Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: tc-list Re: Textual Harmonies between Text Types

Expand Messages
  • Troy DeJongh
    ... At the risk of telling the members of this list something they probably already know, the paper where Wallace makes this statement is located at:
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 12, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Nelson D. Roth writes:
      >
      > Recently I viewed a series of debates which dealt with, among other issues,
      > the degree of textual harmony that exists between the recognized text types.
      > One participant mentioned that it had been documented, by Dr. Daniel B.
      > Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, that the textual harmony between the
      > Western, Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc. types was as high as 98%.
      > I've read various attempts to provide reasonable estimates of the harmony that
      > exists. This is my first exposure to a reference of textual harmony so high.
      > Can anyone provide additonal information regarding this figure.
      >
      > Blessings,
      >
      > Nelson Roth, Dayton, TN, USA
      >

      At the risk of telling the members of this list something they probably
      already know, the paper where Wallace makes this statement is located at:

      http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/91b2.htm

      (Search for the word "percent").


      Additionally, a list of 13 of Wallace's papers on NT TC is at:

      http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/soaptoc.htm


      --
      Troy DeJongh troyd@... http://www1.euler.com/~troyd
    • Robert B. Waltz
      ... [ ... ] ... Well, *I* didn t know it. Thanks for the link. ... The problem here is in Wallace s definition of a variant. He includes *everything*. Scribal
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 12, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Troy DeJongh <troyd@...> wrote:

        >Nelson D. Roth writes:
        >>
        >> Recently I viewed a series of debates which dealt with, among other issues,
        >> the degree of textual harmony that exists between the recognized text types.
        >> One participant mentioned that it had been documented, by Dr. Daniel B.
        >> Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, that the textual harmony between the
        >> Western, Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc. types was as high as 98%.
        >> I've read various attempts to provide reasonable estimates of the harmony that
        >> exists. This is my first exposure to a reference of textual harmony so high.
        >> Can anyone provide additonal information regarding this figure.

        [ ... ]

        >At the risk of telling the members of this list something they probably
        >already know, the paper where Wallace makes this statement is located at:
        >
        > http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/91b2.htm
        >
        > (Search for the word "percent").

        Well, *I* didn't know it. Thanks for the link.

        This allows us to quote the actual context:

        >There are approximately 300,000 textual variants among New Testament >manuscripts. The Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus in
        >almost 2,000 places. So the agreement is better than 99 percent. But
        >the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text in only about
        >6,500 places. In other words the two texts agree almost 98 percent of
        >the time.

        The problem here is in Wallace's definition of a variant. He includes
        *everything*. Scribal errors. Singular readings. Apparently even
        orthographic variants. It would even appear that different readings
        at the same point of variation might count.

        But as far as divergences go, he is counting only two: The UBS
        text and the Hodges & Farstad text.

        So this leads to two observations:

        First, Wallace is comparing apples and oranges.
        Second, Wallace is using an absurd definition of a variant.

        Conclusion: This number is meaningless.

        If the original poster wishes to offer his definition of harmony,
        no doubt we can offer some sort of answer as to what degree of
        harmony occurs. But this demonstrates, once again, the danger
        of inadequately defined terms.

        Mumble, mutter, mumble.... :-)

        -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

        Robert B. Waltz
        waltzmn@...

        Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
        Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
        (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
      • Troy DeJongh
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 18, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          Nelson D. Roth writes:
          >
          > Recently I viewed a series of debates which dealt with, among other issues,
          > the degree of textual harmony that exists between the recognized text types.
          > One participant mentioned that it had been documented, by Dr. Daniel B.
          > Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, that the textual harmony between the
          > Western, Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc. types was as high as 98%.
          > I've read various attempts to provide reasonable estimates of the harmony that
          > exists. This is my first exposure to a reference of textual harmony so high.
          > Can anyone provide additonal information regarding this figure.
          >
          > Blessings,
          >
          > Nelson Roth, Dayton, TN, USA
          >

          For the benefit of the other members of this list, the paper where
          Wallace makes this statement is located at:

          http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/91b2.htm

          (Search for the word "percent").


          Additionally, a list of 13 of his papers on NT TC is at:

          http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/soaptoc.htm


          --
          Troy DeJongh troyd@... http://www1.euler.com/~troyd
        • Troy DeJongh
          Please disregard the message below. I was assuming it was in the bit bucket when I resent a modified version of the message below several days ago. I don t
          Message 4 of 8 , Aug 18, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            Please disregard the message below. I was assuming it was in the bit bucket
            when I resent a modified version of the message below several days ago. I
            don't know why "the lost version" just showed up now...

            --
            Troy DeJongh troyd@... http://www1.euler.com/~troyd


            On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Troy DeJongh wrote:

            > Nelson D. Roth writes:
            > >
            > > Recently I viewed a series of debates which dealt with, among other issues,
            > > the degree of textual harmony that exists between the recognized text types.
            > > One participant mentioned that it had been documented, by Dr. Daniel B.
            > > Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, that the textual harmony between the
            > > Western, Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc. types was as high as 98%.
            > > I've read various attempts to provide reasonable estimates of the harmony that
            > > exists. This is my first exposure to a reference of textual harmony so high.
            > > Can anyone provide additonal information regarding this figure.
            > >
            > > Blessings,
            > >
            > > Nelson Roth, Dayton, TN, USA
            > >
            >
            > For the benefit of the other members of this list, the paper where
            > Wallace makes this statement is located at:
            >
            > http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/91b2.htm
            >
            > (Search for the word "percent").
            >
            >
            > Additionally, a list of 13 of his papers on NT TC is at:
            >
            > http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/soaptoc.htm
            >
            >
            > --
            > Troy DeJongh troyd@... http://www1.euler.com/~troyd
            >
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.