Rule of Iron

The "Rule of Iron" (règle de fer) was the name that Dom Henri Quentin used to describe his method for establishing a critical text of the Vulgate. Sadly, his description seems to have utterly baffled other textual critics, whose descriptions of it make no mathematical sense at all -- and I am not enough of a linguist to try to decipher his maths to see if they are sound. J. Burke Severs says that Quentin's method had no way to deal with conflation, and Vinton A. Deering agrees, so I suspect this is true and that this furthermore makes it likely that Quentin could not deal with mixture -- which, in a New Testament context, makes his method effectively useless.

In addition, Quentin's method of creating the stemma was so laborious that John M. Manly & Edith Rickert, The Text of the Canterbury Tales, volume II (University of Chicago Press, 1940), p. 17, say that it can only be applied to a small section of text -- a few hundred lines. This, they point out, means that it simply cannot work for block mixed manuscripts (although they do not use that term). And it's not that Manly and Rickert objected to work; their edition of the Canterbury Tales is by far the most detailed ever prepared, and took them decades. So if they say it's too much work, we can safely assume it's too much work! Computers would help here -- but given that we now have a much better tool in the form of cladistics, I don't see why anyone would bother implementing Quentin's classification method. Especially given that it has no method for dealing with mixture.

But there are in fact two parts to Quentin's method. In the first stage, he tries to classify manuscripts. His goal, in essence, is to find three basic types -- in simplest terms, to force a stemma with three branches, avoiding the Bédier Problem of two-branch stemma. (I find myself thinking that it's too bad Quentin didn't know anything about voting theory; he really should have looked at Condorcet cycles. But that's not really relevant to what he did.) Of course, forcing all stemma to have three branches is no better than forcing them to have two, which is what Bédier accuses other critics of doing; what we want is the correct stemma, not the one with some prescribed number of splits!

Quentin was also deeply concerned that Lachmann-type stemma could only reconstruct the archetypes, but that critics would act as if they were reconstructing the autograph. On this basis he argued that agreement in error was not sufficient to construct a stemma -- since the very thing we were reconstructing, the archetype, would contain errors. So agreement in error might be agreement with the archetype against the autograph! So Quentin set out to come up with a classification based on overall agreements.

Up to this point, Quentin was dead right, and Lachmann and everyone else was simply wrong. It was Quentin's method of classification, which forced all traditions into a three-branch stemma, that (appears to) fail. All we can really say for Quentin's classification method is that it was rigorous.

(I should add that it is perhaps not repeatable; the preface to his edition of Genesis is full of manuscript descriptions and has lists of sample readings but does not really have an algorithm to convert this data into his stemma; indeed, the edition doesn't show a stemma. It just lists groups. Perhaps this was explained in greater detail elsewhere, but it all looks very hand-wavy to me.)

The groupings weren't all of Quentin's method, though. Having come up with his classification, the actual Rule of Iron was that two beats one -- that is, if you have three primary witnesses or types, and two have a single reading and the third has another, that the reading found in the two are original.

This is a little oversimplified -- there are circumstances in which an outside influence can cause two types of text to be independently corrupted. But the basic rule is sound. Quentin's failure lay not in his final idea but in the methods he used to determine his three witnesses, which were both confusing and (from what I can tell) confused.

Quentin's task was to edit the Vulgate Old Testament, and he died long before the task was finished (as did everyone else initially involved in the project), so the Rule of Iron was used only in the Catholic critical edition and only in the Pentateuch. Quentin's three witnesses were the Turonensis type (headed by G, Paris National Library Lat 2334; also cav and tol); the Amiatinus type (headed by A, Amiatinus; Alcuin also files here), and Ottobonianus (headed by O, Vatican Ottobonis Latin 66; also Theodulf).

It is interesting to examine how well Quentin's method compares to that of his successors. We can at least attempt this by comparing the various volumes of the Vatican vulgate edition with the Stuttgart Vulgate, which was edited relatively consistently. (Note: I counted differences rather casually; the numbers may be a little off. And the sample may be imperfect -- e.g. I skipped Wisdom of Solomon because the text seemed utterly chaotic. But the results are indicative.)

Book	Pages in Stuttgart Vulgate	Differences	Differences per page
Genesis	72	60	0.83
Exodus	59	68	1.15
Leviticus	41	49	1.20
Judges	36	5	0.14
Ezra	15	10	0.67
Esther	17	2	0.12
Psalms LXX	93	24	0.26
Ezekiel	74	51	0.69
Daniel	31	37	1.19
Hosea	10	12	1.20
Micah	6	2	0.33
Zechariah	12	12	1.00
1 Maccabees	47	29	0.62

What is clear is that the books edited by Quentin had more variants from the Stuttgart text than did the Writings or the Former Prophets. Things are less clear for the Later Prophets, but a very high fraction of the variants in Daniel are in the sections Jerome did not translate, and Hosea's text is chaotic even in Hebrew. It seems clear that Quentin's methods resulted in a text that diverged more from the critical norm than did the texts edited by those who followed him -- but not a lot more. In any case, this does not make his text inherently inferior. For that, we have to look at the text itself.

It might be worth looking at how all this works. To avoid the side effects of working at the beginning or end of a book or section, let's start with Exodus 4 and look at all the places where the Stuttgart Vulgate differs from the Vatican edition for the next twenty chapters (i.e. half the book, Exodus 4-23). Manuscripts, and manuscript groups, are cited by their Vatican edition symbols; the editions are 𝖀=Vatican, 𝖂=Stuttgart, 𝕮=Clementine, 𝕲=Gutenberg.

Reading	Stuttgart text and supporters	Vatican text and supporters	Other readings
4:27	ei obviam BCMPTXΘΛΠΣΦΨΩ^BDF 𝖂	obviam O 𝖀	obviam ei AΨ^M 𝕮𝕲
5:14	i(m)pletis rell 𝖂𝕮	i(m)plestis BΠΣ^O** 𝖀𝕲
6:1	illos BCG^cMOPXΘ^AMGΛΠΣ^MTΦΨ^BDMΩ 𝕮𝕲𝖂	eos AG*TΣ^OΨ^F 𝖀
6:14	aesrom M^cP²Θ^HΦ^ZΨ^B 𝖂	esrom GXΘ^AG*MΛΣΦ^AGPRVΨ^DFΩ^SM 𝖀𝕲	asrom ABCMOPTΠ^D; hesron 𝕮; esron Θ^G**Ψ^MΩ^J; asron Π^C
6:21	isuar AMΣ^O 𝖂	isaar Θ^G**Σ^T 𝖀𝕮	isoar G; isacaar Λ^L; isacar Λ; isachar BOPTΘ^AGHMΛ^HΠ^CΦ^AGPRZΨ^F; ysahar C; ysuar Ω^JS 𝕲; isacar XΣ^M; issachar G^cΦ^V; ysachar Π^DΨ^BDMΩ^M
6:24	Abiasab ABG^cMOTXΘ^AMΛΣ^OΦ^A*Ψ^BFΩ^SJ 𝖂𝕲	Abiasaph PΘ^G**Σ^MTΨ^D 𝖀𝕮	Habiasaph C; habiasap Θ^H; abisab G^vidΠΦ^A*GPRVZΨ^MΩ^M
7:15	egredietur BCGMP²T^cX ΘΛΠΣΦΨΩ 𝖂𝕮𝕲	egreditur AOPT 𝖀
7:19	ut AMPTXΘΛΠΣΦΨΩ 𝖂𝕮𝕲	et GO 𝖀	hut (sic.) C; omit B
12:3	eis BCG^cMPTXΘΛΠΣΦΨΩ 𝖂𝕮𝕲	ad eos AO 𝖀
12:29	omne A^cBG*MPTθΛΠ^DΖΦΨΩ 𝖂𝕮𝕲	omnem A*G^cOXΠ^C (C homnem) 𝖀
12:31a	uocatisque ABCGOTXΘΛΠΣΦ^AGPRVZ*Ω^M 𝖂	uocauitque Φ^Z* 𝖀	uocatisque pharaoh G^cP^cΨΩ^JS (M farao) 𝕮𝕲
12:31b	nocte A^cBCMOPTXΘ^AGMΛΠΣΦΨ^BDMΩ 𝖂𝕮𝕲	nocte et A*G^cΘ^HΨ^F 𝖀
14:9	in ahiroth ATΘ^AGMΠΦ^AGPRZ 𝖂	in phiahiroth 𝖀	in phihahiroth 𝕮; in phiairoth Ω^J 𝕲; in phiayroth CΩ^M; in phyairot Ω^S; in ahioroth G; in phiahirot Σ^M; in phiaroth BΛ^L; in fiahiroth Σ^O; in fiairoth Λ^H*; in fiaroth XΛ^H; in fiaroht Σ^T; in airoth MΘ^HΨ^B; in hairoth Φ^V; in hayroth Ψ^F; in hahiroth Φ^V; in ahirath O; in airoht P; in aihroht P^c; in athiroth Ψ^D
15:17	sanctuarium AB*MTΛ^LΦ^AGRVZ 𝖂	sanctuarium tuum COPΘΛ^HΠΣΦ^PΨΩ 𝖀𝕮𝕲
15:20	manu COPTΘ^GM**ΛΣΦΨΩ^M 𝖂	manu sua ABMΘ^AHM*ΠΩ^JS 𝖀𝕮𝕲
15:23	mara BMTΘ^AHMΛ^LΣ^TΦΨ 𝖂𝕮	marath APXΘ^AGMΛ^HΠΣ^OΩ 𝖀𝕲	mare O; marat CΣ^M
16:18	congregarunt ABΘ^AGH*MΠΣ^OTΦΨ^MΩ^JS 𝖂	congregauerunt CGMPTXΘ^H**ΛΣ^MΨ^BDFΩ^M 𝖀𝕮𝕲
16:32	retro rell 𝖂𝕮𝕲	uestras conjecture, in † 𝖀	omit P²Ψ^B*
16:36	oephi MΘ^A* 𝖂 (ephi BM^cP²T^cΛ^HΠΦ^A**Ω 𝕮𝕲)	ephae TΘ^AGHMΦ^A*GRVZ 𝖀	oephae AΛ^LΦ^PΨ^D; hoephae C; epha Θ^G; efi Σ^O; oefi Σ^MT; aephi Ψ^BF; aephy X^c; ephie Ψ^M
18:1	deus BCMOPTΘΛΣ^MΦ^AGPVZΨ^FΩ^SJ 𝖂𝕮	dominus AGXΠΣ^OTΦ^RΨ^BDMΩ^M 𝖀𝕲
19:16	tertius dies BCGMTXΘΠΣ^MOΦΨ^BΩ^J 𝖂𝕮𝕲	dies tertius AOPΛΣ^TΨ^DFMΩ^MS 𝖀
19:21	velint BCGMP^CTXΘΠΣΦ^APRVZ**Ψ 𝖂	velit AOΛΩ 𝖀𝕮𝕲	vellent P; vellint Φ^GRVZ
20:1	locutus quoque est ACΛΣ^OT 𝖂	lo(cu)tusque est GMPTXΘΠΣ^MΦΨΩ 𝖀𝕮𝕲	locutus est B; locutus quoque O
21:7	consuerunt CGMPTΘ^AGMΠΣ^OΦ^GPRVZΨ^D 𝖂	consueuerunt ABOΘ^HΛ^MΣ^OT(Φ^A)Ψ^BFΩ^JS 𝖀𝕮𝕲	consueuerant Ω^M; consueuerat Ψ^M; consueberunt XΛ^L*; consuberunt Λ^L
21:13	in manu ABCXΛΣ^TΩ^M 𝖂	in manus GMOTΘΣ^MOΦΨΩ^JS 𝖀𝕮𝕲	in manum P; in manibus Π
21:35	uulnerarit AGΠ^DΣ^T 𝖂	uulnerauit 𝖀	uulnerauerit CMP²TΘΛΣ^MOΦΨΩ 𝕮𝕲; uulnerari Π^C; uulneraberit BX; ulneraret P*
22:17	consuerunt ABTPMΘΛ^LΣΦΨ^DM 𝖂	consueuerunt CGOXΛ^{H(**)ΠΨ^BFΩ 𝖀𝕮𝕲}
22:25	urgues BGMPTXΘΛ^HLΣ^TΦΨ^B*DFM 𝖂 (C hurgues)	urguebis 𝖀 (conjecture?)	urgebis M^cΛ^HΩ 𝕮𝕲; urges AB^cP^cΠΣ^MΨ^B; argues OΣ^O;
23:20	meum qui ACGΛ^H**Σ^OTΨΩ 𝖂𝕮𝕲	qui BMPTXΘΛ^H*LΠΣ^MΦ 𝖀
23:23	contribo ACGPTXΘΛ^LΠ^CDΣ^TΦ^A* 𝖂	conteram BMP^cΛ^HΠ^DΣ^MOΦ^AGPRVZΨΩ 𝖀𝕮𝕲

The obvious observation is just how minor most of these differences are. Before I started this, I thought that I would try to classify the types of variants, but if we look at it, most of them are cases of changes of verb tense where a very simple scribal error likely produced the variant. To try to figure out which edition is correct would require an extremely deep dive into the Hebrew that likely won't produce much. Plus some of the differences involve names, which always get fractured by scribes, and some seem to be editing errors in the Vatican edition (the Stuttgart text is now largely free of this because it has gone through so many editions). The bottom line is that the Rule of Iron probably produced a text with more variations from the Stuttgart edition than would be produced if two different eclectic editors did the editing, but the divergences are of very little significance.

To be sure, a lot of this is because the variants in the Vulgate are relatively small, at least in the early centuries. Compared to the situation in the New Testament, the Rule of Iron had little to do. It might also be interesting to try Rule of Iron methods in the New Testament.

Of course, this raises the question of what manuscript groupings Quentin would have come up with for the New Testament. It would take someone who knows the Rule of Iron better than I to figure that out, but odds are that the groupings would be B and its allies, D, and the Byzantine Text. What manuscripts would represent each group? For the Gospels, I would propose a trial based on the following:

Group 1 (Alexandrian): B plus ℵ L 33 579 892. The group reading is that of B as long as at least one other supports it; if B is alone, then the reading of ℵ plus at least one other; if both stand alone, then the reading of the other four if they unite; if they don't, then the reading of B.

Group 2 (Western): D. What else is there, since Quentin does not seem to use the versions?

Group 3 (Byzantine): Here the question of which manuscripts to use is acute, and I have no way to tell what Quentin would have decided. What I intend to do is take the consensus of A (earliest member of Family Π), E (earliest member of K^x/Kⁱ), and M (best-known member of the M groups).

The sample is of Luke 5. Only places where the groups disagree will be cited. The group reading, as defined by the above rule, is shown in bold. Data is taken from IGNTP Luke (except where I consulted Swanson because the IGNTP apparatus made the readings ridiculously confusing, e.g. 5:5a). Where there is a true three-way split between the groups (e.g. 5:5d), the reading of the Alexandrian group is adopted, since I assume (perhaps wrongly) that Quentin would have detected its superiority; when there is a three way split but a substantial portion of one of the groups defects, I go with the reading supported by one group and part of another (e.g. 5:1c, 5:5a). Where the Rule of Iron reading is uncertain, it is marked with a red question marks (as, e.g., with a three-way split), ?. Several editions are also cited:

ℬ = Bover (based on the fourth edition of 1959)
ℋ = Hodges & Farstad (note: Where HF splits, it is marked ℋ^txt/ℋ^marg, but if they cite 𝕸 for one reading and only TR for the other, only ℋ is cited)
ℳ = Merk (based on the fifth edition of 1944)
𝒮 = Von Soden (note: I'm taking this from photographs, not an actual copy, so I might misread the text). [𝒮] indicates a place where von Soden puts a word in brackets
𝒰 = United Bibles Societies third edition
𝒲 = Westcott and Hort, as printed in the 1941 Macmillan edition

(I omit Vogels because it is not a critical edition and Tischendorf because Tischendorf didn't really have a critical principle.)

Verse	Rule of Iron reading	Other readings
5:1a	του ακουειν 33 D E-M ℋ	και ακουειν B-ℵ-L-579-892 A ℬℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲
5:1b	και αυτος ην εστως B-ℵ-L-33-579-892 A-E-M ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲	αυτον D
5:1c	?γεννησαρετ? B-ℵ-L-33-579-892 A ℬℋ^txtℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲	γεννησαρεθ E-M ● γεννησαρεδ D ● γενησαρετ ℋ^marg
5:2a	ειδε(ν) B-ℵ-L-892 E-M ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲	ιδε(ν) 33-579 A D
5:2b	δυο πλοια ℵ^c-L-33 D E-M ℋℳ𝒰𝒲^marg	πλοια δυο B-579-892 𝒲^txt ● πλοια ℵ* ● δυο πλοιαρια A ● πλοιαρια δυο ℬ𝒮 (!)
5:2c	απ αυτων αποβαντες B-ℵ^c-L-33-579-892 D ℬℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲	αποβαντες απ αυτων A-E-M ℋ ● αυτων αποβαντες ℵ*
5:2d	επλυνον B-892 D ℬ𝒰𝒲^txt	απεπλυναν 33 A-E-M ℋ𝒮 ● επλυναν ℵ-L-579 ℳ𝒲^marg
5:3a	εμβας B-ℵ-L-33-579-892 A-E-F ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲	ενβας D
5:3b	των πλοιων B-ℵ-L-33-579-892 A-E-M ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲	πλοιον D
5:3c	σιμωνος B-ℵ-L-33-579 D ℬℳ𝒰𝒲	του σιμωνος 892 A-E-M ℋ[𝒮]
5:3d	απο της γης επαναγαγειν B-ℵ-L-33-579-892 A-E-F ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲	επαναγαγειν απο της γης D
5:3e	ολιγον B-ℵ-L-33-579-892 A-E-F ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲	οσον οσον D
5:3f	και καθισας 33-579-892 D A-E-F ℋ	καθισας δε B-ℵ-L ℬℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲
5:3g	εδιδασκεν εκ του πλοιου L-33-579-892 A-E-M ℬℋ	εκ του πλοιου εδιδασκεν B ℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲 ● εν τω πλοιω ℵ D
5:4	ως δε B-ℵ-L-33-579-892 A-E-M ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲	οτε δε D
5:5a	?και αποκριθεις ο σιμων ειπεν αυτω? 33-579-892 A-E-M ℬℋ (𝒮 και αποκριθεις [ο] σιμων ειπεν [αυτω])	και αποκριθεις σιμων ειπεν B-ℵ^c ℳ𝒰𝒲 ● και αποκριθεις ειπεν σιμων ℵ* ● και αποκριθεις σιμων ειπεν αυτω L ● ο δε σιμων αποκριθεις ειπεν αυτω D
5:5b	επιστατα B-ℵ-L-33-579-892 A-E-M ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲	διδασκαλε D
5:5c	της νυκτος 579-892 D A-E-M ℋ[𝒮]	νυκτος B-ℵ-L-33 ℬℳ𝒰𝒲
5:5d	?χαλασω τα δικτυα? B-ℵ-L-579-892 ℬℳ𝒰𝒲	χαλασω το δικτυον 33 A-E-M ℋ𝒮 ● ου μη παρακουσομαι D
5:6a	τουτο ποιησαντες B-ℵ-L-33-579-892 A-E-M ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲	ευθυς χαλασαντες τα δικτυα D
5:6b	πληθος ιχθυων B-ℵ-L-33-892 A-E-M ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲	ιχθυων πλυθος 579 D
5:6c	?διερρηγνυτο δε το δικτυον? A-E-M ℋ𝒮	διηρησεττο δε τα δικτυα *B-L-892** ℬℳ𝒰𝒲 ● διηρρησεττο δε τα δικτυα B^c-ℵ ● διηρρησεττο δε το δικτυον 33 ● διερρηγνυτο δε τα δικτυα 579 ● ωστε τα δικτυα ρησσεσθαι D
5:7a	κατενευσαν B-ℵ^c-L-(33 [....]σαν)-579-892 A-E-M ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲	κατενευον D ● κατενευσεν ℵ*
5:7b	εν τω ετερω B-ℵ-L-579 D ℬℳ𝒰𝒲	τοις εν τω ετερω 33-892 A-E-M ℋ[𝒮]
5:7c	συλλαβεσθαι B-(συνλαμβανεσθε ℵ)-(συνλαβεσθαι ℵ^c)-L-579-892 A-E-M* ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲 (33 uncertain)	βοηθειν D
5:7d	και ηλθον B-(και ελθαν ℵ-L BW)-33-579-892 A-E-M ℋℳ𝒮𝒰	ελθοντες D
5:7e	ωστε B-ℵ-L-33-579-892 A-E-M ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲	ωστε παρα τι D
5:7f	αυτα B-ℵ-L-579-892 A-E-M ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲 (33 uncertain)	omit D
5:8a	ιδων δε σιμων πετρος B-ℵ-L-579 A-E-M ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲 (33 uncertain but has πετρος)	ιδων δε ο σιμων 892 ● ο δε σιμων D
5:8b	?τοις γονασι(ν) του ιησου? L-33-579 A-M ℋ^marg𝒮	τοις γονασι(ν) ιησου B-ℵ-892 E ℬℋ^txtℳ𝒰𝒲 ● αυτου τοις ποσι D
5:8c	λεγων B-ℵ-L-579-892 A-E-M ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲 (33 uncertain)	λεγων παρακαλω D
5:9a	και παντας τους συν αυτω B-ℵ-L-33-579-892 A-E-M ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰𝒲	omit D
5:9b	η συνελαβον ℵ-L-33-892 A-E-M ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒲^marg	ων συνελαβον B D 𝒰𝒲^txt ● ην συνελαβον 579
5:10a	?ιακωβον και ιωαννην υιους? L-33-579 A-E-M ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰	ιακωβον και ιωανην υιους B 𝒲 ● ιακωβος και ιωαννης οι υιοι ℵ-892 ● (rewrite entire verse) D
5:10b	?σιμωνα ο ιησους? ℵ-33-579-892 A-E-M ℬℋℳ𝒮𝒰	σιμωνα ιησους B-L 𝒲 ● (rewrite entire verse) D

So what does this tell us? Logically we would expect the Rule of Iron text to be closest to von Soden, since his I-H-K hypothesis resembles the rule we were using. Is it so? The table below shows the agreements with the Rule of Iron text for the leading witnesses and editors (note: this always follows the first hand of the manuscripts and the main text reading of the editions).

Note: there are 35 points of variation in our sample. In 19 of them, all the editions agree, so our real sample is the other 16 readings. Keep that in mind in assessing the rates of agreement below.

ℵ	23
A	27
B	26
D	8
L	28
ℬ	29
ℋ	29
ℳ	27
𝒮	27
𝒰	27
𝒲	24

This is not as informative as we might like; all the editions have relatively similar numbers except for the dramatically low total for Westcott and Hort. There is, strikingly, no special kinship with Von Soden; rather, the closest of the critical editions is Bover. Hodges and Farstad exceed every critical edition except Bover. Thus it is clear that the Rule of Iron, if applied as I have outlined (and, of course, I don't know if it would have been), would have produced a more Byzantine text, and a much less Alexandrian text, than most of the modern editions.

Another vital point is to realize just how strongly a Rule of Iron method will depend on the three types chosen to use in reckoning the majority. Let's take Paul as our example this time: The standard post-Hortian model maintains that there are Alexandrian, Byzantine, and "Western" types, and that B is mostly Alexandrian but with "Western" mixture. Zuntz, Carlson, and I all find, in some way or another, that B is not an Alexandrian/Byzantine mix but that 𝔓⁴⁶ and B form a separate type, not immediately akin to ℵ A C 33 etc.

So let's take three scenarios: Assume

A Zuntzian view of the three types, in other words our three types, and the three witnesses we use to decide the reading of the type, are:
1. 𝔓⁴⁶ and B, choosing 1739 as the third manuscript (Carlson and I would both have reservations about this, but we have to have some system!)
2. A type consisting of ℵ A C 33 81 1175 etc, of which we will chose ℵ A 33 as the defining manuscripts
3. A type consisting of D F G; D will decide if they split
A classic Hortian view, so the three types become:
1. B ℵ A C 33 81 1175 1739, with the group reading being the majority reading of B ℵ A
2. D F G old latin; D will decide if they split
3. Byzantine: K L etc. We'll define it as the majority of K L 056.
A view in which B is purely Western, so our types become
1. ℵ A C 33 81 1175 etc, of which we will chose ℵ A 33 as the defining manuscripts
2. B D F G; the majority of B D G decde
3. Byzantine: K L etc. Again, we'll define as the majority of K L 056.

We'll do Galatians 2. This time, I won't do the orthographic variants. Since we're doing three Rule of Iron types, I won't try to classify the witnesses; I'll just list them and then do the three types:
Zu = the Zuntzian reading
MH = Modified Hort
BW = B is Western

We'll also mark the groups where they disagree with the edition reading, e.g. Zu is the reading that the Rule of Iron would produce in the Zuntz scenario, but Zu¹ is the reading of the first Zuntz group (𝔓⁴⁶ B 1739) where it goes against Zu, Zu² is the second Zuntz group (ℵ A 33); Zu³ is the third Zuntz group (D F G).

In cases where the Rule of Iron can't decide (e.g. 2:6, 2:14), I've put the reading I think Quentin would have chosen under each set of assumptions in parentheses, red, un-bold, e.g. (Zu).

So our full list of witnesses will be 𝔓⁴⁶ ℵ A B D F G K L 056 33 1739, with each text based on three types based on three witnesses, so each text is ultimately based on nine of these twelve.

Reading	Text of one or another group			Other variants
2:1	παλιν ανηβην 𝔓⁴⁶ ℵ A B 33 1739 K L 056 Zu MH BW		ανηβην παλιν D F G Zu³ MH² BW²
2:4	καταδουλωσουσιν ℵ A B D Zu MH BW		καταδουλωσωσιν 𝔓⁴⁶ F G 33 1739 Zu¹; καταδουλωσωνται K 056 MH³ BW³, καταδουλωσονται L
2:6	προσωπον θεος ανθρωπου B K L 1739 (Zu) (BW) Zu¹ MH³ BW³	προσωπον ο θεος ανθρωπου 𝔓⁴⁶ ℵ A 33 (MH) Zu² MH¹ BW¹	θεος ανθρωπου προσωπον D (F G) Zu³ MH² BW²; προσωπον δε θεος ανθρωπου 056
2:9	Ιακωβος και Κηφας ℵ B K L 056 33 1739 Zu MH BW		Πετρος και Ιακωβος D(*) F G Zu³ MH² BW²; Ιακωβος και Πετρος 𝔓⁴⁶; Ιακωβος A
2:10	των πτωχων ινα (hiat. 𝔓⁴⁶) ℵ A B K L 056 33 1739 Zu MH BW		ινα των πτωχων D F G Zu³ MH² BW²
2:11	ηλθε(ν) Κηφας (hiat. 𝔓⁴⁶) ℵ A B 33 1739 Zu MH¹ BW¹		ηλθε(ν) Πετρος D F G K L 056 Zu³ MH BW
2:12	ηλθεν 𝔓⁴⁶ ℵ B D* F G 33 Zu MH BW		ηλθον A D^c K L 056 1739 MH³ BW³
2:13	αυτων τη υποκρισει 𝔓⁴⁶ (ℵ υποκρισε) A B K L 056 (1739) Zu MH BW		τη υποκρισει αυτων D F G 33 Zu³ MH² BW²
2:14	τω Κηφα 𝔓⁴⁶ ℵ A B 33 1739 Zu MH¹ BW¹		τω Πετρω D F G K L (056 τωι Πετρωι) MH BW Zu³
2:14	και ουχι Ιουδαικως ζης ℵ^c B (F G ουκ) Zu (Zu¹) (Zu³) (BW) BW²	ζης και ουχι Ιουδαικως D* (D^c L 056 ουκ) (K ουχ) MH BW³	και ουχ Ιδαικως ℵ* A 33 Zu² MH¹ BW¹	ζης 𝔓⁴⁶; ουκ Ιουδαικω ζης 1739
2:14	πως τα εθνη 𝔓⁴⁶ ℵ A B D F G 33 1739 Zu MH BW		τι τα εθνη K L 056 MH³ BW³
2:16	ειδοτες 𝔓⁴⁶ A D^c K 056 33 1739 Zu BW MH³		ειδοτες δε ℵ B D* F G L MH Zu³ BW²
2:16	πιστεως Ιησου Χριστου 𝔓⁴⁶ ℵ D F G K L 056 1739 Zu MH BW		πιστεως Χριστου Ιησου A B(* πιστες Χριστου Ιησου) 33 Zu² MH¹ BW¹
2:16	εις Χριστουν Ιησουν 𝔓⁴⁶ ℵ A D F G K L 056 Zu MH BW		εις Ιησουν Χριστουν B 33 1739 Zu¹
2:16	νομου οτι 𝔓⁴⁶ ℵ A B D* F G 33 1739 Zu MH BW		νομου διοτι D^c K L 056 MH³ BW³
2:16	εξ εργων νομου ου δικαιωθησεται 𝔓⁴⁶ ℵ A D F G 33 1739 Zu MH BW		ου δικαιωθησεται εξ εργων νομου K L 056 MH³ BW³	εξ εργων νομου δικαιωθησεται B
2:18	συνιστανω 𝔓⁴⁶ ℵ A B D* F() G 33 1739 Zu MH BW*		συνιστημι D^c K L 056 MH³ BW³
2:20	του θεου και χριστου 𝔓⁴⁶ B D* F G Zu MH² BW²		του υιου του θεου ℵ A D^c K L 056 33 1739 Zu² MH BW

Observe that all I have really done in this exercise is to reclassify B -- either lumping it with another text-type, Alexandrian or Western (which forces us to include the Byzantine text to grant us a third group) or splitting it off into its own type (which allows, or forces, us to drop the Byzantine text to keep the number of types at three). Observe that this one change in our assumptions resulted in six places in Galatians 2 where we would have had a different resultant text. Thus the Rule of Iron is extremely dependent on the exact data fed into it. Whether this is a defect is of course something the user must decide, but it is definitely an inherent aspect of the method.

If we look at the readings at those seven places, here is what we find:

2:6 προσωπον θεος ανθρωπου (Zu) (BW); προσωπον ο θεος ανθρωπου (MH); UBS προσωπον [ο] θεος ανθρωπου; this is really tricky (note that UBS refuses to print a clear reading), but I very tentatively agree with Zuntz
2:11 ηλθε(ν) Κηφας Zu; ηλθε(ν) Πετρος MH BW; UBS and I both agree with Zuntz
2:14a τω Κηφα Zu; τω Πετρω MH BW; UBS and I both agree with Zuntz
2:14b και ουχι Ιουδαικως ζης Zu (BW); ζης και ουχι Ιουδαικως MH; UBS agrees with Zu BW; I certainly would prefer it to MH although I feel a slight temptation to omit και
2:16 ειδοτες Zu BW; ειδοτες δε MH. Another tough one; UBS has [δε] in brackets. I'm very tentatively with Zuntz.
2:20 του θεου και χριστου Zu; του υιου του θεου MH BW. Also tough, but I lean slightly toward Zuntz; UBS agrees with MH BW.

You'll note that I produced a pure Zuntz text, while UBS waffled a bit. In the four instances where UBS is unequivocal, it agrees three times with Zu, once with MH, twice with BW. This tells us two things: One is to remind us, again, that in the Rule of Iron, it matters greatly just how our witnesses are classified. The other is to make it clear that the Rule of Iron isn't much influenced by internal criteria. Personally, I would say that, in a situation where one has a three-branch stemma, the Rule of Iron works fairly well -- but if you have a three-branch stemma, you can use classical Lachmann stemmatics. If you don't have a three-branch stemma, then the Rule of Iron is a classification disaster waiting to happen. The rigour of the idea breaks down in the face of the methodological weakness.