Subject: A Challenge

From: "Vinton A. Dearing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 15:43:02 PST

Thanks to Bob Waltz for his interest and to Jimmy Adair for 
explaining some things in my original message. Some additional 
explanations:
  My method of textual criticism is not "mine": it is a genealogical 
method that expands Walter Greg's rules in The Calculus of Variants 
(1927).  Greg divided variations into simple and complex types. 
Simple variations have only two readings, e.g., "yes" vs. "yea"; 
complex variations have more than two, e.g. "no" vs. "nay" vs. 
"nix" vs. "nada" vs. "not on your life" etc. He showed how to 
construct a stemma from simple variations, provided there were
no complications (which I call rings). This method works fine with 
most problems in English literature. I added a method of handing 
rings and of recognizing when two or more complex variations have the 
effect of a simple variation.
     My method of dealing with complications, which I call 
ringbreaking, does not assume that texts have only one exemplar each. 
If a text has readings that have come to it from more than one 
exemplar, my method seeks to identify the principal exemplar and will 
then ignore the other(s). The principal exemplar will have provided 
more than half the total readings in the text at the places where one 
or more of the whole set of texts disagrees with the rest.   Jimmy 
Adair says common scribal mistakes are to be ignored. I don't ignore 
them myself, though doing so would simplify the task of ringbreaking. 
I myself include every variation that might in context convey a 
different meaning, even if it might also be a spelling variant, e.g., 
double lambda vs. single lambda. The method is the same in any event 
though the results might be different.  Suppose a text T has two 
exemplars E1 and E2. E1 transmits to T three scribal errors and one 
other variant reading, four in all. E2 transmits one scribal error 
and two other variant readings, three in all. If we count the scribal 
errors with the rest, E1 is the principal exemplar of T; if we ignore 
the scribal errors, E2 is the principal exemplar.     The same kind 
of decision affects what constitutes a "best" (i.e., identifiably 
archetypal) reading. I myself never take the most usual reading as 
the best. Nor am I willing to say that the hardest reading is the 
best. I prefer things like homeoteleuta, where I accept the longer 
reading as the best. I am also willing  to accept readings that 
conform to the author's style elsewhere. I use the term "best" 
because with three alternative readings one can be better than 
another without being the best; maybe the third reading is better 
still, making it the best, or maybe the third reading is unweighable, 
in which case there is no identifiable best reading.
   To my way of thinking, my method is valid for any set of texts 
without regard to their circumstances of production. With respect to 
biblical manuscripts, for example, I recall reading or hearing Sylva 
Lake, like her husband Kirsopp a towering figure of the last 
generation (he first photographed Sinaiticus; he taught me OT as 
literature, his last class before retirement, I regret to say; we all 
knew that he would weep when he read particularly fine passages from 
the KJV and would watch for him to do so; he told us in parting that 
he was going to search for Noah's ark) -- Silva and Kirsopp used to 
collate manuscripts by reading aloud to one another, and she reported 
that often a monk studying nearby would "correct" what she was 
saying. Such correction by memory must have been possible as soon as 
people set a high value on the sacred texts. Kirsopp Lake was the 
author of  The Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 1900), the sixth 
ed. revised by Sylva (then Sylva New) in 1928. This book introduced 
me to textual criticism. 
    Let me try again to explain what I think might be possible in 
ringbreaking. Suppose we have seven texts, and variations as follows: 
tis] A; pou B,C,D,E,F,G;  dh] A,B; de C,D,.E,F,G; pallakh] A,B,C; 
gunh D,E,F,G; uioi] A,B,C,D; uiwn E,F,G; eikosth] A,B,C,E; eikadi 
D,F,G; and osa] A,B,C,D,E,F; a G. Now, according to Greg's rules 
(which I accept), the relationship of the seven texts is 
A--B--C,D,E,F--G and there is what I call a ring in the group of four 
texts. Rings only occur when at least two groups of texts "exchange" 
readings, as Greg put it, so the first and last variations are not 
part of the ring. The second variation is not part of a ring because 
A and B don't exchange readings with any other pair or more of other 
texts. The ring comes when C and D have uioi where E and F have uiwn, 
and C and E have eikosth where D and F eikadi (never mind that other 
texts have these readings, C and D and E and F are the only ones to 
exchange readings. (Another way to put it is to say that the pair C,D 
overlaps both the pair C,E  and the pair D,F, and so on around the 
ring; it is also true that a pair which overlaps only one other pair 
will not be part of a ring.)  And what is true of pairs is true of 
larger groups of texts.   Isn't there some way to start with A, let 
us say, and feel along the sequence A (which has tis), A--B (which 
have dh),  recognize that we have come to a ring when we come to C, 
break it, say between C and E, and feel along once more through C 
(A,B and C have pallakh), to D (all four have uioi; we disregard the 
fact E has eikosth like A, B and C), to F (D, F and G have eikadi), 
and then separately from F to E (E, F and G have uiwn and E has the 
now-sourceless eikosth) and from F to G (all but G have osa). Maybe 
not, but it's a challenge. 
  Again, thanks to Bob and Jimmy. 
   Vinton Dearing

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:08:53 -0500 (CDT)

>explaining some things in my original message. Some additional 

Let me also thank the other two for their clarifications. All
is not yet clear to me -- but then, that is what the books are
for. :-)

>"nix" vs. "nada" vs. "not on your life" etc.

If it helps anyone in reading my Encyclopedia articles, the former
are what I call "binary readings"; the latter are "ternary" or
higher order readings. It seems to me I've seen other terminology,
too. Has anyone attempted to set a standard for this?

[ ... ]

>Silva and Kirsopp used to 
>people set a high value on the sacred texts.

An interesting and noteworthy observation. Thanks for bringing it
up.

[ ... ]
 
>not, but it's a challenge. 

That does help a bit. I'm not sure I could construct this, but at
least I understand it a bit better.

Unfortunately, I can't see any way to help with the code. I also
showed the problem to another programmer type (a higher order sort
of person than I am, BTW; I slog code to get work done, but he
programs for fun -- shudder!). I'm afraid we were in agreement
that the problem isn't well enough defined for the algorithm
to be evident. No doubt if the problem were better specified,
we would have better luck -- but if it were better specified,
no doubt Vinton Deering the challenge would not have been
offered. :-)

Wish I could help 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)