statistical illiteracy in scholarship - Daniel Wallace struggles with numbers

[Steven Avery]

Steve got some of the same line of questioning on the [textualcriticism] debate on yahoo groups.

My reply to Jovial is in the queue at TextualCriticism.

And will likely be mirrored, with some enhancements, such as the details of a sound measurement, over at TC-Alternate.

I can also mirror it over here, after the publication in the current discussion.

The basics remain simple. If you are going to use affinity numbers in a 2-text comparison, the divisor will be a number representing the quantity of the text, such as verses, words, letters.  In a full count of variants, words will likely be the standard measurement. 

A divisor representing the number of craters in the moon, or the number of Walmarts in the USA, or the number of variants in some count of all mss in the ms tradition, is an unrelated number.

And the results will be GIGO. As in the Daniel Wallace paper. The problem is that the false conclusions of that article are built upon the bogus statistics.

Steven

 

[FSSL]

Why not answer my question, here?
It is more direct and fitting.

We don't want a copy paste on this forum.

 

[Steven Avery]

Why not answer my question, here? It is more direct and fitting.

A question about "textual criticism approach" is discussed in 100 other threads on various forums, where I discuss the techniques used by the learned men of the Reformation era.

And has nothing to do with this thread.  Here, it is only your diversion from the Daniel Wallace statistical illiteracy, that has been used for 25 years in a bogus attack on both the Byz and TR texts.

On top of that, there is the curious matter of how the students, peers and scholars of Daniel Wallace would allow such a blunder to simply remain in public view. 

Darrell Huff does point out how there is a type of daze, and I would add a glaze, that occurs when people read numbers of that sort. They are assumed to be valid, and often left unexamined.

The bogus statistics and various related false claims (what Maurice Robinson calls "revisionist history") about the New Testament textual history have become the major argument of those who are hardened contras to the Received Text-AV and Byzantine Greek Bible traditions.  With special emphasis on Daniel Wallace and James White, who uses the Wallace errors, including the use of similarly specious graphs.

Thus, the iliteracy in statistics from Wallace is not simply a glancing matter, it is, by his design, now a fundamental part of the dialog about the search for the pure word of God.

Steven Avery 

 

[subllibrm]

A question about "textual criticism approach" is discussed in 100 other threads on various forums, where I discuss the techniques used by the learned men of the Reformation era.

Steven Avery 

I interacted with a fellow on Sharper Iron a few years ago who believed that the "learned men of the Reformation" were smarter than anyone living today. He also said that that was the highpoint of human reason and artistry and we have been on a downward slide ever since. His trump card was Bach. I told him that Adam was smarter.

Not saying that you believe such things but the way you wrote the phrase made me think of him. As I recall, his name was Steve too.

 

[FSSL]

It has everything to do with this thread and you have never answered the question when asked before.

Here we go again on the Avery merry go round of non answers

 

[FSSL]

A question about "textual criticism approach" is discussed in 100 other threads on various forums....

Steven Avery 

Since you would like to criticize Wallace for a statistic. ... perhaps you could link us to just 5 posts where you discuss the textual critical techniques of the KJV translators.

It shouldn't be difficult because you claim to have written 100s.

 

[Steven Avery]

Same FSSL diversion. Ho hum.

The textual analysis (textual criticism is an anachronism, and the principles involved today are different and false) was done by the learned men of the Reformation Bible, Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza. I have shared this here there, and everywhere, mostly Facebook the last years.

The learned men used an eclectic combination  of the fountainhead Greek mss, the Latin historic lines, the ECW, and faith-consistent textual principles ( a smidgen of versional, Syriac, as well).  The AV learned men built on that work for their Holy English Bible (their underlying GNT was almost identical to the later Geneva edition so there was little done to change the received text.)

Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

Same FSSL diversion. Ho hum.

You consider everything a "diversion" that either questions your factoids or somehow impedes your ability to monologue unchallenged. Ho hum. Instead of whining, why don't you answer his question?

 

[FSSL]

... faith-consistent textual principles ...

Accusing others of faulty statistics, and then saying you have 100s of posts on the subject of the KJV translators' textual principles. You cannot give us FIVE. Not even ONE.

Why not?? Not because of a so-calleed diversion on my part.  Nope. It is because no one knows these principles. They did not have a standardized textual critical technique that was uniquely faith-based.

You have not written 100s of posts on the KJV translators "faith-based" technique.

Why accuse the brethren of a faulty statistic (they admit may be high), while you blatantly use false numbers such as demonstrated TWICE above?

 

[Steven Avery]

A question about "textual criticism approach" is discussed in 100 other threads on various forums,

(Note what was actually written, instead of the typically worthless rewrite by FSSL. The learned translators of the AV already had the pure Reformation Bible Greek editions, including those of Stephanus and Bezae, so they did not have to do a great deal in the textual world.  They were not creating a new GNT, they only had to choose in some places, especially between Stephanus and Beza editions, which had a couple of hundred differences in the 8,000 verses.)
.
Often on Facebook, often on other forums, sometimes here:

"The Greek text received improvement by the Reformation Bible dynamic of utilizing the historic Latin lines, the ECW and faith-consistent textual analysis."
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/roman-catholics-hold-kjv-in-high-regard-claim-major-part-in-authorship/10/
.
The expertise worked with the preservation within the fountainhead Greek and the historic Latin lines, the Greek correcting the Latin, the Latin correcting the Greek. (e.g. the new Latin editions that were different than the Vulgate.) The heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37 placed within the Greek orthodox texts.

Learned men skilled in the languages, and the ECW, and with solid faith-consistent textual understandings.
The result: the Received Text which led to the pure Reformation Bible editions throughout the world. In English, Dutch, Finnish and dozens of languages, the Authorized Version being the apex of clarity and majesty and excellence.  Very simple, clear and true.

Often there would be more detail, such as discussing the fact that this was truly an eclectic approach.  Many specifics would be involving lectio brevior and lectio difficilior, which had close to zero and even negative weight in the superior Reformation Bible scholarship.  The issue of "manuscripts should be weighed and not counted" comes up in a number of threads, with the one-dimensional approach of the moderns disassembled.  (Often good material on these threads came from others, as well.)

Three public forums that have lots of material on such topics is TC-Alternate, TextualCriticism on Yahoogroups, and NT Textual Criticism on Facebooks.  Often the emphasis would be on hortian errors, but often there was a discussion of Reformation Bible techniques and theories, in comparison to alternate theories. 

Sometimes a comparison is made with the Burgon seven notes of truth.  In a number of posts with AV defenders, I challenged a common AV defense error in respect to the Reformation Bible sources and expertise, an error which places the Old Latin as their good source, and the Vulgate as the bad source.

The key point is that the approach used all the major evidences, while the CT is very heavily weighted to one corrupt manuscript. And the Greek Byzantine approach is mostly nose-counting of just the Greek mss. 

The approach of the Reformation Bible editors was truly eclectic, in the best sense of considering all the evidences, verse by verse.  In such a way, you might have cases where the ECW are especially important ( Acts 8:37, the heavenly witnesses.) Other cases where grammar could be a factor, as in 1 Timothy 3:16 and the heavenly witnesses. And many cases where the mass of Greek and Latin mss would tell most all the tale, as in the Pericope Adulterae and the Mark ending.  There would be wisdom combined with understanding and clarity.

The 100 threads is a modest estimation of how many times these issues have been discussed over the years, the last three years or so largely on Facebook forums.

====================

As for Daniel Wallace, and statistical illiteracy, that is now demonstrated.  It will be up to him if he will ever make correction.  That particular blunder was an apex of incompetency, because it did not just involve a dubious number or an inflated figure, it was based on a totally bogus methodology.  It is actually an indictment of the textual world that something that was so fundamentally bogus could be allowed to stand for years without the necessary clear refutation.

====================

>  They did not have a standardized textual critical technique that was uniquely faith-based.

Red herring. That was not the Reformation Bible claim. 

And it would also be totally false to claim any standardized, consistent TC technique is in use in modern days.  Much Metzger-style argumentation is little more than a special pleading attempt to support the a priori preference for the ultra-minority Vaticanus corruption against the Received Text.  The circular aspect of modern attempts has been exposed for a century and more, with many layers to the stinking TC onion.

Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

Hi Stevie! Kicked off CARM again, I see. Must be awful having to slum like this, eh?