the pct threshold that was used in the Robinson-Pierpont Byantine text

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
https://m.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/7454530654633870/?

Colossians 1:14

Walter Cantrell - we had these discussions on the old TC-Alternate group, around 2012. The bottom line, the RP methodology included a threshold, which I believe was 70%, based on the information they were using. What a threshold means is that there was a certain pct where the variant was automatically accepted. If some variant had over 70% and did not make the text, then either I have the number wrong (80%) or the information they had at the time dipped below 70%.

It is true that they do not particularly like to express this methodology in public writings, but it was there, in writing.

Note that no distinction is made between alternate text variants and inclusion/omission variants, which in fact have very different dynamic elements.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hashed out in 2012
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bibleversiondiscussionboard/viewtopic.php?p=66241#google_vignette

And, after noting that they do not understand the inclusion/omission distinction, "vast majority" is the word for Jonathan for anything under the 30% threshold, the moment 30% is reached, then other evidences (at least internal,
apparently not ms or ECW) are considered. And the word "vast" would drop from his usage !

However, we know from experience that Jonathan is only capable of vapid paragraphs. He is paralyzed by the 70% threshold and simply can not have a dynamic discussion of Bible text evidences without his warped 70% crutch.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Interview with Maurice Robinson (Part 1) (2006)
David Alan Black
http://www.daveblackonline.com/interview_with_maurice_robinson1.htm

Our position as stated is to consider support greater than 70% among the Byzantine mss as reflecting the archetype of that Textform

(Hodges and Farstad in their “Majority Text” edition suggest 80%: but only when including mss from non-Byzantine witnesses, such as the Western or Caesarean mss).

Within our system, as the level of support drops from 70% down to 50%, external reliability steadily decreases. When the support ranges from 45%-55%, we consider the external data too closely divided, and non-determinative. At such points, the establishment of the Byzantine archetype requires a judicious application of various forms of internal evidence, as noted previously: intrinsic probability, transcriptional probability, transmissional probability, consideration of known scribal practices and proclivities, and the like. The primary reading suggested by each category carefully must be weighed in conjunction with all other categories; the best attested reading overall gaining the ascendancy. Where external testimony is closely divided, we place the alternatives in the side margin. As the division lessens from 50%-50% and approaches 70%-30%, alternate readings continue to be evaluated on the basis of internal evidence, but with a steadily increasing inclusion of external support as a determining factor. Our theory and method should not be described as “Byzantine eclecticism”: the primary establishment of the text remains externally based. Internal evidence becomes a confirming and balancing factor, but is not determinative, except where a variant unit externally is closely divided. This discussion is continued under the next question.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top