Subject: tc-list Darwin's theory

From: Timothy John Finney <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:53:13 +0800 (WST)

On ms manuscript transmission, scribal habits, and similarities with
genetics, it struck me some months ago that textual variation can be
understood in Darwinian terms. Darwin originally noted that just as people
selectively breed for certain traits (e.g. great danes or chihuahuas), so
the natural environment could select certain traits.

Now to manuscripts and natural selection. (Actually, we are back into the
realm of human selection, as opposed to natural selection. Only not all of
the selection is conscious.) A Darwinian statement would be, 'the
variation which is better suited to its environment (or conditions) is
more likely to survive.' Both conscious and unconscious change is
accounted for. Conscious being what the orthodox scribe would be more
likely to select (cf. Ehrman); subconscious being the more probable errors
of eye, ear, or mind.

A philosophical weakness of this approach is its tautological nature: 'the
fittest survives because the fittest survives.' What survives? The fittest
reading. Which is the fittest reading? The one that survives. To get
around this we need to break the circle and insert some field data. Test
1000 cheating student's assignments (i.e., ones copied from others). 
Which errors and changes are more likely? Construct textual tests based on
the results and apply them to mss. 

Another question which must be asked is whether this approach provides a
testable theory. If you can think of an experiment based upon this theory
which would provide verifiable results, do it.

I like a probabilistic approach to textual criticism. We use a set of
criteria of the best reading: that which conforms to the author's
practice, that which best explains the others; etc. If a criterion is any
good it will have a reliability (i.e., probability of being correct) which
is greater than 0.5. That is, it will be right more often than it is
wrong. With a probabilistic approach the clash of criteria disappears: we
expect there to be occasional disagreement because the criteria are not
guaranteed correct, only probably correct. Two criteria (judges) with
reliabilities of 0.9 each, say, will sometimes disagree. (Actually, I
doubt that any of the criteria we use have such high reliabilities. How do
we measure reliability of a criterion, anyway?) 

All this leads me to pose a question for a statistician to answer:

If we have n judges with reliabilities r(n), what is the reliability of a
majority decision? Please give an answer for (a) independent judges,
and (b) judges which are not independent. (Many of the criteria tcers
use are not independent: they correlate.) Assume that the judges are only
judging between two possible states (although they are often judging
between more than two in real situations).

Or, to take a different approach, what are the conditions under which we
obtain a decision with confidence limits of, say, (a) > 95% and (b) > 50%.
(The A B C reliability ratings of the UBS GNT might one day take on a
rigorous meaning.)

My suspicion is that we will hardly ever reach decisions with 95%
confidence when we use real criteria.

Best regards with apologies for the long post,

Tim Finney.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:47:54 -0600

On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Timothy John Finney <[email-masked]>
wrote, in part (I'll only address areas where we have something to say):

[ ... ]

>reading. Which is the fittest reading? The one that survives.

The difficulty with this, as I see it, is that many readings survive.
Yes, the Byzantine reading in all cases dominates -- but not to the
exclusion of others. Most of the manuscripts of Family 2138 are from
the fourteenth/fifteenth century. 2427 has a text largely identical
to B's -- yet it was written in the fourteenth century. Etc.

Thus this rule would seem to have its strongest application in the
very earliest centuries -- in the time when we have no data.

>To get

We couldn't very well test it in New Testament areas, but we could
test it on medaieval texts and the like. Choose some renaissance text
for which we have the autograph, and see what scribes and printers
did with it.

Or, for that matter, one might even try comparing the various editions
of the Textus Receptus with those of Erasmus and Stephanus.

[ ... ]

>between more than two in real situations).

This needs to be clarified. How independent are the judges in case (b)?
Also, what constitutes reliability? Accuracy in guessing the original
reading? Or consistency in applying some set of rules?

>confidence when we use real criteria.

I am quite certain you are correct. And yet, there are readings about
which we are in almost universal agreement. To me, this indicates a
problem with the approach. Sounds like we need to tighten some of
our definitions somewhere. (And no, I don't have suggestions; this
is too "internal" for my habits of thought.)

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

                        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)