Subject: Alexandrian text

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 19:19:36 -0800

One question concerning the Alexandrian text:

In what degree was the Alexandrian text-type transmitted among the Greek 
MSS after the 4./5.century?

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 18:49:10 -0700

> MSS after the 4./5.century?

Since I have not received any response to the above mail, I now repeat 
it!

Thanks....

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 21:44:25 -0500 (CDT)

> > MSS after the 4./5.century?

I have checked almost all of the uncials as cataloged in Metzger and 
Aland, and the answer is very few indeed.  I can check the list I 
composed tomorrow.

--
Prof. Ron Minton: [email-masked]   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:19:31 -0700

>Aland, and the answer is very few indeed.  I can check the list I 

I concede that the uncials are rather few (L, Delta in Mark, Psi in
part, P2 in part, 0243, etc.) But there are hundreds of minuscules.

The easiest way to check this, if you accept the Aland definition
of an Alexandrian manuscript (which is, essentially, that anything
not purely Byzantine is Alexandrian), is to get Aland and Aland's
"Text of the New Testament" and look at the list of Category I,
II, and III manuscripts by century. Admittedly Byzantine manuscripts
outnumber Alexandrians by quite a bit. And manuscripts in which
the Alexandrian element is dominant (i.e. those in Categories I
and II) number only two or three per century. But there are always
some.

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

                            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: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:01:03 -0500 (CDT)

> part, P2 in part, 0243, etc.) But there are hundreds of minuscules.

According to my notes (mostly based on Aland), the Alexandrian [not mixed] 
uncials are Aleph & B (4th), 057 (4th/5th), 048 (5th), 0254 (5th), 098 
(7th, & only 11 vss).
I have not surveyed them as much, but I have found that few minuscules are 
Alexandrian: 33 (not in gospels), 1739 (not Acts), 1175 (not gen ep), 
1243 (gosp), 1241 (gosp), 2053, 2062, 2427.  Note that on some of these, 
I went by Aland's variant statistics, which do not always equal his 
categories.

Corrections and additions are welcomed.

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:04:14 +000

The thing to beware of is assuming that a given ms consistently 
witnesses any one text type across various NT writings (or, 
sometimes, even across a single NT writing).  E.g., Codex W shows 
interesting levels of agreement with D in Mk 1-5, but thereafter 
doesn't, aligning with P45 and not particularly with any other 
control witness I've used.
Likewise, Codex A varies its affiliations across the NT. Etc.

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: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 12:39:16 -0700

>Corrections and additions are welcomed.

I'm going to have to give a nuanced answer to this, since I do not
use the "standard" definition of the Alexandrian text. Aland's
definition is inclusive (non-Byzantine non-Western); mine is more
restrictive.

But I am troubled by casting out mixed manuscripts. The fact that,
say, 33 is not purely Alexandrian in the Gospels does not mean it
is not descended from the Alexandrian text. It *is* descended
from the Alexandrian text, with a heavily Byzantine mixture. It
should be consulted in determining the history of the Alexandrian
text.

If you want manuscripts which have *no* Byzantine influence, I
concede the list is short. In the Gospels, p45 p66 p75 Aleph B 2427
D (the first of these being a wild text and the last being "Western").
In Paul, p46 Aleph A B C D F G I 33 (except in Romans) 1739. And
of these, only Aleph A C 33 are Alexandrian. In the Catholics, p72 Aleph
A B C 33 1739, and C 1739 are not Alexandrian, and p72 B may not be.

But let's take Paul. Even if we exclude non-Byzantine non-Alexandrian
witnesses, we find the following manuscripts to be *predominantly*
Alexandrian (and this omits fragments):

Aleph
A
C
I
33 (except in Romans)
81
1175 (except in Romans and Thessalonians)
2127
Also the Bohairic Coptic.

I could add a list of at least 40 in which the Alexandrian elements
constitute at least a third of the total (the rest of family 2127;
442; 1962; etc.)

Why must a manuscript be *purely* Alexandrian to be "Alexandrian"?

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:08:23 -0500 (CDT)

> should be consulted in determining the history of the Alexandrian

I fully agree on the mixed part.  (However, I do not think the Alexandrian 
readings were usually before the Byz).

> Why must a manuscript be *purely* Alexandrian to be "Alexandrian"?

I agree.  If fact if a manuscript had to be purely Alexandrian to be 
"Alexandrian,"  There would be a total of zero (does P52 qualify?).
I was amazed at the number of mixed uncials, by far the largest category, 
with Byz second, unknowns third, and Alex fourth.

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:09:30 +000

R. Minton wrote: (in part)
 
> readings were usually before the Byz).

It's a free world (scholarship) to think what you like, but one is 
usually expected to provide evidence & rationale if one wishes a view 
to gain any acceptance.  Have you done (or can you do) this?  And 
while you're at it, please give your definitions of "Alexandrian 
readings" and "Byzantine readings".
> with Byz second, unknowns third, and Alex fourth.

As someone who with others has worked to develop and implement more 
exact methods for determining ms alignments, I'd like to see the 
discussants here define what they mean by "purely Alexandrian" and 
"mixed", etc.  Along with this, I'd like to see what they mean by 
"text-type".  I'm sorry but there seem to be too many ill/un-defined 
categories at work here.
 
L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:44:18 -0700

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]> wrote,
 
>"text-type".  I'm sorry but there seem to be too many ill/un-defined 

I obviously can't speak for Minton. But *my* opinions on the above
points are available for all to see at the Encyclopedia web site.
Look at the article on text-types. It doesn't give a perfect answer,
but it *does* show my thinking (which, I fear, does not agree with
Hurtado's).

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:15:30 -0700

>readings were usually before the Byz).

As I said in a previous reply to Maurice Robinson, I personally don't
consider the *order* of mixture to be generally important (though it
may affect our assessment of particular readings). The point is,
33 has both Alexandrian and Byzantine ancestry.

>> A B C 33 1739, and C 1739 are not Alexandrian, and p72 B may not be.

BTW -- I should probably have added 1506 in Paul. It's hard to be sure,
since it's such a short fragment and has so many defects. But it certainly
has a very strong Alexandrian text. (In the gospels, by contrast, it is
entirely Byzantine.)

[ ... ]
 
>with Byz second, unknowns third, and Alex fourth.

Two comments: First, we cannot really be sure of the nature of a fragment.
So p52 shouldn't qualify as *anything.*

Also, one cannot call "mixed" a text-type. No two cases of mixture are
the same. Nor is it a useful classification. It doesn't tell us what
is mixed with what. If I were preparing this catalog, I would list
mixed manuscripts in *both* categories which they are derived from.
That is, taking 33 as our example, I would list it as both
Alexandrian (mixed with Byzantine) and Byzantine (mixed with Alexandrian).

Also, I would ask why it is surprising that mixed texts are common. Take
human beings as an analogy. How many people are descended from only one
nationality? I personally am English, Scottish, and German -- just on
my father's side! (My mother is adopted, so we don't know that side.)

Obviously manuscripts don't *have to* have multiple parents. But most
of them do. Mixture -- whether deliberate or sporadic -- is everywhere.
One of the great tasks of the textual critic (all too often forgotten)
is to *deal with* this mixture.

This is why, for instance, I maintain that calculating percentages of
overall agreement between manuscripts is such a weak method. It ignores
mixture. It is why I say that Hurtado's study of the Caesarean text
and Richards's study of the Catholic Epistles are incomplete: They
ignore mixture.

But this is probably getting off-topic for this post. If anybody cares
to continue this discussion, I'll harangue you later. :-)

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:04:16 +000

Robt. Waltz wrote (in part):

> Mixture -- whether deliberate or sporadic -- is everywhere.

I'm sure there is much more to say about Codex W and P45 and the 
nature of the text they evidence than I have written, but I reject 
the assertion that I "ignore mixture", or that my study merely 
counted "overall agreement between manuscripts".  
First, I specifically called for, and conducted, a study that 
involved *both* careful quantitative assessment of ms agreements (as 
per the Colwell-Tune approach refined by Fee), and also *analysis* of 
agreements, with a view toward asessing such things as varying 
degrees of relationship (it's not a binary in/out thing, guys) and 
the types of readings that characterize agreements.  Thus, e.g., in 
the case of the mss I studied in my 1981 volume, I pointed out the 
mixture of apparent influences/alignments and the degrees thereof. 
I attempted to note more precisely than in earlier studies where the 
shift in textual alignment in Mark in Codex W takes place (earlier, I 
argued, in Mk 5 than otherwise thought).
So, I can only conclude that Mr. Waltz's one-line ref. to my work 
betrays a lack of careful reading of it.

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:24:04 -0700

Here we go again... People who have already read what I have to say
about this can ignore it.

>betrays a lack of careful reading of it.

I have read it in full twice, and checked it in part at other times.

The reason that I say it ignores mixture is that it *ignores
Streeter's definition of the "Caesarean" text.*

Streeter defined that text as the non-Byzantine readings found in
Theta, 565, 700, 28, family 1, family 13, etc.

Now it may be argued that this is a bad definition. As used by Streeter,
it *was* a bad definition, since he used the TR to define the Byzantine
text. But it is a usable definition. And nowhere that I have seen does
Hurtado examine the "Caesearean" text according to this definition --
i.e. making an examination of the "Caesarean" witnesses and their
level of agreement *where they are non-Byzantine.*

I do not claim to know the result of such a study. I have hints, but no
more. All I say -- as I have said many times -- is that Hurtado has not
done it. That, in my book, is ignoring mixture.

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:29:47 -0400 (EDT)

I have to weigh in heavily on Larry Hurtado's side on this one (sorry
Larry! :-)).  The problems with taking "non-Byzantine" readings of any set
of witnesses, Caesarean or otherwise, as an indication of textual
consanguinity have been thoroughly exposed and widely recognized by
practicioners in this field for most of the second half of the century. 
In fact, the problems became evident precisely in work on the Caesarean
text in an article by Bruce Metzger (to my knowledge, the only serious
methodological contribution that he made to this particular aspect of the
discipline -- but it was a biggee), "The Caesarean Text of the Gospels," 
_JBL 65 (1945) 457-89.  In large measure it was just these problems
that Metzger recognized that led Colwell (and Tune) to develop the
quantitative method that is so widely used today, as revised a bit by Fee
and others.  The arguments against Streeter's approach (used also by the
Lakes, among others) are so overwhelming that no one, to my knowledge,
uses it today (at least in nothing that's been published). 

   Anyone interested in pursuing this matter should read the articles on
manuscript classification by Colwell in his Studies in Methodology (NTTS,
9) and by Fee in Fee and Epp's _Methodology_ volume in SD.

-- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:54:36 -0700

>9) and by Fee in Fee and Epp's _Methodology_ volume in SD.

Time for me to get the acetylene torches out. Yes, I'm going to spout
off. This is exactly why textual criticism hasn't gone anywhere for
decades.

Why is it that everyone quotes Colwell and Tune day in and day out,
and never quotes anything else of Colwell's? Can anyone cite a single
instance, outside of the work done in Colwell and Tune, of Colwell
using the "quantitative method"? (Which name, BTW, should be
abolished; *any* mathematical method is quantitative.) I can't claim
to have seen everything he has written, but I haven't seen such a
thing. I think Colwell gave up on it when he realized how flawed it
was. Let me quote some *better* passages from Colwell:

"Weak members of a Text-type may contain no more of the total content
of a text-type than strong members of some other text-type may contain.
The comparison in total agreements of one manuscript with another
manuscript has little significance beyond that of confirmation, and
then only if the agreement is large enough to be distinctive."
        (Studies in Methodology, page 33)

Even better is the quote from page 39 of the same book:
"In conclusion I suggest that the location of a manuscript within the
tradition should use Multiple Readings to find the related group,
Distinctive Readings to demonstrate the kinship, and total comparison
to confirm the relationship."

In other words, Colwell advocates a multiple-statistic method of
determining manuscript kinship. He never really put this on a
mathematically sound footing (not many TC shcolars seem to like
math much...), but the idea is there. My version uses total
agreements, non-Byzantine agreements, and near-singular agreements;
it's similar in concept if not in detail.

There is, of course, a terrible defect in the method of the Lakes and
Streeter: They worked on the basis that the Textus Receptus *is* the
Byzantine text. This means that they often called Byzantine readings
"Caesarean" and vice versa. But that does not invalidate the method.
It seems to me that people have used it successfully on a small scale
to reconstruct manuscript families -- and nobody said that it doesn't
work *there*.

Take a thought-experiment. Suppose there were a manuscript X that
was a perfect representative of a hypothetical Ephesian text-type.
Make two copies of X; call them Y and Z. Now *correct them* each
against the Byzantine text. In each case, let exactly half the
characteristic Ephesian readings be replaced by Byzantine. In
each case, replace readings at random. (This is what really happens.)
Now make more copies: A from Y and B from Z. Now *destroy* X, Y, Z,
and every other example of the Ephesian text-type except A and B.
This is by no means impossible; people consider the "Western" to
be a text-type in the Gospels even though its only Greek
representative is D.

What, then, is the relationship of A and B? If you know anything
about statistics, you will realize that their rate of agreement is
roughly 50% (25% in Byzantine readings and 25% in Ephesian readings).
In the other 50% of the cases one is Byzantine and one is Ephesian.

By the argument advanced above, A and B are unrelated and the Ephesian
text-type not only does not exist, but apparently *never* existed.

If this isn't absurd, I don't know what is. But how can you find the
Ephesian text-type? Only by looking at the non-Byzantine readings
of A and B.

The fact that Lake, Streeter, et al used an uncontrolled form of
this procedure doesn't make the method wrong. It just makes the
measurements wrong. Does the fact that Columbus incorrectly
thought the circumference of the earth was 18,000 miles mean
that the earth is not spherical? (Well, an oblate spheroid.) It
the same sort of argument.

Once again, I have treated this argument much more fully in my
article on text-types at the Encyclopedia site. I'd really suggest
people try to follow some logic here, not just repeat the same old
refrains.

I won't say that everyone is blind to this. I think that Epp sees
this problem (see his various essays on the "Interlude" in TC). 

I will try not to say any more on this topic. (Not a promise, but
I will try.) I would appeal to people to conduct the thought-
experiment I outlined. If that doesn't make it obvious, I don't
know what else I can say.

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 22:38:34 -0500 (CDT)

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote:
> to gain any acceptance.  Have you done (or can you do) this? 

Please note that I said "usually."  Every textual theory has a lot of 
prejudice in it.  The only ones I count as worthless are those held by 
people who think they have a corner on correctness.  Such include those who 
still cling to the days of Tischendorf and Hort as well as those who say 
those men speak nothing of truth for us today.  100 years ago most text 
critics seem to have believed all five of the pillars of the W-Hort 
theory.  Now all five are mostly dis-proven, at least to my satisfaction.  
I am not so arrogant as to suppose my theories will fare better, but 
they are certainly as viable as any others I am aware of.  My rationale 
(on a quick note, the way I evaluate the evidence that I am aware of):

(1)The origin of the Byz or Alex or any other text-type is unknown.
(2)The important Alex text-type mss are generally older, but they are so 
diverse (self-contradicting) that they cannot give a solid, or at least 
the best, witness to the original text and they certainly do not give a 
clue as to a common origin.  They are a mixture of who knows what.  The 
variants in Aleph are over 25% Byz against Alex (and 50% of Aleph _can 
be_ classified as Byz).
(3)The important BYZ representation is later, but the time difference 
has been overstated many times.
(4)The BYZ is much more consistent among the many witnesses (some early).
(5)If you can tell us where the Byz text came from, then you can possibly 
argue that it is later than some other text, otherwise your _guess_ is as 
good as mine, but IMHO it is not any better.

> And while you're at it, please give your definitions of "Alexandrian 

> "text-type".  I'm sorry but there seem to be too many ill/un-defined 

You are right, there probably is no such thing as a text-type.  Some 
suggest we say text families or affinities or groupings.  The truth is the 
text-type concept may even hinder us from objectivity.  Though this is 
somewhat simplistic, I would basically agree with Aland and Hodges, both 
of whom essentially admit only two broad text-types, the Alex and the 
Byz.

A text-type is a theoretical arch-type behind the actual mss that have 
similar enough texts to be grouped together.  I suggest you refer to Epp & 
Fee ch. 3-4 in _Studies in the Theory and Method of NT T Cr_.  I do not 
know the textual affinities of every ms. but the key players are well 
known enough to categorize the mss into text-types for that section.  
When the leading players agree, that is pure enough for me.  However the 
tone of your post suggests that you are an expert in this area, and I am 
not one, so please do inform us more perfectly as to "purely Alexandrian"
or "purely anything."

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 22:51:34 -0500 (CDT)

> but it *does* show my thinking (which, I fear, does not agree with

I admit I had never read as good of a defense or perhaps explanation as 
Waltz gives of his categories.  It is almost enough to make me a genuine 
multiple text-typer again, rather than just believing only two are 
legitimate.  I am not consistent anyway, because I sometimes speak of 
Western and theta also.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:55:56 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote:

>    I have to weigh in heavily on Larry Hurtado's side on this one 

It may be surprising to some, but so also do I, since I _do_ consider the
quantitative analysis approach as superior to merely taking the
non-Byzantine readings of MSS as the basis for building solid theories. 

Along with this agreement in regard to method, I also do consider that, on
the basis of quantitative methodology (which I employed in a different
manner than Colwell/Tune or Hurtado) used in my own unpublished M.Div. 
independent research studies (1972-1974) on the four gospels and in my
1975 Th.M. thesis on "Textual Interrelationships among Selected Ancient
Witnesses to the Book of Acts"), that "near-neighbor cluster" groupings
(John G. Griffith's term) legitimately _can_ be discerned which point to
the existence of the Caesarean text as a valid texttype. 

> and Richards's study of the Catholic Epistles are incomplete: They

Although I would not fault Hurtado or Richards on their methodology or
conclusions in the same manner as Waltz, it seems that the simplest way to
detect mixture is to perform a quantitative analysis on a book as a whole,
then on a chapter-by-chapter basis to see if any alignment shifts might
occur which would point to a true "mixture" defined as a shift in textual
alignment. 

Certainly mere "mixture" (if defined as the intrusion of a single reading
or only sporadic readings which are non-germane to the base texttype of a
given MS) is not a genuine problem when attempting to determine the
primary textual alignment of a given MS, or its relation to its closest
neighbors; were this the case, then _no_ analysis would ever be possible,
since _all_ MSS are "mixed" in that fashion to varying degrees. 

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 02:21:33 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> I think Colwell gave up on it when he realized how flawed it

I'm not sure how Bob reads Colwell, but I certainly do not see the same
conclusion from this article.  All Colwell is saying is that as one group
of MSS with a certain texttype alignment moves from its stronger to weaker
members, a "gray area" exists where the readings of that specific texttype
become blended to a high degree with the readings of the members of
another texttype, which members may themselves be "strong" within that
texttype, but which happen to have a small number of readings from a
near-neighbor type which establishes its "type" relationship on a
_different_ percentage of agreement.  

Example: Alexandrian MSS will have generally a percentage of agreements in
the 70-80% range among themselves.  The weaker members will drift down
into the low 60% range.  But they still remain more "Alexandrian" than any
other texttype.  

Yet the strong Byzantine MSS (which is what I think Colwell had in view in
his statement) generally run in the 90th percentile of overall agreement,
and there is no question of their texttype alignment -- YET in the 10%
area where disagreement may occur, these same Byzantine MSS may have
"mixture" of some Alexandrian readings which are of the same quantity as
is found in the weaker Alexandrian MSS previously categorized. 

Nevertheless, no one examining the weaker Alexandrian witnesses would thus
conclude they were not more closely related to the Alexandrian type than
to the Byzantine; nor would anyone conclude that the 10% of Alexandrian
readings in a Byzantine MS would make it somehow non-Byzantine.  Different
texttypes simply have different _patterns_ of readings which characterize
them, and they also have different percentage of agreement threshholds
specific to each texttype group. 

> it's similar in concept if not in detail.

I would differ from both Colwell and Waltz on this point, since my
contention is based upon not only the readings themselves, nor any claim
to "distinctive" readings, but only to the _pattern_ of readings which
happen to occur in a given MS as compared with the pattern which would
similarly appear in other MSS of closely-related type.  If, e.g., one only
looks for "distinctive readings" to characterize the Caesarean texttype,
that person will be led to conclude that such a type has no existence,
since it basically possesses a mixture of readings which fluctuate between
Alexandrian and Byzantine, with little or nothing "distinctive" within
itself.  But these same MSS nevertheless _do_ reflect a certain _pattern_
of readings within that fluctuation which do allow categorization and
evaluation on the texttype level.  Put pattern-alignments in tandem with
quantitative analysis, and I think one will have a very workable method.

> each case, replace readings at random. (This is what really happens.)

This is where the analogy breaks down -- "pure" randomness in transmission
simply does not occur in the manner suggested. I suspect no scribe ever
worked in such a haphazard manner, let alone deliberately would choose to
randomly select now from one, now from another MS.  But for the
illustration purposes, this point obviously has to be granted....

> text-type not only does not exist, but apparently *never* existed.

Yet MSS copied from the A and B archetypes (assuming now "normal" 
transmission and not a continued randomness) will in general preserve most
of the characteristics of their respective 50% Ephesian/Byzantine mixture,
and (were the true state of affairs that A and B each will be responsible
for 50% of the descendants in later generations) such will continue
preserving in general the same texttype patterns until and unless
cross-correction from one side might utterly overwhelm that coming in from
the other side (which under the hypothetical example given should _not_
occur).  

It definitely is true that under the example given the original archetype
(the "Ephesian" texttype MS) could _not_ be successfully reconstructed.
However, I am unconvinced that this hypothetical scenario has much if
anything to do with the reality of MS transmission.

> Ephesian text-type? Only by looking at the non-Byzantine readings

And how would you know that those were actually of the archetype without
someone to guide you? The _most_ you could suppose was that there were two
competing texttypes which ultimately stemmed from a common source
(autograph?), but with no clue as to how they possibly could have diverged
under normal transmissional practice.

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 07:42:24 -0400 (EDT)

I see little point in offering a detailed refutation of this.  If
Robert Waltz thinks that "textual criticism hasn't gone anywhere in
decades," then I suggest he start reading in the field rather than
developing his theories in isolation.  His cavalier attitude to people who
have produced substantive work is offensive.  

    As to Colwell's methods, the literature is there for anyone to read
for him or herself.  For anyone really wanting to see the problems with
the use of non-Byzantine readings for establishing textual affinities, the
place to start is with Metzger 1945 article on the Caesarean text and
Fee's article on the text of John and Mark in Chrysostom (if Mr. Waltz
would care to refute that bit of scholarship, I'd be very interested). 

   Finally, if someone would care to engage in a substantive, as opposed
to a merely dismissive, engagement with method, I would be quite
interested in an evaluation of my "Comprehensive Profile Method," which is
used as way to provide nuance to the findings of a Colwell-like
quantitative method, and can be found in its initial form in _JBL_ 106
(1987) 468-71, and in a more developed (slightly) form (using the same
data: I published the JBL thing so that the methodological proposals not
get lost in a book with a limited reading audience) in my 1986 book on
Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels.  The method has been used
in a number of dissertations recently, a couple of which have been
published (e.g., in SBLNTIGF), and it always appears to *work* remarkably
well.  But anyone with suggestions will receive a welcome hearing.

-- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 08:16:57 -0700

I promised to stay out of this discussion, and I will (it *still* hurts;
I can't *understand* you people). So I will not go on with clarifications;
better that this thread die. But I'm going to a few notes, and then ask a
question.

Also, does it seem that the level of civility on this list is declining?
Recently we were all jumping on Jim West. Of course, we've also climbed
on Maurice Robinson regularly. Now it's my turn. And the "refutations"
are no more detailed than the original statements. Is there any way
that we can get back to discussion?

>have produced substantive work is offensive.  

My statement agrees, as I see it, with the attitude of Eldon Jay Epp.
(See his essays on the "Twentieth Century Interlude.") My point is not
that no work has been done; obviously a great deal has. But there has
been no *breakthrough* -- no solutions to the impasses of the past
century. We still have no comprehensive, widely accepted history of
the text, and no universally applicable method for resolving variants.
To me, that seems a severe lack. Evidently others disagree.

But this is the view I meant to express. If I expressed it badly,
my sincere apologies. If that seems cavalier, well, I'm not the
only one on this list who cavalierly dismisses others.

>would care to refute that bit of scholarship, I'd be very interested). 

Can you tell me which article of Fee's you are referring to? Looking at
the recent Epp and Fee volume, I don't see one on Chrysostom.

As for refuting it, I doubt I could do that. I do not expect to
"refute" current scholarship. My question is one of utility,
not accuracy.

>well.  But anyone with suggestions will receive a welcome hearing.

Non-serious question: Why is it that all "profile methods" wind up with
the initials "CPM"? Can't we come up with some different abbreviations? :-)

Seriously, could you tell us briefly what distinguishes your CPM
from other profile methods? There are a lot of methods floating
around today (the Claremont method, the "Thousand Readings," some
"modified Claremonts," and whatever it was Duplacy was using in
the Catholic Epistles). Each of these others have weaknesses of
one sort or another. What are the distinctive features of the
Comprehensive Profile Method?

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

---

From: Vincent Broman <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Apr 1997 23:43:44 -0000

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

[email-masked] wrote:
>                          ... I would be quite
> quantitative method....  The method has been used
> in a number of dissertations recently...

I think I've read the JBL article, but it's hazy in my memory.
I'm working now with Mullen's book on Cyril of Jerusalem, and he
attributes his use of profiles to Ehrman.  So, if I've got the
right set of methods in mind, then I do have comments.

Observation: 
Most of Mullen's convincing findings were obtained 
from the CompPM profiles, i.e. from the percentages of agreements
of Cyril with the Uniform+Predominant readings of each text type,
or with the Unique+Distinctive readings of the text types.
(Are U+D the right label names from the second set of profiles?)
Mullen also presented the raw percentages of MS agreements,
but they turned out to be not so useful in his analysis.  (Also, the cited
"average percentage of agreement" for each text type is an irrelevancy.)

It seems to me that the difference between agreement with a Uniform
reading of a text type and agreement with a Predominant reading of that
text type is only a difference in the _degree_of_certainty_ you have
that the reading in question really belongs to that text type,
not reflecting some other characteristic of the reading or of the TT.
Right?  If so, then counts of agreements with Predominant readings should
be lumped in with counts of Uniform readings, along with a weight factor
that reflects how predominant the reading is.
The resulting statistic would answer the question:  how much evidence
is there that the Pater's text could have come from that text type?

A similar argument could be made that the Unique and Distinctive
readings should be lumped together, with a weight factor reflecting
how little support comes from outside the text type in question,
in order to answer the question:   how much evidence is there
that the Pater's text could not have come from any other text type?

These two sets of profiles are really looking at dual questions,
measuring "could belong" vs. "could not belong", or
"might belong" vs. "must belong".

Phrased this way, it looks like the proper framework to
measure these kinds of textual affinity would be a belief function
like that of Dempster and Shafer.  The issues involved are
just like those I've dealt with in Data Fusion for the Navy,
just with a different slant.  Considering how many tc-listers
are likely to have read Shafer (~1 I bet) I'll have to develop
that idea myself, I guess.

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] ___

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:45:37 -0400 (EDT)

Many, many thanks for these substantive comments.  I don't know if Rod
Mullen is on the list, but I'll forward them to him.

    I have a couple of responses of a minor kind, which I'll intercalate
below.

> (Are U+D the right label names from the second set of profiles?)

   No, the other set of profiles are Distinctive+Exclusive.  (For those
who haven't read all these, all the profile categories are strictly
defined as kinds of group readings)

> "average percentage of agreement" for each text type is an irrelevancy.)
   I'm open to being convinced about the irrelevancy.  Statistically,
you're obviously right, since these are apples and oranges.  My only
comment is that it seems use to be of *some* use to know how a witness
stacks up in the question of the total number of apples and oranges.  But
you're probably right.

> is there that the Pater's text could have come from that text type?
   Basically you're right; the point, though, I guess, is that Predominant
Readings aren't uniform only because some group witnesses have been
contaminated by the reading of other groups (I'm speaking a simplistic
shorthand here, since it obviously didn't happen, historically, this way,
but I think you can see what I mean).  This would, in fact, make just your
suggestion useful.  Explain to me though how the weight factor could be
used.  (Is it a strict percentage drawn from the number of supporting
witnesses for and against, so that instead of counting each reading as "1"
it would be counted as ".8" or ".71" or whatever?

> that idea myself, I guess.

   Please!  And many thanks

---

From: Vincent Broman <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Apr 1997 21:10:49 -0000

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

[email-masked] wrote:
>                                                   ...Predominant
> contaminated by the reading of other groups...
>              Explain to me though how the weight factor could be
> witnesses for and against...?

The minority defections could be due to mixture from other text types
or else from idiosyncratic errors or redaction.  But in any case,
the model is that an ideal text type has exactly _one_ reading
at each point of variation, which is imperfectly (stochastically)
reflected in the readings of the extant witnesses.  Knowledge of
how the ideal text type reads at a point of variation is a probability
distribution.  The distribution is very concentrated (near 100%) if the
witnesses are very united, less lopsided if more defections are found.
Even Uniform readings have varying levels of significance, depending on
how many (and which) witnesses are extant at that point (how do you know
that that witness with a lacuna didn't defect? :-), how strong the
temptation to corrupt was at that point, etc.

If you want to estimate what percentage of the text to be classified
matches the text of an ideal text type, then you add up for each point
of variation the probability (or level of certainty) that the text
being classified matches the text type at that particular point of variation.
Then divide by the number of points of variation.

This weight factor, or probability of matching, would be nearly one
when you're highly confident of a match, nearly zero when you see
a clear mismatch, but it would not be just the percentage of
relevant witnesses whose agreement fixes the reading of the text type.
Calculation of the factor really should be based on a smart model
(based on expert TC knowledge) of the individual control witnesses,
accounting for how loyal they are to the text type, how mixed they are,
how frequently they innovate, in what ways they innovate, etc.
Notice that a text being classified doesn't score _zero_ on points
of variation where the text type is badly split or the testee matches
a minority reading, it's just that the score is low there.

Speaking heuristically, I would guess that agreement with 70%
of the witnesses relevant to a text type would give you 90-95%
certainty of the reading (not 70%), and that agreement with 30%
of the witnesses assigned to a text type would give a 5-10% chance
of really matching (not 0% or 30%).  A 50-50 split between only two
alternatives would still give you a 50% certainty, I suppose.
The difference between 70% and 95%, or 30% and 5%, is what highlights
trends and deemphasizes random errors.

me:
>> the "average percentage of agreement" for each text type is an irrelevancy.

[email-masked]:
>   ...it seems use to be of *some* use to know how a witness
> stacks up in the question of the total number of apples and oranges.

Come to think of it -- the "average percentage of agreement",
which you compute as an average of the percentage agreement of the testee
with each of the witnesses assigned to the text type,
is precisely _equal_ to what you would get with the weighting scheme discused
above, IF you use the fraction of agreeing witnesses as your weight.
(And if there are no lacunas -- lacunas perturb things a bit.)
That's why the average agreement is the wrong thing to compute.

In terms of practical effects:  the reason you want to add things
up, or average things together, is to magnify the visibility of the big
recurring trends and minimize the total effect of random, nonrecurring
aberrations, such as occur in all the witnesses.  Voting, and proper
weighting of the voting results, allows you to track the trend and
eliminate most of the random noise.

Even if you don't believe that the great text types and families are
due to single archetypes, about whose texts we can draw conclusions,
(so you have problems with the model assumed above)  you might still want to
estimate the affinity of a new MS or Pater with, say, the texts of the
broad Alexandrian stream, and as long as you include in that stream
both extant and nonextant texts, then you still need to look past the
ephemera found in the extant witnesses to grapple with what seems
to be recurrent and generalizable.
We'll all end up with something like _weighted_ profiles of agreement
with Uniform+Predominant+Minority readings.

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 19:35:00 -0400 (EDT)

Vincent,

   This is *extremely* useful.  Many many thanks.

-- Bart Ehrman

On 17 Apr 1997, Vincent Broman wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
> 
> iQCVAwUBM1aQLWCU4mTNq7IdAQFBjAQAudVncGHGbcnXTdYf0jZDhzXm1a594Yaa
> VNbO6gE8FdUswLYbSCQy+6KUpRmNvdPecqNz2sxFEjfyB+NBkAJv5Q1001Gg7/8u
> 3N4yAAhYH2/g8eF0M+VI07OMn73l5OwjRl24MfKyOkhbr5DsKTDJFKc78m4w0p1l
> Ne+M34o0KxU=
> =e6OS
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 11:49:11 +000

> (1)The origin of the Byz or Alex or any other text-type is unknown.
Uh. Yeah, that's why we're involved in trying to trace the early 
history of the text.  So?
> variants in Aleph are over 25% Byz against Alex (and 50% of Aleph _can 
Since you don't give any description of how you arrive at your 
figures, I simply don't know what on earth to make of them.  The 
alleged percentages are  . . . percentages of what? and established 
how?  

> has been overstated many times.
So, what time difference should we all know about & use now, and 
where is it published?  What overstatements are we to avoid?

> (4)The BYZ is much more consistent among the many witnesses (some early).
What *early* (and what does "early" mean here?)  Byz witnesses are so 
consistent?

>there probably is no such thing as a text-type.  Some 
There may or may not be such things as "text-types" depending on what 
you mean by the term.  Case in point:  You use "text-type" to mean 
"atheoretical arch-type [sic] behind the actual mss", but in the 
Epp/Fee vol you cite you will find that the definition of text-type 
preferred is much more a "kind" or complexion of text evidenced in 
significant amounts of agreements among clusters of mss.  Such 
clusters may well be the result of the mss in question being copies 
of a common ancester, but at least some levels of agreement may have 
been the result of same/similar scribal tendencies/mentalities 
preferring similar/same readings repeatedly.  There manifestly seem 
to be clusters of mss with significant levels of agreements and 
recognizably similar textual complexions--that will do for now as 
definitions of "text-types", which is shorthand for "types of texts".

> not one, so please do inform us more perfectly as to "purely Alexandrian"

I didn't offer any "pure" mss. So I don't quite know why I'm asked 
for any.  I'll pass on that one.
 
L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 12:10:02 +000

In response to my complaint (and correction of him) about my 1981 
volume on Codex W and the "pre-Caesarean text" in Mark, R. Waltz 
> Streeter's definition of the "Caesarean" text.*

I certainly didn't "ignore" Streeter's definition; I 
described it and critiqued it quite specifically (pp. 1ff. et alia).
> Theta, 565, 700, 28, family 1, family 13, etc.

And I've shown that this "agreement in non-Byzantine readings" is a 
fallacious procedure, both because it requires one first to presume 
that there was an early Byzantine text (when there is not sufficient 
evidence of such to presume this), and in that it is not logically 
sound.  It is much more sound in determining mss relationships to 
begin with agreement in *total* text/readings, not in some 
arbitrarily-selected slice/selection of readings.
On the basis of looking at and counting the *total* readings in Mark, 
I've confirmed that Theta and 565 do seem to show strong enough 
agreement with each other, and distinguishable from other 
control witnesses I used, to suggest a special relationship.  They 
could, thus, be called "Caesarean" if you want (for old times sake, 
but no valid historical reason for doing so--i.e., no particular 
connection with Caesarea).
Oh, and to Maurice Robinson, I *did* analyse the mss relationships 
and count them chapter-by-chapter.
> text. But it is a usable definition. 
"Usable"?  How?  See above.

>And nowhere that I have seen does

Uh, no.  I reject Streeter's approach, and for good reasons given in 
my book, so why should I employ it?  So, how is this somehow a 
failing on my part?

> done it. That, in my book, is ignoring mixture.

(1) I have not made a study of the Caesarean text based on Streeter's 
approach, for reasons already stated.  But please stop stating this 
as if I somehow failed--If a scholar shows the fault in a method, how 
can he be criticized for not then employing it?!!
(2) I have also not made a thorough study of all the matters 
connected with the "Caesarean" witnesses (which, I have shown, do 
*not* include W or P45!).  My project was to determine mainly whether 
the Theta/565 (+700 etc) cluster was directly related to W & P45 and 
whether the latter were an early form of the "Caesarean" text.  Thus, 
I focused on W and P45.  I have shown that there is no evidence of an 
*early* "Caesarean" text-type among available Greek mss., and have 
suggested that the "Caesarean" text = a kind of text subjected to a 
good deal of scribal harmonizations, stylistic fiddling and other 
such, thus tending in the direction of the "Byzantine" text, though 
the latter has a number of features that distinguish it.
I apologize for these detailed comments, for I'm basically repeating 
things from my 1981 book, but Mr. Waltz has persisted in inaccurately 
referring to my work, and I've attempted to give some indication of 
the nature of this inaccuracy.

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 16:44:21 -0500 (CDT)

I think this has been noted before, but can someone clarify what Aland 
means by Egyptian text?  TEXT, p. 106 seems to mean Alexandrian text plus 
BYZ influence, yet to me he is not consistent.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:15:16 -0700

>BYZ influence, yet to me he is not consistent.

I read it a little differently. I think he means the later forms of the
Alexandrian text, after it had evolved a bit. The primary result of this
evolution was, of course, the introduction of Byzantine readings, but
there were some non-Byzantine variants introduced, as well (e.g. the
alternate Markan ending of L Psi 579 etc.)

I suspect the idea was conditioned by Hort's "Alexandrian" text
(as opposed to Hort's "Neutral" text).

I would simply think of it as the "late Alexandrian text" -- that
is, something very like the early Alexandrian text of B, but with
more mixture, more Byzantine readings, and more errors.

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

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

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 19:52:10 -0400 (EDT)

Speaking of "later" forms of the Alexandrian text (R. Waltz): if anyone
has any opinions about my argument that we shouldn't use the traditional
designations "Early Alexandrian" and "Late Alexandrian," but should
instead speak in terms of "Primary Alexandrian" and "Secondary
Alexandrian" (Carlo Martini's article on Didymus got me started on this
issue in the early 80s), as laid out at the end of my Didymus book, I'd be
very happy to hear them.

---

From: Vincent Broman <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Apr 1997 19:49:45 -0000

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

I've been carefully re-reading Ehrman's JBL article which describes his
Comprehensive Profiles and sketches their application to the NT text
of Didymus the Blind.  We've already discussed here his profiles of Uniform
and Predominant readings, which evaluate textual affinity to groups of
witnesses _as_groups_, not just affinity to the individual control witnesses
that belong to the groups.  These profiles have new/independent value.

What I've been stewing about is the meaning of the complementary profiles
which measure affinity of a text to groups of witnesses by examining the
"Distinctive", "Primary", and "Exclusive" readings of the group.
Their purpose seems to be in refining an initial evaluation that
text T is close to group G, so as to be able to conclude that T belongs
to group G and to no other.

It is pretty clear that the agreement statistics that were computed
for this purpose should be _highly_correlated_ with the intuitive
concept that we are trying to measure, but what I just couldn't convince
myself of was that these agreement statistics could be meaningfully
compared, from one text-type to another.  E.g. if Didymus were to agree
with 50% of the Alexandrian Exclusive readings and only 25% of the
Western Exclusive readings, I cannot tell whether the 50% is any better
than the 25% or any worse.  They're not in the same units, on the same scale.

Some of the problem was noted in the JBL article, e.g. that many of the
Primary and Exclusive readings are not also Predominant, making it debatable
which of the readings are accidents, indicative of a subgroup split, or what.
Also, the criteria for a reading being Primary (or...) depend on which
text type is under consideration, so that the statistics will depend on
how loose the criteria are.  Besides, the text types vary a lot in their
homogeneity.  The Westerns exhibit lots of unique readings, but even firm
members of the text type (assuming that we can treat it as a text type for
the present purpose) will vary widely as to which of those readings they will
have.  A Kx Byzantine will have very few exclusive readings, because of
the pervasive mixture coming from Kx throughout later history.
Now, there would be no problem if the complicated criteria defining
the profiles for each text type were precisely formulated so as to match
and counteract the unique characteristics of each textual group,
making the agreement percentages all have the same statistical meaning
and significance..., but I didn't see that being claimed (or achieved).

A bit later I'll try attacking the problem of:
Why do we need to find distinctive readings and not just
distinctive patterns of readings?
Some ideas are digesting first.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 00:06:40 -0400 (EDT)

> Some ideas are digesting first.

This is a question that concerns me also, and goes back to the primary
question of "what is a texttype?"  It basically comes to the question
whether, if a _pattern_ of readings is primary for categorizing a texttype
(as I believe), does a texttype also have to possess "distinctive"
readings peculiar to that texttype, and if so, in what quantity?  

I do not doubt that most texttypes have distinctive readings (unless the
Caesarean, if "real", be an exception), but do these distinctive readings
really provide the "essence" of the textype or merely "indicators" such as
might be determined by the 1000 Textstellung in the _Text und Textwert_
series?  I know my primary goal is discernment of patterns of agreement;
the distinctive texttype readings just happen to come along for the ride.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 08:10:49 -0700

>the distinctive texttype readings just happen to come along for the ride.

Before I get attacked, I will point out that I have not yet been able to
read Ehrman's article (I hope to get over to the seminary archives today).
But I have two comments:

First, Ehrman is right; classified agreements are the way to go. A
characteristic agreement is much more important than one shared by
a large fraction of the tradition.

But I have to agree with and amplify Robinson: A text-type need not
have many, perhaps *any*, characteristic readings.

Moreover, I distrust having a human editor determine the status of
a reading. My method -- which like Ehrman's does several different
sorts of comparison -- is entirely computer-driven. A large number
of manuscripts are surveyed at the relevant points, and for each
manuscript we determine how many witnesses agree with it for each
reading. If the number is small enough, the reading is "near-singular"
and goes in its own category. Note that these are characteristic
readings *of the manuscript,* not of its (supposed) type. This
avoids any biases on the part of the profiler.

It's one of the great rules of proper mathematical technique: Don't
assume the solution! You may *test for* a particular solution (that's
the scientific method), but you must not bias your tests for it.

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 09:28:59 -0400 (EDT)

Well, the fireworks were fun while they lasted (speaking personally),
but it's also nice now to get to some substance.

   Looks like R. Waltz and I see eye to eye on some important aspects of
classifying witnesses (which probably means that the end is near!).  My
response here isn't really about *that* per se, but with the tangental
business that I'm also interested in, about whether we should distrust a
human editor to determine the status of a reading.  It's not that I don't
think it would be nice to *avoid* the problem, but the reality is, in my
opinion, that we *can't* avoid it.  I went into textual criticism thinking
that it was the one "objective" aspect of NT studies.  But then actually
doing what should have been the most objective part of this objective
sub-discipline quickly made a postmodernist out of me.  There's no way to
avoid the human subjective element (I'm using a simplified schema here,
cause in point of fact, I think the subjective-objective dicotomy is
itself precisely what was exploded when the myth of modernism took a nose
dive) even in making decisions about how to classify witnesses.  Sure the
computer can crunch the numbers; but *you* have to tell it what to look
for.  This is evident in the obviously desirable move to eliminate
"nearly" singular readings that you describe below.  What are the
"objective" criteria for deciding what to count?  There aren't any.  You
had to come up with some yourself. Etc.  The human element comes in, up
and down the line.

   I'm not here (for a change, you may think) attacking your method at
all, or even discussing the best way to classify witnesses, but simply
emphasizing something that seems to me underplayed somewhat among us, that
this is not a purely mathematical enterprise that can be removed from the
judgments of its human operators.