Mon Jan 20 10:21:16 1997

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jan 20 10:21:16 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA04175; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:20:49 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
 
References: <199701182115.QAA23385@scholar.cc.emory.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:04:35 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Probabilistic view of original
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3147

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Timothy John Finney 
wrote:

>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.

This is why I think the identification of text-types is *so* important.

The main problem with the picture of two text-types, Alexandrian and
"Western" (apart from the fact that it's wrong) is that it means that,
when they divide, we are always deciding more or less arbitrarily
between them. But if there are three or more text-types, we are much
more likely to find ourselves in a position of being able to follow
the majority. (In Paul, where I perceive four early text-types, I
averaged only about three readings per chapter where we had a two-
against-two division of text-types.) If there are three or more
readings, it is usually possible to find -- and follow -- the middle
reading.

[ ... ]

>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.

I like this analogy.

It fits in another way, too: Barring continuous effort to keep the
sponge clean, it is likely to get dirtier and dirtier as time passes. :-)

[ ... ]

>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.

In a very limited way, I did this in my "edition" of Paul. Places
where the text is invariant are shown in plain text. Boldface marks
a point of variation. In the apparatus, places where I consider
it reasonably possible that the variant text is original, I put
an obelus by those variants which I consider possible. (This is
roughly equivalent to the UBS "C" level -- except that my way
shows which variants are and are not reasonable.) For readings
where I consider the text highly uncertain (the three or so
readings per chapter I mentioned above, equivalent to UBS "D"
readings), I put down a double obelus.

This isn't as good as Tim's way -- but you can carry my edition
into a church service. :-)

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back