Wed Oct 30 13:07:31 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Oct 30 13:07:31 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA19834; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 13:06:13 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 13:01:37 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: More on 2427
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1877

To save time and repetition, let's give more details about 2427.

1. It contains Mark only.

2. It contains the longer ending of Mark.

3. Aland lists it as Category I -- the *only* Category I minuscule of
   the gospels, and the most recent Category I manuscript known. (For
   the record, I *strongly* disapprove of the Aland scheme. But in
   this instance it *is* an indication of how free of Byzantine
   influence the manuscript is.)

4. It is not a copy of B, and probably not a direct descendent. It is,
   however, the closest surviving relative of B in Mark -- at least
   among substantial manuscripts.
   For comparison, in a sample of 202 readings in Mark, 2427 has the
   following rates of agreement:
   B          89%
   L          72%
   Aleph      68%
   C          60%
   family 1   48%
   E          45%
   K          44%
   A          42%
   Theta      38%
   family 13  38%
   a          34%
   D          27%
   Other than 2427, the closest relative of B in Mark (based on this
   sample, which is all I can offer) is Psi (!) at 78%, followed by
   Aleph and L, both at 72%.

5. 2427 has been cited in all the recent "Aland editions" (NA27, UBS4,
   SQE13), with no sigf hesitation.

I also looked up the quotation casting doubts on it. It's from Sherman E.
Johnston's commentary on Mark (in the Harper's series) and runs as follows:

In recent years a unique MS., Cod. 2427, containing only the gospel of
Mark, has come to the attention of textual scholars. Since it obviously
belongs to the Alexandrian text, and even appears to represent it more
purely than do Vatican and Sinaiticus, as well as containing a few unique
readings, it is of great interest. Its authenticity, however, has not
been established.

The footnote cites three articles from the years 1945-1947, none of them
in journals that I have access to.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back