bible.org - Busted Again!

Who is this anonymous 'expert' at bible.org?

Well, he says here something quite remarkable:

"when Aleph and B agree, their combined testimony must go back quite far. Westcott and Hort estimated that their agreement went back ten generations and must be located near the beginning of the second century."

Again in another 'expert answer':

"I would concur with Westcott and Hort that the common ancestor between these two MSS must be at least ten generations back. I hope this point is clear."

Aargh!!!!.. Why is it the people at bible.org are such fabricators?

I have just gone through Hort's longwinded BS about Aleph/B, all the way from para 204/205 (B/Aleph) to para 374.

He makes no such claim that we can find. On the contrary, he does say a few things:

a) B and Aleph are entirely different in regard to their subsequent history,   i.e., 'post-nearest common ancestor'. For B he makes incredible claims of purity and FEWNESS of generations:

"The ancestry of B posterior to the common archetype was probably a chain of very few links indeed;..." (Hort, Introduction, ¶ 328. pg 248-9, ).

Again, speaking primarily of B's unique/subsingular readings, he says,

"the sources of corruption in B are for the most part of a sporadic and indeterminate character (cf. ¶ 204)." (Hort, Intro, ¶ 328, p.250)

This hardly sounds like Hort has detected 10 layers/generations (or any other number beyond 'more than one'). He goes on:

"Finally, the absence of any external criterion for referring the various singular and subsingular readings of either MS to one or other of the two possible origins*, combined with the exceptional antiquity and purity of the fundamental text which they both preserve intact in a very large though unequal proportions,..." (etc., ibid).

This clearly doesn't sound anything like a detailed detection of a half-dozen or more layers is even possible in Hort's view.


For Aleph he says (ibid.),

"On the other hand...the ancestry of Aleph posterior to the common archetype must, at one or more points in its history, have been exposed to contact with at least two early aberrant texts"

Neither of these descriptions sounds anything like "at least ten generations back".

In fact, Hort goes on to say quite clearly that 'generations' per se are not
actually detectable:

"Except from extraneous sources, which here have no existence [i.e., pre 2nd cent.], it is never possible to know how many transcriptions [generations of copy] intervened between the autograph and the latest common ancestor..." (Hort, Intro. ¶ 367, p.281).

Hort does repeatedly insist that the Aleph/B text is "early 2nd century", but not on the basis of the number of generations he has been able to detect anywhere.

Looks like the bible.org anonymous 'expert' claims are another attempt at making up stuff to enhance an entrenched position, - that is,

*busted*.

mr.scrivener

Variations in Genealogical Stemma

In the previous discussion, we talked about sensibly and usefully displaying information in a convenient and intuitive way on a stemma, or genealogical chart.

Periodically, researchers try innovations in order to emphasize certain aspects of the textual data.  One such example is the stemma given by G. Mink in his article recently quoted by Nazaroo in discussing commentaries.  Our interest is however in Mink's innovative stemma, (diagram 17) shown below:

Click on this to Enlarge: Backbutton to return

From the chart, it will be seen that Mink offers two alternate 'routes' that readings could have arrived at each extant manuscript.  In other words, Mink has superimposed a 'main' ("most probable") stemma, and a secondary (2nd most probable stemma).

At once, it should be realized that the solid and dotted lines are not simply two alternate genealogical trees.  Each individual manuscript could have acquired readings from more than one source independently.    This means that the diagram encompasses ALL combinatorical possibilities, and this involves many hundreds of variations as to the actual transmission of readings.   Its not just two stemmas.   Mink has in a relatively simple and intuitive way shown all the most likely possibilities (1st and 2nd order) by which the extant manuscripts could have come to contain their texts.

He still uses vertical position to indicate manuscript date (and therefore has avoided the question of age of text vs. date of MS.).

Other useful innovations are possible.  In the following diagram, mixture (cross-copying of readings) is indicated in contrast to genealogical relationship (where the majority of the text was copied from).

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to return.

Nowadays, it is acknowledged that manuscript relations are not as sharp as simple lines.  To show dependence and mixture of text-types as opposed to single manuscripts, something more realistic and representative of "flows and streams" of transmission is given below:

Click to Enlarge

Here one can imagine source-streams flowing out and expanding, and areas of influence overlapping.   This is much more representative of 'text-types', with manuscripts being represented in large quantities in the colored zones.

Much can be learned from various solutions to displaying human genealogies.  The important relations between individuals need to be retained in detailed family trees, and such methods give us ideas for similar problems with manuscripts.  In the following diagram, secondary texts, alternate readings, and the spread of influence can be placed inside boxes using symbols and color-codes if desired:

Where generational information is available, it may be more desirable to display that than manuscript ages:

Sometimes, genealogical dependence is unknown at the start of an investigation.  What is needed is to plot affinity or closeness of relation, without presuming dependence per se.   Such diagrams, while not 'true stemma', in that they don't indicate direction of dependence, can help to sort and solve relationships when coupled with other data.  Two such forms are as follows:

 In one diagram, size of node indicates importance, while in the other, the connection is stressed, and its strength is indicated by thickness or style of line.

When many manuscripts are to be displayed  and they are not closely related, and many others are missing from the stream, so that no real accurate stemmas are possible, a different method of display is preferable, as in the following diagram:

In other cases, genealogical connections are possible, but mixture may be as strong as genealogical dependence, and so it can be shown with similar lines:

In some situations, alternate routes of dependence are more important than spread of texts, and these details can be highlighted and elaborated with colors and symbols, as in the diagrams below;

In many cases, the earlier manuscripts are missing, and only the later copies survive.  Here genealogical relations must be deduced by working backward from extant MSS to the proposed source-structures:

 When groupings need to emphasized, another style of display can be used:

Color-coding can be effectively used to indicate groupings, and a more natural, organic display will illustrate the connections nicely:

Since the mass of manuscripts are quite late copies, a realistic understanding of the circumstances can help immensely in capturing the essence of things:

Above all, a look at the many options that are available can greatly stimulate both analysis and articulation/communication of data effectively.

Keep trying various methods, to see what is effective for your data, and someday your genealogical stemmas will be as nice as ours:

mr.scrivener

Introduction - Genealogy

Everyone understands the basic idea of a genealogy.  Manuscripts are copied from other manuscripts, and this forms a line of descent from the original to the latest copy.

Click to Enlarge

Not all copies are used again to make subsequent copies.  (Above, 1st generation copy #10 is used for a master, - then 2nd gen. copy #1, - 3rd gen. copy #253 etc.) Usually, either the best copies are used to make more copies, or else sometimes (under less favourable circumstances) the master-copy will just be whatever copy is available. 

By the time of Jesus, the craft of document copying was certainly very advanced.  The Jewish scribes had a long history and tradition of careful copying of their religious scrolls, and the Romans used documents extensively for administration of the Empire.   There were both organized religious groups and private-sector operations providing copying services.  Scribes were trained and employed in courts, temples, and libraries, and in places like Alexandria, where papyrus was manufactured, apparently copying services were organized businesses.

Because scribes were paid, manuscripts weren't simply copied.  The amount of papyrus (or parchment) was calculated, the number of lines written were counted, and the content was proof-read and corrected during manufacture.   Potential master-copies of existing works were examined for accuracy, and new copies were checked against the master-copy, and sometimes cross-checked with other good copies.   A reasonably effective system for correcting mistakes had evolved in major copying centers, complete with special symbols and conventions for dealing with variations between copies.

Because of this, many mistakes were caught before a manuscript went out the door of the copying-center.    Most people have heard of the "telephone game" in school, where children whisper a message in a long chain, and the end result is naturally a garbled message.   But the situation with manuscript copying is quite different.  Due to correction and cross-checking, the integrity of the copy is far better protected.   This can also be represented by a diagram:

Because of copy-correction and cross-checking, manuscripts are actually embedded in a protective network or web, which helps to stabilize the text of each copy.  The strength of these extra connections (and purity of text) is based on the quality of the proof-reading.

These extra connections and relationships between manuscripts created by cross-checking and proof-reading are not usually shown on genealogical trees (or stemmas), because the diagrams would become too complicated. 

Because reliable master-copies can be used over and over again to produce new copies, manuscripts of widely varying dates can be equally good, and equally close to the original in terms of copy-generations.   Realistic genealogical "trees" look like wide bushes rather than tall oaks.

The stemma below (from Edmer's 'Vita Wilfridi')  is 'realistic' only in that it shows surviving manuscripts, not in that it represents a true picture of the actual copying stream with all the manuscripts:

 Since errors only happen during copying or correction, and manuscripts can last an awfully long time without change, the actual date of manufacture or age of a manuscript is semi-independent of the "generation number" of a manuscript. What matters is not age at all, but rather three things control the quality of a text:

(1) the quality of the copying during each step,
(2) the quality of the correction during each step.
(3) The number of generations away from the original it is, because errors can be, but aren't necessarily, cumulative.

Nazaroo illustrated the independence of these two axis with his simple diagram and suggestion for a useful layout below:

click to enlarge

This idea was used successfully in the creation of a stemma for Lake's work:

click to enlarge

Real Relations between Text-types

click to enlarge, then backbutton...

Hort (1882) envisioned a line of descent and dependence as follows:

   (1)  Original Text (lost) = "Neutral text"

   (2)  binary split into two basic streams, Western & Alexandrian

   (3)  An early 'Lucian Recension' = a proto-Byzantine text

   (4)  further conflation of the two diverse streams into one mixed "Syrian text" (= Byzantine).

   (5)  further development of the circulating Byzantine text in language and style, and accruing of marginal insertions.

This linear model of descent has since been largely abandoned, because there is no real way to get to the Byzantine text by 'conflating' the Western and Alexandrian.

The real picture is far more complex, and more like the following:

The developing early Lectionary system, of dividing the NT into "pericopes" or Lections (Lessons) for public reading in church meetings, grew alongside the copying stream, and early copies of the text prepared for church use and public reading were modified on an ongoing basis.

Abberant texts like that of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are just what they appear to be: Expensive and durable church copies made for public reading and worship services.   Copies like these served as a combination "Bible" and Lectionary for public reading, and have many idiosyncratic features caused by the back-influence of the Lectionary stream in development.

*thanks to Nazaroo for the graphics!

mr.scrivener