tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post4210479369234653634..comments2024-03-28T15:48:18.205+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: How Bad is Wikipedia? Codex Alexandrinus as a Test CaseP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-81390916974256784792014-03-07T02:37:13.590+00:002014-03-07T02:37:13.590+00:00Couple other examples of bad TC info on wiki...
0...Couple other examples of bad TC info on wiki...<br /><br />0212 - misleadingly makes it sound like it's a codex<br /><br />0243 - mentions only 7 of its 9 leaves, omitting the 2 of Heb... which is kinda important towards χωρις θυ in 2:9.Jeff Catenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-74045214367111508092014-02-24T18:54:25.297+00:002014-02-24T18:54:25.297+00:00I find Wikipedia is good as an overview and a jump...I find Wikipedia is good as an overview and a jumping off point. It had breadth, but almost always fails on depth.<br /><br />My confidence in Wikipedia was challenged when I found I was quoted in the Codex Boernerianus article in Oct 2010 (I found it in Oct 2010, it was first posted in July 2009.<br /><br /> I had used Google Translate to translate Reichardt's introduction to his facsimile (which I found on the CSNTM). Janczuk had taken my (machine) translation of Windisch's German translation (found in Reichardt's intro) of the Old Irish poem found in Boernerianus. At the time I posted something to the talk page explaining the I was neither a German speaker, nor an expert in Old Irish, and my translation was heavily influenced by Scrivener's.<br /><br />Finally 2 years later that whole section was removed and replaced by something more appropriate.<br /><br />Upshot: There are lots of problems in wikipedia, but most of the more egregious ones get fixed over time. Still I wouldn't reference wikipedia in an article or a paper (in fact wikipedia doesn't claim to be referable -- original research is not allowed on wikipedia it is always a secondary source at best).<br /><br />bobBob Relyeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13063651264391311686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-80628182577704938192014-02-21T11:13:36.534+00:002014-02-21T11:13:36.534+00:00Hi,
Peter, your complaints were not vacated. 8 o...Hi,<br /><br />Peter, your complaints were not vacated. 8 out of 10 were acted upon quickly. Not a bad % in such a matter. And that was taking flak for simply making the correction.<br /><br />Granted, I emphasize that many of those 8 are not very substantive issues, still the corrections are made.<br /><br />The use of Tregelles about the size of Alexandrinus compared to Vaticanus seemed valid, so that was left alone. If some one wanted to put in more exact sizes, they could do so. I'm not going to remove accurate, sourced, helpful information without a good replacement.<br /><br />#6 was a key question. Despite inquiries I still do not understand your CAPS insult position contra the Wiki author, as to why a disassembled quire, then reset in another fashion, should not be called a quire. If an explanation makes sense, I will change the text. (Or if the original quire was not 8 leaves.)<br /><br />StevenSteven Averyhttp://purebible.blogspot.com/2014/01/pure-bible-central-headquarters.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-2995798322270793212014-02-21T06:32:23.412+00:002014-02-21T06:32:23.412+00:00Daniel,
I meant that I had purchased James Snapp&...Daniel, <br />I meant that I had purchased James Snapp's kindle book for 77p from Amazon. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-18600266752966808532014-02-20T20:47:28.716+00:002014-02-20T20:47:28.716+00:00Peter Head,
Your opinions cost 77 pence? Here in A...Peter Head,<br />Your opinions cost 77 pence? Here in America our opinions are worth two cents. Given its origin in the English "two pennyworth," American opinions were from the start worth only half English opinions. <br />Without inflation to prop up the value of our opinions, it appears that they continue to lose ground in relative value to those in the Motherland.Daniel Bucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-92216647784892844542014-02-20T20:38:16.402+00:002014-02-20T20:38:16.402+00:00I, too, don't think it's necessarily "...I, too, don't think it's necessarily "a particularly interesting guarantee of quality," but, most of the time, I hope, it should be a guarantee of some kind of external and hopefully academically rigorous "review." That's why I'm not sure it's worth one's while to spend too much time biblioblogging (ETC, NTWeblog, and a few others being notable exceptions). On this, I'd like to refer to two wise words of two scholars I happen to respect: http://www.joshualmann.com/press-publish-interview-with-peter-head/ and http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/peer-review-and-biblical-studies-scholarship/! :)Peter Malikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00270874379279604671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-52841889848084506172014-02-20T18:56:28.831+00:002014-02-20T18:56:28.831+00:00I'm really sorry that my complaints were vacat...I'm really sorry that my complaints were vacated. It is just how I feel sometimes. Not least at the moment.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-71600914098624752322014-02-20T18:26:10.244+00:002014-02-20T18:26:10.244+00:00Hi,
Ryan, I fixed those partly to learn really ho...Hi,<br /><br />Ryan, I fixed those partly to learn really how deep were the errors in the "test case". And whether the criticisms were accurate and fair. And how I should approach such issues in general. <br /><br />My answer is .. very overdone. The manuscript section of Wikipedia is pretty good, there were flaws in the criticism as much as in the Wiki piece.<br /><br />Most of the Wiki article problems really go back to the fact that Leszek Janczuk is not polished in English. And he relied too much on Caspar Rene Gregory, similarly poor in English. A And always needing to be checked (even in the early 1900s). Thus some awkwardisms were in the article. <br /><br />Plus little problems like double references and placement and style.<br />Fair enough, but not major.<br /><br />Some of the complaints were vacated or way overdone on examination. <br /><br />The most substantive errors were:<br /><br />#3 changing positions after rebinding .. apparently a real misreading of scholarship.<br /><br />From my study, even making eight changes.<br /><br />THATS IT FOR REAL SIGNIFICANT ERROR<br /><br />========<br /><br />Two more of Minor significance<br /><br />#5 Pericope - an error but I see much worse every day from Metzger, Wallace et al. <br /><br />#10 - "... who had better tools for comparison...". A reasonable criticism, more than a quibble, but far from major.<br /><br />========<br /><br />#6 - I still await a real explanation of why a "rebound into quires of six leaves each." is conceptually wrong and ignorant. Even after having a private conversation with one of our scholars, the criticism simply does not make sense.<br /><br />If the leaves are unbound (e.g. unsewn) and then redone into a new (something)... why is the new one (something) supposed to be a "set" rather than a "quire". What type of rule is that?<br /><br />And note the harsh capital letters criticizing the author on this point! I can pretty much assure you that Leszek knows exactly what is a quire.<br /><br />If no reason is given that is really clear, then the biggest error in the article and the criticism is in the criticism. <br /><br />The super-emphasis and attack on a learned Wikipedia author for ignorance, falsely.<br /><br />In this case, false accusations (and I await a demonstration otherwise) are worse than imprecise presentations.<br /><br />====<br /><br />And understand, many Wikipedia articles are disasters. However, afaik not the technical manuscript articles, and not Codex Alexandrinus. <br /><br />====<br /><br />StevenSteven Averyhttp://purebible.blogspot.com/2014/01/pure-bible-central-headquarters.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-40550630781207381692014-02-20T14:50:09.800+00:002014-02-20T14:50:09.800+00:00I personally don't really believe that "p...I personally don't really believe that "peer review" is a particularly interesting guarantee of quality. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-91823963003912904952014-02-20T14:49:01.701+00:002014-02-20T14:49:01.701+00:00Well I have lashed out my 77p on Authentic by Jame...Well I have lashed out my 77p on Authentic by James Snapp Jr. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-17420226053335450022014-02-20T12:35:14.661+00:002014-02-20T12:35:14.661+00:00re: James Snapp. Perhaps some (or perhaps even mos...re: James Snapp. Perhaps some (or perhaps even most) people don't spend their working lives responding to things and "correcting" as some others do. This particular blog entry was a mere case in point as to Wikipedia's frequent inaccuracy. Metzger's and others' inaccuracies get their response more often than not—and most times in the context of peer-reviewed scholarship. When was the last time you submitted something to the peer-review (e.g. conference/seminar paper, article, etc.)? Peter Malikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00270874379279604671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-68588512314179388642014-02-20T08:25:45.704+00:002014-02-20T08:25:45.704+00:00I concur with Christian, especially on his last po...I concur with Christian, especially on his last point. I was quite shocked to have found out how misled I had been in believing that there's something like "ancient" Greek! See further http://www.theonion.com/articles/historians-admit-to-inventing-ancient-greeks,18209/ Peter Malikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00270874379279604671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-89726570660178972852014-02-19T23:06:03.570+00:002014-02-19T23:06:03.570+00:00For the record, it should be noted that my view of...For the record, it should be noted that my view of the ending of Mark differs significantly from that of Mr Snapp. <br /><br />However, I do think that his investigations and corrections of various misstatements in the relevant literature regarding that passage have merit, and should be considered by any interested researcher, with critique if necessary.Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-66843462455934493702014-02-19T22:19:23.615+00:002014-02-19T22:19:23.615+00:00Dr. Robinson,
My views are expressed in my book, ...Dr. Robinson,<br /><br />My views are expressed in my book, "Authentic; The Case for Mark 16:9-20." It is available now at Amazon as a Kindle e-book. Price: 99 cents. I don't think you'll get such a good deal from an ink-and-paper publisher.<br /> <br />My now-and-then updating of the entry for Mark 16 on Wikipedia has consisted mainly of<br />(1) mentioning my theory (that 16:9-20 existed as a freestanding document in the mid-60's, and was attached to 16:8 when Mark was prevented from finishing his account, before any copies of the Gospel of Mark were made) along with others, and<br />(2) correcting misinformation, under-information, misleading ambiguities, and flatly false claims about the evidence pertaining to Mark 16:9-20. <br /><br />When is Peter Head or someone else at ETC going to do for Metzger's comments on Mark 16:9-20 in Textual Commentary what he has done for Wikipedia's entry about Codex Alexandrinus?<br /><br />Metzger's claim about non-annotated MSS with asterisks and obeli alongside Mk. 16:9-20 is false, as far as I have been able to test it.<br />The same is true regarding Dan Wallace's claims on the same point.<br />The insignificance of the silence of Clement -- considering that he directly quotes from the Gospel of Mark at all in very few places outside of chapter 10 -- is a point that should be tattooed to the sky, considering all the weight that has been unduly placed upon it.<br /><br />So where are the articles and blog-entries that should say so? The mistakes that have been pointed out in Wikipedia's article on Codex Alexandrinus are fleas compared to the elephants that have been spread about Mark 16:9-20.<br /><br />Yours in Christ,<br /><br />James Snapp, Jr.<br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-28712310965557790802014-02-19T19:54:43.227+00:002014-02-19T19:54:43.227+00:00Here you go.<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Authentic-Case-Mark-9-20-Annotated-ebook/dp/B00551JF7S/ref=la_B005BH2VFY_1_1/182-6729949-5531151?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1392839562&sr=1-1" rel="nofollow">Here you go.</a>Daniel Bucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-75586230014132376002014-02-18T20:26:15.889+00:002014-02-18T20:26:15.889+00:00Wikipedia most definitely is the wrong forum for M...Wikipedia most definitely is the wrong forum for Mr Snapp to present his text-critical views, particularly if various Wikipedia users keep playing the correction and re-correction game with him so that no one really can be certain of his precise claims. The result comes across as little more than sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. <br /><br />What he really needs to do (and I have suggested as much) is to <i>publish</i> his material and thus allow his claims opportunity for serious consideration and scholarly review.Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-82612788106991387272014-02-18T18:36:09.766+00:002014-02-18T18:36:09.766+00:00James Snapp has been trying for years to get the s...James Snapp has been trying for years to get the scholarly world to quit lying about the ending of Mark, and the one place he's had any success is on wikipedia, where he can actually interact with those who disagree with him. Yes, his corrections are constantly being corrected, but--for the most part--nowhere else are his corrections even being considered.Daniel Bucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-39191316123970796252014-02-18T15:19:24.328+00:002014-02-18T15:19:24.328+00:00Christian,
first, thanks for that link, that was ...Christian,<br /><br />first, thanks for that link, that was funnier than the onion's been for a long time!<br /><br />second, you wrote: " encourage students to use it for a quick reference on bigger picture issues, verifying information elsewhere when necessary."<br /><br />I think the kicker there though is that final phrase "when necessary." But how are the students to know when it is necessary? I quote stendahl too often, or maybe not often enough, "our vision is more often hindered by what we think we know than by our lack of knowledge." If the wikipedia entry sounds sensible - which it often will - then the student will think they have the right answer, and will see no need to go verify anything. Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10915737233077999632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53859684740229996872014-02-18T08:12:12.258+00:002014-02-18T08:12:12.258+00:00Wikipedia is what it is. It is a free online mass...Wikipedia is what it is. It is a free online massive collaboration. It is not a scholarly reference work. I think that Pete has demonstrated this well in his blog post. We should recognize its advantages (massive, online, free), and hope that decades of future contribution will result in significant improvements. I use Wikipedia on a daily basis, and would encourage students to use it for a quick reference on bigger picture issues, verifying information elsewhere when necessary.<br /><br />Additionally, the reality of peer reviewed scholarship sometimes is not so much more reliable than Wikipedia. Anybody ever been to SBL? Even journal articles and published books from recognized publishers are sometimes so filled with errors as to cause one to lose faith in the academy. (Yes, actually as bad as what Pete has outlined here.) Do any of us trust publications by the Smithsonian, National Geographic, the History Channel, the BBC, NPR or PBS without question? (Sure, Fox News is wholly reliable. I myself get all my information from <a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/historians-admit-to-inventing-ancient-greeks,18209/" rel="nofollow">America's Finest News Source.</a>)Christian Askelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381441700351009913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-68422270919635748802014-02-18T03:05:28.783+00:002014-02-18T03:05:28.783+00:00Steven Avery,
I applaud your efforts to correct t...Steven Avery,<br /><br />I applaud your efforts to correct the errors that Peter pointed out, but I fear it may be missing the point a bit.<br /><br />The post title said this was a "test case," the implication being that this was just one example of a broader problem. <br /><br />You may correct these 10 specific errors in this one article on Alexandrinus, but 1) that still leaves other errors in the article that Peter did not identify in this post, and more importantly, 2) it still leaves all the similar errors in all the other manuscript articles. The very idea of this as a "case study" is to suggest that the other manuscript articles are of similar quality. <br /><br />Now, sure, if you're a supporter of wikipedia, you could see this as the basis for a call to mass correction, but I doubt you'll get the takers, primarily because those qualified to do it simply have better things to do than offer pro bono editing services to a source that, even if fully corrected, would still be redundant in the face of the scholarly resources on these manuscripts that are already available. Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10915737233077999632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-86786365969120478502014-02-17T20:45:32.725+00:002014-02-17T20:45:32.725+00:00Thanks Peter.Roger Pearse also remind us some impo...Thanks Peter.Roger Pearse also remind us some important facts about Wikipedia a year ago: "In fact, many Wikipedia administrators are school-going teenagers. The youngest I personally am aware of was 11 years old when he won administrator rights; at 12, he became a bureaucrat, which means he had the ability to close requests for adminship and appoint other editors as administrators...Regular readers may recall the incident where the academic authors of the Acta Pauli blog were harassed by an administrator whom they discovered was 14 years old. " http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2013/02/02/how-old-are-the-wikipedia-administrators/Raul M. Cruz-Mireleshttp://www.expresionespiritual.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-75871450974506955032014-02-17T08:55:30.268+00:002014-02-17T08:55:30.268+00:00Hi,
Ok, seven down.
And the Vaticanus letter siz...Hi,<br /><br />Ok, seven down.<br /><br />And the Vaticanus letter size comparison, #8, I will leave alone. It was the comment of Tregelles and the reference is properly given.<br /><br />That leaves #6 and #7.<br /><br />#7 " all comes from Scrivener's <br /><br />Six Lectures http://books.google.com/books?id=MAE-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA52<br /><br />"The vellum has fallen into holes<br />in many places, and since the ink psels off for very age whensoever a leaf is touched a little roughly, no one is allowed to handle the manuscript except for good reasons."<br /><br />The reference that was given was Plain Introduction that only had the holes. The dubious phrasing was Scrivener, and then it was made a bit more dubious.<br /><br />===<br /><br />I'll plan on the last two tomorrow, unless anyone else wants to have a little fun in the sun.<br /><br />StevenSteven Averyhttp://purebible.blogspot.com/2014/01/pure-bible-central-headquarters.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-2438487880946688172014-02-16T02:36:41.234+00:002014-02-16T02:36:41.234+00:00Steven - Most of the corrections are fairly easy t...Steven - Most of the corrections are fairly easy to make, but #6 will require knowing where the confusion originated. The problem most likely results from a misunderstanding of Thompson's comments in the introduction to volume 1 of the full-scale facsimile. When the NT volume of the facsimile was published (1879), he believed that most of the quires were composed of six leaves, but he corrected himself in volume 1 (1909), claiming that "when the MS. was re-bound in the present century, the quire-formation was disregarded, the leaves being separated and re-backed and made up into sets of six" (<i>Facsimile of the Codex Alexandrinus</i> [London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1879–1883], 1:8).<br /><br />Hope that helps.W. Andrew Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06448030311090865571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-26774543563646463542014-02-16T01:14:50.143+00:002014-02-16T01:14:50.143+00:00Hi,
And I have no problem with Peter not correcti...Hi,<br /><br />And I have no problem with Peter not correcting the article. If you are not familiar with Wikipedia the whole process is intimidating. Plus, it was helpful to show the current state (you can make a url to show a back state, but that is not as effective.) Plus, by posting it here, any of us could follow up.<br /><br />Maurice Robinson is not really right about corrections on a topic like this one. Especially if you buttress your changes with an explanation in Talk. Often they will stick 100%. e.g. I made some changes a while back on Fuldensis, no problemo.<br /><br />This is less true on hot-button debate issues, so maybe that was the experience of Professor Robinson. Leszek, who is the main fella in Wiki manuscript land, is quite responsible. <br /><br />Wikipedia is often an excellent preliminary source, and then you move deeper. On one hand it is right for scholars to disclaim its use in papers, as an easy fix. On the other hand, you often hurt your own efforts if you do not avail yourself of its capabilities. Often it will lead you right to a good source. And there are many cases where it can be used informally directly.<br /><br />Ironically, some of the information that Peter attacked in the page was directly from Caspar Rene Gregory, normally a decent factual source. He happened to be wrong on the topic, yet he, eg. is the one who talked of a "large A".<br /><br />So far, I fixed the first three items. I'll report back after doing more. It gets more involved than you would think, since you want to find a proper source behind the correction.<br /><br />StevenSteven Averyhttp://purebible.blogspot.com/2014/01/pure-bible-central-headquarters.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-83323019918489042022014-02-16T01:09:23.295+00:002014-02-16T01:09:23.295+00:00Well, if Jańczuk can wait six months, Brill will b...Well, if Jańczuk can wait six months, Brill will be publishing an authoritative text on Alexandrinus that he can use to update this information. :p<br /><br />RE: "(I pass over the final phrase in silence)"<br /><br />Haha!W. Andrew Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06448030311090865571noreply@blogger.com