Subject: Oops! (Was: Re: Should we keep this up? ...)

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 08:14:53 -0700

On Mon, 5 May 1997, "Henry T. Carmichael" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>Gospels: If we omit D, and people are willing to live with my
>>samples, the "European" Latins (a, b, ff2) seem to agree about
>>70-80% of the time. (By comparison, they agree with D about
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^          
>>60-65% of the time, and with D about 35% of the time. They agree
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^
>>with k about 55% of the time.)
>
>There must be a typographical error here. Could you please let 
>us know what you wished to write?  Thanks.

Sorry. This is what I get for typing too fast. The corrected
paragraph should read

Gospels: If we omit D, and people are willing to live with my samples,
the "European" Latins (a, b, ff2) seem to agree about 70-80% of the
time. (By comparison, they agree with D about 60-65% of the time,
and with B about 35% of the time. They agree with k about 55% of the
        ^^^
time.)

>
>On the question, "Should we keep this up?" -
>
>I'm not a TC scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but my 
>Undergraduate training was in Chemistry.  So my background 
>enables me to appreciate and applaud your efforts to apply the 
>principles of statistical rigor to the analysis of textual 
>variants.  I vote (for whatever it's worth) for continuation.

Obviously the thread continues... but I think it's taken a more
productive direction. My shouting match with Hurtado wasn't
going anywhere....

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

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