Mon Apr 29 21:09:31 1996

From majordom  Mon Apr 29 21:09:31 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA08562; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:09:31 +0500
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 96 20:06 CDT
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz)
Subject: Re: Byzantine text
Content-Length: 1724
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

On Mon, 29 Apr 96, broman@Np.nosc.mil (Vincent Broman) wrote:

>For any kind of evaluation involving Byzantine witnesses,
>the selection of readings in UBS3 or even NA26 is highly unrepresentative,
>and will make your counts of agreements nearly meaningless.
>For instance, in this case lots of units of variation where Westerns
>and Alexandrians agree against Byzantines will not be covered by
>any entry in the apparatus, because the text is felt to be firm.
>This is a standard pitfall in using a selective apparatus.
>You need to work from the IGNTP volumes, Tischendorf, or Von Soden.

I agree as to the bias of NA26; you would think they would at least
note the divergences from TR! And I've been amazed at how many readings
that everyone would agree are important (by which I mean readings where
the "Alexandrian" witnesses are significantly divided and UBS goes
against Byz). Example: Col. 3:18. UBS reads KOMISETAI with B K L 1175
and not much else (but in agreement with Eph. 6:8); TR has KOMIEITAI
following Aleph* A C (D*) (F-G) Ivid 056 0142 33 81 436 1739 pm.
I don't know about you, but I prefer KOMIEITAI.

I also agree that a sample of "unbiased" readings would be better.
Much better. I was doing what I could to improve on the heavily
biased readings of UBS. But if a sample is large enough, it matters
less. Which is why I wanted a larger sample.

It's also important to remember the difference between RELATIVE and
ABSOLUTE statistics. Changing our sample will change the actual
RATE of agreement between, say, vg and E (the absolute statistic).
It is far less likely to change the amount of difference between vg
and E as opposed to vg and B (the relative statistic).

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back