Subject: Re: Koren vs BHS text

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 97 08:08:40 +0100

To add to the very interesting list of differences between Qoren and BHS 
that Dr Prince provided, there's a study about textual differences 
between the three main masoretic mss, the Leningrad, Aleppo and Cairo 
codices.

Philippe Cassuto, Masoretic Lists and Matres Lectionis, in VIII 
International Congress of the International Organization for masoretic 
Studies - edited by E.J. Revell - Masoretic Studies 6 - Scholars Press, 
1988 - pp. 1-30

It shows that these three mss disagree in many instances, specially when 
it comes to matres lectionis. And, of course, this raises the inevitable 
remark that this theory of equidistant letters works only with one text. 
I met here several people who were enthusiastic about this theory, but of 
course they were totally unaware of the fact that such questions could 
even be asked and were unable to answer me :-)

In fact, when we cumulate this study and the list of Dr Prince, this 
gives the impression that the fixity of the hebrew MT has something of a 
myth. But this is probably an overstatement.

_______________________________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium

Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est 
inutilisable.
What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable.
Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar.

---

From: "Lewis Reich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 08:31:49 -500

> remark that this theory of equidistant letters works only with one text. 

I wonder if it is appropriate to describe the equidistant letters 
matter as a theory, since what is being reported is a result, and as 
far as I know, no particular theory was advanced in the statistical 
articles to account for the result.  

The fact that results of this kind are obtainable only with one text 
is not an objection to the results, in effect it is a confirmation of 
the statistical analysis that the effects are such that could not 
have resulted from mere chance.

Lewis Reich
[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 08:25:02 -0700

>have resulted from mere chance.

Let's get our terminology straight. (This is not a criticism of anyone;
just a matter of getting things straight.)

1. Facts. Facts can only be determined by direct and repeatable
   observation. So the readings of a particular manuscript (at least
   where it can be clearly read) are facts.

2. Statistical models. Statistical models are *not* facts, even if
   they embrace all the data. (I don't know if this "equidistant
   letters" item uses all the data -- but I doubt it.) The same
   data is subject to all sorts of statistical analysis. Statistical
   analysis is repeatable, but that does not make it fact in its
   own right. Moreover, statistical analyses can be flawed.

3. Theory. *Anything* not falling under the above heads is theory.
   All interpretation is theory. A theory may have strong backing,
   but it cannot be proved. You cannot prove an interpretation; you
   can only *dis*prove it. (You disprove it by providing a
   counterexample.)

So, in the case of the "equidistant letters" thing, the facts are the
readings of the manuscripts. Whatever examination the researchers did
is a statistical analysis. Their conclusions are a theory.

And *any* results they derive *could* be coincidence. We can *never*
say that coincidence is "impossible"; merely highly unlikely.

Be it noted that I still have not seen the paper, so I cannot make
any judgment on the value of its conclusions -- or even its underlying
facts. But please, let's use our scientific terminology correctly.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: Nichael Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:44:40 -0500 (EST)

>    can only *dis*prove it. (You disprove it by providing a

Well, perhaps I'm picking nits (we're certainly getting off topic) but to
state this prehaps another way: 

Probably the closest synonym we have to the term "Theory" is the word
"Model".  I.e. a Model that attempts to exaplain and/or systematize a
broad range of data. 

For example, we observe how small particles interact and behave.  These
are our data.  From this we develop a model (Quantum Theory) that attempts
to explain why these particles behave in the way that they do.  Likewise
we observe the subsequent replacement of species over the lifetime of the
Earth.  From this we develop a model (Evolutionary Theory) that attempts
to explain these facts. 

N

---

From: Nichael Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:46:56 -0500 (EST)

> have resulted from mere chance.

While it is certainly true that "theory" is not the correct term to use 
in this case, it is equally true that the "fact" of these claims has yet 
to be established.

N

---

From: "Lewis Reich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:08:51 -500

> in this case, it is equally true that the "fact" of these claims has yet 

Part of my point was that as far as I can tell from the secondary 
accounts I have read of the statistical articles, no claims have been 
made.  An algorithm has been run on a text in a manner 
reasonably easily reproducible and has yielded certain results.  
Those results should be easy to verify by anyone who cares to 
reproduce the experiment.  Statistical analysis was then performed to 
test the likelihood that the results could have been obtained by 
chance.   In the social sciences, null hypotheses generally are 
accepted if the likelihood the results could have been obtained by 
chance is less than 5%.  In the reported instances, the likelihood of 
the results being due to chance was several orders of magnitude lower 
than that.  The statistical analysis was subject to the rigorous 
scrutiny applied in all cases to reputable refereed journals.  These 
are indeed facts.  The claims reported to have been made in the 
statistical articles do not go beyond what I have stated above.  If 
those secondary accounts are accurate, I  think it is quite safe to 
say that those claims have been established.

Lewis Reich
[email-masked]