Could someone please re-check and correct the CODEX transcripts?

[Accordance Enthusiast]

I am again disappointed to see a clear mistake in an Accordance text.

 

The problem is in Revelation 16:5, in the Alexandrinus module.

 

You might not think it makes a difference, but this is a point of discussion in textual criticism, and of what value are the "Codex" modules if they are not good enough for textual criticism?

 

 

 

Compare the actual manuscript below:

 

 

I bought these "Codex" texts so I can see at a glance the text of the manuscripts, but it turns out I cannot trust these texts. So please could you make a plan to re-check the transcript against the manuscript to make it appropriate for text critical purposes?

Edited September 13, 2023 by Accordance Enthusiast

[Mark Allison]

Guess scribal errors still happen today 🙂

 

[Donald Cobb]

From what I've understood, the transcriptions are meant to accompany the manuscript images. In my experience, they shouldn't be used alone. Here's what you'll find in the readmes:

 

"Given the limitations involved, it is important to cross-check any conclusions drawn from this electronic rendition against a printed copy base.  Corrections for future revisions of this software module should be used against this base and sent to the above E-mail address for improving the electronic copy in subsequent releases. As with all electronic NT tools, inadvertent errors and global mistakes can be made (modern scribal errors!).  Make sure to check this electronic edition against a hard copy or textual apparatus to be sure of your conclusions.  And, as always, report any errors to the above E-mail address so we can constantly improve this electronic edition of Codex Vaticanus. NOTE:  The value of this electronic edition of Codex Vaticanus is its searchability.  Since all of the words in the NT section are morphologically tagged, the Codex can be more easily evaluated from a morphology standpoint, and compared to other MSS and/or the standard printed editions.  As always, the final arbiter is the actual MS, since I have made my share of errors in this electronic transcription."

 

It's important not to overestimate what these modules are designed for. Having said that, I agree that the mss modules (not just Alexandrinus) should be re-proofed and corrected by someone who has time on their hands and is competent in Greek and in reading the NT manuscripts (I don't know if Rex Koivisto, who did most or all of the tagging, is still actively involved in maintaining and correcting them).

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Don't forget to report any finding to "Report Corrections". You can include a link to this thread in it.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

6 hours ago, Donald Cobb said:

I agree that the mss modules (not just Alexandrinus) should be re-proofed and corrected by someone who has time on their hands and is competent in Greek and in reading the NT manuscripts

 

Exactly what I am saying. They are not very useful if they are not accurate.

 

I have reported the correction @Nathan Parker, but I am still waiting to see many previous corrections made.

 

The real solution would not be to report a few loose mistakes but to have these modules re-checked professionally as Donald Cob said. I hope that Accordance will arrange that to be done in future.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Accordance Enthusiast

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

 

4 hours ago, Accordance Enthusiast said:

The real solution would not be to report a few loose mistakes but to have these modules re-checked professionally as Donald Cob said. I hope that Accordance will arrange that to be done in future.

 

I would add that note when you report one of the corrections, so that'll get the attention of our Corrections department. They'll be able to read any notes you add so they can take the feedback into consideration.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Hello again. I found another error. This time in Revelation 9:11.

 

OK @Nathan Parker I will add that note in my direct report. But seeing this is a serious issue perhaps you could also report it? Or ask someone from outside if they could help with this project?

 

It looks like the Alexandrinus was confused with the Sinaiticus. Did they re-use the text of the Sinaiticus, or is it just a poor job?

 

Here is the new problem: The Alexandrinus module reads "εαυτοων," but the real manuscript reads "επ αυτων".

Again, this is important in textual criticism. The inaccurate Accordance module made me believe that "εαυτων" is found both in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, but that was not true:

 

 

The real manuscript:

 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Accordance Enthusiast

[Accordance Enthusiast]

What? Another mistake! This time in the Papyrus fragments.

 

I feel like I can just as well stop using the codex modules! 

 

In Rev 13:6-7 the Accordance Module says "νω σκηνουντας και εδοθη", but it should really say "νω και εδοθη"!

 

Again, it seems that someone copied the Sinaiticus or some other manuscript and not really the Papyrus, because if they really copied the papyrus no one would have made such a mistake!

 

Wrong transcript:

 

Here is the actual manuscript:

 

@Nathan Parker I do report these but please can you ask to have these modules re-checked?

[Kristin]

@Accordance Enthusiast,

Thank you for bringing these issues to everyone's attention. I agree 100% with everything you wrote, and these issues really need to be addressed. 

Something which occurred to me seeing your screenshots, in addition to reporting the corrections, it would be good if we all post the errors on the forum, as you did today. This is extremely helpful information, and while I had not been currently working with Revelation, I certainly have been today in light of your screenshots.

 

So this is of course all very concerning, and I hope this gets addressed, but in the meantime I think it would be a good idea for everyone to post errors here as well so people are aware. I have personally reported lots of corrections, but obviously no one else here knows it since the info is just going to that email. I think the forum would really need a "corrections report" thread or something for Greek, Hebrew, and other, but just posting it at all is helpful.

 

Kristin

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

@Accordance Enthusiast Sure thing. I'll also send this to the head of our Corrections Department. 

 

@Kristin Awhile back I asked customers if we should have such a thread, but it seemed customers didn't want to monitor such a thread, so we haven't done it yet. If there's enough interest from customers in having one, we can re-consider it.

[Kristin]

1 hour ago, Nathan Parker said:

Awhile back I asked customers if we should have such a thread, but it seemed customers didn't want to monitor such a thread, so we haven't done it yet. If there's enough interest from customers in having one, we can re-consider it.

 

Hi @Nathan Parker,

Thank you for clarifying. Given what you wrote, my impression is that perhaps in the past there was not much interest since it seemed unnecessary, or even somewhat odd, as I think everyone assumed the texts could be trusted. However, given the images above showing that the texts can NOT be trusted, I would suspect that anyone interested in textual criticism would follow the thread. From my perspective, it seems like a thread should be created including the three posts from above with the textual issues, and then people can just add to it. If you are saying, however, that you would consider it, perhaps there is more work involved in creating a thread than I realized.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

5 hours ago, Nathan Parker said:

@Accordance Enthusiast Sure thing. I'll also send this to the head of our Corrections Department. 

 

Thanks a lot Nathan. And I will continue to report any mistakes like these via email and in this thread.

 

Shalom.

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

@Accordance Enthusiast That's a good plan!

 

@Kristin For now, @Accordance Enthusiast has a good plan worked out for this module. If we need to consider future changes to forum categories, we can always re-visit it down the road.

[Abram K-J]

7 hours ago, Nathan Parker said:

I'll also send this to the head of our Corrections Department. 

 

There's a whole Department for this? That's great to hear.

 

A proposal: Accordance sets up a workflow to make all received and verified Corrections monthly, or every six weeks (on every module)... rather than the standing approach of waiting until a critical mass of reports comes in (whatever constitutes critical mass). Time-based (every x weeks) rather than volume-based (when we get ? number of corrections for a module) would inspire more confidence in a case like this, I would think.

 

Pre-SBL/AAR has traditionally had scores of updates to various modules. Same kind of principle, but more frequent, is what I'm proposing. Otherwise we Correction-senders have no way of knowing how long it will be.

[Lawrence]

@Nathan Parker

 

I like @Kristin's suggestion of adding a section to the forum for manuscript transcription errors.

Given the sample of transcription errors that @Accordance Enthusiast reported above and the suggestion of having a systematic review of the modules, it could be useful to have an errata section in the forum with a set of threads, one for each book in the Bible.

 

Suggested format for each post in these threads, following the helpful reports above:

- Book, chapter, verse (in text)

- Module name + module version number + screenshot of module showing the error

- Manuscript name + screenshot/picture of the original manuscript

 

If possible, tag each report once it has been confirmed and fixed. Something like "Tag: corrected in module version xyz" would work nicely.

 

Having one thread per book makes it easier to browse than having everything dumped into a single thread. Having the book, chapter and verse in text makes the errata section electronically searchable, and having screenshots of both the module and the original makes it clear at a glance whether there really was an error in the first place. The tags (if Accordance staff are able to add them) make it clear whether a user's module contains the error or the corrected version.

 

This would give users greater confidence in using Accordance modules, knowing that there's a whole organised section that acts like a crowd-sourced verification board. It acts something like peer review, giving Accordance greater credibility regarding the accuracy of these modules.

[darrylmy]

5 hours ago, Lawrence said:

errata section...

 

I think that a dedicated module errata page would be better rather than on the forums. Something like the version update in the help files, but maintained online so it can be more readily updated and one wouldn't have to go fishing around on the forums. This would allow great communication and transparency for what has been marketed as "research grade texts." It would also let users know that their bug reports have been logged once they are in the errata page and that they have been fixed in subsequent releases as the errata page is updated following the module update.

[Donald Cobb]

Great suggestions by @Abram K-J, @Lawrence and @darrylmy! I agree that periodic corrections would be much more helpful—and encouraging—for the users who send it correction reports. In the past I've sent in reports that clearly have gotten lost in the shuffle. It's frustrating because it takes the user's time to write a report for clear errors that may or may not in fact be incorporated. I'm thinking primarily in terms of the modules discussed in this thread but the discussion can be generalized. Thanks

[Mark Allison]

The problem is that there are thousands of Accordance modules and thousands of error correction reports that have been sent in that haven't been corrected yet. There's no single person with the full-time job of making corrections. If it's your job to create new modules and also to make corrections to existing modules, guess which job gets the priority? 

[Abram K-J]

44 minutes ago, Mark Allison said:

There's no single person with the full-time job of making corrections.

 

But @Nathan Parker said there is a Corrections Department and someone who is its head?

 

 

45 minutes ago, Mark Allison said:

there are thousands of Accordance modules and thousands of error correction reports that have been sent in that haven't been corrected yet.

 

If this number is current, users might be justified in asking "why bother?" to send in correction reports. Something in that system sounds broken, but it doesn't have to be....

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

We are collecting and reviewing your module correction submissions, so as you find them, we definitely appreciate knowing about them!

[Accordance Enthusiast]

9 hours ago, Mark Allison said:

The problem is that there are thousands of Accordance modules and thousands of error correction reports that have been sent in that haven't been corrected yet. There's no single person with the full-time job of making corrections. If it's your job to create new modules and also to make corrections to existing modules, guess which job gets the priority? 

Exactly! I've known this for years. The reason I report these mistakes is in the hope that Accordance management will employ or hire capable people to correct these mistakes.

 

I am frustrated to know that new releases are constantly being created, but the same amount of effort is not being made to correct the original language modules. 

 

Users can report a few mistakes which they run into, but Accordance should then act upon this and have the modules re-checked where needed.

 

I love Accordance and generally prefer it to Logos and to any other software. 

 

But please on the medium / long-term, you need a team of people who are dedicated to corrections and re-checking where needed. 

 

The reason we pay thousands of $$$ for Accordance modules is because we pay you to do the hard work for us. We expect that the modules which should not have multiple major mistakes. (I'm not talking about typos which are unavoidable.)

 

If such a team has already been employed, I am looking forward to seeing the corrections rolling in soon...

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Accordance Enthusiast

[Accordance Enthusiast]

I'm adding another example here to emphasize the need to re-check:

 

Revelation 1:12

 

Accordance module with mistake:

 

Alexandrinus manuscript:

 

 

[Accordance Enthusiast]

@Nathan Parker, I am adding yet another mistake in the Papyri module:

 

Matthew 1:6,

 

Wrong transcript: "της του ουρειου"

 

 

P1 really reads "της ουρειου" (confirmed by CNTTS). Though the mss. is damaged, one can see the "της" and the "ουρειου" and there is nothing in-between. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Accordance Enthusiast

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Thanks for the feedback!

[Kristin]

@Accordance Enthusiast,

This is really tragic how many errors there are, but I truly appreciate your hard work bringing them to our attention. Thank you.