Subject: Re: tc-list Textual Optimism

From: Mike Parsons <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:53:55 -0500

Reply to:   Re:  tc-list Textual Optimism

Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>On 7/28/99, Mike Parsons wrote, in part:
>
>>
>
>This makes sense, in a way, though. The text, after all, was not changed
>between the third and fourth editions of UBS/GNT. The new members of the
>committee don't have any say in the text. (Personally, it makes one
>wonder why they took the job.) Whereas the opinions of Wikgren, etc.
>*do* figure into the text.

The fourth edition states that "the committee also redefined the various levels in the evaluation of evidence on the basis of their relative degrees of certainty.  Thus the evaluations of all the 1437 sets of variations cited in the apparatus have been completely reconsidered."  It is Clarke's point (and here i am in total agreement), that the criteria for reconsidering the variants should be made explicit. My point is that the Commentary is the natural place for such explanations.
Take Clarke's example of Luke 19.25, a reading which was upgraded from "D" in UBSGNT3to "A" in UBSGNT4.  The note in the second edition of the commentary (1994) is exactly the same as the first edition (1971):
"A majority of the Committee considered it to be more probable that the words were omitted in several Western witnesses . . .   A majority of the Committee considered that, on balance, both external attestation and transcriptional probabilities favor the retention of the words in the text"(Metzger, 1994, p. 144; Clarke's italics).
Clarke notes "Metzger's use of the words 'majority', 'more probable,' 'on balance,' and 'favor' clearly do not correspond to the degree of certainty necessary for a variant to receive an A letter-rating. . . .According to Metzger's commentary, it would seem more justifiable that this variant receive a C letter-rating" (Clarke, 164).
According to clarke's statistics, the number of A ratings in ubsgnt4 increase by c. 27% while the number of C and D ratings decrease by about 30% percentage without adequate explanation from the committee; hence the charge of 'textual optimisim.'

>It's an odd situation: The new committee decided the variants to put
>in the margin, and how to assess them, but could not change the text.
>This allows the theoretical possibility that they could have a reading
>in the text that they do not approve. What do you do with the commentary
>in that case? Say, "Well, we think this reading is wrong, but here's
>why we read it anyway?" :-)

 It is my understanding the committee could have chosen to change the text but decided not to.  am i mistaken?

>In a way, though, this is the scary part. We, as textual critics, know
>what is going on, and know that UBS is just another provisional text.
>But it's targeted at translators, who *don't* know these things. So
>here they are, with an apparatus prepared by scholars who didn't prepare
>the text, and which says that nearly every reading in the entire
>apparatus is secure. Why do they even *need* the apparatus? Why not just
>chuck UBS, buy something like the NRSV/UBS interlinear, and assume
>that they don't need textual variants?

two points.
1) we should not miss harold scanlin's point about the revised segmentation apparatus in ubsgnt4. in my opinion, this is the best part of the new edition and is critical for translators.
2)In my limited experience many translators read the comments and pay less attention to the ratings, e.g. how many people are aware that there are 600 comments on unrated variants?  and of course, the commentary was meant i think to explain the textual decisions (and ratings). thus, the avenue is available for the committee to defend its ratings (and decisions) if theywould revise the commentary.

>We need more {D} variants, just to convince people that textual
>criticism still needs to be done. :-) 
i agree (or at least more C's

Mikeal Parsons