Jump to content


Photo

Tutti Frutti Greek Manuscript Bundle & Computer Comparison


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Enoch

Enoch

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts

Posted 16 October 2014 - 11:38 AM

Ideally Accordance would have all the Greek manuscripts in one module or bundle.  And it would be possible to run a comparison on more than 2 mss.  Of course "all" is probably not possible, but would it be possible to have a high percentage of the mss all in Accordance?  

 

As to advancing from current comparison capacity, how much comparison would be possible?  Right now if I bring up 2 mss, I can use the compare function, but I don't know if the results are available in numerical interpretation; i.e., percent of identity.  Comparing manuscripts mathematically is an ideal, though obviously requiring a high degree of sophistication to be useful, as each manuscript will have different missing parts, lacunae.  And one codex's missing parts will differ from another's.  One would like some way of extrapolating what the comparison would be if there were no missing parts.

 

But the abstract idea is to be able to compare all the manuscripts mathematically and come out with results like:

 

X & Y are 90 percent identical and these 2 are the closest in identity of any two manuscripts.

Z & Q are 89 percent identical and these two have an identity rating of 23 (there are 22 mss which are mutually more identical than these out of a total of 6000 mss). 

 

The degree of identity for any two manuscripts would be mathematically expressed as percents.

By comparing all manuscripts with each other this way, families could be established objectively.

Or has anyone already done this?

 

Using the Accordance compare function, I don't know if there is any way to expand the comparison beyond 2 modules (what is the maximum number of mss that can be compared simultaneously?);

but when I tried 4 codices in parallel, only the first 2 compared.

 

Obviously in many cases the comparisons would be reduced to individual book comparisons (Romans in X vs Romans in Y).

 

It would be nice to be able to compare more mss simultaneously. And it would be nice to have a huge bundle of texts with improved means of comparison.


Edited by Enoch, 16 October 2014 - 11:41 AM.


#2 Timothy Jenney

Timothy Jenney

    Platinum

  • Accordance
  • 1,565 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:sunny Winter Haven, FL
  • Interests:a good cup of coffee, sci-fi, playing bass, listing to jazz and the blues, camping, fishing and the great outdoors
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 16 October 2014 - 12:38 PM

Hi, Enoch!

 

Compare texts can be controlled in Preferences>Compare Texts. Just choose "Multiple Texts" instead of "Single Text." You'll be ready to go! 

 

The analysis you'll have to do on your own.  ^_^


Blessings,
"Dr. J"

Timothy P. Jenney, Ph. D.
"Lighting the Lamp" Host and Producer

 

Early 2011 17" MBP (8,3), 2.3 GHz Quad core, 16 GB RAM

OSX 10.10, Yosemite


#3 Enoch

Enoch

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts

Posted 16 October 2014 - 01:49 PM

Hi, Enoch!

 

Compare texts can be controlled in Preferences>Compare Texts. Just choose "Multiple Texts" instead of "Single Text." You'll be ready to go! 

 

The analysis you'll have to do on your own.  ^_^

Much tnx for the info Timothy.  I think there must be some limit on how many parallel windows one can open & thus on how many texts one can compare?  

 

I changed my preference to multiple texts, but then the first text was no longer compared.  I had 4 parallel texts: UBS4-T & 3 uncial mss.  With single text, UBS4-T was compared with the first uncial only.  When I changed to multiple, only the 3 uncials were then compared, not UBS4-T.

 

As to the analysis, I don't think anyone can do this on his own.  It requires a computer program with some kind of mathematical result.  Writing such a program is beyond my capabilities.

 

I did google on this, hoping to find that someone had compared manuscripts with computer and come up with some quantitative results; but I did not find it.

 

BTW, is there anyway to change the highlight result upon comparison?  When I do it, the highlights look more like line-out than highlight.


Edited by Enoch, 16 October 2014 - 02:01 PM.


#4 Abram K-J

Abram K-J

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,688 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greater Boston, MA
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 16 October 2014 - 01:59 PM

As to the analysis, I don't think anyone can do this on his own.  It requires a computer with some kind of mathematical result.  Writing such a program is beyond my capabilities.

 

I did google on this, hoping to find that someone had compared manuscripts with computer and come up with some quantitative results; but I did not find it.

 

Logos's text comparison feature does what you are asking about (i.e., give you a percentage of closeness/divergence), so it's at least possible for a program to do it. I have no idea what goes into that percentage, how it's calculated, etc.


Abram K-J
Pastor, Writer, Freelance Editor, Youth Ministry Consultant, Blogger
Web: Words on the Word

#5 Timothy Jenney

Timothy Jenney

    Platinum

  • Accordance
  • 1,565 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:sunny Winter Haven, FL
  • Interests:a good cup of coffee, sci-fi, playing bass, listing to jazz and the blues, camping, fishing and the great outdoors
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 16 October 2014 - 03:09 PM

Compare texts, when set to "Multiple Texts," uses the leftmost text as the base, then marks all others where they diverge from it. That's the reason the first text has no marks on it.

 

You can change the colors of the highlighting in preferences, but not its style.

 

[Chuckle] Enoch, I wasn't trying to be snide when I suggested you would have to do your own analysis. I just meant Accordance would not do it for you. Frankly, I have no idea how you would count the various differences, let along weigh them for statistical analysis. Interesting problem, though...

 

Have you considered designing your research around CNTTS? It includes many, many texts and has extensive documentation. With its multiple fields, it can be search easily and specifically. Search results can also be displayed as a Hits Graph or a Table, the latter even at a chapter level detail. 


Blessings,
"Dr. J"

Timothy P. Jenney, Ph. D.
"Lighting the Lamp" Host and Producer

 

Early 2011 17" MBP (8,3), 2.3 GHz Quad core, 16 GB RAM

OSX 10.10, Yosemite


#6 JonathanHuber

JonathanHuber

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Englewood, CO
  • Interests:Bible study, Greek
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 16 October 2014 - 03:14 PM

On a barely related note, you come up with some of the funniest thread titles.  :)



#7 Abram K-J

Abram K-J

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,688 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greater Boston, MA
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 16 October 2014 - 03:16 PM

Ha! I, too, was admiring the name of this potential bundle.


Abram K-J
Pastor, Writer, Freelance Editor, Youth Ministry Consultant, Blogger
Web: Words on the Word

#8 Enoch

Enoch

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts

Posted 16 October 2014 - 08:17 PM

Ha! I, too, was admiring the name of this potential bundle.

Thanks.  I admit to being influenced by a little paper back book that I bought when studying Greek at the U of Minnesota:

Tutti i Verbi Greci.  As I recall some Italian made a list of classical Greek verbs in their inflected forms, parsed.  Thus one could identify rare verbs or odd forms.  This might be a valuable work for Accordance to key to for non-Bible Greek works, though methinks Accordance is deficient in that category.  Having the Greek corpus is a great lexical asset -- as if one could highlight a Greek word in the NT and have the entire ancient Greek corpus searched with results like a concordance.

 

Thanks Abram for your comment above on Logos.  After I have invested so much in Accordance, I hate to have to go to Logos to get what I want.  Perhaps Accordance will surpass Logos on this in the near future so I don't need to do duplicate purchase of Greek texts.    I reluctantly have recently invested in Logos to get much more of the Greek corpus (especially Perseus) -- their Community Pricing bid system is letting me acquire a lot of Loeb classics incredibly cheap -- I find I can get like 8 volumes for $4!  Of course one expects that between these 2 systems, in some aspects each will be better than the other.   


Edited by Enoch, 16 October 2014 - 08:27 PM.


#9 Enoch

Enoch

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts

Posted 16 October 2014 - 08:35 PM

Compare texts, when set to "Multiple Texts," uses the leftmost text as the base, then marks all others where they diverge from it. That's the reason the first text has no marks on it.

 

You can change the colors of the highlighting in preferences, but not its style.

 

[Chuckle] Enoch, I wasn't trying to be snide when I suggested you would have to do your own analysis. I just meant Accordance would not do it for you. Frankly, I have no idea how you would count the various differences, let along weigh them for statistical analysis. Interesting problem, though...

 

Have you considered designing your research around CNTTS? It includes many, many texts and has extensive documentation. With its multiple fields, it can be search easily and specifically. Search results can also be displayed as a Hits Graph or a Table, the latter even at a chapter level detail. 

But Timothy, isn't CNTTS just a textual apparatus?

And does it cover mere spelling variations? (like epsilon iota for long iota)?

Perhaps there would be some way to convert that data into the sort of comparison I have in mind, if the variants are exhaustive and cover even the trivial.  



#10 Jonathan C. Borland

Jonathan C. Borland

    Silver

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 193 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 17 October 2014 - 06:41 AM

The results of such a feature would not be meaningful unless the texts were already tagged, letting the program know that misspelled words (by far the majority of all differences in any raw transcription of any manuscript) were not meaningful. Also, the program would have to know, e.g., that the omission/addition of a definite article or a particle was less important than other additions/omissions, that a sentence accidentally written twice was not as important as the addition of a new sentence, that the omission of DE after a word and addition of KAI before it was really just a single alteration (as opposed to two), that the addition of EAN with the subjunctive instead of a future indicative was really just a single alteration (and not a very important one), that certain disagreements among manuscripts might actually be agreements (e.g. two mss diverge from the base text with the same word but in different tenses or moods), etc. Not to mention, if someone went to all the trouble to tag every single word in a raw ms transcription, he probably also would have evaluated the differences and made his findings available to the academic world. In the end, the importance of the axiom "differences must be weighed and not counted" cannot be overemphasized.


  • Douglas Fyfe likes this

#11 Enoch

Enoch

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts

Posted Today, 02:03 PM

The results of such a feature would not be meaningful unless the texts were already tagged, letting the program know that misspelled words (by far the majority of all differences in any raw transcription of any manuscript) were not meaningful. Also, the program would have to know, e.g., that the omission/addition of a definite article or a particle was less important than other additions/omissions, that a sentence accidentally written twice was not as important as the addition of a new sentence, that the omission of DE after a word and addition of KAI before it was really just a single alteration (as opposed to two), that the addition of EAN with the subjunctive instead of a future indicative was really just a single alteration (and not a very important one), that certain disagreements among manuscripts might actually be agreements (e.g. two mss diverge from the base text with the same word but in different tenses or moods), etc. Not to mention, if someone went to all the trouble to tag every single word in a raw ms transcription, he probably also would have evaluated the differences and made his findings available to the academic world. In the end, the importance of the axiom "differences must be weighed and not counted" cannot be overemphasized.

Jonathan, I don't quite follow your reasoning.  If one is doing textual criticism, then "misspellings" (anachronistic comment?) IMOH,  would be the most meaningful variations of all.  It seems to me, that a very mechanical mathematical comparison, without the pollution of modern correctors, would be exactly what is needed.



#12 JonathanHuber

JonathanHuber

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Englewood, CO
  • Interests:Bible study, Greek
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted Today, 05:14 PM

If one is doing textual criticism, then "misspellings" (anachronistic comment?) IMOH,  would be the most meaningful variations of all.

 

Do you think that a spelling difference of word is more meaningful than addition, deletion, or replacement of a word?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users