[textualcriticism] Inside the Box 4: Praxis
- Please excuse the time between the initial posts of this theory (or these
theories) and this praxis, as I am working the Christmas rush nights at the post
office, and trying to get something together for afterwards. As of yet I have
no plans at all, and the insecurities of this position - well, in other
words, I'm not getting the sleep I should be getting
Inside the Box - Praxis
included in this is a jpg that I hope helps to explain away some of the
confusion my nomenclature might cause. (In case the list does not allow jpgs, I am
also sending it to Mr Finney, who if he trusts me enough to open it :0) will
vouch for its harmlessness and maybe distribute it round robin)
My db fields are
century type witness
a 1.7- b 1.8 -c 1.12 -d 1.22- e 1.22 -f 2.3- g 2.21- h 2.21- i
3.7- j 3.15- k 3.16- l 3.18- m 3.18 -n 3.18 -o 3.21- p 4.1- q 4.1- r 4.3
-s 4.14 -t 4.14 -u 5.2- v 5.8- w 5.19- x 5.10 -y 5.11- z 5.11- @ 5.14
4 c a 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 4 2 1 3 3 3
1 3 5 1 3 1 1 1 4 2 2 2
4 c B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 4 4 2 3 1 1 1 1
5 c A 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 2 1 2
1 1 4 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 1
9 c K 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 4 5 2 2 1 2
1 2 1 6 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 2
11m 945 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 4 2 1 2 1 2 1 1
4 3 1 2 5 1 5 2 2 1
Representative witness fingerprints (from the DB): matching up the
fingerprints, it is easy to tell the agreements/disagreements
I give each of the variant points a sequential letter (including @ and &
because there aren't enough alphabettic letters - I would follow the programmers
standard by naming the last two aa and bb, and have to when the number of
variant points gets too large, but for this praxis of 1Pt, this is simpler) because
it will be easily understandable to refer to the variant points by letter
instead of throwing the numbers around.
e ( en / omit which the UBS4 commentary puts [ en ] ), when the 2v diagrams
are done, assuming UBS2 is all correct, e is prior to c, d, g, h, j, o, r, u,
y? with none prior to it (uncorrected).
c is prior to d, j, Q?, r, x, @, but after both e and z.
d is prior to a and x?, but after e, c, z, @, &, with a disjoint at 0 (which
shows they are on different text lines).
z is prior to b, c, d, f, h, i, j, k, n, r, u,
so the points at e and z seem to be the oldest, but when compared to each
other, scribal corrections have obscured the relations between them. That will
have to be resolved later using comparisons to spot and rectify the corrections.
Using c, d, and e, we see on the jpg 2v section how we tell e is prior to c
is prior to d..
Then, these three variant points, when considered in different orders take
various routes to get from the 111 position to the 222 position diagonally
across the cube, and the route that is taken reveals which of the points is prior.
In the considered order, the first listed (A in ABC, B in BAC, etc) has it's
first reading's witnesses on face 1, the upper back or front square, and it's
second reading on the lower back or front square (face 2). The second variant
point in order (B in ABC, A in BAC, etc) has it's first reading witnesses
listed on the points of the ceiling (face 3) and it's second reading's witnesses
listed on the points of the floor (face 4). The last listed variant point has
its readings on the sides (faces 5 and 6). So if the path from 111 to 222
travels toward, down, and over, the variant points are listed in chronological
order. If the route is over (to 112), down (then to 122), and toward (ending
then at 222) we know that the points are being considered in reverse
chronological order. The Direction taken from 111 points to the prior variant point,
and the direction taken to get to 222 points to the more recent variant point.
Now we will consider multiple variant points (more than 2). We place them on
a different 'shelf' of the 2v or 3v diagrams, depending on which point has
the multiple readings. The lines in any direction signify readings, and the
texts can be written (or signified if the texts are too long) in the line of the
We will try to put the original error in the second line of each variant
point, but if we do not know which is the original error, we can be comforted
in knowing that the lines are movable in the diagram - that is, since the
readings are listed more or less randomly (for our purposes - they do seem to be
listed educationally sometimes) then it does not matter which is listed second
or third or fourth (though the supposed original text should be listed first
for most purposes). The multiple readings can be considered seperately, and
the result may give some indication of which is the original error. Because
reaction readings are border phenomenon and the original error is prior, the
relationships between the variant point and the other variant point may be
altered. All this remains to be seen though, because I haven't found the time to
play with it yet.
Considering the successive 3V diagrams along a text line, as we go down the
text line the witnesses will travel through the middle points and up to the 111
position, flagging the fact that these witnesses have not taken the exact
route we are following, but have veered off, and are not a concern of the latter
variant points that we are considering.