Larry Hurtado surveys recent work on early Christian scholarship, primarily in Alexandria.
INTF discusses the treatment of patristic citations in ECM.
There are features in the interface for commenting on the variant unit and a link that will take you to the local stemma and coherence modules for said variant unit. There is also an option to see the unedited collation data, a list of patristic citations (fuller than in the print edition as I understand it), the Vetus Latina collations, and a nice feature which tells you how many conjectures have been offered for the variant unit and a link that will take you to the data in the Amsterdam Database of New Testament Conjectural Emendation.
To access the text, see INTF’s virtual manuscript room. Although ECM is itself available also for the synoptics’ parallel passages and the catholic letters, the online version currently includes only the Acts material.
For additional discussion and a short video clip from the occasion, see Peter Gurry’s original post.
Peter Gurry reflects on the “logical impossibility” criterion that feeds into the Editio Critica Maior‘s account of “variants”:
The Editio Critica Maior defines a “variant” as a reading that is both “grammatically correct and logically possible.” If it doesn’t meet these two criteria it is marked with an f for Fehler (= error). Neither criteria is completely objective, but then most of the errors so recorded in the ECM are pretty obvious gibberish. Occasionally, however, one finds cause…