Help needed understanding Source Criticism data
Verbum coding
Andersen-Forbes coding
The red arrow on the first image (Logos/Verbum dataset) has segments coded with two tags (see Information column) which results in mixed color highlighting. The second image is the Andersen-Forbes coding which has no mixed tagging. I realize that the Andersen-Forbes coding is much older in computer time but I don't know (and probably wouldn't know) of any major changes that would explain the difference in coding. Why do they differ -- different philosophy of showing ambiguities? advances in theories? side effect of Hebrew vs. English tagging? error in tagging?
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."
Comments
-
bumping in hopes of getting a response either from Logos or from the forums
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 -
There are two different datasets that are being used here. Anderson Forbes includes Eissfeldt's Hexateuch, and Logos created a stand alone data-set using this same resource (https://archive.org/details/hexateuchsynopse00eiss/page/n3/mode/2up)
It looks like when I created the stand alone data-set, I didn't realize that the P source starting in Gen 2, didn't go to the end of verse 4. I'll update the annotation.
Thank you for pointing this out.0 -
This issue has been fixed. The update should be shipped in the next cycle of updates.
0
