Subject: Re: Theories of trans.--continued

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 96 08:10 CDT

On  Fri, 14 Jun 1996, [email-masked] (William L. Petersen) wrote, in part:

>
>To my way of thinking, an example "proves" a lot more than rhetoric.

I'm sorry, but I can't let this pass. I have no objections to Peterson's
examples, but this statement is "not only wrong but wrong-headed."

You can prove *anything* using examples. You can find a man who says a
Hindu mystic "cured" him of his cancer by telling him to stand on his
head for a week. You can find materials that get colder when exposed
to heat. You can even find examples of Westcott & Hort agreeing with
Codex Bezae against Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (an infamous list of
nine, in fact...).

The *only* basis for scientific study is statistical. Examples serve to
*illustrate* rules, not to define them.

I'll give you a case in point. (I'd call it an example, but it might
confuse things.)

Climb to the top of a building and drop a rock and a feather. See which
one falls to the ground first. The rock, right?

On the face of it, this seems to violate the law of universal gravitation.
But nobody questions gravitation. Why? Because Galileo gathered the
data in *hundreds* of experiments, rolling balls down inclined planes.
Then Newton took this data, organized it, and derived a law. And that
law *works* -- despite a few oddities like feathers being held up by
air pressure.

So please, don't cite examples to prove anything. Unless it's statistical,
it's not science, it's folklore.

And if you don't think science matters in this field, then what are
you doing typing at a computer rather than writing on linen paper
with a quill pen (or, more likely, out on your land looking at the
rear ends of a couple of oxen as you plow your field...)? :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: DC PARKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 10:46:14 GMT

Dr Waltz writes that statistics are science, example is folklore.  
Statistics is doubtless a kind of science, some examples are no 
doubt folklore.  But in our discipline (as in any other), statistics are 
meaningless without a skilled interpretation.  With regard to 
examples, what do we have _but_ examples?

I should also add that philology traditionally gave particular weight to 
the significant reading, one of which might prove a relationship 
between 2 mss more conclusively than forty less telling readings.  
Before anybody tells me that I'm referring to the study of the classic, I 
know.  But the principle has also been used in NT text. crit., and I 
think that we should keep it in mind.

But we were not discussing the relationship between mss (in 
which statistics is used), but the evidence of our second century 
sources, which Bill had suggested had been overlooked in earlier 
mailings.

David Parker
DC PARKER
DEPT OF THEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
TEL. 0121-414 3613
FAX  0121-414 6866
E-MAIL [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 96 08:16 CDT

>Dr Waltz writes that statistics are science, example is folklore.

First, let me apologize if I have given the impression that I have
a doctorate. I don't, and I don't have any formal training in
textual studies. I have a bachelor's in physics and math, and about
seven years' worth of fanatic interest in textual criticism. But
formal training -- none.

>examples, what do we have _but_ examples?

Agreed in part; we have a finite number of manuscripts, with a finite
number of variations. So we cannot conduct "experiments" to gather
more data.

But the mass of data we already have is too much to be comprehended.
We *must* summarize. And I will maintain that the only way we can
summarize is statistically.

Let me give an example of the danger of examples. W. L. Richards, in
his extended study of the Johannine Epistles ("The Classification of
the Greek Manuscripts of the Johannine Epistles," SBL Dissertation
Series 35) claims that he can identify a manuscript's text-type
based on a mere five readings (pp. 188-189). But the strongly
Alexandrian ms. 81 has only three of these readings, and the purely
Alexandrian 33 has only *one* of them!

I agree that statistics need to be carefully prepared and intelligently
evaluated. (We all know how disastrous the "differences from TR"
statistic was for Streeter!) And examples are the only way to make
things clear. But *only* statistical methods can give reliable
results.

>think that we should keep it in mind.

Agreed -- but even the "significant reading" can be handled statistically.
The method I use is the "near-singular reading." In my tables of
results (such as the one I sent in my previous post), I give the
number of near-singular agreements between all witnesses. These are
generally *highly* significant readings. High rates of agreement here
are a very strong indicator of kinship. However, *low* rates of
agreement here do not necessarily imply lack of kinship. Like
most statistics, it is something we must use carefully.

>sources, which Bill had suggested had been overlooked in earlier

To date, we have not prepared statistics for most fathers. But
if good critical editions of the fathers were available, there
is no reason why we could not. With the fathers as with the
manuscripts, knowledge of the sources *must* precede final
decisions about readings.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (William Petersen)
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 16:59:03 -0400

Thanks to Dr. Hurtado for their comments.  A couple quick replies (I am away
for a week commencing Wednesday, so carry on...):

Re Hurtado:

1) Thanks, Larry, for pointing out the variant "theos" in the NA apparatus
(I was working from memory when I wrote).  My point still remains, however:
the earliest reading with this variant (if one ignores Justin et al.) is MS
C, which is 5th cent., then MS W, f-13, and later...  If I understand your
suggestion correctly, it is that (1) this text--first attested in the 5th
cent.--was extant in Justin's time (c. 150), that (2) Justin knew it, and
that (3) Justin substituted "pater mou ktl." for "theos".  Since there is no
attestation (at least in NA or elsewhere--at least as far as I know) for
"theos" before MS C, this scenario seems to me highly unlikely.  (Anything
is possible in this business, but I would take your suggestion more
seriously if there were earlier evidence for the variant--which is clearly a
confltion with the Marcan and Lucan parallels...)

2) Some years ago, we discussed a similar situation on IOUDAIOS, Larry, and
I still don't buy it.  The situation is, to my mind, much more complex than
you suggest.  Note carefully:  Justin denies that "the Father-" God in
heaven has EVER appeared on earth, in ANY form.  He (the "Father-"God in
heaven) never has and, apparently, never will.  Rather, he uses a _created
being_ (cf. Philo, Origen, etc.), his "Son"--Justin also speaks of this Son
as "the Angel" (Dial. 127.4)--to do his bidding.  This "Son" or "angel" is
"the power...which is called Glory"--terminology which comes from
intertestamental Judaism.

The key texts here are Ex. 7.1, in which Moses (a mortal man) is made "God"
(or "a God" to pharoah), and Ex. 23.21, in which the Jews, heading into the
wilderness, are warned to offer the angel "no defiance;  he would not pardon
such a fault, FOR MY NAME IS IN HIM."  (Cp. Justin's discussion of the
passage in Dial. 75:  Jesus is an angel, he is the "name" of God, but he is,
one concludes, NOT the "Father-God" in the heavens, who alone is "good".)

The idea that angels, humans, subsidiary "godlings" (such as the "logos")
can bear the name "theos" is the central point--one which is affirmed as
orthodox Christian belief by the orthodox Christian father Aphrahat.  It is
echoed in the quotation I provide from the Ep. Apost., and elsewhere (e.g.,
in Epiphanius' descriptions of Judaic-Christian groups...).  No, Justin's
Christology is not explicitly "adoptionistic"--although he certainly has
overtones of that in his gloriously archaic baptism (the light in the
Jordan;  "this day I have begotton you")--but he certainly is not "orthodox"
by Trinitarian standards.  The line Justin is toeing is precisely that
expressed by Aphrahat, the Ep. Apost., and by some of the Judaic Christians
(as described by Epiphanius):  Jesus was an "angel," the "son of god," a
"man," the "logos";  he BEARS THE TITLE/NAME of "god" (the Father in the
heavens), but HE is not "God" (the father in the heaven). 

But this all is an argument over what I merely conjectured to be the genesis
of the variant;  since I am sure Dr. Hurtado will admit that there are
Christological variations (already discernible in the redactional
differences among the synoptics--I provided examples) in the very earliest
layers of the gospel tradition, I will not belabour the point further.  This
seems to me to be one more of them;  if Dr. Hurtado disagrees, fine.  But
this passage is--and here we reach the Lord's prayer matter--not, at least
in my mind, a mere slip of Justin's pen, or a "spontaneous" change on his
part.  The reason is that such an argument ignores the continuous, VERBATIM
citation of the IDENTICAL variant for at least the next century or more.
The original issue was:  Do the fathers offer _some_ material which is
reliable for use in TC?  I say yes, and here is the evidence.  I would note
that no one has yet offered earlier citaions from any source--not to
mention, multiple citations...--which rival these from Justin, Irenaeus,
Hippolytus, and the Ps.-Clementines for antiquity.

To the comments of Rev. Don Wilkins:

1) Wilkins writes:
>In many "citations" a textual variation seems
>to be nothing more than a paraphrase of the autograph and hardly worthy of
>being considered a true variant.  The substitution of nous for kardia
>strikes me as an obvious example of this, so that its occurrence even in
>early authors can probably be written off as coincidence.

This is precisely the issue which precipitated this thread.  The problem is
that in _some_ cases, the "paraphrase" crops up again and again and again,
across the centuries, across languages, and in VERBATIM form.  Now, when
does that cease to be a "paraphrase" and become a textual tradition worthy
of consideration.  I suggest looking back at my original example, in my post
of 6/12/96 "Theories of transmission (#2)" for the example.  Are ALL of
these sources paraphrasing?  (That strains even my great credulity...)

The subtext here is our predisposition to regard ANYTHING which doesn't
agree with our "pet" text (Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc.), as a "loose"
citation, paraphrase, etc., and to ignore it.  Consider the quote from
Burkitt given in that post:  we consistently find excuses to ignore the
oldest evdience we possess.  It is shocking.

2) Continuing:
>It appears, first of all, that Justin's "lampsato de
>humon ta kala erga" (with or without "de") occurs nowhere else.  Granted,
>one can find variations on Matthew's "humon ta kala erga" with lampsato
>elsewhere, but the more paraphrastic the form in the fathers, the more
>tenuous the reference.

This is true, except that it ignores the fact that these fathers all are
very early (if the variant is TRULY a happenstance, TRULY a coincidence, a
"spontaneous" occurrence in each source, then why doesn't the "happenstance"
continue throughout the ages?  why don't later fathers make the same
"slip"?), and come from the same age (Justin is the earliest at c. 150;
Clement, Tertullian, and Origen are all rough contemporaries;  Eusebius had
access to Origen's library in his youth, via Pamphilius.  There is, then, a
chronological as well as, in the one instance (Origen-Eusebius) a LIVING
link between these witnesses.  That I, for one, am reluctant to write off as
insignificant:  a slip of the pen, a foggy memory, etc.

As for my comment that Clement was "consistent," I was not inferring that
all his citations were identical;  rather, since he cites the same passage
in a deviating form more than once, it is hard to say this was just a "slip."

To close with another example:  Justin cites a binary version of the Shema
THREE TIMES in EXACTLY the same deviating form:  "heart"-"power" (at Dial.
93.2, 93.3 and Apol. 16.6:  all "kardias...ischuos").  A slip?  A
paraphrase?  Oddly enough, the same binary Shema in Aphrahat (there seems to
be an Aphrahat-Justin link, both textually and theologically???), some
Diatessaronic witnesses, and in Vetus Latina MS k ("toto corde tuo et de
totis viribus tuis.").  Something is going on here, and we are remiss if we
don't pay attention to it.

Cheers!

--Petersen, Penn State Univ. (not proofed)

---

From: DC PARKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 09:47:50 GMT

By 'significant reading' I did not mean a class or type of reading, 
such as 'near singular', but the individual reading shared between a 
couple of mss so startling or so remarkable as to lead one to believe 
there to be a close relationship between them.  One would have to sift 
all the material so as to be sure that there was no contradictory 
evidence, but it might be that one reading which was the pointer 
towards the relationship.

David Parker
DC PARKER
DEPT OF THEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
TEL. 0121-414 3613
FAX  0121-414 6866

---

From: [email-masked] (Don Wilkins)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 17:08:55 -0700 (PDT)

>these sources paraphrasing?  (That strains even my great credulity...)

I apologize for the delay in responding to your post. Thanks to Jimmy
Adair, I was able to look at your original example (BTW, you flatter me
with the "Rev." title; I am a mere lecturer.  Feel free to call me Don if
you wish). I ran TLG searches on hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOS (with and without the
article). With the article, it occurred only once outside Matthew in
Origen's commentary on Matthew. Without the article, it occurred in Justin
(the passage you cited) and, as Ulrich Schmid has already noted, in
Epiphanius' Panarion, where the phrase hO PATHR EN TOIS OURANOIS follows.
This created a problem for me, in that I ran searches thereafter (to
confirm my initial searches) in Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Clement (using
the TLG) and was unable to find any versions of the statements you cite. It
is the policy of the TLG administrators to use the best sources, but you
obviously have other good sources to which you and U. Schmid were
referring.

>insignificant:  a slip of the pen, a foggy memory, etc.

Well, if these are paraphrastic citations, they would not be "slips"; and
why should they be duplicated by others? Would not the same paraphrases and
random errors be less likely to be repeated if one has access to a text of
the scriptures, or is working from memory of the text? I would think
different authors would paraphrase in different ways to suit their
purposes.

>in a deviating form more than once, it is hard to say this was just a "slip."

The key to your argument (as I see it) is the word "deviating". I gather
that you are willing to hypothesize an Ur-text behind deviating forms of a
"citation" given by a single author, and extend the hypothesis to cover
other authors whom you see as providing similar citations.  You seem to be
doing the same thing with Justin's Shema. Why couldn't the deviation merely
be an abbreviated rendering of the original?  Should we or should we not
apply Ockham's razor?

Having said all that, let me again apologize if I have dug up any dead
horses as a result of coming into the discussion late and ill-prepared. If
that is the case, I will try to either catch up or butt out as gracefully
as possible.

Don Wilkins
UC Riverside

Don Wilkins
UC Riverside