Wed Aug 21 19:49:23 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Aug 21 19:49:23 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id TAA28033; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 19:47:49 -0400
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <00002958.sm@dts.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 18:41:31 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Colwell's 70%
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1535

On Wed, 21 Aug 96, Mark_OBrien@dts.edu (Mark OBrien) wrote:

>I see this figure quoted a lot in comments regarding quantitative
>analysis, but
>I'm curious to know why 70% is "the magic number".  Surely this percentage is
>going to vary (to some extent) according to the number of manuscripts being
>compared?  I don't recall whether Colwell had a minimum number of MSS in mind
>for applying this "rule", but perhaps someone can set me straight on this
>issue
>(I'm sure!)...

We had an extensive discussion on this topic some months back, starting
from the question "What is a text-type." The discussion revealed that
a *lot* of us don't like that criterion. Someone (I think it was
Ulrich Schmid) even speculated that Colwell came up with that number
to make sure that the Alexandrian text really did qualify as a text-type.

Remember, the 70% is not a measure of the number of manuscripts that
agree, but of the *rate* at which two manuscripts agree. Still, your
point is absolutely sound: The percentage of agreement between manuscripts
is dependent on the sample of readings studied.

Frankly, I consider the Colwell criterion to be all but worthless.
The relationship between manuscripts should not be pursued based
on their *percentage* of agreement (unless one is seeking sister
manuscripts). After all, *all* manuscripts actually agree on about
95% of the text. Rather, one needs to look at the *nature* of the
agreements.

My humble opinion, of course. Not that I'll brook any argument. :-)

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back