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

7820RE: [textualcriticism] Frequency of variants for different NT books, misleading "the general non-specialist audience"

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    May 5, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      Steven, thanks for the reply, but I don’t think the links are going to be much help with what I’m trying to do. In particular, any site that is not looking at mss, but instead at what people have selected as ‘their’ preferred variants (which is what the CT/MT/RT do) is going to miss a lot of detail. Also, unless the site gives me details at the ms level, instead of editions, then it’s not going to help. For example, Gary’s site (and other similar ones) don’t mention Lk 22:17-20, because the MT variant is used in almost all Greek editions, and I really need to take all the versions into account as well, so I need to look at mss. I think my ideal would be all non-accidental translatable variants in all mss, but I suspect I’ll have to create such a list myself. I’ll probably start with Wieland Willker, as I always find him very useful.

       

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

       

      From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Avery
      Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 9:10 AM
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Frequency of variants for different NT books, misleading "the general non-specialist audience"

       

      Hi,

      David, I think you will find that the variation is only widely different in Revelation.

      David Inglis,

      Does anyone know of anyone who has studied the frequency of variants in the NT? I’m particularly interested in their frequency (e.g. variants/verse, or [more accurately] variants/word) in the different ‘sections’ of the synoptic gospels: sonderguts; triple tradition; and double traditions (all 3 pairings). Because of the total number of variants I’m thinking that any such study might have only been performed on a sub-set, e.g. perhaps only those that appear to be deliberate, not accidental. This is prompted by the fact that the variants listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament in Matthew take up almost half of the page, and the rest of the NT the other half. If this is truly representative then it’s worth investigating, so does anyone know if it is? https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/


      Steven Avery
      And I used this site for a little checking the other day, it uses two different measures, but is very helpful for comparing the Critical Text with the Received Text and Majority Text, which will give the great bulk of significant variants.

      Analytical-Literal Translation
      Textual Variants in the The New Testament
      Gary F. Zeolla
      http://www.dtl.org/alt/main/variants.htm

      500+ translatable variants in Mark
      300+ significant variants in Luke

      You could probably get a good picture by going through each chapter, and coming up with a general significant-->translatable ration.  What is good about this site is that it should give a fairly standard concept of "signficant" within its own numbers.  Significant can be in the eye of the beholder, and has no objective definition.

      And this post might give some help too.

      [textualcriticism] Re: TR vs CT variants
      Steven Avery March 25, 2008
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/3602

    • Show all 11 messages in this topic