Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Lafleur on f13

Expand Messages
  • TeunisV
    See: Lafleur, Which criteria for family 13 (f13) manuscripts? in: Novum Testamentum, 54(2012), p. 105-148. For the excluding of 1709 from f13: p. 136-139. The
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 15, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      See: Lafleur, Which criteria for family 13 (f13) manuscripts? in: Novum Testamentum, 54(2012), p. 105-148. For the excluding of 1709 from f13: p. 136-139.
      The PA and Luke 22.43-44 are not transposed; the text is over all Byzantine.
      Teunis van Lopik

      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg" wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "TeunisV" wrote:
      > >> Didier Lafleur's La Famille 13 dans l'évangile de Marc is published.
      > A very nice and rich book!
      > It contains an extensive introduction to f13, an edition of the Mark text of ms 788 + a full textcritical apparatus with f13 variants and an extraordinary accurate bibliography.
      > http://books.google.nl/books?id=a5-_jFIvLesC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
      > http://www.brill.com/la-famille-13-dans-levangile-de-marc
      >
      > Teunis van Lopik<<
      >
      > In my compiled list of f13 mss I have, in last place, 1709. Without taking the time to figure out how it got there, can anyone shed light on why it isn't on Lafleur's list?
      >
      > Daniel Buck
      >
    • Jac Perrin
      Neither is it F13 in John. Jac Perrin jperrin@epassembly.org Eden Prairie Assembly 16591 Duck Lake Trail Eden Prairie, MN 55346 952-934-2327
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 15, 2013
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Neither is it F13 in John.

        Jac Perrin
        jperrin@...
        Eden Prairie Assembly
        16591 Duck Lake Trail
        Eden Prairie, MN 55346
        952-934-2327

        On Jan 15, 2013, at 10:34 AM, "TeunisV" <tvanlopik@...> wrote:

        > See: Lafleur, Which criteria for family 13 (f13) manuscripts? in: Novum Testamentum, 54(2012), p. 105-148. For the excluding of 1709 from f13: p. 136-139.
        > The PA and Luke 22.43-44 are not transposed; the text is over all Byzantine.
        > Teunis van Lopik
        >
        > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg" wrote:
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "TeunisV" wrote:
        >>>> Didier Lafleur's La Famille 13 dans l'évangile de Marc is published.
        >> A very nice and rich book!
        >> It contains an extensive introduction to f13, an edition of the Mark text of ms 788 + a full textcritical apparatus with f13 variants and an extraordinary accurate bibliography.
        >> http://books.google.nl/books?id=a5-_jFIvLesC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
        >> http://www.brill.com/la-famille-13-dans-levangile-de-marc
        >>
        >> Teunis van Lopik<<
        >>
        >> In my compiled list of f13 mss I have, in last place, 1709. Without taking the time to figure out how it got there, can anyone shed light on why it isn't on Lafleur's list?
        >>
        >> Daniel Buck
        >>
        >
        >
      • Jac Perrin
        Actually, in Lafleur s book, although he considers GA 174 and GA 230, they are eventually excluded by him. This is what I found also for F13 in John. I have
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 15, 2013
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Actually, in Lafleur's book, although he considers GA 174 and GA 230, they are eventually excluded by him.

          This is what I found also for F13 in John. I have these mss constituting F13 in John: 13, 69, 124, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689. These mss were considered but excluded: 174, 211, 230, 348, 713, 1141, 1709, and 2900.

          The Family fits nicely into three subgroups groups in John: 69, 124, and 788 go together. 983 and 1689 are extremely close (even though 1689 has the PA in the usual location). The final group is 13, 346, 543, 826, 828. This last group can also be broken once again in certain chapters.

          This analysis was done by means of phylogenetic software.

          Lafleur's book is fantastic. His results are consistent with those above, although he uses classical TC methodologies to arrive at the same destination, not computer analysis.

          In Mark, Lafleur posits 788 as the best representative of the early Family text.


          Jac Perrin
          jperrin@...
          Eden Prairie Assembly
          16591 Duck Lake Trail
          Eden Prairie, MN 55346
          952-934-2327

          On Jan 15, 2013, at 10:34 AM, "TeunisV" <tvanlopik@...> wrote:

          > See: Lafleur, Which criteria for family 13 (f13) manuscripts? in: Novum Testamentum, 54(2012), p. 105-148. For the excluding of 1709 from f13: p. 136-139.
          > The PA and Luke 22.43-44 are not transposed; the text is over all Byzantine.
          > Teunis van Lopik
          >
          > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg" wrote:
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "TeunisV" wrote:
          >>>> Didier Lafleur's La Famille 13 dans l'évangile de Marc is published.
          >> A very nice and rich book!
          >> It contains an extensive introduction to f13, an edition of the Mark text of ms 788 + a full textcritical apparatus with f13 variants and an extraordinary accurate bibliography.
          >> http://books.google.nl/books?id=a5-_jFIvLesC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
          >> http://www.brill.com/la-famille-13-dans-levangile-de-marc
          >>
          >> Teunis van Lopik<<
          >>
          >> In my compiled list of f13 mss I have, in last place, 1709. Without taking the time to figure out how it got there, can anyone shed light on why it isn't on Lafleur's list?
          >>
          >> Daniel Buck
          >>
          >
          >
        • TeunisV
          That is exact the question, Lafeur discussed. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/not/2012/00000054/00000002/art00001 Teunis van Lopik.
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 15, 2013
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            That is exact the question, Lafeur discussed.
            http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/not/2012/00000054/00000002/art00001
            Teunis van Lopik.

            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Jac Perrin wrote:
            >
            > Neither is it F13 in John.
            >
            > Jac Perrin
            > jperrin@...
            > Eden Prairie Assembly
            > 16591 Duck Lake Trail
            > Eden Prairie, MN 55346
            > 952-934-2327
            >
            > On Jan 15, 2013, at 10:34 AM, "TeunisV" wrote:
            >
            > > See: Lafleur, Which criteria for family 13 (f13) manuscripts? in: Novum Testamentum, 54(2012), p. 105-148. For the excluding of 1709 from f13: p. 136-139.
            > > The PA and Luke 22.43-44 are not transposed; the text is over all Byzantine.
            > > Teunis van Lopik
            > >
            > > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg" wrote:
            > >>
            > >>
            > >>
            > >> --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "TeunisV" wrote:
            > >>>> Didier Lafleur's La Famille 13 dans l'évangile de Marc is published.
            > >> A very nice and rich book!
            > >> It contains an extensive introduction to f13, an edition of the Mark text of ms 788 + a full textcritical apparatus with f13 variants and an extraordinary accurate bibliography.
            > >> http://books.google.nl/books?id=a5-_jFIvLesC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
            > >> http://www.brill.com/la-famille-13-dans-levangile-de-marc
            > >>
            > >> Teunis van Lopik<<
            > >>
            > >> In my compiled list of f13 mss I have, in last place, 1709. Without taking the time to figure out how it got there, can anyone shed light on why it isn't on Lafleur's list?
            > >>
            > >> Daniel Buck
            > >>
            > >
            > >
            >
          • yennifmit
            Hi Jac, I did PAM analysis on INTF data of the Gospels (which doesn t include 1689) and got these lists of members for F13. For the purpose of this exercise, I
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 18, 2013
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Jac,

              I did PAM analysis on INTF data of the Gospels (which doesn't include 1689) and got these lists of members for F13. For the purpose of this exercise, I partitioned the data for each Gospel into two different numbers of groups: (1) about 24; (2) about 93. These numbers are large enough to ensure that members of any groups found are closely related. The bigger number (about 93) is so large that remaining groups are highly coherent. A statistic called the mean silhouette width is used to choose preferred numbers of groups. The medoid (what PAM chooses as the most central member of the group) is marked by an asterisk.

              Matt

              24 groups: 13 69 124 346 543 788 826* 828 983
              93 groups: 13 543 788 826* 828

              Mark

              24 groups: 13 69 124 346 543 788 826* 828 983
              93 groups: 13 69 346 543 788 826* 828

              Luke

              22 groups: 13 69 124 346 543 788 826* 828 983
              86 groups: 13 346 543 788 826* 828

              John (346 not assessed)

              24 groups: 13 69 543 788 826* 828 983
              94 groups: 13 543 826* 828

              In each case 826 is the medoid. This does not imply 826 is archetypical: PAM is not a phylogenetic analysis technique. All it means is that 826 is the member for which the sum of distances to other members is a minimum.

              In Matt, Mark, Luke, the 24-ish-way partitions agree on F13 being 13, 69, 124, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983. Dividing into a large number of groups (93-ish) causes some to drop out (Matt: 69, 124, 346, 983; Mark: 124, 983; Luke: 69, 124, 983). The ones that remain are the respective group cores.

              346 is missing from the analysis results for John as it is fragmentary there. A 24-way partition of INTF data for John does not include 124 in F13 although a less stringent six-way partition does. In a 94-way partition of the data for John's Gospel, 69, 788, and 983 drop out of F13 as well.

              More analysis results are available here:

              http://www.tfinney.net/Views/index.xhtml

              Best,

              Tim Finney

              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Jac Perrin wrote:
              >
              > Actually, in Lafleur's book, although he considers GA 174 and GA 230, they are eventually excluded by him.
              >
              > This is what I found also for F13 in John. I have these mss constituting F13 in John: 13, 69, 124, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689. These mss were considered but excluded: 174, 211, 230, 348, 713, 1141, 1709, and 2900.
              >
              > The Family fits nicely into three subgroups groups in John: 69, 124, and 788 go together. 983 and 1689 are extremely close (even though 1689 has the PA in the usual location). The final group is 13, 346, 543, 826, 828. This last group can also be broken once again in certain chapters.
              >
              > This analysis was done by means of phylogenetic software.
              >
              > Lafleur's book is fantastic. His results are consistent with those above, although he uses classical TC methodologies to arrive at the same destination, not computer analysis.
              >
              > In Mark, Lafleur posits 788 as the best representative of the early Family text.
              >
              >
              > Jac Perrin
              > jperrin@...
              > Eden Prairie Assembly
              > 16591 Duck Lake Trail
              > Eden Prairie, MN 55346
              > 952-934-2327
              >
              > On Jan 15, 2013, at 10:34 AM, "TeunisV" wrote:
              >
              > > See: Lafleur, Which criteria for family 13 (f13) manuscripts? in: Novum Testamentum, 54(2012), p. 105-148. For the excluding of 1709 from f13: p. 136-139.
              > > The PA and Luke 22.43-44 are not transposed; the text is over all Byzantine.
              > > Teunis van Lopik
              > >
              > > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg" wrote:
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>
              > >> --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "TeunisV" wrote:
              > >>>> Didier Lafleur's La Famille 13 dans l'�vangile de Marc is published.
              > >> A very nice and rich book!
              > >> It contains an extensive introduction to f13, an edition of the Mark text of ms 788 + a full textcritical apparatus with f13 variants and an extraordinary accurate bibliography.
              > >> http://books.google.nl/books?id=a5-_jFIvLesC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
              > >> http://www.brill.com/la-famille-13-dans-levangile-de-marc
              > >>
              > >> Teunis van Lopik<<
              > >>
              > >> In my compiled list of f13 mss I have, in last place, 1709. Without taking the time to figure out how it got there, can anyone shed light on why it isn't on Lafleur's list?
              > >>
              > >> Daniel Buck
              > >>
              > >
              > >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.