Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7749Re: p73--Byzantine, or just original?

Expand Messages
  • yennifmit
    Mar 21, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Jeff,

      Sorry to chime in late. (I tried yesterday but there was some kind of technical glitch.)

      You said "there has to be some kind of way to associate MSS with important witnesses such as 03 or 05 or Byz-Maj." Well, there is -- multivariate analysis (MVA). It lets you see where witnesses in a data set lie relative to each other. We've been doing things the wrong way for a long time, only comparing with a select few (quantitative analysis). Also, Colwell's grouping criteria (70% agreement; 10% gap) have serious problems.

      Better representations of the actual group structure emerge when multivariate analysis is used. As an example, here are two representations produced by multivariate analysis of data from the UBS Greek New Testament (4th ed.) apparatus for the Gospel of Mark:

      http://www.tfinney.net/Views/cmds/Mark-UBS4.15.SMD.gif

      http://www.tfinney.net/Views/dc/Mark-UBS4.15.SMD.png

      The first item is the result of classical multidimensional scaling (CMDS) using (only) three dimensions; the second is the result of a technique called divisive clustering (DC). Other techniques can be used as well. My favourite is partitioning around medoids (PAM) because it indicates preferable numbers of groups. Some PAM results for the Gospel of Mark are available at my Views site:

      http://www.tfinney.net/Views/index.xhtml

      (An interesting aspect of the MVA results for Mark is that Streeter's Eastern text -- P45, W, Theta, Family 1, Family 13, 28, 565, Sinaitic Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Origen -- stands out as separate from the Alexandrian, Old Latin, Byzantine, and Latin Vulgate clusters. There are many other interesting things about these results as well. One is that there is a group structure. Another is that the Alexandrian and Old Latin clusters are about as "wild" as each other if their respective diameters serve as a guide.)

      Concerning P73, it could only be located relative to the others if its text were defined at enough variation sites. I set a minimum number of 15 defined variation sites for a witness to be included in the analysis results. Even fifteen is a bare minimum: the sampling error associated with a distance estimate based on this many points of comparison is about 50%.

      Best,

      Tim Finney

      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "jjcate" <jjcate@...> wrote:
      >
      > Yes, and others have questioned the whole Cat system too. And the text type system (as defined by Colwell) has its critics. But there has to be some kind of way to associate MSS with important witnesses such as 03 or 05 or Byz-Maj. I think you're right that in this instance, labeling P73 can be misleading... so maybe it would've been best to leave it uncategorized. But even though it was labeled Cat 5, I don't think this indicates anything about Byz being initial or original. But maybe some day more of p73 can be found & identified and its affinities can be more clearly demonstrated. All the best,
      > --Jeff
      >
      > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Buck <bucksburg@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I would propose that p73's inconvenient existence shows that something is fatally wrong with the whole Category system.
      > >
      > >
      > > Daniel Buck
      > >
      > > ________________________________
      > > From: jjcate <jjcate@>
      > > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 3:43 PM
      > > Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: p73--Byzantine, or just original?
      > >
      > >
      > >  
      > > Ok, but p73 is certainly not Cat 1, 2, or 4. So the only other options are Cat 3 or 5, neither of which are good fits. Looking at how the Alands described Cat 3 on pp. 335-36 (Engl. trans.), does p73 have "significant readings from other sources not yet identified" (ala W or "Caesarean" mss)?
      > >
      > > I suspect (and this is speculation on my part) that the VII date is what caused them to label p73 as Cat 5, with the caveat "text too brief for certainty." In other words, being papyrus, it could be easy to falsely assume p73 was Cat 1, when it's actually late (for papyrus) and there's no indication that it is Cat 1. But categorizing a VII century MS (albeit papyrus) as Cat 5 is no indication that Cat 5/Byz should be considered default for manuscripts prior to the fifth century since the Alands never labeled any pre-V MS as Cat 5.
      > >
      > > Hope this is helpful,
      > > --Jeff
      > >
      > > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Buck <bucksburg@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Category V, by definition, contains "Manuscripts with a purely or predominantly Byzantine text."
      > > > A Byzantine (fka 'Antiochian') text, by definition, contains readings without any support in 'Neutral' or 'Western' manuscripts. Inasmuch as the text of p73 contains no such readings, it is not Byzantine. Call it Byzantine, and you are identifying Byzantine with the Ausgangstext.
      > > >  
      > > > Daniel Buck 
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ________________________________
      > > > From: jjcate <jjcate@>
      > > > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:44 PM
      > > > Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: p73--Byzantine, or just original?
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >  
      > > > Just curious... why would assigning P73 to Category V be an indication that Byz was "original"? The Alands date P73 to the VII century. They date some Cat V uncials earlier than that (026, 061, 022, 023, 024, 027, 042, 043, 064, 065, 0246, 0253, 0265?)... but none before the V century.
      > > > --Jeff Cate,
      > > > Riverside, CA
      > > >
      > > > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Buck <bucksburg@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > The wikipedia article for p73 states,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_73
      > > > > "The Greek text of this codex is a representative of the Byzantine text-type, but text is too brief for certainty. Aland placed it in Category V."
      > > > >
      > > > > The Greek text of p73 in fact consists of about ten clearly identifiable letters and another seven that appear to match what would be expected in the adjacent text of Matthew 25:43-44 and 26:2-3. 
      > > > >
      > > > > Although there are textual variants just on either side of these excerpts (there's an h.t. later in v. 3 that would show up if we had even one more line fragment of identifiable text), there are none in the running text that could be determined even by letter-count. So there is absolutely no evidence of any distinctly Byzantine reading in this seventh-century papyrus. 
      > > > >
      > > > > By assigning it to Category V, Aland was virtually admitting that the Byzantine text was original.
      > > > >
      > > > > Daniel Buck
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Show all 23 messages in this topic