Subject: Majority mss

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 20:47:55 -0600 (CST)

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?

--
Prof. Ron Minton: [email-masked]   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 23:53:50 -0500 (EST)

> 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I have an unpublished paper ("How Many MSS are Necessary to Establish the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.

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).

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.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:40:36 -0700

>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.

>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.)

>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
                         [email-masked]

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)