Mon Dec 4 17:53:24 1995

From majordom  Mon Dec  4 17:53:24 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA10205; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 17:53:24 +0500
Message-Id: <00000EED.sm@dts.edu>
Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR
Date: Mon,  4 Dec 95 13:18:15 CST
From: Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu (Mark O'Brien)
To: behrman@email.unc.edu (Bart Ehrman), TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Organization: Dallas Theological Seminary
X-Hologate: 1.1.7b2
Lines: 605
Content-Length: 823
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk


Original message sent on Fri, Dec 1  6:28 AM by behrman@email.unc.edu (Bart
Ehrman) :

> As the pay-off is not all that significant in the long run anyway, I'm 
> firmly of the opinion that we should continue using TR, simply
> for the sake of convenience and to avoid unneeded and unnecessary 
> delays in doing what needs to be done -- collecting all the textual 
> data at our disposal.

Dr. Ehrman,

I appreciated your comments.  However, I still have some questions
about doing quantitative analysis against the TR.  Dan Wallace argues
(and to some extent has shown in the classroom) that comparing MSS
against the TR can be misleading when classifying them.  I believe that
Tim Ralston also demonstrated this to be true in his work.  I'd be
interested in your opinion here.

Mark O'Brien
Dallas Theological Seminary

Back