Subject: Re: Readings, Profiles, Samples

From: Michael Holmes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 13:36:39 -0500 (CDT)

At 12:28 PM 5/9/97 -0700, Bob Waltz wrote:
>Since Jimmy Adair has politely asked us to cool it, I though I would
>try throwing out a new topic to get people thinking.
>
>One thing that seems to be pretty widely agreed upon is that any
>general-purpose sampling method should focus only on readings
>found in two or more manuscripts. In practice, this becomes
>"two or more *known* manuscripts," and often "two or more
>of the manuscripts I'm studying."
>
>Just to play Devil's Advocate, I'm going to ask the question,
>"Why?"

In thinking about this question, it would be helpful to have a fuller
definition or description of what is meant by a "general-purpose sampling
method," esp. with respect to its purpose or the goal of its use.  To use an
analogy from the gold-mining region of California where I grew up, is the
"general-purpose sampling method" to be used for "prospecting" (looking for
gold) or "assaying" (determining the quality of the gold found)?

If the purpose of the sampling method is to enable one to ascertain in a
general way the possible relationships or textual character of an
uninvestigated witness ("prospecting"), one might well wish to include
singular readings of a MS like 1506.  Here the agreement of a previously
uninvestigated MS with a distinctive singular reading such as the omission
of Rom 16 in 1506 would be of major interest and would call immediately for
further investigation.

If, on the other hand, the purpose of the sampling method is to investigate
textual relationships between some finite group of MSS ("assaying"), then
one would likely wish to eliminate singular readings, for reasons spelled
out, e.g., by Colwell in his essay on method in establishing quantative
relationships (pp. 57-58 in his collected essays).

So, what is the hoped-for or intended goal or purpose of the envisioned
"general-purpose sampling tool"?  An anwer to this question would make it
easier to discuss the question raised above.

Mike Holmes
Bethel College

>
>Let me explain my reasoning. It starts with one of my favorite
>oddball manuscripts, 1506.
>
>This manuscript (1320 C.E., on Mount Athos) contains the gospels
>(in a very defective, strongly Byzantine text) plus Romans and
>the first few chapters of 1 Corinthians.
>
>1506 has one extremely fascinating reading. It *omits* chapter
>16 of Romans. Other than that, based on the studies I've done
>(based here on every reading noted in NA26) it looks like a fairly
>typical Alexandrian manuscript, though I know of at least one
>other apparently unsupported reading (1 Cor. 2:14 omit TOU QEOU).
>
>Unfortunately, as noted, 1506 is very fragmentary. And I, for
>one, would very much like to see other texts of this type. Given
>the small amount of text remaining to us, it may be hard to
>identify a "1506-text" based solely on widely attested variants.
>Searching using its singulars might help. I concede that this
>is sort of like turning profiling on its side -- but so what?
>
>Now I know that including such seemingly-singular readings will
>cause the overall rates of agreements between manuscripts to
>rise. But this does not matter as long as we compare rates of
>agreements based on the same sample. So why not do this?
>
>Thoughts, anyone?
>
>Bob Waltz
>[email-masked]
>
>
>
>

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 16:30:56 -0700

>gold) or "assaying" (determining the quality of the gold found)?

When I was thinking of this, I was thinking in terms of "prospecting."
When we discover an unusual manuscript such as 1506 (or 330, or 1611,
or any of my other favorite oddballs), it is nice to be able to find
relatives quickly.

But my question -- which I didn't really express -- is, "Does this
truly hurt us for 'assaying'?" We can define a profile of this sort
for any manuscript, and then search for manuscripts which match
it -- but that profile is useless for any purpose except "prospecting."
Ideally we'd like to have something which can *both* "prospect" and
"assay."

Obviously a set of readings containing what we believe to be singulars
will not be as good for "assaying." But it seems to me that it wouldn't
be that badly degraded if we only included a few select readings of
high significance.

>of Rom 16 in 1506 would be of major interest and would call immediately for

So it would seem to me. And yet I have never heard of anyone
studying 1506, despite that amazing reading. Has anyone heard
otherwise?

>easier to discuss the question raised above.

I hope I've answered that. And, remember, I'm just speculating here.
In the past we *have not* used singular readings. But is there an
overwhelming reason, or just tradition?

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

                        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)