Subject: tc-list collating

From: "Vinton A. Dearing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 15:27:34 PST

Jean-Francois Racine has asked various questions about collating, to 
which I answer:
  1. You can find computer programs for collating in various sources. 
I seem to remember that the Library of Congress has one, and so do 
the computer laboratories at Cambridge University in England and 
Rutgers University in New Jersey, USA. The Chaucer project has one.
International Greek New Testament Project has one. I have a set on my
 web page,   http://www.english.ucla.edu/dearing/
  The reasons for a set are these. A. You and preferably someone else 
should make two transcripts of each manuscript and compare them by 
program #1 to discover errors and correct them in at least one of the 
transcripts.
  B. You should reproduce the lineation of the manuscript. It is 
tedious to provide an identifier for each line (title, siglum of the 
manuscript, and line number), so use program #2 to provide the 
identifiers.
  C. Use program #3 to relineate the transcript to match that of the 
text that is the basis for comparison, such as UBS.
  D. Use program #4 to collate several manuscripts at once. If you 
have only one to collate, use program #1 again.
  How long will this take? I have made some experiments, and it seems 
true that a reasonably good touch typist who knows Greek well can 
make an acceptable transcript of the Gospel of John in nine or ten 
hours. Double this if you make both copies yourself. Comparing the 
copies by program #1 takes minutes, correcting the errors less than 
an hour, supplying the identifiers for the lines by program #2 takes 
minutes, relineating might take half an hour, comparing the 
transcript with the base for collation by program #4 or #1 takes 
minutes. Circling the variations in the printout and transcribing 
them in standard form takes a couple of hours. Or you might just send 
the printout to whoever is in charge of your project if you are a 
co-worker.
  These times assume that you have a machine-readable transcript of 
the base for comparison. Making one of the Gospel of John would
add ten hours to the project (twenty if you work alone). The time 
required will increase if you can't see the manuscript or get a photo 
you can read easily. If you can take your lap-top to the library that 
has the manuscript, that is best, but time consuming. Getting 
microfilm made takes time. If you can't take your laptop to the 
microfilm reading room in your library, you will need to have Xerox 
copies made, which takes additional time. Your typing speed also 
affects the time required.
  2. Remember that photos do not always show all the details of  the 
manuscripts. The pages of O24 in the Hertzog-August Library in 
Wolfenbuttel have been guarded with a transparent substance that 
interferes with photographic imaging.  I spent time at Oxford with a 
palimpsest in which some underwriting had disappeared except for 
the scratches left by the pen; with a strong light shining on the pages 
at an angle you could read the scratches. On the other hand,
specialized photography can bring out writing that is invisible to the
eye. Enquire about this at the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in
Claremont, California, where Bruce Zuckerman has done great work,
or write to him at the University of Southern California, where he is
a professor.
  You can sometimes have films reproduced or borrow them. The largest 
set of New Testament films is in the Institut fur neutestamentliche 
Textforschung in Munster, Germany. Klaus Wachtel, one of our listers, 
is on the staff there: [email-masked]  The largest set of 
Old Testament films, all, or almost all, the films of the Dead Sea 
Scrolls, and films collected by the IGNTP are at the Ancient Biblical
Manuscript Center.  
  3. You should make every effort to be sure that all.your 
machine-readable transcripts are made to the same standard. Some that
you obtain from others may include diacritics, where others may not.
You will either have to reduce all to the lowest common denominator 
or bring all up to the highest. Or you can double check the output of 
your collation program when you suspect there may be untranscribed 
differences that are significant to you.
  4. A collation program will list all the differences in the 
transcripts and you can then decide for yourself which variants you 
will wish to consider further.
  5. If you are not familiar with the theory of what constitutes a 
variant see pp. 25-58 of my book Principles and Practice of Textual 
Analysis, University of California Press, 1974.
     Vinton A. Dearing

---

From: "Perry L. Stepp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 19:08:24 -0400

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.

PLStepp

*****************************************************************
Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX
Ph.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University
#1 Cowboy Fan
Keeper of the Top-10, news://alt.fan.letterman

It is tremendous folly to put trashy people in positions
of trust and conspicuousness.

                       --George Will, 6 August 1998

*****************************************************************

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 20:08:49 -0500

>of quantitative analysis.

The first part of the final sentence ("[Collations against a single base]
don't seem to be of much use for analyzing a given ms place in the galaxy of textual relationships") is absolutely true; this was the great failure
of Streeter in his analysis of the Caesarean text.

But remember that we're discussing doing this on the computer. Done
right, we collate once against a standard, and the computer does
the rest.

I'll use my Galatians 5 example again, this time just doing verse
5:1. We start with individual collations, e.g.

1739
v.1 - om oun h
      add oun post sthkete

330
v.1 - om oun h
      hleuqerwsw ] eleuqerwsw
      add oun post sthkete

223
v.1 - enecesqe ] anecesqe

Just combine these and one has

v.1 - om oun h 330 1739
      hleuqerwsw ] eleuqerwsw 330
      add oun post sthkete 330 1739
      enecesqe ] anecesqe 223

And so forth. Resulting in each manuscript being collated against
each other, but individually collated against a standard (in this
case, the TR).

This is a *necessary* approach. We simply cannot directly collate
all manuscripts against all others.

I will demonstrate.

To collate 3000 manuscripts against the TR takes 3000 collations.
Even doubling this by placing them in a master file takes only
6000 steps.

To collate 3000 manuscripts, every one against every other, takes
3000 + 2999 + 2998 + ... + 2 + 1 = 4,501,500 collations.

Volunteers, anyone?

In any case, the latter does no particular good, because collating
manuscript A against manuscript B tells you nothing if you don't
have a control. (That is, if they agree, we need to know if this a
point of variation in other texts. If they disagree, what do they
agree with? etc.)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

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