Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Readings

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Readings

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
As indicated at my Textual Criticism Blog Review of Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts there is a significant difference in weighting Criteria between Skeptical Textual Criticism (STC) and Traditional Textual Criticism (TTC):
  • 1) STC places relatively more weight on Internal evidence while TTC usually concludes External evidence is decisive.

    2) STC makes a larger distinction regarding what constitutes quality External evidence.

    3) STC gives bonus weight to individual witnesses with multiple Difficult Readings.
I think though, due largely to STC being relatively new, even the average Skeptic tends to underestimate the strength of the above as evidence due to:
  • 1) The relatively small quantity of comparable credentialed early quality witness to even one early quality witness for a Difficult Reading such as Sinaiticus.

    2) The cumulative strength of relatively few early quality witnesses for individual Difficult Readings but the existence of multiple Difficult Readings witnessed by a few early quality witnesses as the primary defense against the Difficult Reading is usually that it is unintentional but the recurring pattern noted indicates it was intentional.
As usual let's start by looking at GMark since it not only is likely the earliest extant Gospel but also appears to be the original Gospel narrative:

Difficult Reading Witness Quality Witness Against Defense Against Significant Difference?
Mark 1:1
Sinaiticus
3rd century papyrus
Irenaeus
Origen
Serapion
Basil
Cyril
Epiphanius
Asterius
Severian
Vaticanus
Alexandrinus
Bezae
Washingtonianus
Note that witness here is weakened by its variation
Manuscript = Homeoteleuton (accidental skipping due to similar near words)
Patristic = Abbreviation
Yes. Since GMark starts with Jesus' supposed baptism and Jesus is explicitly ided as the son of God at the baptism the issue of the timing of Jesus' status was/is a crucial issue for Christianity. Especially with GMark being the original Gospel.


Joseph

The New Porphyry
Last edited by JoeWallack on Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jamesthelazer
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:21 am

Re: Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading

Post by Jamesthelazer »

This is an interesting idea; I'm wondering is this an invite to delve into the topic? Or just an informational post.

I like the idea the article presented of taking geolocation data, etc. into account! I'll use that!

Still, I'm not sure the differentiation between "skeptical" and "traditional" textual criticism holds up (or I just don't like the term, it's not Skeptical it's more thorough); rather, it to me seems, in cases like Mark 1:1, the textual criticism when it comes to judgement calls is often based on anachronism...

Son of God has a Hebrew contextualization that no one really takes into consideration and most assume Mark or "an editor" is only adding it (or not) for Christology claims. In cases like this the internal structure of the work is often ignored. (as 1:1 is sort of a thesis statement, and Mark explores the topic... he could include it without overt christology meanings/ as a term to later define"

And, any editor in this historical period could take "son of God" variably... an Arian could add it for adoption readings!

But most want to say it's some attempt at orthodoxy adding things (Ehrman) or they just assume the hardest reading always has to win, etc.

So it's not really "skeptical" to call such "traditional" textual criticism into question, it's just taking history into account and avoiding modernist assumptions that European rationalism is inerrant. But it's funny because I get there by the method you presented!

I think I just hate the unfortunate use of "skeptical." Maybe it's a marketing thing so it seems more critical? But it comes off like a bad church slogan "Wounded healers" or something.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading

Post by Stuart »

Joe Wallack's chart included this "Significant Difference?"
Yes. Since GMark starts with Jesus' supposed baptism and Jesus is explicitly named (1) as the son of God at the baptism the issue of the timing of Jesus' status was/is a crucial issue for Christianity. Especially with GMark being the original Gospel.
I used bold for the last point here, because it shows the sort of assumption that is being made, and thus narrowing of choices. There are many such built in biases in TC that presume order and state in the church at the time of the writings. This is a conservative bias, even apologetic, not recognized, since it's just assumed to be true.

The criteria are mostly correct, but you left out negative criteria which also apply here. HT at the very beginning of a manuscript, especially of a creed is pretty much laughable. It would have been corrected on the spot, and further we would expect the scribe for the manuscript to have made similar mistakes quite frequently, as clearly he was not alert enough to catch one when fresh. Fatigue cannot be an argument here. Another negative argument is to consider, would it be more likely to add the relationship between father and son or to remove it? The answer is the latter, such was the nature of our pious scribes.

That it is a creedal statement is not given enough weight. These are even more unlikely to have been sloppily written down incorrectly. And this is where conservative bias shows up again. There is an assumption of early uniformity in creed acceptance, and also of Catholic form. This is definitely not the case, as early Patristic writings discuss at length the various not so subtle differences in the understanding of the relationship of Jesus and God. One of the key differences between the Marcionites and the proto-orthodoxy was over who rose Jesus from the dead, God the father or Christ himself. Although it would later be regarded as heresy known as Arianism and/or semi-Arianism, early proto-orthodox countered this equation of Jesus being equal to God (also present in the Gospel of John) with emphasis on his subordinate position.

Those are the two points I would suggest in addition, which are required for true STC: Negative criteria, and skepticism about order = know the internal debates of the 2nd and 3rd century, as our first full manuscripts are 4th century (besides scraps, several rather aggressively dated due to similar bias, on weak evidence); this is from the progenitors that survived and were chosen for copying after the Diocletian persecution.


Notes:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Joe wrote "ided" which is a typo of some form, perhaps "said to be" was meant. Hence I substituted "named". If he meant "died as the son of God at Baptism" then it's a dozy of an assumption about the text he is telling us is said "explicitly", but I think not.
Last edited by Stuart on Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading

Post by spin »

Stuart wrote:Joe wrote "ided" which is a typo of some form...
(Try putting the first two letters in capitals.)
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading

Post by Stuart »

spin wrote:
Stuart wrote:Joe wrote "ided" which is a typo of some form...
(Try putting the first two letters in capitals.)[
:oops: :facepalm: Thanks for the second pair of eyes. (At least my choice "named" works in it's place.)
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading

Post by spin »

Stuart wrote: :oops: :facepalm: Thanks for the second pair of eyes. (At least my choice "named" works in it's place.)
Don't beat yourself up. It certainly looks like a typo.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Go Dogmas Go

Post by JoeWallack »

Image

There are Three who (mis)textualize...

JW:
Regarding Christian Textual Transmission the superior Skeptic should keep in mind that there were three great Textual Critics of The Early Church:
All three were considered the premier Textual Critics of their time by the Church and authorities (by the Church) for what the Christian Bible should say. I have faith though that while the average Skeptic may appreciate their value to Textual Criticism for the evidence they provide, even though it always requires a discount for bias, their (mis)conclusions are not properly appreciated.

Origen c. 220 = Wrote before Christianity gained control and thus was likely witness to major Textual problems which could not easily be solved in his time. It appears likely that in Origen's time:
  • 1) GMark ended at 16:8.

    2) It was known that GMatthew originally had no virgin birth.

    3) There was evidence that GLuke was originally Marcion's.

    4) There was more evidence that GJohn was originally Gnostic.
The above helps explain why we have no significant Manuscript witness to the Christian Bible through Origen's time. Subsequent Christianity did not want it. It also helps explain why we have relatively little surviving Textual Criticism by Origen. Subsequent Christianity did not want it. Instead of Aristotle's Poetics, The Name of the Rose should have involved Origen's lost commentary on GMark. In the rare surviving Textual Criticism of Origen we do get a clear picture of the value and probable effect of his conclusions regarding Textual Criticism:

https://www.alexpoulos.com/blog/2017/2/ ... y-on-ps-77
We regularly say that the psalms with the prefix “of understanding” use this superscription to direct the listener to investigate carefully what has been said, as they need interpretation and explication, since every psalm with this prefix has dark sayings, riddles, and parables. This is indeed the case here, for we have the superscription, “of understanding, by Asaph” and immediately it says in the psalm, “I shall open my mouth in parables, I shall speak riddles as from the beginning.” (Ps. 77:2). One must know that Matthew mentions this saying– writing about how the Savior spoke in parables, he said, “so that the passage may be fulfilled ‘I shall open my mouth in parables; I shall speak in riddles as of from the beginning’ or rather, ‘ <I shall declare things hidden> since the establishing of the world’. (1) Though Matthew paraphrased with those sorts of words what was said in this way here, there occurred a scribal error in the copies of the gospel, for it says, “so that what was said through the prophet Isaiah may be fulfilled, ‘I will open my mouth in parables’”. It’s likely that one of the very first scribes found the text, “so that what was said through the prophet Asaph,” and supposed that it was an error because he did not realize that Asaph was a prophet. This caused him rashly to write “Isaiah” instead of “Asaph” because of his unfamiliarity with the prophet’s name
...
Now one must acknowledge this, that if someone ever proposes something as a contradiction in the scripture, we must not regard these as contradictions, as we know that either we don’t understand something or a scribal error has occurred
JW:
So says the premier Christian Textual critic of his time. Note that it's bad enough that the leading Textual Critic is such a bad Textual Critic for his own purposes of determining likely original but the larger problem is he was considered an authority for the larger Church. He is providing evidence that in his time there were major such problems as evidenced by all/most Manuscripts and he was offering general and specific solutions.

Eusebius c. 300 = Almost 100 years after Origen and Origen's invitation to manufacture solutions to textual problems. In Eusebius' time the textual problems are still many but there is now some extant textual solutions. Again, Eusebius is useful to Textual Criticism regarding what the textual evidence is in his time but his attitude towards conclusions is just as bad as Origen's and again, as the premier Textual critic of his time, he provides the authority for Textual Change/Forgery. This is best illustrated by his commentary on the Textual problem of the ending of GMark:

http://www.textexcavation.com/marcanend ... l#eusebius
For in this [manner] the ending of the gospel according to Mark is circumscribed almost in all the copies. The things that seldom follow, which are extant in some but not in all, may be superfluous, and especially if indeed it holds a contradiction to the testimony of the rest of the evangelists. These things therefore someone might say in avoiding and in all ways doing away with a superfluous question. But someone else, [someone] who dares to set aside nothing at all in any way of the things that are extant in the writing of the gospels, says that the reading is double, as also in many other [passages], and each is to be accepted, not this rather than that, or that than this, as the classification of the faithful and the reverent.
The above always only seems to be invoked in the context of the ending of GMark, but actually it is more important as general evidence of Eusebius' value himself as a Textual Critic and his effect on the subsequent Patristics.

Note that unlike Origen, Eusebius wrote after Christianity gained significant control, giving Eusebius freedom to write what he wanted and probably orders to write what was wanted. I suspect it would have been illegal under Constantine to contradict Eusebius or hold contradictory writings or at least be a serious health risk. Ken Olson look out!

Jerome c. 400 = Jerome goes beyond Eusebius giving permission to others to choose what they want their Scriptures to say to being willing to choose for himself based again on the critical ending of GMark:
The solution of this question is two-fold; for either we do not accept the testimony of Mark, that is carried in few gospels, almost all the books of Greece not having this passage at the end, especially and since it seems to speak various and contrary things to the other evangelists; or this must be replied, that both speak truly: Matthew, when the Lord rose again on the evening of the Sabbath, Mark however, when Mary Magdalen saw him, that is, on the morning of the first day of the week.
Unlike Eusebius Jerome goes on to include the forged 16:9-20 in his Vulgate even though at the same time he clearly presents evidence that 16:8 is the original ending.

We see all of the above reflected in the earliest significant surviving Manuscripts which are few in number and relatively close to Jerome. Exactly what we would expect =
  • 1. Origen advised manufactured solutions.

    2. Eusebius advised selecting the solution you wanted.

    3. Jerome selected the solution he wanted.
Add in the Argument from Silence that there was no known Patristic in this time who said to the above, "Don't", or "Stop". Just "Don't stop".

The point of the above as it relates to this Thread is that the few early significant Manuscripts such as Sinaiticus likely reflect the time period when there was significant editing regarding serious Textual problems which makes even a few of these or only even one quite valuable and of measurable weight compared to subsequent manuscripts. For those who need points sharply explained, the above supports the possibility that at an extreme even one lone early reading such as Sinaiticus has the original reading.

The Word.


Joseph

Figures Don't Lie But Liars Figure. A Proportionate Response to the Disproportionate Response Claim (Gaza)
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Listing of significant early Greek witness for GMark that contains most of GMark:

Table of NT Greek Manuscripts

Witness Date Text Type NA Rating Commentary
Codex Sinaiticus 350 Alexandrian 1 -
Codex Vaticanus 350 Alexandrian 1 -
Codex Regius 700 Alexandrian 2 -
Codex Washingtonianus 400 Caesarean 3 -
Codex Alexandrinus 425 Byzantine 3 -
Codex Bezae 450 Western 4 -
Codex purpureus Rossanensis 550 Byzantine 5 -
Codex Beratinus 550 Byzantine 5 -
Uncial 064 550 Byzantine 5 -
Codex Basilensis 700 Byzantine Meh -

JW:
We can see from the above that there is in general relatively little early quality witness for GMark and specifically significant difference in quality between Sinaiticus/Vaticanus and the others above. So even if a Difficult Reading has only Sinaiticus or only even Bezae as support, that is still a significant percent of the early quality witness.


Joseph

Figures Don't Lie But Liars Figure. A Proportionate Response to the Disproportionate Response Claim (Gaza)
Steven Avery
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading

Post by Steven Avery »

JoeWallack wrote:As usual let's start by looking at GMark since it not only is likely the earliest extant Gospel but also appears to be the original Gospel narrative:
Some curiosities. We can put aside for now the nonsense of Sinaiticus being placed as from antiquity.

Let's start, using LaParola:

Which papyri ?
An inventory of the Irenaeus evidences ? Which are given as more in support in the apparatus.
Where is the Diatessaron?
Where are "Faustus-Milevis Ambrose Chromatius Jerome3/6 Augustine"

Do you cherry-pick by using the phrase "Quality witnesses" and applying that one side? If the Old Latin and Syriac mss and the large mass of Greek uncials and minuscules supported your position, would you include them on the omission side?
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading

Post by andrewcriddle »

JoeWallack wrote:JW:
Listing of significant early Greek witness for GMark that contains most of GMark:

Table of NT Greek Manuscripts

Witness Date Text Type NA Rating Commentary
Codex Sinaiticus 350 Alexandrian 1 -
Codex Vaticanus 350 Alexandrian 1 -
Codex Regius 700 Alexandrian 2 -
Codex Washingtonianus 400 Caesarean 3 -
Codex Alexandrinus 425 Byzantine 3 -
Codex Bezae 450 Western 4 -
Codex purpureus Rossanensis 550 Byzantine 5 -
Codex Beratinus 550 Byzantine 5 -
Uncial 064 550 Byzantine 5 -
Codex Basilensis 700 Byzantine Meh -

JW:
We can see from the above that there is in general relatively little early quality witness for GMark and specifically significant difference in quality between Sinaiticus/Vaticanus and the others above. So even if a Difficult Reading has only Sinaiticus or only even Bezae as support, that is still a significant percent of the early quality witness.


Joseph

Figures Don't Lie But Liars Figure. A Proportionate Response to the Disproportionate Response Claim (Gaza)
The problem here is that Sinaiticus and Bezae both have a higher than normal amount of genuinely idiosyncratic readings. If there is literally no support whatever for a reading beyond one of these two manuscripts it is unlikely to be authentic.

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply