Subject: Probabilistic view of original

From: Timothy John Finney <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:31:25 +0800 (WST)

I like to take a probabilistic view of the original text. It is the 
closest approximation to what was originally written (if only one text 
was originally written, which I would say is the most simple hypothesis 
to explain the current situation for everything except, perhaps, Luke 
and Acts).

Here it is: 1) If there is no variation of a word in any ms, then that is
original. 2) If there is variation, then the certainty of any particular
reading is inversely proportional to the extent to which it can be
demonstrated to give rise to the others. 

The second point is a restatement of the local genealogical method, but
should take account of weighty manuscript groups, to the extent that these
point to pre-300 AD archetypes. There is a big problem with this method,
though -- it depends on the person making the judgement as to which
explains the other to a large degree. In order to make it less subjective,
it should reflect actual probabilities of particular tendencies as found
in the manuscripts we have. E.g. The probability of making a change of
this kind is such and such. 

At the moment I think of the NT text as like a sponge. It has a certain 
original form but gets bits and pieces added and taken away at different 
times and places, reflecting local conditions of doctrine, practice and 
tradition.

The task of NT text critics is twofold -- descriptive and inferential, 
just like statistics. The presentation of words in the text should 
reflect this. If they are certain they are printed. If they vary, but one 
reading can be shown to give rise to the others, mindful of how copying 
errors actually behave, then it is given a high certainty. Readings which 
are evenly divided get another status, etc. In fact, this is what the UBS 
text does with its A, B, C, and D ratings of readings. Only the rating is 
based on the editorial committee's extent of agreement rather than the 
extent to which mss show the kind of copying errors the secondary 
readings display (but the editors were probably basing their decisions on 
these kinds of considerations).

Given the capabilities of hypertext, we should begin to consider 
producing a New Testament text of this kind. Perhaps words could be 
colour coded. Black = no variation, grey = very certain, outline = 
uncertain. The grey and outline words could be clicked on to see which 
other readings exist and their support.

On a different point, I would like to agree with Jim West in saying 
that we all owe a great debt of gratitude to Prof. Kurt Aland. We should 
remember that the _Text of the New Testament_ that he co-authored with 
Profn. Barbara Aland was an introduction to the use of the UBS and NA 
texts and was not his final statement on textual matters.

[email-masked]
Baptist Theological College
and Murdoch University
Perth, W. Australia

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:04:35 -0700

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Timothy John Finney <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>explains the other to a large degree.

This is why I think the identification of text-types is *so* important.

The main problem with the picture of two text-types, Alexandrian and
"Western" (apart from the fact that it's wrong) is that it means that,
when they divide, we are always deciding more or less arbitrarily
between them. But if there are three or more text-types, we are much
more likely to find ourselves in a position of being able to follow
the majority. (In Paul, where I perceive four early text-types, I
averaged only about three readings per chapter where we had a two-
against-two division of text-types.) If there are three or more
readings, it is usually possible to find -- and follow -- the middle
reading.

[ ... ]

>times and places, reflecting local conditions of doctrine, practice and 

I like this analogy.

It fits in another way, too: Barring continuous effort to keep the
sponge clean, it is likely to get dirtier and dirtier as time passes. :-)

[ ... ]

>other readings exist and their support.

In a very limited way, I did this in my "edition" of Paul. Places
where the text is invariant are shown in plain text. Boldface marks
a point of variation. In the apparatus, places where I consider
it reasonably possible that the variant text is original, I put
an obelus by those variants which I consider possible. (This is
roughly equivalent to the UBS "C" level -- except that my way
shows which variants are and are not reasonable.) For readings
where I consider the text highly uncertain (the three or so
readings per chapter I mentioned above, equivalent to UBS "D"
readings), I put down a double obelus.

This isn't as good as Tim's way -- but you can carry my edition
into a church service. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:52:03 -0500 (EST)

> demonstrated to give rise to the others. 

Here Timothy and I concur.  These are two very significant points which
need to be taken into account at any point of textual restoration. I
suspect however that most people simply do not try to calculate out the
various inverse proportions in relation to the probabilities in point #2.

> other readings exist and their support.

Interestingly, Kenneth W. Clark proposed to me long ago the idea of
publishing a Greek NT with all the unquestioned words in black and only
those with serious sensible difference among editors' preferences in red
in order that everyone could see at a glance how minute the problems of NT
textual criticism really were.

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