Tue Nov 12 11:02:14 1996
From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 12 11:02:14 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA17890; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:01:18 -0500
Message-Id: <199611121557.QAA71292@mail.uni-muenster.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 96 18:06:45 +0100
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid)
Subject: Re: Patristic statistics
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961111181022.006bd26c@mail.teleport.com>
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 6047
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote (inter alia):
>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%
What is the implication of "Total Agree with Known Texts" versus "Remainder with
No Text"? Does "Text" here mean "text-type" or "supporting witness(es)"? Either
way the conclusion is not sound, for (a) in the GNT apparatus usually no
singular readings are given, and (b) the agreements between Irenaeus and
so-called "Western" witnesses (D F G it Tertullian Ambrosiaster etc.) against
"Egyptian" and Byz. (cf. e.g., Gal 2,1.5) were not specified in Aland's
statistics. Aland's reason for focussing solely on "Egyptian text" and Byz. in
his article was Zane Hodges' assertion that "[i]ts [the Egyptian text's]
existence in early times outside Egypt is unproved".
>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.
Same objection.
>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)...
Same objection
[paragraph om.]
>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."
Here part of Aland's quote is omitted which leaves it senseless. Aland stated:
"At least one thing is clearly demonstrated: it is impossible to say that the
existence outside Egypt in the early period of what Hodges calls the 'Egyptian
text' is unproved. Marcion, Iranaeus [sic], and Hippolytus were not related in
any way to Egypt."
Again, Aland questiones Hodges' assertion about the "Egyptian text". Aland's
argument runs as follows. If the early fathers object the Byz. text usually more
than 50%, while at the same time usually agreeing more times with "Egyptian"
readings than with Byz. readings (where both disagree), Hodges's assertion
(Egyptian text is unknown in early times outside Egypt) does not hold water.
>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.
This reasoning simply does not make sense to me. Please, help me to get to the
point.
>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.
Again, I fail to get to the point. Hodges himself mentions "...a small number of
ancient manuscripts that derive mainly from Egypt. Among these, Codex Vaticanus
(B) and Codex Sinaiticus (aleph)... The most important papyrus witnesses in this
group of texts are the Chester Beatty papyri (P 45.46.47) and the Bodmer papyri
(P 66.75). The text which results from dependence on such manuscripts as these
may fairly be described as Egyptian. Its existence in early times outside Egypt
is unproved".
With reference to this statement, Aland simply asks (1) for any proof for
Egyptian *origin* of aleph and B, (2) for any proof of Egyptian *origin* for all
of the 96 papyri from Egypt (the Egyptian origin of the early ones remains
doubtful in Aland's judgment), (3) Aland presents his church father statistics,
and (4) Aland refers to the "far more complex textual character" of the early
papyri.
In other words, Aland simply puts Hodges' bold statements to test by
highlightening their implications and confronting them with the evidence (or
lack thereof).
>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.
The problems with statistics and especially with statistics drawn from samples
should be seriously addressed. Indeed, one may ask, if Aland overstated his case
with respect to his statistics. However, in so doing one should, first of all,
present Aland's case and the conclusions *he* drew therefrom, without obscuring
the statistics, and confusing the argument.
Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
Back