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

Re: [textualcriticism] GNT Statistics Resource

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Apr 14 4:15 PM
    • 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.
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:46 AM
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] GNT Statistics Resource


      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.
      )))))))))))) ))))))))) ))))))))) )))))))))

      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.


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