Subject: Re: Word Frequency as a Textual Tool: (Was: tc-list new book review on TC)

From: [email-masked] (U. Schmid)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:35:34 +0100

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Bob Waltz wrote in part:

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

To my way of thinking this is a dangerous oversimplification of the complex
evidence involved. Consider this:
a) It is not unusual that writers use different vocabulary when addressing
different audiences and/or using different literary genres.
b) A given text usually is part of a communication process that involves a
lot of different parameters such as shared other texts commonly referred to
within the communication process (e.g., the LXX or other translations of
the OT), thus involving citations or allusions and/or catch words intended
to be identified by the audience and not necessarily consistent with the
writers own terminology.
c) A given text is also part of the morphological (and stylistic) fashions
of its times and ambitions, thus resulting in much more seemingly
contingent or inconsistent word choices than one might expect.
The Greek language of NT times already had a long and vivid past as well as
further developpments still to come. It is anachronistic and dangerous to
look at it (morpholocically and stylistically) as the *dead* and shut
language as it now appears.

>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.

Given this overall characteristics for the sake of the argument, one might
also argue quite to the contrary:
Every "complex word" in John (as well as the reverse in Jude) deserves special
attention, for too much conformity might as well be indicative of secondary
developpments as of the reverse. Is there one good reason to suppose that
we modern critics are the only ones to assume a writer being consistent in
choosing "complex words" instead of simple words (or the reverse)? Later
copyists might as well have fealt the same, thus "making" a text much more
consistent as it "originally" was.
A fine illustration of this problem can be found in Vincent Broman's
analysis of "The support of internal text critical evidence for the
Alexandrian and Byzantine text types in Luke" (see the link on the TC-web
site under "Links to other sites..."). It is more or less generally agreed
that Luke partly tries to immitate LXX style. Vincent Broman uses this
feature as a text critical rule to decide on competing readings mostly
favouring textual decisions contra the "Alexandrinian text" (Example:
"variant number 1...The extra LEGONTES after EPHRWTWN [sc. in Lk 8.9] is
superfluous, a semitism/LXXism, and so is Lukan."). In the end it turns out
that partly on the basis of this argument the "Byzantine text" of Luke is
more lukan in style the the "Alexandrinian text".
BTW-- A similar line of argument based on lukan style can be found in the
discussion of the "Western text" of Acts (cf., Blass, Boismard/Lamouille,
Strange) resulting in the theory that the "Western text" of Acts, partly
being even more lukan in style than the "Alexandrian/Byzantine texts", was
the work of Luke himself. Others, of course, have argued that someone
rewriting a text quite naturally tries to immitate his model.

To sum up: Stylistic arguments in textual decisions are notoriously
circular. In itself this is not so much of a problem, since most arguments
in this business are more or less circular. My own scepticism towards
stylistic arguments usually hints on isolated hard and fast rules such as
presented by Bob (and Vincent) and on overall results drawing a much more
coherent stylistic picture than competing textual traditions. In that case
usually another valid canon, the "lectio difficilior potior", comes into
play and urges us to have a closer look at the data involved.

Ulrich Schmid,
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:46:55 -0600

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, [email-masked] (U. Schmid) wrote, in

>On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Bob Waltz wrote in part:

[ ... ]

>different audiences and/or using different literary genres.

This is, of course, true, and there are writers such as Luke who can
practice multiple styles. But experience (and remember, I am an
editor) shows that most people can manage only one style, and cannot
disguise it no matter how hard they try.

I would have to suspect that this was even more true in antiquity,
when there were few literate people and no creative writing classes. :-)

Even in the case of Luke, when his "style" changes, is changing mostly
his sentence formation and the way in which he uses certain special
words (or so it seems to me). There doesn't seem to be much variation
in his use of special words.

[ ... ]

>play and urges us to have a closer look at the data involved.

With the above I have no argument (except that I consider the canon
"that reading is best which best explains the others" to be much
more basic). You'll note that I offered my stylistic rule as a
"weak" canon -- one to be used only when the stronger rules fail.

Still, I think it is a useful rule to have -- if we use it with
great caution.

Of course, given the way *I* practice textual criticism, I may
never apply it in my life. :-)

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

                        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: Vincent Broman <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Dec 1997 21:13:39 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[email-masked] wrote:
>                            Is there one good reason to suppose that
> consistent as it "originally" was. ...

> ... Others, of course, have argued that someone

> circular.

Let's try to keep straight how style can be used in text criticism.

If, say, you show me two sentences differing only in that one contains
"KAI LEGEI TW <dative> ..." and the other "EIPEN DE PROS TON <accusative> ...",
and you tell me one was written by Matthew, one by Luke, and you ask:
which is by Luke?  Then, knowing something of the evangelists' preferences,
I can predict that the latter was Luke's with confidence 'way above 50%.
Not with certainty, but the odds will favor me heavily.

Now, if you told me one was Luke and the other was an anonymous Hellenist,
then my confidence would diminish, but I would make the same choice,
since I _have_ looked at a small sample of 1st century greek writers (the NT).

But, if you told me that one was by Luke and the other was written
by a copyist who had the Lukan text in his exemplar, then I have a different
kind of problem identifying which is which.  Remember, the question is not
just: which text is Luke more likely to have written? (the easier part),
but also: which direction of change would be more attractive to the copyist?
The given variant doesn't look like a blunder or a tendentious change, just
a stylistic choice, so the possibilities for what the copyist was
doing seem to be four:

  1. He "improved" the style fitting it to his own preferences, and those
     preferences were not unusual.
  2. He conformed the text to his own preferences, but his preferences
     happened to be more Lukan than Luke, i.e. a concentrated, caricatured
     elixir of Luke.
  3. He was an eagle-eyed text critic, and knowing what we now know about
     style, vocabulary, etc, without the benefit of our exhaustive
     concordances, our doctorates in source criticism, etc, he either fixed
     a suspected corruption, or he improved the evangelist's consistency.
  4. He harmonized this text to its context, accidentally making it
     conform better to the author's style.

Case 1 is the normal case.  Case 2 is possible but unlikely;  if it were
_likely_, the features involved could not be called Lukan.  Case 3 is also
possible, but unlikely.  Origens and Jeromes were scarce enough in the
early church.  I am surrounded by devout people who read the Bible all
their life and to whom it never occurred (nie in den Kopf eingefallen)
that the four Gospel writers _write_ differently (except perhaps for noticing
that John is more "spiritual").  Case 4 _is_ likely but it can be checked for
separately, and the amount of context relevant to the check would be small.
(BTW, Cadbury wrote about Luke's preference for _varying_ his choice of
words, so 4 might not apply here anyway!)

It's not fair at all to call a stylistic argument circular, just because
Cases 2,3,4 exist.  We're dealing with probabilities in any case,
and some bets are better bets than others.
Other considerations being equal, I'll bet on 1 and 4.

Vincent Broman                                       San Diego, California, USA
Email: broman at sd.znet.com (home)       or spawar.navy.mil or nosc.mil (work)
Phone: +1 619 284 3775                       Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W
=== PGP protected mail preferred.   For public key finger me at np.nosc.mil ===