[split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections

[eggyk]

This argumentation is problematic for several reasons. First, it is circular reasoning to assume that we can detect exceptions for rules we still want to discover. Secondly, by using this hypothesis we would start the analysis with the presumption that we can't trust our observations.

There can be markers that potentially indicate systematic mistakes, even if the rules aren't fully known. For example, checking the relative frequencies of variations (based on the assumed mistranscription of a character, not on missing or additional characters). If there is a consistent pattern across many words, it could indicate something. 

1) The VMS doesn't contain any corrections in form of deleted glyphs. If there are misspelled glyphs the scribe didn't care to scrape them out. This clearly contradicts the idea that we can determine errors. In my eyes the idea that the text was copied from a draft and that the scribe didn't understand what he was writing illustrates, how a problematic starting hypothesis leads to even more problematic conclusions.

It doesn't contradict it at all. In a scenario where a scribe does not know they are making mistakes, or what mistakes look like, why would they cross out what they have done? 

2) Words with high mutual similarity are typical for the VMS. For each common word there is at least another one differing from it by only a single quill stroke. For example, in addition to the word <daiin> also the words <dain> and <daiiin> are present in the text. The existence of words with high mutual similarity to other words is quite normal for the VMS. To explain them as errors is therefore more than problematic.

Why is it problematic? Perhaps the mutual similarity is the result of mistakes. We don't know. 

3) The shift from Currier A to Currier B demonstrates that the VMS has an evolving vocabulary with no stable baseline. There's no "correct" form of the text against which errors can be measured — because the text is a process, not a product. You can't have errors in a system that has no fixed target.

Again, you are conflating gradual vocabulary change with spelling mistakes, which may have different markers that can be detected.

One idea would be to consciously mark the most common words as "correct", and to search for potential variations that could represent mistakes. That is a good fixed target: common words/letter clusters that do not seem to gradually change throughout the manuscript. 

Of course we don't know if the form is correct. But we can guess, and conduct experiments following from those guesses. Are you not doing the same by assuming that vocabulary and writing style is gradually evolving? You only know it has "changed" because it is different from your previous baseline assumptions on the text.

4) The text perfectly fits into the available space. This is even the case for holes within the parchment or if a drawing of a plant separates a line into multiple parts. This indicates that the text layout responds to the layout of the page. Either, the text layout was made during writing or in addition to the holes, the text layout was copied. Therefore, this observation indicates that the text was adapted during writing and also that the scribe was the author.
An alternative idea would be that the VMS is a facsimile of the original manuscript. But this would mean that besides the text layout, the "errors" were copied.

Or it means that the original text was retraced, so the positioning of everything would remain the same.