tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post7150415492173542296..comments2024-03-28T00:45:18.442+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Darrell Post on Family 1 in John: Five New Core MembersP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-61359600095328618922021-01-30T19:23:50.140+00:002021-01-30T19:23:50.140+00:00James, yes, if you wish to provide a private email...James, yes, if you wish to provide a private email address, we could discuss further. Thanks.Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05514916694063974131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-10226299767865066332021-01-30T06:48:56.398+00:002021-01-30T06:48:56.398+00:00Darrell,
You've got collations of John 11 in a...Darrell,<br />You've got collations of John 11 in about 550 MSS??! Is that available?James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-89742163923453186792021-01-28T20:28:18.531+00:002021-01-28T20:28:18.531+00:00Joey, that's interesting. I don't know any...Joey, that's interesting. I don't know anything about the calculation of the technique you mentioned. All I can speak to is the work I completed in chapter 11 and explain my methodology. I excluded things like minor spelling variations due to confusing vowel sounds, corrections made by the first hand, and obvious nonsense readings like starting a word at the bottom of a page and then starting it over at the top of the next page. I collated from John 11:1 through 12:2, a total of 991 words in the 2005 R-P MT text. Then I added up the variation units and did the math to get a percentage of agreement, as shown in the tables above. <br /><br />Also, I was not impressed with the data from John 11 for the subgroups (22, 1005, etc), as most of the readings they shared with F1 were also found among other manuscript clusters (thus far I have collated John 11 in about 550 manuscripts). Of course the data may well be different outside of John 11. Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05514916694063974131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-62338317319453671152021-01-28T18:31:02.781+00:002021-01-28T18:31:02.781+00:00For what it's worth, I applied non-negative ma...For what it's worth, I applied non-negative matrix factorization (a machine learning technique) to Bruce Morrill's collation of John 18 a long time ago, and it isolated the following manuscripts as members of the same group (from highest group mixture coefficient to lowest): GA 1, 1582, 357, 138, 565, 209, 994, 2713, 2575, 1784, 2684, 205, 2886, 2702, and 884. Unfortunately, even if I increase the number of clusters to identify to 30, the procedure doesn't break this cluster down into the A, B, and Venice subgroups of Family 1. The other two subgroups (containing GA 22 and 1005) get classified differently.Joey McCollumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352192479713307345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53592282976143990952021-01-27T20:24:17.676+00:002021-01-27T20:24:17.676+00:00James, thank you for all that great info. There is...James, thank you for all that great info. There is also the supplement to 1784. Bruce Morrill found it to align with Family 1's Venice group in chapter 18. I found in chapter 11 that the supplement began in verse 20, and it closely followed the Venice group until verse 51 where it reverted back to closely following the MT. Somewhere between chapter 12 and 18 it apparently reverts back to the Venice Group.<br /><br />Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05514916694063974131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-88362153682917368182021-01-27T19:57:51.370+00:002021-01-27T19:57:51.370+00:00The catena group (138, 357, 884, 994, 2575) has pr...The catena group (138, 357, 884, 994, 2575) has previously been remarked upon by D.C. Parker (in Klaus Wachtel's Festschrift) – it should go where 884 does in Welsby, and her mention of the large number of singular readings in 884 should be interpreted accordingly (i.e. 884 is not a particularly good member of the catena group). Amusingly enough, Parker and I independently came to the conclusion that 2575 is a direct copy of 994. Sickenberger also notes Milan D.282 inf. (part of a four volume set, two of which have been catalogued as 2579) as a direct copy of 138. A curious feature about the catena group is that the text becomes f1 about two-thirds of the way through Luke – one thing I'd like to try and establish is if there is a change in the catena type at this point.<br /><br />If we're adding f1 witnesses from the catena group, we also need to include 2684, which does not have a catena, but seems to be very close to 994 from midway through John 14 to the end of John.<br /><br />2517, 809, and 2702 are interesting. I know little about any of them.<br /><br />As for the extra 22 group members (and indeed the division into stronger and weaker subgroups), many of these are already known from McReynolds and Wisse's CPM work on Luke and Omanson's on Mark.James Dowdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11058389162481491681noreply@blogger.com