106 Andrew Wilson 3. Does a reading produce a more stylistically difficult or easier text? If yes, it is either a stylistically easier or harder reading. 4. Any sensible singular reading that made no discernable difference to the sense or style of the text was classified as a neutral reading. It might be argued that this process is subjective, however, step 1 con- cerning nonsense is governed by clear definitions, step 3 concerning style is governed by clear guidelines derived from Metzger’s and Griesbach’s canons (as we shall explain later), and step 2 is based on which reading makes more logical sense in context. Logic, while occasionally difficult, is ultimately not a matter of subjective taste. While there are some hard and “line-ball” cases, the process is rigorous and produces consistent results42, as seen in the table below: Harder (%) Easier (%) Chapter Nonsense (%) Neutral (%) Total Sense Style Style Sense Matt 20 36(21) 14(8) 49(28) 59(34) 15(9) 0(0) 173 Mark 2 45(21) 20(9) 46(21) 86(40) 19(9) 0(0) 216 Luke 10 80(20) 42(11) 112(28) 135(34) 28(7) 0(0) 397 John 4 68(23) 24(8) 96(32) 88(29) 25(8) 0(0) 301 Acts 15 48(18) 25(9) 82(31) 79(30) 28(11) 2(0.8) 264 Rom 12 28(27) 13(12) 21(20) 34(33) 7(7) 1(1) 104 1 Cor 13 19(27) 9(13) 14(20) 24(34) 4(6) 0(0) 70 Gal 2 43(32) 23(17) 29(20) 29(22) 11(8) 0(0) 135 Jas 1 86(35) 32(13) 55(22) 54(22) 16(7) 3(1) 246 1 John 1 21(27) 11(14) 21(27) 17(22) 9(12) 0(0) 79 Rev 1 84(28) 31(11) 81(28) 70(24) 26(9) 2(0.7) 294 Total 558(24) 244(11) 606(27) 676(30) 188(8) 8 (0.4) 2279 By far the most significant result from the table above is that of easier sense readings, readings that removed difficulties or improved the text se- mantically. Only 8 readings out of over 2000 fell into this category (0.4%). 42 In the chapters studied the proportion of nonsense readings ranged from 20% (in the Gospels and Acts) increasing to 35% (in James 1). One factor that may perhaps explain this difference is that von Soden, Tischendorf and the IGNTP in Luke rarely ever reported nonsense readings (especially if later corrected). Only Swanson, the ECM and Hoskier in Revelation reported all nonsense readings. In the Gospels and Acts, Swanson was the main source of nonsense readings, but in these books Swanson only reports about half as many manuscripts as he does in Paul’s letters, resulting in lower numbers of nonsense readings. With the full reporting of all variants in more manuscripts in the Gospels and Acts, the percentage of nonsense readings would probably be closer to 30% of the total.