Now up to 385,000 words in today’s upload. As we await the last round of journal review on our Harnack datasets, we have gone ahead and compiled a digital edition of the first major reconstruction of Marcion’s Gospel, that made by August Hahn in 1832. The more I work on these datasets, the clearer the connections between them become. Among books in the public domain, Hahn’s work is certainly not as important as Harnack’s, and yet it is still foundational to the history of scholarship on GMarc. Even as a defender of the early orthodox view that GMarc was a later, abridged version of canonical Luke, Hahn sought to reconstruct a maximalist, continuous version of GMarc. In our view, Hahn’s edition (which totals 14400 words) restores far too much content from canonical Luke that was not attested for GMarc and thus, as an Lk1 dataset, it is deeply contaminated by Lk2 vocal signals and patterns.
In our iterative Critical Edition, we have also filled out additional columns with page numbers from several more scholarly editions of GMarc, including those by Hahn, Zahn, and Tsutsui, which altogether now total nine different comparative editions in addition to our own. The page numbers are sometimes supplemented with abbreviated indications to show at a glance how the various editors accounted for the data in a given verse, whether na (= not attested), np (= not present), anw (= attested but no wording), or ganw (generally attested but no wording). This allows for quick comparison of editor decisions.
We hope these new resources and supplements are useful to enthusiastic readers and to scholars specializing on GMarc. As always, constructive feedback and offers of collaboration are welcomed!
Lot’s of progress made in today’s upload. We’d specifically like to call attention to an expansion to our statistical proofs, especially in conversation with Daniel Smith’s 2019 chapter in BZNW 235 focusing on a statistical analysis of GMarc. In the interest of facilitating access for readers, we present the bulk of the content found on the page in our LODLIB that details our finding, building on Smith’s verse counts but nuancing them and challenging his starting goal (“On Not Dispensing with Any of Q”) and ultimate conclusions.
Smith Verse Count: GMarc Attested as a Percentage of Lk2
GMarc Verses Attested
GMarc Attested / Lk2
Even without questioning or changing any of the traditional contents considered secure for Q, according to Smith’s verse count approach, Q verses are the best attested of any tradition type. That is a highly significant finding on its own.
But what happens if we adjust our method to account separately for the 83 verses consideredbut doubted or rejected within CEQ? … [more below the fold]
The major milestone in today’s upload is that we have finished combing through the nearly 230 references to the text of Marcion’s Gospel made by Epiphanius in his Panarion. Our LODLIB now includes quotations, translations, and page references for this content according to the latest critical editions of the series Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller. As a condensation of this work, we have assembled a catalog of these passages, a helpful panoramic overview of the journey Epiphanius took through Marcion’s Gospel, with references sorted in order of appearance. A screenshot of half of this literary itinerary is appended below. We hope it is useful to other scholars and the interested public.
Lots of other improvements have been made, but we will leave those for readers to discover. One other important bit of news is that our Harnack GMarc dataset is now in the third round of review for the Journal of Open Humanities Data. The review process has been quick and very helpful, and we are grateful to the reviewers for their constructive feedback. Fingers crossed on its acceptance! As always, we welcome constructive feedback on our LODLIB as well as offers of collaboration and research fellowship/position opportunities.
Today’s upload has numerous updates, mostly consisting of improvements in the main sections (Comparative Restoration, Data Dictionary). In the renaissance spirit of going ad fontes and the information and organizational principles of continuous improvement, we are cycling back through critical editions of Tertullian’s Against Marcion to double-check and correct Latin transcriptions. Thanks to the kindness of Cornelia Horn and Rob Phenix, we have also started to add Armenian text to our footnotes. The commissioned book cover is in progress and is looking great. I’m very excited to release it in a future version of this LODLIB. As always, scholarly feedback and collaboration is welcome, as are journalistic inquiries.
Today’s upload has updates to many sections. Building on last week’s release of content newly attributed to Jacob of Serugh, we started combing through various other Syriac attestations to Marcion’s Gospel. (Thanks are due again to Phil Forness, this time for checking over my Syriac transcriptions and translations.) This has yielded additional confirmations of our reconstruction of the opening of this text in 3.1 and 4.31, and the footnotes have been substantially expanded accordingly. Other updates are spread across the book as we continue to practice cycles of continuous improvement. As always, feedback is welcomed!
Outside of this book but related to it, we’ve reached out to a science-focused journalist to ask if expert responses/reviews can be obtained for a potential news article on this book, and we also have a request into an illustrator to design a customized, artistic digital book cover.
Today’s upload has updates to several sections. We especially want to draw our readers’ attention to our revised reconstruction of the opening of Marcion’s Gospel in verses 3.1 and 4.31. Most notably, we now restore the word “he appeared” / ἐφάνη. In our view, the preponderance of evidence now supports this updated decision, in part based on the newly released finding by Philip Forness of Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main that the quotation about Marcion in British Library, Add. 17215 fol 30-33 can be reliably attributed to Jacob of Serugh. (To Phil: congrats on the recent acceptance of your article for the journal New Testament Studies, and thank you for sharing your article in advance of peer-review and publication and allowing me to make use of it publicly.) Our copious footnotes now include quotations of the primary source texts, including a quotation from Phil’s forthcoming Syriac text and translation. His article (which is already in production) does a great job of walking the reader through the historical debates about this quotation, from Barnes, Zahn, and Harnack to several current scholars.
In other book-related news, we have submitted our Harnack GMarc digital edition datasets (human-readable Greek and lemmatized and morphologically tagged Greek) to the Journal of Open Humanities Data and the JOHD data repository in Harvard’s Dataverse for peer-review. Thank you to Paul Dilley for recommending JOHD and to the journal’s editor-in-chief, Barbara McGillivray, for your responsiveness.
Today’s upload has several columns completed in the internal Data Dictionary (DD 1.6), a quantitative tabular comparison of major editions of Marcion’s Gospel. Several new concluding tabular calculations are also now included.
Several major quantitative findings deserve comment:
BeDuhn’s 2013 edition, while in English, stakes out a moderate position in its scope and reconstructions, especially when compared with the appearance of several new maximalist editions
Roth’s 2015 edition is highly similar to Harnack’s minimalist reconstruction
Klinghardt’s 2015/2020/2021 edition is by far the most extensive attempt to restore Marcion’s Gospel, owing significantly to his confidence in Codex Bezae as a consistent and reliable witness to its text
Nicolotti’s 2019 edition is certainly influenced by Klinghardt’s, but pulls back significantly from its reconstruction, both in the total number of passages restored and the extent of the word count restored within those passages
These quantitative findings will feature in two forthcoming reviews, one with Vigiliae Christianae focused on Klinghardt’s edition and a second, more encompassing review for another journal.
For this post, we highlight one table that illustrates the above conclusions. It consists of a compilation of the passages in each edition of Marcion’s Gospel that exceed the total number of words in the respective parallel passages in the canonical Gospel of Luke.
Today’s upload has several columns completed in our new section of the internal Data Dictionary (DD 1.6), a tabular comparison of major editions of Marcion’s Gospel. Some concluding calculations are also now included.
Major finding: the same internal patterns of word count distribution for Single, Double, and Triple traditions that I previously found in my reconstruction also hold true for the reconstructions of Harnack, BeDuhn and Roth. We are making good progress on compiling datasets of the editions by Klinghardt and Nicolotti, but those columns aren’t yet complete. So far, though, no matter who is doing the editing/reconstructing, the data are clear. GMarc has a systematic lack of uniquely Lukan traditions and a systematic surplus of Double and especially Triple traditions when compared to Lk2. This is one of many compelling proofs that GMarc was in fact an earlier version of Luke.
Lk2 vs GMarc Internals
On a somewhat related note, we’ve recently joined the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), the ACM SIGKDD, and the Data Visualization Society. We look forward to bringing our scholarly work on the Gospels into conversation with members of these groups in conferences and publications soon and for years to come.
Today’s upload adds a significant new section to the internal Data Dictionary. DD 1.6 provides a tabular comparison of major editions of Marcion’s Gospel by Harnack, Roth, Klinghardt, Nicolotti, and myself. Thus far we have added verses, word counts, and attestation rates for the first few chapters. In future weeks, we plan to complete this table and add another section, 1.7, noting how specific linguistic features are rendered differently across these editions.
Even with the tabulations and calculations compiled thus far, the various methodological assumptions of the respective editors are already coming into focus. Klinghardt and Nicolotti consistently render more verses and more words within verses than do BeDuhn, Roth, or I. Harnack’s work is most closely followed by Roth, and both are minimalist renditions. Nicolotti follows Klinghardt most closely, and both are (overly) maximalist renditions (in my view). BeDuhn and I are moderate in our methods, attempting to render verses and words that were likely in GMarc even if not clearly attested by patristic witnesses, but not unnecessarily adding verses simply because they are present in Codex Bezae or have variant readings in the Luke manuscript tradition.
The other major addition to this version is a couple sample pages of TEI XML for Harnack’s version of Marcion’s Gospel. This sample is intended to give readers a preliminary sense of the XML structural and tagging conventions we plan to follow for our datasets.
Today’s upload contains updates to several sections, particularly to the Statistically Significant Signature Features, Comparative Restoration, and Data Dictionary. We are increasingly including cross-references to the respective works of BeDuhn, Klinghardt, Gramaglia, and Nicolotti in our footnotes in the Comparative Restoration. We have also been spreading out the content in that section so that, whenever possible, there is one page for each verse in GMarc/Lk1. We hope that this offers a better reading experience and avoids having an overabundance of main text and footnotes on any given page. Outside of this book yet in relation to it, we are also continuing to build a lemmatized and morphologically tagged version of Klinghardt’s edition of GMarc as part of our rigorous analysis and forthcoming review of his work for the journal Vigiliae Christianae.