Subject: A challenge

From: "Vinton A. Dearing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 16:57:54 PST

Dear listers:
   A textual stemma has a general form that may need to be determined 
before the stemma is decided upon. For example, with three texts, 
none of which can be intermediary between the others, the following 
stemmas are possible: any one of the three may be the archetype, 
having a lost text as a descendant which is the common ancestor of 
the other two texts; or the archetype may be the common ancestor of 
any one of the three texts and of a lost text which again is the 
common ancestor of the other two texts; or the archetype may be a 
lost text, the common ancestor of the three extant texts -- seven 
possibilities, all having a single abstract form: each text connected 
independently to a lost text, A to lost, B to lost, and C to lost.
   An archetype has all the correct readings in the texts, and if no 
one text has all of them, we need to recognize the abstract form to 
decide among the other possibilities and to reconstruct the archetype 
(with the three texts in the example, when they agree, the lost text 
agrees with them; otherwise it agrees with any two of the extant 
texts). This is quite a different procedure from choosing the 
text with the most best readings and substituting the rest in it, 
leaving the great preponderance of its readings unweighed in the 
balance.
   With more than three texts, the stemma may have one or more 
"rings" in it if nothing is done to remove them. If A and B have 
"yes" where C and D have "yea" and A and C have "no" where B and 
D have "nay" then the abstract form of the ring is A--B ("yes"), B--D 
("nay"), D--C ("yea"), and C--A ("no").  The archetype may be any of 
the four texts or the common ancestor of any two that are connected, 
say, of A and C, making B a descendant of  A and D the common 
descendant of B and C  (i.e., when A and C disagreed, sometimes A and 
sometimes C had the best reading; the archetype would then read "no" 
whether or not that was one of the identifiably best readings).
   To "break" such a ring we decide which is the "weakest link," all 
variations considered, and before we look for the archetype -- note, 
before we look for the archetype. If, for example, there are over all 
fewer AB agreements than AC agreements or BD agreements or CD 
agreements, then we say that the agreement of A and B in having "yes" 
is abnormal (without deciding whether it is accidental, coincidental 
or emendatory) and set it aside. In effect, then, we have three 
variant readings, "yes (A)," "yes (B)" and "yea," and the abstract 
relationship among the four texts is A--C--D--B. Other evidence may 
modify the relationship without changing the basic series: a lost 
text may take the place of C with C connected to it, or a lost text 
may take the place of D with D connected to it, or there may be two 
lost texts, with C connected to one and D to the other, and one of 
these lost texts may be the archetype.
   Now, using A--B--D--C--A for the ring we have just been 
considering, there may also be rings A--B--C--D--A and A--
C--B--D--A, three rings that we may call alternates. And if there are 
additional texts we may have two small rings A--B--D--C--A and 
A--B--E--F--A within a larger ring A--C--D--B--E--F--A, the two
smaller of which we may call connected.
   In order to be consistent in breaking the rings and to divide as 
few links as possible, we need to break them in a certain order and 
may need to repeat the process after the first round of breaking. 
These increasingly complicated matters are treated on pp. 93-98 of my 
book Principles and Practice of Textual Analysis. If those who wish 
to take up my challenge wish also to have a Xerox copy of these pages 
I shall be happy to send them one. So what is my challenge?
   You may decide that you can live with a few rings in your stemmas. 
You will then find that with a medium sized New Testament book like 
First John and the twenty earliest surviving texts, there are nearly 
7000 rings. I have written a computer program that patiently 
identifies all the smaller rings, breaks the rings in the required 
order, and then repeats the process as often as necessary. This 
program traces many linkages that do not lead to rings, and if, for 
example, A leads to C, C to D, D to B, B to E, E to F, and F does 
not lead to A, the program has (I fear) wasted some time. It is smart 
enough to know that if A leads to B but never to any other text 
to the exclusion of B then A--B will never be a link in any ring. It 
might be smartened up so as to know that if F does not lead to A, as 
in the longer example above, then it may be that F will never lead to 
A and the search can stop short when E leads to F. But I have a 
feeling that the initial form of a stemma is like a great net and 
that you ought to be able to move forward from any place or tag end 
on its circumference breaking the meshes (rings) as you come to them 
until the remaining strands spread out like fans within fans, not a 
cross link among them. Do you have or can you divise an algorithm for 
doing this? You do not need to be a computer programmer -- a step by 
step explanation will do, showing how to start with one text and comb 
out the linkages between it and the rest. Remember, unless one of the 
texts has all the best readings it is impossible to decide on the 
archetype until the comb-out is completed.   
   This is such a complex matter that it may be better for us to 
communicate directly hereafter instead of through tc-list, but a good 
idea deserves wide recognition, so suit yourselves.
    Vinton Dearing

---

From: kdlitwak <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 17:36:42 -0700

I don't have tools available (or know enough languages) to check into
this myself readily so I have a question for the list:

   In Acts 15, Luke shows James citing Amos 9:11-12, according to the
Old Greek, which is what Luke usually uses when citing the Scriptures of
Israel.  It has been objected that James would never quote the LXX.
While I find that argument open to criticism, I'm wondering if there are
any Hebrew texts from, say Qumran, or other versions not dependent upon
the Old Greek, which reflect the same reading as the Old Greek as cited
in Acts or at least are close enough to it to explain how the Old Greek
came to this rendering. (I'm not here looking to "defend" Luke -- just
understand why the LXX is so different -- Luke can take care of himself
:-) ).  Is there a Targum that reads more like the Old Greek?   I'm
looking basically for an explanation for the difference between the MT
Hebrew and Old Greek translation of this text in Amos.  Obviously
witnesses which depend upon the "LXX" are of no help because they are
successors.  I am looking for a  predecessor that went the same
direction.  My brief look at the Old Greek of Amos in Rahlff's didn't
lead me to think that on the whole the translator was as free as, say,
the translator of Isaiah appears to have been.  Thanks for any help in
advance.

Kenneth Litwak
Graduate Theological Union
Berkeley, CA

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 20:26:26 -0500 (CDT)

>the translator of Isaiah appears to have been.  Thanks for any help in

I can't claim to have studied the matter in detail, but I think the
matter is simpler than you describe. Luke quoted the Old Greek LXX
because that's what he knew. Even if you assume that he had James's
words verbatim (which I think -- to say the least -- unlikely), he
would be much more likely to use the Greek text he knew than to
translate it himself.

As for the Old Greek of the Minor Prophets, I can't make any definitive
statement -- but my impression (based on many hours transferring
LXX readings to the margin of my "working" NRSV) is that the version
*is* very different from the Hebrew. I think in some instances these
do represent different texts (and at first glance the LXX looks more
original in a lot of instances), but most of them appear to be nothing
more than instances where the translators simply didn't know what
they were doing.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think you should read too much
into all of this. But that's just my opinion. :-)

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

                        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)

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 08:44:35 -0500 (CDT)

On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, "Vinton A. Dearing" <[email-masked]> wrote:

[ BTW -- I know Dearing asked us to respond off-list. But I have
questions that no one else seems to be asking, so I thought I would
post here. ]

>none of which can be intermediary between the others,

A minor point: Should this not be *directly* intermediary? It is
usually easy to show that A is the parent of B. It is much harder
to show that A is the ancestor of B with intervening mixture. I
assume, from the comments in the rest of this paragraph, that you
are simply saying that none of the manuscripts are parents of any
of the others. Correct?

[ ... ]

>leaving the great preponderance of its readings unweighed in the 

While I generally agree with the reconstruction method proposed
(except that I would substitute "text-types" for "texts"), I am
not sure I understand your distinction. In the final sentence, by
"best readings," do you mean based on internal evidence or on
majority rule? For, if the latter, I do not see the distinction
between the two methods.

>whether or not that was one of the identifiably best readings).

While I concede the possibility of a "ring" in a point of variation
involving four texts and two points of variation, I do not think
it possible to create such a grouping if one includes more manuscripts
and more readings. For example, with four manuscripts and two binary
readings, there are sixteen possible breakdowns of results. Adding
just one more reading doubles this. Adding a fifth manuscript increases
the possibilities by 25%. And so on. The only way one can find "rings"
is to confine one's self to very small samples of the text. But if
one is so confined, how does one decide, of the three variants
yes/yea, no/nay, and should/shall, whether to focus our attention
on yes/yea and no/nay to the exclusion of should/shall?

>these lost texts may be the archetype.

Again, I agree that we should determine everything possible about our
manuscripts before we look for the archetype. But I fail to see the
point of "breaking the ring." The only justification I can see is to
cast off one of the four manuscripts so that one can make a decision
in the event of a two-versus-two tie. (Which, BTW, is *not* my method;
in a two-versus-two tie I would actually look to internal evidence.)
But it would appear that your method rewards texts which agree often.
In the case of a tie, I would be inclined, in the abstract, to reward
those which did *not* agree often.

>smaller of which we may call connected.

Technical footnote: There are actually *six* possible rings with
four members (assuming we always start with A):

A-B-C-D
A-B-D-C
A-C-B-D
A-C-D-B
A-D-B-C
A-D-C-B

If you have a method for restricting this to the rings you listed,
I failed to understand it.

>archetype until the comb-out is completed.

Speaking as a computer programmer, I don't think you've defined the
problem clearly enough for me to comment on a solution algorithm.
I don't doubt that you have actually refined your method further
than what you have described here, but based on the comments you've
made, I can't add anything.

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:02:24 -0400 (EDT)

Several years ago I read both of Dearing's books and found them both
fascinating and informative.  He has of course only given us a brief
synopsis of his views on the list.  Since it's been a while since I read
them, I want to test my memory a bit and reply to both Vinton Dearing and
Bob Waltz.

> are simply saying that none of the manuscripts are parents of any

There is no necessity to say "directly intermediary," since with any three
mss with any given set of readings, even if there is an apparent ring, it
can be shown that by creating a hypothetical intermediary ms that has the
majority reading whenever the mss split 2-1, this ms can be added to the
other three in such a way as to eliminate the ring:

               A              A
             /  \     -->     |
            B---C             x
                            /  \
                           B    C

In case not everyone is clear on the definition of a ring, let me try to
explain it.  Dearing's genealogical method begins with the assumption that
every ms under consideration had only one exemplar, so if a reading is
present in two mss, they should be genetically related (of course, common
scribal mistakes such as the addition or omission of a conjunction must be
eliminated from consideration).  From time to time, a scribe might create
a variant that also appears in an unrelated ms, thus giving the appearance
of a relationship that is not real.  And of course, in the case of
biblical mss, since we know that sometimes one ms was corrected from
another, variants from (mostly) unrelated mss can appear in another ms.
These agreements based on either accident or correction are called rings.

> on yes/yea and no/nay to the exclusion of should/shall?

Bob is right about adding mss and readings.  With many mss and many
readings, one quickly gets not just simple rings but whole networks of
mss.  To break these networks into a simple tree, Dearing proposes
breaking individual links, starting with the weakest ones, until a simple
tree is created.

> those which did *not* agree often.

In the case of a tie, as I recall, Dearing's method says that the it
doesn't matter which link is broken--either is equally likely to be the
correct way to break it.  I think it would interesting to combine this
purely mechanical approach with a subjective evaluation of internal
readings and see what happens.

> I failed to understand it.

There are only three possible rings.  Remember that since the mss are a
ring, the last is connected to the first.  Thus, in Bob's list above, the
last three groups of mss are equivalent to the first three (#4 = #2, #5 =
#3, #6 = #1).  Maybe it's clearer to draw it this way:

A-B    A-C    A-C
| |    | |    | |
D-C    B-D    D-B

> >archetype until the comb-out is completed.

Long ago I wrote a program myself (using a method somewhat different from
Dearing's) that would create a tree from a given set of mss and readings,
but it didn't break the rings, only identified them.  My question in
regard to the whole approach is this.  Is it valid to use the model of a
simple tree when dealing with the transmission of the biblical text?  This
question can't be answered in a strictly theoretical way--data is needed. 
At what point in the transmission of the NT, for example, did scribes
begin correcting their newly copied mss from a second exemplar?  Harry
Gamble, in _Books and Readers in the Early Church_, seems to imply that
the majority of early mss were created privately by copying a single
exemplar.  When did the practice of correcting the text against a second
ms become widespread enough so that, after that point, the idea of using a
simple tree to model the transmission of the text breaks down? 

Jimmy Adair
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: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:34:27 -0400 (EDT)

Targum Jonathan is clearly based on a Hebrew text similar to MT, not the
forebear of the OG.  I don't have immediate access to the Leiden Peshitta,
but the Bible Society's text of P is also much closer to MT than OG.  It
should be noted that Acts 15:16-17, while closer to Rahlfs' LXX than to
MT, is hardly identical.  Thus:

MT: <11> bywm hhw) )qym )t skt dwyd hnplt wgdrty )t prcyhn whrstyw )qym
wbnytyh kymy (wlm <12> lm(n yyr$w )t $)ryt )dwm wkl hgwym )$r nqr) $my
(lyhm n)m yhwh (&h z)t

LXX (Rahlfs): <11> en th hmera ekeinh anasthsw thn skhnhn dauid thn
peptwkuian kai anoikodomhsw ta peptwkota auths kai ta kateskammena auths
anasthsw kai anoikodomhsw authn kaqws ai hmerai tou aiwnos <12> opws
ekzhthswsin oi kataloipoi twn anqrwpwn kai panta ta eqnh ef ous
epikeklhtai to onoma mou ep autous legei kurios o qeos o poiwn tauta

Acts 15 (UBS4): <16> meta tauta anastreyw kai anoikodomhsw thn skhnhn
dauid thn peptwkuian kai ta kateskammena auths anoikodomhsw kai anorqwsw
authn <17> opws an ekzhthswsin oi kataloipoi twn anqrwpwn ton kurion kai
panta ta eqnh ef ous epikeklhtai to onoma mou ep autous legei kurios poiwn
tauta

It looks as though the writer of Acts is either citing a Greek text quite
different from that present in Rahlfs or else he is citing it rather
loosely, perhaps adapting it to his own purposes and viewpoints.  To give
just one example, the omission of "kaqws ai hmerai tou aiwnos" _might_
reflect Luke's understanding of Christianity as the "new covenant,"
distinct from the old and not to be identified with it (this is just a
thought that comes to mind when comparing these readings--obviously it
would need to be researched further).

Jimmy Adair