This week’s version continues our work to build out data normalization rules and standards for the academic/scientific study of the Gospel of Marcion. We’ve had another fruitful round of feedback about our Harnack datasets and short data paper for the Journal of Open Humanities Data. If we can get peer-reviewed agreement on the normalization of Harnack’s GMarc data, then normalizing the data of all of the other GMarc reconstructions will be far easier by comparison. In the meantime, in this week’s LODLIB, we have proposed new data normalization rules for the reconstructions of GMarc by Tsutsui (1992), Roth (2015), Klinghardt (2015/2020/2021) and Nicolotti (2019).
One of the great things about the LODLIB format is to visualize data while it is in process of peer-review and correction. The slew of data visualizations I released last week (another sample below) can easily be revised and updated if and when there are legitimate peer-reviewed corrections or consensus emerges about data normalization standards and/or the underlying normalized data. Visualizing data is so crucial to understand their importance and recognize their patterns, yet data are so often noisy, messy, and in fluctuation. Hence our modes of scholarly communication must adapt to accommodate these flexible processes, aiming for greater and greater clarity, fidelity, and scholarly consensus with each round of feedback and continuous improvement.
This week’s version also develops and implements a simple three category typology for cluster analysis of synoptic passages, which we have now built into our Cluster Analysis of Markan and Lukan Passages. We have also completed our proximity tagging for Markan sourced passages in the main reconstruction, and–spoiler alert–our initial tabulations of this data clearly shows that GMarc relied directly on early Mark, while canonical Luke typically relied on early Mark secondarily through GMarc. It’s yet more strong proof of the validity of our first hypothesis.