Subject: Transmission theories? (was: re: Alexandrian text)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 07:57:34 +0000

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 Ronald L. Minton wrote (in part):

>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.

[me now]
This is an amazing statement: "The variants in Aleph are over 25% Byz 
against Alex (and 50% of Aleph _can be_ classified as Byz)."!!! Then, what 
should I make of the N/A and TC books (that I have seen, few indeed I 
have) which keep defining and using Aleph as one of the strongest 
Alexandrian witnesses, and never mention anything about its being -in any 
way- Byz?

Also, (5) above, I would like to see some argument or explanation re: 
"where the Byz text came from". IMHO, a theory of *transmission* is first 
and foremost in TC. Could it be possible to either post or make available 
in some TC web-place a concise presentation of the different 
*transmission* theories that TCers use? (Sort of a FAQ which provides a 
concise yet complete exposition of each theory by its proponents - not by 
its opponents, I have read plenty of these)

This is just a humble petition, as a lurker and learner, and because 
of my vocation, I simply have no time and/or tools to come up with my 
*theory* of what those theories are!  I've visited many times the webpages 
which ocassionally some List member recommends, and I've visited the link 
section in the TC page. I've not seen any MT/Byz page or material out 
there... is there any?

Thanks!

Francisco Orozco
Trinity Ministerial Academy 1991-1995
(Montville NJ USA)
[email-masked]
Nashville NC USA

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 08:57:16 -0700

>Alexandrian witnesses, and never mention anything about its being -in any 

We should note that all such numbers are imprecise, since they depend
on the sample. (One of the most important phrases in statistics, that.)
But I won't get into that just now....

There is nothing inherently improbable about Aleph agreeing with
Byz 50% of the time. Depending on the number of "Western" or "wild"
readings in the sample, I can see that number going as high as 70%.
The vast majority of variants in the NT are non-genetic errors that
arise in only a handful of manuscripts.

As for readings where Aleph agrees with Byz against the Alexandrian
text -- yes, there are a fair number even of these, at least if
we define the Alexandrian text as the reading found in p75 and B.
There are thousands of differences between Aleph and B in the
gospels. And most of these are binary readings, so either Aleph
or B has to have the Byzantine reading. Usually it's Aleph. I
suspect there are at least 2,000 places in the Gospels where
Aleph agrees with Byz against B.

This is less true in Paul, BTW. Here it is B that goes against
the Alexandrian text, and Aleph is almost painfully pure. Yes,
Aleph will agree with Byz against B -- but in Paul, one must
say that Aleph is Alexandrian and B is not.

>and foremost in TC.

A note: While a theory of transmission is vital, it can only be created
*after* we have analysed and grouped the manuscript data. (I could
quote Colwell again, but nobody likes the way I read Colwell. Reminds
me of Harnack's remark about Marcion -- the one about only Marcion
understanding Paul, and *he* misunderstood him.)

>Could it be possible to either post or make available 

I did mine. :-)

BTW, I am in the process of revising my TC articles. If nothing else,
I should shake a few of the typos out. I'll let you all know when I'm
finished.

BTW (2) -- you'll note that I am keeping my promise not to say more
about the "what is a text-type" argument. It hurts, but I'm still
holding off.... :-)

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

                            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: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 12:26:50 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

[quoting Minton]
> >They are a mixture of who knows what.  The 
> >be_ classified as Byz). 

> Alexandrian witnesses, and never mention anything about its being -in any 

A part of the problem lies in the methodological approach to evaluating a
MS's percentage of agreement with its specific primary texttype.  I don't
know if Prof. Minton's percentage claim regarding Aleph is correct or not,
but allowing for the moment that it is, I am not surprised.  From an
eclectic method of evaluation Aleph is counted as far more non-Byzantine
that it would be from a pro-Byzantine method of evaluation, and this is
tied in with a large body of its (or any MS's) readings which happen to be
held in common by the Alexandrian and Byzantine (or Western and Byzantine)
texts. 

Those coming from a pro-Alexandrian position count those dual Alex + Byz
alignments as strictly Alexandrian (since the Byzantine text is "late" and
merely "adopted" those particular readings), and thus have a higher total
of Alexandrian support in such a MS (e.g. using Minton's example, Aleph by
this method would be, say, 25% Byzantine, 65% Alexandrian, and perhaps, by
my suggestion, even 10% Western).  Minton suggests that another 25% of
Aleph's readings are either dually aligned as Alex + Byz or even West +
Byz, and that when considered from a different theoretical perspective,
these dually-aligned readings could support the concept that Aleph's text
is actually 50% Byzantine (actually my own guess is that the percentage is
even higher than that, probably over 60%, when counted in the manner
described).

The problem in considering statistics from both approaches is that there
is no easy way merely to leave, say, 25% of the readings which happen to
be dually-aligned as merely "floating" and not assigned to any specific
texttype, especially when an Alex + Byz combination _does_ exclude the
Western readings and when a West + Byz combination similarly excludes the
Alexandrian readings.  Each theoretical approach will count the
statistical data in the manner which fits its respective methodology and
reflects (especially) its view regarding the place and significance of
Byzantine support for such dually-aligned readings.  

Since from my theoretical perspective I view the Byzantine Textform as
that from which the other texttypes have derived, I will count Byz + Alex
or Byz + West readings as Byzantine, and consider such as places where
respectively either the Alexandrian texttype happened _not_ to depart from
the original Textform, but the Western did; or as places where the Western
texttype happened not to depart from the original Textform, but the
Alexandrian did.  As Bro. Dave Gardner used to say, "It's all how you look
at it and study it....."

> its opponents, I have read plenty of these)

I think that statements by the proponents of a theory should _definitely_
be made first. These can be followed by whatever critique might be made by
opponents. I do note that in the Ehrman and Holmes volume positions such
as rigorous eclecticism are allowed to be presented by a proponent (Keith
Elliott), reasoned eclecticism by a proponent (Michael Holmes), but the
Byzantine-priority position (or "Majority Text" position as it is called
therein) is _not_ presented by a proponent, but only by a determined
opponent (Wallace), who I believe so caricatures and propagandizes the
case (not to mention blending in a number of diverse theoretical
viewpoints) that even _I_ would be skeptical of holding my own theory if
what Wallace claims were correct.  The pro-Byzantine position was
definitely given short shrift in that volume, and in light of the other
_positive_ essays by proponents of various theories included therein, it
seems this should not have been done.

What would be welcome would be a volume somewhat in the line of the "Four
Views" series on different theological subjects, in which differing views
of textual critical theory could each be presented in detail by their own
proponents and then critiqued somewhat more briefly by the proponents of
the remaining positions.  Of course, we might have to have more than "four
views"....

> section in the TC page. I've not seen any MT/Byz page or material out 

None out there to which I have contributed, certainly. I suppose that I
could have the Introduction to my Byzantine/Majority Gk NT scanned in and
offered to Jimmy or Bob for download from their sites, along with some
other ETS papers etc., but I have not been asked to do so, so that remains
Jimmy's or Bob's call. 

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

---

From: Huey Bahr <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 12:07:29 -0700

> other ETS papers etc., but I have not been asked to do so, so that remains

What about Vincent Broman's site? surely one of the three would host the
Intro.
[Special note to Jimmy, Bob, and Vincent--->"Please, offer to host
Robinson's Intro"]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:18:45 -0700

>seems this should not have been done.

I can hardly argue with Robinson on this, since there are at least three
other viewpoints given even shorter shrift: The Hortian, the age-based
(the view of Jim West and Philip Comfort) -- and, of course, my own. :-)

>other ETS papers etc., but I have not been asked to do so, so that remains

I would point out that I have invited others to contribute to my page.
If Maurice Robinson wants to send me the file, I will format it and
post it. I may make suggestions as to format, and I retain the right to
include a rebuttal -- but I am willing to post an article by Robinson,
and I will *not* make any alterations without his permission. I will also
give it the same position in the index as an article of mine.

In fact, I might even change my sarcastic sig. :-)

BTW -- this invitation is open to others, as long as I have space
available. We may have to dissociate ourselves from the ENTTC, but
at least we'll make the resources available.

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 16:23:40 -0500 (CDT)

> Alexandrian witnesses, and never mention anything about its being -in any 

Aland and others do say P75 and B are the best Alexandrian text 
representatives.  Aleph less so.  Their similarity and age should require 
anyone to at least give them a hearing.

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

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:12:17 -0400 (EDT)

> other ETS papers etc., but I have not been asked to do so, so that remains

I would certainly be glad to include links to any articles or other
material of interest to text critics on the TC Links page, and I would
also be willing to have the texts of these articles reside on our Web
server.  The whole point of having the links page is to provide a central
location where scholarly resources for the study of the biblical text can
be found.  I encourage Maurice and others on the list to share their
research with the TC community in this manner.  If you have access to your
own Web site and have material posted there, simply send me a URL to point
to.  If you don't have your own Web site (or if you would just prefer to
have it on TELA), send the entire article/paper/whatever to our ftp site:
ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/uploads, then send me a note telling me the
name of the file. Articles that come already tagged in HTML will be added
to the page sooner than articles that I have to tag myself, but they'll
all eventually appear on the TC Links page.

Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: Hubert Bahr <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:42:51 -0700

Is it just me or are resources that were once on the web being
eliminated? I seem to remember being able to find copies of the
LXX in line-per-verse format and being able to look up passages
in the American Standard Version (1901).  Now I can't seem to 
find either.

I understand the U.S. Congress is debating extend copyrights by
an additional 20 years (from authors lifetime + 50 or first 
publication + 75 years to authors lifetime + 70 or first 
publication + 95 years) but it would be to early for that 
to have any effect.  So am I just forgetting where to find
things or is something else going on?
-- 
--Huey Bahr
[email-masked]
I thought it made sense when I wrote it.

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 11:34:13 +000

I quite agree that "truth" is welcome from whatever quarter.  But 
life is short and professional scholars are kept quite busy merely to 
remain up to date in their field, to say nothing of what it takes to 
try to advance it!  So, we demand that purported contributions to a 
field should be (a) presented in such a way [i.e., following such 
canons as full presentation of data, showing knowledge of and 
interaction with previous work on the subject, etc.], and (b)  in 
such a way [e.g., at a conf./colloquium of other scholars competent 
to critique it, and/or submitted to a refereed journal where it can 
be assessed by competent scholars as to whether it is fit to 
publish].  So, it is not too much to ask that those seeking to 
contribute to and alter opinion in a field do these things.  Batting 
things back 'n forth on this e-list is not the way to deal with 
substantive, complex, and often massive data. Here we can *react* to 
and try to *assess* things published in full and preferably in 
refereed form, but not much more.  And so please don't ask us to take 
valuable time up going to Web sites to pore through un-refereed 
opinions, which may or may not be worth the time of day.  It costs 
little or nothing to submit essays to major journals, even for those 
with other things to do than present findings at confs of scholars in 
the field.
We really do need to distinguish between a chat-line electronic 
bulletin board, and a serious electronic discussion list.  Which is 
that TC-list is?
Larry Hurtado

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, 24 Apr 1997 13:20:07 -0700

Question for whoever knows the answer:

Has anyone on this list ever had occasion to examine the Latin side
of Merk's New Testament? I don't mean the text (which is of course
the Clementine Vulgate), I mean the apparatus. If it's accurate, it
is clearly the best pocket vulgate edition -- but I've no good way
to check its accuracy.

Merk's Greek side is, of course, an abridgement of von Soden, translated
into Gregory numbers and with a few papyri thrown in. Since von Soden's
collations are bad to begin with, and his apparatus is difficult, Merk's
Greek citations can be doubtful. But that shouldn't affect the Latin.

I have observed that it seems to omit a lot of variants in am and ful
found in the Nestle apparatus.

Anyone know any more?

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

                        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)