Thu Aug 22 21:59:00 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Aug 22 21:59:00 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA04363; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:57:58 -0400
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:54:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Colwell's 70%
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3853



On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> True enough; my point is merely that very few scholars (except for
> Hurtado in his work on Mark and Richards in his sadly flawed work
> on the Johannine Epistles) have tried to study *all* readings. So
> the cutoff percentage will depend -- significantly -- on the
> particular sample.

The point of a representative sample is of course to eliminate the massive
amount of work needed to compare on a full collation basis.  For the
purpose for which Colwell's quantitative analysis method was designed, it
will offer tolerably reliable results by comparing a quantity of MSS and
establishing general texttype relationships on the basis of patterns of
variation shared in high percentage among certain MSS. 

> I am willing to agree with Maurice Robinson that, if we choose the
> number carefully, based on the sample, we can find *some* percentage
> that defines text-types -- as long as we are working with unmixed
> or minimally mixed manuscripts.

The percentage value will of necessity differ depending on the texttype
and the internal constituency of its member MSS, which varies according
to the amount of mixture which appears among them.  The Western text is
the least precisely defined, and the percentage of interrelationship among
the strongest MSS of that texttype remains significantly below Colwell's
70% line (usually around 55%-60%); the Alexandrian MSS more closely
approach the 70% designator, while the "average" Byzantine MS will be more
likely around 90% (a "Byzantine" MS with only 70% agreement with the
Byzantine pattern of readings is a very weak member of that texttype,
while an Alexandrian MS with such a percentage is a strong member of its
texttype).

Certainly the matter of "mixture" exists, and even strong Byzantine MSS
have some mixture, but usually only a smattering of non-Byzantine readings
between 5%-10%.  Alexandrian MSS on the other hand will have often up to
30%-35% mixture from readings of other texttypes, and the Western MSS even
a greater percentage.  Quantitatively speaking, this does _not_ disqualify
any of them from being in a texttype relationship with other MSS sharing
most of their same variations; it merely indicates that there are levels
of strength to be found among the witnesses comprising each separate
texttype, and the standards applied to one texttype should not be applied
directly to another texttype.  

Mixture itself does not destroy the establishment of texttype status for
MSS sharing a common pattern; the differences in the percentage of mixture
prevailing in MSS of any given texttype _do_, however, suggest something
significant about the transmissional history of the MSS comprising such
individual texttypes.  Mixture alone, in my opinion, does _not_ seriously
harm the texttype designation of a MS as established from quantitative
analysis based upon a reasonable selection of significant variant units.

> Such a mixed manuscript may not agree with *either* the Alexandrian
> or the Byzantine text 70% of the time. But they have a text-type --
> indeed, they are blessed enough to have two. :-)

Few if any "mixed" MSS are so mixed that they in actuality totally fail to
align fairly well (if only in a "weak" state) with one or another known
texttype. As pointed out in the "loipoi"/"polloi" discussion, a reading so
equally divided among the MSS in general can be seen to be part of the
pattern for the Alexandrian MSS, even though it is merely a divided
"mixed" reading within the MSS comprising the Byzantine Textform. 

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back