t other heights.
 Applying divisive clustering to the distance matrix for Hebrews produces this dendrogram:
 An attempt will now be made to describe the broad outlines of what might be called the “textual space” occupied by the witnesses of Hebrews. Being based on so few variation units, sampling errors are relatively large. All observations made from these analysis results are therefore provisional.
 The MDS map reveals a structure in which some regions have a higher density of witnesses than others. There is a general correspondence between these regions of higher density and clusters found in the dendrogram but it is hard to say how many clusters there are. Indeed, this dendrogram is similar to one concerning which Chatfield and Collins say, “there appears to be no natural partition.” It seems, therefore, that there is no clear number of clusters for the Hebrews data.
 To make an arbitrary choice, the dendrogram can be chopped at a height of just under 0.5 to produce six clusters:
UBS (i.e. the eclectic text preferred by the UBS editors), P46, B
01 (Sinaiticus), A, C, 33, 81, 436, 2464, cop-sa (Sahidic Coptic), arm (Armenian)
it-ar, it-b, it-comp (i.e. Old Latins); vg-cl, vg-st, vg-ww (i.e. editions of the Vulgate); cop-bo (Bohairic Coptic), geo-1 (First Georgian)
K, L, P, 044, 075, 0150, 104, 256, 263, 365, 424, 459, 1241, 1319, 1573, 1852, 1912, 1962, 2127, 2200, Byz (Byzantine majority), Lect (majority of lectionaries), syr-h (Harclean Syriac), eth-pp, eth-TH (i.e. editions of the Ethiopic), geo-2 (Second Georgian), slav (Slavonic), Chrysostom
6, 1739, 1881, syr-p (Peshitta Syriac)
 A number of these clusters are evocative of conventional “text-types” often used to describe New Testament witnesses, namely “primary Alexandrian” (P46, B), “secondary Alexandrian” (e.g. A, C, 33, 81), “Western” (e.g. Old Latins it-ar, it-b, it-comp), and “Byzantine” (K, L, ..., Chrysostom). At the same time, the dendrogram has a number of unexpected features: the cluster associated with “primary Alexandrian” witnesses is quite distant from the others; the “secondary Alexandrian” is more closely affiliated to the “Western” than the “primary Alexandrian” cluster; Codex Sinaiticus (01) and the Armenian (arm) fall into the “secondary Alexandrian” cluster; the Sahidic and Bohairic versions of the Coptic occupy different clusters; and the cluster comprised of D and it-d, which are the Greek and Latin sides of Codex Claromontanus, stands apart from the “Western” cluster. Some of these surprises may be attributable to sampling error; a larger sample would have to be analysed in order to confirm them.
 An association between the three minuscules of the fifth cluster (i.e. 6, 1739, 1881) has already been noticed by Waltz. Surprisingly, the dendrogram indicates that this cluster is more closely related to the fourth, which contains “Byzantine” witnesses such as K and L, than to the first, second, or third, which might be described as “Alexandrian” or “Western.” It is also surprising to see that the Peshitta Syriac is located here.
 Other numbers of clusters are produced by cutting the dendrogram at different heights. If, say, the division was made at a height of 0.6 then there would be only four: the second and third clusters of the six-way partition would be combined into a larger entity, as would the fourth and fifth. Chopping the dendrogram at a height 0.45 produces nine clusters: the second of the six-way partition splitting into two and the fourth splitting into three. Hopefully, these examples are enough to demonstrate the arbitrary nature of any choice concerning the number of clusters.
 Overall, the dendrogram paints a picture of diffuse clusters which have points of contact with the conventional text-types yet differ in significant ways. The usefulness of dividing the tradition into “Alexandrian,” “Byzantine,” “Western,” and, perhaps, “Caesarean” text-types has long been questioned. In 1965, Kurt Aland, then director of the INTF, wrote:
It is impossible to fit the papyri, from the time prior to the fourth century, into these text-types, 