Mon Jan 20 01:36:31 1997

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jan 20 01:36:31 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id BAA01832; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 01:35:38 -0500
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:31:25 +0800 (WST)
From: Timothy John Finney 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Probabilistic view of original
In-Reply-To: <199701182115.QAA23385@scholar.cc.emory.edu>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2847

I like to take a probabilistic view of the original text. It is the 
closest approximation to what was originally written (if only one text 
was originally written, which I would say is the most simple hypothesis 
to explain the current situation for everything except, perhaps, Luke 
and Acts).

Here it is: 1) If there is no variation of a word in any ms, then that is
original. 2) If there is variation, then the certainty of any particular
reading is inversely proportional to the extent to which it can be
demonstrated to give rise to the others. 

The second point is a restatement of the local genealogical method, but
should take account of weighty manuscript groups, to the extent that these
point to pre-300 AD archetypes. There is a big problem with this method,
though -- it depends on the person making the judgement as to which
explains the other to a large degree. In order to make it less subjective,
it should reflect actual probabilities of particular tendencies as found
in the manuscripts we have. E.g. The probability of making a change of
this kind is such and such. 

At the moment I think of the NT text as like a sponge. It has a certain 
original form but gets bits and pieces added and taken away at different 
times and places, reflecting local conditions of doctrine, practice and 
tradition.

The task of NT text critics is twofold -- descriptive and inferential, 
just like statistics. The presentation of words in the text should 
reflect this. If they are certain they are printed. If they vary, but one 
reading can be shown to give rise to the others, mindful of how copying 
errors actually behave, then it is given a high certainty. Readings which 
are evenly divided get another status, etc. In fact, this is what the UBS 
text does with its A, B, C, and D ratings of readings. Only the rating is 
based on the editorial committee's extent of agreement rather than the 
extent to which mss show the kind of copying errors the secondary 
readings display (but the editors were probably basing their decisions on 
these kinds of considerations).

Given the capabilities of hypertext, we should begin to consider 
producing a New Testament text of this kind. Perhaps words could be 
colour coded. Black = no variation, grey = very certain, outline = 
uncertain. The grey and outline words could be clicked on to see which 
other readings exist and their support.

On a different point, I would like to agree with Jim West in saying 
that we all owe a great debt of gratitude to Prof. Kurt Aland. We should 
remember that the _Text of the New Testament_ that he co-authored with 
Profn. Barbara Aland was an introduction to the use of the UBS and NA 
texts and was not his final statement on textual matters.


finney@central.murdoch.edu.au
Baptist Theological College
and Murdoch University
Perth, W. Australia

Back