Subject: tc-list Codex formats

From: "Wieland Willker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:19:40 +0100

I've just read E.G. Turners book "The typology of the early codex".
He has an interesting table of codex formats and has separated several
groups.
I have a problem with this though. I can't see any groups here. It's just a
random variation of all thinkable formats.
Have a look at my little graphic at:
http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Codex-Formate.jpg
which shows this random variation of breadth versus hight for all codices
with a breadth between 11 and 15 cm. There are no groups.
He said, his groups are "significant groupings about a norm".
I have correlated also the H/B ratio versus date. There is no clear
correlation. Maybe a very small tendency from large H/B ratios to a smaller
one, but not statístically signifficant.
This is what I've suspected, there is no "early codex typology".

Best wishes
    Wieland

PS: I cross-post this mail to Synoptic-L and the TC-List.
------------------------
Wieland Willker
[email-masked]
http://purl.org/WILLKER/index.html
Egerton Homepage: http://purl.org/WILLKER/Egerton/Egerton_home.html
Secret Mark Homepage: http://purl.org/WILLKER/Secret/secmark_home.html

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 09:33:47 -0600

>This is what I've suspected, there is no "early codex typology".

Based on the chart at the web address, I think I agree partly with
both of you. I should note that this is based *just on the graph*;
I haven't seen the data. We should also note that the two axes of the
graph are not to the same scale. (BTW: A hint. If you do any more
such graphs, save them in GIF format. For an image like this, with
only three colours, the GIF file will probably be smaller and will
certainly be easier to read.)

I observe two things:

1. There appears to be one real cluster, centered at 16Hx14B

2. There also appears to be a desired *shape* (not a size, but
   a ratio of width to height). Without the numbers, I can't
   calculate the exact slope and intercept, but it appears that
   we have something on the order of:
   H = 6.5B - 64

Which I'll admit is rather strange....

But I think we have to face the fact that there will be a lot of
"noise" in data like this, based on the available writing materials.
Indeed, the pattern Turner saw might be the result of the use of
standard materials.

Wish I knew more. But my feeling is that there is something of a
pattern to that data -- just not a strong pattern. :-)
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)