Subject: EASE (Electronic Age Scribal Errors)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 97 13:57:11 +0100

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia):

>On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

>> Sorry folks, again I pushed the wrong button causing a resending of Maurice's 
>> post which I wanted to comment on. Hopefully, this was a telling lapsus, for 
>>I now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. 

>Are we starting to develop a new type of "scribal error" for the
>electronic age? :-)

As far as I can see there are slightly distinct types of scribal errors related 
to all sorts of human text producing activities of all times. Some modern times 
scribal errors, e.g., seem to be directly linked to the arrangement of the 
letters on keyboards. At least in a text of mine I was confronted with a highly 
instructive example: 

At university, the very first paper I had to deliver was on some pages of Karl 
Barth in comparison to some pages of Martin Luther. I recall that I dictated my 
manuscript to my mother, a former secretary, in order to shorten the time that I 
would have spent to do this job. The time ran out, so I only hastily proof-read 
what she had typed. One expression in my paper should read "Die Freiheit des 
goettlichen Logos..." (the liberty of the divine WORD). When the professor 
handed my paper back, he pointed to a strange reading: "Die Freizeit des 
goettlichen Logos..." (the leisure of the divine WORD). 

This is a perfect example of a finger slip on the keyboard having z directly 
above h. It's also a perfect example of a "nonsense in context reading", for the 
finger slip caused a morphologically correct reading (Freizeit) that renders the 
whole expression, at least the whole sentence, practically senseless. 

However, my professor raised the possibility that some 400 years later my paper 
might be unearthed. And he was pretty sure that at least a minority of "experts" 
would cling to the "reading of the text", seeking for a deeper meaning of "Die 
Freizeit des goettlichen Logos..". When looking at the arsenal of highly 
effective exegetical and hermeneutical tools, not to mention post-modern 
literary strategies, the possibility can not be ruled out that the advocats of 
the "reading of the text" would portrait my text as the product of one of the 
most creative theological/ philosophical thinkers of the early 1980s.

BTW-- On the psychological level one might even suspect a direct link between 
the mentioned "scribal error" committed very early in my carreer and my present 
occupation (obsession?) with NT TC.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:10:20 -0700

On Wed, 02 Apr 97, [email-masked] wrote, in part:

>letters on keyboards.

I have made the sort of error described many times. Another error that
I make *only* when typing at a keyboard is transposition of letters --
usually when a "strong" finger manages to depress a key faster than
a "weak" finger.

These are actual mechanical errors. There are also errors that seem to
be quite common which are not mechanical. For instance, people don't
proofread their work as fully as they once did; they rely on the computer's
spelling checkers.

Does this have any effect on NT textual criticism? Obviously not. But
it is a good demonstration that the sorts of errors copyists will make
will depend very much on their circumstances. We all know of errors of
seeing versus errors of hearing. But we might want to consider other
possible sorts of errors -- e.g. (and I am just wildly speculating
here) errors of sitting versus errors of standing, errors of cold
climates versus errors of warm climates, errors of those who do not
speak a language well (e.g. those found in Theta, L, 28?) versus
those who do, errors of monks versus professional scribes, etc.

I repeat, I am just speculating. I don't know if any of these circumstances
produce different spectra of errors. But it might be worth thinking about.

>occupation (obsession?) with NT TC.

If yours is an obsession, what does that make my situation? I'm not even
a professional textual critic, yet I am one of the most active members of
this list.... :-)

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

                            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: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 11:14:30 -0500 (EST)

> >>I now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. 

This type of error should be termed a "mausfehler", and thus will absolve
the human from responsibility. 

> goettlichen Logos..." (the leisure of the divine WORD). 

Wonderful, Ulrich!  This is most defintely how new theological concepts
get invented.  I think you are on to something, and I see a 400pp book in
your future regarding the neo-neo-orthodoxy and the Theology of Leisure.

> However, my professor raised the possibility that some 400 years later
> my paper might be unearthed. And he was pretty sure that at least a
> minority of "experts" would cling to the "reading of the text", seeking
> for a deeper meaning of "Die Freizeit des goettlichen Logos..". 

He is indeed correct.  And it will be the future eclectics who will most
strongly maintain that "Freizeit" is the original reading, since "Freiheit
des goettlichen Logos" is the more common phrase, and scribes obviously
harmonized to the more common rather than leaving the difficult "Freizeit"
in place.....

> most creative theological/ philosophical thinkers of the early 1980s.

Most definitely you _are_ such -- but you will have to maintain the
Theology of "Freizeit" to hold on to that reputation. :-)
 
> the mentioned "scribal error" committed very early in my carreer and my 
> present occupation (obsession?) with NT TC.

Exactly. Your testimony can be "I never was interested in textual
criticism until by a slip of the finger while typing I created a sensible
alternate reading by accident, and it changed not only my theology,
but my life...."

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:59:15 -0700

>harmonized to the more common rather than leaving the difficult "Freizeit"

And then, of course, another critic will come along and say that,
since "Freiheit" is clearly a correction for "Freizeit," and since
"Freizeit" clearly cannot be correct, the original must have been
lost to a "primitive error." This critic will then propose a conjectural
emendation (I'm not sure what; the most appropriate noun listed in
my German dictionary is Freibeuter, "Freebooter"!). This then will
be taken into all the standard handbooks as an example of why
conjectural emendation is necessary.

Then some cultist will come along and start robbing people in the
name of God.

I can see it now....

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 18:11:53 -0500 (EST)

While we are on the topic of correction to the "more familiar" phrase, and
the Holy Spirit in particular, I am just curious as to the opinion of the
modern eclectics on the tc-list regarding the divided reading in Rom.
15:19 between PNEUMATOS AGIOU and PNEUMATOS QEOU (which in uncial nomina
sacra would be PNCAGIOU/PNOCAGIOU or PNCQU/PNOCQU). This happens to be a
case where the Byzantine reading is identical to that preferred by the
editors of NA26/27, so in theory both positions should argue the internal
matters of the case in a similar manner. 

Paul clearly uses both expressions, though somewhat unequally. The
count can be tabulated as follows (not including Rom.15:19):

The specific phrases:

                       Paul excluding Hebrews     Hebrews

PNEUMATOS AGIOU
(in various cases)
Byzantine Textform:            6x                  2x
           WH text:            5x                  2x

PNEUMA QEOU:
(in various cases)
Byzantine Textform:            7x                  --
           WH text:            7x                  --

In a more general sense, one finds the following:

                     Paul excluding Hebrews     Hebrews

PNEUMA AGIOS
(in various cases)
Byzantine Textform:           13x                  2x
           WH text:           12x                  2x

AGIOS PNEUMA
(in various cases)
Byzantine Textform:            6x                  --
           WH text:            5x                  --

TO PNEUMA TO AGIOS
(in various cases)
Byzantine Textform:            1x                  3x
           WH text:            1x                  3x

In Rom.15:19 the textual evidence is divided thus (N26 apparatus):

AGIOU - A D*,2 F G 33 81 104 365 630 1739 1881 PC lat syh-mg co
        (Von Soden adds to this: arm Didymus Basil Athanasius)

QEOU  - p46 Aleph D1 Psi Maj b sy (C illeg.)

omit  - B

While obviously the Byzantine Textform reads QEOU here, internal
considerations seem to lean in that direction in any case. "Spirit of God" 
is used less in Paul (but not significantly less, so I am uncertain if any
major case can be made from that). On the other hand, the phrase "Holy
Spirit" (PNEUMA AGIOS in various cases) is primarily a Lukan/Pauline term
in the NT, occurring as shown above in Paul, and in Lk/Ac Byz 25x (WH
23x), but in the rest of the NT outside of Luke/Paul only Byz 10x (WH 8x).

The articular expression TO PNEUMA TO AGIOS (in various cases) is also
distinctively Lukan, occurring 15x in Ac and 2x in Lk, while only once
each in Mt/Mk/Jn. That form of expression, however, is not distinctively
"Pauline", since it occurs only once in Ephesians and 3x in Hebrews. 
Similarly the reverse expression AGIOS PNEUMA (in various cases) also may
not seem greatly characteristic of Paul, with only 5 occurrences, 3x (2x
WH) in 1Cor, 1x in 2Cor, and 1x in 2Th; but it once more is a
Lukan/Pauline characteristic phrase, occurring as well 7x (6x WH) in Acts
and 2x in Lk., with only 1x in Mt and 1x in 1Pe rounding out the NT. 

But is there enough significant difference to advocate on internal
grounds the slightly lesser-used Pauline expression here?  In the
remainder of the NT, the phrase "Spirit of God" occurs only 1x Byz (2x
WH) times, and even Luke/Acts do not use the term, so it could be
termed almost a "distinctly Pauline" usage. Also, the phrase "Spirit of
God" would seem to be less common in later liturgical use than the
familiar "Holy Spirit", which might serve as another argument away from
the familiar toward the accepted reading of N26/Byz.

Also, the "harmonization to the immediate context" principle may once 
more play a part, since the phrase "Holy Spirit" appears previously in 
15:13 (genitive) and 15:16 (dative), and such close-context occurrences 
could easily influence a scribe in that direction at 15:19.  I note 
also from Von Soden that at the very end of Rom.15:19 there is another 
isolated "harmonization to the immediate context" by Chrysostom and MS 
88 (= Ia1 200 VS) in reading QEOU for CRISTOU. This suggests that a 
QEOU was possibly in their exemplars at the variant unit occurring
earlier in the verse; not surprising, given that QEOU is the majority
reading in the unit under discussion.

Yet are these sufficient grounds in the minds of most eclectics on 
which to declare "Spirit of God" original over "Holy Spirit"?  I 
suspect that this _should_ be the case, since NA26/27 has accepted that 
reading, but I remain curious as to how the various eclectics on the 
list might view this line of argument. 

I also am curious whether anyone might opt for either the "Holy Spirit" 
reading or the singular Vaticanus "shorter reading" solution (which latter
I consider either a product of accidental omission or a recensional
decision, resolving the difficulty by omitting the descriptive term and
reading only "Spirit"). I suppose that some could argue for the shorter
reading of B as original, with later "pious expansion" in two different
directions; the utter singularity of Vaticanus, however, will have to be
explained and overcome if so).

Another good question for the eclectic side is, _why_ in view of two
competing readings in this variant unit was there no later conflation of
both readings into the "Holy Spirit of God" (PNEUMATOS AGIOU TOU QEOU) in
any MS, especially if (as is generally claimed), scribes -- and especially
the "later Byzantine" scribes -- were so "prone" to perform conflation
when two readings of equal validity presented themselves?

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 20:04:48 -0700

Maurice Robinson asked about Rom. 15:19. Since nobody else does things
my way, I will offer my analysis just to stir things up.

For me, this is a very difficult reading. Let's start with the
manuscript evidence, done my way:

Evidence                  PNEUMATOS        PNEUMATOS        PNEUMATOS
by text-type              AGIOU            QEOU

p46/B                     sa               p46              B

Alexandrian               A 81 1962        Aleph
                          fam 2127         436
                          bo               1506

"Western"                 D* F G           629 b
                          a d f m vg

Family 1739               1739 1881        6
                          630 2200

Miscellaneous
  Family 1611             hark-marg        1505 1611
                                           hark-txt

  other                   arm geo1         geo2

It's worth noting that the conflate reading PNEUMATOS QEOU AGIOU
*does* exist in family 330 (330 451; 2492 has QEOU).

Counting text-types is ambiguous. Though AGIOU has the clear support of
the "Western" and family 1739 texts, the Alexandrian text is split. (It
will be noted that I listed neither 33 nor 1175 as Alexandrian; both
are Byzantine in Romans). p46/B is also split.

On the whole, though, QEOU looks like the Alexandrian reading.
It also looks more likely to be the reading of p46/B. Throw
in the reading of family 1611, and it is textually just as stron
as AGIOU.

Which forces me to internal criteria. QEOU better explains AGIOU
than the reverse. In my text, I would print QEOU -- but it would
be marked in the margin as having maximum uncertainty.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:16:28 -0500 (EST)

> *does* exist in family 330 (330 451; 2492 has QEOU).

Thank you for providing this, since NA26 did not.  It is a curious
conflation, however, since one would expect PNEUMATOS AGIOU (TOU) QEOU as
a more "normal" type of reading.

>From your persepctive, this is clear and understandable. Thanks for the
enlightenment.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:03:31 -0700

>a more "normal" type of reading.

I'd have to say that this depends on how the family 330 text evolved.
I haven't managed to figure that out yet. The text is more Byzantine
than anything else, but with a large mixture of something else. The
"something else" seems to be closest to the Alexandrian text as found
in family 2127 -- but it isn't very close. There may also be some
"Western" influence.

BTW -- just as a note: The Soden/Merk/Bover collation of 330 is very
bad. Don't *ever* rely on it. Use the Davies collation or, if that
is available, the minimal information available from UBS3.

>From your persepctive, this is clear and understandable. Thanks for the

Of course, nobody else on this list does TC the way I do....
I know that Robinson knows *that* feeling.... :-)

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 12:31:51 -0700

Since we're all jumping on Jim West (hey, Maurice, how does it feel
to be part of the consensus for once? :-), I thought I would add one
other thought.

One difficulty with following the reading of the oldest manuscript
is *determining* the oldest manuscript. If I recall correctly, none
of the papyri are dated. The only uncial I can recall that gives
a date is S.

This means that, of our 250 or so earliest manuscripts, *only one*
can be dated precisely. The rest are dated paleographically.

I'm not trying to attack paleography. But it is *not* an exact
science. Consider this: I can write five different hands: A
script hand, a normal print hand, an italic hand, and two types
of blackletter (one for broad pens and one for pointed pens).
In the ordinary course of things, I write with the print hand,
which is closest to what people write today (though with rather
more curls and twists than "block print"). If, however, I were
writing something as significant as a Biblical manuscript, I
would resort to the blackletter -- which is a fair approximation
of a seventeenth century hand.

I don't say it happens often. But there is nothing to prevent
a scribe from employing an archaic hand -- or cultivating an
odd style (observe that we cannot date Theta because no other
sample of that style of writing has ever been found). If even
*one* important manuscript uses an archaic hand, it could throw
off the whole theory.

Keep in mind, too, that manuscripts *with* colophons can mislead.
Colwell showed that 1505 had a colophon with a forged date. How
can we be sure that others are not equally false?

Yet another reason why basing our assessment of manuscripts solely
on their date is dangerous....

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 19:53:55 -0700 (PDT)

> > >>I now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. 

In the highly professional scriptorium of Studion, run by St. Theodore, a
copyist would receive a penance of many prostrations for being caught with
a dirty workspace, or a pen badly in need of sharpening.  And in our
modern computer age, what penance should we get for failing to keep the
mouse clean?  If you have the common mechanical mouse, open the mouse,
remove the ball and scrape the caked grime and dust off of the rollers
which contact the ball.  This will greatly reduce modern copying errors. 
I use a pen-cap to do the scraping. 

I'll let someone else assign you your epitimia!

Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).