Wed Nov 13 10:03:22 1996
From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 10:03:22 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id KAA28504; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:01:42 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <1980AD551E4@div.ed.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:57:30 -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: 3974
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote:
>As to which mss are best reps of any "Caesarean" text-type, or any
>other text-type, I resist on methodological grounds the procedure of
>counting disagreements from the "Byzantine" text-type. I think,
>therefore, that I must take issue with Mr. Waltz's procedure, and
>would still
>support Colwell's basic method of counting *all* agreements at *all*
>variation-units. When we do that Theta & 565 show a close enough
>agreement (in Mark) to make them close witnesses of something similar
>or in common.
I will concede that my statement was subject to misinterpretation;
when I argued that Theta and family 1 are the "best" "Caesarean"
witnesses, I meant that they were the ones with the fewest Byzantine
readings. Whether they are truest to the text-type is a different,
and more subjective, matter.
It is obvious, too, that Theta and 565 are among the most closely
related manuscripts of the type. But so what? We need the full
spread of the text-type, not the best pair of witnesses. Does the
Byzantine text consist of S and Omega (or whatever your two favorite
Kx witnesses are)? No, it consists of A and E F G H and K Pi and
S V Omega and all of Kx and all of Kr and all of the M groups
and....
I would argue that the least Byzantine witnesses are those most
important to constructing other text-types, since they give us more
material to work with.
I agree that, ideally, we should collate all manuscripts in all
variantion units. However, consider that there are an estimated
150,000 variation units. Even if we take only those found in
(say) two uncials and/or major minuscules, we are probably left
with at least 25,000. For any random variant there may be 1000 or
more manuscripts extant (more in the Gospels, fewer in Revelation,
but I just want to give an idea of what we are talking about).
That means that, to cross-collate all those manuscripts requires
25,000 times 1000 factorial collations. That is,
25,000 * 1000 * 999 * 998 * 997 * 996 * ... * 5 * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1
That number is so large that I can't even begin to calculate it,
but it is on the order of 10 to the 2200 power (that is, a 1 followed
by 2200 zeroes). Neither you nor I nor any computer ever likely to
be invented can do the whole job. We have to work with samples --
samples of readings or samples of manuscripts or both. (Hence the
Claremont Profile Method; hence also Hurtado's limited study, which
is to be commended for including all variants, but which is therefore
very limited in the manuscripts it can include.)
But Colwell did *not* focus on "overall agreements." Yes, in one
misguided essay (the only major error that I know of from his pen),
he gave us the "70% Rule." But elsewhere he stated the real rule:
The Rule of Multiple Statistics. "In conclusion I suggest that the
location of a manuscript within the tradition should use Multiple
Readings to find the related group, Distinctive Readings to
demonstrate the kinship, and total comparison to confirm the
relationship." (See Studies in Methodology, p. 39.) As best I
can tell, Colwell never applied the 70% rule outside the one essay.
For the record: I developed my method independently, using the power
of computers to find statistics that Colwell would have had a hard
time creating. But in substance we agree: Only multiple-statistic
methods are complete.
Finally (and I'll get off the soapbox now), if we are to work with the
"Caesarean" text (or the family 2138 text in the Catholics, or any
text-type with heavy Byzantine influence), we *must* get away from this
best-manuscript thing. I state firmly: There *are no "Caesarean"
manuscripts.* At best -- assuming the text-type exists at all -- there
are manuscripts which are mixed "Caesarean"/Byzantine. But until we
get away from the Byzantine readings, and start looking at the "Caesarean"
ones, we cannot determine whether the type exists.
Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Back