Subject: Textual Theory

From: [email-masked](Ulrich Schmid)
Date: Wed, 01 May 96 20:51:19 +0100

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

>Please note that this theory is ONLY for Paul; my work on other
> areas is incomplete.

I appreciate this statement very much, since, looking on so much statements in 
the discipline of tc, one is often confronted with results, though initially 
stemming only from one part of the NT (for example from the Gospels, or even 
just from Luke), but boldly extrapolated to the whole of NT textual 
transmission.

>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...

>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.

The _Text und Textwert_ volumes from 1991 for the Pauline Epistles give the 
collation results of 798 MSS at 231 variation units. Do the results drawn 
therefrom with respect to MSS grouping differ significantly from the results 
drawn from the 50 MSS at 550 variation units (supposing that "550 readings" 
means 550 variation units)? The examples mentioned above could be easily found 
out, when consulting _Text und Textwert_. 

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

a.)The independence of the Byz. text of these four manuscript families is one 
thing. But, on what reasons do they _predate_ the Byz. text?
b.) What about the above mentioned MSS group (330-451-2492), and what about 
other MSS groups (for example 1505-2495-1611)? Are they not independent enough 
from the Byz. text? What makes the independent status of manuscript families? 

>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.

What about cases in which _the_ group readings may be uncertain, for the 
intra-group testimony is split? I assume internal evidence is applied here, too.

>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.")

This I appreciate very much: "That reading is best which best explains the 
others". But, why excluding the Byzantine text from this procedure? Sometimes 
the Byz. text gives readings which may help to explain other readings, and there 
is at least one instance within the Corpus Paulinum where the Byz. text gives a 
reading that best explains all readings and settles the case of the somehow 
scattered evidence of the four manuscript families mentioned above: The position 
of the doxology of Romans 16,25-27.

a.) Parts of the "Western" family omit the doxology: F (G) 629.
b.) Family 1739 is split: 1739 and 630 give the doxology after 16,23; 6, 424, 
and 1881 give the doxology after 14,23.
c) The (other) Alexandrian family is divided, too: B and Sahidic give the 
doxology after 16,23, whereas P 46 gives the doxology after 15,33.
d) The traditional Alexandrian family is split: aleph, C, Bohairic, 81, and 436 
give the doxology after 16,23; 1175 gives the doxology after 14,23; so does 1506 
but omitting chapter 16; A and 33 give the doxology after 14,23 _and_ after 
16,23. 

Arguing from internal evidence the position of the doxology after 14,23 clearly 
best explains all other readings, since it is most unlikely that it should have 
been inserted at that position, as long as it is found in other positions (i.e. 
after 15,33 or 16,23). On the other hand, the removal of the doxology away from 
14,23 seems most logical as long as chapters 15-16 follow.
Puzzling enough, no homogeneous family gives this reading that best explains the 
others (at best three members out of five, cf. family 1739). But, on the other 
hand, the Byz. text most homogeneously gives this reading.   

To conclude therefrom: In this peculiar instance, the Byzantine text as a 
distinct entity displays a state of the text which is earlier than most of the 
scattered evidence of the four manuscript families mentioned above. 

>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. 

The above mentioned example from the Romans doxology might point to at least a 
fourth scenario concerning the subjective element (combining 2. and 3.):
4. The text-types split into FOUR groups, _and_ the members of the    various 
text-types are so divided that the group reading cannot    be determined.

To sum up: The limited eclectic method exposed looks quite impressive to my 
mind. Nevertheless, I suspect the subjective element involved is much greater 
than expected. I may also point to my above mentioned questions concerning the 
lateness of the Byzantine text and the singeling out of _only_ four manuscript 
families.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Wed, 1 May 96 15:14 CDT

On Wed, 01 May 96, [email-masked] (Ulrich Schmid)

>just from Luke), but boldly extrapolated to the whole of NT textual

As a matter of fact, these results DO NOT apply to other areas in the
Mew Testament. Even in the Catholics, which superficially bear the
greatest similarity to the Paulines, the results are very different.
I found three major texts there, all with subdivisions. (In this
I independently verified the results of Duplacy.)

>out, when consulting _Text und Textwert_.

True to some extent. The examples I cited (330-451-2492, etc.)
are sister manuscripts.

What cannot be found from _Text und Textwert_ is the mixed manuscripts.
Take, for example, 6. Its closest relative, in my sample, is L, with
69% agreement. The figures for other Byzantine manuscripts are similar.
By contrast, 6 agrees with 1739 only 64% of the time.

I don't have _Text und Textwert_ in front of me, but if those figures
are representative, then T&T would show literally HUNDREDS of manuscripts
as being closer to 6 than is 1739.

Which is all well and good, except that 6's important kinship is with
1739. Where 6 is non-Byzantine, 6 and 1739 agree 85% of the time. Where
BOTH are non-Byzantine, they agree some 95% of the time. Other than the
members of family 1739, 6's closest relative in non-Byzantine readings
is B, at 72%.

So 6 is a weak member of family 1739 -- and this is not evident from
_Text und Textwert_.

>thing. But, on what reasons do they _predate_ the Byz. text?

Whether I can prove they predate the Byzantine text, of course, depends on
what date you assign the Byzantine text.

If you accept the Byzantine text as being fourth century, then the
four groups I mentioned can be shown to be earlier. The early date
of the p46-B group follows from the fact that p46 is third century
or earlier.

Aleph-A-C-I-33 was in existence by the fourth century, and the group
had already begun to fracture by that date; therefore it must predate
the fourth century.

In the case of D-F-G, the proof comes from the Old Latin.

In the case of family 1739, the evidence is that this text is
largely similar to that of Origen.

Of course, if you accept the Byzantine text as original, I can't
prove these text-types to precede it. But they are certainly all early.

>from the Byz. text? What makes the independent status of manuscript families?

I cannot trace the history of 330-451-2492 before the eleventh century.
It may be post-Byzantine. Also, it is more Byzantine than not. So
this group, while a family with independent text, does not qualify as
an early text-TYPE.

In the case of 1505-1611-2495-syh (to which 1022 can be added in the
Pastorals), the family is obviously old, since it is found in the
Harklean version. Beyond that it cannot be dated. It MAY be the
vague remnants of an independent (Syriac?) text-type.

But in any case, it is more Byzantine than anything else. So it
offers little help in group analysis. One can never tell whether a
group reading is an early survival or just Byzantine mixture.

I noted that I had to resort to other methods when I had a two-versus-two
split in text-types. One of my "other methods" was consulting the other
manuscript groups.

>intra-group testimony is split? I assume internal evidence is applied

Sometimes, but not often. For example, if family 1739 is split, it
will usually be found that several members of the family are
Byzantine, while the others are non-Byzantine. Since all the members
of the family suffer Byzantine influence, and all but 1730 have suffered
heavy Byzantine influence, I take the non-Byzantine reading.

Technically, I suppose this is "internal evidence." But the process
is hardly subjective.

The only place where I really have trouble is where p46 and B split.
There I do have to guess at readings sometimes -- but this rarely
makes a difference in the ultimare result.

>others". But, why excluding the Byzantine text from this procedure?

Who said I omitted the Byzantine text from this procedure?

I will admit that I may miss something in analysing it. But in
analysing which reading best explains the others, I try to take
ALL text-types into account.

>Sometimes

In assessing this evidence, let me point out that one of the purposes of
my method is to eliminate the effects of Byzantine mixture. That's one
reason why we need family groupings.

Thus in two cases the family reading is obvious:

family 1739, as represented by 1739 630, places the doxology after 16:23
   (the other manuscripts of the group have been influenced by the
   Byzantine text)

   (Which brings up a footnote: readings of 424* have NO SIGNIFICANCE.
   The absence of a correction in 424** does not mean that the
   exemplar used for correction agreed with 424*. The corrector could
   have missed a reading, or been unsure of what the correction
   meant, or could have been sure that the corrected text was wrong.
   We cannot speculate on readings we cannot see -- e.g. the readings
   of the manuscript used to correct 424 when 424 shows no correction.)

The Alexandrian text, as represented by aleph, C, bo, has the
   doxology after 16:23. The reading of A 33 is the result of mixture.
   1175, although late Alexandrian in most of Paul, is thoroughly
   Byzantine in Romans (so is 33, for that matter. And 2464. I didn't
   get into those details).

The readings of p46 are 1506 are peculiar, and deserve notice (I've been
fascinated for years by 1506's omission of Romans 16). But since they
are singular, no great case can be built upon them.

I concede the split in the "Western" text.

I can't agree with your assessment of the internal evidence. It omits at
least one point: Marcion's editorial work on the epistle. I think the
possibility must at least be considered that the variation in the placement
of the doxology is the result of Marcion's using a shorter form of Romans.
We must also consider the possibility that Marcion _wrote_ the doxology.

If it makes any difference, I concede this is a very difficult reading.
I could cite others (Col. 3:6 springs to mind). But one or two difficult
readings do not invalidate the method.

>text-types are so divided that the group reading cannot    be determined.

I will agree -- theoretically. But I know of only one reading where this
_both_ conditions apply to the extent that it affects things. The reading
is in 1 Cor. 6:5 (and the NA27 apparatus does not treat it). I'm sure there
are others -- but not many.

>than expected.

I don't deny subjectivity. But I consider it much less subjective than
the system followed by the UBS editors. And more solidly grounded than
the method followed by Westcott and Hort.

>I may also point to my above mentioned questions concerning the

There could well be more manuscript families. There COULD even be some
early families. I don't claim this is the last word. If I could, I would
apply my techniques to all the manuscripts and be certain. But as a non-
professional, I haven't had time. I'm doing what I can.

The one thing I would observe is that the results in _Text und Textwert_
would seem to imply that there are no more "outstanding" manuscripts
out there. (By "outstanding" I mean entirely free of Byzantine influence.)
I have little use for the Alands' system of classifying minuscules, but
it does provide an indication of Byzantine influence. Of their Category
I and II manuscripts, I have classified almost all:

p46 -- with B
aleph -- Alexandrian
A -- Alexandrian, with some slight mixture
B -- with p46
C -- Alexandrian, with some mixture
D -- "Western"
F -- "Western" (and why is F category II and not G?)
I -- Alexandrian
33 -- Alexandrian (except in Romans)
81 -- Late Alexandrian
256 -- family 2127 (probably; based on von Soden's collations)
1175 -- Late Alexandrian (Mostly; not in Romans or Thessalonians)
1506 -- Alexandrian (although of a peculiar type; needs a good study)
1739 -- family 1739
1881 -- family 1739
1962 -- Late Alexandrian; with 436
2127 -- family 2127
2464 -- Late Alexandrian (and not really good enough to be category II)

This list includes everything but 442 (which MIGHT go with 1962, but
I haven't much to go on). So it seems unlikely that there are any
PURE representatives of PURE text-types omitted.

And I'm sure this is all anyone ever wanted to hear on the subject!

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 21:50:06 -0400

In a message dated 96-05-01 16:28:31 EDT, you write:

>in the
>Mew Testament. 

<  
       )  \l/
           }    l   )
       )  /l\  
<

---

From: [email-masked](Ulrich Schmid)
Date: Thu, 02 May 96 21:14:22 +0100

On Wed, 1 May 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

>What cannot be found from _Text und Textwert_ is the mixed >manuscripts.
>Take, for example, 6. Its closest relative, in my sample, is L, >with
>69% agreement. The figures for other Byzantine manuscripts are >similar.

>I don't have _Text und Textwert_ in front of me, but if those >figures
>are representative, then T&T would show literally HUNDREDS of >manuscripts

Since I have _Text und Textwert_ in front of me, I may give the statistics 
therefrom concerning 6 related to 1739. I may point out that in these statistics 
only the units of variation were counted where 6 departs from the Majority text 
-safe for those instances where the Majority text is judged to be original (1/2 
readings in Aland's terminology)-, _and_ displays no singular reading (these 
statiscis are easily found in the _Hauptliste_, concluding each presentation of 
the data of the different epistles):
 
Romans - 86% agreement, with two MSS closer to 6 than 1739.
1.Cor - 97% agreement, no MS closer to 6.
2.Cor - lower than 70%, not in the list.
Gal - 78% agreement, no MS closer to 6 .
Eph - 82% agreement, 1739 is the colsest non fragmentary MSS to 6.
Phil - 100% agreem., 1739 is the closest non fragmentary MS to 6.
Col - 50% agreement, with 12 MSS closer to 6.
1.2.Thess - 80% agreement, with 6 other MSS closest to 6.
Pastorals + Philemon - 90% agreement, no MS closer to 6.
Hebrews - 90% agreement, with one MS closer to 6.

Safe for 2.Cor and Col the overall picture is clear: NO OTHER MS is closer to 6 
than 1739.

>So 6 is a weak member of family 1739 -- and this is not evident >from _Text und 
Textwert_.

Well, the statistics given above tell a different story. One should better check 
the tools, before criticizing them.

Robert b. Waltz further wrote:

[quoting Schmid:]
>>a.)The independence of the Byz. text of these four manuscript >>families is 
one

>Whether I can prove they predate the Byzantine text, of course, >depends on 

>or earlier...

No comment on that for the moment. I only wanted to know, if there is other 
reasoning involved, apart from the classical argument from the age of the 
witnesses. (Assessing this point seems to be Maurice's job).

[again quoting Schmid:]
>>This I appreciate very much: "That reading is best which best >>explains the 
others". But, why excluding the Byzantine text from >>this procedure?

>Who said I omitted the Byzantine text from this procedure?

Nobody said that explicitely. I was just assuming this, when following Bob's 
line of argument.

>ALL text-types into account.

Well, I just missed this, my fault. Thank you for clarification.

Robert B. Waltz further wrote:

[omitting Schmid's long quotation on the evidence concerning the place of the 
doxology:]

>I can't agree with your assessment of the internal evidence. It >omits at least 
one point: Marcion's editorial work on the epistle. >I think the
>possibility must at least be considered that the variation in the >placement of 
the doxology is the result of Marcion's using a >shorter form of Romans.
>We must also consider the possibility that Marcion _wrote_ the >doxology.

Well, "Marcion's editorial work on the epistle" often serves as _deus ex 
machina_. Especially with respect to the ending of Romans Marcion is either held 
responsible for omitting chapters 15-16, or for writing the doxology. But this 
is mostly due to not being acquainted with the evidence. In my recent post I 
refrained from taking Marcion's testimony into account, simply because I wished 
to know how Bob handles the problem. 

The undisputed evidence concerning Marcion's shorter form of Romans is the 
following:
a.) Origen testifies that the Marcionite letter to the Romans lacked chapters 
15-16, _and_ the doxology.
b.) Tertullian testifies that the Marcionite letter to the Romans was heavily 
mutilated (lacking at least parts of Rom 2 and most of Rom 9-11).
c.) There is additional evidence within the Old Latin prologue tradition and the 
Old Latin capitula systems that a shorter form of Romans (lacking chapters 
15-16, but including the doxology) circulated even outside the Marcionite 
tradition. 

To conclude therefrom: 
a.) It seems most unlikely that Marcion added the dogology to the shorter form 
of Romans, since the Marcionite edition(s) of the 3rd century lacked the 
doxology too (cf. Origen). 
b.) It seems also most unlikely that Marcion  _created_ the shorter form of 
Romans (lacking chapter 15-16), because there is evidence of this form of Romans 
outside Marcionite circles, but there is NO evidence of the secure Marcionite 
omissions (parts of Romans 2 and most of Romans 9-11) outside Marcionite 
circles.
c.) The only logical conclusion to me is to assume that there once must have 
been a pre-Marcionite edition of Romans (most likely being part of a 
pre-Marcionite edition of a 10 letter Corpus) that lacked chapters 15-16 
(presumably due to mechanical corruption). Due to the abrupt ending of Romans 
after 14,23 the concluding doxology was added and so became part of the 
tradition.
d.) The resulting variation of the postion of the doxology within the NT textual 
transmission can be easily explained by assuming cross contamination between the 
longer form of Romans 1,1-16,24 _lacking_ the doxology and the shorter form 
1,1-14,23 _including_ the doxology.  
 
I now may return to Bob's referrence to Marcion. The "possibility that Marcion 
_wrote_ the doxology" is theoretically and practically ruled out -remember 
Origen's testimony in conjunction with Occam's razor. The consideration "that 
the variation in the placement of the doxology is the result of Marcion's using 
a shorter form of Romans" is vague to the extreme and in itself quite typical of 
how Marcion's testimony is generally used. It simply does not explain, why the 
doxology, being originally placed after 16,23, should ever have been removed 
from that position and put after 14,23 as long as chapters 15-16 still follow. 
What impact should "Marcion's using a shorter form of Romans" really have on 
this issue, especially when taking into consideration that a) Marcion's shorter 
form lacked the doxology, b) Marcion's shorter form also lacked parts of Rom 2 
and most of Rom 9-11 (which certainly had no impact on tradition), and c) 
Marcion was at least from the time of Irenaeus considered as mutilating 
scripture?

To my mind it seems beyond a reasonable doubt that Marcion neither created the 
shorter form of Romans (omitting chapters 15-16), nor appended the doxology, nor 
influenced the rest of tradition at this point. This is a pre-Marcionite 
phenomenon and the Byzantine tradition in this specific instance testifies to 
the presumably oldest form of the cross contamination of the longer and the 
shorter form of Romans. 

Lastly, I would like to apologize to Bob for having singled out his appeal to 
"Marcion's using a shorter form of Romans" in order to attack this type of 
argument. I shurely did not want to offend Bob with my somehow zealous attack. I 
should say that this appeal is very frequent, but only seldomly thought through 
with all it's implications. Seeing it repeated again and again just brings me 
up. So, sorry for that.

I brought up the problem of the Romans doxology for two reasons:
a.) I wanted to illustrate that applying the limited eclected method exposed by 
Bob sometimes may face problems that can not be solved from within the mere 
grouping and counting of ancient manuscript families.
b.) Even more disturbing, there seems to be evidence of phenomena 
transcendending and antedating all our known text-types: different editions of 
Pauls letters. The limited eclectic method like most other theories presuppose 
the existence of one archetype of the textual transmission. But there is 
evidence that with respect to the textual transmission of the Pauline Corpus we 
have to deal with no clear only-one-archetype-situation.   

To conclude therefrom: I plea for weighing the _evidence_ (i.e. readings) rather 
than merely counting it, and focussing on an "unbiased but intelligent selection 
of readings". There I feel very much in agreement with Bob Waltz. He also wrote 
on Wed, 1 May 1996 in another post:
> By "intelligent" I mean that we don't use too many variants of >the type 
"add/omit article," or the like, which cannot be rendered >in the versions, nor 
too many variants where scribes could easily >have made a change my accident 
(e.g. between future indicative and >aorist subjunctive). By "unbiased" I mean 
that we not take many >variants of the "D-and-a-few-Old-Latin-against-the-world" 
type.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Thu, 2 May 96 16:54 CDT

>Safe for 2.Cor and Col the overall picture is clear: NO OTHER MS is closer

Interesting. Although, if I read your statement correctly, this is only
in non-Byzantine readings. Not overall readings.

Still, I would make three comments:

1. The fact that someone else generally agrees with my result hardly
   invalidates my method. :-)

2. If the closest manuscript to 6, in the list of overall agreements,
   is still 1739, it is a very strong argument for Broman's contention
   that the nature of one's sample STRONGLY AFFECTS one's results.

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.

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.)

>>So 6 is a weak member of family 1739 -- and this is not evident >from

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.

>the tools, before criticizing them.

Depends on what one means by "criticism." _Text und Textwert_ is a massive
achievement. It allows us to distinguish the 80-90% of minuscules which
are Byzantine from the relatively few that are something else.

>witnesses. (Assessing this point seems to be Maurice's job).

That's complicated. In Paul, the first witnesses to have a _purely_
Byzantine text are the ninth century uncials. But we see Byzantine
influence as early as A and C, and quite a bit in the Syriac versions.
It might be worth asking: Does it follow that the Byzantine text is the
same age in all parts of the scriptures? I don't know.

[...]

>>possibility must at least be considered that the variation in the
>>>placement of
[Long argument about Marcion's text omitted]
>with all it's implications. Seeing it repeated again and again just brings me

I don't consider this an attack. 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.

>grouping and counting of ancient manuscript families.

Agreed. But if NT textual criticism were simple, we wouldn't still
be arguing about it. :-)

>have to deal with no clear only-one-archetype-situation.

On this I would be interested to hear your opinion. In most cases (Ephesians
and Romans being perhaps exceptions), there could only be ONE autograph.
There could well have been various editions of the Pauline corpus, but these
are later than the autographs. Which are you proposing to reconstruct?

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 11:40:11 -0400

ouch, I thought my message was going to the sender.  Sorry!

---

From: [email-masked](Ulrich Schmid)
Date: Fri, 03 May 96 18:06:58 +0100

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

[quoting Schmid:]
>>Safe for 2.Cor and Col the overall picture is clear: NO OTHER MS 
>>is closer to 6 than 1739.

>Interesting. Although, if I read your statement correctly, this is 
>only in non-Byzantine readings. Not overall readings.

Correct. There are basically two statistics in _Text und Textwert_. 
The _Hauptliste_ where the agreements in non-Majority text readings 
are given, and the _Ergaenzungsliste_, where the overall agreements 
are given.

>1. The fact that someone else generally agrees with my result 
>hardly invalidates my method. :-)

Nobody said that. I was just commenting on Bob' statements on what 
_Text und Textwert_ in his opinion could not serve for. The 6-1739 
relationship was his example. 

>2. If the closest manuscript to 6, in the list of overall 
>agreements, is still 1739, it is a very strong argument for 
>Broman's contention that the nature of one's sample STRONGLY 
>AFFECTS one's results.

In the list of overall agreements 1739 is evidently NOT closest to 
6. These results are found in the _Ergaenzungsliste_, where 1739 
usually not even found its way into the printed statistics (some 30 
closest MSS) related to 6 (the full statistics of the 
_Ergaenzungsliste_ as well as the full statistics of the 
_Hauptliste_ are available here in Muenster).

>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. 

>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

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.  

So, please, before assessing the value of _Text und Textwert_, 
when compared to other statistics, use it and find out what can be 
achieved. We can, and should, talk about its limits, but only when 
carefully examined.

>It might be worth asking: Does it follow that the Byzantine text 
>is the same age in all parts of the scriptures? I don't know.

This is, indeed, a complicated matter. The questions of canonical 
status of various parts of the NT as well as the problem of 
randomly preserved witnesses are involved. For example in the 
General epistles the testimony of Chrysostomos is almost totally 
lacking. He is normally held to be to oldest extant witness to a 
fully developped Byzantine text, but, as you shurely know, most of 
Chrysostomos works are not available in modern critical editions, 
and the reliability of the Migne editions is an open question 
(though I personally would not be overall pessimistic on this 
issue). Even more disturbing, S. New, J. Geerlings, G. Zuntz, and others have 
severely challenged the view of a full blown Byz. text in the works of 
Chrysostomos even for the Gospels. Nevertheless, looking solely on the 
historically settled evidence from the General epistles the full blown Byz. text 
seems to be later at date compared to the Byz. text of the Gospels.

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. 

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.   

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". 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. 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. 

>>[quoting Schmid:]
>>But there is evidence that with respect to the textual >>transmission of the 
Pauline Corpus we

>On this I would be interested to hear your opinion. In most cases >(Ephesians 
and Romans being perhaps exceptions), there could only >be ONE autograph.
>There could well have been various editions of the Pauline corpus, >but these 
are later than the autographs. Which are you proposing >to reconstruct? 

Shure, theoretically there only could be ONE autograph with respect to the 
individual epistles as distinct entities. But practically, I think, one has to 
consider at least two initial copies of the individual epistles. Since Paul 
evidently used a secretary, often names co-authors, and sometimes refers to 
previous epistles, it seems evident to me that one copy of the individual 
epistles was sent and one copy was retained. This would be normal practice. And 
shurely the two copies would slightly differ (due to human nature). I do not 
hold this to be disturbing, and nobody else in antiquity would have been 
bothered by that, so I do not think that there was much cross-checking at a very 
early stage. However, there is a very early referrence to a faked letter (cf. 
2.Thess 2,2; 3,17). But the issue there seems to be the fake of a whole letter 
and not of parts of a letter. Cross-checking normally only takes place, when 
there are severe doubts expressed (Pliny comes to my mind. He sometimes asked 
the emperor in his letters to cross-check various appeals of individuals based 
on written documents with the copies of that retained in Rome). So much to the 
initial stages.

Editions including a certain number of letters prepared for publication and 
wider circulation is quite another thing. First, it depends on who did the job. 
If it was the author (cf. Pliny), he or (once for all) "she" would have 
presumably relied on the copies he retained (presumably without cross-checking). 
If it was not the author, but the one the letters had been addressed to (cf. 
Cicero's letters to Atticus), he would have taken the copies he had recieved 
(presumably without cross-checking). Second, if it was neither the author nor 
the recipient, it would depend on to what he actually had access, what he could 
assemble, to what purpose the edition was prepared (local edition, editio maior, 
etc.), and last, but not least what authority is ascribed to the one who did it. 
For example, Polycarp assembled letters from Ignatius, in fact the Philippian 
comunity seemed to have assumed that Polycarp was able to edit and distribute 
their Ignatian epistle. In this process I find only slight possibilites of 
cross-checking, because normally everyone trusts the other. And, if the edition 
once is prepared and circulates, the normal effect would be that its form of the 
text of the individual epistles supersedes the may be slightly different forms 
of the autographs. This is due because the editor is normally credited to have 
done a good job. Cross-checking against autographs would be not very likely. 
Only very few could have done this, and only with respect to a limited part of 
the whole edition. I may add that no matter who did the job, he was perfectly 
able to alter somehow the text of the individual letter, mainly by leaving out 
what he considers to be of no overall interest. He also would have been free to 
choose, if some letters are included or excluded. So, we are now confronted with 
a new archetype situation.

This is presumably the normal way, how things go, when looking for a reasonable 
scenario covering the way from the individual letter to a letter edition 
replacing the autograph of the individual letter (cf. David Trobisch on the 
technical aspect of the whole subject). 

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. 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. 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.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: [email-masked](Ulrich Schmid)
Date: Sun, 05 May 96 16:02:00 +0100

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

[quoting Schmid:]
>>_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 would like to withdraw the term "prove" in my obove mentioned 
statement, and have to have it replaced by "give examples that". 

>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).

I do not want anybody to "prove" something in this peculiar 
instance, for what we are dealing with are only reative samples 
compared to the overall evidence. I was just focussing on the point 
that there are some critics of _Text und Textwert_ who seem to 
simply rule down the validity of that tool, without giving evidence 
that they fully evaluated the data. There are two things I would 
like to say on that. First, I again concede that it is not easy to 
work with _Text und Textwert_. But, I suspect, doubeling its 
practical utility by, for example, placing all the results for the 
same manuscript on one page, would have doubled the space needed. 
Second, I recall my own first steps in getting acquainted with 
_Text und Textwert_. It took me a good deal of time, and I was 
driven down at least one blind alley. But, since it is a 
_published_ tool of referrence, I would like to know about others 
experiences in testing it in order to assess its validity and 
limits, when compared to other samples.  

>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...

Well, the readings are choosen out of the pool of known variant 
readings which the different textual theories (safe, I think, the 
pro-Byzantine position) up to know considered as significant. I 
admit that it is only a small sample out of that pool, and one 
could argue on some of the readings. On the other hand, the goal of 
_Text und Textwert_ was _not_ to achieve an exhausted survey into 
the depths of the Byzantine text, but to single out the MSS which 
deviate more or less significantly from the Majority text. The 
predominant intention was to get a referrence tool that may be of 
help when choosing MSS for a new _editio critica maior_. And 
therefore, the deviation from the Majority text was singled out as 
a point of referrence in order to detect those MSS which had to 
become part of a critical apparatus.

>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...

>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.

I totally agree with that. The fewer items a sample has, the lesser 
is the significance drawn from percentage alone. To partly 
overcome such a situation it is absolutely necessary to weigh the 
evidence. Therefore, the full collation data are given, so one 
could check every single reading within the conspectus of all 
readings of a variation unit. The _quality_ of a reading 
(transposition, addition, omission, substitution, etc.), especially 
when rare readings or subsingulars are involved, has a high value 
(may be with the exception of the Byzantine text, for in its later 
strata almost no such readings seem to occur). I admit that not all 
of the units of variation are pertinent to such an assessment. But, 
I think, for the sake of balance one also has to include some 
transpositions or minor additions, because they too could turn 
out to be more significant than usually expected.

>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. 

The Catholics are a good example, because my friend Klaus Wachtel 
-who wrote his dissertation on _Der Byzantinische Text der 
Katholischen Briefe_- and I got our training on _Text und Textwert_
from the General epistles. Before we started to work with T&T we 
had been focussing on Claremont-profile, because we could not 
imagine that T&T would be particularly helpful when assessing the 
Byz. text; T&T simply was not designed for that. Then we started 
with MSS groupings from T&T and related the findings to von Soden's 
groupings. Klaus carefully examined all the MSS groups he singled 
out on the bases of T&T (for details consult his book published in: 
Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 25, deGruyter: 1995). 
I should add that Klaus not only counted the evidence, but also 
gives a 215 pp. textual commentary on the 98 _Teststellen_. Here I 
may give only few results based on counting.

a.) With respect to the Harklensis Vorlage (1505-1611-2138-2495) Klaus not only 
could determine the intra-group relationships, but he also could classify the 
related MSS  (206-429-522-614-630- 1292-2200-2412) in their relationship to one 
another and to the primary witnesses. For example the differences are mainly due 
to the supplementation of the related MSS in the last three epistles (2John 
-Jude) from at least two different Vorlagen. And lastly another partly close MS 
to 2138 could be identified: In James and 1Peter 1890 is very close to 2138, 
_and_ 1890 turned out to be the missing 1522.

b.) The first interesting fact with respect to the Majority text was that NO 
single MS completely AGREES with the Majority of witnesses at all the given 98 
Teststellen (orthographicals or itacims are not counted as deviations from the 
Majority text!). So by consequence, a Majority text theory built solely on mere 
counting would result in an eclectic text! NO single Majority-text manuscript in 
the proper sense of the term can be found within the bulk of 522 MSS for the 
General Epistles. (This is not contra Maurice Robinson. I am well aware that he 
holds other theoretical standards. But may be there are some who want to go an 
easier way.)

c.)To assess the Byz. MSS Klaus singled out _Leitlesarten_ -i.e. readings that 
depart from the Majority text, but are attested 
by at least 100 Byz. MSS. These readings are very interesting 
because the could help finding out even slighter changes within the 
Majority text. 
It turned out that von Soden's Kr group was identified by means 
of a distinct pattern at the _Leitlesarten_, shurely more 
complete and more precise than von Soden's. In the General epistles 
23 MSS belong to Kr -i.e. they give at 98 units of variation 
identical readings and share the distinct pattern. (Complete 
collation samples of two of these MSS in Jamens and 1Peter prove 
this striking feature even from the corrections in these MSS.) 
Another 15 MSS depart from that characteristic pattern only once, 
and another 10 only twice.   

>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.

There is no need to distrust the mathematics at this point. From 
T&T of the General epistles it is possible to classify most of the 
150 MSS that depart more than 10% from the Majority-text by means 
of grouping them. From the remaining 372 MSS roughly 18% could be 
settled by referrence to Kr. This, I would say, is indeed a 
tremendous accomplishment, especially when compared to von Soden. But, I never 
claimed T&T to be a sufficient manuscript classification tool. Exactly therefore 
I would like to compare the results drawn therefrom with the results drawn from 
other samples. 

>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?

Well, after a few bad experiences as a novice, I developped a 
certain manner to work with T&T. Since the information are very 
condensed in only few statistics, one normally has to look at least 
twice at the _Hauptliste_. This is, as I am used to it, no major 
problem, if the parameters are clear. 

>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.

I do not have an answer to this question either. But it is 
interesting that Thomas of Harkel, who used in 616 AD a text very 
similar to family 2138 as Vorlage, chose one Greek MS for Acta and 
the General epistles, two for the Pauline Epistles and three for 
the Gospels. As far as I can see up to now, Thomas' text in the 
Pauline epistles tends to be slightly more Byzantine (as do 1505-1611-2495), but 
could by no means be called Byzantine. So may be this points to different dates 
the Byz. text of the various parts of NT developped. 

Another striking feature in the Harklensis Corpus Paulinum seems to be that 
Thomas' second MS he used did not display a more Byzantine text compared to the 
other Vorlage (1505-1611-2495), but a text that displays readings found in MSS 
like aleph B D F G 1739. If we take into consideration the goal for and the time 
in which the Harklensis was made, the whole thing becomes disturbing for a 
pro-Byzantine position. The Harklensis was made in 616 AD and designed to be an 
exact (!) translation from Greek MSS for the Syriac monophysite church to 
improve on and supersede the (Peshitta and) Philoxeniana in order to get an 
adequate referrence tool for theological debates with the main Greek speaking 
churches at that time. For this task good MSS had been chosen, presumably ones 
that reflected not only mere local texts, unless one presumes this local texts 
to be recognized (and spread) from Egypt to Syria and probably Byzanz too. But 
if so, then the label "local text" has to be applied to the Byz. text too, and 
explains virtually nothing with respect to an overall theory of textual 
transmission from a pro-Byz. viewpoint.   

Concerning the ending of Romans, Bob further wrote:

>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 think it depends on how early the cross-contamination took place and what 
other evidence can be added. 
a.) The fourteen chapter form evidently was part of the pre-Marcionite 10 letter 
edition. There is evidence to this edition even outside Marcionite circles not 
only with respect to the shorter form of Romans, but also with respect to the 
distinct letter sequenzes.
b.) There are various other readings in Gal, 1.Cor, Eph, and 1.Thess, that the 
Marcionite text testifies to, which are found  exclusively either in the Old 
Latin ("Western"), or Old Syriac, or Alexandrian or Byzantine textual tradition. 
To one of these readings the "Western" text testifies by giving a conflate 
reading (Marcionite text on the one side and Alex. + Byz. texts on the other 
side), to another of these readings the Byz. text testifies by giving a conflate 
reading (Marcionite text + 3 minuscules on the one side and most of the Alex. 
witnesses on the other side).
c.) To conclude therefrom: The Marcionite text seems to antedate all our known 
text-types at least in their actual state of appearance. Since it seems to be 
more plausible to assume a pre-Marcionite text to have spread these readings, 
than the Marcionite text himself as a distinct _Marcionite_ entity, there is 
more evidence to a pre-Marcionite 10 letter edition that affected the rest of 
tradition.
d.) I agree with presupposing that the 14 chapter form of Romans once must have 
played a more prominent role, but I think, this has to be assessed within the 
conspectus of the pre-Marcionite 10 letter edition. This edition indeed must 
have played a prominent role, since some of its readings (including the doxology 
of Romans) are now to be found spread all over the textual tradition. But on the 
other hand, since Marcion himself charged others on the base of the 10 letter 
edition of having corrupted Pauls letters, and was charged the same by others 
mainly on the base of the 14 (13) letter edition, it is easily explanable why 
the 10 letter edition was singled out and no longer transmitted outside 
Marcionite circles.
Some remainders of that edition, nevertheless, survived within NT textual 
transmission (MSS, versions, patristic testimonies).  

[quoting Schmid Bob further wrote:]

>>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.

I am really not shure on P46 omitting the Pastorals. The crucial point is that 
P46 apparently lacks 14 pages at the end, but the missing 2Thess and Pastorals 
would have required (cf. Kenyon) 23 pages. Kenyon assumes that P46 originally 
contained 2Thess but lacked the rest leaving the last 10 pages blank. Others 
think Philemon was originally contained too leaving the last 8 1/2 pages or so 
blank. Others opted for a shortened form of the Pastorals included. 
There are three points which to my mind have to be taken into consideration:
a.) For a single-quire codex as P46, due to its nature, one has to calculate the 
space required for the text _before_ starting to write.
b.) The stichoi numbers in P46 are somehow misleading (Eph, though longer than 
Gal, was counted as having 59 stichoi less than Gal).
c.) From the middle of the codex the numbers of letters per line and the numbers 
of lines per page tend to increase.

To conclude therefrom: P46 gives at least some evidence that there must have 
been initial miscalculation taken place. So, this MS cannot be used as firm 
evidence with respect to a third and different edition of Pauls letters.

Ulrich Schmid. Muenster