Thu Feb 6 09:38:56 1997

From owner-tc-list  Thu Feb  6 09:38:56 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA07144; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:38:55 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
 
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:40:36 -0700
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Majority mss
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3809

On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Maurice Robinson  wrote:

>On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:
>
>> I was cruising the textual criticism web sites today, and 
>> I came up with a question that I had been asked last year.  How many 
>> manuscripts can we say for certain are represented by the 
>> Robinson-Pierpont and the Hodges-Farstad texts?
>
>Based upon the data cited by Von Soden regarding his "K" MSS (and
>eliminating the MSS cited only cursorily) as well as comparing such with
>the Nestle-Aland "M" data cited in the appendix to the 26th or 27th
>edition, one could say that a solid "K" or "M" reading generally would
>reflect a consensus of around 500 or so MSS -- quite sufficient
>statistically for establishing the dominant Byzantine Textform in most
>instances. 
>
>I have an unpublished paper ("How Many MSS are Necessary to Establish the
>'Majority Text'?") which was distributed by the Majority Text Society some
>years back, in which I demonstrated that by using the consensus reading of
>only 13 MSS randomly selected in a sample chapter one would approach
>either the Von Soden "K" or the Nestle-Aland "M" with approximately 96%
>certainty, and that every MS added to such a pool would increase the
>percentage of agreement in moving towards the desired goal.

While I don't consider this to be proved mathematically, I believe
Robinson is right. A dozen or so properly selected manuscripts
could represent the range of the Byzantine text so well that no
more would be needed in the vast majority of cases.

>Statistically I suspect that any random sampling of 100 MSS or more would
>suffice to produce a strongly Byzantine consensus text which would
>probably approach "K" or "M" with 98% or more certainty. If approximately
>500 MSS were used as the base (i.e., following the data of Von Soden and
>Nestle-Aland), I suppose 99%+ certainty should be expected in establishing
>beyond doubt nearly all of the primary readings of the Byzantine Textform
>(math and statistics majors out there might help me out on that aspect;
>someone did send me some statistical data on this point after my article
>was distributed, but I confess an inability to comprehend chi-square and
>such other niceties which lie outside of my own area of specialization).

Again, based on my work, I generally agree. In fact, I think an edition
based on fifty well-selected manuscripts would be sufficient (because
of the uniform nature of the Byzantine text).

This does not, of course, mean that anyone has ever prepared an edition
on such a basis. Also, care needs to be taken to get manuscripts from
all Byzantine subgroups (Kx, Kr, faly Pi, M, etc.)

>I should also note that at least in the case of the Robinson-Pierpont
>edition the _Text und Textwert_ series as well as IGNTP/Luke and the
>earlier IGNTP/Legg were also consulted.  Of these, _Text und Textwert_ of
>course provides *all* the continuous-text Greek MS data for the variant
>cited, usually averaging around 500-600 MSS in the portions of Acts, Paul,
>and the General Epistles so far published.

Just a note: This is not *quite* true. There are a few, generally minor,
manuscripts omitted from T&T. I observe, for instance, that the collations
for Paul omit 1799 and 1960 (even though collations of both have been
published!). I suppose 1799 may have been omitted because it appears
to have been derived from a lectionary text, but I have no idea why
1960 was omitted.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

Back