Wed May 1 01:28:53 1996

From majordom  Wed May  1 01:28:53 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA14839; Wed, 1 May 1996 01:28:53 +0500
Message-Id: <9605010525.AA21650@osf1.gmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Sampling and Vulgate
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 01:25:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Stephen C Carlson" 
In-Reply-To:  from "Maurice Robinson" at Apr 30, 96 10:25:17 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 975       
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

Maurice Robinson wrote:
>The UBS apparatus is not exactly biassed toward texttype 
>interrelationships. The data taken from that apparatus still point to a 
>high degree of "mixture" in all non-Byzantine witnesses, and a mixture 
>which does not occur in any predictable pattern.

In a brief comparison between my UBS4 (2d printing, which don't find
difficult to read) and Hodges & Farstad, it is clear to me that
numerous Byzantine-specific readings are not cited in UBS4.  So I
would say the UBS apparatus is biased against those readings in which
the Byzantine texttype is the only support.

If the goal is to determine how Byzantine the Vulgate is, the UBS
apparatus almost systematically excludes the evidence most desired.

Stephen Carlson
-- 
Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE
scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu              : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs
http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/     : chant the words.  -- Shujing 2.35

Back