Bob:

                          Thank you for the exerpt from Isidorus Hispalensis.
                          Very helpful, indeed. I take it that "diple" in this
                          instance is a loan word taken over into Latin via its
                          Greek origins. I find it very interesting that the
                          diple is associated with other text-critical signs.

                          Thank you for your comments,

                          Webber Young.


                          --- Bob Dietel <dietelb@...> wrote:

                          > "....[13] [14] ·> Diple peri sticon.
                          > Hanc pri[m]us
                          > Leogoras Syracusanus posuit Homericis versibus ad
                          > separationem Olympi a
                          > caelo. [15] >: Diple periestigmenh, id est cum
                          > geminis punctis. Hanc
                          > antiqui in his opponebant quae Zenodotus Ephesius
                          > non recte adiecerat,
                          > aut detraxerat, aut permutaverat. In his et nostri
                          > ea usi sunt. [16] »-
                          > Diple wbelismenh interponitur ad separandos in
                          > comoediis vel tragoediis
                          > periodos. [17] -« Aversa wbelismenh, quotiens
                          > strophe et antistrophus
                          > infertur. [18] <- Adversa cum obelo ad ea ponitur
                          > quae ad aliquid
                          > respiciunt, ut (Virg. Aen. 10,88)...."
                          >
                          > -- recorded by the 7th century Isidorus Hispalensis,
                          > /Etymologiarum
                          > /libri XX
                          >
                          >
                          > George Young wrote:
                          >
                          > >Dear James Snapp:
                          > >
                          > >I was unaware that "diple" was the scholarly term
                          > used
                          > >for these strange marks. Critical terms are
                          > important
                          > >and do carry and convey meaning in debate.
                          > However, I
                          > >am going to rename these marks *dimples* for the
                          > >following reasons:
                          > >
                          > >1. The word "diple" or "dipple" does not exist in
                          > the
                          > >English language, nor does it have any Latin or
                          > Greek
                          > >root.
                          > >
                          > [snip]
                          >
                          > --Bob Dietel
                          >
                          > --dietelb@...
                          >
                          > --North Cascades Episcopal Missions
                          > -- St Aidan Episcopal Church, Camano Island,
                          > WA
                          > -- Church of the Transfiguration, Darrington,
                          > WA
                          > -- St Martin & St Francis Episcopal Church,
                          > Rockport, WA
                          >
                          >



                          **************************************



                          __________________________________________________
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          http://mail.yahoo.com
                        • mydogregae01
                          The word is an ancient Greek word which the Attic (and other dialects) used to indicate a rejected line or reading. In drama, it was used to indicate a new
                          Message 12 of 17 , May 23, 2006
                            The word is an ancient Greek word which the Attic (and other dialects)
                            used to indicate a rejected line or reading. In drama, it was used to
                            indicate a new speaker (actor). (per LSJ dict.)

                            In the Greek the primary word is DIPLH

                            and our translateration as "diple", is about as close as you can get.
                            The DI- prefix indicates "double" as Carlson shared (OED). It refers
                            to the form of the mark, it has TWO equal parts, two arms or branches
                            emanating from a central point. Similar to >-.

                            As time passed, the Byzantine and Alexandrian scribes used it for
                            indicating quotes, and this is its typical use in most Biblical
                            minuscule manuscripts. Calling or renaming it to "DIMPLE" (or
                            whatever) is not at all justified.
                            Mr. Gary S. Dykes
                            ++++++++++++++++++++++++

                            Gary S. Dykes
                            > How interesting! As it turns out, Diple does exist!
                            > Its absence in many dictionaries, indicates that its
                            > not used very often. But I find it helpful to know
                            > that it does have a Greek root. Even more interesting
                            > is that the root suggests a "doubling" effect.
                            >

                            >
                            > >
                            > > The word "diple" is found in the Oxford English
                            > > Dictionary,
                            > > and its Greek root is DIPLOUS.
                            > >
                            > > Stephen Carlson
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.