Subject: tc-list Provenance of mss

From: Timothy John Finney <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 10:02:00 +0800 (WST)

Dear everyone,

I think that I have discovered a way to tell where NT manuscripts (with
substantial amounts of text) were written. As you may know, I transcribed
all of the papyrus and uncial manuscripts of the Letter to the Hebrews.
Next I wrote programs that collated them all with each other to produce a
data matrix of all variations among all these manuscripts. Then I
separated textual from spelling variations. At this point I had two
separate sets of data matrices: one spelling variation matrix per
manuscript and one textual variation matrix per manuscript. Finally, I put
the matrices through a multivariate analysis procedure called classical
scaling. This plots the manuscripts as single points on a two dimensional
map (to put it simply and to leave out lots of explanation about higher
dimensions). Manuscripts that have lots of the same variations are close
together while those with hardly any of the same variations are put far
apart. 

The maps show clear groupings. Quite often a manuscript ends up near the
same neighbours in textual and spelling maps. At other times they shift
between groups depending on the perspective. I attribute this phenomenon
to spelling variation being more volatile than textual variation in the
hands of a typical scribe. In my opinion, the groups observed in the
spelling variation maps (and they are definite groups -- not just a random
spread) are related to localitites.

Some implications:

(1) There _is_ such a thing as a local text. The maps show that there
are three main groups. (After much discussion I associate these, very
tentatively, with Egypt, Palestine, and Constantinople/Antioch.)

(2) The spelling maps indicate manuscript provenance. For your interest
(and dismay?), Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Claromontanus all
are neighbours of P46 and P13 in the spelling perspective. That is, they
were all written in Egypt.

Best regards,

Tim Finney.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:37:21 -0600

>tentatively, with Egypt, Palestine, and Constantinople/Antioch.)

I don't think anyone will really argue with this, though they may
argue about which texts go with which areas. :-)

I do think that this system needs to include the leading minuscules
(at minimum, 33, 81, 451, 1611, 1739, 1881, 2127). Without that,
you are missing at least four major groups (Family 1739, Family 330,
Family 2127/1319, Family 1611/2138), as well as the later history
of the Alexandrian text.

>were all written in Egypt.

If Claromontanus weren't in the list, I don't think anyone would have
any problem with that. :-)

But there is an observation here: All your "Egyptian" manuscripts are
also your oldest complete manuscripts. And, since F and G don't have
the Greek text of Hebrews, you have no control on the "Western" text.
I ask, simply in the spirit of friendly aggression :-), if you
have considered the possibility that your correlation of spelling
with location might instead be a correlation of spelling with age?
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        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)