Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

## [textualcriticism] Inside the Box 2

Expand Messages
• pg 2 3V diagrams To get an even greater separation of witnesses, I have compared three variation points of interest on a cube diagram in what I call the 3V
Message 1 of 1 , Dec 19 12:36 AM
pg 2

3V diagrams

To get an even greater separation of witnesses, I have compared three
variation points of interest on a cube diagram in what I call the 3V method. The
upper left hand corner of the higher flat plain I call the 111 position and the
upper left hand corner of the lower flat plain I call the 211 position (the
first two squares drawn to make a cube are face 1 and face 2). It is more
convenient for the first variant point to choose a point with only two readings,
because the diagram can look very complicated and hard to read with too many
layers of depth.

The first variation point's readings are separated by depth (faces #1 and
#2), the second point's readings are separated by length, where the first
reading's witnesses are on the ceiling of the cube and the second reading's witnesses
are on the floor (faces #3 and #4), and the third point's readings are on the
side walls of the cube (faces #5 and #6).

The 3V diagram has four patterns for uncorected relationships between the
witnesses. 1) A 3V diagram with witnesses only at positions 111 (being those not
concerned with any of the target errors), 112, 121, and 211 shows three
separate text lines with the 111 position as a hub. 2) A chain of filled angles
ending at the 222 position shows the chronological order the errors were made in
in the same text line. 3) With one angle other than 111 serving as a
connecting hub between the four filled points (that is, the three variants and the
unconcerned witness grouping at 111) shows two sub-textlines generated by a
pre-existing text line (if the parts are proved this pattern may become a marker
for proving the direction the parts of a text line takes because like a diode,
it only goes one way), and 4) with two positions adjacent to 111 and another
position stemming off one of them shows two text lines, one of which has a
prior and latter development.

Gaps between the filled points show that we are dealing with at least two
points in close chronological proximity - the errors made in the same manuscript,
or in manuscripts for which we have none in between (in the same text
critical layer, such as it is). Perhaps a more comprehensive collation of the
unlisted witnesses will resolve this.

3V/2V diagrams and the resolution of corrections

To find and interpret corrections, I made a chart of each 3V pattern,
simulated each possible single correction between the three variation points
(including also a consideration of the 111 position being corrected and being
corrected to), then included in this chart the effects it would have on each of the
three 2V charts. With each of these probabilities drawn out, I tabulated (and
am putting into a data base using the same programs mentioned in the
fingerprints section) the result by which full faces were created, the odd extra non
square corners, and by the list of the empty 3V corners. In the consideration
then of any one 3V diagram, I can narrow down the possibilities of which reading
corrected which when (relatively), and the resultant effect on the
constellation of witnesses. This is in the beginnings at the moment, and the variation
points must be chosen with care to give a simple one-correction diagram, but
with the experience of a few related 3V diagrams it should be possible to
resolve more complex constellations later.

The harder task, as this gets rolling, may be to discern and resolve the
correct corrections - that is, those corrections that put an otherwise uncorrected
witness into the 111 position, or back to an earlier position than its true
place should be. Also, it will take a wider perspective on each witness to
discern multiple corrections to the same witness, especially along lengths of
continuous chapters.

EV alternatives to the assumption that the UBS2 committee is always right

So far, we have proceeded on the given assumption that the readings chosen by
the UBS2 committee are the correct original readings - but even the UBS2
committee has its doubts, as reflected in the rating of certainty scale they
include with each variant point. Though we have an amount of faith that the
committee picked the correct original readings, this is not necessarily so. So, a
further endeavor will be to do a 3V analysis on the most probable alternatives,
which I call EV diagrams, because E is backwards 3.

For example, while doing 3V analysis on the variation points of 1st Peter,
there was a group of three consecutive points toward the end that consistently
gave empty 111 positions when compared with the other variation points in 1Pt.
An empty 111 position would mean that there were no witnesses without either
of the 3 errors, and would flag a probably very early error, so these should
be rare. Three in a row is extremely improbable.

On the edges of textual criticism there is also a group of critics whose main
object seems to be the defense of the originality of the Byzantine text line.
I am not one of these because the logic does not seem probable. It may be
to the advantage of the truth if this possibility were examined using these
methods. They would turn the methods then rather inside out and may even
surprise me by proving their case.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.