Mon Dec 4 19:22:20 1995

From majordom  Mon Dec  4 19:22:20 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA10414; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 19:22:20 +0500
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 19:19:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Bart Ehrman 
X-Sender: behrman@login0.isis.unc.edu
To: "Mark O'Brien" 
Cc: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR
In-Reply-To: <00000EED.sm@dts.edu>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 2011
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk

Mark,

   Certainly if one compares MSS *only* in places of variation from the
TR, the quantitative analysis will be skewed.  This was clearly shown by
Colwell and repeatedly by Fee and others.  THe problem with this approach
(typical of dissertations done in the 50s, e.g.) is that it fails to
assess the quantifiable agreements of MSS in places where they do *not*
differ from TR.  I hope, though, that Dan Wallace wasn't suggesting (in
fact, I'm sure he wasn't, since he knows all the literature on this) that
merely choosing the TR as the collation base could effect the quantitative
analysis.  In fact, the collation base is completely immaterial, so long
as one considers both agreements and disagreements of all mss with it in
readings that are judged to be genetically significant. 

   I have a reasonably full history of research on this question that I 
spun off my dissertation in the mid 80's, "Methodological Developments in 
the Analysis and Classificatin of NT Documentary Evidence," _Novum 
Testamentum_ 29 (1987) 22-45.

    Hope this is what you wanted to know.

-- Bart D. Ehrman


On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Mark O'Brien wrote:

> 
> 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