tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post6594251464981866409..comments2024-03-28T19:21:17.654+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Robinson and Bordalejo on the CBGM and 1 Peter 4.16P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-28232920465211808492019-04-29T02:56:54.698+01:002019-04-29T02:56:54.698+01:00I don't have much respect for the TR other tha...I don't have much respect for the TR other than that, for example in Galatians, it differs from the MT in only six places, compared to hundreds for Aleph and B (which are as different from each other). So if the TR were a mss, it would be, if I read Stephen Carlson right, the second most accurately copied book of Galatians in existence (in my opinion). But yes, I'm glad to see the CBGM output a reading "despised" by Westcott & Hort, which human critics of their ilk have been unable to accept for a century and a half, despite mounting evidence of the antiquity of more and more "distinctive Syrian readings" since 1899.Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-44791131171484505092019-04-27T17:04:25.874+01:002019-04-27T17:04:25.874+01:00By “accurately,” of course, I mean “in accord with...By “accurately,” of course, I mean “in accord with the editors’ theory at each point of variation” not necessarily “in accord with what actually happened.” We are working with historical reconstructions and all the difficulties that entails. As to the relation of history and the CBGM, see my chapter in my dissertation where I attempt to deal with that issue at length. Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-21487173236707718942019-04-27T16:58:53.613+01:002019-04-27T16:58:53.613+01:00Peter Robinson, apologies for my lack of interacti...Peter Robinson, apologies for my lack of interaction. I’ve been too busy to follow all the comments. But let me add that the global stemma accurately incorporates all the local stemmata in the CBGM. So it should be quite able to accurately trace this development in 1 Peter 4.16. And, in fact, the top portion of the global stemma for the Catholic Letters IS available. Tommy and I show it on page 97 of our book.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-45951189432441728362019-04-27T14:36:28.832+01:002019-04-27T14:36:28.832+01:00Just to be clear. We did NOT misread this diagram....Just to be clear. We did NOT misread this diagram. We are fully aware of the distinction between texts and manuscripts. The point of our article was .. well, you might want to read it again. To explain again: finally we have to deal with historical probability, and this means hypotheses about lost ancestors within the tradition. The central conundrum of the article is that in cases where manuscripts do not show evidence of significant shared variation, hypotheses about lost ancestors are problematic. To put it another way, you need a "global stemma". Or, a way of working towards historical understanding without a global stemma. Or something...PeterRobinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11407068137474574132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-57257410236332030672019-04-26T17:28:02.775+01:002019-04-26T17:28:02.775+01:00Peter, a broad CBGM question if I may. I haven'...Peter, a broad CBGM question if I may. I haven't seen (as far as I can tell) some historical observations or data in favor of the four principles of parsimony in your monograph. How do Mink et al. go about justifying these? For example, principle 1 seems valid as far as it goes, but I could see more value in weighting it against some kind of metric. When you say (regarding principle 2) that a scribe varying from his main source is more likely to have done so with reference to an additional source, do you mean by "vary" the kind of variation one might encounter in a passage of continuous text, or simply any kind of deviation (however minor)? Again, is there any historical basis for such a tendency? In the case of principle 3, although I'm not familiar with the historical situation in monasteries, scriptoria, etc, I could easily imagine there being a broad range of variation in terms of the number of manuscripts consulted (or available on hand) as sources. Is this meant to only be the most general of tendencies?<br /><br />My apologies in advance for the jumble of questions!<br /><br />KasparsKaspars Ozolinshttps://tyndalehouse.academia.edu/KasparsOzolinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1678123826459844272019-04-26T14:51:03.999+01:002019-04-26T14:51:03.999+01:00Daniel,
Did a MT/TR guy just find something good ...Daniel, <br />Did a MT/TR guy just find something good in the CBGM because it doesn’t favor the earliest readings?<br />The last I understood, the CBGM actually is dependent on the decisions by the committee in the beginning. Therefore, it is the committee who has found new respect for the Byzantine Text which causes their CBGM results to be the way they are. I see the editors ‘circular reasoning regarding the Byzantine Text as a downfall of their output.<br /><br />Tim<br />Timothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-56691481299442013312019-04-26T11:16:36.313+01:002019-04-26T11:16:36.313+01:00A huge advantage of CBGM, if I understand at least...A huge advantage of CBGM, if I understand at least that part of it correctly, is that it is blind to age bias in manuscripts, something no human critic seems to be capable of.Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-30206517645035050432019-04-25T11:03:19.404+01:002019-04-25T11:03:19.404+01:00Indeed, I have been involved in TC since 1997, bef...Indeed, I have been involved in TC since 1997, before there was much of anything available online (the very first website I ever viewed contained digital images of the DSS), and I feel that I am just now beginning to get good at it. I should say something about the phobia of 9th century readings: most of the readings in the Hebrew Scriptures don't even go back that far, and no one seems to be ready to toss out the first 2/3rds of our Bible over it. The fact is that there are very few Byz mss found in the sands of Egypt, and those few are very small or confined to the Gospels only. Extrapolate their text out to the entire NT, and you would have no lack of 4th and 5th century readings that otherwise "don't appear until the 9th century" (as if stepping out of the 9th century is something currently being done). This phobia is both unnecessary and unreasonable, and I'm thrilled to see that someone has finally been able to get past it in the pursuit of truth.Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-84092183311624027242019-04-24T17:55:59.398+01:002019-04-24T17:55:59.398+01:00New Testament Textual Criticism is a most humbling...New Testament Textual Criticism is a most humbling field,-even "a perilous field" as E.Miller calls it. In my estimation it can take 10-20 years of constant study just to get your feet wet. Accolades and expertise aside, P.Robinson and Bordalejo have great courage (and should be applauded for such!) in trying to tackle CBGM. Especially, coming from slightly differing fields of study. With that said, I believe the "Science" of NTTC is in need of more emphasis on the "Holy Spirt" and less emphasis on computer analysis (as very odd as that might sound). The reason being is quite simple, the Sacred Deposit is the birth right and inheritance of the body of Christ, not secular Academia (or "Christian" Academia for that matter). -Grace and peaceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-67838949853948035552019-04-24T14:49:02.883+01:002019-04-24T14:49:02.883+01:00ExcellentExcellentStephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12327519459656394690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-85249279793712170862019-04-24T12:44:10.727+01:002019-04-24T12:44:10.727+01:00Mostly I just lurk on this list, and greatly enjo...Mostly I just lurk on this list, and greatly enjoy it. But I can't resist calling your attention to my 1988 Word Commentary on 4:16, in support of merei, with reference to 2:12 and 3:16. Ramsey Michaelsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-84435552068464825772019-04-24T08:55:04.587+01:002019-04-24T08:55:04.587+01:00Of course I am a fundamentalist. Of course I am a fundamentalist. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-60258445985807708372019-04-24T05:15:56.450+01:002019-04-24T05:15:56.450+01:00You always count in my book, Maurice.You always count in my book, Maurice.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12327519459656394690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-82307928792005085312019-04-24T03:42:19.155+01:002019-04-24T03:42:19.155+01:00Ummm... I am quite independent of Mink. Does that ...Ummm... I am quite independent of Mink. Does that count? Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-5786581264077234022019-04-24T02:22:39.993+01:002019-04-24T02:22:39.993+01:00As you well knows, I'm just repeating myself f...As you well knows, I'm just repeating myself from my earlier remarks in http://jbtc.org/v20/TC-2015-CBGM-Carlson.pdf . I look forward to your thoughts on the question, Peter.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12327519459656394690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-65995917020392114472019-04-24T01:18:22.124+01:002019-04-24T01:18:22.124+01:00Good point that he could be independent of Mink, w...Good point that he could be independent of Mink, which counts for something.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12327519459656394690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-87851387574129848292019-04-24T01:11:58.280+01:002019-04-24T01:11:58.280+01:00Still in a bit of a rush with class, but let me qu...Still in a bit of a rush with class, but let me quickly say, Stephen, that I think you’re spot on to ask about the possibility of things breaking down closer to the initial text where we have less extant witnesses to fill in the gaps. I should have more thoughts on that in a forthcoming piece, I hope.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-40939056675609456692019-04-24T00:59:51.708+01:002019-04-24T00:59:51.708+01:00His 2003 commentary? I need to check at home but I...His 2003 commentary? I need to check at home but I’m pretty sure he wasn’t using the ECM for that and I know he doesn’t refer to Mink in his discussion of that variant.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-62305732760441117582019-04-24T00:55:39.500+01:002019-04-24T00:55:39.500+01:00Schreiner is not prior to Mink.Schreiner is not prior to Mink.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12327519459656394690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-4882415815141542432019-04-24T00:54:00.568+01:002019-04-24T00:54:00.568+01:00Peter (Robinson), I appreciate your critique of on...Peter (Robinson), I appreciate your critique of one aspect of the textual state of affairs implied by the CBGM, and I look forward to seeing the revised paper in publication.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12327519459656394690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-24123908454601565032019-04-24T00:52:57.426+01:002019-04-24T00:52:57.426+01:00Interesting. I’ve read a number of commentators wh...Interesting. I’ve read a number of commentators who reject μερει as original but but admit that it’s the more difficult reading internally. Schreiner is one that comes immediately to mind. I think Tommy and I cite him in the book.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-2444400225179936912019-04-24T00:49:48.348+01:002019-04-24T00:49:48.348+01:00The text vs. manuscript distinction serves primari...The text vs. manuscript distinction serves primarily (in my opinion) to set aside the paleographical evidence for the attested dates of the texts. It is true that a later manuscript can embody an earlier text, but since no text is a perfect copy of another there is always some difference. The CBGM's use of an extant text as a proxy for the text of a potential ancestor is probably OK for the well-sampled Byzantine text, but it degrades for texts close to the initial text. That is why there are so many texts whose first potential ancestor is the initial text, and that state of affairs is what I read Bordalejo and Robinson critiquing.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12327519459656394690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13356226814660505112019-04-24T00:45:03.237+01:002019-04-24T00:45:03.237+01:00I haven't seen any argument, however, prior to...I haven't seen any argument, however, prior to Mink that μέρει is the harder reading in 1 Peter 4:16. Personally, I think ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ ("in this respect") makes great sense on the surface.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12327519459656394690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-42140621990375250032019-04-24T00:42:36.818+01:002019-04-24T00:42:36.818+01:00Right, it is possible to produce a global stemma f...Right, it is possible to produce a global stemma for 1 Peter according to known phylogenetic techniques, but not, as far as I am aware, according to the published methods of the CBGM. (There's a simple proof using complexity theory for this.) Nevertheless, it is difficult to resist the urge to think stemmatically about the textual tradition, even with repeated disclaimers to that effect for the textual flow diagrams of the CBGM.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12327519459656394690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-26696869931498132962019-04-23T21:37:41.253+01:002019-04-23T21:37:41.253+01:00Peter, I'm in meetings and teaching all day to...Peter, I'm in meetings and teaching all day today and hope I can respond more later. But for now let me just say thanks for responding here and I am glad to hear there is much goodwill (as I assumed there was given the close association over the years between you and Münster). In my experience, those working in computer stemmatics have been very open to learning from others.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.com