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

Re: Up to date counts of NT mss, by century

Expand Messages
  • yennifmit
    Hi David, I would say that every manuscript production centre had its own stock of favourite exemplars. (My simulation used the Zipf distribution to choose an
    Message 1 of 18 , Jun 8, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi David,

      I would say that every manuscript production centre had its own stock of favourite exemplars. (My simulation used the Zipf distribution to choose an exemplar. That makes some "MSS" more likely than others to be chosen as exemplars.)

      Best,

      Tim

      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@...> wrote:
      >
      > Is it possible that various 'manuscript production centers' created their own mini-collations (perhaps of individual
      > books), and then used these as masters? I'm thinking here of one center getting a ms produced in another and using it to
      > 'correct' their own master. If that were the case then we might well see intermingling of variants confusing the
      > parent-child relationships.
      >
      > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tom630965
      > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 1:14 PM
      > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Up to date counts of NT mss, by century
      >
      > That is fascinating Tim
      >
      > - but it raises an issue that has puzzled me for some time; why it is that so few manuscripts are identified as copied
      > directly from one another - certainly if we include the mass of minuscules. If we have no more that 1% of the total as
      > survivors; then I would have expected there to be more father-son couples. Perhaps it is simply that we have not been
      > that good at identifying those couples that exist.
      >
      > Which raises a subsidiary question;
      >
      > - how far are the 'canons' of criticism validated by empirical study of father-son manuscript couples? Hence, if
      > Vaticanus were demonstrated as a copy of P75 (I know it isn't, but humour me); how many of the supposed canons of
      > criticism can be demonstrated in copying errors or other divergent readings made by the scribes of Vaticanus in their
      > texts of Luke and John?
      >
      > Perhaps I could offer an additonal meta-canon; 'no rule of textual criticism for choosing among alternative readings
      > should be adopted, unless the underlying assumptions of the rule can be demonstrated in probable operation in the
      > creation of diverging readings in at least five father-son couples.'
      >
      > Tom Hennell
      >
    • TOM HENNELL
      Thanks Tim, That is very helpful; Thinking about it further;  I suppose we don t actually need demonstrated parent-child pairs;  so long as we are able, ina
      Message 2 of 18 , Jun 8, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks Tim,

        That is very helpful;

        Thinking about it further;  I suppose we don't actually need demonstrated parent-child pairs;  so long as we are able, ina sufficient number of mancuscripts, to identify the hand of the 'original' corrector i.e. the guy who checked the work of the first scribe against the exemplar.  If such correctors are doing their job properly (a big assumption)  ,then we ought to be able to reconstruct readings of each original exemplar and how they have been changed by copyists;  and hence perhaps to estimate empirically the statistical probablility of the various processes underlying copying variation, that are assumed to operate in each of the canons of criticism.

        Has anyone attempted this to your knowledge?

        regards

        Tom




        From: yennifmit <tjf@...>
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, 8 June 2013, 16:00
        Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Up to date counts of NT mss, by century

         
        Hi Tom,

        Please see below...

        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "tom630965" <tom.hennell@...> wrote:
        >
        > That is fascinating Tim
        >
        > - but it raises an issue that has puzzled me for some time; why it is that so few manuscripts are identified as copied directly from one another - certainly if we include the mass of minuscules. If we have no more that 1% of the total as survivors; then I would have expected there to be more father-son couples. Perhaps it is simply that we have not been that good at identifying those couples that exist.

        I think that we have a higher survival rate for minuscules. My guess of 0.1% to 1% survival relates to MSS from before the time of Constantine.

        I don't know how many parent-child pairs have survived but there are not many. That indicates that a large proportion of the MSS which once existed is now lost, even for the minuscules.

        >
        > Which raises a subsidiary question;
        >
        > - how far are the 'canons' of criticism validated by empirical study of father-son manuscript couples? Hence, if Vaticanus were demonstrated as a copy of P75 (I know it isn't, but humour me); how many of the supposed canons of criticism can be demonstrated in copying errors or other divergent readings made by the scribes of Vaticanus in their texts of Luke and John?

        James Royse has written a book on scribal habits based on NT papyri. It is not based on parent-child relationships because none exists among the papyri.

        >
        > Perhaps I could offer an additonal meta-canon; 'no rule of textual criticism for choosing among alternative readings should be adopted, unless the underlying assumptions of the rule can be demonstrated in probable operation in the creation of diverging readings in at least five father-son couples.'

        The scarcity of parent-child pairs presents a problem here. That said, I have a problem with canons which are wrong around about as often as right. One might as well flip a coin.

        Best,

        Tim Finney



      • yennifmit
        Hi Tom, Now you re talking. Royse does something like what you suggest using the major early NT papyri to see what those scribes and correctors tended to do.
        Message 3 of 18 , Jun 9, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Tom,

          Now you're talking.

          Royse does something like what you suggest using the major early NT papyri to see what those scribes and correctors tended to do.

          The multidimensional scaling maps in my PhD dissertation can be used to see what direction in textual space corrections tend to go for the early Greek manuscripts of Hebrews:

          http://www.tfinney.net/PhD/PDF/part3.pdf

          (Careful: 6MB.)

          Often the trajectory is from non-Byzantine to Byzantine, however not for early papyri. I think that Egypt was something of a textual island early on. Nevertheless, there is evidence of textual cross-talk between Egyptian and other texts. One example is the apparent influence of the "Eastern" text upon the Sahidic Coptic in the first few chapters of Mark. See e.g. the section on block mixture in my Groups article:

          http://www.tfinney.net/Groups/index.xhtml#d5e1705

          In particular, compare these two maps (cop-sa is the Sahidic):

          http://www.tfinney.net/Groups/cmds/eg3a.1of4.gif

          http://www.tfinney.net/Groups/cmds/eg3a.2of4.gif

          Getting back to the textual tendencies of correctors, a few of the data sets found at my Views site can be used to see textual shifts between the first and subsequent hands of a manuscript. (Caveat: The Views site is a work in process.)

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

          See, e.g., the pairs of data sets based on Fee's work in the Gospel of John. The data sets which Fee compiled do not allow the first hand and corrector to be shown in the same analysis result using the methods which I use. (His tables omit percentage agreements between first hands and correctors.) Nevertheless, one can see the relative locations by comparing a pair of maps. E.g.:

          http://www.tfinney.net/Views/cmds/John-Fee-1-8.gif

          http://www.tfinney.net/Views/cmds/John-Fee-1-8-corr.gif

          Here, it looks like the corrector of P66 (P66-c) is conforming to a text in the vicinity of C, Aleph-c, P75, and B.

          (How well a corrector conforms a text to the new exemplar is difficult to say. Sometimes it seems to be a partial job, other times thorough.)

          Best,

          Tim Finney

          * Streeter's term; he further split this into Antiochian and Caesarean branches.



          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, TOM HENNELL <tom.hennell@...> wrote:
          >
          > Thanks Tim,
          >
          > That is very helpful;
          >
          > Thinking about it further;  I suppose we don't actually need demonstrated parent-child pairs;  so long as we are able, ina sufficient number of mancuscripts, to identify the hand of the 'original' corrector i.e. the guy who checked the work of the first scribe against the exemplar.  If such correctors are doing their job properly (a big assumption)  ,then we ought to be able to reconstruct readings of each original exemplar and how they have been changed by copyists;  and hence perhaps to estimate empirically the statistical probablility of the various processes underlying copying variation, that are assumed to operate in each of the canons of criticism.
          >
          > Has anyone attempted this to your knowledge?
          >
          > regards
          >
          > Tom
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ________________________________
          > From: yennifmit <tjf@...>
          > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Saturday, 8 June 2013, 16:00
          > Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Up to date counts of NT mss, by century
          >
          >
          >
          >  
          > Hi Tom,
          >
          > Please see below...
          >
          > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "tom630965" <tom.hennell@> wrote:
          > >
          > > That is fascinating Tim
          > >
          > > - but it raises an issue that has puzzled me for some time; why it is that so few manuscripts are identified as copied directly from one another - certainly if we include the mass of minuscules. If we have no more that 1% of the total as survivors; then I would have expected there to be more father-son couples. Perhaps it is simply that we have not been that good at identifying those couples that exist.
          >
          > I think that we have a higher survival rate for minuscules. My guess of 0.1% to 1% survival relates to MSS from before the time of Constantine.
          >
          > I don't know how many parent-child pairs have survived but there are not many. That indicates that a large proportion of the MSS which once existed is now lost, even for the minuscules.
          >
          > >
          > > Which raises a subsidiary question;
          > >
          > > - how far are the 'canons' of criticism validated by empirical study of father-son manuscript couples? Hence, if Vaticanus were demonstrated as a copy of P75 (I know it isn't, but humour me); how many of the supposed canons of criticism can be demonstrated in copying errors or other divergent readings made by the scribes of Vaticanus in their texts of Luke and John?
          >
          > James Royse has written a book on scribal habits based on NT papyri. It is not based on parent-child relationships because none exists among the papyri.
          >
          > >
          > > Perhaps I could offer an additonal meta-canon; 'no rule of textual criticism for choosing among alternative readings should be adopted, unless the underlying assumptions of the rule can be demonstrated in probable operation in the creation of diverging readings in at least five father-son couples.'
          >
          > The scarcity of parent-child pairs presents a problem here. That said, I have a problem with canons which are wrong around about as often as right. One might as well flip a coin.
          >
          > Best,
          >
          > Tim Finney
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.