Tue Nov 12 11:25:52 1996

From owner-tc-list  Tue Nov 12 11:25:52 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA18169; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:24:45 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <18273F21F90@div.ed.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:21:07 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Patristic statistics
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 5352

On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, "Professor L.W. Hurtado"  wrote:

[ ... ]

>> 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,

With which conclusion I noted my agreement.

>and
>(2) that, whatever the "Caesarean" text-type might be it is not
>early, nor even very easily delineated.

No arguments there.

>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.

I quote from Streeter, page 81:

   Lake made the all-important discovery that Theta and these notable
   cursives [family 1, family 13, 28, 565, 700], taken all together,
   form in reality a single family [read: text-type]. True[,] Theta
   and the other five sets of authorities mentioned do not on the face
   of it exhibit a single type of text; but that is because each of
   them has been heavily corrected to the Byzantine standard, and in
   each case a *different* set of corrections has been made. If,
   however, we eliminate from the text of these manuscripts those
   variants which are found in the Byzantine text, we find that the
   residuary readings of the six different representatives support
   each other to a quite remarkable extent.

As I noted, this is a problematic definition, particularly since
Streeter and Lake didn't *know* the readings of the Byzantine text.
But we can only address the text-type on these terms.

Based on my research, I think Streeter overstates the case; the
"Caesarean" witnesses do not agree absolutely in their non-Byzantine
readings. Family 1, for example, is noticeably closer to the
Alexandrian text than the other witnesses. But I do find common
influence, possibly a common text-type.

>Though my study dealt only with Theta and 565, these are
>the main reps of the so-called Caesarean text-type;

Debatable; on the basis of distinction from the Byzantine text, the
leaders are Theta and Family 1. And, if you will admit versions, the
old Armenian and old Georgian seem more "Caesarean" than any Greek
manuscript. The witnesses listed above all appear to have suffered
40-80% Byzantine corruption; in the two versions, it's more like 30%
(tentative conclusion, as noted).

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.

I won't argue that.

>Walz goes on:

[BTW -- my last name is "Waltz"]

>> 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?

As I have stated at least a dozen times on this list, I am not a
text-critical professional; I am, by training, a physicist and
mathematician. Obviously that limits my knowledge of Greek -- but I
think it means that I have some knowledge of statistics.

I have not published (though I will offer my data to anyone who wants it,
if you give me enough time); remember, some people still have to work so
that others can make their living by the gospel. Besides, who's going to
publish a book-length manuscript on textual criticism (and that's what
I would need) by a physicist?

Still, if anyone wants to see the sort of work I have done, I refer you
to the "text-types" article at my ENTTC web site:

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back