Subject: Re: Rev 9:16

From: "DC PARKER" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:10:44 GMT

Bob Waltz wrote: 
Still, I consider this a very strong rule. If one reading could have
*directly* given rise to all the others, that reading is almost
certain to be original.

It continues to amaze me that this rule (offered by Griesbach)
is not quoted more often. But then, I never have been one to
play by the usual rules. :-)

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

There is nothing unusual about the canon that that reading is to be 
preferred which explains the origin of the others.  See e.g. 
Westcott/Hort, Intro, p.22.  Indeed, is there anybody who believes 
the practice of textual criticism to be a rational pursuit, who 
does _not_ accept it?

DC PARKER
DEPT OF THEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
TEL. 0121-414 3613
FAX  0121-414 6866
E-MAIL [email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 08:25:03 -0700

>the practice of textual criticism to be a rational pursuit, who 

This is not my point. I have said (see the Encyclopedia article
I already cited) that "That reading is best which best explains
the others" is the *basic* rule of internal criticism. All other
canons (e.g. "prefer the harder reading") are corollaries of this
rule.

However, "prefer the middle reading" is one of the most direct
and strongest corollaries of this rule. Unlike canons such as
"prefer the shorter reading," "prefer the middle reading" almost
always gives the correct result in cases where it applies. Yet
this rule is never stated in modern handbooks, and is often
ignored. Hence my statements.

                            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: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:36:43 -0500 (EST)

> the practice of textual criticism to be a rational pursuit, who 

Parker is of course correct on this point, and even those of us who might
favor the Byzantine Textform do not ignore this principle.  Case in point
regarding the Rev. 9:16 variant unit from my own perspective:

Regarding the discussion of the variant at Rev. 9:16 and the supposed
significance of the "middle reading", perhaps I fail to discern the
point adequately, but I do not see where any supposed rule would "favor
the middle reading" in this circumstance, and indeed wonder whether
there is _any_ "middle reading" with which to work.

Basically the variant separates into either the inclusion or omission
of the number "two" (whether as "duo" or "dis") appended to the
"myriads of myriads" (which by itself indicates either as much as a
hundred million or as little as a hundred thousand, depending on the
translational preference).  So either the number is single ("myriads of
myriads" or doubled "two myriads of myriads".  There is thus _no_ real
"middle reading" with which one must deal, any more than there is any
real additional variant present when MSS read "ib" or "deka kai duo"
instead of "dwdeka", as also happens within the book of Revelation.

For my own part, it neither matters significantly theologically or
exegetically whether the number "two" is present in this location or
not (although Hal Lindsey might get upset, since he needs 200 million
Chinese warriors to fulfill his Late Great Planet Earth hypothesis).
My decision regarding the proper variant is based solely on
text-critical internal and external considerations.

Externally, the reading _without_ either "duo" or "dis" is the
strongest attested numerically, having approximately 72% support (see
Hoskier's _Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse_ for details).

What makes this particularly interesting is that such a high percentage
of support _transcends_ the normal approximately equal division between
the two leading "Byzantine" texttypes in the Apocalypse, the An and Q
groups (in N27, the MA and MK groups respectively).  Had the division
between the two groups been "normal", one might expect a 55%-45% or even
closer division approaching 50%-50%; yet in this case the _omission_ of
"duo" or "dis" enjoys the combined support of nearly all of the MK group
and most of the MA group, which fact alone strongly argues for its
originality.

(For the record, while the omission of the numeral "two" has 72%
support, the _inclusion_ of the form "duo" has approximately 8% of the
MSS in support, mostly sporadically, while "dis" has approximately 15%
support, mostly from the MA group). The most significant support for
"duo" is found in P47 and Aleph, while the significant uncial support of
"dis" is found in A and P).

Note also that the omission of "two" does reflect the shorter reading,
and this principle takes on _more_ significance in a case like this,
since there is no reasonable cause (such as homoioteleuton) as to why
the longer reading might have been accidentally omitted, nor would there
be any good reason as to why the majority of scribes would have _ever_
omitted a number which _magnifies_ the number of the horsemen had "duo"
or "dis" stood originally in that place.

Assuming the shorter reading to be original, based on not only the
unlikelihood of accidental or deliberate omission of the number "two",
but also on the lack of significant exegetical or theological motivation
for preferring the smaller total, the question of how and why the
"duo" or "dis" might have been added remains a valid topic for
discussion.

I confess that I can see _no_ reason why such a large number of horsemen
needed deliberately to be doubled by _any_ scribes, save possibly to
enhance the magnitude of the opposing forces. This could have been a
motive, but not a strong one in view of the large number already
stated.  Although some may wish to argue that perhaps the numeral
"b" for "2" was originally present and may have been accidentally
omitted or expunged by some scribe who did not notice the bar over the
numeral, apparently no extant MS has the numeral form as opposed to
either "duo" or "dis"; even the uncials have it written out in full (I
don't know about P47, except that N27 seems to indicate it is written
out in full also; P47 postdates Hoskier, and I have not yet checked the
photo of the variant in that MS).

It is probably significant that the Bohairic also reads "duo" in this
place along with P47, since this might point to a common early Egyptian
origin for the variant, regardless of whether such origin might have
anything to do with exegesis or theology.

My own take on this is that the nonsense reading of Aleph ("duo muriadwn
muriadas") might suggest a key to the whole situation.  My own studies
of Aleph indicate the extremely sloppy nature of the scribe of the
Apocalypse (who is different than the scribe who copied everything else
in the NT of that MS; see Milne and Skeat), and I would not be surprised
if the reading of Aleph reflects a blunderous interpretation of what may
have lain before him in his exemplar (which also may be the same type of
situation which caused the reading of P47 to occur).

Assume this scenario:  a scribe of an exemplar which is an archetype of
Aleph dyslexically miscopies and inverts the original reading "muriades
muriadwn" as "muriadwn muriades".  That scribe or his later corrector
notices the problem and inserts numerical sequence letters over the
misordered words in order to indicate the correct sequence for the next
copyist. Thus:

         b               a
         muriadwn muriades

The scribe of Aleph, blundering his way along in copying his exemplar,
comes to this point and reads the "b" as an instruction to insert the
numeral 2 at that point, and so writes out "duo" in full.  He then
copies "muriadwn" as it stands, but in regard to "muriades" he notices
the numeral "a" above the word, takes it to be a correction to
"muriades" and so writes "muriadas"; thus is produced the total nonsense
reading of Aleph: "duo muriadwn muriadas" (which no other scribe
thankfully follows!).

P47, on the other hand, may have encountered a similar situation in his
exemplar, perhaps even one which stemmed from a source common to both
P47 and Aleph, but possibly one which coincidentally may have made the
same transpositional error. In P47 the word order gets changed into the
correct form, but the "b" still gets interpreted and inserted into the
main text as "duo".

>From either or both of these hypotheses, I would have no difficulty in
expecting a small number of later MSS similarly to adopt the "duo"
reading, and especially altering it into a stylistically more proper
"dis" in the process.

Either way, the reading preserved in the vast majority (72%) of MSS,
having significant support from both primary Byzantine subtypes as well
as some uncial (Hoskier's "B"), versional (Sahidic 1/2, Arabic,
Armenian) and patristic (Tychonius) support, seems most likely to be
preferred.  No "middle reading" hypothesis appears necessary in order to
deal with this variant unit in my opinion.  The patristic and versional
support for the "two" readings (Beatus, Cyprian, Sahidic 1/2, Bohairic)
seem to point to an African and perhaps ultimately to an Egyptian origin
and blunder for that reading, as it is supported by P47 and Aleph.  My
own opinion is that "two" has its likely origin in a blunder somewhere
and should _not_  be considered original, whether in the form "duo" or
"dis".

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:29:38 -0700

On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]> wrote,

>there is _any_ "middle reading" with which to work.

Allow me to explain. The "middle reading," if there are three readings,
is the reading which can give rise to the other two readings directly.

Let me give an English example.

Suppose there are three readings in some document:

I went *in* the house.
I went *inside* the house.
I went *outside* the house.

To me, in this hypothetical case, the original reading is clearly
"inside." The change from "inside" to "in" is easy; so is the change
from "inside" to "outside." To change from "in" to "outside," or
the reverse (barring something outside the immediate context)
requires *two* changes. So "inside" is the middle reading.

We have a similar situation in Rev. 9:16. Given the three readings
duo, dis, and omit, omit *must* be secondary. The choice between
duo and dis is more complicated (and may depend on an understanding
of the style of the Apocalypse which I do not have), but duo seems
to me to be more likely to be secondary. In any case, it is
relatively poorly attested.

[ ... ]

>Hoskier's _Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse_ for details).

This *is* interesting (and one wishes this were more obvious from
NA27). I am inclined, even so, to stand by my reasoning -- but
it means that we must look at the history of the Byzantine text-
form at this point. This I will have to leave for those with
better resources for the task than I.

[ ... ]

>stated.

Here, at least, we agree. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 18:42:16 -0500 (EST)

> requires *two* changes. So "inside" is the middle reading.

Speaking as a true son of the south (where we'uns talk funnier but more
logical than you Yankees up nawth), for us the reading "in" would be the
more likely original. Only a literary purist would change that good and
decent colloquialism into the more formal "inside".  Now, how some
carpetbagger came up with the "outside" reading, I don't even fathom a
guess....... :-)

> relatively poorly attested.

I still fail to see a "middle reading" concept here, since basically it is
only a question of two slightly divergent spellings meaning "two", which
numeral is either present or omitted.  I certainly would see NO reason
whatever for either form of "two" to be omitted merely to settle the
question between what might appear to be different options.  

I could much more readily concur if the numerals in question were "two" 
and "five" respectively -- then I could easily understand how or why some
scribes might choose to omit either numeral in order to escape a
difficulty -- but this is simply NOT the case in the variant unit under
consideration, and thus (in my opinion), _no_ "middle reading".

---

From: Vincent Broman <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Mar 1997 19:10:20 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

A preference for middle readings would have to be based on an assumption
that two-step corruptions are much less likely than any single-step corruption.
If you examine Text und Textwert and compare the likely chains of descent
visible in the more complex units of variation, you will find many,
many cases of two-step, three-step, etc. corruptions.
This can be seen online (in cryptic form) in the rough ascii database
    http://www.znet.com/~broman/acts-tut.zip

Vincent Broman         Email: [email-masked],[email-masked]     =   o     
2224 33d St.             Phone: +1 619 284 3775                    =  _ /- _   
San Diego, CA  92104-5605  Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W     =  (_)> (_)  
___ PGP protected mail preferred.  For public key finger [email-masked] ___