MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416217459 · doi:10.15699/tc.30.2025.05

Revisiting GA 205 and 2886 in the Gospel of Mark: History, Reception, and Text

2025· article· en· W4416217459 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Whidden

Bibliographic record

VenueTC A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Linguistic Studies
Canadian institutionsWycliffe College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGospelInterpretation (philosophy)CollationConfusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For most of the twentieth century, modern New Testament textual critics considered GA 2886 to be a copy of GA 205. However, recent and diverse research on the topic has nearly eliminated that view. Indeed, the two leading theories now are that either 2886 was the exemplar for 205 or that the two were copied from the same exemplar. This paper reexamines the histories of these codices under the care of their owner, Cardinal Bessarion, updates the history of scholarly interpretation on the topic, and provides a textual analysis based on a full collation of Family 1 manuscripts in the Gospel of Mark. Based on this evidence, the present study concludes that 2886 is indeed the exemplar for 205.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTC A Journal of Biblical Textual CriticismSame topicHistorical and Linguistic StudiesFrench-language works237,207