Visual Textual Criticism
This is incredibly niche and probably waaaay down on the priority list, but I am going to throw it out there anyway. FL had already been working on putting together databases for both Old and New Testament manuscripts. Logos already has maps that are owned by FL. What if these two things were combined? What if there was a way to study textual criticism by having Logos generate a map showing specific manuscripts that support various readings in the geographic areas from which the manuscripts came? There could be a "zone" on the map for Syria, Rome, Egypt, etc. Users would be able to adjust the map so that only manuscripts from a certain century are displayed. For example, it would be possible to generate a map showing the geographical distribution of the short or long endings of Mark at a given point in time. Even if it were only approximate, it would still be helpful. Over time FL could add testimony from the Church Fathers, and they would appear on the map in their respective geographic areas during the time periods in which they live. Lectionaries could also be added. Maybe use different icons for papyri, uncials, etc. We could shoot for this to be ready by the time Logos 9 ships? [:)]
Comments
-
Would you draw some sketches, take a picture and put here, for example related to the Mark ending?
Gold package, and original language material and ancient text material, SIL and UBS books, discourse Hebrew OT and Greek NT. PC with Windows 11
0 -
I don't think you would want to see anything that I have drawn - I am artistically challeged, so to speak! However, if there is interest, I can try doing some sort of a mock-up, although it will probably somewhat generic in nature as I am going to be extrmemly short on time for the week or so and won't be able to do it "right." What I have in mind is being able to take two to more variant readings (let's say A and
and visually representing the evidence by century and geographic region. For example, reading A may have had witnesses in the 3rd century in Rome, Palestine, and Egypt, whereas reading B had witnesses at that time in Syria and Palestine. If we then move to the 4th century, we might find Reading A has many more witnesses and is now also found in Syria, whereas reading B is now only being used in Palestine. I envision different icons being used to show if a witness is a papyrus document, uncial, miniscule, version, lectionary, or Church Father, and a separate color would be used for each variant represented on the map. If there were 5 witnesses in Egypt for a given reading, there would be an icon for each witness on that part of the map. Moving the mouse over the icon would reveal basic information about the witness, and clicking on it would open up more in-depth information. It makes sense in my head, but I am not sure how well I am conveying my idea. Feel free to ask questions for clarification. I will post a mock-up when I have opportunity. 0 -
A few potential benefits/uses of such a tool might be:
1. Visually representing what would otherwise be very complex or difficult to put into words.
2. Ability to get a "bird's eye view" (almost literally!) of the history of the text.
3. Observe changing trends in a preferred reading across time and geographic regions.
4. Visually see where all those Church Fathers primarily operated (I am sure I am not out the only one who often gets them confused!).
5. Depending on what settings were available, you might be able to use such a tool to visualize which Fathers were contemporary with each other.
6. Being able to visually demonstrate why a particular reading is likely original or not (thinking of a map with support for one reading all over the place from multiple types of witnesses and another reading with extremely slim support in just one area).
7. Make textual criticism easier to wade into for those who have never studied or used it before.
8. Ability to show someone on a map the geographic regions where the various versions originated.
9. Visually and quickly find what the earliest evidence is for a particular reading, as well as where and what type of witness that earliest evidence was.
10. This would be a MAJOR feature Logos could brag about, as no one would have anything even close to it!
0 -
Matthew said:
Logos generate a map showing specific manuscripts that support various readings in the geographic areas from which the manuscripts came
HI Matthew.
Thanks for the suggestion. Short answer: I would *love* a feature like this, but the data points to fuel it simply don't exist.
One very real problem is that source provenance of most manuscripts is relatively unknown. We literally don't know where manuscripts were written or where they were used, for the most part. Outside of a minority, we only know where they ended up ("in a museum!", just like Indiana Jones would've wanted).
For example, we know that codex Sinaiticus was found at St. Catherine's monastery in the Sinai peninsula, but we don't really know if that's where it was written, or when it might've arrived there if it wasn't written there — and what its prehistory might've been.
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
Rick, valid point. A few thoughts in response. Church Fathers could be located on the map according to their area of operation as best it can be determined. Versions could be located on the map according to where that particular language was spoken or where the version was likely originally translated. Manuscripts could be located based on text type to the extent possible. We would have to figure out a way to represent clearly mixed text types. The result obviously would not be perfect, but it would be a useful approximation. I never said my idea was feasible - just that I want to see it happen! [:P]
EDIT: Suppose a manuscript is Alexandrian in the Gospels but Western in Acts. Since the tool would only display evidence for one variant at a time, the tool could treat the manuscript differently depending on where in the text the variant is located. Probably WAY easier said than done, but I did give you all the way to Logos 9 to work out a solution...[:)]
EDIT: Since tongue is already firmly in cheek, we could put everything not categorized in the Mediterranean Sea. I would be more interested in displaying the information we do have and adding additional information if/when it becomes available. A map accurately showing limited information is more useful than no information at all.
0 -
One thing I'm missing is the link between putting a manuscript on a map and the church fathers. Can you walk through that?
Probably much easier to associate a location with an early church authority than a location with a manuscript or manuscript fragment (watch out for the big dot in Oxyrhynchus).
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
Matthew said:
EDIT: Since tongue is already firmly in cheek, we could put everything not categorized in the Mediterranean Sea.
No, no, no .... the Church spread first to the East and last to the West ... I recommend the Kingdom of Sogdia and will provide a PB for everyone to learn Sogdian. [8-|] ... I mean as long as we're talking manuscripts and canons I'm obligated to include Oriental Orthodoxy in the discussion.
More seriously, while I agree with Rick that language and where found are what we know mainly of the manuscripts, I would find a mapping of the location of the early church fathers very interesting.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
-
Apologies to everyone for temporarily abandoning my own thread. There has been plenty to keep me occupied over the weekend.
Veli,
Given the feedback on this thread so far (for which I am very thankful), it no longer seems like there would be much of a point in doing a mock-up. See below.
Rick,
You asked about the link between manuscripts and the fathers being on the same map. I included the fathers in my suggestion for the same reason that any critical apparatus cites the fathers. They provide an indirect witness to the text. If they quote a particular passage, that provides evidence for what readings were or were not present in the manuscripts they had access to at that point in time and in that geographic location. Manuscripts, versions, lectionaries, and the fathers should all be taken into account when doing textual criticism, so I included all of them in my suggestion.
MJ., EastTN, and SineNomine,
Given your feedback I have moved on from the original suggestion put forth in this thread and started a new thread with a new suggestion. Continuing our current conversation on the new thread may be more beneficial than continuing it here. The new thread can be found here:
0
