Subject: Textual Theory (Was: Re: Byzantine Text) (FIFTH try!)

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 96 18:58 CDT

Let's see if _I_ can get through to the list this time.... (Nope, didn't
go through. We'll try again.)

This post apparently came from Ulrich Schmid; the relevant part reads:

>Shure, someone else cares. But it is not easy to comment on statements
>like the
>above mentioned, where theories are so easily dismissed without submitting any
>alternative.
>
>I may refer to Robert Waltz's -to the best of my knowledge- initial post
>on the
>subject. On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, he wrote:
>
>>So let's not simplify the case. I support your (i.e. Jim West's)
>> argument that the Byzantine text is late, but we should no more
>> develop a fetish for the Alexandrian text than the Byzantine.
>>We need a text based in HISTORY, not just theoretical text-types!
>
>I very much agree with that. But, I simply wish to know Bob's _theory_ of "a
>text based in HISTORY".

Hardly something that I can supply in less than fifty thousand words....
(I have a pseudo-thesis on the subject, and it's 250 pages including
the supporting documentation. I've been urged by several people now
to publish it on the net; I hope to do so once I can get it into
an easily disseminatable form. But I'm REALLY busy for the forseeable
future.)

Even so, here goes.

Please note that this theory is ONLY for Paul; my work on other
areas is incomplete. But the methods involved are applicable; I
just haven't had time to apply them.

The first step is to identify text-types. This is a complex
matter which cannot be covered briefly; suffice it to say that
it is based on a statistical technique based on 550 readings
(for statistical purposes I would like to have more readings,
but I just haven't been able to come up with them) and about 50
manuscripts. The method uses FIVE statistics (one of which
exists only for summary purposes): Overall agreements,
agreements when the manuscripts have a non-Byzantine reading,
agreements in the absence of a Byzantine reading, and "near-singular
agreements" -- agreements where only a very small portion of the
collation base shares the reading.

I developed this method to overcome a severe deficiency of
existing techniques (e.g. Claremont or Colewell's 90/70 rule):
the complete inability to assess or deal with mixture.

Based on this, we find a large number of manuscript groupings,
some of which (e.g. 330-451-2492) seem not to have been noticed
before, and others (e.g. Soden's family 1319, which ought to
be called family 2127) which have been inadequately classified.

To summarize what came out:

There are, in Paul, FOUR manuscript families which give good
evidence of being independent of, and in my view predating,
the Byzantine text. They are:

The traditional Alexandrian family, consisting primarily of
Aleph, A, C, and 33 (except in Romans, where 33 is Byzantine),
plus the Bohairic Coptic. I goes with this text; so does the
very important, though little-studied, fragmentary minuscule
1506 (I say 1506 is important because it OMITS ROMANS 16!).
Most of the other "Alexandrian" minuscules (81, 436, 1175,
family 2127) betray a slightly weaker form of this text.

The "Western" family: D F G OL plus (sometimes) the vulgate and
(occasionally) 629.

The (other) Alexandrian family (I've been trying for years to
come up with a name for this group, without much luck; Zuntz
calls it proto-Alexandrian, but it is not the precursor of the
Alexandrian text). This group has only three major witnesses:
p46, B, and the Sahidic Coptic. Many of the other papyri
probably belong here, but it's hard to be sure because they
are so short. p13 almost certainly goes here.

Family 1739: Chief witnesses 1739 and the fragmentary uncial
0243+0121b. Also 1881 (which has about 40% Byzantine corrections),
0121a, 424**, 6, and 630 (in Romans-Galatians). Zuntz classified
1739 with p46-B, but ignored the rest of the group (to which
I have added 0243, 1881, and 630). He therefore did not realize
its independent status.

Since we now have FOUR groups, rather than the two that come up
so often in textual studies, we are usually able to proceed on
a Majority basis. If a reading is found in all four groups, it
is certain. If a reading is found in three, I will accept it
unless there is VERY strong internal evidence. (Usually the only
evidence I accept in this case is assimilation of parallels.)
If the groups split evenly, then some other criterion must be
resorted to. This is where internal evidence usually applies.
However, I take a very limited view of internal canons of
criticism. I maintain that there is ONLY ONE canon for internal
evidence: "That reading is best which best explains the others."
All other canons ("Prefer the harder reading," "prefer the shorter
reading," etc.) are simply corollaries of this rule, and should
be applied in this light. (This simple rule has other corollaries
which are often forgotten, e.g., "Prefer the MIDDLE reading.")

To give an example of the effects of the following: UBS/GNT will
usually follow the testimony of Aleph-A-C-I-33 against
p46-B-D-F-G-1739. I will almost always do the reverse.

Technically this is an eclectic method. But it is a very limited
eclecticism; the only place where I REALLY have to be subjective
are when
1. The four text-types split into two groups, or
2. The text-types split into FOUR groups, or
3. The members of the various text-types are so divided that
   the group reading cannot be determined.

Interestingly, this method almost always favours the reading of
family 1739. In about 80% of the cases where I disagree with UBS,
it was in the direction of 1739. (The text is also closer to
p46 and B; about 60% of my changes are in their direction. It's
about a toss-up toward D F G; I quite regularly move away from the
Alexandrian text.) So I could honestly say that I would be willing
to accept the family 1739 text as "the" text.

That, in a tiny fragment of a nutshell, is my theory. I will make
supporting materials available to the best of my ability -- but
remember, I am a mathematician, computer person, and music publisher,
and this is a spare-time project for me.

Thanks. I hereby leave the soapbox. You can now resume breathing
normally and get on with your real lives.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]