Tue Nov 12 10:26:23 1996

From owner-tc-list  Tue Nov 12 10:26:23 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA17407; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:25:22 -0500
From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" 
Organization: Divinity Faculty
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:21:26 +000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Patristic statistics
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33)
Message-ID: <18273F21F90@div.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3145

Writing in response to my posting, Robt. Walz stated:

> WIth all of this I have to agree -- but I have to go further. One
> of the saddest things about Professor Hurtado's study, from my
> standpoint, is all the issues it *doesn't* address.
> 
> Hurtado established -- conclusively, to my mind -- that p45 and W
> are not to be linked to the so-called "Caesarean" text. But his
> method, and that of Fee, cannot address the Lake/Streeter definition
> of the "Caesarean" text. Note that Streeter defined the "Caesarean"
> text as those readings of Theta, family 1, family 13, 28, 565, 700,
> etc. *not found in the Byzantine text.*
My 1981 book was based on my PhD thesis, and was not intended to deal 
with all the questions one could ask about the Caesarean text--far 
from it!  The specific question I addressed was whether the Caesarean 
text was evidence in early witnesses (the [then] so-called 
"pre-Caesarean" witnesses, P45 & W).  What I hope to have shown is 
(1) that W & P45 don't in fact have sufficient or significant enough 
agreements with Theta, 565, etc., to be linked with them at all, and 
(2) that, whatever the "Caesarean" text-type might be it is not 
early, nor even very easily delineated.
Moreover, the influential definitions of the "Caesarean" text-type 
didn't involve particular readings (contra Walz's statement above), 
but referred to "patterns" of readings, with the so-called Caesareans 
not aligning themselves simply with any of the other identified 
text-types.  Though my study dealt only with Theta and 565, these are 
the main reps of the so-called Caesarean text-type; and I think I've 
shown that they (a) agree with each other to a significant measure, 
and (b) also seem to have interesting levels of agreement with 
"Byzantine" text-type witnesses, in both specific readings and in the 
*types of readings they prefer*.  I've suggested that the forces at 
work (e.g., scribal/editorial preferences) in the Caesarean mss are 
very similar to those that shaped the Byzantine text-type.

Walz goes on:
> I did what I could; with my thousand-reading sample I looked at
> all the texts listed above and compared not only their overall
> agreements but their *non-Byzantine* agreements.
> 
> I have not finished my analysis, so I cannot give formal results.
> But the results I have indicate that the "Caesarean" text is real,
> or at least that the "Caesarean" manuscripts have been subjected
> to a common influence. This despite the fact that, based on overall
> agreements, they are all simply "Byzantine" (or at least "mixed
> Byzantine").
> 
> So I agree with Hurtado that we must look at agreements and disagreements,
> but we must do more. We must *assess* agreements, we must have large enough
> samples to mean something -- and we should ask that people know what
> statistics they are citing!

Excuse my limited reading, but I don't know where to find the results 
of your work.  Could you point me to the publications?
Larry Hurtado
L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk

Back