254Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Stemma and PCA on Mark
- Dec 1, 2004At 10:30 PM 11/30/2004 -0500, WFWarren@... wrote:
>In a message dated 11/30/04 1:48:59 AM, willker@...-bremen.de writes:Thanks for the suggestion. Actually, I was planning
>>> The next phase is to add the Matthean parallels, because
>>> I suspect that harmonization to Matthew is a major factor
>>> in the mixture of 1424 and Old Latin c (and possibly W as
>>You want to add Mt as an extra "MSS"? Innovative idea.
>>I am really looking forward to your forthcoming results!
>Stephen, I like the Mt. idea as well. Perhaps you could add a Mt-UBS and a
>Mt-Byz so that the two major strands would both be represented. This would
>help to see if the Byz. form of Mt. was more closely tied to the Mk. or the
on adding all 58 or so of the corresponding witnesses
to Matthew, which will take a little bit longer. That
will also tell us whether the "Caesarean" text looks
different in Matthew, or whether the Byzantine text
has a different origin in Matthew.
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
- << Previous post in topic