Posts Tagged ‘distigme’

July 14th
written by phil

Richard Fellows and Jan Krans in NTS 65 (2019) 246-251 and 252-257 deny that distigme-obelos symbols exist in Codex Vaticanus B. This study critiques those articles. It identifies key insights and weaknesses in both articles. It shows that all eight subsequently discovered distigme-obelos symbols with all five characteristic features identified in my NTS 63 (2017) 604-624 article mark with a gap the precise point where the original text was interrupted. In each case, the spurious added text consists of at least four consecutive words. Since additions of four or more consecutive words occur on average only once every 83.5 lines of Vaticanus text their coincidence with all sixteen distigme-obelos symbols must not be random.

May 1st
written by phil

Priscilla Papers 33, No. 2 (Spring 2019) 24-30 has just published my article, “Is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 a Marginal Comment or a Quotation? A Response to Kirk MacGregor.” It demonstrates that Kirk MacGregor’s claim that 1 Cor 14:33b-38 is a “Quotation-Refutation Device” is false. It argues, instead, that 1 Cor 14:34-35 was originally written in the margin as a reader comment and was inserted into the text, as copyists normally did with text in the margin, either after verse 33 or after verse 40. It provides evidence that 14:34-35 was a marginal gloss from the oldest Bible in Greek, Codex Vaticanus, one of the oldest Latin manuscripts, Codex Fuldensis, transcriptional probability, and internal evidence. It identifies all sixteen instances where Vaticanus’s original scribe left a gap in the text at the exact point at least four words were added. Four-or-more-word additions survive in multiple manuscripts on all seventeen distigme-obelos-marked lines. The two-dot distigme marks the location of a textual variant. The obelos identifies what kind of variant it is, a multi-word addition that was not in the original text.