b-greek-digest V1 #615

b-greek-digest            Wednesday, 15 March 1995      Volume 01 : Number 615

In this issue:

        Humor  Helps
        Re: lexical evidence of James...
        Re: Thayer
        Re: Lexical contacts 
        Re: study programs
        Re: Flaws in lexical-cluster ana 
        Re: Lexical Contacts and Cluster Analysis
        Re:  Lexical Contacts and Cluster Analysis
        Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and Cynics
        Re: Lexical contacts
        Re: Lexical contacts
        Re: Text Types; Sturz
        Re: Lexical Contacts and Cluster Analysis


From: W.Burton@agora.stm.it
Date: Wed,  15 Mar 95 9:57:44 GMT
Subject: Humor  Helps

I was reading all the posts this morning and was beginning to feel the

slightest bit offended by
the tone of some of the references to Catholicism, when suddenly this
appeared in my e-mail
box.  Sent to me from a Franciscan friar colleague in the United States.

I know that is afield for this list but there may  be some on this list
like myself who will regain
their perspective with a chuckle.

Fr. Bill Burton, OFM
Gregorian University
Rome, Italy

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  MICROSOFT Bids to Acquire Catholic Church
>  By Hank Vorjes
>  VATICAN CITY (AP) -- In a joint press conference in St. Peter's Square
this morning,
MICROSOFT Corp. and the Vatican announced that the  Redmond software giant
will acquire
the Roman Catholic Church in exchange for an unspecified number of shares
common stock.  If the deal goes through, it will be the first time a
computer software company
has acquired a major world religion.
>  With the acquisition, Pope John Paul II will become the senior
vice-president of the combined
company's new Religious Software Division, while MICROSOFT senior
vice-presidents Michael
Maples and Steven Ballmer will be invested in the College of Cardinals,
Chairman Bill Gates.
>  "We expect a lot of growth in the religious market in the next five to
ten years," said Gates.
"The combined resources of MICROSOFT and the Catholic Church will allow us
to make
religion easier and more fun for a broader range of people."
>  Through the MICROSOFT Network, the company's new on-line service, "we
will make the
sacraments available on-line for the first time" and revive the popular
practice of selling indulgences, said Gates. "You can get Communion,
confess your sins,  receive
absolution -- even reduce your time in Purgatory -- all without leaving
your home."
>  A new software application, MICROSOFT Church, will include a macro 
language which you
can program to download heavenly graces automatically while you are away
from your
>  An estimated 17,000 people attended the announcement in St Peter's 
Square, watching on a
60-foot screen as comedian Don Novello -- in  character as Father Guido
Sarducci -- hosted the
event, which was broadcast by satellite to 700 sites worldwide.
>  Pope John Paul II said little during the announcement. When Novello
chided Gates, "Now I
guess you get to wear one of these pointy hats," the crowd roared, but the
pontiff's smile seemed
>  The deal grants MICROSOFT exclusive electronic rights to the Bible and
the Vatican's
art collection, which includes works by such masters as Michelangelo and Da
Vinci. But critics
say MICROSOFT will face stiff challenges if it attempts to limit
competitors' access to these key
intellectual properties.
>  "The Jewish people invented the look and feel of the holy scriptures," 
said Rabbi David
Gottschalk of Philadelphia. "You take the parting of the Red Sea -- we had
that thousands of
years before the Catholics came on the scene."
>  But others argue that the Catholic and Jewish faiths both draw on a 
common Abrahamic
heritage. "The Catholic Church has just been more  successful in marketing
it to a larger
audience," notes Notre Dame theologian Father Kenneth Madigan. Over the
last 2,000 years,
>  Catholic Church's market share has increased dramatically, while
Judaism, which was the first
to offer many of the concepts now touted by Christianity, lags behind.
>  Historically, the Church has a reputation as an aggressive competitor, 
leading crusades to
pressure people to upgrade to Catholicism, and entering into exclusive
licensing arrangements in
various kingdoms whereby all subjects were installed with Catholicism,
whether or not they
planned to use it. Today Christianity is available from several
denominations, but the Catholic
version is still the most widely used.
>  The Church's mission is to reach "the four corners of the earth,"
echoing MICROSOFT's
vision of "a computer on every desktop and in every home".
>  Gates described MICROSOFT's long-term strategy to develop a scalable
religious architecture
that will support all religions through  emulation. A single core religion
will be offered with a
choice of interfaces according to the religion desired -- "One religion, a
couple of different
implementations," said Gates.
>  The MICROSOFT move could spark a wave of mergers and acquisitions,
according to Herb
Peters, a spokesman for the U.S. Southern Baptist Conference, as other
churches scramble to
strengthen their position in the increasingly competitive religious market.


From: David Last <D.Last@mmu.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 12:32:59 GMT
Subject: Re: lexical evidence of James...


I think the whole context of James 5v14-20 should be taken into 
account when considering the question of the sick person.  I wonder if
the point at issue is the restoration of a backslidden believer.  One 
of the church has fallen into sin which he/she will not give up.  
Having followed the standard procedure (cf Matt 18v15-20) the 
church has prayed concerning this person and hence sickness has been 
brought into the person's life by the Lord.  The trial brings the 
person to his/her senses.  The church can then pray again and the 
sick person will be raised up.  Elijah prayed the rain would stop, 
and it did.  Elijah prayed the rain would come, and it did.

Just a thought...

David Last


From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 07:39:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Thayer

On Tue, 14 Mar 1995 RoyRM@aol.com wrote:

> I noticed during the discussion on software last month that it seemed like
> almost all of the software listed Thayer's as a lexicon.  I was under the
> impression that at best, Thayer's was dated.  Is this a bad assumption?  If
> it isn't, why is it making such an appearance?  Is it length? popularity?
>  And why is BAGD not used? or even Louw & Nida?

You may obtain Louw & Nida on disk from Silver Mt Software (John Baima on 
this list).

It seems to me that some of the vendors of software make pragmatic 
decisions concerning what to include rather than what will provide help 
for the experienced student.  E.G. Logos provides the _Treasury of 
Scripture Knowledge_ with its thousands of so called cross references--a 
mass of references which are non-critically deduced and usually have 
nothing but non-contextual word unit as a reason to be a cross 
reference...in essense a virtually useless "tool" for a careful student.


From: PaleoBill@aol.com
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 09:10:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Lexical contacts 

   As both a New Testament scholar and as one holding advanced degrees in
invertebrate paleontology (a field dominated by statistics)
I can tell you that cluster analysis can be quite flawed in this type of
work. For proper statistical analysis to be done it is normative to have at
least five hundred (it is preferable to have a thousand) examples of what you
are reviewing to order to be able to set your confidence interval bars at
95%--where they belong. Translated that means in order to see if Col. or Eph.
is from Paul we would need hundres of his leeters, and better yet letters
that were written to Asia Minor. Then we could compare and see if our data is
parametrically controlled or not, etc. 
    Secondly, variability due to the emphemeral nature of human reactions is
not easily accounted for and hence the need for a large data domain is made
all the more mandatory.  For example, if one wants to ascertain whether
someone wrote a love letter you would need hundreds of his/her love letters
that are unquestionably written by them in order to have the proper metric
for comparision. But that is exactly what we are trying to ascertain (i.e.
what is really Pauline and what is not). Thus cluster analysis only groups
data, an ANOVA can look at the variability, a Chi square or G-T test can see
if it adheres to a stochastic model or not, but without a large data domain
these tests are virtually meaningless.
Hope this has been a helpful corrective.
Best Regards
Bill Parkinson


From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 09:57:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: study programs

I recently received the following in a message from a friend.

> In one of our discussions here on doing advanced work in New Testament, one of
> my Canadian colleagues said that some AATS seminaries are offering a PhD on a
> British model for candidates that already have a PhD in another field. The
> difference being this: Instead of basing the degree in part on courses and
> seminars, the candidate focuses on research and writing. Residential
> requirements are therefore at a minimum. Have you heard anything of such an
> approach?

I have not heard of such a thing. Can anyone else help? Please reply to 
me, and I'll forward what I learn to my friend.

Philip Graber				Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament	211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu			Atlanta, GA  30322  USA


From: PaleoBill@aol.com
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 10:54:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Flaws in lexical-cluster ana 

Just some last thoughts on cluster analysis. I am at a disadvantage in that I
did not see the original post and the charts. Nevertheless, I wish to press
the following points: 1) Paul used a amanuensis for the most part. How can
one quantify this? We have no idea if Paul was like Seneca and used primarily
one secretary or many (see Richards, _The Secretary in the Letters of Paul_,
Mohr, 1993). If the secretary helped to shape the grammar in order to lend
the missive a more palatable style than this can greatly influence any
analysis. 2) If  van Unnik and Ray Martin are correct (_Tarsus or
Jerusalem..._ ; and _Studies in the Life of Early Paul.._, respectively) that
Paul was not a Hellenist and that his knowledge of greek was limited than how
do we quantify his presupposed increase in fluency as he grew older. For
example, view a letter from a Mexican national that is here in the States
when they first arrive. Then view another letter a decade later. The
difference is more than startling with respect to vocabulary, etc. In that
period of time they have also developed a style. One can not develop a style
until one is familiar with the language and its idioms, as well as the
mindset of its recipients. If greek was a second language to Paul and one
that he took pains to acquire only after he started his missionary endeavors
than we must allow for considerable differences in compositional and lexical
style over his life span. 3) With respect to the argot of the recipients
there is no way to easily take this into account. If for example I were to
write to a gang member in an effort to help him I might use terms like
"homeboy"; "word"; "kickin" etc. This is hardly my normal vocabulary. Yet to
resonate with my readers I must use their parlance and write to their level.
How does one take this into account when most of the letters in the Pauline
Corpus  were occasioned by quite specific circumstances-- indeed crises in
many cases--and to distinctly different geographic regions that had their own
peculiar linguistic traits? Thus I think that while statistics can greatly
augment many aspects of our research, in the case of Paul there are to many
variables that will not allow us to set our parameters rigorously so as to
acquire a statistically significant picture of what is typically "Pauline". 
Best Regards
Bill Parkinson


From: DTK4@aol.com
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 11:21:27 -0500
Subject: unsubscribe 



From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 10:39:13 EST
Subject: Re: Lexical Contacts and Cluster Analysis

Greg Doudna wrote:
> As one open to the potential of these methods I appreciate very
> much your reporting of your data.  Is the cluster analysis method
> innovative with you, innovative with someone else in the NT
> field, or is it tried and true with other corpuses of literature?

Cluster analysis as a method is not innovative to me; in fact, it is
a standard statistical method, provided by SAS, etc.  It was used
by Ledger to some benefit in RE-COUNTING PLATO (1989) and by David
Mealand in his abstract he kindly has shared with us here on this list.

What is new is the use of lexical contacts to ascertain the "distance"
between two corpora.  Usually, cluster analysis takes a vector of
disparate measurements (such as the number of KAI's, the number of DE's,
the number of words ending in I, etc.) and projects them into a multi-
dimensional space, upon which a variety of distance and clustering
measures, such as Euclidean distance, are employed.  This operates by
transforming a statistical problem into a hypergeometrical one.

The difference here is that the distance between two corpora is measured
by the relative number of lexical contacts, not by an arbitrary function
based on a forced analysis to geometry.  The clustering is even more
intuitive: the corpora are combined into order form a larger corpus.

> The claim for this method, which I agree does seem intuitively
> sound, is that "[the method] can show that two corpora are
> sufficiently distinct to cast doubt upon a thesis that they
> have a common author."
> And your notes do show, for the most part, substantial agreement
> between your results and mainstream views and intuitions
> regarding NT authorship--with one giant exception.
> Your data appears to demonstrate that Luke and Acts were written
> by different authors!  Clustering between Luke and Acts happens
> extremely "late" in all of your eight cases except your two
> "pathological" ones.  In your charts this is visually striking.
> Is it not more likely that there is a flaw in the cluster
> analysis method than that this particular conclusion is
> correct?

As I have noted in my reply to Ken, this method is particularly
vulnerable to shared source material.  Since it widely acknowledged
(even by Luke himself!) that Luke drew on other sources in writing
his Gospel, it is not surprising that Luke clusters with the Matthew/
Mark cluster.  (Hence the Synoptic Problem)  Furthermore, many
commentators have noted that Acts appears to incorporate a variety
of other sources, such as Peter's sermons, etc., so there may not
be a sufficient amount of purely Lukan material to generate contacts.

I am in the process of performing this same analysis on every chapter
taken separately to shed further light on:

(a) The relationship of 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and 2 Peter
    to other chapters in the canon.  If there is a literary dependence
    I am hoping that its confined to a chapter or two, so the
    independent chapters will cluster with other works.

(b) Acts source material in relation to the Petrine epistles and James.

I believe the 3d-order analysis will still work at the chapter level,
though I have my doubts about the robustness of the 1st-order contacts.

Stephen Carlson
- -- 
Stephen Carlson     :  Poetry speaks of aspirations,  : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com  :  and songs chant the words.     : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330      :                 Shujing 2:35    : Reston, VA  22091   USA


From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 10:09:19 EST
Subject: Re:  Lexical Contacts and Cluster Analysis

I'd like to address some of the points that Ken brought up.  First off,
I think he is right in treating this kind of analysis skeptically and
that one should tread carefully with stylometry.  In a sense, stylometry
is an attempt to quantify the unquantifiable: just how different are
the styles of two books?  As such, one's conclusions should be somewhat
more tentative than in other fields.  Perhaps, Ken might more appreciate
a conclusion like "by these measurements, the style of the Pastorals
is more distinct from the rest of Paul's letters than some of the Catholic
epistles (1 Peter, James), though closer to them than the Johannines or
any other book in the canon."  All in all, stylometry only adds more
evidence to be considered.

Now onto Ken's points:

1.  That there's no evidence that style differences prove anything.

I think the ground-breaking work with regard to the Federalist Papers,
and G.R. Ledger's 1989 work, RE-COUNTING PLATO, tend to show the utility
of the discipline.

2.  That Paul wrote the "control" group and not the Pastorals (Baur, etc.).

I don't want to get to in a mud-slinging fight over Baur, but the style
of the Pastorals is strikingly different from the rest of Paul's letters,
so the natural questions are (a) how different are they? and (b) how can
the same author write both bodies of work?

Hopefully, my analysis has shown that they are quite different; in
fact, more different in style (according to these metrics) than 1 Peter
and James.  In effect, they are the control.  For the second question,
I think this needs to be explored.  Three alternative explanations are
commonly proffered, none of which are entirely satisfactory in my mind:

(i) That they are pseudepigraphical or "forged."  Although there is
some evidence that forgeries did take place (2Th3:17; Muratorian
Canon's treatment of the pseudo-Pauline Laodiceans; doubts about 2
Peter, etc.), there is almost zero evidence that "pious frauds" were
ever accepted by the Church.  Especially in response to Marcion (mid 2d
cen.), the Church Fathers have continually stressed the apostolicity
and authenticity of the canon.  For the Pastorals, the only external
evidence of inauthencity is the weak negative inferences drawn from not
being found in Marcion's canon and their apparent omission from P46.
(Tatian, a heretic, is said to have doubted 1,2 Timothy, but any
analysis shows that they were written by the same author as Titus.)

(ii) The use of an amanuensis or secretary.  This explanation may go a
far way, though it does have a somewhat of a "deus ex machina" quality
to it.  It is well-known that given the huge difficulties of actually
putting pen to paper in the ancient world, letter-writers customarily
employed secretaries to do the dirty work, whose tasks varied from
strict dictation to composing the first draft.  If the stylistic
differences of the Pastorals can be attributed to a different use of an
amanuensis, I find it hard to believe that Paul would allow a secretary
to compose such personal letters as the Pastorals.  Perhaps, the
amanuensis has had a much greater role in the composition of the other
ten letters.  Is this plausible though?

(iii) Stylistic differences due to a different genre, purpose of the
writing, or phase of the author's life.  This explanation is similar
to Ken's later points and will be treated there.

3. That there are different reasons for writing which manifest in a
   different style; the example being that a short, personal letter
   Philemon compared with Romans.

If this were the case for Paul, I would have expected Philemon to
be clustered with the Pastorals (as they are in the sequence of the
canon), but it shows a marked preference for the core Paulines.

4. Modern authors/Difference Genres

Genre differences don't skew the clustering much either, as the
consistent clustering of the Johannine Epistles with John's Gospel
shows.  As for differences due getting older, the ten clustering
Paulines were written over a course of about twelve years, though the
Pastorals date to after his first imprisonment in Rome.

5. Mark Twain ;-)

Smiley duly noted.

6. Questions about the sample size.

Technically speaking, I did not sample any of the books in the canon but
used the whole work.  I did attempt to normalize in order to account for
the differences in size, and my normalization appears to be successful.
This brings up a related question, whether some of the works are large
enough to be compared.  I think that the 3d-order contacts (phrases) have
shown to be much more stable for the smaller epistles than a straight
comparison of shared vocubulary.

In closing I would like to address two other methodological points that
have occurred to me in the course of this work:

1.  It seems to be vulnerable for works that shared a common source.
The Synoptics cluster  early as well as 2 Peter and Jude.  Perhaps that
is the reason for the early clustering of Ephesians and Colossians
(although whichever one is the source for the other is almost assuredly
genuine Paul), and 1,2 Thessalonians (q1 & q2 in my notation).  I think
that if a literary dependence is confined to a small portion of a work,
then a chapter-by-chapter clustering should help to resolve this issue.

2.  This method may not capture all of an author's style.  For example,
I am impressed that an extremely rare term, ARSENOKOITHS, shows up in
both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy and almost nowhere else (independently)
for centuries afterwards.  This is evidence in favor of Pauline authorship
of the Pastorals, but I don't know how to factor it in.

Stephen Carlson
- -- 
Stephen Carlson     :  Poetry speaks of aspirations,  : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com  :  and songs chant the words.     : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330      :                 Shujing 2:35    : Reston, VA  22091   USA


From: Greg Carey <CAREY@library.vanderbilt.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 10:28:51 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and Cynics

A few days ago, David Gowler noted that Jesus' shameless behavior in 
Luke was part of Luke's larger strategy of subverting conventional 
social expectations.  I have read David's excellent article in 
_Semeia_, and I would like to push the discussion one step further.

In the _Semeia_ article, David maintains that Jesus' behavior in 
11.37-54 indicates that Jesus is a "prominent," someone whose deviant 
behavior must be reckoned with seriously (my spin on David's thesis). 

I agree with David's thesis regarding _this_ Lukan passage.  But when 
I wrote about the power of shamelessness last week, I was thinking of 
a different sort of behavior.  An example might be the Malaysian 
peasant who is never too "ashamed" to ask for a loan, no matter what 
the circumstances, and will do anything necessary to get it.  There's 
tremendous power in that sort of shamelessness (see James Scott, 
_Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance_).  

Are there examples of Jesus using shamelessness in this way?  Perhaps 
an example might be in Luke 6.1-5, the plucking of grain on the 
Sabbath, in which Jesus uses a shameless behavior in order to make an 
opportunity for his pronouncement in 6.5.  (On the other hand, the 
Pharisees are watching Jesus, which indicates that his status is 
already "prominent."

There is also the commission to the disciples in Luke 10, and the 
parable of the widow and the judge (18.1-8) which Greg Bloomquist 
mentioned.  I wonder whether the larger pattern of shamelessness in 
Luke might be more complex than when this discussion began.


Greg Carey
Graduate Department of Religion
Vanderbilt University


From: Joel Taylor <jtaylor@matty.hollins.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 11:58:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: unsubscribe

unsubscribe b-greek


From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 12:02:26 EST
Subject: Re: Lexical contacts

PaleoBill@aol.com wrote:
[Stressing the importance of a large sample size.]
> Hope this has been a helpful corrective.

I appreciate very much your comments, and I would would like to stress
that my work is not intended to be definitive or conclusive.  I do
believe that it can offer valuable insights into the stylistic
closeness of two works and suggest avenues of research.  Caution is
very appropriate.

On the other hand, I fear you may be somewhat overstating the case
about the necessity for sample sizes in the high hundreds.  Perhaps I
haven't being reading the right literature, but I've read about cluster
analysis in Greek stylometry with sample sizes of 35 (of 1000 words
each) and about a 100 (of 1000 each).  Although I had 27 books to
compare, I've used the whole corpus of about 130,000 words or phrases.

This was a preliminary analysis, and I hope to run a cluster analysis
on about 250 "samples" and see if the results differ.  One thing that
will be examined rather closely is the clustering of the individual
chapters: whether they still keep to a single author.  The initial runs
show that this avenue is very promising--much of the mainstream
consensus on authorship is corroborated, even across genres (e.g., John).

Also, I am using a very direct measure of distance and clustering,
instead of the forced analogs to multi-dimensional geometry, which
may obviate the need for huge sample sizes.  My analysis is very
different from measuring mollusks or the typical stylostatistical
approach.  The usual course is to take each sample, make a set of
disparate, unary measurements, and then cluster the samples based
upon a conglomeration of the individual measurements.  My procedure
is a direct, binary comparison for closeness: viz., the (normalized)
number of phrases in common.

Stephen Carlson
- -- 
Stephen Carlson     :  Poetry speaks of aspirations,  : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com  :  and songs chant the words.     : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330      :                 Shujing 2:35    : Reston, VA  22091   USA


From: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 12:57:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Lexical contacts

   From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
   Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 12:02:26 EST
   X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

   Also, I am using a very direct measure of distance and clustering,
   instead of the forced analogs to multi-dimensional geometry, which
   may obviate the need for huge sample sizes.  My analysis is very
   different from measuring mollusks or the typical stylostatistical
   approach.  The usual course is to take each sample, make a set of
   disparate, unary measurements, and then cluster the samples based
   upon a conglomeration of the individual measurements.  My procedure
   is a direct, binary comparison for closeness: viz., the (normalized)
   number of phrases in common.

I have a fair amount of expertise in mathematics.

Something unknown to the average layman, but very interesting, and
relevant, is the following:

If the sample is chosen truly randomly, without any sources of bias,
then to get a given degree of accuracy, you need a sufficiently large
size sample, but the size of the total space is irrelevant.

It happens that for binary questions (things like "How many people
have property foo?") a sample of a hundred will get you well over 99%
accuracy, regardless of how big the sampled space is.

The hard part of statistics, of course, is for cases where you have
difficulty in getting a random sample, which particularly comes up
when sampling populations.



From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 11:21:16 PST
Subject: Re: Text Types; Sturz

ptiller@husc.harvard.edu wrote:
> ...his definition of "distinctively Byzantine readings" is 
> far too broad.... Virtually all of his readings 
> have the support of non-Byzantine witnesses like Caesarean mss...,
> secondary Alexandrians, the Coptic version, etc...

I did a small investigation last night to see for myself how much Sturz
should have backtracked on his claim that occasional Byzantine readings
are supported by early papyri without the fourth-century+ Alexandrian and
"Western" witnesses.  I checked his first five listings from Luke against
the IGNTP apparatus to see whether the variants were Byzantine and significant.
None of these readings showed signs of scribal inventiveness
in terms of frequent defections from group readings.
I would call all but 6:39 and possibly 10:39 significant.

I summarize the evidence for Byzantine-ness below, mostly in terms of Wisse's
MS groups, where group readings require the group to poll a 2/3 majority.
Group B is essentially Aleph+B, group L is L+Xi+T+33 etc.
I think the Old Syriac and Diatessaron generally went with D+OldLatin below.

- ----------------------------------------
Luke 6:28
KATAR. YMIN   p75 (Orig) TR, groups Kx K1 1685 7 Lambda M27 1675, few OldLatins
KATAR. YMAS   D most OldLatins, groups B L 1 13 22b 22a Pi-a Pi-b 1012 16 Kr
undecided     groups M106 827 1216.

I'm not sure whether the case difference should be visible in translation
to latin, so the defecting Old Latins are a possible problem;
otherwise I'd call this evidence.

Luke 6:39
DE      p45 vid, TR etc
DE KAI  groups B, D, etc.

The reading of p45 depends on measuring the width of a lacuna and
the Old Latins are split, so I would tend to discard this reading.

Luke 9:30
MWSHS     p45, TR, groups Kr Kx K1 1216 Lambda M106 M27 22a 22b 1
MWYSHS    p75 vid, Orig, D, groups B L 1675 13 Pi-a Pi-b 7 1685 16
undecided groups 827 1012

The loyalty to group readings I saw indicates the spelling was
generally _transmitted_ inside the greek tradition, not chosen by each copyist.
The versions weren't listed for the variant, and I don't know
whether they would be significant for locating a "western" reading.
I'd call this evidence.

Luke 10:21
TW PNEUMATI          p45 C Xi 1241 TR  rell. omn. MSS
TW PNEUMATI TW AGIW  p75, groups B and D incl. vss., sah eth
undecided            group Pi-a

The alignment of three later Alexandrians with the Byzantines
is not unexpected, since they are definitely mixed texts.
Wisse doesn't even group C with Aleph+B in Luke.
I see no problem assuming these 3 got their reading from their
Byzantine-like relatives, instead of from p45.

Luke 10:39 (individually)
IHSOU   p45 p75 B3(Tischendorf?) C2 33 1241 TR  rell. omn. MSS
KURIOU  p3 S B C* D L Xi 579 892 OldLatin OldSyriac boh arm (diatess eth)

One should remember that the correctors B3 and C2 weren't
contemporaneous with the original hand.  I seem to remember
that their corrections are regarded as coming from a Byzantine source.
The reading of p75 makes me less confident that the later Alexandrian
witness got their reading from a Byzantine environment.  It looks
like the Alexandrian stream of texts forked in this verse.
A weakened piece of evidence.
- ----------------------------------------

My impression, without in-depth study of the rest of Sturz's readings,
is that I would end up with far more than eight unimpeached readings
to demonstrate that pre-fourth-century readings were sometimes preserved
through the fourth century only in non-Alexandrian, non-"Western" witnesses.

One thing that may not universally recognized:
The "later Alexandrians" are not all _that_ Alexandrian.
They are regarded with respect because any deviations from the TR
confer merit, and deviations that occasionally align with Vaticanus
confer double merit.  But if you do a loyalty test on these MSS
to see how often they agree with Aleph+B against A+Pi where ever
these differ, scores tend to be mediocre, say 50-50, not 90-10.
Thus no surprise should be felt if a Papyrus-Byzantine alignment
against Aleph+B+D+Latin garners in about half the later Alexandrians, too.

Agreements of early fathers like Origen with the Papyrus+Byzantine
alignments are also ambiguous on the grounds that the
MS text of the father's quotation, being late, could have been
conformed to the Byzantine norm of the time.  It doesn't necessarily
recruit the reading into the Alexandrian camp.  (Hah! turnabout!)

Vincent Broman,  code 572 Bayside                        Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA  92152-6147,  USA                          Phone: +1 619 553 1641


From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:49:51 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Lexical Contacts and Cluster Analysis

I find this stuff fascinating, not because it proves anything by itself 
but precisely because it can lend assistance to hypotheses. I've just 
come across a book by David Peabody entitled _Mark as Composer_ (New 
Gospel Studies 1), Mercer Press, 1987. It is an attempt to isolate Marcan 
phraseology that may be considered redactional, a distinct problem that 
anyone who attempts to do redaction criticism of Mark must face, but just 
as much for Farmer-Griesbach advocates who would see Mark as redaction of 
Mt & Lk. Has anyone else seen this? Larry Hurtado? Has it been reviewed? 
It is not a statistical analysis in the sense of compiling ratios, but 
its tables of recurrent usage of the same or similar phraseology to 
perform certain compositional functions are pretty impressive where the 
phrases recur over and over and over again.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu  OR cwc@oui.com


End of b-greek-digest V1 #615


To unsubscribe from this list write


with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content.  For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content

For further information, you can write the owner of the list at


You can send mail to the entire list via the address: