Subject: Re: Patristic statistics

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:21:26 +000

Writing in response to my posting, Robt. Walz stated:

> WIth all of this I have to agree -- but I have to go further. One
> of the saddest things about Professor Hurtado's study, from my
> standpoint, is all the issues it *doesn't* address.
> 
> Hurtado established -- conclusively, to my mind -- that p45 and W
> are not to be linked to the so-called "Caesarean" text. But his
> method, and that of Fee, cannot address the Lake/Streeter definition
> of the "Caesarean" text. Note that Streeter defined the "Caesarean"
> text as those readings of Theta, family 1, family 13, 28, 565, 700,
> etc. *not found in the Byzantine text.*
My 1981 book was based on my PhD thesis, and was not intended to deal 
with all the questions one could ask about the Caesarean text--far 
from it!  The specific question I addressed was whether the Caesarean 
text was evidence in early witnesses (the [then] so-called 
"pre-Caesarean" witnesses, P45 & W).  What I hope to have shown is 
(1) that W & P45 don't in fact have sufficient or significant enough 
agreements with Theta, 565, etc., to be linked with them at all, and 
(2) that, whatever the "Caesarean" text-type might be it is not 
early, nor even very easily delineated.
Moreover, the influential definitions of the "Caesarean" text-type 
didn't involve particular readings (contra Walz's statement above), 
but referred to "patterns" of readings, with the so-called Caesareans 
not aligning themselves simply with any of the other identified 
text-types.  Though my study dealt only with Theta and 565, these are 
the main reps of the so-called Caesarean text-type; and I think I've 
shown that they (a) agree with each other to a significant measure, 
and (b) also seem to have interesting levels of agreement with 
"Byzantine" text-type witnesses, in both specific readings and in the 
*types of readings they prefer*.  I've suggested that the forces at 
work (e.g., scribal/editorial preferences) in the Caesarean mss are 
very similar to those that shaped the Byzantine text-type.

Walz goes on:
> I did what I could; with my thousand-reading sample I looked at
> all the texts listed above and compared not only their overall
> agreements but their *non-Byzantine* agreements.
> 
> I have not finished my analysis, so I cannot give formal results.
> But the results I have indicate that the "Caesarean" text is real,
> or at least that the "Caesarean" manuscripts have been subjected
> to a common influence. This despite the fact that, based on overall
> agreements, they are all simply "Byzantine" (or at least "mixed
> Byzantine").
> 
> So I agree with Hurtado that we must look at agreements and disagreements,
> but we must do more. We must *assess* agreements, we must have large enough
> samples to mean something -- and we should ask that people know what
> statistics they are citing!

Excuse my limited reading, but I don't know where to find the results 
of your work.  Could you point me to the publications?
Larry Hurtado
L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:21:07 -0700

On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]> wrote:

[ ... ]

>agreements with Theta, 565, etc., to be linked with them at all,

With which conclusion I noted my agreement.

>and

No arguments there.

>text-types.

I quote from Streeter, page 81:

   Lake made the all-important discovery that Theta and these notable
   cursives [family 1, family 13, 28, 565, 700], taken all together,
   form in reality a single family [read: text-type]. True[,] Theta
   and the other five sets of authorities mentioned do not on the face
   of it exhibit a single type of text; but that is because each of
   them has been heavily corrected to the Byzantine standard, and in
   each case a *different* set of corrections has been made. If,
   however, we eliminate from the text of these manuscripts those
   variants which are found in the Byzantine text, we find that the
   residuary readings of the six different representatives support
   each other to a quite remarkable extent.

As I noted, this is a problematic definition, particularly since
Streeter and Lake didn't *know* the readings of the Byzantine text.
But we can only address the text-type on these terms.

Based on my research, I think Streeter overstates the case; the
"Caesarean" witnesses do not agree absolutely in their non-Byzantine
readings. Family 1, for example, is noticeably closer to the
Alexandrian text than the other witnesses. But I do find common
influence, possibly a common text-type.

>Though my study dealt only with Theta and 565, these are
>the main reps of the so-called Caesarean text-type;

Debatable; on the basis of distinction from the Byzantine text, the
leaders are Theta and Family 1. And, if you will admit versions, the
old Armenian and old Georgian seem more "Caesarean" than any Greek
manuscript. The witnesses listed above all appear to have suffered
40-80% Byzantine corruption; in the two versions, it's more like 30%
(tentative conclusion, as noted).

and I think I've
>very similar to those that shaped the Byzantine text-type.

I won't argue that.

>Walz goes on:

[BTW -- my last name is "Waltz"]

>of your work.  Could you point me to the publications?

As I have stated at least a dozen times on this list, I am not a
text-critical professional; I am, by training, a physicist and
mathematician. Obviously that limits my knowledge of Greek -- but I
think it means that I have some knowledge of statistics.

I have not published (though I will offer my data to anyone who wants it,
if you give me enough time); remember, some people still have to work so
that others can make their living by the gospel. Besides, who's going to
publish a book-length manuscript on textual criticism (and that's what
I would need) by a physicist?

Still, if anyone wants to see the sort of work I have done, I refer you
to the "text-types" article at my ENTTC web site:

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Alan Repurk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:32:04 -0800

The site <http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/mss/text_crit.html>
contains a number of manuscripts which detail the various 
punctuations on John 1:3 with respect to whether 'hO GENOMEN' 
should start a new sentence. The punctuation of the text in  
UBS3-4/NA26-27 puts "hO GEGONEN" with the  following verse, 
to yield:  "hO GEGONEN EN AUTWi ZWH HN"
 
I understand that Bruce Metgzer states in his book states
"A majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus 
of ante-Nicene writers (orthodox and heretical alike) who took
 hO GEGONEN with what follows." The shift to the common punctuation 
of the AV, he says, was a tactic against the Arian attempt to; 
use the passage to argue that the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as 
one of the created things.
 
He also says "It is more consistent with the Johannine repetetive 
style, as well as with Johannine doctrine (c.f. 5:26, 39; 6:53), 
to say nothing concerning the sense of the passage, to punctuate 
with a full stop (i.e. a period) AFTER /HO GEGONEN/."

However the site I list above appears to come to the oposite
conclusion (I think) and prefer the other reading.  Does anyone
know what were the deciding factors for the commitee of the RSV
to determine their position.

I have a zerox copy of the Codex Alexandrinus which appears to
quite clearly put the stop before  'hO GEGONEN', but this
site along with their supplied GIFS do not appear to think that
this stop exists.  Is there some disagreement among scholars
as to whether some faint or small markings are indeed stops ?

Regards,
-lars