Out of curiousity —

Does anyone know of any studies done where the same Greek MS (or MS portion) has been copied by several different people of varying Greek abilities?

It seems to me that if there was a common source text that was copied in controlled environments by "scribes" of varying skill (both skill in Greek and scribal ability) with the goal of creating an accurate copy; comparing the output to the known source to track the sorts of errors encountered might be a valuable thing.

I'm not talking about examining known ancient MSS. I'm talking about getting a group of friends together and simply saying, "Hey, let's hand-copy First John* and see what sorts of errors crop up". Heck, make it easy and skip accents/breathing, just copy the letters.

Anybody know of any analysis done like this? It seems that such an approach — while it wouldn't utilize actual, bona-fide scribes unless you run in such circles — could be valuable in thinking about the sorts of transcription errors and their frequency.

For fun, one could take the experiment a few generations down the way and even have someone "consolidate" MS editions five and six generations removed from original source and then compare the accuracy of the text-critical work.

If this hasn't been done, I'd be interested in thinking further about it. Any suggestions as to source to copy or if you'd like to volunteer to be a test scribe should this experiment occur;** please leave a comment in the thread or email me using the address on the sidebar.

Thanks!

Update (2005-12-16): Whoa, two comments within an hour of posting! That is some sort of ricoblog record, I think. I should expand a bit since I've thought about this some after the initial post. I'm thinking that larger samples than a classroom setting, wider range of skills for copyists (I talked to one guy who said he'd do it, and he's have his kids do it too), wider geographic participation (potentially worldwide, I'd guess) and no time constraints for copying. I'm less interested in an exercise for students and more interested in gathering a decent amount of somewhat real data from folks of all different skill levels copying Greek text that can be used as base for analysis. Interested? Continue using the comments to post your thoughts or send me an email. I'll likely be digesting this over the weekend, so please make your thoughts known!

* First John chosen semi-randomly. I'm curious on thoughts as to whether familiar or unfamiliar text would be appropriate for such a test. I'm also curious about how long of a text to select. It seems a shorter (but not one chapter) epistle such as 2 Thessalonians, 2 Peter, Titus or Colossians might be fun. Or perhaps Mt 5-7 (Sermon on the Mount)?

** If the experiment does occur, I would plan on posting (anonymously) photos/scans of all copied text for others to examine along with some rudimentary analysis. If anyone else produced similar analysis of materials, I'd of course link to it or offer to host it.

I was just reading some in Matthew J. O'Connell's translation of Moreschini and Norelli's Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History. And sometimes things just hit me. Like this, talking about the second dialog between Jesus and James in the First Apocalypse of James, a gnostic dialogue from the Nag Hammadi Library:

After the passion (30.12-31.1), Jesus appears again to James, comments on his passion, attributing it to the heavenly archons, and explains in detail how James can answer the heavenly "customs officers" who will attempt to restrain his spirit after death. (Moreschini and Norelli, 143)

Sometimes, despite my best attempts to prevent it, mortality peeks around the corner just to remind me that ashes do pass to ashes, and dust does indeed turn into dust again. I'm a sojourner, and someday my time here will end.

Mortality "peeked around the corner" when I read the above paragraph.

Some day, and only the Lord knows when, this life of mine will end. It may be tonight, it may be 70 years from now (I'd be 104 -- Hopefully Christ returns or takes me home before then). But I don't think about it much for a few reasons.

First, I'm scared. I have no clue, beyond vague generalities, about what happens the moment after I breathe my last breath.

Second, I'm busy. I have too much to do. This is a mixed blessing; I'm sure that a huge portion of what I busy myself with really has little consequence in the scope of eternity. But I also know that God will prepare me for the tasks he has in store for me; so I need to try my best to heed his direction in all that I do. But many times, busy-ness distracts from this.

Third, I have hope. I know there is more to living than this sad, sinful existence we have here now. This makes the uncertainty bearable. Life in the fullest awaits. Further up, Further in!

I know I don't need to worry about "customs officers" hassling me in some other-worldly place I arrive in after death. My salvation is secure in the Lord Jesus Christ. So when mortality "peeks around the corner", that's OK. Actually, it is a good thing. I need to be reminded that I am destined for other things (cf. EpDiog 5.5), to help keep my eyes focused on that which is ahead of me (cf. Php 3.12-16).

Finally. It's here in my grubby little hands. Matthew Brook O'Donnell's Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament. I've been waiting months for this book. I'm so stoked that it is in print.

When you do what I do for a living — munge Greek text — a title like this simply begs to be read. So now I get to read it. Here's the first paragraph of the blurb at Sheffield Phoenix Press:

The burgeoning field of corpus linguistics studies aspects of a language that are susceptible to computer processing once a sizable electronic corpus of the language has been assembled. In this groundbreaking work, O’Donnell takes the unusual step of applying the techniques of corpus linguistics to Hellenistic Greek and especially the Greek of the New Testament, and in three areas shows, with a multitude of worked examples, how it could sharpen our appreciation of the language.

I may or may not comment further on it on this blog. I'll say that if you're into linguistics generally, and into the Greek of the New Testament specifically, then you may want to consider the book even if you're not into analysis of linguistic corpora. True, there is some technical stuff in the book (how awesome to see a book in Biblical Studies with XML on the page!) but there is also good thinking about different approaches and data analysis that could come in handy even if one isn't into such things.

If you're generally interested in stuff like this, you should check out the OpenText.org project too. Matthew Brook O'Donnell is the project's Director of Research and Development. They are doing some seriously cool stuff. Also note that Logos Bible Software (my employer) will be publishing an edition of the OpenText.org Syntactically Annotated Greek New Testament; this has been mentioned in some detail by yours truly in the Syntax section of the Logos Bible Software Blog.

I should also state that because of Logos' involvement with the OpenText.org material, I've had the pleasure of working with Matt and others from the OpenText.org project. The experience of working with them on implementing the OpenText.org material has been one of the highlights of my year. I've learned much as a result and look forward to learning more in working through Matt's book and continuing to work on the OpenText.org material.

Update (2005-12-13): Thanks, Wayne (Better Bibles Blog) for the encouragement and for posting a notice to the B-Greek list. B-Greekers, if you happen to come here and check it out, you may be interested in other posts I've written in the Greek category. There are a bunch of posts in that category, so it may take time for the page to generate.

Yep, it's the last section of the Epistle to Diognetus. Check post on §11 for more info.

As mentioned when discussing §11, §§11-12 appear to be appended onto the Epistle to Diognetus, with the original ending lost.

This section is decidedly different, focusing on "knowledge" and hearkening back to motifs from Genesis regarding the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. Allegorical lessons are drawn from the imagery from Genesis; we actually get a glimpse into how text and concept were applied -- though since we don't have the whole picture (and since I'm not giving this much time at all) conclusions cannot be made here.

Since I'm out of my depth and not too motivated, I'll simply quote Meecham on this "knowledge":

In §1-10 the concept of knowledge as such finds little place. It is sufficient for the author to insist that the knowledge of God cannot be reached by man. It is given by God Himself through faith and begets fullness of joy (EpDiog 10.3). In §11-12, however, knowledge looms large. Faith is intimately conjoined with gnosis. In the fertile world of Christian life both the tree of knowledge and the tree of life are found. 'The tree of knowledge does not kill; but disobedience kills' (EpDiog 12.2). That is, gnosis has its due place in the religious life. On the other hand, its place is subordinate. God planted first in the Garden the tree of life, the path to which was indicated by the tree of knowledge. 'For there can be neither life without knowledge nor sound knowledge without true life. Wherefore each (tree) stands planted near the other' (EpDiog 12.4). Hence the Apostle (Paul) blamed the gnosis which is divorced from the truth that lead to life (1Co 8.1). Dorner finds "all through the twelfth chapter the pursuit of a middle path between Gnosticism and abstract piety". The author of this Appendix (§11-12) sets high value upon a true gnosis as an essential element inthe Christian life. Christianity is the highest philosophy and is in accord with reason. Yet it is revealed to faith, apprehended only by men enlightened by God, and attested by life. (Meecham 52-53)

And with that, I'll end my series of posts on the Epistle to Diognetus. Next up: Didache, though probably not until the new year. That is, unless there is a groundswell in voting and another document rises to the top of the poll.

From a veritable flurry of posts on Evangelical Textual Criticism, the following are of note:

• ETC Annual Achievement Awards: Nominations. Be sure to read the comment thread on this one. I won't place my ignorance on display for everyone by making nominations ... but if you'd like to humor me you could read the post where I call Tischendorf a "stud". Or check out the ricoblog Textual Criticism category.
• A link to A.E. Houseman's The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism. Check out the below quote:

I have in my mind a paper by a well-known scholar on a certain Latin writer, half of which was concerned with grammar and half with criticism. The grammatical part was excellent; it showed wide reading and accurate observation, and contributed matter which was both new and valuable. In the textual part the author was like nothing so much as an ill-bred child interrupting the conversation of grown men. If it was possible to mistake the question at issue, he mistook it. If an opponent's arguments were contained in some book which was not at hand, he did not try to find the book, but he tried to guess the arguments; and he never succeeded. If the book was at hand, and he had read the arguments, he did not understand them; and represented his opponents as saying the opposite of what they had said. If another scholar had already removed a corruption by slightly altering the text, he proposed to remove it by altering the text violently. So possible is it to be a learned man, and admirable in other departments, and yet to have in you not even the makings of a critic.

Drop by Evangelical Textual Criticism and give the rest of the recent posts a read too.

Update (2005-12-12): More from the A.E. Houseman article. This is an awesome read. Below are some more quotes from the paper.

"The human senses have had a much longer history than the human intellect, and have been brought much nearer to perfection: they are far more acute, far less easy to deceive. The difference between an icicle and a red-hot poker is really much slighter than the difference between truth and falsehood or sense and nonsense; yet it is much more immediately noticeable and much more universally noticed, because the body is more sensitive than the mind. I find therefore that a good way of exposing the falsehood of a statement or the absurdity of an argument in textual criticism is to transpose it into sensuous terms and see what it looks like then. If the nouns which we use are the names of things which can be handled or tasted, differing from one another in being hot or cold, sweet or sour, then we realise what we are saying and take care what we say. But the terms of textual criticism are deplorably intellectual; and probably in no other field do men tell so many falsehoods in the idle hope that they are telling the truth, or talk so much nonsense in the vague belief that they are talking sense." (pp. 72-73)

"This is thoughtlessness in the sphere of recension: come now to the sphere of emendation. There is one foolish sort of conjecture which seems to be commoner in the British Isles than anywhere else, though it is also practiced abroad, and of late years especially at Munich. The practice is, if you have persuaded yourself that a text is corrupt, to alter a letter or two and see what happens. If what happens is anything which the warmest good-will can mistake for sense and grammar, you call it an emendation; and you call this silly game the palaeographical method." (p. 77)

I'm tempted to paste in the conclusion to the paper, but you really need to go read the whole thing yourself and simply enjoy the end. It really isn't that long; the original printing ran from pp. 67-84; and even those pages don't appear to be too big. It is a quick and enjoyable read.

Anyone doing typesetting or any design work involving text (print or electronic) should know the name Robert Bringhurst. If you don't, then shame on you. Go to Amazon (or wherever you buy books from) and get a copy of his Elements of Typographic Style. Read it. Learn it. Love it.

After you're through reading it, check out Richard Rutter's work-in-progress, The Elements of Typographic Style Applied to the Web. Rutter has an RSS feed set up for site updates; check out his blog for further details.

(thanks to typographica for the pointer)

M.R. James' Old Testament Legends: Being Stories Out of Some of the Less-Known Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament has been keyed and is now available via Project Gutenberg.

Here's the TOC:

ADAM
THE DEATH OF ADAM AND EVE
ABRAHAM
THE STORY OF ASENETH, JOSEPH'S WIFE
JOB
SOLOMON AND THE DEMONS
THE STORY OF EBEDMELECH THE ETHIOPIAN, AND OF THE  DEATH OF JEREMIAH
AHIKAR

What I'm not aware of is whether or not these are translations or retellings. They are not versified; so I'm inclined to think they may be retellings instead of formal translations. The preface does list the source(s) used for each document.

There's also a zip file with some of the page images (illustrations).

Update (2005-12-13): Jim Davila (Paleojudaica.com) links and adds comments and more links about M.R. James, his writings, his contributions and further discussion. All worth the read. Go check it out.

I stumbled upon a singer/songwriter called Andrew Peterson. He has three albums available in Rhapsody. I've been listenting to his album Clear to Venus with regularity for the past few weeks. His song Let Me Sing has been on frequent repeat. Here are the lyrics. The song is pretty much just Peterson and a piano.

I want to open up my eyes
and see a more beautiful world
Let the hand of God Almighty
sweep his colors through my life

I want to hold tight to the laughter
ride it like a child
on the winds that billow joyful
through the sky

I want to open up my heart
but you know sometimes it's hard to find
because I've buried it beneath the selfishness
that I've hidden behind

I want to stand my ground unshaken
I want to tremble when I kneel
and let my song remain unbroken
through the tears

[chorus]
So let me sing for the love
Let me love for the lost
Let me lose all I have
For what I found on the cross
Let me trust you with my life
Let me live to give you praise
Let me praise you for the grace by which I'm saved
Lord, let me sing

I want to open up your word
and let the thirsty enter in
So they can drink deep of the water
that you've given to them

I want to run the race with vigor
I want to fight the fight with strength
and let my song rise from a whisper to a scream

I want to open up my arms
and embrace that old rugged cross
I want to take pride in the reason
and be humbled by the cost

And when this lisping, stammering tongue
lies silent in the grave
And in a nobler, sweeter song I'll sing your praise
I'll sing your praise

[chorus]
So let me sing for the love
Let me love for the lost
Let me lose all I have
For what I found on the cross
Let me trust you with my life
Let me live to give you praise
Let me praise you for the grace by which I'm saved
Lord, let me sing
Lord, let me sing
Lord, let me sing

I'm imagining the song is Copyright 2001 by Andrew Peterson.