Message

Origen -- A Basic Stylometric Study

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.

Re: Origen -- A Basic Stylometric Study

Postby Peter Kirby » Sun Jun 07, 2015 4:07 pm

The works titled the 'Fragmenta ex commentariis in Exodum (= In illud: Induravit dominus cor Pharaonis)' and the 'Selecta in Exodum (fragmenta e catenis)' are combined into one text of 5070 words, after quotations are removed. The same list of 33 words is used, as well as the same 34 candidates, including 30 controls. Origen is selected as the closest match by a considerable margin.

testsize: 5070


Bayesian Author Test: Posterior Probabilities from Equal Priors, Z-Score-Based Method
$VAR1 = '0.347857276095208'; $VAR2 = '0.275410033583585'; $VAR3 = '0.184426360458021'; $VAR4 = '0.192306329863186';

Bayesian Comparison of Best Author to Best Control: from Equal Priors, Z-Score-Based Method
$VAR1 = 1; $VAR2 = '0.656975858700967'; $VAR3 = 30; $VAR4 = '0.343024141299033';

Percentage of Samples in the Best Author Candidate that Meet the P-Value>0.16 Test, Z-Score-Based Method
0.928571428571429
Percentage of Samples outside the Best Author Candidate that Meet the P-Value>0.16 Test, Z-Score-Based Method
0.0718232044198895
Posterior Probability of a Sample Meeting the Test Being by the Best Author Candidate (with Prior = 0.5), Not Any Other, Z-Score-Based Method
0.928205128205128

Author Z-Score-Based P-Values
$VAR1 = '0.166430197751397'; $VAR2 = '0.131768255264235'; $VAR3 = '0.0882376703059042'; $VAR4 = '0.0920077937343922';
Good compatibility. Z-Score-Based P-Value > 0.15.
Excellent indicator. 0% of the rest have P-Value > 0.15.

Control Z-Score-Based P-Values
$VAR1 = '1.02026934422468e-45'; $VAR2 = '1.1786254122162e-10'; $VAR3 = '0'; $VAR4 = '1.00000000000001e-99'; $VAR5 = '0'; $VAR6 = '3.7406239150176e-07'; $VAR7 = '2.88153924039557e-15'; $VAR8 = '1.37468637078515e-23'; $VAR9 = '3.5852515988678e-06'; $VAR10 = '1.89425551276102e-05'; $VAR11 = '0.00128644772116543'; $VAR12 = '0.0148609801000606'; $VAR13 = '8.42286947362677e-43'; $VAR14 = '8.84796521480475e-06'; $VAR15 = '2.9962604172137e-16'; $VAR16 = '8.72955236601884e-18'; $VAR17 = '1.48541846071317e-05'; $VAR18 = '0.00504183985294575'; $VAR19 = '8.32288156239297e-09'; $VAR20 = '1.17578202400885e-05'; $VAR21 = '0.00285978031542354'; $VAR22 = '1.46854334542101e-07'; $VAR23 = '0.000220324711766714'; $VAR24 = '2.93324518830161e-11'; $VAR25 = '0.0865918815952878'; $VAR26 = '0.0125034646720181'; $VAR27 = '0.0100872168911244'; $VAR28 = '0.00633037165678096'; $VAR29 = '0.00204209447105908'; $VAR30 = '0.0868975243364099';
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4767
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Orange County

Advertisements

by »

 

Re: Origen -- A Basic Stylometric Study

Postby Peter Kirby » Sun Jun 07, 2015 4:59 pm

The 'Expositio in Proverbia (fragmenta e catenis)' divides into five samples of approximately 3500 words each, with direct quotations removed first. The same list of 33 words was used. Of four author candidates and thirty controls, Clement of Alexandria was chosen as the most likely match 5 out of 5 times (100% of the time). Further analysis (using conventional methods of authorship attribution) is required to verify that Clement of Alexandria actually were the author.

testsize: 3570


Bayesian Author Test: Posterior Probabilities from Equal Priors, Z-Score-Based Method
$VAR1 = '0.191892393877683'; $VAR2 = '0.142206492059812'; $VAR3 = '0.384738251351476'; $VAR4 = '0.28116286271103';

Bayesian Comparison of Best Author to Best Control: from Equal Priors, Z-Score-Based Method
$VAR1 = 3; $VAR2 = '0.545634879002058'; $VAR3 = 27; $VAR4 = '0.454365120997942';

Percentage of Samples in the Best Author Candidate that Meet the P-Value>0.17 Test, Z-Score-Based Method
0.888888888888889
Percentage of Samples outside the Best Author Candidate that Meet the P-Value>0.17 Test, Z-Score-Based Method
0.0111940298507463
Posterior Probability of a Sample Meeting the Test Being by the Best Author Candidate (with Prior = 0.5), Not Any Other, Z-Score-Based Method
0.987563334868724

Author Z-Score-Based P-Values
$VAR1 = '0.085505006557584'; $VAR2 = '0.0633655497771105'; $VAR3 = '0.171434865342973'; $VAR4 = '0.12528288346426';
Good compatibility. Z-Score-Based P-Value > 0.15.
Excellent indicator. 0% of the rest have P-Value > 0.15.

Control Z-Score-Based P-Values
$VAR1 = '1.59922675045068e-07'; $VAR2 = '1.53865957958911e-05'; $VAR3 = '1.15152401208907e-230'; $VAR4 = '1.38625772310222e-185'; $VAR5 = '1.12019140009417e-140'; $VAR6 = '0.0146411579312086'; $VAR7 = '2.45677958168023e-09'; $VAR8 = '1.57407250873307e-06'; $VAR9 = '0.000677668739712588'; $VAR10 = '0.00962802721027507'; $VAR11 = '0.0163658218763625'; $VAR12 = '0.0334574752187716'; $VAR13 = '2.58362612463459e-10'; $VAR14 = '0.00130634601308532'; $VAR15 = '0.000162467391535003'; $VAR16 = '3.31901547052934e-05'; $VAR17 = '0.0148851470145751'; $VAR18 = '0.0145354422575109'; $VAR19 = '0.000404090734158243'; $VAR20 = '0.00189379849195962'; $VAR21 = '0.0331005626995505'; $VAR22 = '0.00169664551748229'; $VAR23 = '0.0101341729493352'; $VAR24 = '0.00428224831179223'; $VAR25 = '0.0936484184661009'; $VAR26 = '0.0821387816550707'; $VAR27 = '0.142758511840905'; $VAR28 = '0.0944793633640193'; $VAR29 = '0.0177577921068541'; $VAR30 = '0.0511755545945115';


testsize: 3525


Bayesian Author Test: Posterior Probabilities from Equal Priors, Z-Score-Based Method
$VAR1 = '0.194384412836754'; $VAR2 = '0.128642433402798'; $VAR3 = '0.428022449321508'; $VAR4 = '0.24895070443894';

Bayesian Comparison of Best Author to Best Control: from Equal Priors, Z-Score-Based Method
$VAR1 = 3; $VAR2 = '0.630192853400536'; $VAR3 = 27; $VAR4 = '0.369807146599464';

Percentage of Samples in the Best Author Candidate that Meet the P-Value>0.15 Test, Z-Score-Based Method
0.891891891891892
Percentage of Samples outside the Best Author Candidate that Meet the P-Value>0.15 Test, Z-Score-Based Method
0.044280442804428
Posterior Probability of a Sample Meeting the Test Being by the Best Author Candidate (with Prior = 0.5), Not Any Other, Z-Score-Based Method
0.95270054330457

Author Z-Score-Based P-Values
$VAR1 = '0.0693661564132026'; $VAR2 = '0.0459061044379494'; $VAR3 = '0.152739984316191'; $VAR4 = '0.0888381596614488';
Good compatibility. Z-Score-Based P-Value > 0.15.
Excellent indicator. 0% of the rest have P-Value > 0.15.

Control Z-Score-Based P-Values
$VAR1 = '7.52698204593677e-07'; $VAR2 = '1.14529986387159e-05'; $VAR3 = '4.06160143725823e-251'; $VAR4 = '8.13858576425302e-209'; $VAR5 = '4.95396187735723e-141'; $VAR6 = '0.00780329735915257'; $VAR7 = '4.55298414007698e-07'; $VAR8 = '0.000105631704491139'; $VAR9 = '0.000929923740879125'; $VAR10 = '0.0099129522180944'; $VAR11 = '0.00541753701337631'; $VAR12 = '0.0283455029108557'; $VAR13 = '1.18749651505546e-17'; $VAR14 = '0.0137746471713619'; $VAR15 = '5.95795356362213e-07'; $VAR16 = '4.02151203240391e-05'; $VAR17 = '0.00108309327043496'; $VAR18 = '0.00987823323704138'; $VAR19 = '0.000268534327812201'; $VAR20 = '0.000619646689899217'; $VAR21 = '0.0126656590219904'; $VAR22 = '8.70076914595318e-05'; $VAR23 = '0.0126767611236443'; $VAR24 = '0.00452081118169337'; $VAR25 = '0.0887200912505522'; $VAR26 = '0.0721470244209322'; $VAR27 = '0.0896302417058948'; $VAR28 = '0.0522638176442668'; $VAR29 = '0.00654638012849821'; $VAR30 = '0.0466254683682151';


testsize: 3560


Bayesian Author Test: Posterior Probabilities from Equal Priors, Z-Score-Based Method
$VAR1 = '0.208478321809586'; $VAR2 = '0.131774474913248'; $VAR3 = '0.383525486309771'; $VAR4 = '0.276221716967396';

Bayesian Comparison of Best Author to Best Control: from Equal Priors, Z-Score-Based Method
$VAR1 = 3; $VAR2 = '0.505566814147007'; $VAR3 = 27; $VAR4 = '0.494433185852993';

Percentage of Samples in the Best Author Candidate that Meet the P-Value>0.14 Test, Z-Score-Based Method
0.916666666666667
Percentage of Samples outside the Best Author Candidate that Meet the P-Value>0.14 Test, Z-Score-Based Method
0.0634328358208955
Posterior Probability of a Sample Meeting the Test Being by the Best Author Candidate (with Prior = 0.5), Not Any Other, Z-Score-Based Method
0.935279187817259

Author Z-Score-Based P-Values
$VAR1 = '0.0769779530769322'; $VAR2 = '0.0486560389519739'; $VAR3 = '0.141611879032325'; $VAR4 = '0.101991335036582';
Good compatibility. Z-Score-Based P-Value > 0.1.
Good indicator. 6% of the rest have P-Value > 0.1.

Control Z-Score-Based P-Values
$VAR1 = '2.13458815390243e-06'; $VAR2 = '1.55332084272239e-06'; $VAR3 = '2.04037029212889e-230'; $VAR4 = '3.23744096202097e-180'; $VAR5 = '2.87169743443877e-63'; $VAR6 = '0.0136103969264799'; $VAR7 = '3.43983810170049e-08'; $VAR8 = '7.78922936071576e-05'; $VAR9 = '0.001512359374754'; $VAR10 = '0.0121091963295043'; $VAR11 = '0.0131881325944163'; $VAR12 = '0.0428599227723226'; $VAR13 = '2.19869741314044e-15'; $VAR14 = '0.0135265765897183'; $VAR15 = '3.89526700873469e-05'; $VAR16 = '5.03344773544794e-05'; $VAR17 = '0.00807361355230583'; $VAR18 = '0.0152019342600331'; $VAR19 = '0.000167521272932233'; $VAR20 = '0.00298591208844922'; $VAR21 = '0.0205692885757766'; $VAR22 = '0.00033405080222681'; $VAR23 = '0.0231989234264237'; $VAR24 = '0.00925209627354177'; $VAR25 = '0.0869118911287192'; $VAR26 = '0.066495423088644'; $VAR27 = '0.138493292172895'; $VAR28 = '0.0610308840608478'; $VAR29 = '0.00744031774460917'; $VAR30 = '0.0498729225267121';


testsize: 3542


Bayesian Author Test: Posterior Probabilities from Equal Priors, Z-Score-Based Method
$VAR1 = '0.138048556068614'; $VAR2 = '0.0895130710986867'; $VAR3 = '0.428498776320645'; $VAR4 = '0.343939596512054';

Bayesian Comparison of Best Author to Best Control: from Equal Priors, Z-Score-Based Method
$VAR1 = 3; $VAR2 = '0.554894124013378'; $VAR3 = 27; $VAR4 = '0.445105875986622';

Percentage of Samples in the Best Author Candidate that Meet the P-Value>0.16 Test, Z-Score-Based Method
0.916666666666667
Percentage of Samples outside the Best Author Candidate that Meet the P-Value>0.16 Test, Z-Score-Based Method
0.0185185185185185
Posterior Probability of a Sample Meeting the Test Being by the Best Author Candidate (with Prior = 0.5), Not Any Other, Z-Score-Based Method
0.98019801980198

Author Z-Score-Based P-Values
$VAR1 = '0.0541005723954792'; $VAR2 = '0.0350797467299059'; $VAR3 = '0.167926631975689'; $VAR4 = '0.134788291675604';
Good compatibility. Z-Score-Based P-Value > 0.15.
Excellent indicator. 0% of the rest have P-Value > 0.15.

Control Z-Score-Based P-Values
$VAR1 = '1.42258335697302e-07'; $VAR2 = '6.95236095125977e-07'; $VAR3 = '6.90001111715221e-222'; $VAR4 = '3.37357179311002e-142'; $VAR5 = '1.27658782452344e-122'; $VAR6 = '0.0383878281914375'; $VAR7 = '2.9522806002477e-07'; $VAR8 = '0.000300026679195505'; $VAR9 = '0.00477909258107069'; $VAR10 = '0.0197039374374683'; $VAR11 = '0.0148960896542223'; $VAR12 = '0.0314885879287425'; $VAR13 = '1.0880847333604e-17'; $VAR14 = '0.00510670843355626'; $VAR15 = '3.91795466966836e-06'; $VAR16 = '2.67519082185747e-05'; $VAR17 = '0.0031810532091493'; $VAR18 = '0.0221506235969033'; $VAR19 = '0.000103737229450923'; $VAR20 = '0.0177429862401911'; $VAR21 = '0.0271335968003114'; $VAR22 = '0.000208218185190765'; $VAR23 = '0.0215067080896386'; $VAR24 = '0.0066841940149687'; $VAR25 = '0.0935592510590828'; $VAR26 = '0.0649336304850102'; $VAR27 = '0.134701607734487'; $VAR28 = '0.0821802815344172'; $VAR29 = '0.0111528342470067'; $VAR30 = '0.0493723827766398';


testsize: 3589


Bayesian Author Test: Posterior Probabilities from Equal Priors, Z-Score-Based Method
$VAR1 = '0.17005894283372'; $VAR2 = '0.128520378262588'; $VAR3 = '0.411793126704778'; $VAR4 = '0.289627552198914';

Bayesian Comparison of Best Author to Best Control: from Equal Priors, Z-Score-Based Method
$VAR1 = 3; $VAR2 = '0.561369322348559'; $VAR3 = 27; $VAR4 = '0.438630677651441';

Percentage of Samples in the Best Author Candidate that Meet the P-Value>0.18 Test, Z-Score-Based Method
0.861111111111111
Percentage of Samples outside the Best Author Candidate that Meet the P-Value>0.18 Test, Z-Score-Based Method
0.00373134328358209
Posterior Probability of a Sample Meeting the Test Being by the Best Author Candidate (with Prior = 0.5), Not Any Other, Z-Score-Based Method
0.99568552253116

Author Z-Score-Based P-Values
$VAR1 = '0.0772156319702119'; $VAR2 = '0.058354956600546'; $VAR3 = '0.186975562647061'; $VAR4 = '0.131506018480261';
Good compatibility. Z-Score-Based P-Value > 0.15.
Excellent indicator. 0% of the rest have P-Value > 0.15.

Control Z-Score-Based P-Values
$VAR1 = '2.79018229870478e-06'; $VAR2 = '1.51270951384361e-05'; $VAR3 = '8.90606641304724e-274'; $VAR4 = '2.27353724047506e-150'; $VAR5 = '1.62289795549652e-38'; $VAR6 = '0.0149972204939989'; $VAR7 = '1.9996023391983e-06'; $VAR8 = '0.000766107322945355'; $VAR9 = '0.00287172558509034'; $VAR10 = '0.0176785345482234'; $VAR11 = '0.0116481461231372'; $VAR12 = '0.0394422791256078'; $VAR13 = '3.79744998781421e-16'; $VAR14 = '0.00302032661081131'; $VAR15 = '3.48171645225638e-05'; $VAR16 = '8.11006485753578e-06'; $VAR17 = '0.00646580987811839'; $VAR18 = '0.0217289274643726'; $VAR19 = '0.00013549523879405'; $VAR20 = '0.00877440138931842'; $VAR21 = '0.0463517729872374'; $VAR22 = '0.000225223156878385'; $VAR23 = '0.0173381242971227'; $VAR24 = '0.0198246857155304'; $VAR25 = '0.0800563988688101'; $VAR26 = '0.0855523554389949'; $VAR27 = '0.146094940501962'; $VAR28 = '0.0980039645954486'; $VAR29 = '0.00733322624599276'; $VAR30 = '0.0700812900753731';
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4767
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Orange County

Re: Origen -- A Basic Stylometric Study

Postby Peter Kirby » Sun Jun 07, 2015 5:31 pm

The rest of these works ascribed to Origen in the TLG are considered too difficult to work with (or just too short) for the time being.

Fragmenta de principiis
Fragmenta alia de principiis
Fragmentum in Lamentationes (in catenis)
Fragmentum in librum primum Regnorum (in catenis)
Homiliae in Genesim (in catenis)
Homiliae in Ezechielem
Commentariorum series in evangelium Matthaei (Mt 22.32-27.63)
Fragmenta ex commentariis in evangelium Matthaei
Fragmenta in evangelium Matthaei
Epistula ad Gregorium Thaumaturgum (e Philocalia)
Commentarii in epistulam ad Romanos (I.1-XII.21) (in catenis)
Commentarii in epistulam ad Romanos (e cod. Vindob. gr. 166)
Commentarii in Romanos (III.5-V.7) (P. Cair. 88748 cod. Vat gr. 762)
Commentarii in Romanos (cod. Athon. Laura 184 B64)
Epistula ad ignotum (Fabianum Romanum)
Epistula quibusdam qui ei obtrectrabant (ad Alexandrum Hierosolymitanum)
Scholia in Apocalypsem (scholia 28-38)
De resurrectione libri ii (fragmenta)
Commentarii in Genesim (Fragmenta)
Selecta in Genesim (fragmenta e catenis)
In Ruth (fragmentum)
Homiliae in Job (fragmenta in catenis, typus I) (e codd. Paris.)
In Canticum canticorum (libri duo quos scripsit in adulescentia)
Fragmenta ex commentariis in Ezechielem
Selecta in Ezechielem (fragmenta e catenis)
Fragmentum ex commentariis in Osee
Fragmentum ex homilis in Acta apostolorum
In epistulam ad Hebraeos homiliae
Adnotationes in Genesim
Adnotationes in Exodum
Adnotationes in Leviticum (fragmenta e catenis)
Adnotationes in Numeros
Adnotationes in Deteronomium (fragmenta e catenis)
Adnotationes in Jesu filium Nave (fragmenta e catenis)
Adnotationes in Judices
Homiliae in Job (fragmenta in catenis, typus II)
Excerpta in Psalmos [Dub.]
Scholia in Canticum canticorum
Scholia in Matthaeum
Scholia in Lucam (fragmenta e cod. Venet. 28)
Homilae in Job (fragmenta in catenis, typus I II) (e codd. Vat.)

Part of this is just fatigue. I might be able to do something with some of this later.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4767
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Orange County

Re: Origen -- A Basic Stylometric Study

Postby Peter Kirby » Sun Jun 07, 2015 6:39 pm

The results in summary, not including those texts not tested or too short to say anything meaningful.

102 of 119 (# matches to Origen) / 85.7%Certainly Origen
40 of 52Contra Celsum
4 of 4De principiis
16 of 18Commentarii in evangelium Joannis (extant books 1-32)
18 of 19Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei (books 12-17)
3 of 3Exhortatio ad martyrium
6 of 6De oratione
15 of 17Philocalia
6 of 7 (# matches to Origen) / 85.7%Probably Origen
2 of 3Homiliae in Lucam
1 of 1Epistula ad Africanum
1 of 1De engastrimytho (Homilia in i Reg. [i. Sam.] 28.3-25)
1 of 1Homiliae in Exodum
1 of 1Selecta in Exodum, Fragmenta ex commentariis in Exodum
1 of 4 (# matches to Origen) / 25% [cumulative 83.8%]Possibly Origen
1 of 1Homiliae in Leviticum
0 of 1Dialogus cum Heraclide
0 of 1In Jesu Nave homiliae xxvi (fragmenta e catenis)
0 of 1Libri x in Canticum canticorum (fragmenta)
8 of 15 (# matches to Origen) / 53.3% [cumulative 80.7%]Possibly Origen, Mixed Authorship, or Author Unknown
6 of 11In Jeremiam (homilies 1-20)
2 of 4Fragmenta in Lucam (in catenis)
4 of 30 (# matches to Origen) / 13.3%Likely Not by Origen, Author Unknown
2 of 20Fragmenta in Psalmos 1-150 [Dub.]
1 of 4Commentarii in epistulam ad Romanos (I.1-XII.21) (in catenis)
1 of 4Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam ad Ephesios (in catenis)
0 of 2Scholia in Apocalypsem (scholia, 1, 3-39)
8 of 10 (# matches to Gregory) / 80%Not by Origen, Possibly by Gregory Nyssenus (or Someone Else)
8 of 10Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam i ad Corinthios (in catenis)
10 of 11 (# matches to Clement) / 90.9%Not by Origen, Possibly by Clement of Alexandria (or Someone Else)
2 of 2Fragmenta in Jeremiam (in catenis)
5 of 5Expositio in Proverbia (fragmenta e catenis)
3 of 4Fragmenta in Lamentationes (in catenis)


The basis for deciding whether a text was "possibly Origen" or "likely not by Origen" is mentioned in this post (using Fisher's exact test).

This doesn't seem to contradict scholarship on Origen or on the patristics severely, in general terms, which is good. The ones that "should" have been identified as certainly Origen's, according to scholarship, have been identified as certainly Origen's. The ones that "should" be considered "[Dub.]" are considered dubious. While there may be some expansion of the "dubious" category, the texts claimed are not among those asserted to be part of the 'core canon' of Origen's texts; they frequently are attested only through the catenae, which have something of a reputation for occasional misattribution.

On the other hand, there are some issues with the possible rewriting of Origen (especially in excerpted fragments), differences arising from certain selection biases when a continuous text of the author is not available (again, for excerpted fragments), or possible differences due to genre (in the homilies for example) or the difficulty of finding where the quotes end and begin in an efficient manner (especially scriptural quotations), so it's possible (possible) that a few more texts end up in the "dubious" categories than possibly (possibly) should be.

The suggestions that Clement of Alexandria or Gregory Nyssenus could be responsible for some of this text are intriguing and deserve further investigation.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4767
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Orange County

Re: Origen -- A Basic Stylometric Study

Postby Peter Kirby » Sun Jun 07, 2015 9:37 pm

If anyone is able to track down any information regarding conventional authorship attribution studies and Origen, especially those texts classified as "possibly Origen" or "[likely] not by Origen," or if anyone has any of their own insight into these matters, that would be much appreciated!
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4767
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Orange County

Re: Origen -- A Basic Stylometric Study

Postby Tenorikuma » Sun Jun 07, 2015 10:11 pm

My contributions are meagre.

A Newly Discovered Greek Father: Cassian the Sabaite (Sup Vigiliae Christianae 111) makes close analyses of the parallel wording used in various ancient commentaries, and some of these might have relevance. On p. 292, the author notes the similarities of Origen's wording to Evagrius:

Origen’s catenae-fragments are phrased after Evagrius’ vocabulary, and probably some of them were compiled by him. Cf. Origen, selPs, PG.12: 1085.23; 1676.9; expProv, PG.17: 241.1–2; 245.53.


ExpProv, that is, Expositio in Proverbia, is one of the candidates you have for being written by someone else.

p. 304, n. 27 reads:

This analysis is a plain and direct influence by Evagrius, who probably quoted from Origen explaining Proverbs 7:6–9. The passage is attributed to both Origen and Evagrius, with only a small portion omitted from Origen’s ascription, which I canvass in the Scholia in Apocalypsin, EN IXg. See then, Origen, expProv, PG.17.181.5–16 and Evagrius, Scholia in Proverbia (fragmenta e catenis), 89 (& Expositio in Proverbia Salomonis, p. 87)…
User avatar
Tenorikuma
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:40 am

Re: Origen -- A Basic Stylometric Study

Postby Peter Kirby » Sun Jun 07, 2015 10:56 pm

Tenorikuma wrote:My contributions are meagre.

A Newly Discovered Greek Father: Cassian the Sabaite (Sup Vigiliae Christianae 111) makes close analyses of the parallel wording used in various ancient commentaries, and some of these might have relevance. On p. 292, the author notes the similarities of Origen's wording to Evagrius:

Origen’s catenae-fragments are phrased after Evagrius’ vocabulary, and probably some of them were compiled by him. Cf. Origen, selPs, PG.12: 1085.23; 1676.9; expProv, PG.17: 241.1–2; 245.53.


ExpProv, that is, Expositio in Proverbia, is one of the candidates you have for being written by someone else.

p. 304, n. 27 reads:

This analysis is a plain and direct influence by Evagrius, who probably quoted from Origen explaining Proverbs 7:6–9. The passage is attributed to both Origen and Evagrius, with only a small portion omitted from Origen’s ascription, which I canvass in the Scholia in Apocalypsin, EN IXg. See then, Origen, expProv, PG.17.181.5–16 and Evagrius, Scholia in Proverbia (fragmenta e catenis), 89 (& Expositio in Proverbia Salomonis, p. 87)…


Hey, I'll take what I can get! Thank you for this.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4767
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Orange County

Re: Origen -- A Basic Stylometric Study

Postby Peter Kirby » Sun Jun 07, 2015 11:14 pm

Also, any requests for who I should "do" next?

Based on Origen, the rate of accuracy seems to be somewhere between ~80% and ~86% when using samples between ~2500 and ~5000 words long.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4767
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Orange County

Re: Origen -- A Basic Stylometric Study

Postby andrewcriddle » Tue Jun 09, 2015 11:07 am

The authenticity of the scholia to the Apocalypse has been repeatedly questioned see the footnote here https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6RQBPIaelwAC&pg=PA46&dq=%22origen%22+Scholia+in+Apocalypsem+ramelli+purification+harnack&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rDh3VY72OIP8UJXMgMAG&ved=0CCQQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=%22origen%22%20Scholia%20in%20Apocalypsem%20ramelli%20purification%20harnack&f=false They probably come from a post-Origen work which made use of Origen and other sources.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Origen -- A Basic Stylometric Study

Postby Peter Kirby » Tue Jun 09, 2015 11:28 am

andrewcriddle wrote:The authenticity of the scholia to the Apocalypse has been repeatedly questioned see the footnote here https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6RQBPIaelwAC&pg=PA46&dq=%22origen%22+Scholia+in+Apocalypsem+ramelli+purification+harnack&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rDh3VY72OIP8UJXMgMAG&ved=0CCQQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=%22origen%22%20Scholia%20in%20Apocalypsem%20ramelli%20purification%20harnack&f=false They probably come from a post-Origen work which made use of Origen and other sources.

Andrew Criddle


Thanks, Andrew!
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4767
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Orange County

Advertisement

by »

 

PreviousNext

Return to Christian Texts and History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], davidbrainerd, DCHindley, g_n_o_s_i_s, Giuseppe, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], JoeWallack, MSNbot Media, outhouse, Peter Kirby, rakovsky, Secret Alias, TedM and 71 guests