Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Mar, 9 Dc 97 18:10:08 +0100

>unusual and hard-to-understand words. He is, in other words,
>pretentious.
Or, more sumply, his vocabulary is different because the issues he 
addresses are different, or because his thinking is original...

Jean V.

_________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique
e-mail: [email-masked]
_________________________________________________
"Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est 
inutilisable"
"What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable"
"Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar"
_________________________________________________

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:50:42 -0600

On 9 Dc 97, Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>

>addresses are different, or because his thinking is original...

Possibly true -- but this doesn't match experience. (Remember, I
am an editor, and I have to deal with a lot of really bad writing. :-)

Usually, the people who use long, unusual words are not people
who are original or highly intelligent. Rather, they are people
who are trying to use long words to hide their lack of intelligence.
Great writers -- from Julius Caesar to the author of the Gospel
of John to Winston Churchill -- could convey their meanings
in simple words that everyone could understand.

In general, if you cannot state your opinions at the eighth
grade reading level, then either the subject is mathematical
or you don't know how to write. :-)

I realize that I am projecting a modern viewpoint onto ancient
authors -- but I don't see anything in the letter of Jude that
couldn't have been said with ordinary words. Jude used big words
because he liked them.

And this does have a textual application. A canon of criticism
that we don't hear much is that the less familiar reading is
more likely to be original. (This follows from the fact that
scribes tended to conform readings to the familiar.) So, since
Jude preferred unusual words, we should tend to prefer unusual
words when dealing with his writings. (This applies equally
strongly to 2 Peter, but much less so to other books.)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 04:06:03 -0800 (PST)

On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, [email-masked] (U. Schmid) wrote:

>Under point 4. of your review, Jimmy, I read: "...Landon offers a set of
>distinctive characteristics of Jude's style: the frequent use of
>[italics]hapax legomena[/italics]...".
>
>Do you (or Landon) really consider the "_use_ of hapax legomena" (Of what?
>The NT? The Biblical Greek? The Koine Greek? The...???) to be
>characteristic of someone's "_style_"? If so, this amazing phenomenon
>should be treated under the heading "providential anticipation of a NT
>author's vocabulary choices when compared to the rest of his fellow
>collegues" (filling in just the first reference at hand for "hapax
>legomena").

To which I respond:

I have to agree with Schmid's implication that the use of hapax legomena
does not tell us much about Jude's style, especially when "hapax legomena"
is defined as "a word that occurs only once in the NT". 

A much more useful category, one that tells us more about Jude's style, is
that of rare words. Yet more useful is to break them down into: 
    1) Rare word likely to stump Jude's contemporaries
    2) Rare words likely to be recognized despite their rarity.

The number of words in category 2) is surprisingly high, higher than one
might expect if reacting to the shockingly high number of "hapax legomena"
(in the NT scholar's sense) in Jude. 

In fact, I claim that a more representative number would be:
    #hapax legomena - #words in 2).

But even this is not as informative as:
    #words in 1)

Also, since it has been pointed out that hapax legomena are significant
for TC, I should like to point out that the copyist is just as likely to
be stumped by a word that occurs only twice in the NT as he is by a word
occuring only once (all other things being equal). 

As it turns out, there are enough examples of both in Jude.

Now on Mon, 8 Dec 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

>A quick glance at my specially-marked-up Bible shows 14 unique words in
>Jude -- a very high rate. (Though it's not as high as the 51 in 2
>Peter.) To me, this means that the author of Jude liked to use unusual
>and hard-to-understand words. He is, in other words, pretentious.

This is not fair at all. To demonstrate why, I will look at several of the
rare words used and show that Jude _does_ accomplish something with these
choices of words, even though these choices of expression are still
probably not the best (from the viewpoint of epistolary style). 

Rare words of category 2):

    GOGGUSTE^S - grumbler.  This word occurs once in the NT, but is
    a common suffix on a common verb in the LXX and Gospels.  Surely
    this is not a problem for most of Jude's audience. 
    Haplax legomenon in the NT sense.

    MEMPSIMOIRIOS - a complainer, esp. one who complains about his
    lot.  This too is compounded from common words, although not
    quite as likely to be familiar to the reader, only a few would
    not recognize MOIRA and MEMPSI as comming from MEMPHO^.  A
    reader would pause, but after a moment recognize it, especially
    when helped by the context. Haplax legomenon in the NT sense.

    HYPEROGKOS - Certainly not the usual word for "proud", but
    both the prefix HYPER and the root OGKOS (=arrogance) would
    be readily recognized.  This is more emphatic than simply
    using OGKOS. A "diplex legomenon"!

    ENYPNIAZOMAI - dreamer; again, all common roots although the
    word occurs in only one other place in the NT. Another
    "diplex legomenon".

    EMPAIKTE^S   - A scoffer. Again, a common suffix -TE^S on the
    very common verb EMPAIZO^.  A native speaker would NOT be
    confused by the consonant mutation Z to K.  Another
    "diplex legomenon".

    SYNEUO^CHEOMAI - to feast together.  Again, this is a compound
    of a common prefix with a fairly common verb, EUO^CHEOMAI.

So just with these examples we have a substantial reduction in the number
of rare words likely to cause the copyist difficulty. 

It is also interesting to note that many of the "diplex legomena" occur
(outside of Jude) only in 2 Peter.  Did they use the same amanuensis? 

Now for words rather more likely to have stumped the readers:

    SPILAS - cave or rock (esp. over which sea dashes).
    The Vulgate translates it as cave, the KVJ as
    spot, which seems to be a misreading (no variant for this word is
    listed in NA26).  This is common in Greek, esp. Homer, but 
    a haplax legomenon in the NT sense.

    PAREISDYNO^ - to infiltrate, slip in stealthily.  This is also used in
    medicine to describe the action of a poison or a leech's byte, and
    in law courts to describe a loophole.  It is a rather negative word!
    Haplax legomenon in the NT sense.

A this point, two patterns have emerged, the first more clearly than the
second. They are 1) many uncommon words have common roots so are
recognizable 2) both the words of 1) and _some_ of the words of 2) seem to
be deliberately chosen to have a Classical or oratorical flavor.
PAREISDYNO^, for example, is an excellent word for a fiery denunciation.
KYMATA AGRIA EPAPHRIZONTA TAS hEAUTO^N AISCHYNAS, is almost as good. Would
_you_ follow a false teacher described with such scathing words? 

In fact, although the author uses a few words in a clearly non-Attic,
Hellenistic sense, (such as hAPAX meaning "formerly"), he knows how to use
the Greek particle quite well, avoiding the heavy parataxis so noticeable
elsewhere in the NT. 

So by combining this not entirely unsuccessful attempt at Greek rhetorical
style with the frequent quotes from Enoch and other Jewish Apocrypha, he
has created an energetic appeal to avoid the false teachers, an appeal
that will strike a resonant chord in the hearts of both Jewish Christian
and Greek. This makes the epistle a truly catholic epistle. 

PS: I would continue looking for evidence of my second pattern, but it is
time for me to become an ENYPNIAZOMENOS for the night! 

Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:20:48 -0600

On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]> wrote, in
part:

[ ... ]

>occuring only once (all other things being equal). 

I think these are all good points. On the other hand, I think it
somewhat dangerous to make assumptions about this. I think the assumption
is that compound words based on common roots will generally belong in
category 2, and that words from odd roots will belong in Category 1.

I think that's true in general -- but let's take a case in English.
The word is "understand." (The identical argument applies with
German "verstehen.") Analysed by its roots under- and -stand, it
means "to have someone walking on your shoulders" (all right, that's
an amplified definition, but it gets its point across :-). But
the word really means "to make sense of."

If word is truly unusual, how can either we or a scribe be sure that
it means what it appears to mean, no matter how clear the roots are?

Chances are, in any sample, there will be rare words that are easily
understood and rare words that are not easily understood -- and the
ratio probably will not change all that much. (This could be probably
be verified with a little work, but I doubt it's worth it.) So,
as a measure of style, it's probably just as useful to measure
*total* hapax legomena (or, perhaps, total rare words -- the marked-up
NT I mentioned shows words occurring once in green and those occurring
two to four times in pink) as it is to measure "difficult" hapax
legomena. And much easier....

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:06:58 -0800 (PST)

> >(in the NT scholar's sense) in Jude. 
[snip]
> somewhat dangerous to make assumptions about this. I think

True.  This is why I did not stop with the assumption, but detailed
several of the rare words in Jude to verify the assumption. 

> the assumption is

The assumption is based on experience; when traveling in Russia, I heard
or read new words (new for me) all the time, yet often I could recognize
the meanings immediately (if the speaker is not too fast).  This works in
Russian because the language has a _habit_ of building new words on its
own roots instead of relying on other languages (as English does). 

But Greek is very similar to Russian in this respect.  So if I can do this
for a second language, then a native speaker should be able to do this
even more frequently. In fact, I have met native speakers of Russian
who do this all the time.  Nor are they all that highly educated.

> the word really means "to make sense of."

This is an example of a compound word that takes a surprising sense
of its roots to derive its meaning.  These exist in Greek too, but
rather more rarely.  Besides, none of the words I analyzed fit this
category.  Jude appears not to have used any.

> it means what it appears to mean, no matter how clear the roots are?

We can't.  But of the several words I analyzed, only one fits in that
category, SPILAS.  The others are all common enough in non-biblical
Greek, and in the meanings that appear to be correct in Jude.  SPILAS
is the exception; although it _does_ occur commonly elsewhere, Jude's
metaphor is so odd (remember I said his attempt at Attic oratory was
not completely successful), it leaves me wondering if Jude had in
mind a sense not preserved elsewhere (Sophocles does this often
in even a single play).

> legomena. And much easier....

Much easier, yes.  But the whole point of my example was to show that it
is also much less informative.  After all, of the several examples I
treated all but two had meanings given by straightforward combinations of
common roots, even though they were hapax (or "diplex") legomena (in the
NT sense). 

It is a surprising amount of work, but since Jude is _so_ short, it is
quite practical.  Nor do I claim that my previous posting is complete,
there are several other words requiring the same analysis.  But I expect
to find that at least a third of the hapax legomena are in fact readily
understandable to Jude's audience.  This means that the number of haplax
legomena has about that much less significance. 

Matthew Johnson

---

From: Ken Litwak <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:37:57 -0800

I can't imagine connecting hapax legomena with style, and I can't
imagine trying to talk intelligibly about the style of Jude.  Relying on
others, oe would have to have a much larger sample than afforded by the
entire NT to be able to judge one author's style, certainly more than
the tiny sample from the letter of Jude.  It would be difficult I think
also to make textual decisions over hapax legomena.  Would a hapax
always be the more difficult reading and hence the one we should always
choose?  Or should the fact that it is a hapax argue against its
originality because a hapax might seem like a mistake?  I raise that as
a serious question.

Ken Litwak
University of Bristol, Entgland

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:47:11 -0600

On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]> wrote,

>several of the rare words in Jude to verify the assumption. 

[ etc. ]

I'm not going to carry on much about this, since we only have two
of us talking. :-)

But I will stand by counting all rare words. Your analysis is
excellent -- but it is also subjective. The list of rare words
is relatively objective (I say "relatively" because, of course,
there is textual variation :-).

I'm trained as a scientist, I am, and I can't help but prefer
the most objective method possible. While I probably agree with
every one of your examples, they are still based on somewhat
subjective analysis.

Given that I think both methods are equally effective, I'll
prefer the one I can reduce to an algorithm. :-)

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

                        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: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:48:30 -0600

On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, [email-masked] wrote:

>the tiny sample from the letter of Jude.

This is true in part, but not entirely. Consider these examples:

"I delight to employ a vocabulary of prodigious obscurity"

versus

"I like to use big fancy words."

They both say the same thing. But I suspect you can tell quite
a bit about style from either one. :-)

It's true that short samples are not as reliable as long samples.
It's even more true that an author's style can vary. (Witness the
above. :-)

But there's a good chance that something an author releases for
public consumption (e.g. a letter to a church) will be typical
of his style. So we are justified in making assumptions based
on even short selections such as Jude.

>It would be difficult I think

It's a good question, too. But I would argue that there are two sorts
of writers in the world: Those who never use a simple word when a
complex one is available, and those who never use a big word when
a small one will do.

This *is* relevant. Take, as extreme examples, the authors of John and
2 Peter. John very much prefers simple words; 2 Peter likes the complex
sort. So if we see a variant in John between a simple word and a complex
one, all else being equal (e.g. the two words mean the same), we should
prefer the simpler. In 2 Peter, by contrast, we should prefer the harder.

Now I would consider this a "weak" canon -- that is, one we should only
apply if most of the others fail. But it is a legitimate rule.

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:21:47 -0800 (PST)

> I'm not going to carry on much about this, since we only have two

I too will be brief, since if we keep going on, we will no doubt wander
further and further away from topics of genuine interest to the list. 

> But I will stand by counting all rare words.

Even this represents of convergence of our opinions.  After all, your
original proposition was to count only "hapax legomena" (in the NT sense). 
My point was to a) count other rare words too and b) do more than _just_
counting, especially in such a short example as the letter of Jude. 

> Your analysis is
> excellent -- but it is also subjective.

Ah, yes.  I have noticed that other members of the list have a prejudice
against subjectivity as well.  But what is wrong with subjectivity?  After
all, TC is no less a science because it is a humanities topic, and
humanities topics always involve subjectivity. 

Even the physical sciences involve substantially more subjectivity than is
commonly recognized.  To quote an example you would certainly be familiar
with, Dirac said that in order for an equation (of physics) to be correct,
it must have beauty.  His own conjectures of the wave equation and the
existence of the positron are examples of this. 

Surely beauty, being in the "eye of the beholder", must be subjective. 

[snip]
> prefer the one I can reduce to an algorithm. :-)

But then how do you decide when two methods are equally effective?  Do you
have an algorithm for that, even when one of the methods is clearly not
algorithmic? 

Does not even this question make it clear that subjectivity is necessary
for TC, as well as many other fields, even physics? 

Matthew Johnson

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 08:45:13 -0600

On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]> wrote, in
part:

[ ... ]

>counting, especially in such a short example as the letter of Jude. 

I'll agree with (a). Better to count unusual words than just
hapax legomena. I'm also willing to analyse the use of the words
in other sources. Beyond that I will not go.

>against subjectivity as well.

Not enough of them. :-)

>But what is wrong with subjectivity?  After

I can't agree with that. I will agree that humanities topics involve
subjectivity. And I assuredly agree that most religious studies are
subjective. But TC, unlike other areas of the humanities, involves
controllable data (manuscripts and their readings). It is therefore
at least *capable* of scientific, mathematically-based methods.

>Surely beauty, being in the "eye of the beholder", must be subjective. 

Your examples are correct, but hardly relevant. Surely no sane person
would regard modern subatomic physics (quark theory) as attractive!

It's also worth noting that Albert Einstein ceased to be a practicing
physicist because he didn't like the aesthetic (religious) implications
of the Uncertainty Principle. But the Uncertainty Principle has passed
every challenge it has faced; if it is not fact, then it is a good
approximation of fact.

In other words, scientists like "beautiful" theory in the same way
that mathematicians prefer "elegant" demonstrations. But an honest
scientist will not *demand* such beauty.

>have an algorithm for that, even when one of the methods is clearly not

If a method is not algorithmic, I won't call it a scientific method. :-)

As for deciding between scientific models that both fit, I concede
there is no simple method. Often Occam's Razor is applied. (For
example, at the time of Kepler, the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems
of planetary motion were equally accurate. Kepler and Galileo preferred
the Copernican because it was simpler.)

However, the key test of a theory is not how it fits known facts, but
how well it predicts the *unknown*. If a theory has an implication,
not previously tested, and that implication proves to fit the fact,
*that* is the strongest evidence for a theory.

>for TC, as well as many other fields, even physics? 

This, I think, gets to the heart of the difference between us.
Subjectivity may be "necessary" (though I question even that).
But it is certainly not *desirable*.

At least to me.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: "Mark O'Brien" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 11:43:51

Bob--

At 08:45 AM 12/17/97 -0600, you wrote:
<snip>
>at least *capable* of scientific, mathematically-based methods.

However, the very fact that we have massive gaps in our knowledge about the
history and transmission of the text must surely mean that whatever
"scientific, mathematically-based methods" you come up with must
necessarily be founded upon presuppositions at certain points.

I agree with your point that we ought to have consistent and accurate
approaches to the manner in which we deal with the available data, but the
unavailable data is what makes TC both a science and an art, as most
introductory textbooks are quick to point out.  I'm not going against your
point, but am saying that I can see Matthew's (?) point.

Regards,

M.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 08:02:00 -0600

>necessarily be founded upon presuppositions at certain points.

Of course -- but this is true of almost every science. Astronomy
jas to assume that the universe is uniform -- that is, that
the universal constants are in fact universal (no evidence at all
to support that theory!) and that stars take the same form everywhere.
Biology, particularly evolutionary biology, has to assume that ancient
life for the most part used the same energy processes as modern life.
Cosmology has to make assumptions about the history of the universe
when it can only examine the *present* universe.

I could go on (though I can't think of a science that begins with
"D" :-). *All* sciences make assumptions. The goal is simply to
reduce the assumptions, and test all things possible.

I would argue that, as compared to the other evolutionary sciences
(e.g. biology, cosmology), Biblical Textual Criticism is in
relatively good shape; it has an appreciable fraction of the
total evidence at its disposal. Compare this to cosmology: The
universe is believed to be 18 billion years old. We have recorded
observations for only the last 2500 years, telescopic observations
for only the last 400, photographic for only the last 150 or so,
and only 50 years of observations outside the visible spectrum.
In other words, cosmologists have, for all intents and purposes,
*no* data.

Which may explain why they have so many goofy theories. :-)

>point, but am saying that I can see Matthew's (?) point.

Oh, I can too. And I do not deny the value of intuition. For that matter,
it takes intuition to create a method. I am simply saying that a method
that cannot be reduced to an algorithm will *always* be subject to
argument, and *cannot* be proved. Indeed, you can't even offer evidence
of its accuracy.

A truly brilliant scholar without an algorithm could probably produce
a better NT text than I can with my various calculations. But turn
that genius's rules over to an idiot and you'll get garbage. Turn
my algorithm over to the same idiot and you'll get a text which is
at least reasonably good. :-)

And, let's face it, most of us (I include myself) are idiots. If you
don't believe it, look at the people we keep electing to our respective
governments. :-)

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]