Subject: Re: tc-list Textual Optimism

From: "Harold P. Scanlin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:43:28 -0400

Robert Waltz offered the following evaluation of Clark's critique of GNT4: 

> I haven't read _Textual Optimism_, but Clarke summarizes his own
> opinions in K. D. Clarke & K Bales, "The Construction of Biblical
> Certainty: Textual Optimism and the United Bible Societies' _Greek
> New Testament_," published in D, G, K, Taylor, ed., _Studies in the
> Early Text of the Gospels and Acts_.

> And the major change in the apparatus is that the text became
> more certain. The number of "A" readings (where the committee
> had no doubt about the original text) was greatly increased;
> the number of "D" readings (where the committee was not certain
> at all) went from significant to almost nonexistent.

Although the extensive upgrading of ratings is a noticeable feature of
GNT4, there were significant revisions to the apparatus.  200+ variation
units considered to be of minor significance for Bible translators were
dropped from the apparatus and about the same number of variation units
that would be more useful to translators were added.  For the academic
study of text history and the practice of textual criticism, the user can
now, of course, turn to NA27.  Another feature of GNT4, especially useful
to translators and for exegesis, is the completely reworked "segmentation
apparatus."

Without denying the plain fact that many readings were upgraded, I would
suggest that tc-list readers see Mikeal Parson's review of _Textual
Optimism_ in the July 1999 issue of _The Bible Translator_ for a good
evaluation of Clark's methodology.

Harold P. Scanlin
United Bible Societies
1865 Broadway
New York, NY  10023
[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:08:06 -0500

On 7/28/99, Harold P. Scanlin wrote:

>that would be more useful to translators were added.

This is, of course, true, and I do think the readings selected are better
than those used before.

But that's not the point; as Clarke observed (and I fully concur with
this), the UBS apparatus presents a text that is nearly certain. Only
9 (!) {D} variants in the entire text. I call that absurd; I have more
than that in Galatians alone. :-)

I would still say the UBS4 apparatus indicates much too much confidence
in its text.

The other problem with the apparatus, if I may say so, is that it has
eliminated all diversity in UBS4. Taking Paul as an example, what
changed from UBS3 to UBS4? Well, they dropped several minuscules and
added others. But it happens that the minuscules they added are all
pretty much Alexandrian or Alexandrian/Byzantine mix. What was taken
out? Manuscripts like 330, 451, 629, 2492 -- which show a more independent
text.

No wonder the editors think their text is written on stone tablets:
They stopped looking at the competing evidence. :-) 

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

                        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: [email-masked] (U.B.Schmid)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:10:34 +0200

Quite frankly, I never placed too much interest in the UBS ratings except when 
preparing a paper that I gave last summer. For my study I checked Metzger's 
*Textual Commentary* in both editions and I figured out that at the variation 
unit I was interested in (Lk 22,19b-20) the rating was upgraded while Metzger's 
pertinent commentary has not changed. I couldn't find the slightest hint about 
new evidence or new insights that might have caused the change. I don't have the 
time to perform a systematic check, but maybe K.D. Clark offers some insights. 
I'm simply curious. Harold, how does the latest edition of Metzger's *Textual 
Commentary* fit/relate to the new ratings?    

------------------------------------------
Dr. Ulrich Schmid
[email-masked]