Subject: Patristic statistics

From: "Mark Arvid Johnson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:31:47 -0600

Digging through the TC List archives, I found Maurice Robinson on June 21,
1996, asking for statistics of patristic citations:
 
>From within a Byzantine-priority perspective, readings which are
dually-shared by both the Byzantine and any other texttype are simply
Byzantine readings from which the other texttype(s) happened not to
depart.  Once this point is granted, and once patristic idiosyncracies are
discounted, I have little doubt that one will find the non-Egyptian
fathers preceding the fourth century to be far more "Byzantine" in overall
character than otherwise has traditionally been claimed.

>Bring on the statistics, gentlemen.....

I did some more digging and found some interesting statistics of patristic
citations. The source is Wilbur Pickering, adapted from Kurt Aland. They
are taken from Pickering's review of Kurt Aland's article "The Text of the
Church":

			Egyp	Both	Maj	Other	# Pass

Marcion (160?)		23% 	10% 	18% 	49% 	94 
Irenaeus (d. 202)	16% 	16.5% 	16.5% 	51% 	181 
Clement Alex. (d. 215)	13.5% 	29% 	15% 	42.5% 	161 
Origen (d. 254)		16.5% 	28% 	17% 	38.5% 	459 
Hippolytus (d.235)	14.5% 	18% 	21% 	46.5% 	
Methodius (280?) 	12.5% 	31% 	19% 	37.5% 	32 
Adamantius (d.300)	11.5% 	21% 	31% 	36.5% 	29 
Asterius (d.341)		0% 	40% 	50% 	10% 	30 
Apst. Const. (380?)	3% 	33% 	41% 	23% 	46 
Epiphanius (d.403)	11% 	30% 	22% 	37% 	114 
Chrysostom (d. 407)	2% 	38% 	40.5% 	19.5% 	915 
Severian (d.408)		3% 	37% 	30% 	30% 	91 
Theod. Mops. (d. 428)	4.5% 	29% 	39% 	27.5% 	28 
Marcus Erem. (d. 430) 	5.5% 	35% 	35% 	24.5% 	37 
Hesychius (d. 450)	3.5% 	37.5% 	33% 	26.5% 	84 
Theodotus (d. 445)	3% 	37.5% 	37.5% 	22% 	16 
Theodoret (d. 466)	1% 	41% 	42% 	16% 	481 
John Damascus (d. 749)	2% 	40% 	40% 	18% 	63

Obviously, something happenned in the fourth century; the question is what
was it. Several explanations have been advanced, from an official Byzantine
recension, to the textual effects of the Arian controversy, to wider
collation of MSS after the Edict of Milan.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 10:02:40 -0700

>are taken from Pickering's review of Kurt Aland's article "The Text of the

Can you give a reference for this article? I'm a bit concerned about
Aland's sources (given the weakness of the patristic citations in
NA27) -- and more concerned with how Pickering interpreted them.

Also, how did Pickering or Aland decide what was *the* Egyptian
text? His definition of text-types is not mine. And how did one
determine the reading of Origen? There are many, *many* readings
where the various manuscripts and commentaries of Origen attest
to different readings....

For that matter, it would be nice to see some Latin fathers.

>collation of MSS after the Edict of Milan.

In reading this, I am not particularly impressed by the change in the
rate of Egyptian and Byzantine readings. If accurate, what strikes *me*
is the gradual elimination of "other" readings. What are these "other"
readings? "Western"? Idiosyncratic? Other text-types?

Any thoughts?

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:28:29 -0500 (EST)

> are taken from Pickering's review of Kurt Aland's article "The Text of the

I will note that the article mentioned happens to be one of Pickering's
best (which says a lot considering the weak, biased, or "theological" 
nature of much of his other material).  It should be read in conjunction
with Aland's original "Text of the Church" article, however.  If you have
the article in electronic form, it might be good to post it on the tc-list
ftp site, if Jimmy permits.  The article is unpublished, but freely
distributable, according to the Majority Text Society headed by Hodges and
Farstad.

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

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:43:14 -0500 (EST)

> On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, "Mark Arvid Johnson" <[email-masked]> wrote:

[re: "The Text of the Church" by Aland and "The Text of the Church?" by
Pickering].
 
> NA27) -- and more concerned with how Pickering interpreted them.

Don't have the reference at hand for Aland (some issue of Trinity Journal,
which, I don't know).  Pickering's article was distributed in photocopy
typescript by the Majority Text Society about 2 years ago or so.

> text? His definition of text-types is not mine. 

Not sure this is a primary factor in the thrust of the articles either
way.  Pickering merely takes Aland's statistics and shows the same data
can readily point to diametrically opposite conclusions, so the question
of how a given text is defined is less pertinent than the matter of ways
to view the data.

> readings? "Western"? Idiosyncratic? Other text-types?

Be aware that the same fathers and percentages differ dramatically in
Aland and Pickering's presentation of the same table, showing primarily
that the "trends" which seem to be visible may well be in a different
direction, depending on how the data is interpreted.

---

From: [email-masked] (Ulrich Schmid)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 96 12:53:24 +0100

The reference for Aland's article _The Text of the Church?_ is: Trinity Journal 
8,2 (1987) 131-144.

The Patristic statistics performed in this article refer to the apparatus of the 
revised fourth ed. of GNT with its some 1200 units of variation.

Besides, the statistics brought forth by Mark Arvid Johnson (Thu, 7 Oct 1996) 
are not reliable as far as Aland's statistics are concerned. Either Pickering or 
Johnson have either misrepresented Aland's statistics or rely on different data. 
Without consulting Pickering's article reviewing Aland's article we should not 
continue to extrapolate from the statistics in Johnson's post.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 10:23:54 -0500 (EST)

> continue to extrapolate from the statistics in Johnson's post.

Pickering's point in his article was to show how the same data could be
used to demonstrate the opposite point by looking at the data from a
different angle. Aland's original statistical data need to be posted in
direct comparison with Pickering's reworking of them, but as Ulrich has
said, without the full text of Pickering's article before you in
comparison with Aland's original article, the data are probably
meaningless.

---

From: John Cameron <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 10:42:45 -0800

Can you let me know how to delete myself from the distribution list of
this discussion group.

Thanks