tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post1076214585856589755..comments2024-03-29T07:11:17.775+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Payne on supposed ‘distigme-obelos’ symbols in VaticanusP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-84810219952503870682023-01-16T20:13:43.769+00:002023-01-16T20:13:43.769+00:00Anonymous, your point is valid, but has been addre...Anonymous, your point is valid, but has been addressed in the comments, and in my NTS article. Payne's arguments about dots and dashes are not valid, but he is nevertheless correct that 1 Cor 14:34-35 was an interpolation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-55282435187720599652023-01-16T13:30:53.325+00:002023-01-16T13:30:53.325+00:00Not only Payne argues that there's a significa...Not only Payne argues that there's a significance in interpretation of a symbol (in this case a horizontal line) based on a difference in its length, but what goes unmentioned in many articles, is that that difference is only about 1 mm! Given that all lengths vary between 3 and 5 mm, or a spread of 2mm, how is a 1 mm even within the physical control of a scribe, let alone significant enough to mark such an important thing as a textual variant?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-44785400285386197622020-05-05T07:06:11.057+01:002020-05-05T07:06:11.057+01:00My uncle, Phil Payne, has posted a counter-rebutta...My uncle, Phil Payne, has posted a counter-rebuttal to the Fellows and Krans critiques on his website, https://www.pbpayne.com/. Enjoy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14010314893192839651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53825317107224038002019-04-18T21:16:29.853+01:002019-04-18T21:16:29.853+01:00Hi Philip. A quick question. This article https://...Hi Philip. A quick question. This article https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/are-there-distigmeobelos-symbols-in-vaticanus/F2507362D31D370A04A20583EE0E1575/share/837346b6a807c7522a44150fa4400204ff29c9d6 re-examined your measurements and found that the eight you selected over-emphasized the "extend noticeably farther" which was a criteria of your selection of the 8, as you noted above.<br /><br />Can you please provide 1) the criteria by which you measured (including if this was a blind measurement) and 2) what number of the non-8 horizontal bar immediately following a distigme mark multi-word textual additions, and which do not?jomafrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18227797529596054974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-48363865589819536022019-04-18T16:23:16.401+01:002019-04-18T16:23:16.401+01:00Can you provide a simple words explanation for &qu...Can you provide a simple words explanation for "they are probably the same thing they are elsewhere"? I am having trouble disciphering the rushed recaps in the links you provided below.jomafrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18227797529596054974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-91816249668998081662019-03-05T12:41:09.567+00:002019-03-05T12:41:09.567+00:00To save the less expert of us a little time, 1 Cor...To save the less expert of us a little time, 1 Corinthians 14.28 ff is here: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1478 (page 1474). Surely if the scribe wanted to mark added text they would mark the end as well as the beginning of the added section? But there are no marks at the end of verse 35.Andrew Chapmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11682602818338988947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-82386710035610197502019-03-05T11:30:59.953+00:002019-03-05T11:30:59.953+00:00(Should read 'free'!) Good work, on which ...(Should read 'free'!) Good work, on which it is hard to comment without getting a ruler out. But it strikes me as hardly conceivable that, if somebody were designing a system of signification for the margins of a manuscript, they would make a horizontal line mean two different things depending on its length. There are so many other possible marks that would be much clearer and less dependent on accuracy in a) making and b) comprehending them.Andrew Chapmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11682602818338988947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-27443655416868684792019-02-23T08:42:03.324+00:002019-02-23T08:42:03.324+00:00Jan Krans and I have each published short articles...Jan Krans and I have each published short articles in the current issue of NTS, rebutting Philip's 2017 NTS article. Jan and I worked independently, but our articles seem to compliment each other quite nicely, and they come to the same conclusion. You can access my article for fee by using the link on my blog <a href="http://paulandco-workers.blogspot.com/2019/02/vaticanus-and-1-cor-1434-5.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-39041643275004980052017-12-07T15:24:38.773+00:002017-12-07T15:24:38.773+00:00Somebody else has probably said this, but surely t...Somebody else has probably said this, but surely there would have to be some sort of marker for the end of the added section.Andrew Chapmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11682602818338988947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-75379657030294501062017-10-25T03:51:55.173+01:002017-10-25T03:51:55.173+01:00I'm wrong.I'm wrong.David Christopher Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05145456672526538832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-22298511909525792242017-10-24T05:17:37.188+01:002017-10-24T05:17:37.188+01:00I have faith that we are a long way from the recor...I have faith that we are a long way from the record here but personally I don't ever remember this many comments where no one has admitted they were wrong about something. JoeWallackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10666074795187377455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-4192170956706632142017-10-15T08:41:34.832+01:002017-10-15T08:41:34.832+01:00Payne response to Peter Gurry, part 3:
Perhaps a ...Payne response to Peter Gurry, part 3:<br /><br />Perhaps a more important questions is, how could one confirm my view that there is pattern of distigmai with characteristic bars followed by a gap in the text at the exact location of a widely acknowledged, multi-word addition to the text? The best confirmation would be if someone were to identify another distigme adjacent to a characteristic bar followed by a gap in the text at the exact location of a widely acknowledged, multi-word addition to the text. I use “characteristic bar” as I do repeatedly in the article as sharing five characteristic traits: a bar (1) adjacent to distigmai (2) that extends noticeably farther into the margin than most undisputed paragraphoi adjacent to distigmai, (3) is longer than the average length of undisputed paragraphoi adjacent to distigmai, and is (4) followed by a gap (5) at the exact location of a widely acknowledged, multi-word addition to the text.<br /><br />If another distigme adjacent to a bar extending unusually far into the margin could be found, the likelihood of it being followed by a gap at the exact point of a multi-word addition in a random distribution is small, unless my view is correct. The likelihood of a multi-word textual variant of any sort listed in the NA28 is less than one in 31.8 lines, and this would have to be a particular kind of multi-word variant, namely a multi-word addition to the text. Furthermore, the block of added text would have to occur at the exact location of a gap in the text. Most lines do not have gaps. And since there are sixteen letters to a line on average in Vaticanus, it would have to happen at the exact letter the multi-word addition begins. <br /><br />Thanks to Richard Fellows, this confirmation has become an actuality. The characteristic bar immediately to the right and below the distigme at Mark 6:11, 1285B line 12, extends into the margin farther and is longer than any of the twenty undisputed paragraphoi that happen to occur adjacent to a distigme. It is followed by a gap in the text at the exact point the NA28 lists many manuscripts adding a 15-word block of text. Does anyone really think all eight of these cases share all five of these characteristic traits by coincidence? If so, I challenge that person to find a comparable case of a symbol that occurs at least eight times in a manuscript, all of which coincide with a specific kind of textual variant that occurs on average less than once in 30 lines of text, but where this is mere coincidence and the symbol did not in fact identify that specific kind of variant.Philip B. Paynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14968317781194606836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-66253646945383678742017-10-15T08:40:55.291+01:002017-10-15T08:40:55.291+01:00Payne response to Peter Gurry, part 2:
Since one ...Payne response to Peter Gurry, part 2:<br /><br />Since one of the 51 distimgai that Canart confirmed matches the original ink color of Vaticanus is part of a distigme-obelos symbol and since eight (including the distigme-obelos symbol at Mark 6:11, 1285B line 12, that Richard Fellows kindly brought to my attention) are followed by a gap (that only the original scribe could put in the text) at the exact letter where the widely acknowledged, multi-word textual variant occurs, it would be correspondingly difficult to falsify the claim that these go back to the original scribe.<br /><br />Theoretically, one might falsify my view by demonstrating that scribe B was not aware that obeloi mark added text. My NTS article, however, on pages 608–609 shows that it cannot be credibly denied that scribe B penned obeloi, including one in the middle of text (1016 C12 at Isa 14.23) or that scribe B did not understand that obeloi mark added text. To the contrary, scribe B repeatedly added notes explaining that: “the [lines] marked with an obelos contain [text] not in [the] Hebrew [text].”<br /><br />My observation of the paucity of high stops in the Gospels could be falsified by demonstrating that high stops are abundant in the Gospels, or similarly abundant to the high stops in the epistles. Having gone through the Vaticanus text repeatedly, I have no fear of this being falsified. <br /><br />I suppose theoretically one might be able to prove that scribe B intended to deceive readers by making the text of Vaticanus look primitive by removing high stops. The many findings I delineate in my NTS article give evidence of the exact opposite, that scribe B was extraordinarily faithful to preserve the text of the Vaticanus exemplars, even where scribe B disagreed with that text, as shown by the obeloi in the Vaticanus prophetic books and the one distigme-obelos in the epistles. Not only is the form of the text of the Vaticanus Gospels primitive with virtually no high stops, none of the six blocks (including 1285 B) of added text marked by distigme-obelos symbols are in the text of the Vaticanus Gospels. In contrast, the one block of added text a distigme-obelos marks in the Vaticanus epistles is in the Vaticanus text. These distigme-obelos symbols can be ascribed to scribe B since only scribe B could leave the gaps in the text associated with these distigme-obelos symbols. The lack of these six additions and of high stops shows that the text of Vaticanus comes from a portion of the text stream that had hardly any punctuation marks and had added none of these six blocks of text known to scribe B. Furthermore, it is now the consensus of text critical scholars that Vaticanus is a remarkably faithful guide to a very early form of the text, especially in the Gospels.<br /><br />to be continuedPhilip B. Paynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14968317781194606836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-57206625430196462372017-10-15T08:39:12.917+01:002017-10-15T08:39:12.917+01:00Since there are several inter-related aspects of m...Since there are several inter-related aspects of my view, there are various ways it might be falsified. My research began in the 1990s trying to identify the purpose of distigmai in Vaticanus. What I found was a pattern of a far higher incidence of NA apparatus textual variants in lines marked with distigmai than in the following twenty lines of text. A chi-square analysis of the results showed that the likelihood of this strong a contrast happening at random is far less that one in ten thousand. As far as a know, every subsequent analysis of the distigmai, including at least one Ph.D. dissertation, has confirmed that distigmai mark the location of textual variants. <br /><br />How could that have been falsified? Theoretically, other broader studies could have found that there is no significant correlation between distigmai and the location of textual variants in other parts of Vaticanus. Or theoretically one might have shown that the textual variants I claimed to occur at these locations do not in fact occur there. No one has ever alleged this, and in fact, since I identified each location precisely and the nature of the textual variant, anyone can confirm that they do exist. <br /><br />Similarly, in the distigme-obelos current study, if it were shown that the textual variants I cite on pages 612–615 do not exist, this would falsify my view for that instance or those instances. In the distigme-obelos investigation as in my distigme investigation, chi-square analysis of the results showed that the likelihood of this strong a contrast happening at random is far less that one in ten thousand. Now that Richard Fellows has identified a ninth case that perfectly fits the pattern of distigme-obelos symbols marking the location of a widely acknowledged, multi-word block of added text beginning at the exact location of a gap in the following line of text, the chi-square results are so high they are off every chi-square chart I found on the Internet.<br /><br />Although agreeing that distigmai mark the location of textual variants, Curt Niccum, proposed that all the distigmai were added to Codex Vaticanus by Sepulveda in the sixteenth century. Paul Canart, however, confirmed that 51 of these distigmai match the apricot color of the original ink on the same page of Vaticanus and that others have apricot color ink protruding from under the dark chocolate color of the reinking of the text about AD 1000, demonstrating that at least these original-ink distigmai date to the original publication of Vaticanus. David Parker rejected C. Niccum’s arguments that it is ‘likely’ the distigmai ‘originated with Sepulveda … Payne successfully vindicated his case [against Niccum’s critique]’ in D. Parker, ‘Through a Screen Darkly: Digital Texts and the New Testament’, JSNT (2003) 395–411, at 408 n. 17. See the scholars in my NTS article, pages 605–606 and n. 7.<br /><br />Peter Head alleged that distigmai are the result of a single process in the sixteenth century. The distigmai in LXX G at the exact location of known Greek textual variants, however, confirm that distigmai were in use in the fourth/fifth century. See the photograph and description on p. 607 and n. 11 in my current NTS article. The original ink distigmai identified by Paul Canart, the distigmai in LXX G, and the one distigme with one apricot color dot and one dark chocolate color dot accompanying my article on the Vaticanus distigmai in plate 8 of Le manuscrit B de la Bible falsify Peter Head’s view that the distigmai are all the result of a single process in the sixteenth century. Now that distigmai have been confirmed to exist in the fourth to fifth century LXX G, and the most renowned scholar of Codex Vaticanus has confirmed that 51 of the ones in Vaticanus match the apricot color of the original ink of Vaticanus on the same page and that some apricot color ink protruded from under some reinked distigmai, I cannot imagine how the dating of at least these to the original production of Vaticanus could be credibly falsified. <br /><br />to be continued<br />Philip B. Paynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14968317781194606836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13260625325833726512017-10-14T15:02:57.025+01:002017-10-14T15:02:57.025+01:00Philip, as you see it, what would falsify your vie...Philip, as you see it, what would falsify your view?Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-44376167694048128792017-10-13T23:48:45.956+01:002017-10-13T23:48:45.956+01:00On 9/27/2017 Peter Head commented, “I think the ba...On 9/27/2017 Peter Head commented, “I think the bars and the gaps are two systems marking the same thing - a pause in the thought of the text. In the case of the gaps these are the product of the scribe …. In the case of the bars these are a later addition to the text not the part of the initial production (evidence for this is that occasionally they are independent of the gaps).”<br /><br />Thanks for this explanation, Peter. Has any publication ever defended your new view that the paragraphoi in Vaticanus are not part of its original production? If so, what are its bibliographic details? The copy you sent me of your SBL paper on the Vaticaus Marginalia refers twice to “the original paragraphoi.” <br /><br />If Peter Head is correct that the paragraphoi are later than the work of scribe B, even if there is an undisputed paragraphos that both extends into the margin slightly more and is slightly longer than the shortest characteristic bar, it would provide no evidence against the distigme + characteristic bar + gap in the text being a mark of the exact point of a multi-word addition to the text. In that case, at the time scribe B left the original gap at the exact point of a multi-word addition and, according to my argument, signaled this in the margin with a distigme-obelos symbol, there would have been no paragraphoi in Vaticanus with which the obelos portion of the distigme-obelos symbol could be confused.Philip B. Paynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14968317781194606836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-71085945573584820632017-10-13T08:45:55.911+01:002017-10-13T08:45:55.911+01:00Remember that I used for these figures the lowest ...Remember that I used for these figures the lowest measurements Richard provides, namely his measurements for the bar at Matt 18:10, 12 without the dot. I was showing that even with his measurements, the characteristic bars can be distinguished in light of their five features. <br />Upon return to my office today, I checked the color of the ink of both the dot and the bar that appears to be an extension of it at Matt 18:10, 12 in the most faithful reproduction of the actual ink colors of Vaticanus, the 1999 Codex Vaticanus B facsimile. In that facsimile, both the dot and the bar extending to its right have the same color. Since it is common for there to be gaps without visible ink immediately to the right of the beginning of bars and since this dot is aligned properly for this bar to be an extension of it, it probably should be regarded as part of this bar. See the first photograph on p. 613 in my NTS article, and compare the three similarly interrupted bars at 1505B lines 26, 29, and 36. When a dot makes sense as part of the bar, but makes no sense interpreted as unrelated to the bar, as this one does, this favors the judgment that it is part of the bar. Since Richard left it open that the dot may be part of the bar, it is not fair of him to cite this as an illegitimate characteristic bar. <br />Including the dot, there is not a single undisputed paragraphos that has anywhere near as great extension into the margin or total length as the characteristic bar at Matt 18:10, 12. The same is true of the ninth characteristic bar Richard Fellows helpfully pointed out at Mark 6:11 (1285 B). It has a gap in the text at the exact point of a 15 word later addition to the text that is not the Vaticanus text and so further confirms that the text of the Gospels in Vaticanus comes from a stream of the text so early that none of the six additions marked by a distigme + characteristic bar had yet entered that text.<br />Remember, too, that I repeatedly emphasize in my article that the small number you highlight is the one of the four graphic characteristics that is the least striking. Even by Richard’s measurements the nine characteristic bars have on average over 50% greater extension into the margin that the undisputed paragraphoi.<br />In any event, my article repeatedly argues that there are five features of the characteristic bars, and of the four besides being adjacent to a distigme, none of the undisputed paragraphoi displays more than two of those four features. This sharply contrasts with all nine characteristic bars. <br />Philip B. Paynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14968317781194606836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-35042631107809035022017-10-13T08:44:18.804+01:002017-10-13T08:44:18.804+01:00Payne responds to Richard Fellows, part 2:
As I l...Payne responds to Richard Fellows, part 2:<br />As I look again at Richard Fellows’ graphs, I realize that although in the previous graphs he marked with a red x each of Payne’s “characteristic bars,” in the final graph plotting each bar’s extension into the margin against its length, he has included in “Payne’s ‘multi-word variants’” marked with a red x both instances of multi-word variants in undisputed paragraphoi. The chart was introduced with “Philip tells me that it is a combination of features that define ‘characteristic bars’, so here is the plot of extension into the margin against length.” Consequently, I expected that the chart would contrast the instances I had identified with this combination of features, namely the “characteristic bars” to the “undisputed paragraphoi, and I assumed that as in the previous graphs each red x represents one of the characteristic bars with this combination of features. This expectation was reinforced by the sentence below the graph, “I suppose we could define a "characteristic bar", according to the line shown, … and there would still be 4 cases of "multi-word variants" that do not make the cut.” The “cut” here is clearly the “cut” to be included in characteristic bars. But neither of the two with a red x that are lowest and farthest left have I ever identified as “characteristic bars” or as “Payne’s multi-word variants” marked by characteristic bars. Neither of the two red x entries on the far left of the chart are any where near close to meeting the greater extension into the margin criterion or the greater length criterion. It was because I wrongly assumed that the red x marks represented “characteristic bars” that I responded, “some of the measurements on his charts are nowhere close to the measurements he provided to me.” I apologize for this false statement.<br /><br />Since distigmai mark the location of textual variants, it is simply to be expected that out of twenty one or more would be multi-word additions. So that by itself could not make them characteristic bars. Furthermore, the next lowest and farthest left is only there because Richard Fellows did not include the dot with the bar at Matt 18:10, 12. If this chart had highlighted in red only the characteristic bars, it would have illustrated their sharp contrast with the undisputed paragraphoi, especially if it had included the dot with the bar at Matt 18:10, 12.Philip B. Paynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14968317781194606836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-975090496937381352017-10-13T08:42:42.077+01:002017-10-13T08:42:42.077+01:00Upon returning to my office today, I checked the c...Upon returning to my office today, I checked the color of the ink of both the dot and the bar that appears to be an extension of it at Matt 18:10, 12 in the most faithful reproduction of the actual ink colors of Vaticanus, the 1999 Codex Vaticanus B facsimile. In that facsimile, both the dot and the bar extending to its right have the same color. Since it is common for there to be gaps without visible ink immediately to the right of the beginning of bars and since this dot is aligned properly for this bar to be an extension of it, it probably should be regarded as part of this bar. See the first photograph on p. 613 in my NTS article, and compare the three similarly interrupted bars at 1505B lines 26, 29, and 36. When a dot makes sense as part of the bar, but makes no sense interpreted as unrelated to the bar, as this one does, this favors the judgment that it is part of the bar. Since Richard Fellows left it open that the dot may be part of the bar, it is not fair of him to cite this as an illegitimate characteristic bar.<br /> <br />Including the dot, there is not a single undisputed paragraphos that has anywhere near as great extension into the margin or total length as the characteristic bar at Matt 18:10, 12. The same is true of the ninth characteristic bar Richard Fellows helpfully pointed out at Mark 6:11 (1285 B). It has a gap in the text at the exact point of a 15 word later addition to the text that is not the Vaticanus text and so further confirms that the text of the Gospels in Vaticanus comes from a stream of the text so early that none of the six additions marked by a distigme + characteristic bar had yet entered that text.<br /><br />Richard Fellows writes, “The undisputed paragraphos at Acts 13:16, for example, has an extension into the margin of 2.60mm and a length of 4.13mm. Both these measurements are greater than those of the characteristic bar at Luke 1:28 (2.39mm and 4.00mm). However creative you are, there is just no way to find criteria that enable you to disqualify Acts 13:16 but allow Luke 1:28, for example.”<br /><br />I note that Richard Fellows reduced the total length of the characteristic bar at Luke 1:28 from the length he emailed to me as being his average of three measurements from 4.01 mm to 4.00 mm. This is not much, but contrasted to his measurement of 4.13 mm for Acts 13:16, it makes a slim difference even slimmer.<br /><br />Richard Fellows’ twice repeated “for example” gives the impression that there are many such cases. Indeed, his previous post asserted that “most of your ‘characteristic’ bars do not qualify as ‘characteristic bars’.” Yet, excluding Richard’s truncated measurements the bar without the dot at Matt18:10, 12, Luke 1:28 is the only one of the nine characteristic bars for which by his own measurements there is any undisputed paragraphos with both a greater extension into the margin and greater length.<br /><br />If one considers as part of the length of the bar at Luke 1:28 the full length of its downward angling right extension measured along this angle, as I do, it is doubtful that even Luke 1:28 is an exception. <br /> <br />In any event, my article repeatedly argues that there are five features of the characteristic bars, and of the four besides being adjacent to a distigme, none of the undisputed paragraphoi displays more than two of those four features.<br /><br />to be continuedPhilip B. Paynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14968317781194606836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1520559172884766852017-10-12T17:27:50.829+01:002017-10-12T17:27:50.829+01:00Philip, you are now not judging your 8 characteris...Philip, you are now not judging your 8 characteristic bars by the same criteria as your paragraphoi. For example, you are judging your undisputed paragraphoi against "the average total length of the <i>characteristic bars</i>", but you are judging your characteristic bars against "the average length of the <i>twenty undisputed paragraphos bars</i>". The undisputed paragraphos at Acts 13.16f, for example, has an extension into the margin of 2.60mm and a length of 4.13mm. Both these measurements are greater than those of the characteristic bar at Luke 1:28 (2.39mm and 4.00mm). However creative you are, there is just no way to find criteria that enable you to disqualify Acts 13.16f but allow Luke 1:28, for example (with my impartial measurements). And Dirk is right, of course.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-72942582999005533092017-10-12T09:41:12.932+01:002017-10-12T09:41:12.932+01:00"this bar is noticeably longer than the avera..."this bar is noticeably longer than the average"<br /><br />So less than 2/10 mm in length above an average is noticeable? [Double emphasis on 'above an average' and on 'noticeable'].<br /><br />You've lost me.<br />Dirk Jongkindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06759927266909478390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-78098243068767890202017-10-09T22:12:24.909+01:002017-10-09T22:12:24.909+01:00Richard Fellows writes, “You are right that none o...Richard Fellows writes, “You are right that none of the 20 ‘undisputed paragraphoi’ qualify as “characteristic bars” under your new criteria. The problem is that most of your ‘characteristic’ bars do not qualify as ‘characteristic bars’ either, using the same criteria.”<br /><br />It is simply false that “most of your ‘characteristic’ bars do not qualify as ‘characteristic bars’ either, using the same criteria.” As documented below, all eight characteristic bars qualify as “characteristic bars.” <br /><br />In the context of comparing the average extension into the margin and length of the eight characteristic bars to the twenty undisputed paragraphoi my article states, “Of the twenty-eight bars following a distigme, only these eight combine noticeably further extension into the margin with noticeably greater length.”<br /><br />By Richard Fellows’ own measurements, each of the eight characteristic bars not only extends farther into the margin than the average of the twenty undisputed paragraphoi, each is also longer than the average length of the twenty undisputed paragraphoi. Consequently, even just considering the combination of extension into the margin and total length, all of the eight occurrences identified in my NTS article qualify as characteristic bars, whereas none of the undisputed paragaraphoi qualify as characteristic bars.<br /><br />By Richard Fellows’ own measurements, by far the least extension into the margin of any of the eight characteristic bars is 2.24 mm, and that is much lower than all the others since he did not include the dot at the beginning of the bar at Matt 18:10, 12. Even with this reduction in length, this lowest extension into the margin of all eight characteristic bars is noticeably longer than the average extension into the margin of the twenty undisputed paragraphoi by the average of his measurements, 1.802 mm.<br /><br />By Richard Fellows’ own measurements, by far the shortest of any of the eight characteristic bars is 3.88 mm, and that is much lower than all the others since he did not include the dot at the beginning of the bar at Matt 18:10, 12. Even with this reduction in length, this bar is noticeably longer than the average length of the twenty undisputed paragraphos bars by the average of his own measurements, 3.762 mm.<br /><br />Therefore, all eight characteristic bars qualify as “characteristic bars.” And this does not even include the other two characteristics of the characteristic bars: that each occurs at the location of a widely recognised, multi-word addition and that a gap occurs at the precise location of this addition following all seven (now eight) apparently original characteristic bars.Philip B. Paynehttps://www.pbpayne.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-47153586618611713602017-10-07T16:05:37.434+01:002017-10-07T16:05:37.434+01:00Philip, I checked the data that I sent you, and i...Philip, I checked the data that I sent you, and it is exactly what I plotted.<br /><br />You are right that none of the 20 "undisputed paragraphoi" qualify as "characteristic bars" under your new criteria. The problem is that most of your "characteristic" bars do not qualify as "characteristic bars" either, using the same criteria.<br /><br />I have to move on to other work, but you may want to plot bar length against number of added words for ALL the bars (not just the 28 with dots). You would then be able to see whether this larger data set shows any statistically significant correlation. Do the measurements without reading the text, to avoid bias.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-15162680204319659902017-10-06T05:30:36.586+01:002017-10-06T05:30:36.586+01:00Payne reply to Richard Fellows, part 2:
Remember t...Payne reply to Richard Fellows, part 2:<br />Remember that my NTS article identifies the following characteristics of “characteristic bars” on pp. 620–621:<br />1. Each occurs immediately after a distigme.<br />2. Each extends noticeably further into the margin than most bars adjacent to distigmai. <br />3. Each is noticeably longer than most bars adjacent to distigmai.<br />4. Each occurs at the location of a widely recognised, multi-word addition.<br />5. A gap at the precise location of this addition follows all seven apparently original characteristic bars. <br />Even with Richard Fellows’ measurements, none of the other twenty bars adjacent to a distigme, which fulfills the first characteristic, shares more than two of the remaining four characteristics. Since my statistical probability analysis was based on comparing “characteristic bars” according to this definition, Richard Fellows’ measurements have no effect on my statistical probability analysis.<br /><br />It should also be remembered that Richard Fellow’s measurements were not made from the most accurate analogue images of Codex Vaticanus B, the 1999 highest resolution color images, but from measurements he told me he made on screen. Consequently, they were limited by both the lower resolution on-screen digital images and by the limitations of his screen’s resolution.<br /><br />I do not plan to add comments to Richard Fellow’s blog post because he refused to make many corrections I identified, such as attributing to me data I did not give. Furthermore, some of the measurements on his charts are nowhere close to the measurements he provided to me. The chart of number of words in the variant would have dramatically demonstrated my case if Richard Fellows had plotted the chart as I requested, according to the number of words added to the text as I provided them to him rather than his own count, attributed to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-85248206902451340742017-10-06T05:29:08.932+01:002017-10-06T05:29:08.932+01:00I, Philip B. Payne, want to thank Richard Fellows ...I, Philip B. Payne, want to thank Richard Fellows for drawing to my attention one additional characteristic bar that I had missed on line 12 of 1285B, Mark 6:11. This bar extends exceptionally far into the margin toward the adjacent distigme and is long. There is a large gap in middle of the text at the exact letter that a 15-word addition is entered at the end of Mark 6:11, apparently added from the parallel account in Matt 10:15. This is important for three key reasons:<br />1. It significantly increases the statistical case that the characteristic bars are distigme-obelos symbols marking the location of widely acknowledged, multi-word additions to the text. The simple mathematical odds that nine randomly chosen lines would all coincide with a multi-word textual variant in the NA28 text is less than one in 31 trillion.<br />2. It adds to evidence that the text of the Gospels in Vaticanus is very early since now all six (not just all five) of the blocks of text added to the Gospels marked by the Vaticanus distigme-obelos symbols are not in the text of Vaticanus. Thus, the text of Vaticanus comes from such an early part of the stream of the text that it had not been contaminated by any of these six additions.<br />3. It indicates that the original scribe of Vaticanus marked the location of not just seven, but eight three-words-or-more blocks of added text by a distigme + characteristic bar (obelos) + a gap at the exact letter where the multi-word block of text was added.<br /><br />It is simply not true that Richard Fellows’ measurements cause my statistical case to evaporate. <br /><br />In each of the citations of Richard Fellows’ measurements below, I am using the figures he kindly sent to me that he says average his three measurements and adjust them all by an undisclosed amount to keep letters that should be within the margin within the margin. He emailed to me that the figures he posted on Evangelical Textual Criticism were only his first measurement. In each case, I use his measurements of both the extension into the margin and the total length of the characteristic bar at Matt 18:10, 12 even though they exclude from that bar the dot that I judged to be part of the bar. This results in Matt 18:10, 12 having, by Richard Fellow’s measurements, the least extension into the margin of any of the characteristic bars and the least total length of any of the characteristic bars. As I show next, even using Richard Fellow’s measurements, the eight characteristic bars all still fall into a separate category than the twenty undisputed paragraphoi.<br /><br />Even using Richard Fellows’ measurements, the 8 characteristic bars adjacent to a distigme extend into the margin on average 2.68875 mm. In contrast, the 20 undisputed paragraphoi adjacent to a distigme extend into the margin on average 1.802 mm. Thus, the characteristic bars extend into the margin approximately 50% farther than the undisputed paragraphoi do. It would be more than 50% if the 9th characteristic bar were included because it extends exceptionally far into the margin.<br /><br />Similarly, even on Richard Fellow’s measurements, the average total length of the characteristic bars (4.4175 mm) is significantly longer than the average total length of undisputed paragraphoi (3.762 mm).<br /><br />Even on Richard Fellow’s measurements, there is not a single undisputed paragraphos that combines greater extension into the margin than even the shortest characteristic bar’s extension into the margin and also a total length as great as the average total length of the characteristic bars.<br /><br />Furthermore, even on Richard Fellow’s measurements, there is not a single undisputed paragraphos that combines greater total length than even the shortest characteristic bar’s total length and also extension into the margin as great as the average extension into the margin of the characteristic bars.<br /><br />In other words, even just considering the combination of extension into the margin and total length, none of the undisputed paragraphoi qualify as characteristic bars.<br /><br />To be continuedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com