Mon Nov 11 13:18:05 1996
From owner-tc-list Mon Nov 11 13:18:05 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id NAA08845; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:15:06 -0500
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961111181022.006bd26c@mail.teleport.com>
X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:10:22 -0800
To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Dale M. Wheeler"
Subject: Re: Patristic statistics
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 4709
I'm finally back at my office where the article is with my
notes...here are some follow-up thoughts...
Here's an example of what caught my interest in the Aland
article (for those who haven't read or don't have it; for
those who do, p. 139); he lists the various Fathers with
their citation statistics:
"2. Irenaeus (181) passages: 67% against the Majority text
(24% of which show agreement with the "Egyptian text"),
16.5% common to both texts, and 16.5% with the Majority
text."
Now if we assume that our base is 100%, then I think this
is what we end up with (check the math, my doctorate is
in Greek/NT :-) ):
Agrees with Maj only - 16.5%
Agrees with Maj & Alex - 16.5%
------
Total Agree with Maj 33.0%
Agrees with Alex only - 24.0%
Agrees with Alex & Bzy - 16.5%
------
Total Agree with Alex 40.5%
Agrees with Alex only - 24.0%
Agrees with Byz only - 16.5%
Agrees with both - 16.5%
------
Total Agree with Known Texts 57.0%
Remainder with No Text 43.0%
Thus the actual Byz vs Alex comparison is Alex - 24.0%
and Bzy - 16.5%, a statistical difference of 7.5% (or
6.5% if you take the total agreements with both texts);
which MAY be significant, but my impression was that
there are two factors which serious obviate that
significance: (1) 43.0% of Irenaeus' text doesn't agree
with any known text, and (2) Irenaeus was a Western
Father.
Also--and I say this in the most kind manner possible--
the figure of "67% against the Maj text" (that's 24%
Alex alone + 43% doesn't agree with anything) doesn't
seem to be a fair representation of the data, since
one could on the same basis say "58.5% against the
Alex text" (with no corresponding statment about the
Byz, thus making the actual situation look worse than
it is).
The other thing that struck me was that most of the
"early" Fathers listed which "support" the Alex text
against the Byz text were either Alex or West Fathers
(except Marcion [which I'm not sure really tells us
very much]; Irenaeus [West, d. 202]; Clement of Alex
[Alex, d. 215]; Origen [Alex to Ceas, d 254];
Hippolytas [West, d. 235]). Methodius and Adamantius
have numbers which are pretty much equal in terms
of readings from known texts. Additionally, the
Fathers cited in the second section which show
a more decided use of know Byz readings later are
almost all from the Byz area (2 are Caeseraen).
Aland concludes (p. 139f.) that "At least one thing is
clearly outside Egypt in the early period of what
Hodges calls the 'Egyptian text' is unproved.
Marcion, Iarnaeus [sic], and Hippolytus were not
related in any way to Egypt." But in the very next
paragraph, it seems to me, he undermines that
argument by pointing out: "...p38 and p48 at least
anticipate the so-called 'Western text' (its
chief representative, Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis
[D], is now believed by Latin paleographers to
have come from Africa. And both these papyri are
from the 3rd century!" While the conclusion that
Egyptian readings can be found in Byz Fathers
may be supportable, I don't see how pointing to
Western Fathers helps the argument at all, esp.,
if the type of text they are using is a
descendant of Alex.
I did a quick scan once again of the article and
he consistently refers to the "Egyptian text",
which is a term he borrows from Hodges, but on
p. 138 he does seem to equate that with 96 NT
papyrii from Egypt. This raises for me another
methodological question, namely, if (and I
can't tell from this article that a different
approach was used) the "Egyptian" text includes
ANY reading from ANY papyrii as a comparison
base, shouldn't the Byz readings be equally
based on ANY reading in ANY Byz mss, not just
restricted to the Majority text (I have NO
doubt that the statistical situation would
change drastically if we restricted the Alex
text or broadened the Byz text).
It seems to me that, while Aland's contention
that the "Egyptian" form of the text was
widespread right from the beginning could be
correct, the statistical presentation in this
article was IMHO not convincing. I actually came
away from this article ambivalent about the
benefits of the Fathers to making such a
determination.
***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com
***********************************************************************
Back