Subject: tc-list Full Collations or Samples?

From: Jean-Francois Racine <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 16:25:57 -0400

I would like to read the opinion of the members of the list on the
following question:

Is that technically possible to fully collate manuscripts (i.e., computing
all variation units) or one still has to proceed from samples (as large as
possible)?

Without the use of automatic collation by computers, the full collation of
mss against each other appears to me a life long task.  Yet, the automatic
collation by computers assumes that the text of mss exists in electronic
format.  How often is it the case?

In addition, what does mean exactly collating all variation units?  Does it
include itacisms, nu-movable, non-sense readings, orthographic errors,
etc.?  One can question the significance of these types of variants
although they are, strictly speaking, variants.

Jean-Francois Racine

Jean-Francois Racine
Departement de sciences religieuses et ethique
Universite du Quebec a Chicoutimi
555, boul. de l'Universite
Chicoutimi, QC
G7H 2B1  CANADA
Tel: 418-545-5011 poste 2478
FAX: 418-545-5012
courriel: [email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 16:27:53 -0500

>I would like to read the opinion of the members of the list on the

These are immense and difficult questions, which have resulted in
extended arguments on this list in the past. You probably need to
consult the relevant literature (e.g. Colwell, Ehrman, Hurtado, Wisse)
and then decide for yourself.

>all variation units) or one still has to proceed from samples (as large as

It is not presently possible to fully collate *all* manuscripts. Not with
six thousand of them to deal with. It will not become possible, I believe,
until computers can be trained to do the collating -- and, based on the
fact that we are approaching the practical limit of how small a transistor
can be, I do not believe that computers will ever be able to collate
reliably without human intervention.

But if the question is, *should* we collate all units of variation,
or can we use samples, the point is disputed. Some on this list --
e.g., I think, Hurtado -- will argue that it is better to collate
all variants in a limited number of manuscripts.

I frankly disagree. Better to use sampling and study larger numbers
of manuscripts. This at least allows us a proper set of variant
readings for discussion.

It should be noted, however, that I reject the often-quoted Colwell
definition of a text-type. Also, most work in this field is not
mathematically rigorous. These questions cannot be answered until
a full set of rigorous definitions is offered. To date, there has
been no rigorous work (to my knowledge) on this subject.

>format.  How often is it the case?

Not often enough. :-)

Sample readings for the vast majority of manuscripts are on file
at the Munster Institute. (Though I understand that that data
is stored in a mainframe database and is not really usable at
this time.) However, the number of complete collations in electronic
form is very slight. It's dull work, after all -- and we are not
helped by the fact that there is no universally accepted standard
for transcribing Greek.

>although they are, strictly speaking, variants.

This is another question that is the source of great difficulty.
Richards "proved" that these readings were of little significance
(I place "proved" in quotes because his proof, like so much other
work in this field, is not rigorous. I believe he is correct --
but he hasn't *proved* it). There has been much discussion in
recent years of what constitutes a variant; the best discussion,
I believe, is in Epp & Fee. You might also look at how Zuntz
deals with this matter -- but his method is too labourious to
be useful in practice.

Bibliography:

Ernest C. Colwell, _Studied in Methodology in Textual Criticism
  of the New Testament_, Eerdmans, 1969
Bart D. Ehrman, _Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels_,
  Scholars Press, 1986
Eldon J. Epp & Gordon D. Fee, _Studies in the Theory and Method
  of New Testament Textual Criticism_, Eerdmans, 1993
Larry W. Hurtado, _Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean
  Text: Codex W in the Gospel of Mark_, Eerdmans, 1981
W. L. Richards, _The Classification of the Greek Manuscripts
  of the Johannine Epistles_, SBL, 1977
Frederik Wisse, _The Profile Method for Classifying and
  Evaluating Manuscript Evidence_, Eerdmans, 1982
G. Zuntz, _The Text of the Epistles_, Oxford University Press, 1953

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

                        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: "Perry L. Stepp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 17:29:49 -0400

Hello, all.

In the spring of 1997, I collated 43 verses of Matthew, for the purpose of
subjecting that collation to quantitative analysis, ala Colwell, Hurtado,
etc.  (I did it for a seminar in textual criticism, of course, and received
the expected grade of A).

I chose Mt 26.1-43, because it was the one place in the editions available
from Swanson where four papyri from the third and second centuries (p37,
p45, p53, and p64+67) "clustered" and at times overlapped.  To keep the
project managable, I took all kinds of shortcuts.  I used Swanson's edition
of the Gospel of Matthew, which I checked against Tischendorf.  I limited
the sample to nine benchmark texts plus the OL in support of D (in addition
to the papyri), which represented the accepted textual types.  I basically
followed Colwell's methodology for such work--limiting collation to
meaningful variants, eliminating singular readings from consideration.

The collation of these 43 verses, even with the shortcuts, took about 20
hours of headsplitting, eyebursting work.  I'll probably never do that kind
of work again--unless there was money in it, of course (money for textual
criticism!  HA!)

Not many people want to do this kind of work by hand, and there's a reason.
It's HARD.  It's painful.

But it's also important--can we attempt to reconstruct a history of the
transmission of the text without subjecting the entire NT to such analysis?
And it needs to be done by hand--I don't think a computer can be programmed
to do it properly, it involves making too many judgements on the fly.

That's my .02 worth.

PLStepp

*****************************************************************
Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX
Ph.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University
#1 Cowboy Fan
Keeper of the Top-10, news://alt.fan.letterman

It is tremendous folly to put trashy people in positions
of trust and conspicuousness.

                       --George Will, 6 August 1998

*****************************************************************

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:34:07 +000

> format.  How often is it the case?

The answer is "not very often".  There are some efforts to prepare machine-
readable transcriptions of NT mss, but this effort requires the same commodity 
as collation:  *lots* of person-hours, and *very* carefully done work!
> although they are, strictly speaking, variants.

I think we have to ask "collation of variation units for what questions/purpose?".  
I have collated & compared variation in mss for the pupose of trying to find mss-
relationships, toward the larger question of textual history.  For such purposes, 
itacisms, & minor spelling variations are not relevant, hence not significant.  
They tell us other interesting things (e.g., about how words were spelled by this 
or that scribe at this or that time in this or that place, about how much variation 
there was in such matters, about whether a given scribe was very trained & 
careful or not), but not about ms -relationships, for which we need to examine 
variants that are likely to have some sort of genetic relationship.

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: "Glen Thompson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 08:56:28 -0600

As far as what it would take to do complete collations, I offer the 
following rough data.  This past summer I conducted a course in 
collating NT mss.  Each student was taught basic collating procedures 
and then given a microfilm of a minuscule ms.  with the assignment to 
collate John.  The results went to the IGNTP.
 
I asked each student to keep track of how long it took.  The 
time it took to collate John (most did it by hand, two used the IGNTP 
computer program to record the data) varied from about 30-40 hours 
(these of course were beginners).  I did a minuscule at the same time 
myself, (a rogue ms. it turned out with c. 1200 variants in Joihn 
alone!) and it took me 40 hours (though I have done others in 25-30). 
 Thus if one estimates 3000 majuscules and minuscules at an average 
of 30 hours each, one arrives at a need for 90,000 man hours.  Since 
the IGNTP practice of collating each ms. thrice is a sound one, that 
brings us to 270,000 hours, not counting lectionaries and versions.  
Divide this by 50 40-hour work weeks and you might estimate 135 
scholars working for a year or 3 working for 45 yrs. just to do the 
continuous Greek mss. of John's Gospel.

I, too, think computers are not the answer (yet, at least).  Thus the 
only answers in our lifetime are 1) be selective on the mss. used; 2) 
be selective on the passages collated; or 3) "convert" more 
students and colleagues to the joy and importantce of collating.

However, having spent thousands of hours collating Greek and Latin 
texts, I have to admit it is not the most exciting or well-rewarded 
work in the realm of biblical scholarship.

Glen Thompson
Martin Luther College