Subject: tc-list Concluding Comments to J.R. Adair

From: Charles Landon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:23:18 -0700 (PDT)

From: Charles Landon
To: TC-list members

As an English person mainly self-taught where textual criticism is
concerned, the way I thought about writing the book on Jude was
different to continental ways of thinking. We sometimes like to do
research empirically, rather than being guided at the outset by an
overarching theory. By contrast, French and German researchers are
normally immersed in the elements of a preselected theoretical base,
thereafter pursuing research in a strictly controlled direction. In my
preface, it is stated that the book is experimental, so even now it
does not bother me that I did not work according to a fixed
text-historical theory. If there is a guiding history behind the book,
it is the history of the language. And if there is a guiding classical
influence behind the book, it is not Dr Michael Holmes's authority
Paul Maas, but A.E. Housman.

There are one or two fatuities of expression in the book which it was
generous of Adair not to mention, e.g. at unit 3.1 the incitement to
alteration is not the parallel at Acts 25.17 but poioumenos. As to the
future: I enjoy experimenting, and will not stop doing it. I thank
Adair for his balanced and unpolemical reviewing technique, and for
the opportunity of contributing this response to his excellent
electronic journal. I thank Dr D.C. Parker for his review in JTS,
which I shall read soon.

Charles Landon

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:09:00 -0400 (EDT)

Are there any informed guesses out there about how many variants there
are in the NT textual tradition (counting seven different ways of spelling
the same word as seven variants)? 

-- Bart Ehrman
   University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

---

From: "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:36:00 -0400

Not a clue--but it would be enoumous (think of all the MSS and MSS of
versions which have NOT yet been collated;  think of all the patristic
citations in all the fathers which have not yet been examined....).  If you
count each difference in spelling, etc. (as you specify), my UNinformed
guess would be in the millions.

--Petersen, Penn State University.

---

From: "Richard H. Anderson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:28:29 -0400

> the same word as seven variants)?
Bart Ehrman, greetings:

	I thought it was you who wrote that there were more variants than there
were words in the NT!

Richard H. Anderson

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:18:00 -0400 (EDT)

Yup, I did.  Just thought I'd try to narrow it down a bit.  :-)

   With regard to Bill Petersen's comment, I'd probably agree, if we
counted ever different way every Father quoted every verse; what I have in
mind though are variants that made their way into the manuscript tradition
(including those variants that were at one time in MSS but are now
attested only in Fathers -- but as opposed, e.g., to variants generated by
allusive or loose citation habits of the Fathers themselves)

-- Bart Ehrman

---

From: "DC PARKER" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:24:18 GMT

A way of finding out would be to take a few samples of the largest 
apparatus.  For example, count the number of v.ll. in ten verses of a 
chapter in Luke from the IGNTP that was used for profiling MSS.  If 
you had access to the original files, you could then find out the 
average number of v.ll. for a minuscule witness excluded under 
profiling, and multiply it by the number of witnesses not included, 
reducing it by a factor taking into account the degree of shared 
readings that you had observed between them.

That might give you a figure for the Gospels once you'd multiplied 
your figure to the total number of verses in the Gospels.  Then you 
could use a sample of the ECM James to get a figure for the Catholic 
epistles.  You could use Hoskier for Revelation, etc...  Or maybe 
Text under Textwert would be the easiest way.

This is an immediate response with none of the details worked out.  
But it seems to me possible to attempt to find a provisional 
total based on the available evidence.  But you'd need to want to 
find out awfully badly to do it!  

David Parker

DR DC PARKER
READER IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND PALAEOGRAPHY
DEPT OF THEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
TEL. 0121-414 3613
FAX  0121-414 6866
E-MAIL [email-masked]

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 23:03:57 -0500 (CDT)

There are a total of 15,300 different variants noted in UBS3&4, MT1&2,
and NA26&27.  This is approximately two per verse.  Therefore it seems
that the number in all the 5,500 GNT mss. combined would likely be more
than 1,000,000.  Surely Dr. Waltz, a mathematician, could estimate the
average length of the mss., diversity, and etc. to give a closer estimate.

Prof Ron Minton

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 06:58:37 -0400 (EDT)

Thanks for this interesting feedback.  I missed a step someplace though
How did you get from 15,300 in the apparatus to the guestimate of over a
million overall?  (I.e., what were you multiplying?) (The problem, of
course, is that at some point there's something like diminishing returns:
the more mss you collate the fewer *new* variants you tend to find; and a
whole lot of the later MSS have scarcely *anything* new to add.)

   Of these variants you've noted, btw, how many are found in UBS3&4 and
MT1&2 and NA26 that are *not* found in NA27?  (If it's a pain to
calculate, don't bother; I'm just curious)

-- Bart Ehrman

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:39:10 +000

I have no idea of how to approach any guestimate of numbers of variants, but I 
would caution that the numbers will vary widely from NT writing to writing.  E.g., 
variation in Mark is likely much greater than in the other Synoptics.

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:37:40 -0500

>average length of the mss., diversity, and etc. to give a closer estimate.

First, the official disclaimer (I should put this in my sig :-). I don't
have a doctorate. Nor will I ever earn one; I can't concentrate on one
thing that long. :-) I have a bachelor's in mathematics. And even that
was a double major, with physics. So I'm a rather low-grade mathematician;
we may have better ones on this list.

But, as Dr. Ehrman pointed out, the information from NA27, etc. is not
really adequate as a basis for extrapolation, especially on the
basis Ehrman asked for (all variants, including spelling). NA doesn't
collate *anything*.

There is another interesting point, having to do with the nature of
variants in the manuscripts themselves. We say that a non-Byzantine
manuscript such as 1739 has more variants from the TR than a typical
Byzantine manuscript. This is *not necessarily true*. 1739 has more
*substantial* variants by far. But if the Lake collation is accurate,
its orthography is fairly close to the Textus Receptus, meaning
that it has fewer small variants than some poorly-written
Byzantine manuscripts.

Hurtado points out, correctly, that some books (e.g. Mark) have
more variations than others (Paul). And of course there are more
manuscripts of the gospels than of the Acts and Epistles, and the
number of manuscripts of the Apocalypse is smaller still.

Thus to estimate the actual number of variants, we need to know,
first, the number and extent of the manuscripts (known, roughly); second,
the extent to which they are Byzantine (the T&T data probably tells
us what we need to know here); third, what fraction of manuscripts
are carefully written (I've seen no data on this), and fourth,
the rate of variants in at least a sample of manuscripts. Plus
whatever factors I've forgotten.

I would maintain that, unless someone knows more than I do, the
number cannot even be closely. Given the number of manuscripts
and the number of minor variants in the collations I've seen,
I'd strongly suspect the number to be in the millions. But whether
it's two million or ten million I cannot properly guess.

Sorry, folks. If someone can give me more data, I'll try to do
better.

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

                        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)

---

From: "Glen Thompson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:55:43 -0600

The question of how many variants is indeed a loaded one, i.e. one 
loaded with ambiguities.  But here are some samples, comparing the 
number of variants (in relation to the TR used by the IGNTP as a base 
text) in John's gospel:

	G-A 785 has about 200
	G-A 584 has about 230
	G-A 1073 has about 275
	G-A 828 has about 1200

This includes nu-movables but not adscripts/subscripts or 
abbreviations or nomina sacra, etc.  If these same mss. were compared 
to the current N-A text or one of the great uncials, the number of 
variations would be quite different (substantially greater in most 
cases).  

So good luck with estimating total numbers of variations!

Glen L. Thompson
Martin Luther College

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:07:55 -0500 (CDT)

> whole lot of the later MSS have scarcely *anything* new to add.)

Speculating,
I would guess that the 5,500 mss average 50 pages each.  (Perhaps this can
be corrected by someone.)  If 5,500 mss average 50 sheets, = 250,000+
pages.  If each page has 5 variations from another mss, that = 1,000,000+
 
> calculate, don't bother; I'm just curious)

I plead the pain theory  :)
MT has 8,615.  UBS has 1,416 (as I recall).  NA27 must have approximately 
15,000.  I think all three have variants the other two do not list.  I
know the MT has a few not in NA27.  The NA has c. 6,700 not in the MT.

A total of 15,291 are listed for Aleph.
A total of 13,294 are listed for Vaticanus.
A total of 13,441 are listed for Alexandrinus.
A total of 2,305 are listed for P46.
A total of 2,945 are listed for P75.

Prof Ron Minton

---

From: "Perry L. Stepp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:46:11 -0400

I missed a bit of crucial information in this discussion--what is "MT1&2"?
Is this a reference to some edition of the Majority Text?

PLStepp

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 18:23:36 -0500 (CDT)

> Is this a reference to some edition of the Majority Text?

Yes, Majority Text (Hodges and Farstad) 1st and 2nd editions, pub by by
Nelson.