Subject: Re: Ro 1:16

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 15:53:55 -0400 (EDT)

At 02:37 PM 10/1/97 -0500, you wrote:

>I'm not sure this discussion is worth continuing, but since Jim West
>is interpreting my words in ways I did not intend, I want to make *my*
>views clear.
>
>(BTW -- I'm not accusing him of twisting my words -- just treating
>them in the light of out-of-date theory.)
>

Surely this was not my intention!

>
>
>I think we're referring to two different text-types here. You, as
>best I can tell, are referring to the Alexandrian and "Western." I
>am *not*; the two which unequivocally include PRWTON are the
>Alexandrian text (Aleph A C 81 bo; 33 is Byzantine in Romans) and
>the Family 1739 text (1739 6 630 1881). 

No, it seems to me that family 1739 is Western!  (a rose by any other name...)

>
>I did make one mis-statement; I should have said two *early* text-types
>support the word. It has, of course, the support of a third text-type,
>the Byzantine.
>

But, of course, the Byzantine is fairly late.

>As for the "Western" type, please do not confuse the nature of the
>"Western" type in Paul with that of Codex Bezae. Even among
>so-called "Western" witnesses, Bezae is extreme. Whereas the "Western"
>text of Paul, although clearly poorer than the other types, is
>relatively close to the original text. 

This is the very heart of the question- What does "relatively close" mean?

>
>I can't omit that. It's two good text-types (Alexandrian and 1739) against
>one good text-type (B-sa), with the fourth text-type uncertain.

Again, 1739 does not seem so independent of the Western type.

>
>Most people, of course, consider 1739 to be Alexandrian. Zuntz placed
>it with p46 and B. If either are right, though, the reading becomes
>even *more* muddied -- one good text-type against another, with the
>"Western" text split, or one good text-type and the others split.
>

No- 1739 is far closer to Western than Alexandrian.

>I'll stand by my statement that the external evidence is not
>strongly decisive.
>

OK.

>I'll also mention a psychological point. I don't know about anyone
>else, but I'm used to this phrase with PRWTON in place. "To the Jew
>first and also to the Greek" is one of those phrases I remember
>very well. I think we all have a tendency to "protect" readings
>we are used to, and to interpret the internal evidence in their
>favour. (I offer as evidence 1 Corinthians 13:3.) Something to
>think about in assessing internal evidence....

Quite true- but just because a phrase is familiar does not make it secondary!!

>
>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>                        Robert B. Waltz

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West

Adjunct Professor of Bible,
Quartz Hill School of Theology

[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:23:48 -0500 (CDT)

On Wed, 01 Oct 1997, Jim West <[email-masked]> wrote, in part:

[ ... ]

>No, it seems to me that family 1739 is Western!  (a rose by any other name...)

Are you serious? I know it's been called "Western" in Acts (though
I question even that), but to call it "Western" in Paul strikes me
as bizaare.

As data I offer the following table of rates of agreement. This is
based on a sample of 550 readings. What follows are the rates at
which 1739 agrees with a variety of manuscripts:

P46    212/374=56.7%
Aleph  342/547=62.5%
A      329/521=63.1%
B      298/464=64.2%
C      214/341=62.8%
D      252/545=46.2%
F      218/467=46.7%
G      223/478=46.7%
K      219/471=46.5%
L      253/539=46.9%
P      289/522=55.4%
Psi    278/537=51.8%
6      361/525=68.8%
33     330/535=61.7%
81     335/543=61.7%
104    286/547=52.3%
223    255/547=46.6%
330    264/544=48.5%
365    298/532=56.0%
424**  125/144=86.8%
436    274/545=50.3%
630    322/545=59.1%
1175   305/501=60.9%
1505   272/541=50.3%
1506    80/132=60.6%
1881   432/547=79.0%
a      233/496=47.0%
b      224/475=47.2%
d      226/489=46.2%
f      247/478=51.7%
sa     285/435=65.5%
bo     283/436=64.9%
arm    246/441=55.8%

If you'll observe, the lowest rate of agreement in the entire set
is that between 1739 and D, and the other "Western" witnesses
rank equally low. (BTW -- it is interesting, although almost
irrelevant, to note that in this sample 1739, 1881, and 424**
form a group which conforms to *both* halves of the Colwell
definition of a text-type: agreement in excess of 70%, *and*
a gap of over 10 percentage points. I don't believe in the
Colwell definition, but for those who do, it applies to
family 1739.)

"But," you might say, "1739 has many characteristically 'Western'
readings." Yes, it does -- some. But it has more readings
characteristic of other types. Using the same sample, and looking
for readings where 1739 has 5 or fewer supporters, we learn that
there are a total of 41 (none of which, BTW, are singular --
and interesting comment on the care with which 1739 was copied).

Listing these, we find the number of agreements 1739 has in
characteristic readings with each of the major mss:

P46      12
Aleph     9
A         4
B        16
C         0
D         3
F         1
G         2
K         0
L         0
P         2
Psi       0
6        16
33        3
81        2
104       0
223       0
330       1
365       0
424**    17
436       0
630      10
1175      2
1505      0
1506      1
1881     19
a         1
b         3
d         3
f         0
sa        0
bo        0
arm       3

Again, the agreement with the "Western" manuscripts is trivial,
the agreement with the Alexandrians is greater, the agreement
with P46 and B is high, and the agreement with 424** and 1881
(as well as 6 and 630, considering that the latter two are
heavily Byzantine) is extremely impressive.

I could cite many individual instances of the striking agreements of
1739, 6, 424**, and 1881 (plus 0121 0243) with the Alexandrians --
but I think the above is probably enough evidence. :-)

The question is not "is 1739 'Western'?" It is not. The question
is, "Is Zuntz right (in placing 1739 with P46 B) or am I
(in placing 1739 in its own text-type)?"

>But, of course, the Byzantine is fairly late.

Exactly my point.

>This is the very heart of the question- What does "relatively close" mean?

Agreed. All I am saying is that the "Western" type, in Paul,
deserves a fair hearing. Where it stands alone -- as it
frequently does -- it is almost certainly secondary. But
where it has support from any other major group (P46/B, 1739,
Aleph/A/C/33), it deserves strong consideration.

>Again, 1739 does not seem so independent of the Western type.

I think I've covered that. :-)

I'm curious -- what evidence led you to believe 1739 is "Western"?

[ ... ]

>Quite true- but just because a phrase is familiar does not make it secondary!!

Oh, agreed. I'm just saying we must be aware of the insidious
effects of familiarity. :-)

                        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: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:45:54 +000

> which 1739 agrees with a variety of manuscripts:

Could you please clarify something that puzzles me?  I take it that 
the two figures separated by a slash-mark are number of agreements/of 
variation units.  If so, why do the variation unit numbers vary so 
much?  Percentages of agreement are meaningful (to the limits of 
my lights at least) only if the dataset is constant.  Could you 
clarify how you're arriving at/using the numbers?
 
> characteristic readings with each of the major mss:

And how have you established the "characteristic" readings of these 
individual mss??  
 
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, 2 Oct 1997 08:34:04 -0500 (CDT)

>> which 1739 agrees with a variety of manuscripts:

[...etc... ]

>clarify how you're arriving at/using the numbers?

I guess habit made this seem obvious to me. :-)

You are correct about what the numbers means. Taking P46 as an
example, the  figure is the number of agreements, 374 is the number
of points of variation at which both P46 and 1739 exist.

As to why the number vary so much, the reason is that not all the
manuscripts exist at all points. Of the most important manuscripts
(P46, Aleph, A, B, C, D, G, 33, 1739), only three -- Aleph, 33, 1739 --
are complete, and even *they* (particularly 33) are illegible at
some points. Also, the versions are sometimes ambiguous, or
(especially in the case of the Bohairic), the versional
tradition is itself split.

However, it is simply not feasible to restrict ourselves to places
where all the manuscripts exist. There would be too little text left
to assess.

Hurtado is right in that the meaning of numbers varies depending on
the sample. (This, BTW, is something most scholars do not lay
enough stress on.) This means that one set of numbers -- the
rates of agreement for 1739 -- are not enough data *in themselves*
to form conclusions. (This, I believe, is the root cause of my
disagreement with Zuntz, who really looked only at three manuscripts:
P46, B, 1739.) We need the same statistics for all the manuscripts
in our sample. But even one set of statistics tells us something
about the manuscript we are studying. If our sample is large
enough -- and "large enough" generally means "at least 500" --
we can live with the fact of defect in certain manuscripts, as
long as we use the same points of variation throughout.

>And how have you established the "characteristic" readings of these 

Simple enough (I'm more or less repeating the description above).
If a reading has six or fewer supporters (out of the fifty I
studied), it's characteristic (my terminology is "near-singular").

I would note that this differs from the method of Ehrman. My method
is mechanical. It is possible, the way I do things, for a
"near-singular" have support from (a few members of) multiple
text-types. I consider this a price worth paying in exchange
for a method which does not rely on an individual's decisions
about what is and is not "characteristic." (Obviously this is
a point on which Ehrman and I will never agree. My scientific
training -- or something -- means that the goal must always
be an entirely algorithmic method.)

I believe, BTW, that this is the reason why 1739 shows so many
more characteristic agreements with P46 and B than with Aleph
etc. The P46/B type has only three witnesses -- P46, B, sa.
The Alexandrian has many witnesses (Aleph, A, C, 33, 81, 104,
365, 1175, 1962, etc., although many of these are mixed).
Thus a reading which has the *unanimous* support of the
P46/B type will have fewer supporters than one that has the
support of only a fraction of the Alexandrian witnesses. So
P46 B inherently have more near-singular readings than, say,
Aleph.

No doubt that's more answer than anyone wanted, so I'll stop there. :-)

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:19:34 +000

Bob Waltz wrote in response to my query about his table of 
> tradition is itself split.

Yes, I ran across this problem in my study of Codex W, in attempting 
to include P45 into the witnesses.  When it came to assessing the 
W-P45 relationship, however, I chose to assess it in comparison to 
the agreements of any two (or more) of my witnesses *at the 
variation-units where P45 is extant*, precisely so that we could 
compare agreements of *all* witnesses on the same units, i.e., over 
the same data.
I also compared agreements of the witnesses other than P45 
separately, over all variation-units where they existed (omitting the 
material beyond Mk 16:8, for similar reasons).
I suggest that it is difficult to assess the meaning of % of 
agreement unless one is comparing % of pretty much the same count.  
This is esp. so in the Colwell-influenced approach (to which I must 
plead "guilty"), where the *only* meaning of % figures (e.g., the now 
controversial "70%") is *comparative* % of agreement.
> where all the manuscripts exist. There would be too little text left
I found 103 variation units in Mark where P45 is extant.  If we're 
dealing with mere scraps, then I suggest that we can't make any 
meaningful statements about % of agreement.
 
L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:03:48 -0500 (CDT)

>compare agreements of *all* witnesses on the same units, i.e., over 

This is, of course, ideal -- but it won't work if we use large
groups of manuscripts. Not when we have so many witnesses to deal with.
And we must, if we are to understand all text-types, study the
entire tradition, not just selected samples. If we compare, say,
P46 and B where they both exist, and then P46 and A where *they*
both exist, we wind up with incommensurate numbers. I studied
fifty manuscripts. If I took only the points of variation where
all fifty exist, I would have ended up with something like three
readings.

The warning here is that we must not prejudge our results based
on one set of statistics. (Particularly since I only gave you
about a third of the data I generated.) To judge the relationship
between 1739 and P46, for instance, we must look at the complete
data for *both* 1739 *and* P46 -- each compiled over the points
of variation where the individual manuscripts exist.

Also recall that my goal is not the same as Hurtado's. He was
assessing the relationship between P45, W, and the "Caesarean"
witnesses. I agree that he managed to break the link between
P45/W and the others. But that is a limited objective. I'm
trying for something larger.

>material beyond Mk 16:8, for similar reasons).

As did I -- I just didn't publish them all here. The results
take up 200K!

>agreement unless one is comparing % of pretty much the same count.

Agreed, more or less. However, "pretty much" is vague. I would
maintain that, in 550 readings, a shift of +/- 100 readings can
qualify "pretty much." The difference between samples means that
a difference between, say, agreement rates of 45% and 48% means
nothing. (It wouldn't mean much even if the samples were identical.)
But the difference between 45% (the rate at which 1739 agree with
the "Western" witnesses) and 60% (the rate at which it agreed with
the Alexandrians) *is* significant.

And that's all I'll say on the subject until somebody shows enough
mathematical sophistication to tell me how the Central Limits
Theorem applies here. :-)
 
>meaningful statements about % of agreement.

Agreed -- but there were very few "scraps" in my list of manuscripts.
103 variants is, in fact, an awfully small number -- but even P46 had
many times that many points of variation.

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 07:57:48 -0400 (EDT)

Gentlemen,

I have collated MS 1346 as regards the pericope adultera here in Muenster,
and have compared my collation with that of Swanson in his volumes, and it
appears that whatever MS Swanson collated thinking it was 1346, it
definitely was _not_ 1346 (at least for the pericope adultera); the
Muenster MS is definitely 1346, and it differs dramatically in that
pericope from Swanson's data. 

I so far have not identified which MS pertains to Swanson's 1346, but am
wondering if (assuming Swanson got his microfilms from Claremont) whether
the one in the 1346 box might have been the wrong one.  Is there anyone in
or around Claremont who might be able to check on this possibility?

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