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

[textualcriticism] Distigmai (Umlauts): A Question About Their Purpose

Expand Messages
  • Steven Avery
    Hi Folks, ... do -- and that this is evidence of the real purpose of the .. symbols as they appear in Codex Vaticanus. How would one go about refuting such a
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Folks,

      > James Snapp
      > ".." with dedidedly more frequency than textual variants
      do -- and that this is evidence of the real purpose of the ".." symbols as they appear in Codex Vaticanus.
      How would one go about refuting such a proposal, and such a claim?

      Wouldn't you want to evaluate the proposal before looking for a refutation ? :)

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery
      Queens, NY

       
    • yennifmit
      Hi James, You could test the hypothesis using a statistical method. See, e.g., pages 82-83 of the PDF of part 2 of my PhD dissertation:
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 2, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi James,

        You could test the hypothesis using a statistical method. See, e.g., pages 82-83 of the PDF of part 2 of my PhD dissertation:

        http://www.tfinney.net/PhD/PDF/part2.pdf

        (Search for "David Payne (1995)".)

        A chi-squared test of expected vs observed frequencies might be a good place to start. The trick will be estimating the expected frequency. I.e. how does one estimate the expected frequency of what the scribe of Codex Vaticanus thought was "a once-used word or some other anomalous feature"?

        Best,

        Tim Finney


        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Vox Verax" <james.snapp@...> wrote:
        >
        > Currently the ".." that appear in Codex Vaticanus are considered text-critical marks that indicate that alternative-readings were known to the person who added the ..
        >
        > One problem with that is that significant alternative-readings are unknown at many places where a ".." appears. Another problem is that the ".." symbol is absent at many places where one might expect a textual variant to be noticed.
        >
        > Suppose someone proposed that ".." were not added to indicate the existence of variants, but were instead added to convey, to future copyists using the MS as an exemplar, "Use Extra Caution Here," i.e., they had the same function as the indicators in the margins of Hebrew MSS that signify the presence of a once-used word or some other anomalous feature.
        >
        > And suppose that this person claimed that anomalous features, such as once-used words, correspond to the presence of ".." with dedidedly more frequency than textual variants do -- and that this is evidence of the real purpose of the ".." symbols as they appear in Codex Vaticanus.
        >
        > How would one go abour refuting such a proposal, and such a claim?
        >
        > Yours in Christ,
        >
        > James Snapp, Jr.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.