e-Greek & information discounts

Trevor Peterson 06PETERSON at cua.edu
Thu Apr 11 15:16:01 EDT 2002


>===== Original Message From c stirling bartholomew 
<cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net> =====
>I wonder why I am supposed to be interested in this "data"
>since it can be assumed that anyone using a NIGTC will have either
>BibleWorks, Logos, BibleWindows or Accordance. In other words, the value of
>e-text data which is generally available has been discounted in advance. So
>what is it doing in a scholarly (!!) reference work on 1Cor?

I guess I'd have to see the format, but isn't some of the value of a 
commentary that the commentator has already done the work of weeding through a 
lot of data and selected what seems most germane? This is what any competent 
student could do independently, but we check commentaries to see if others 
have thought of other things or drawn other conclusions that we have not. It 
may be in such situations that all the data or all the data but one will be 
the same, but the way the data is processed may be different enough that the 
conclusion changes. In my thinking, that's at least part of the value of a 
commentary. Granted, you could say that the commentator doesn't need to 
include all the relevant data for every point, but with hundreds of 
translations available, it seems like a few particularly helpful translations 
would be worth citing.
>
>The purpose here is not to trash the NIGTC volume on 1Cor. I am raising a
>question about what e-texts are doing to the perceived value of information.
>We now have most of the standard reference works in electronic form,
>including F.Danker, TDNT, WBC, ABD, L&N, LEH . . . the list is long and
>getting longer every day.
>
>The inevitable side affect of all this information only a mouse click away
>is that the information itself becomes commonplace. The perceived value of
>it becomes seriously discounted. When I see some information cited from an
>electronic source, I am tempted to say "so what?" Particularly when the
>citation is not accompanied by any additional analysis.

I don't know that I would assume every possible reader of a commentary is 
going to be using e-texts, or even if they are, that they're all going to be 
checking all of the relevant versions for a given passage. For the commentator 
to include this material could be a useful cue for some readers to go check 
some versions that they may not have considered.
>
>I think we need to stop an ask ourselves, what do we have personally to
>contribute to this discussion? Otherwise we could end up just throwing
>e-text at each other.

I wonder if maybe part of the problem here is the struggle for e-texts and 
normal texts to come to grips with each other's existence. If the commentary 
were electronic, it could link to English versions where the commentator 
thought it relevant, or have multiple windows, so that the reader could select 
versions to view with the commentary text, or any number of other options. 
Print texts are much more limited in this area (although even before the 
invention of the printing press parallel editions and layouts with marginal 
commentary or footnotes were produced). But if you think of an oral discourse, 
like a Talmudic discussion or some such thing, there's a lot more flexibility 
to bounce from one source to another. E-texts have more ability to follow this 
sort of configuration, and as we become more and more used to their 
flexibility, it will be harder and harder to settle for the limitations of 
print media. I'm not saying there's no place left for the codex. But their 
coexistence does tend to provoke some re-thinking.

I don't know that it's just changing media that's significant to this issue. 
Remember that Thiselton had a lot to do with the hermeneutical push at 
Sheffield, where they're now in the process of producing a Hebrew dictionary 
that defies convention (whether to good or bad ends is a matter of opinion). 
One of my teachers mentioned (among other criticisms) that the Sheffield 
dictionary is the only one that doesn't strive for a concise presentation of 
data, and I think this relates directly to their underlying methodology. 
They're seeking to provide the user with as much information and as little 
interpretation as possible, so that the reader can decide independently what 
to do with it all. After all, who is the lexicographer to tell the reader what 
words mean? I'm not saying Thiselton should be held responsible for the 
Sheffield dictionary--only that I think there's an underlying philosophical 
issue here, that may have something to do with both.
>
>Don't get me wrong, I am not anti e-text. I have been using e-text
>extensively for Greek & Hebrew studies since 1990, and have been an
>Accordance junkie since fall of '94.
>
>However, I have become aware that it is not is a significant contribution to
>just throw some text at someone. And the e-text age has made this a
>temptation that is difficult to resist.

Well, when it comes down to it, what else are we doing but throw a lot of text 
around? What distinguishes genuine originality from reconfiguration of 
existing material? I'm not saying there's no difference between good 
scholarship and bad. I just wonder whether this sort of thing is so very 
different from what normally goes on anyway.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics




More information about the B-Greek mailing list