## GNT Statistics Resource

Expand Messages
• I ve recently read an article giving a lot of specific numbers of variants and corrections in particular verses in the GNT. For examples of the variants: Luke
Message 1 of 6 , Apr 13, 2009
I've recently read an article giving a lot of specific numbers of variants and corrections in particular verses in the GNT. For examples of the variants:

Luke 23.17, 60 variants
Matt 5.44 (2nd variant), 38 variants (in 1,488 mss)
Rom 11.6, 28 variants (in 608 mss)
1 Cor 2.4, 30 variants (in 620 mss)
Gal 5.1, 58 variants (in 628 mss)

I think I see now where the 300,000 to 500,000 variants come from. The average number of variants per verse is 50, times the roughly 8,000 verses. Voila.

Here's my request for help: If I wanted to actually see all 30 variants of 1 Cor 2.4, where would I get this information? The author of this article had to have looked at some book to get these specific numbers. If there is a book, something tells me it's going to be very thick.

Mitch Larramore
Sugar Land, Texas
• Interesting. What s the article? -- Bart Ehrman Bart D. Ehrman James A. Gray Professor Department of Religious Studies University of North Carolina at Chapel
Message 2 of 6 , Apr 14, 2009
Interesting.  What's the article?

-- Bart Ehrman

Bart D. Ehrman
James A. Gray Professor
Department of Religious Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mitch Larramore
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:23 AM
To: Textual Criticism
Subject: [textualcriticism] GNT Statistics Resource

I've recently read an article giving a lot of specific numbers of variants and corrections in particular verses in the GNT. For examples of the variants:

Luke 23.17, 60 variants
Matt 5.44 (2nd variant), 38 variants (in 1,488 mss)
Rom 11.6, 28 variants (in 608 mss)
1 Cor 2.4, 30 variants (in 620 mss)
Gal 5.1, 58 variants (in 628 mss)

I think I see now where the 300,000 to 500,000 variants come from. The average number of variants per verse is 50, times the roughly 8,000 verses. Voila.

Here's my request for help: If I wanted to actually see all 30 variants of 1 Cor 2.4, where would I get this information? The author of this article had to have looked at some book to get these specific numbers. If there is a book, something tells me it's going to be very thick.

Mitch Larramore
Sugar Land, Texas

• ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( Luke 23.17, 60 variants Matt 5.44 (2nd variant), 38 variants (in 1,488 mss) Rom 11.6, 28 variants (in 608 mss) 1 Cor
Message 3 of 6 , Apr 14, 2009
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Luke 23.17, 60 variants
Matt 5.44 (2nd variant), 38 variants (in 1,488 mss)
Rom 11.6, 28 variants (in 608 mss)
1 Cor 2.4, 30 variants (in 620 mss)
Gal 5.1, 58 variants (in 628 mss)

I think I see now where the 300,000 to 500,000 variants come from. The
average number of variants per verse is 50, times the roughly 8,000 verses.
Voila.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

38 isolated , single variants in Mat 5:44 in 1,488 MSS would still be 97.5%
agreement. IF we actually classified this as calculated percentage
agreement/disagreement in content, ignoring non-translatable spelling
variants, that metric would skyrocket. Not to say variants aren't
signfiicant - none of us would be here if they weren't. I'm just trying to
interject that this is not a full fledged measurement. We need to measure
this in a balanced way. This sounds like it's being measured so as to drive
the stats up as far as possible and spin the issue to make it look like
variants run wild all over the place.

Joe
• The article is found in... Text and Studies Third Series Vol. 6 2008 Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies? Edited by H.A.G. Houghton and D. C.
Message 4 of 6 , Apr 14, 2009
 The article is found in...Text and StudiesThird SeriesVol. 62008Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies?Edited by H.A.G. Houghton and D. C. ParkerArticle 11: Scribal Tendencies and the Mechanics of Book Production, D. C. ParkerMitch Larramore Sugar Land, Texas --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Bart Ehrman wrote:From: Bart Ehrman Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] GNT Statistics ResourceTo: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.comDate: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 7:32 AM    Interesting.  What's the article? -- Bart Ehrman Bart D. EhrmanJames A. Gray ProfessorDepartment of Religious StudiesUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill  From: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:textualcrit icism@yahoogroup s.com] On Behalf Of Mitch LarramoreSent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:23 AMTo: Textual CriticismSubject: [textualcriticism] GNT Statistics ResourceI've recently read an article giving a lot of specific numbers of variants and corrections in particular verses in the GNT. For examples of the variants:Luke 23.17, 60 variantsMatt 5.44 (2nd variant), 38 variants (in 1,488 mss)Rom 11.6, 28 variants (in 608 mss)1 Cor 2.4, 30 variants (in 620 mss)Gal 5.1, 58 variants (in 628 mss)I think I see now where the 300,000 to 500,000 variants come from. The average number of variants per verse is 50, times the roughly 8,000 verses. Voila.Here's my request for help: If I wanted to actually see all 30 variants of 1 Cor 2.4, where would I get this information? The author of this article had to have looked at some book to get these specific numbers. If there is a book, something tells me it's going to be very thick.Mitch LarramoreSugar Land, Texas

• Joe: This is intended to be a simplification, but I think many conservative scholars are not only willing, but anxious, to state that there are variants all
Message 5 of 6 , Apr 14, 2009
 Joe:This is intended to be a simplification, but I think many conservative scholars are not only willing, but anxious, to state that there are variants "all over the place." That's what happens when you have over 400,000,000 hand-written words in the 5700 Greek manuscripts alone. Normal hand-copying mistakes are in the millions just within these 5700 writings. Many have stated there are '400,000 variants', but that number represents 'singular variants' only. The total number of all (repeating) variants would be in the millions. What I don't understand is I read a statistic in which there are about 65 percent of the verses in the GNT that are variant-free (I assume this is singular variants). If this is correct, then the 400,000 singular variants are located in about 35 percent of the verses, or in 2800 verses, or about 140 variants in these 2800 variants. One day all these GNT mss will be in a computer database and finally we can have a machine spit out the exact numbers. God only knows the numbers we will see then.Mitch Larramore Sugar Land, Texas --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Jovial wrote:From: Jovial Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] GNT Statistics ResourceTo: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.comDate: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 8:18 AM(((((((((((( ((((((((( ((((((((( ((((((((( Luke 23.17, 60 variants Matt 5.44 (2nd variant), 38 variants (in 1,488 mss) Rom 11.6, 28 variants (in 608 mss) 1 Cor 2.4, 30 variants (in 620 mss) Gal 5.1, 58 variants (in 628 mss) I think I see now where the 300,000 to 500,000 variants come from. The average number of variants per verse is 50, times the roughly 8,000 verses. Voila. )))))))))))) ))))))))) ))))))))) ))))))))) 38 isolated , single variants in Mat 5:44 in 1,488 MSS would still be 97.5% agreement. IF we actually classified this as calculated percentage agreement/disagreem ent in content, ignoring non-translatable spelling variants, that metric would skyrocket. Not to say variants aren't signfiicant - none of us would be here if they weren't. I'm just trying to interject that this is not a full fledged measurement. We need to measure this in a balanced way. This sounds like it's being measured so as to drive the stats up as far as possible and spin the issue to make it look like variants run wild all over the place. Joe

• I don t disagree with you - I m simply pointing out that a raw count of the number of variants does not provide much info on the nature and measure of them.
Message 6 of 6 , Apr 14, 2009
I don't disagree with you - I'm simply pointing out that a raw count of the number of variants does not provide much info on the nature and measure of them.  At the same time, without some sort of standard method on how to measure "what percentage of agreement in content is there", I'm not saying there's an easy solution either.

Joe

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] GNT Statistics Resource

 Joe:This is intended to be a simplification, but I think many conservative scholars are not only willing, but anxious, to state that there are variants "all over the place." That's what happens when you have over 400,000,000 hand-written words in the 5700 Greek manuscripts alone. Normal hand-copying mistakes are in the millions just within these 5700 writings. Many have stated there are '400,000 variants', but that number represents 'singular variants' only. The total number of all (repeating) variants would be in the millions. What I don't understand is I read a statistic in which there are about 65 percent of the verses in the GNT that are variant-free (I assume this is singular variants). If this is correct, then the 400,000 singular variants are located in about 35 percent of the verses, or in 2800 verses, or about 140 variants in these 2800 variants. One day all these GNT mss will be in a computer database and finally we can have a machine spit out the exact numbers. God only knows the numbers we will see then.Mitch LarramoreSugar Land, Texas--- On Tue, 4/14/09, Jovial wrote:From: Jovial Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] GNT Statistics ResourceTo: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. comDate: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 8:18 AM(((((((((((( ((((((((( ((((((((( (((((((((Luke 23.17, 60 variantsMatt 5.44 (2nd variant), 38 variants (in 1,488 mss)Rom 11.6, 28 variants (in 608 mss)1 Cor 2.4, 30 variants (in 620 mss)Gal 5.1, 58 variants (in 628 mss)I think I see now where the 300,000 to 500,000 variants come from. The average number of variants per verse is 50, times the roughly 8,000 verses. Voila.)))))))))))) ))))))))) ))))))))) )))))))))38 isolated , single variants in Mat 5:44 in 1,488 MSS would still be 97.5% agreement. IF we actually classified this as calculated percentage agreement/disagreem ent in content, ignoring non-translatable spelling variants, that metric would skyrocket. Not to say variants aren't signfiicant - none of us would be here if they weren't. I'm just trying to interject that this is not a full fledged measurement. We need to measure this in a balanced way. This sounds like it's being measured so as to drive the stats up as far as possible and spin the issue to make it look like variants run wild all over the place.Joe

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.