Subject: Colwell's 70%

From: [email-masked] (Mark OBrien)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 15:19:04 CST

I see this figure quoted a lot in comments regarding quantitative analysis, but
I'm curious to know why 70% is "the magic number".  Surely this percentage is
going to vary (to some extent) according to the number of manuscripts being
compared?  I don't recall whether Colwell had a minimum number of MSS in mind
for applying this "rule", but perhaps someone can set me straight on this issue
(I'm sure!)...

Mark O'Brien
Dallas Theological Seminary
----
"I have always thought that the acquisition of language and culture gave a
person completely new aspects of personality." -- Head of Humanities and Art,
Worcestor Polytechnic Institute

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 18:41:31 -0700

>for applying this "rule", but perhaps someone can set me straight on this

We had an extensive discussion on this topic some months back, starting
from the question "What is a text-type." The discussion revealed that
a *lot* of us don't like that criterion. Someone (I think it was
Ulrich Schmid) even speculated that Colwell came up with that number
to make sure that the Alexandrian text really did qualify as a text-type.

Remember, the 70% is not a measure of the number of manuscripts that
agree, but of the *rate* at which two manuscripts agree. Still, your
point is absolutely sound: The percentage of agreement between manuscripts
is dependent on the sample of readings studied.

Frankly, I consider the Colwell criterion to be all but worthless.
The relationship between manuscripts should not be pursued based
on their *percentage* of agreement (unless one is seeking sister
manuscripts). After all, *all* manuscripts actually agree on about
95% of the text. Rather, one needs to look at the *nature* of the
agreements.

My humble opinion, of course. Not that I'll brook any argument. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 22:23:07 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Mark OBrien wrote:

> I'm curious to know why 70% is "the magic number".  

The simplest answer is because Ernest Colwell of Chicago said so.  I
personally think 72.3% is somewhat more accurate *;-)

Seriously, there is _no_ real cutoff point, and all such suggestions are
of necessity arbitrary.  However, it also is obvious that as support for a
texttype approaches the 50% mark, the relative strength of that texttype
is seriously called into question; conversely, as the support for a
texttype approaches 100%, the relative strength is increased.  Merely
splitting the difference would suggest 75% as a reasonable boundary for
establishing a texttype relationship among MSS.  Colwell chose to slightly
broaden the definition by going to 70%; Hodges and Farstad chose to narrow
the definition by going to 80%.  I am personally quite comfortable with
70% (making small allowances on either side of that figure), since such a
"majority" relationship among MSS should be adequately sufficient to
establish a working texttype identification of relationship.

> Surely this percentage is
> compared?  

The percentages are based upon quantitative analysis of pair of MSS -- one
compared directly to another in significant places of variation.  No
matter how many MSS might be compared in such a situation, they still will
be counted in pairs which cover the entire spectrum, and only those MS
pairs with high interrelationships will be considered primary members of a
texttype.  Once a texttype relationship has been determined, a reading
would be considered as "belonging" to the archetype of the texttype if it
occurred in 70% (or whatever other figure is settled upon) of the MSS which
were previously assigned to that texttype.  This is why in the
"loipoi"/"polloi" reading with a 53%/47% split, _neither_ reading is in
any way texttype-specific to the Byzantine Textform, although one could
correctly claim that the "polloi" reading _is_ specific to the Alexandrian
texttype.   

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

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 22:35:41 -0400 (EDT)

> My humble opinion, of course. Not that I'll brook any argument. :-)

My humble opinion differs as usual (the agreement between us did not last
long *;-), since I think the criterion has validity, even though the
precise percentage point of 70% may be subject to some adjustment up or
down. 

Certainly all MSS agree on about 95% of the text in most cases, but the
establishment of the Colwell-style percentages reflect a 70% agreement as
found within the 5% or so of the text where the variants actually occur,
and this is plainly stated in Colwell's "Methodology" article.  

I do not think that the "nature" of the agreements is the significant
item; rather the fact that the agreements occur in a definite and regular
pattern -- this pattern-agreement is precisely what establishes a
"texttype", even if MSS with a definite pattern may find that some
portions of that pattern otherwise appear in MSS of another texttype.  

For example, as mentioned in my previous post, the 2Cor.2.17 passage finds
the "polloi" reading specific to the Alexandrian texttype, but merely a
divided variant within the Byzantine Textform.  It just happens that at
that specific unit of variation, a characteristic reading of one texttype
happens to exist in quantity within another texttype, but simply has _no_
texttype-definitive status in the latter.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 08:07:14 -0700

I suppose I need to clarify something here....

>and this is plainly stated in Colwell's "Methodology" article.

True enough; my point is merely that very few scholars (except for
Hurtado in his work on Mark and Richards in his sadly flawed work
on the Johannine Epistles) have tried to study *all* readings. So
the cutoff percentage will depend -- significantly -- on the
particular sample.

>portions of that pattern otherwise appear in MSS of another texttype.

I am willing to agree with Maurice Robinson that, if we choose the
number carefully, based on the sample, we can find *some* percentage
that defines text-types -- as long as we are working with unmixed
or minimally mixed manuscripts.

That restriction ("unmixed or minimally mixed manuscripts") is, however,
very important. Other than the Byzantine manuscripts, almost all texts
are mixed. Taking Paul as an example, of the roughly 600 manuscripts,

* About 520, or 87%, are Byzantine
* About 70, or 12%, are mixed.
* As best I can tell, exactly ten (p46 Aleph A B C D F G 33 1739) are
  non-Byzantine and unmixed or minimally mixed manuscripts. That's 1.7%.
  (Before someone asks -- yes, C is mixed in the Gospels, but in Paul
  it's almost purely Alexandrian. 33 is Byzantine in Romans, where it
  comes from a second hand, but in the rest of Paul, it is the closest
  relative of Aleph.)

So, of the non-Byzantine manuscripts, seven-eighths are mixed (usually
mixed Byzantine and Alexandrian or mixed Byzantine and family 1739).
Such a mixed manuscript may not agree with *either* the Alexandrian
or the Byzantine text 70% of the time. But they have a text-type --
indeed, they are blessed enough to have two. :-)

That's why I say one must examine the *nature* of agreements -- in order
to figure out what the components of the mixture are.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:54:29 -0400 (EDT)

> the cutoff percentage will depend -- significantly -- on the

The point of a representative sample is of course to eliminate the massive
amount of work needed to compare on a full collation basis.  For the
purpose for which Colwell's quantitative analysis method was designed, it
will offer tolerably reliable results by comparing a quantity of MSS and
establishing general texttype relationships on the basis of patterns of
variation shared in high percentage among certain MSS. 

> or minimally mixed manuscripts.

The percentage value will of necessity differ depending on the texttype
and the internal constituency of its member MSS, which varies according
to the amount of mixture which appears among them.  The Western text is
the least precisely defined, and the percentage of interrelationship among
the strongest MSS of that texttype remains significantly below Colwell's
70% line (usually around 55%-60%); the Alexandrian MSS more closely
approach the 70% designator, while the "average" Byzantine MS will be more
likely around 90% (a "Byzantine" MS with only 70% agreement with the
Byzantine pattern of readings is a very weak member of that texttype,
while an Alexandrian MS with such a percentage is a strong member of its
texttype).

Certainly the matter of "mixture" exists, and even strong Byzantine MSS
have some mixture, but usually only a smattering of non-Byzantine readings
between 5%-10%.  Alexandrian MSS on the other hand will have often up to
30%-35% mixture from readings of other texttypes, and the Western MSS even
a greater percentage.  Quantitatively speaking, this does _not_ disqualify
any of them from being in a texttype relationship with other MSS sharing
most of their same variations; it merely indicates that there are levels
of strength to be found among the witnesses comprising each separate
texttype, and the standards applied to one texttype should not be applied
directly to another texttype.  

Mixture itself does not destroy the establishment of texttype status for
MSS sharing a common pattern; the differences in the percentage of mixture
prevailing in MSS of any given texttype _do_, however, suggest something
significant about the transmissional history of the MSS comprising such
individual texttypes.  Mixture alone, in my opinion, does _not_ seriously
harm the texttype designation of a MS as established from quantitative
analysis based upon a reasonable selection of significant variant units.

> indeed, they are blessed enough to have two. :-)

Few if any "mixed" MSS are so mixed that they in actuality totally fail to
align fairly well (if only in a "weak" state) with one or another known
texttype. As pointed out in the "loipoi"/"polloi" discussion, a reading so
equally divided among the MSS in general can be seen to be part of the
pattern for the Alexandrian MSS, even though it is merely a divided
"mixed" reading within the MSS comprising the Byzantine Textform.