Subject: Re: Textual Theory

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Fri, 3 May 96 14:15 CDT

On Fri, 03 May 96, [email-masked] (Ulrich Schmid) wrote:

>On Thu, 2 May 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

[omitting a large amount of material to which I have nothing to add]

>
>>3. The results above are calculated based on PITIFULLY small
>>samples. As I recall, _Text und Textwert_ uses only about 250
>>readings in the entire Pauline corpus. In individual books there
>>are about three readings per chapter. (For instance, I believe
>>there are ten readings in Colossians.) This is FAR too small a
>>sample to give meaningful results -- especially since 6 has
>>Byzantine readings in many of these places.
>
>Well, in the _Hauptliste_ (agreements in non-Majority text
>readings) 1739 is closest to 6 (mostly 80% and more agreements). In
>the _Ergaenzungsliste_ (overall agreements) 1739 is mostly not
>counted under the 30 closest MSS to 6 (around 60% agreements).
>
>>I'm not saying the _Text und Textwert_ data is wrong. But it is
>>not sufficient. (I'm not alone in saying this. Eldon Jay Epp has
>>made similar comments.)
>
>I do not claim that _Text und Textwert_ data are "sufficent". By
>the way, what does "sufficient" really mean in this particular
>instance? Sufficient for what purpose? Remember, my initial
>question was: "Do the results drawn from _Text und Textwert_with
>respect to MSS grouping differ significantly from the results drawn
>from the 50 MSS at 550 variation units?" I just wanted to assess
>the value and the limits of this published tool of referrence, when
>compared to other results. Bob offered up to now no example that
>proves his data to be more "sufficient" than the data from _Text
>und Textwert_.
>
>What other scholars state in this regard is simply of no value,
>_unless_ they prove the results from the data to be inferior when
>compared to other samples. I do not say that this might be
>impossible, but I need hard facts in order to know the limits of
>_Text und Textwert_ and to use it in an appropriate way. I concede
>that the handling of _Text und Textwert_ is not very easy, but from
>my own experiences it offers more significant results than most
>critics expect.

I will concede the last statement. For example, I think it
*proves* that there are, in Paul, *no* "Western" witnesses except
D F G 629 and the Latin versions. I think it also demonstrated
the existence of the 330-451-2492 family that I alluded to earlier
(though it does not clearly show the rather complex relationships
between the three).

I will also admit that it is hard for me to prove the superiority
of my sample. *I* have found many more relationships using my
sample, but that *may* be because the data in _Text und Textwert_
is so hard to use (its practical utility would probably be doubled
if all results for the same manuscript were placed on the same page).

If I cannot demonstrate the superiority of my method, part of the
problem lies in my sample -- too few readings (I would like 50%
more), too biased a sample (I was forced to use readings found in
GNT/UBS3 or in _Text und Textwert_), too many innacurate collations
(e.g. half my readings for 1611 came from Merk's imperfect
transcription of Von Soden's imperfect collations).

But conceding all that, I remain very troubled by the data in
_Text und Textwert_. I think the readings are biased (too many
variants which have the "Western" text on one side and everything
else on the other). I think there are too few variants where the
Byzantine text divides. This makes it very difficult to establish
the families within the Byzantine text -- and we *know* that
families exist in the gospels, and can only suspect they are to
be found elsewhere (e.g. 056 and 0142 form a pair, as do K and
0151).

But most of all, I think there are too few variants. Ten entries
in Colossians? That means each variant is responsible for 10%
of a manuscript's score. One *typographical error* in entering
a collation could completely obscure the results. One misread
marginal comment could produce a singular reading in a manuscript.
A sample that small is just too subject to "noise."

Which also brings us to the question of statistical significance.
This is worth remembering: A five percent difference in a sample
with twenty readings is *not* significant. That represents a
difference in one reading. If we had instead eighty or a hundred
readings, and still maintained our five percent difference, *that*
is significant.

Turn to the Catholics for a minute. We've both alluded to the
"harklean" family (which I follow Duplacy in calling family 1611).
This family in fact has a large number of subfamilies -- 614+2412,
1505+2495, 630+1799+206+429, etc. Perhaps *you* could find them
by examining _Text und Textwert_. I couldn't.

I repeat, I think _Text und Textwert_ is a *tremendous* accomplishment.
But it is *not* a sufficient manuscript classification tool.
Probability theory makes this claim, and -- while I can't prove
my statement otherwise -- unless firm COUNTERevidence can be
offered, I will trust the mathematics.

Which is a lot to say about what is really a rather minor point (the
nature of _Text und Textwert_). We were *supposed* to be talking about
how one uses the information derived from sampling methods. For the
most part, _Text und Textwert_ confirms my claims. Which means that
we can get back to analysing our critical data.

And my apology for the long digression. :-)

>>Try looking at it from the other direction. What manuscript stands
>>closest to 1739 in _Text und Textwert_? I think that, in a number
>>of the list, it is B. (I could be wrong; I can't check this for a
>>few days. But I think I recall that.) Rarely, if ever, does 6 top
>>the list. But 6 _is_ a member of family 1739, and B is not. B just
>>has a lot more non-Byzantine readings. So the only way I can
>>locate
>>6 as a member of family 1739 is working from 6's list. We need a
>>reciprocal tool. I have one; _Text und Textwert_ doesn't.
>
>If properly used _Text und Textwert_ too has a reciprocal tool.
>When compared to 1739, 6 is usually found under the 3 to 20 closest
>MSS. When looking at the rare or near singular readings which can
>also be done from the _Hauptliste_, then one finds some striking
>agreements between 1739 and 6 even in the _Hauptliste_ of 1739,
>which automatically would attract the attention of a careful
>student.

Now *that* surprises me. Not that 6 has a number of near-singular
agreements with 1739 (since that is a statistic I keep), but
that you could work through the data enough to find it.

But that's just because of the way _Text und Textwert_ is presented.
Would you have discovered that fact if you had not been looking?

[...]

>
>When collecting the historically settled evidence from the General
>epistles, one finds, apart from some very interesting testimonies
>from the Old Latin (sometimes with highly interesting connections
>to P 72), simply speaking the older uncials (including few
>minuscules like 1739) and the late Byzantine text. But somehow in
>between we also find the Harclean Vorlage (105-1611-2138-2495 with
>some other MSS more or less connected). The Harklean Vorlage has
>roughly speaking two interesting features: a) compared to both, old
>uncials and late Byz. text, it shares some very significant
>distinct readings, b) again compared to both, it gives
>proportionally more readings that are found in the Byz. text than
>in the old uncials.

The question -- which I do not claim to have the answer to -- is,
"Was there ever a purer text behind family 2138?" This family, in
the general epistles, is clearly distinct from the Byzantine text.
But it is not an Alexandrian text (so Duplacy against Richards.
And the evidence, as far as I'm concerned, clearly supports
Duplacy). Duplacy thinks family 2138 is the "Western" text.
I think not; it doesn't share many readings with the Old Latin.
(Though this is hardly proof, given how few Old Latin witnesses
there are in the general epistles.) This is a question that
needs a good study.

>So, it depends on how you look on that. I prefer to arrange the
>evidence in the way how it looks like in a historical perspective,
>i.e. the Harklean Vorlage testifies to the emergence of the Byz.
>text rather than to its full blown existence. But from a
>pro-Byzantine viewpoint one may arrange the evidence the other way
>round. Though I still hold the latter to be less likely, I think
>the ultimate decision on that must be sought by weighing the
>evidence. Therefore, I wish to focus on as much "unbiased and intelligent"
>units
>of variation as possible. And to my mind one such thing is the doxology of
>Romans.

Agreed in general.

>Concerning the doxology Bob further wrote:
>
>>You have more facts at my disposal than I do. But if Marcion
>> didn't make changes to the ending of Romans, nonetheless
>>those changes OCCURRED. That still seems to me an easier >explanation for the
>phenomena of Romans than Byzantine priority.
>
>Well, if changes occur, one simply has to apply the criteria of our
>discipline.
>The most prominent and valuable is: "That reading is best which best explains
>the others".

We obviously agree on this one, since I said that it is the ONLY canon
of internal criticism.

>And with respect to the position of the Romans doxology, the
>placing after 16,23 simply cannot explain the placing after 14,23 with
>chapters
>15-16 still following. To my mind in this particular instance it is no
>matter of
>"easier explanation", but simply of _no_ explanation, when favoring the
>postion
>after 16,23. Note, we are not dealing here with transriptional matters
>that are
>often unconscious or subconscious phenomena. The changing position of the
>doxology involves editorial reasoning, and I simply fail to see any
>reasoning in
>the position of the doxology after 14,23 with chapters 15-16 still following.

Agreed. I think that, if the fourteen chapter form circulated widely, it
would explain the inclusion of the doxology after chapter 14. But apparently
the fourteen chapter form was not common.

>I
>also did not opt for absolute "Byzantine priority", but only for the relative
>priority of the reading that is most homogeniously attested by the Byzantine
>text, when compared to most of the older witnesses. Nevertheless, I do not
>consider the Byz. reading in this peculiar instance as the original reading.

That follows from my approach to the witnesses, but you've certainly offered
some interesting arguments. I'm surprised we haven't heard from Maurice
Robinson. Unlike most other proponents of the Byzantine text, he clearly
*knows* the evidence, and has a developed theory of the text. I wish I
knew more about it.

[large omission with which I have no quarrel]

>
>When looking at the Corpus Paulinum, the first thing to notice is that our
>extant MSS give no undisputed evidence to the circulation of individual
>letters.
>In fact, to my mind, the overall attested codex form heavily points to letter
>_collections_ even for the fragments. Second, the patristic evidence only
>points
>to two larger, major editions of the Corpus Paulinum: The 10 letter edition of
>Marcion (which is to my mind of pre-Marcionite origin) and the canonical
>14 (13)
>letter edition, with the somehow ambigous role of Hebrews.

I would agree, with one caveat: p46 apparently omitted the Pastorals. So
there may have been *three* editions. Still, it seems quite clear that *at
least* the ten letters in Marcion's canon were found in all editions
which circulated.

I think, in fact, that the evidence of p46 supports your belief that
Marcion's canon preceded him.

>Third, the letter
>sequenzes in our extant MSS are relativly stable. Fourth, within our extant
>textual tradition of the Corpus Paulinum, there is ample evidence that not all
>of the letters attributed to Paul are included. Assuming the integrity of the
>Pauline letters in their actual state of appearence, parts of the Corinthians
>and may be also parts of the Philippians correspondences seem to lack.
>Further,
>assuming Ephesians to be Ephesians and not Laodiceans, then Laodiceans is
>lacking too. Fifth, Romans (cf. the ending) and Ephesians (cf. the address)
>display a puzzling textual history within our extant textual tradition,
>and the
>solving of this puzzle seems to be found in the pre-Marcionite 10 letter
>edition
>(there Romans only had 14 chapters, and Ephesians was held to be Laodiceans).
>
>What we are reconstructing is either way only the text of the editions.
>This may
>sound pessimistic, but I do not think that there was so much evil doing
>involved, except for few very bad anti-judaic additions within the 10 letter
>edition. All in all most of the text is practically unaltered preserved,
>and up
>to now I found no compelling reason for judging it not going back to the
>autographs. But, remember some of Pauls letters are not part of the editions.
>So, it depends on one's own perspective to assume what else may be credited to
>the editors. As I said earlier, I personally do not think that there was much
>evil doing involved, I shurely do not believe in any conspiracy theory.
>Occam's
>razor is lurking behind all this stuff. But, on the other hand, it seems most
>unlikely to me to detect at each and every variation unit "the" reading of the
>autograph.

I agree. I believe that there are probably places where "the" original
reading is lost to us. Westcott and Hort had their marginal readings
and their obeli marking questionable readings. I think this has some
value; in my personal text I mark questionable readings and readings
where I simply *cannot* determine the original with confidence.

>What we are dealing with is the archetype of a textual tradition that
>was spread through _editions_, presumably through two major ones and not too
>much smaller ones.
>
>So this is, believe it or not, _in short_, what I think on this issue.

:-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 18:06:34 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 3 May 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

[Re: the doxology in Romans]

[Schmid:]

>>consider the Byz. reading in this peculiar instance as the original reading. 

[Waltz:]

> *knows* the evidence, and has a developed theory of the text. I wish I

[Robinson:]

I wrote to Ulrich privately and said I would gladly bow out of this
discussion, since he was _de facto_ defending the Byzantine placement of
the doxology as (at least) the source which underlies all extant MSS.  In
that regard I agree fully, though of course I still will maintain that the
Byzantine reading does _not_ imply a 14-chapter version of Romans which
somehow preceded what we have; rather I think that Romans reads quite well
with the Byzantine doxology at 14:23 and the inclusion of 16:24 as the
"real" end of Romans.  

My suspicions are that Paul was intending to end his epistle at chapter
14, but then added chs. 15 and 16 as an afterthought (one still has to
deal with the peculiar placement of the doxology in P46 at the end of
ch.15 as a clear early deviation from whatever else must have been the
original form, since no good reason would, as Ulrich noted, ever have
existed for the re-location of the doxology to the end of ch.14 had it not
been there originally).  I personally see no reason to argue for a 
shorter original form of Romans in the utter absence of MS evidence.  

I would suggest that, for the Pauline Epistles at least, the matter of the
Romans doxology is a very significant matter.  If indeed the Byzantine
Textform is correct here, in regard to the placement of a significant
block of text, and if no other extant form among our existing witnesses
could easily be acknowledged as the source of all the other variants (I
did say "existing" and not hypothetical speculations regarding what might
have been), then a presumptive case remains for the possible autograph 
originality of the Byzantine Textform in at least the remainder of 
Romans, and as likely within the entire Pauline Corpus.  So long as a 
definite transmissional history is attempted, and not a mere disjointed 
eclectic procedure in which the doxology is just one other unrelated 
variant unit, there seems to be little relief from the implication of the 
Byzantine placement of the doxology.  

Of course, if one wishes to speculate concerning non-existent "partial" 
or "short" copies of Romans, or creatively speculate concerning an
original doxology at either the end of ch.15 or at its current location at
the end of ch.16, I will definitely listen to the hypotheses, but I will
be most interested in learning how, after the doxology or the other
chapters are inserted in different places, the Byzantine scribes all
decided to include both the doxology at the end of ch.14 as well as
include all of chs.15 and 16 without relocation of the doxology to the end
of ch.16 as the supposedly "earlier" or "original" (as per UBS4/N27)
Alexandrian scribes seem to have done (if earlier, why would anyone
relocate it to ch.14?). 

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~