Maurice Robinson points out that the two statements from Daniel Wallace :

The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?
https://bible.org/.../majority-text-and-original-text-are...

(1) "the majority text .... The Textus Receptus differs from it in almost 2,000 places ... Many of these passages are theologically significant texts."

(2) "the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text in only about 6,500 places.... the majority text and modern critical texts are very much alike, in both quality and quantity"


could be the poster-child of Darrel Huff's ("How to Lie with Statistics") showing how to stack the deck.

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

In point of fact, for accuracy:

"It could be reworded to do exactly the opposite:"

"the majority text .... The Textus Receptus differs from it in only about almost 2,000 places ... the majority text and TR are very much alike, in both quality and quantity"

"the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text in almost 6,500 places.... Many of these passages are theologically significant texts."

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

And he question arises, why Wallace's readers don't see the sleight-of-hand involved in such deck-stacking.

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

3 paragraphs away, in the same paper!

Steven Avery