Subject: tc-list Collations

From: Mike Bossingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:54:19 -0400

Hi,

P.L. Stepp says:-

>We should also note that collations can be done for differing purposes,
and
>the purposes for the work have a great effect on how long the work takes.
>For example, the collations I did were for quantitative analysis, which
>means that I had to collate each ms against all the other mss in the
>sample--I couldn't simply collate the mss against the Textus Receptus (or
>any other single base).  (And I did the whole thing twice, to check my
>work.)

>Collations against a single base are much quicker, and are what's in order
>for a project like the IGNTP (where the purpose is to provide a complete
>rendering of a text).  But they don't seem to be of much use for analyzing
a
>given ms place in the galaxy of textual relationships, which is the
purpose
>of quantitative analysis.

A point to make is that once a manuscript has been collated and
placed into a data-base, the initial choice of base is largely
irrelevant as computer software is capable of converting to
use any other entered witness as the base and regenerating
the apparatus. Add a filter to take out unwanted witnesses and
you have in minutes a critical edition to the base of your choice
and using only the witnesses you have selected.

I have been working on a doctorate to do precisely this.

Regards

Mike Bossingham
Maidenhead, Berks

---

From: "Perry L. Stepp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 21:03:25 -0400

Both your and Robert W's description of how the computer can do the
cross-comparisons sound fascinating.  But won't itacisms, movable nu's,
lacunae, visually obscure readings, etc., present problems that will be
difficult to adequately address without a scholar going through the
comparisons letter by letter?  Handling such phenomena turned out to be a
significant part of my project.

PLStepp

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Mike
> Bossingham
> Sent: 13 September 1998 7:54 PM
> To: tc list
> Subject: tc-list Collations
>
>
> Hi,
>
> P.L. Stepp says:-
>

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:17:16 -0500

>significant part of my project.

There are several responses to this.

First, this is a function of the original collations, not the collation
base or the database.

Second, if such a question *does* arise, then of course one must refer
to the original manuscript. But these problems are only a small minority
of variants (or, rather, they are problems only in a small minority
of genetically significant variants).

Third, the original context of this discussion was quantitative
analysis -- determining the genetic relationship between manuscripts.
For this, lacunae do not matter. Visually obscure readings are to
be read if they can, and treated as lacunae if not.

The argument could be made that itacism, movable nu, etc. might
have genetic significance. But the keyword is *might*. This depends
on the scribe and the manuscript. Some scribes copy by letter; these
scribes will usually transcribe spelling and all. Others copy
by syllable; these will be slightly less reliable in this aspect.
Still others copy word by word. With these scribes, itacisms, etc.
mean very little; they will frequently spell the word the way *they*
spell the word. This might even extend to varia such as first or
second aorist ending.

On this subject I suggest that you read the relevant section (pp. 33-43)
in W. L. Richards's _The Classification of the Greek Manuscripts
of the Johannine Epistles_. This is a work marred in all sorts of
places by conceptual defects, but it did do one useful thing: It
initially included every variant in its manuscript base, then divided
them into "questionable" and "non-questionable" variants. The
"questionables" were things like nu-movable. Richards found that
the inclusion of such variants merely decreased the relationship of
closely related manuscripts, without making a significant difference
for less-closely-related manuscripts. I interpret this to mean that
his "questionable" variants are more a product of the scribe than the
text.

Thus, the policy of the IGNTP is, IMHO, correct: Collate against a
standard, then compile the collations into one master file and
work from that. Collating every manuscript against every other is
just a way to increase your work exponentially -- with an actual
*loss* of useful data.

Of course, this does require that you have the right computer program
on the job. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."