tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post6071930111009130628..comments2024-03-29T07:11:17.775+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: IGNTP John majuscules: How reliable are the transcripts?P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-76746781023684009452007-10-03T11:08:00.000+01:002007-10-03T11:08:00.000+01:00Eric (and others),I have placed an up-date to the ...Eric (and others),<BR/>I have placed an up-date to the post. Let me know what you think of that. I am certainly not trying to pick a fight with IGNTP folk.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53793123102378488302007-10-03T06:30:00.000+01:002007-10-03T06:30:00.000+01:00Eric, I think Peter already said it, but I'll clar...Eric, I think Peter already said it, but I'll clarify my position: no errors allowed, period. All the text-critical work hinges on accurate information on the readings. Errors on those transcriptions mean (or can mean) errors in our work. Lets say (hypothetically) that I'm preparing a study on orthographic variants. Misinformation on the transcriptions mean I write rubbish without even knowing it. So yes, even one error is a potential problem. IMO, IGNTP should aim towards perfection, now that it is put on the Net, as correcting problems is easier than on print.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-45871167890382930232007-10-02T23:27:00.000+01:002007-10-02T23:27:00.000+01:00Ah, I see what you mean Eric. There are a couple o...Ah, I see what you mean Eric. There are a couple of issues here. Firstly, the electronic and the printed editions are not easily separated since they are two aspects of the same project.<BR/>Secondly, David Parker himself, in a review of Comfort-Barrett in TC 4(1999) wrote as follows:<BR/>"how many errors does it take to make a transcription worthless? The answer, scientifically, should be that even one is enough to do that. ... I would certainly be pretty worried if anyone could point to half a dozen clear errors in the IGNTP transcriptions of John papyri, or even to four."<BR/>(http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol04/ComfortBarrett-ed1999rev.html para 37) So, as he admitted, this is a pretty embarrassing issue since errors in the transcriptions necessarily damage confidence in the whole project. Of course, hopefully, it is just a computer glitch and the proper transcription files can be up-loaded quickly. When they are, no doubt we can get Dirk (and others) to do some more spot-checking. This is not point scoring, as David said in that same review: "without accuracy there is no gain".<BR/>Thirdly, if the web version of the transcription was 'an older file' it remains problematic that the transcription seems to have been created by using the TR as a text base and adjusting it, rather than creating a new transcription (or even using a text base that is closer to Sinaiticus). This is problematic because it is not how the IGNTP says things were done.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-80676934347733423552007-10-02T22:32:00.000+01:002007-10-02T22:32:00.000+01:00Peter M. Head said..."Eric,I am not sure what you ...Peter M. Head said...<BR/>"Eric,<BR/>I am not sure what you mean - what wrong conclusion could be drawn from the post?"<BR/><BR/>Maybe I'm reading the whole thread wrong here. But isn't David Parker saying that the errors you pointed out are strictly limited to the electronic edition of IGNTP, not the printed one (as Timo pondered on his first comment)? If that's the case, then it is definitely something worth noting in the main post--pardon me if I'm reading things wrong here.<BR/><BR/>Timo Flink said...<BR/>"Eric, I must respectfully disagree. It is important to note exactly what a manuscript contains, including orthographics etc, for they play a part in analysing individual scribes and their habits."<BR/><BR/>There's nothing to disagree with really. My questions are genuine questions, not just rhetorical. I'm interested in what you seasoned text-critics think about how orthography should play into a project like IGNTP.<BR/><BR/>So, if the nu superscript is important, what about other variant ways of presenting letters, such as the graphemes that represent various letter combinations. Should IGNTP replicate those as well? Again, this is a genuine question.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559055709208918638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-77927754356204841292007-10-02T21:17:00.000+01:002007-10-02T21:17:00.000+01:00Houghton: Do let us know what discrepancies you've...Houghton: Do let us know what discrepancies you've found on the Vetus Latina website<BR/><BR/>Sent as feedback via the web site.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-10555717008111297652007-10-02T18:58:00.000+01:002007-10-02T18:58:00.000+01:00Eric, I must respectfully disagree. It is importan...Eric, I must respectfully disagree. It is important to note exactly what a manuscript contains, including orthographics etc, for they play a part in analysing individual scribes and their habits.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-68472663727059540722007-10-02T17:18:00.000+01:002007-10-02T17:18:00.000+01:00Eric,I am not sure what you mean - what wrong conc...Eric,<BR/>I am not sure what you mean - what wrong conclusion could be drawn from the post?Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-9140010618680056202007-10-02T17:16:00.000+01:002007-10-02T17:16:00.000+01:00Dear Maurice,Do let us know what discrepancies you...Dear Maurice,<BR/>Do let us know what discrepancies you've found on the Vetus Latina website. A brief glance at Jülicher seems to support most of our readings, but I'm happy to check the photos for any further points outstanding.<BR/>Hugh HoughtonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-69296516112745375872007-10-02T17:15:00.000+01:002007-10-02T17:15:00.000+01:00For a project like IGNTP that purports to be as ex...For a project like IGNTP that purports to be as exhaustive as possible within the limits ascribed to a given volume, what should determine when something must be rendered graphically as it is in a MS, and when something is merely an orthographic stylistic variation that doesn't demand replication.<BR/><BR/>What I have in mind is all of the final superstrokes that are rendered instead with final nus (in the list given here, though apparently not in the printed volume). Since the superstroke stands for nu, why should that be considered a mistake? Can't I just think of it as an alternate way for a scribe to write the letter nu? And surely something like IGNTP shouldn't be expected to represent every alternate way that various letters can appear, should it? Perhaps this very issue is already covered in the project's introduction, which I admit I haven't read.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559055709208918638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-88225136341614867862007-10-02T17:07:00.000+01:002007-10-02T17:07:00.000+01:00Given David Parker's comment, could the original p...Given David Parker's comment, could the original post be edited with an update that calls attention to his claims, lest somebody draw a wrong conclusion before reading the comments?Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559055709208918638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-8157203528614639352007-10-02T16:27:00.000+01:002007-10-02T16:27:00.000+01:00While we are at it....I have been comparing the sa...While we are at it....I have been comparing the same site's electronic Vetus Latina transcriptions in relation to the <I>Pericope Adulterae</I> against my own personal transcriptions made from the material at Münster, and am finding various discrepancies as well. Another computer glitch? Or are my transcriptions which I thought to be careful wrong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-40805060607124359252007-10-02T16:11:00.000+01:002007-10-02T16:11:00.000+01:00Many thanks for commenting on this. An immediate r...Many thanks for commenting on this. An immediate response from checking this is that the book is correct (as Peter Head has pointed out). The transcription on the web edition seems to be xml that has been compiled from an older file. We have checked the transcript files and discovered that the errors noted here were all present in an older form of the file, which was later corrected (including, by collating this against the Munster transcription -- which seems to be correct at all these points, see the transcript on http://intf.uni-muenster.de, click on prototype). But for some reason, the older file was used when making the web version. We will replace the transcript as soon as possible with the newer, correct version -- the same version which was used to make the apparatus in the print book which (happily) does not have these errors. So in fact Peter Head is perfectly correct: there was indeed a (very embarrassing) computer glitch. We are taking the site down for now, to correct this, which we will do as soon as possible.<BR/>David Parker, ITSEEAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-83278818010559923832007-10-02T16:02:00.000+01:002007-10-02T16:02:00.000+01:00Just to let you know that I have phoned David Park...Just to let you know that I have phoned David Parker to let him know about the problem.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-55602136735056353582007-10-02T16:01:00.000+01:002007-10-02T16:01:00.000+01:00Thus there is every reason to buy the book.Thus there is every reason to buy the book.P.J. Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-44303588615286902222007-10-02T15:53:00.000+01:002007-10-02T15:53:00.000+01:00"So this may be some kind of technical computer st..."So this may be some kind of technical computer style of error"<BR/><BR/>There are a number of computer errors in the IGNTP online transcriptions, some more serious than noted here. For instance, in the Byzantine edition, in the Chrysostom transcription of John 3, verse 5 ends "eis thv basileiav tou"; similarly, verse 13 ends, "o wv en tw". In each case, the last word is omitted. The error occurs in other places as well, but only seems to show up in transcriptions, but not in the comparative apparatus. I reported the problem a month ago, and they acknowledged it, but so far it does not appear that any action has been taken.<BR/><BR/>Casey PerkinsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-75287771131152603942007-10-02T15:50:00.000+01:002007-10-02T15:50:00.000+01:00I've updated my site athttp://www.laparola.net/gre...I've updated my site at<BR/>http://www.laparola.net/greco/<BR/>so that now if a verse in John with a variant reading is displayed, there is also a link to the appropriate page of the IGNT Majuscules.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-21689605700474994092007-10-02T15:36:00.000+01:002007-10-02T15:36:00.000+01:00I've just checked the printed book (which doesn't ...I've just checked the printed book (which doesn't contain a transcription of Sinaiticus) to check what happens at these points. The references to Sinaiticus in the apparatus to the text in the printed book, at each of these points, is absolutely correct. <BR/><BR/>So this may be some kind of technical computer style of error, since the transcription of Sinaiticus that appears on the web is obviously not the transcription that was used to construct the text and apparatus in the printed book.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-45589750692261739342007-10-02T15:26:00.000+01:002007-10-02T15:26:00.000+01:00Hopefully there is a good explanation of this!Hopefully there is a good explanation of this!Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-18247117229605468732007-10-02T15:21:00.000+01:002007-10-02T15:21:00.000+01:00OK. I've figured it out. They have contaminated th...OK. I've figured it out. They have contaminated the transcription by using the Textus Receptus as the collating base. This explains Dirks Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 - all the obvious errors. <BR/>This is crazy, since the problem was already pointed out re the Papyri Volume. <BR/>It shows that the transcriptions were not made freely and independently, but only by revising the TR. If this was practiced throughout then who knows how many errors there could be in these transcriptions.<BR/><BR/><BR/>HELP.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-18662834951158196792007-10-02T15:14:00.000+01:002007-10-02T15:14:00.000+01:00Thanks Dirk,It doesn't look so good does it? This ...Thanks Dirk,<BR/>It doesn't look so good does it? This number of errors (especially clear errors, not worrying about readings hidden under corrections for the moment) is far too high. You could be talking about around 100 errors just in Sinaiticus. It is hard to see how this could have happened if their were two truly independent transcriptions with discrepancies carefully checked. <BR/>Do you think there could be some contamination from a base text?Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-26755412243869370932007-10-02T15:11:00.000+01:002007-10-02T15:11:00.000+01:00I agree with Dirk. Electronic versions are relativ...I agree with Dirk. Electronic versions are relatively easily corrected but his findings beg a question on the reliability of the printed one, though nothing major was found, but still ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com