Re: A Patristic Text With Umlauts and Triple-Dots
- Phil, I don't understand why you argue so strongly against any similarity of
the Vaticanus symbols with symbols in other manuscripts. It will help to
unravel the mystery, to find more manuscripts that show these dots.
Daniel Buck points to another manuscript that shows umlauts:
Here it looks as if the umlauts are connected with Hexaplaric signs. The
same may be true in Vaticanus, compare the signs in the OT.
Btw. I don't think that the date of the umlauts is the most important thing.
We all know that the date of a manuscript does not say anything about its
text. The more important thing is to find out what textual tradition and
understanding the umlauts represent. From my analysis, the umlauts represent
an inexplicable mix of textual traditions and of minor and major stuff. No
manuscript known today comes near this.
Note that the majority of significant variants we know today is *not*
labeled with an umlaut in Vaticanus.
If one would replace all words labeled with an umlaut with the variant we
know that exists at this place, we would get a text that is approximately
25% more Byzantine and 25% more Western (in the Gospels). The resultant
manuscript would still be basically "Alexandrian", we would probably call it
"mixed", but in a quite strange way. We have no such manuscript today.
One thing is clear: The umlauts are *not* the result of a careful comparison
of Vaticanus with either a Byzantine or a Western manuscript.
It remains an enigma.
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany