At ETC, Peter Head has blogged about the recent article by Koester in the Harvard Theological Review. In his overview of the subjects covered by HTR in the last century, one can see a sharp decline in papers on NT textual criticism in this most recent era of scholarship. A snippet:
"New discoveries of manuscripts, particularly of New Testament papyri, brought new excitement to the scene of New Testament study, and American scholars, some educated in Europe, such as James Hardy Ropes, or coming from Europe, such as Kirsopp Lake, played an important role in this discussion. Later, the center of these investigations had moved to the text-critical institute in Munster, where it became streamlined without achieving any significant progress, as J. Eldon Epp (sic) has so aptly argued in several publications."
It will be interesting to see what responses this generates at the ETC blog. On the one hand, Koester is right, and I wager that this statistic applies to other journals as broad in scope as the HTR. But on the other hand, the article ignores the idea that textual criticism has moved out of journals and into emerging databases and research programs that are simply taking a long time to put together. I consider what is happening at Birmingham, Muenster, somewhere in Texas, and in similar organizations to be more intriguing than a few HTR papers. And what percentage of biblical studies blogdom in the last five years or so involves discussion of text-critical matters? Enough to characterize this discussion as active and fruitful.
Showing posts with label Textual Criticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Textual Criticism. Show all posts
5/24/06
UK Holdings in the Kurzgefasste Liste
I have completed a list of any and all items in the KL that are held at UK institutions, including lectionaries (though I have had a harder time verifying the location of those half-dozen on the antiquities market or in private collections). As the list is 30 pages long, cross-referenced by location, I will not post it here but simply offer it to anyone who is interested. Just reply to this topic indicating your interest and I can email it to you.
5/5/06
Day Conference on TC and the NA Text (3 of 3)
NA 28 - The First Digital Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament.
Klaus Wachtel
This final paper was primarily connected with a series of Power Point slides, which makes it difficult to summarize here. The INTF should consider publishing an introductory volume or CD for the CBGM, NA 28, and related projects that includes the visual presentations that were part of this conference. Such a volume would help articulate the finer points of the CBGM to specialists, and serve as a helpful introductory volume to new users of the NA text. I could imagine taking one or two class periods in an intermediate level NT Greek class to walk students through some of this same information.
Wachtel started by pointing out that the digital NA 28 is not exactly the "first" digital or online edition of the Greek New Testament, as there are several out there currently available for use. I think it is worth pointing out though that the projected digital NA 28 has been designed on such a grand scale that it will set a new bar for online Biblical Studies resources. The innovative thing about the NA 28 is that in all actuality, its content is and always has been digital. The print format, akin to the NA 27, is simply a reader-friendly format of its digital source. The INTF has brought the NT into the information age by monopolizing on this new status of written "texts" that by now is standard in the publishing industry. And as they have shifted what would normally just become a printed repository of these digital databases (the printed NA 28) into an online, flexibly searchable, and endlessly clickable resource, the claim that it is in some sense the "first" online critical Greek New Testament does hold water.
The NA 28 Prototype
The current prototype gives one a basic sense of the permanent design. It turns all words, variants, and other such isolated bits of information that make up the critical apparatus into XML entities that pop-up when clicked. Imagine for a moment looking at the entry in the critical apparatus for 1 John 1:4 in the NA 27 and being able to instantly access all the relevant information about its variants in several different ways. This is what the digital NA 28 is all about. One can click on each word and look at all of its extant variants in a column on the right. One could then click on a particular manuscript that features a reading for 1 John 1:4, such as the 04 manuscript, and on a new screen pops up the relevant section of 1 John 1:4 (1 John 1:2-10 in this case) directly transcribed from the 04 original manuscript. Wnat to see the reading of 03 on 1 John 1:4? No problem. Click it and up pops Vaticanus. And once in this screen, one can click on any word in the Vaticanus transcription to find out how it compares to other manuscript witnesses.
This is just one example of the flexibility of the entire system. Currently, only 1 and 2 John are available in a sample format, but we are definitely looking at a new generation of Greek New Testament publishing. Ultimately, one will be able to select what windows are on the screen, and thus tailor the system to their research needs. The timing of when this will be completely available is uncertain, and it may be sold as part of a package with the printed NA 28 edition.
The Transcripts
A secondary resource also available online, is the Transcripts section of the database. In order for the NA 28 prototype to function, it must have the text of every NT manuscript transcribed directly into it. For the INTF, this transcription process takes place in three stages, and all single inscriptions are done intially by two different people. What we are then left with is (for the sake of argument) an accurate transcription of all of our fragments in a searchable format.
The Transcriptions database is searchable in two main ways. One can first search verse by verse through the NT and look at all the manuscript variants of a particular text. In this new window, one can either then access the actual transcription of each manuscript for this verse or look at a collation of the original spellings of the variants related to the verse. Another way to use the Transcriptions database is simply to click on the drop down "Manuscript Descriptions" menu on the main page of the database. From this menu one can select a manuscript and look at a detailed description if its content, size, location, and even a related bibliography. Eventually, the INTF would like for this information to occupy one side of the page while having an actual digital image of each manuscript on the other. This would also be possible then for each verse as well. Want to see the transcription of p64 next to an actual image of the fragment? No problem, just click it. This image would come directly from the servers of its host institution.
Conclusion
There are several other potential projects linked to these two databases, such as an online textual commentary, searchable groups of patristic citation, more paleographical notations, and the integration of a Greek Lexicon. Syriac, Coptic, and Latin resources could also become available. I am not sure what the timeline on all this is, but I can not imagine it is in the near future.
There is a final way in which the digital NA 28 can be concieved of as the "first" of its kind. Apparently, the final database will be available as part of the printed edition of the NA 28. This may involve an access CD or a code that provides access to the database, but either way the printed and online editions will initially exist as different formats of each other. What happens though in the future when the INTF decides to alter particular readings (such as happened between the NA 27 and Editio Critica Maior), or happens upon additional manuscript sources for a particular verse? Naturally, the digital nature of the online version will make it easy for such changes to occur.
Yet, this poses an interesting problem for the print edition, as such changes would render it relatively obselete in relation to its online twin. Perhaps the key feature of the NA 28 does not necessarily just involve the incredible flexibility of its digital component. Rather, when I put my money down on the counter for the printed NA 28 I will not actually paying for a text, but for the scholarship behind the text. And I will be paying to have access to the scholarship that may uncover new readings or manuscripts that will then be available in the online database. Buying the NA 28 will be more of a subscription than a purchase.
Again, the timeline on all of this is a bit fuzzy. Strutwolf quipped that he hopes to see the Editio Critica Maior done in his lifetime. As he is older than I, that means I have a very good chance at using all these resources some day. This paper concluded the conference, and I hope that the Center for the Study of Christian Origins will have another day conference of this sort next year.
Klaus Wachtel
This final paper was primarily connected with a series of Power Point slides, which makes it difficult to summarize here. The INTF should consider publishing an introductory volume or CD for the CBGM, NA 28, and related projects that includes the visual presentations that were part of this conference. Such a volume would help articulate the finer points of the CBGM to specialists, and serve as a helpful introductory volume to new users of the NA text. I could imagine taking one or two class periods in an intermediate level NT Greek class to walk students through some of this same information.
Wachtel started by pointing out that the digital NA 28 is not exactly the "first" digital or online edition of the Greek New Testament, as there are several out there currently available for use. I think it is worth pointing out though that the projected digital NA 28 has been designed on such a grand scale that it will set a new bar for online Biblical Studies resources. The innovative thing about the NA 28 is that in all actuality, its content is and always has been digital. The print format, akin to the NA 27, is simply a reader-friendly format of its digital source. The INTF has brought the NT into the information age by monopolizing on this new status of written "texts" that by now is standard in the publishing industry. And as they have shifted what would normally just become a printed repository of these digital databases (the printed NA 28) into an online, flexibly searchable, and endlessly clickable resource, the claim that it is in some sense the "first" online critical Greek New Testament does hold water.
The NA 28 Prototype
The current prototype gives one a basic sense of the permanent design. It turns all words, variants, and other such isolated bits of information that make up the critical apparatus into XML entities that pop-up when clicked. Imagine for a moment looking at the entry in the critical apparatus for 1 John 1:4 in the NA 27 and being able to instantly access all the relevant information about its variants in several different ways. This is what the digital NA 28 is all about. One can click on each word and look at all of its extant variants in a column on the right. One could then click on a particular manuscript that features a reading for 1 John 1:4, such as the 04 manuscript, and on a new screen pops up the relevant section of 1 John 1:4 (1 John 1:2-10 in this case) directly transcribed from the 04 original manuscript. Wnat to see the reading of 03 on 1 John 1:4? No problem. Click it and up pops Vaticanus. And once in this screen, one can click on any word in the Vaticanus transcription to find out how it compares to other manuscript witnesses.
This is just one example of the flexibility of the entire system. Currently, only 1 and 2 John are available in a sample format, but we are definitely looking at a new generation of Greek New Testament publishing. Ultimately, one will be able to select what windows are on the screen, and thus tailor the system to their research needs. The timing of when this will be completely available is uncertain, and it may be sold as part of a package with the printed NA 28 edition.
The Transcripts
A secondary resource also available online, is the Transcripts section of the database. In order for the NA 28 prototype to function, it must have the text of every NT manuscript transcribed directly into it. For the INTF, this transcription process takes place in three stages, and all single inscriptions are done intially by two different people. What we are then left with is (for the sake of argument) an accurate transcription of all of our fragments in a searchable format.
The Transcriptions database is searchable in two main ways. One can first search verse by verse through the NT and look at all the manuscript variants of a particular text. In this new window, one can either then access the actual transcription of each manuscript for this verse or look at a collation of the original spellings of the variants related to the verse. Another way to use the Transcriptions database is simply to click on the drop down "Manuscript Descriptions" menu on the main page of the database. From this menu one can select a manuscript and look at a detailed description if its content, size, location, and even a related bibliography. Eventually, the INTF would like for this information to occupy one side of the page while having an actual digital image of each manuscript on the other. This would also be possible then for each verse as well. Want to see the transcription of p64 next to an actual image of the fragment? No problem, just click it. This image would come directly from the servers of its host institution.
Conclusion
There are several other potential projects linked to these two databases, such as an online textual commentary, searchable groups of patristic citation, more paleographical notations, and the integration of a Greek Lexicon. Syriac, Coptic, and Latin resources could also become available. I am not sure what the timeline on all this is, but I can not imagine it is in the near future.
There is a final way in which the digital NA 28 can be concieved of as the "first" of its kind. Apparently, the final database will be available as part of the printed edition of the NA 28. This may involve an access CD or a code that provides access to the database, but either way the printed and online editions will initially exist as different formats of each other. What happens though in the future when the INTF decides to alter particular readings (such as happened between the NA 27 and Editio Critica Maior), or happens upon additional manuscript sources for a particular verse? Naturally, the digital nature of the online version will make it easy for such changes to occur.
Yet, this poses an interesting problem for the print edition, as such changes would render it relatively obselete in relation to its online twin. Perhaps the key feature of the NA 28 does not necessarily just involve the incredible flexibility of its digital component. Rather, when I put my money down on the counter for the printed NA 28 I will not actually paying for a text, but for the scholarship behind the text. And I will be paying to have access to the scholarship that may uncover new readings or manuscripts that will then be available in the online database. Buying the NA 28 will be more of a subscription than a purchase.
Again, the timeline on all of this is a bit fuzzy. Strutwolf quipped that he hopes to see the Editio Critica Maior done in his lifetime. As he is older than I, that means I have a very good chance at using all these resources some day. This paper concluded the conference, and I hope that the Center for the Study of Christian Origins will have another day conference of this sort next year.
5/1/06
Day Conference on TC and the NA Text (2 of 3)
Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine? The Theory of Local Text-Types - A Plea For Paradigm Shift in New Testament Textual Research.
Holger Strutwolf
In this second paper of the day conference we recieved a heavy dose of a few theoretical considerations at work behind the various projects related to the new NA databases. It was very helpful to look at the NA 28 and the Editio Critica Maior from this perspective as it served two convenient aims. Strutwolf situated these projects and the CBGM in the broader history of NT text criticism, and he demonstrated the potential they have for founding new paragigms in textual research.
The paper was outlined in three sections (these points are in paraphrase):
I. Essentials of the History of the Recension Hypothesis.
II. Reasons This Theory is Faulty.
III. Ways the Editio Critica Maior Embodies Necessary Theoretical Changes.
I. In the first section Strutwolf handily summarized the history of the Recension Hypothesis starting with Bengel, and then working through Griesbach, Semler, Westcott and Hort, and von Soden. In the introduction to his 1734 text, Bengel hypothesized that we should adopt the regions mentioned by Jerome and Tertullian as the broad outlines of the text-type groups manifest in our extant manuscripts. This basic notion of Bengel's Recension Hypothesis was taken up by Semler, and then popularized by Griesbach in his 1775 edition. The history of the RH is basically the history of variations on Bengel's theme. Different scholars used different nomenclature for various recensions, and retooled Bengel's original regional groupings. But by and large, the idea that we should assign manuscripts to one of a set number of geographical recensions held fast. Strutwolf suggested that the basic fault of Bengel's hypothesis is as material as it is methodological. As he simply didn't have enough manuscripts to critically discern different text-types, he was far too reliant on Jerome's attestation. It is a construct that stands or falls based on the accuracy of Jerome's comment which can be attributed to a number of things other than objective historiography. For example, Strutwolf commented that perhaps his partitioning early Christianity into three main areas of influence is colored by a trinitarian theology. Yet one of the long-standing durabilities of the RH is its simplicity, and it has become no less than axiomatic in NT textual research as a result.
II. The Editio Critica Maior is a crisis for the RH. Utilizing the flexible visualizing capabilities of the CBGM and its related databases, Strutwolf walked us through a number of texts which contradict the idea that we can draw such hard and fast lines between text-types and their according geographical locations. To this end, Strutwolf made two points in this section raised by manuscript evidence made clearer by the unique capacities of the CBGM.
- Firstly, when you look at the role manuscripts from different text-types play in genealogical coherence, the RH crumbles. We begin to see differing text-types showing up in stemmatic diagrams in places they shouldn't according to the RH, as their genealogical coherence displays textual interaction and ancestry where the RH attempts to make hard and fast regional distinctions. (Sorry I don't have any specifics on this, you really have to see the slides Strutwolf was using to get a detailed sense of his argument.) This leads us to a basic principle that we must privilege the role a manuscript plays in the genealogy of a text rather than its pre-concieved text type. Such roles are most properly assessed via the CBGM.
- Secondly, when one looks at the regional statistics (Sahidic, old Latin, Peshitta, etc...) of the manuscripts within the stemma for a particular reading, one can often see different text-types appearing in single regions. Simply based on these stastics, it doesn't seem that assigning sets of manuscript idiosyncracies to particular regions a priori is a legitimate critical enterprise. We can find any given set of "recensional" characteristics in any region throughout the transmission histories of certain texts. (Strutwolf demonstrated, for example, that we can see the characteristics of the Alexandrian tradition all over the place.)
These two general points are evidence that any reliance on the RH is unacceptable, as it doesn't fit our most current manuscript evidence.
III. Strutwolf then called for an abandonment of the text-type paradigm. In its place we should rely on the type of evidence produced by the CBGM. In a charming analogy, Strutwolf explained that his children are his children no matter where they live. Even if they are currently in Munich, they are his children based on their genetic relationship. In the same way the geographical location of a manuscript is not indicative of its ancestry. The place of origin and/or storage of a manuscript is nothing other than an indication of where it was last used. Instead we should assess the text-type of a manuscript based on its genealogical relationship to other manuscripts.
All the papyri from Egypt, for example, display a great deal of supposed "recensions" or text-types in one given region. And we have early Christian writers such as Origen who seem content with using a number of different text-types at the same time in one location. After an accumulation of such evidences, Strutwolf exclaimed that we are now in a "thrilling time" for NT textual criticism. We now have the tools and know-how available to initiate "a radical transformation of New Testament textual history." Even if one reads Strutwolf's paper in light of related points made by Colwell and Epp in equally paradigmatic essays, it actually was "thrilling" to see some of his evidences visualized by the CBGM and its databases. It did become apparent throughout the course of this essay that just as Strutwolf is able to conduct a wholesale appraisal of the RH and its affect on NT text criticism, so in the near future will one be able to conduct an appraisal of the CBGM as an apex of past genealogical methods and identify its pros and cons from that perspective.
Highlights from the Q and A Session:
1. When one looks at the stemmatic diagrams produced by the CBGM, we find certain single manuscripts cited as ancestors for a larger group of manunscripts through one or two other single manuscripts (completely hypothetical example: you will have a branch from 663 leading to 754 which then leads to another level of numerous manuscripts). How are we to then discern whether 754 or 663 is the most probable ancestor for this branch of the stemma?
Rather conveniently, Wachtel pointed out that even if one were to switch 754 and 663 (in this hypothetical example), the structure of the stemma would still remain the same. We can still argue about the fine details of probable ancestors for given readings, but the CBGM does produce more accurate structural outlines of manuscript transmission than we have had in the past.
2. Shouldn't we then switch from the geographical labels of the RH to something like "text-type 1," "text-type 2," usw...
No, because this approach still retains the basic notion that we need to seperate out text-types. We still could not legitimately draw a line between text-type 1, 2 and 3 when faced with the evidence of the CBGM. We simply need to confine our discussion of manuscript variants within the specific context of the transmission history of a given text.
3. What are some of the broader hermeneutical backgrounds to the CBGM?
Strutwolf did start his answer by recognizing that it is impossible to conduct any sort of criticism without some sort of hermeneutical bias. But, the CBGM is a relatively neutral tool in this respect. It features no ideological perspective on the text of the NT, and seems to circumvent the Bengelian fiddling with manuscript evidence which led to the RH by virtue of its raw statistical nature.
4. (My poorly worded question.) With the RH we had a starting place with discussing manuscript variants, namely the labels assigned to them a priori based on geography. But where then is our starting point with the CBGM? It seems that we are limited to talking only about the textual tradition of single texts, such as James, or 2 Peter. With such a starting point, we can't talk about the textual tradition of the Johannine Corpus as a whole, as we could with the RH. Rather, we can only talk about 1 John in isolation, GJohn in isolation, etc...
Yes. We have to start over with each book and develop their transmission histories in isolation. We cannot speak of a Luke/Acts transmission history. Only a Luke and an Acts transmission history.
I wish we had more time during the session to address this final point, as it raises the question as to how Strutwolf's hypothesis relates to the history of early Christianity. He did state that he sees in early Christianity a much broader network of textual transmission than the RH permits. If we can find all these different text-types existing in what are supposed to be the scribal and theological centers of early Christianity, then we must assume a different social structure than is often presupposed. Thus, while the CBGM presents itself as a neutral tool in terms of hermeneutical ideology, it does at the very least suggest a vision of early Christian geographical relationships that cuts against the grain of current models which position early Christian communities in relative textual isolation (thus resulting in historical constructs like "Johannine Christianity"). Here is a point of contact between the CBGM and the study of early Christian origins that really needs to be explored.
Holger Strutwolf
In this second paper of the day conference we recieved a heavy dose of a few theoretical considerations at work behind the various projects related to the new NA databases. It was very helpful to look at the NA 28 and the Editio Critica Maior from this perspective as it served two convenient aims. Strutwolf situated these projects and the CBGM in the broader history of NT text criticism, and he demonstrated the potential they have for founding new paragigms in textual research.
The paper was outlined in three sections (these points are in paraphrase):
I. Essentials of the History of the Recension Hypothesis.
II. Reasons This Theory is Faulty.
III. Ways the Editio Critica Maior Embodies Necessary Theoretical Changes.
I. In the first section Strutwolf handily summarized the history of the Recension Hypothesis starting with Bengel, and then working through Griesbach, Semler, Westcott and Hort, and von Soden. In the introduction to his 1734 text, Bengel hypothesized that we should adopt the regions mentioned by Jerome and Tertullian as the broad outlines of the text-type groups manifest in our extant manuscripts. This basic notion of Bengel's Recension Hypothesis was taken up by Semler, and then popularized by Griesbach in his 1775 edition. The history of the RH is basically the history of variations on Bengel's theme. Different scholars used different nomenclature for various recensions, and retooled Bengel's original regional groupings. But by and large, the idea that we should assign manuscripts to one of a set number of geographical recensions held fast. Strutwolf suggested that the basic fault of Bengel's hypothesis is as material as it is methodological. As he simply didn't have enough manuscripts to critically discern different text-types, he was far too reliant on Jerome's attestation. It is a construct that stands or falls based on the accuracy of Jerome's comment which can be attributed to a number of things other than objective historiography. For example, Strutwolf commented that perhaps his partitioning early Christianity into three main areas of influence is colored by a trinitarian theology. Yet one of the long-standing durabilities of the RH is its simplicity, and it has become no less than axiomatic in NT textual research as a result.
II. The Editio Critica Maior is a crisis for the RH. Utilizing the flexible visualizing capabilities of the CBGM and its related databases, Strutwolf walked us through a number of texts which contradict the idea that we can draw such hard and fast lines between text-types and their according geographical locations. To this end, Strutwolf made two points in this section raised by manuscript evidence made clearer by the unique capacities of the CBGM.
- Firstly, when you look at the role manuscripts from different text-types play in genealogical coherence, the RH crumbles. We begin to see differing text-types showing up in stemmatic diagrams in places they shouldn't according to the RH, as their genealogical coherence displays textual interaction and ancestry where the RH attempts to make hard and fast regional distinctions. (Sorry I don't have any specifics on this, you really have to see the slides Strutwolf was using to get a detailed sense of his argument.) This leads us to a basic principle that we must privilege the role a manuscript plays in the genealogy of a text rather than its pre-concieved text type. Such roles are most properly assessed via the CBGM.
- Secondly, when one looks at the regional statistics (Sahidic, old Latin, Peshitta, etc...) of the manuscripts within the stemma for a particular reading, one can often see different text-types appearing in single regions. Simply based on these stastics, it doesn't seem that assigning sets of manuscript idiosyncracies to particular regions a priori is a legitimate critical enterprise. We can find any given set of "recensional" characteristics in any region throughout the transmission histories of certain texts. (Strutwolf demonstrated, for example, that we can see the characteristics of the Alexandrian tradition all over the place.)
These two general points are evidence that any reliance on the RH is unacceptable, as it doesn't fit our most current manuscript evidence.
III. Strutwolf then called for an abandonment of the text-type paradigm. In its place we should rely on the type of evidence produced by the CBGM. In a charming analogy, Strutwolf explained that his children are his children no matter where they live. Even if they are currently in Munich, they are his children based on their genetic relationship. In the same way the geographical location of a manuscript is not indicative of its ancestry. The place of origin and/or storage of a manuscript is nothing other than an indication of where it was last used. Instead we should assess the text-type of a manuscript based on its genealogical relationship to other manuscripts.
All the papyri from Egypt, for example, display a great deal of supposed "recensions" or text-types in one given region. And we have early Christian writers such as Origen who seem content with using a number of different text-types at the same time in one location. After an accumulation of such evidences, Strutwolf exclaimed that we are now in a "thrilling time" for NT textual criticism. We now have the tools and know-how available to initiate "a radical transformation of New Testament textual history." Even if one reads Strutwolf's paper in light of related points made by Colwell and Epp in equally paradigmatic essays, it actually was "thrilling" to see some of his evidences visualized by the CBGM and its databases. It did become apparent throughout the course of this essay that just as Strutwolf is able to conduct a wholesale appraisal of the RH and its affect on NT text criticism, so in the near future will one be able to conduct an appraisal of the CBGM as an apex of past genealogical methods and identify its pros and cons from that perspective.
Highlights from the Q and A Session:
1. When one looks at the stemmatic diagrams produced by the CBGM, we find certain single manuscripts cited as ancestors for a larger group of manunscripts through one or two other single manuscripts (completely hypothetical example: you will have a branch from 663 leading to 754 which then leads to another level of numerous manuscripts). How are we to then discern whether 754 or 663 is the most probable ancestor for this branch of the stemma?
Rather conveniently, Wachtel pointed out that even if one were to switch 754 and 663 (in this hypothetical example), the structure of the stemma would still remain the same. We can still argue about the fine details of probable ancestors for given readings, but the CBGM does produce more accurate structural outlines of manuscript transmission than we have had in the past.
2. Shouldn't we then switch from the geographical labels of the RH to something like "text-type 1," "text-type 2," usw...
No, because this approach still retains the basic notion that we need to seperate out text-types. We still could not legitimately draw a line between text-type 1, 2 and 3 when faced with the evidence of the CBGM. We simply need to confine our discussion of manuscript variants within the specific context of the transmission history of a given text.
3. What are some of the broader hermeneutical backgrounds to the CBGM?
Strutwolf did start his answer by recognizing that it is impossible to conduct any sort of criticism without some sort of hermeneutical bias. But, the CBGM is a relatively neutral tool in this respect. It features no ideological perspective on the text of the NT, and seems to circumvent the Bengelian fiddling with manuscript evidence which led to the RH by virtue of its raw statistical nature.
4. (My poorly worded question.) With the RH we had a starting place with discussing manuscript variants, namely the labels assigned to them a priori based on geography. But where then is our starting point with the CBGM? It seems that we are limited to talking only about the textual tradition of single texts, such as James, or 2 Peter. With such a starting point, we can't talk about the textual tradition of the Johannine Corpus as a whole, as we could with the RH. Rather, we can only talk about 1 John in isolation, GJohn in isolation, etc...
Yes. We have to start over with each book and develop their transmission histories in isolation. We cannot speak of a Luke/Acts transmission history. Only a Luke and an Acts transmission history.
I wish we had more time during the session to address this final point, as it raises the question as to how Strutwolf's hypothesis relates to the history of early Christianity. He did state that he sees in early Christianity a much broader network of textual transmission than the RH permits. If we can find all these different text-types existing in what are supposed to be the scribal and theological centers of early Christianity, then we must assume a different social structure than is often presupposed. Thus, while the CBGM presents itself as a neutral tool in terms of hermeneutical ideology, it does at the very least suggest a vision of early Christian geographical relationships that cuts against the grain of current models which position early Christian communities in relative textual isolation (thus resulting in historical constructs like "Johannine Christianity"). Here is a point of contact between the CBGM and the study of early Christian origins that really needs to be explored.
4/27/06
Day Conference on TC and the NA Text (1 of 3)
On April 27, the Center for the Study of Christian Origins hosted a day conference here at New College featuring two scholars from the Institute fur neutestamentliche Textforschung. This laser-focused and well-recieved set of three papers from Klaus Wachtel and Holger Strutwolf garnered a fantastic amount of applause after the final Q and A, undoubtedly setting a new record for applause recieved by a paper delivered at New College. It may be that whatever tacit social cue that enables a group to stop clapping in a timely manner simply eluded us for a moment, or it may be that everyone else enjoyed the papers as much as I did. Let's just assume the latter. For me, the most beneficial aspect of the short conference was the clear visual and theoretical explanation of the primary features of projects related to the print and digitial versions of NA 28 and the Editio Critica Maior. After getting it straight from the INTF, I feel far more capable in my use of NA databases and look forward to having their full package in the far future.
Over the next three posts I will summarize the three papers and a few points of interest from their Q and A sessions. I might as well take this chance to address a few questions that Wachtel and Strufwolf did not have time to answer fully.
Reconstructing the Intitial Text in the Editio Critica Maior of the New Testament Using the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method.
Klaus Wachtel
Introduction
This first paper was by far the most challenging of the three, and served two functions. Wachtel first used some very helpful visual guides to introduce us to the mechanics of the digital NA prototype. After immersing us in the logic of its promising design, he then turned to a lengthy description of the critical process that lies behind this new resource. Wachtel pointed out that the Editio Critica Maior of the Catholic Epistles features 23 different readings from the NA 27 text, and as the Catholic Epistles are the only texts currently published in the series, one may extrapolate this to predict the amount of changes that may be in place once the entire NT canon has been evaluated. Thus even at this early stage, the fruit of the Editio Critica Maior's detailed labor is readily apparent and is becoming accessible online.
Section 1: The Resource
In the first section, Wachtel led us step by step through the remarkable features of the digitial NA prototype, that will someday be blessed with the full resources of the Editio Critica Maior. With perhaps his only nod to classic text critical principles, he raised the point that text criticism has two tasks: publishing the evidence of manuscript transmission, and reconstructing the original text. The prototype aims at fulfilling the first task by being a remarkably flexible repository for all the transmission data behind every NT manuscript variant, more on this in the third paper.
Section 2: The Methodology
In the second section, Wachtel addressed the second task in a brief introduction to the complicated Coherence-Based Genealogical Method. It seems that the most basic unique feature of both the prototype and the CBGM is that they allow the two tasks of text criticism (publishing transmission evidence, reconstructing the orgiginal text) to interface at every level of critical inquiry. While the CBGM is a process that potentially enables us to make more definitive decisions regarding variant NT readings, it is also a database of coherence-based genealogies that can be visualized and assessed in a variety of formats. Thus there is a constant interaction in this method between the actual publishing of variants in a database format and the actual use of these variants in constructing the most probable original text.
Much more could be said about this that I will reserve for future comment, but suffice it to say now that my initial impression is that the CBGM exists as a result of the use of emerging database technology, and certain emerging database technologies have taken shape based on the inherent logic to the CBGM. Perhaps it is this link between technology and praxis which has long been discussed in the work of Vattimo, McLuhan, Postman and others that is re-shaping our perspective on NT text criticism rather than any particular ideology or material discovery. This technological distinctive is what distinguishes the CBGM from other genealogical methods.
As far as the actual Coherence-Based Genealogical Method is concerned, I will thankfully defer to Gerd Mink's online introduction. At first the CBGM seems a bit more technically complicated than other genealogical methods, but it does result in elegant renderings of large amounts of manuscript data. Mink's introduction can be distilled into two points (quoting from the above link):
I will leave you to read the rest of Mink's introduction at your leisure, as these two introductory points are sufficient for the moment. Wachtel pointed out that this method is specifically geared towards the idiosyncracies of our current NT manuscript holdings. While there is a great wealth of NT manuscripts available, there are also far more that haven't survived. This bald fact makes it difficult for us to connect early manuscripts with later readings without relying on a fair bit of conjecture. On the other hand we must be clear that all surviving witness are related to each other in some fashion, there are always elements of coherence. Contamination simply "emerges from those texts at the disposal of the scribe." This leaves us with the working principle of establishing the genealogy of a reading based on every extant permutation of that text through hypotheses represented stemmatically. In these various print and online projects, the INTF has become uniquely capable of such representations.
The trickier areas of the CBGM involve discerning between pre-genealogical and genealogical coherence, and navigating prior and posterior variance within a given stemma. I don't have the clearest grasp of some of these finer points, but the method allows one to establish the potential anscestors of broad groups of variants for a particular reading and work one's way back to the most probable ancestor for the entire group of readings. The most probable ancestor is usually a relatively small group of manuscripts that can thus be regarded as closest to the original text. I hope that these stemmatic diagrams for key NT variants will be published as an additional resource, as they enable very efficient insight into textual relationships and grant easy access into the legwork behind the Editio Critica Maior.
Conclusion
Wachtel had an excellent slide that visually summarized the CBGM, but essentially it is a system of checks and balances between Internal Criteria (explantions for given variants) and External Criteria (pre-concieved text critical ideologies and pre-genealogical coherence). Both Internal and External Criteria establish local stemmata, then genealogical coherence within these stemmata, and then revise our preconcieved notions regarding any particular reading which leads to clarified relationships between manuscript variants. But as the CBGM is a methodology both linked to and part of a database, we are constantly able to revise our External Criteria based on the evidences of Internal Criteria. And we are also able to consistently reapply our revised External Criteria to the stemmatic diagramming of particular readings. It is a completely iterative process.
To conclude, Wachtel made two points regarding the methodology:
1. One problem with text criticism is the intrusion of subjective reasoning when gaps in the data emerge. In the CBGM, however, some of the more subjective elements involved with establishing geneaological coherence is offset by the presence of the objective facts of pre-genealogical coherence that are represented in this set of statistical databases.
2. The Editio Critica Maior has been criticized for not having many differences from N-A 27. But the CBGM is not just a "mopping up exercise" of clarifying and supporting existent readings based on this brilliant new database. The CBGM shows us what we are actually dealing with in terms of variants in a variety of statistical and visual formats, and shows us that we are dealing with probabilities rather than certainties. Wacthel didn't say this, but my impression is that while they are probabilities, they are darn good ones and far more helpful than the "certainties" of past text critical enterprises. The CBGM is simply "a tool that allows us to be coherent in our argument."
Q and A session
(This is just a sampling.)
1. How does the "original text" or "reconstructed text" relate to the most probable ancestors of a given reading? Are they on the same footing?
No, the most probable ancestor is a hypothetical stemmatic rendering of all the extant data. But, it does best explain the variants. The "ancestor" is a hypothesis of what the texts looked like before transmission.
2. What about where the uthor himself makes a spelling or grammar error, and thus the "ancestor" will be incorrect even if original?
In the Editio Critica Maior of James there are 15 points at which such situations are simply referred to as "lacunae." There is allowance in the process that the original text had spelling or grammar errors. (And it seems that the CBGM is very capable of charting the inevitable corrections stemmatically. This is another point at which the CBGM is simply a way of constructing more coherent transmission histories.)
Over the next three posts I will summarize the three papers and a few points of interest from their Q and A sessions. I might as well take this chance to address a few questions that Wachtel and Strufwolf did not have time to answer fully.
Reconstructing the Intitial Text in the Editio Critica Maior of the New Testament Using the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method.
Klaus Wachtel
Introduction
This first paper was by far the most challenging of the three, and served two functions. Wachtel first used some very helpful visual guides to introduce us to the mechanics of the digital NA prototype. After immersing us in the logic of its promising design, he then turned to a lengthy description of the critical process that lies behind this new resource. Wachtel pointed out that the Editio Critica Maior of the Catholic Epistles features 23 different readings from the NA 27 text, and as the Catholic Epistles are the only texts currently published in the series, one may extrapolate this to predict the amount of changes that may be in place once the entire NT canon has been evaluated. Thus even at this early stage, the fruit of the Editio Critica Maior's detailed labor is readily apparent and is becoming accessible online.
Section 1: The Resource
In the first section, Wachtel led us step by step through the remarkable features of the digitial NA prototype, that will someday be blessed with the full resources of the Editio Critica Maior. With perhaps his only nod to classic text critical principles, he raised the point that text criticism has two tasks: publishing the evidence of manuscript transmission, and reconstructing the original text. The prototype aims at fulfilling the first task by being a remarkably flexible repository for all the transmission data behind every NT manuscript variant, more on this in the third paper.
Section 2: The Methodology
In the second section, Wachtel addressed the second task in a brief introduction to the complicated Coherence-Based Genealogical Method. It seems that the most basic unique feature of both the prototype and the CBGM is that they allow the two tasks of text criticism (publishing transmission evidence, reconstructing the orgiginal text) to interface at every level of critical inquiry. While the CBGM is a process that potentially enables us to make more definitive decisions regarding variant NT readings, it is also a database of coherence-based genealogies that can be visualized and assessed in a variety of formats. Thus there is a constant interaction in this method between the actual publishing of variants in a database format and the actual use of these variants in constructing the most probable original text.
Much more could be said about this that I will reserve for future comment, but suffice it to say now that my initial impression is that the CBGM exists as a result of the use of emerging database technology, and certain emerging database technologies have taken shape based on the inherent logic to the CBGM. Perhaps it is this link between technology and praxis which has long been discussed in the work of Vattimo, McLuhan, Postman and others that is re-shaping our perspective on NT text criticism rather than any particular ideology or material discovery. This technological distinctive is what distinguishes the CBGM from other genealogical methods.
As far as the actual Coherence-Based Genealogical Method is concerned, I will thankfully defer to Gerd Mink's online introduction. At first the CBGM seems a bit more technically complicated than other genealogical methods, but it does result in elegant renderings of large amounts of manuscript data. Mink's introduction can be distilled into two points (quoting from the above link):
1. Elements of a genealogical hypothesis are not the manuscripts but the states of the text that they convey and that may be far older than the respective manuscript. The text with its respective state will be referred to here as witness, not the manuscript.
2. A hypothesis is called a stemma if it links witnesses or variants genealogically. For a hypothesis about a genealogical connection not only the connection itself but its quality is relevant. This quality has to be documented by adequate data. This complexity is integrated into this understanding of stemma. Consequently, a stemma in the sense of a graphical connection of witnesses is merely a simplified representation of a stemma in the more complex sense.
I will leave you to read the rest of Mink's introduction at your leisure, as these two introductory points are sufficient for the moment. Wachtel pointed out that this method is specifically geared towards the idiosyncracies of our current NT manuscript holdings. While there is a great wealth of NT manuscripts available, there are also far more that haven't survived. This bald fact makes it difficult for us to connect early manuscripts with later readings without relying on a fair bit of conjecture. On the other hand we must be clear that all surviving witness are related to each other in some fashion, there are always elements of coherence. Contamination simply "emerges from those texts at the disposal of the scribe." This leaves us with the working principle of establishing the genealogy of a reading based on every extant permutation of that text through hypotheses represented stemmatically. In these various print and online projects, the INTF has become uniquely capable of such representations.
The trickier areas of the CBGM involve discerning between pre-genealogical and genealogical coherence, and navigating prior and posterior variance within a given stemma. I don't have the clearest grasp of some of these finer points, but the method allows one to establish the potential anscestors of broad groups of variants for a particular reading and work one's way back to the most probable ancestor for the entire group of readings. The most probable ancestor is usually a relatively small group of manuscripts that can thus be regarded as closest to the original text. I hope that these stemmatic diagrams for key NT variants will be published as an additional resource, as they enable very efficient insight into textual relationships and grant easy access into the legwork behind the Editio Critica Maior.
Conclusion
Wachtel had an excellent slide that visually summarized the CBGM, but essentially it is a system of checks and balances between Internal Criteria (explantions for given variants) and External Criteria (pre-concieved text critical ideologies and pre-genealogical coherence). Both Internal and External Criteria establish local stemmata, then genealogical coherence within these stemmata, and then revise our preconcieved notions regarding any particular reading which leads to clarified relationships between manuscript variants. But as the CBGM is a methodology both linked to and part of a database, we are constantly able to revise our External Criteria based on the evidences of Internal Criteria. And we are also able to consistently reapply our revised External Criteria to the stemmatic diagramming of particular readings. It is a completely iterative process.
To conclude, Wachtel made two points regarding the methodology:
1. One problem with text criticism is the intrusion of subjective reasoning when gaps in the data emerge. In the CBGM, however, some of the more subjective elements involved with establishing geneaological coherence is offset by the presence of the objective facts of pre-genealogical coherence that are represented in this set of statistical databases.
2. The Editio Critica Maior has been criticized for not having many differences from N-A 27. But the CBGM is not just a "mopping up exercise" of clarifying and supporting existent readings based on this brilliant new database. The CBGM shows us what we are actually dealing with in terms of variants in a variety of statistical and visual formats, and shows us that we are dealing with probabilities rather than certainties. Wacthel didn't say this, but my impression is that while they are probabilities, they are darn good ones and far more helpful than the "certainties" of past text critical enterprises. The CBGM is simply "a tool that allows us to be coherent in our argument."
Q and A session
(This is just a sampling.)
1. How does the "original text" or "reconstructed text" relate to the most probable ancestors of a given reading? Are they on the same footing?
No, the most probable ancestor is a hypothetical stemmatic rendering of all the extant data. But, it does best explain the variants. The "ancestor" is a hypothesis of what the texts looked like before transmission.
2. What about where the uthor himself makes a spelling or grammar error, and thus the "ancestor" will be incorrect even if original?
In the Editio Critica Maior of James there are 15 points at which such situations are simply referred to as "lacunae." There is allowance in the process that the original text had spelling or grammar errors. (And it seems that the CBGM is very capable of charting the inevitable corrections stemmatically. This is another point at which the CBGM is simply a way of constructing more coherent transmission histories.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
