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

GNT Statistics Resource

Expand Messages
  • Mitch Larramore
    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
    • 0 Attachment
      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
    • Bart Ehrman
      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
      • 0 Attachment
            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

      • Jovial
        ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 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
        • 0 Attachment
          (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
          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
        • Mitch Larramore
          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
          • 0 Attachment
            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. Parker

            Article 11: Scribal Tendencies and the Mechanics of Book Production, D. C. Parker

            Mitch Larramore
            Sugar Land, Texas

            --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Bart Ehrman <behrman@...> wrote:

            From: Bart Ehrman <behrman@...>
            Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] GNT Statistics Resource
            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 7:32 AM

                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:textualcrit icism@yahoogroup s.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


          • Mitch Larramore
            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
            • 0 Attachment
              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 <jovial@...> wrote:

              From: Jovial <jovial@...>
              Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] GNT Statistics Resource
              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
              Date: 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


            • Jovial
              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
              • 0 Attachment
                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 Larramore
                Sugar Land, Texas

                --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Jovial <jovial@comcast. net> wrote:

                From: Jovial <jovial@comcast. net>
                Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] GNT Statistics Resource
                To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
                Date: 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


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