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

Re: p73--Byzantine, or just original?

Expand Messages
  • yennifmit
    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
    Message 1 of 23 , 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
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • clearbrush
      Dear Dr. Finney, you wrote : (An interesting aspect of the MVA results for Mark is that Streeter s Eastern text -- P45, W, Theta, Family 1, Family 13, 28, 565,
      Message 2 of 23 , Mar 24, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

        Dear Dr. Finney,

        you wrote :

        (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.)

        My question : could this data be interpreted as pointing to very ancient centers where prestigious and-or exemplary Mark texts resided in and the groups (or clusters) emanated from; e.g. Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch-Smyrna ?

        Also curious about the situation with Luke and John.. and especially - the comparison with Hebrews..

        All the best, George Eller


        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "yennifmit" <tfinney@...> wrote:
        >
        > 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
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • yennifmit
        Hi George, It s good to hear from you! You wrote, could this data be interpreted as pointing to very ancient centers where prestigious and-or exemplary Mark
        Message 3 of 23 , Mar 25, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi George,

          It's good to hear from you!

          You wrote, "could this data be interpreted as pointing to very ancient
          centers where prestigious and-or exemplary Mark texts resided in and the groups (or clusters) emanated from; e.g. Rome, Alexandria, and
          Antioch-Smyrna?"

          I would say yes to ancient centres but no to always using prestigious exemplars. I imagine that every Christian community would try to get its own copies of the text (comprised of various combinations of the Gospels, Paul's Letters, Acts + General Letters, Revelation). Thinking about how the text propagated, it is not unreasonable to expect that most copies would be made where there were the most Christian communities. If a significant proportion of the Christian population resided in and around the provincial capitals then one would expect much manuscript copying to happen in and around Rome, Ephesus, Syrian Antioch, Caesarea, and Alexandria. (BTW, Asia Minor was the number one Christian population centre in the second century according to Harnack.)

          I don't know whether there was much effort to reference prestigious exemplars. I'm more inclined to think that copyists would get the nearest convenient exemplar -- the principle of least effort applies.

          I do think that the scenario of population centres being centres of manuscript production combined with least effort in securing exemplars would lead to development of local texts. My PhD research found that multivariate analysis of (1) textual and (2) spelling variations produced similar results: both had clusters of texts, with the same manuscripts usually being in the same clusters for both kinds of variation. A theory of local texts can account for this result: scribes would spell according to local custom (and accent!); they would also tend to use the textual variants that were most popular where they lived. (There were viral variants too -- ones that did "Levy flights" to leap from region to region.)

          So, which texts should we associate with which regions? (I have an opinion on this.) And the $64,000 question: what happened to the ancient text of Asia Minor?

          As for books besides Mark, there are now multivariate analysis results for many of them at my Views site:

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

          Considering the classical multidimensional scaling (CMDS) results, there is often a similar structure. One has to be careful to compare the same kinds of data. The results based on INTF data sets cover a lot of Greek manuscripts but do not include versions of patristic evidence. The UBS data sets include more classes of evidence (Greek MSS, versional, patristic) but do not cover as many variation sites.

          As examples of similarity, compare the INTF map results for a few of the General Letters:

          http://www.tfinney.net/Views/cmds/Peter-A-INTF-General.15.SMD.gif

          http://www.tfinney.net/Views/cmds/Peter-B-INTF-General.15.SMD.gif

          http://www.tfinney.net/Views/cmds/John-A-INTF-General.15.SMD.gif

          CMDS maps for the Gospels have some broad similarities to each other but significant differences as well -- see e.g. the maps derived from UBS2 data originally encoded by Maurice Robinson.

          Group structure is apparent in all of the data sets. There is often a small number of major clusters which may well be associated with early Christian population centres.

          All of these results are based on the efforts of people who have worked to collate and encode the data. I'm especially grateful to Richard Mallett who entered a number of the data matrices.

          Best,

          Tim Finney

          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "clearbrush" <clearbrush@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > Dear Dr. Finney,
          >
          > you wrote :
          >
          > (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.)
          >
          > My question : could this data be interpreted as pointing to very ancient
          > centers where prestigious and-or exemplary Mark texts resided in and the
          > groups (or clusters) emanated from; e.g. Rome, Alexandria, and
          > Antioch-Smyrna ?
          >
          > Also curious about the situation with Luke and John.. and especially -
          > the comparison with Hebrews..
          >
          >
          > All the best, George Eller
          >
          > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "yennifmit" <tfinney@>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > 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
          > > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > >
          > > >
          > >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.