Subject: Returned mail: User unknown

From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[email-masked]> (by way of "Roderic L. Mullen" <[email-masked]>)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:27:53 -0400

The original message was received at Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:23:22 -0400
from Prlmullen.netpath.net [206.27.38.88]

   ----- The following addresses have delivery notifications -----
<[email-masked]>  (unrecoverable error)

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to shemesh.scholar.emory.edu.:
>>> RCPT To:<[email-masked]>
<<< 550 <[email-masked]>... User unknown
550 <[email-masked]>... User unknown
Reporting-MTA: dns; server1.netpath.net
Received-From-MTA: DNS; Prlmullen.netpath.net
Arrival-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:23:22 -0400

Final-Recipient: RFC822; [email-masked]
Action: failed
Status: 5.2.0
Remote-MTA: DNS; shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 <[email-masked]>... User unknown
Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:23:28 -0400
Return-Path: [email-masked]
Received: from Rod (Prlmullen.netpath.net [206.27.38.88]) by
server1.netpath.net (8.7.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id AAA15897 for
<[email-masked]>; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:23:22 -0400
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:23:22 -0400
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
X-Sender: [email-masked]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: [email-masked]
From: "Roderic L. Mullen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Broman's reveiw of my book

In the 1997 issue of TC, Vincent Broman reviewed my NEW TESTAMENT TEXT OF
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM.  While I thank Dr. Broman for his remarks, many of which
are helpful, I'm afraid his choice of wording misrepresented my position and
conclusions at several points.  Here is a reply point by point.

In 1., Broman writes "[Cyril's text is related to the Koridethi Gospels [ms
Theta] and the miniscules 13, 28, and 565, as are also the last seventeen
chapters of Matthew."  

This is misleading:  what I argue is that in MARK, Cyril is related in
different ways to two groups of mss-- Koridethi, 565, and 700 on the one
hand and W, fam13, and 28 on the other hand.  Neither of these two small
groups stand up so far as I can tell in Matthew, where Cyril does seem to
have some affinity with Koridethi and fam13 in Matthew 12-28.

Under "the Data" in 3., Broman writes "The points of variation discarded
seem to have been sigular and sub-singular variants, but Mullen fails to
document just which points were used and which discarded..."  A valid point,
perhaps in future presentations of patristic witnesses we should give a
serial number to each point of variation and refer to the accordingly in the
analyses.

Under "the Analysis" in 4, Borman writes "Mullen is not able to draw much
meaningful information out of Colwell's statistics that is not more clearly
observable in Ehrman's statistics.  His description of the two methods as
being complementary is overly gracious to the older method..."  

Here I must present an APOLOGIA PRO COLWELL, for I really do believe that
use of his method is an essential first step for a clear understanding of
manuscript relationships and for the understanding of patristic witnesses.
The difficulty in leaping to the use of a profile method without applying
Colwell first is that most of the profiles rely upon pre-defined groups of
mss, and so far as I know the best way to make a preliminary judgment about
ms relationships is by Colwell's method (See, for example, Tables 1 & 1A on
pp.41-42 of my book.  These tables are in line with analyses of ms
relationships in Mark carried out by the likes of Ayuso, Hurtado, etc.,
esentially showing that there is no broadly unified group of mss that can be
called "Caesarean" in Mark (nor outside of Mark for that matter.)  Were we
to use the manuscripts that B.H. Streeter designated as "Caesarean" without
further analysis, we would be gravely misled regarding the character of ms
(and consequently patristic) witnesses in Mark.  (Examples could be
multiplied on this point.

Under "Analysis" in 5, Broman writes "His model of a binomial probability
density for agreement counts is raesonable, but the numerical calculation on
page 305 is incomprehensibly wrong."  

MEA CULPA!  So far as I know I'm the first text critic to delve into the
statistical basis for our work, and despite the generous help of James
Murphy and Ken Hardy, I dont claim to be an expert in statistical method.
[Just so the casual raeder will understand, the discussion of binomial
probability density relates to Colwell's method.]  Of course, Broman is
right about the calculation. After consulting with Ken Hardy again, I think
the confusion in footnote 12 on page 305 stems from my interpreting an
ESTIMATED range of confidence related to the sample NUMBER [15 out of 20 in
my example, for which the formula should be sqrt(N*P*Q)*Z] in terms of an
exact sample PERCENTAGE (i.e. 75%).  Thus in the footnote, my "plus/minus
3.88 percentage points" should be "plus/minus 3.18 points of variation."
(obviously though, we can't count points of variation in anything other than
integers, so it would be safer to say "plus/minus 4 points of variation."
The same thing worked out for percentages [using the formula sqrt (p*q/n)*z]
should read "plus/minus 15.88 percentage points."  Hope it's right this time.

Further on in "Analysis", 5, Broman writes "his concern about normal
approximations to the binomial distribution is not to the point."  O.K., I'm
relying on my knowledge of calculus from 1979-80, but as I understand it,
the approximation to the normal distribution curve is the theory that lies
behind the analysis in the first place.

In 7 under "analysis", Broman writes, "It might be argued that differences
in percentages of agreement with different control witnesses are not really
differences of independent binomial samples, but Mullen does not raise this
issue..."  

True, that might be argued after the quantitative analysis is done, but at
the beginning of a quantitative analysis the relationships are (in theory)
unknown, therefore assumption is made that the witnesses are independent.
The various profile methods that I have seen begin with the assumption of at
least some group relationships.  The danger of assuming this can be seen in
the Profile Method developed by Wisse and McReynolds where (in attempting to
dtermine the sub groups of Byzantine mss) ms D is grouped with ms B, etc.
Again the problem is that most profile methods begin with assumed groups-- a
problem that is especially acute with the falsely so-called "Caesarean"
witnesses and one which I tried to address in my chapter 3.

Also in 7 under analysis, Broman writes, "Also symptomatic of his confusion
about how much accuracy the figures support is the fact that percentages are
always cited with a decimal point--- even though most sample sizes are less
that 100..."

I had to go back to my freshman chemistry lab manual to reply to this one.
Broman is referring to the question of significant digits, and I'm sure he's
more up to date on this than I am.  Since we're dealing with integers in a
count it may be best as he suggests to stick with integers in the resultant
percentages.  All I can plead on this point is that since the 1960's text
critics have often allowed themselves one digit beyond the decimal point.
(Colwell & Tune in 1963 worked strictly with integers, but by 1968 Fee-- in
his "Codex Sinaiticus" was making calculations to one digit beyond the
decimal point.  In 1974 though, Fee went back to using strictly integers in
his "P75, P66, and Origen."  I suspect that we later text-critics have
become a bit over- confident.  We could use some clarity here.

QUOD SCRIPSI, SCRIPSI. (Jn.19:22)  In section 8 under analysis, Broman seems
more convinced of my results, but, unfortunately, his choice of wording here
might severely mislead the uninitiated as to my position.  In detail my
reply is as follows:

Broman says "Cyril is shown to join Eusebius and Origen in citing a text of
Mark that relates to the Caesaraean manuscripts."  Yes, Cyril joins Origen
and Eusebius in some particulars, but I deliberately avoid using phrases
like "Caesarean manuscripts," because, as indicated above, I'm not convinced
that there is any such broad group in Mark (or elsewhere).  What I think is
clear is that Origen and Eusebius (and to a lesser degree Cyril) attest a
text similar to Koridethi, 565, and 700 in MARK.  Following Ayuso and
Hurtado, I think that other so-called Caesarean mss in fact have little if
anything to do with Caesarea.

Further on in the same section, Broman says "In some other books Cyril
provides one of the earliest witnesses to a Byzantine form of text."
Reference is here made to John, and I cannot completely explain the
phenomenon there.  If there was later Byzantinization of mss of Cyril going
on, why was it not so heavily carried out for readings from other gospels?
Especially since Cyril's quotations from JN are laregely interspersed with
the rest.  One important observation is that at the points from JN qupted in
Cyril, the Byz text has very few distinctive readings; more often Byz
witnesses share their readings in common with Alexandrian or other
witnesses.  As Broman has pointed out in a more recent contribution to this
list, further analysis of this phenomenon is needed.

Still further on in the same section, Broman writes "Mullen's assumption
that there was a single Palestinian text of the NT, the evolution of which
can be traced through time from Origen through Eusebius, and Cyril to
Epiphanius, seems tenuous..."  I NEITHER ASSUME NOR CONCLUDE SUCH!  In fact,
much of my chapter 3 is devoted to showing what I say on p.58, namely that
"From a survey of New Testament text-types and of patristic authors related
to Palestine there is scant evidence for a distinct and independent
text-type centered in the region.  Indeed, only in Mark does there appear to
be a distinctive group, group theta, related to Palestine.  Outside Mark,
Patristic writers of Palestine seem to have used manuscripts with a variety
of text-types."  Permit me to provide exegesis of my remarks:  "From a
survey OF New Testament text-types AND OF patristic authors..." should be
read disjunctively.  Had I wanted to associate any text-types with Palestine
I would have written "From a survey OF New Testament text-types AND
patristic authors..."  Perhaps I should have italicized the word SCANT.
Also, as I have noted above, my concept of "Group Theta is very limited
(only three mss:  koridethi, 565, and 700).  Plaese note as well, I do not
recall that I ever wrote of a PALESTINIAN TEXT.  I did write of Patristic
authors of Palestine, and perhaps even of the "Text of the New Testament in
Palestine", but this is a far cry from writing about a "Palestinian text."
Perhaps I should have entitled my chapter 3 "Refutation of the Caesarean
text falsely so-called."  I had hoped to put the last nail in the coffin of
"the Caesarean text-type" under any name, but like some hoary old Dracula,
the concept seems to keep rearing its head.  

Again please note that on pp.327-28 and 339-340 I studiously avoid mention
of either the word "Caesarean" or the phrase "Palestinian text" in my
conclusions.  If I don't think such a thing exists, obviously I don't think
it can be traced.  What I do think is that the various authors mentioned
(Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, and Epiphanius) allow us windows into the textual
situation through which we can glimpse the evolution of texts (or textual
usage) in Palestine over time.  If that seems to be a dangerous proposition
based on only four patristic witnesses, I'm sorry to say they are about all
we've got for that region.

Under "Improving Methods," section 9, Broman has several helpful comments.
He writes "Imagine that behind each text-type lies a single ideal or
archetypical text, which is only imperfectly represented in the extant
witnesses belonging to the type...  We might model our uncertain knowledge
of that ideal text by means of a probability distribution, related to the
voting consensus of the manuscripts.  Based on that distribution, the
statistically expected level of agreement between the testee and the ideal
text can be computed."  Broman's suggestion here sounds very much like the
type of analysis developed by Bart Ehrman in Profile Four of his DIDYMUS THE
BLIND AND THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS (see pp.243ff. of that work) and used by
me in studying Cyril's quotations in relation to the Alexandrian witnesses
for Acts (pp.341ff. of my book).  Now that we have the beginnings of an idea
of how to calculate the percentages of variation for quantitative analysis,
I would be very interested to see whether Broman can develop something
similar for profile methods.  I see two dangers to be avoided though.
First, the suitability of certain witnesses in a group could only be
determined when the profile is complete, hence I see the need for the
continued use of quantitative analysis.  Second, if we allow the voting
consensus of the mss to determine the reading of the text-type at a given
point of variation, how can we avoid falling into the trap of the majority
text (only here at the level of the "text-type" rather than at the level of
the always elusive "original text.")  Would this not simply move majority
rule back one level?

Comments always welcome --Rod Mullen

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 07:54:31 -0500 (CDT)

>conclusions at several points.  Here is a reply point by point.

I'm not going to review either the review or the book, but where
mathematical issues come up, I can't avoid adding my two cents. :-)

I'll omit anything that does not pertain to mathematics. And, BTW, this
is directed as much to the list as to Mullen, since it has to do with
our current methods of analysis.

[ ... ]

>mss,

It is absolutely true that systems of comparison rely on our current
knowledge of manuscripts and text-types (a defect which is potentially
fatal if, as seems entirely reasonable, there are undiscovered
text-types). However, the "Quantitative Method" is not the answer.
It is too dependent on the manuscripts sampled, and in any case
its use of fixed percentages is ludicrous. Larry Richards has
shown that Colwell's "gap" will not exist in large samples, and
I have data that shows that the introduction or removal of *a single
manuscript* from the sample set can change the relationships between
other manuscripts by 8-10% -- often causing them to cross the 70%
threshold. I'm still fathering data on this, but you can see some
evidence in the text-types article on my web site. If you want more
data, try the Munster Papyrus volumes. Try examining Colossians.
Compare B and Aleph, and use all uncials as your comparison base.
Then remove F from the comparison base. You may be surprised.

[ ... ]

>Murphy and Ken Hardy, I dont claim to be an expert in statistical method.

This could be interpreted as meaning that textual critics never use
statistics (clearly false), but I assume it to mean that textual
critics have not studied the statistical nature of variants. Which
seems generally to be true. Oh, I've been working on it for years --
but I haven't come to any good conclusions, so I wouldn't have
published even if I had a vehicle. :-)

>probability density relates to Colwell's method.]

[ ... ]

>behind the analysis in the first place.

It should be noted that this is a *guess* at the nature of variants.
We have no hard data. And I believe this analysis leans too much on
the Central Limits Theorem (to invoke jargon just this once). The
Theorem, of course, states that once you reach a decent sample size
(my textbooks give this as 30 samples), the deviation can be treated
as a normal distribution. But it tells you *nothing* about the original
distribution.

If that doesn't mean anything to most of you (and I expect it doesn't :-),
suffice it to say that -- unless somebody knows something I don't know --
we cannot assume anything in particular when using small sets of variants.

>unknown, therefore assumption is made that the witnesses are independent.

Finally I get to act like my Abstract Algebra teacher and ask the
eternal question:

Why?

A mathematical analysis cannot make assumptions until it is prepared to
test them.

>witnesses and one which I tried to address in my chapter 3.

With that I agree. My solution (with which Ehrman disagrees, of course)
is to use *mechanically-created* classified profiles. (I fear that my
difference with Ehrman here is irreconcilable; I cannot consider
scientific any method that requires more than the absolute minimum of
human intervention.)

>become a bit over- confident.  We could use some clarity here.

There's nothing to be "up to date" about. This is very old. You only
get as many significant digits as your data allow. Roughly speaking,
you get one digit each time you multiply the sample size by ten.
So if you have ten readings, your results get *one* significant digit
(0%, 10%, 20%, 30%,... 90%, 100%). Move up to 100 readings and you
get two digits. You have to get to *a thousand readings* to get that
first decimal digit.

That this is known to textual critics is shown by Wisse's remark in footnote
17 (p. 23) of his book on the Claremont Profile Method:

  For the Newberry Gospels, [Goodspeed] gives 42.758962% as the Syrian
  element in Mark. The six decimals tell us, of course, more about
  Goodspeed than about the MS.

I'd almost like to see that remark framed. :-)

I suppose this is one of the things that the mathematically trained
among us should make more of an issue of. But for me, for instance,
I've been dealing with the for half a lifetime. It doesn't occur
to me until I see the rules violated. :-)

[ ... ]

>the always elusive "original text.")  Would this not simply move majority

The danger you outline is real, but it's a matter of careful algorithm
preparation. I'll give an example of the right way to do things, based
on a program I once used to prepare a text of family 1739. I was working
with five witnesses for the most part: 1739, 1881, 6, 424**, 630.
(In decending order of quality.) The algorithm went something like this:

If 1739 is non-Byzantine and not singular, then the reading of family
  1739 = 1739.
If 1739 is Byzantine, and all other mss. of the group are Byzantine, then
  the reading of family 1739=Byz.
If 1739 is Byzantine and 1881 is not Byzantine, then if 1881 has support
  from any of the other mss or B, then the reading of family 1739=1881.
If 1739 is Byzantine and 424** is not Byzantine, then if 424** has support
  from any of the other mss or B, then the reading of family 1739=424**.
If 1739, 1881, 424, and (6 or 630) are Byzantine, then the reading of
  family 1739=Byzantine.

Admittedly this leaves a few special cases: 1881 non-Byzantine with no
support, 424** Byzantine with no support, 6 and 630 both non-Byzantine.
As I recall, this rule gave two instance in about 400 readings where it
was not sure of the reading of family 1739 (and one of those proved to
be a case where the Byzantine text was divided; I needed to add a rule
for that).

So one *can* determine a text-type or family text mechanically without
resort to majority rule. It simply requires that one know the nature
of the mixture in the family members.

I realize this is only tangentially related to the topic of the remark --
but, hey, we all spout off once in a while. :-)

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

                        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)