Thu Oct 31 10:37:10 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Oct 31 10:37:10 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA29420; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:35:37 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
 
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:31:26 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: More on 2427
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1987

On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson  wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>
>> 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%
>
>>    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%.
>
>The percentage of agreement here seems to indicate that 2427 is more
>likely a copy of B, with some alterations made to correct error and also
>to include some non-B readings (the long ending of Mark being a case in
>point).
>
>I am not certain that one can strongly claim that this MS was not itself
>actually copied from B as a primary exemplar, though utilizing readings
>from other exemplars in the process -- or at least the non-existent parent
>of 2427 might have been copied from B, then corrected from a non-B type of
>MS and then used as the exemplar of 2427.  However, I tend to reject the
>latter possibility because it forces an extra step into the process which
>is unsupported by extant evidence.

This brings up an interesting philosophical point. I said that 2427 was
*not* a copy of B, because it differs in dozens of places from Vaticanus --
and relatively few of these differences are in the direction of the
Byzantine text-type. They look more like they came from another Alexandrian
witness.

This brings up a serious question: How much change can a manuscript
tradition undergo and still be considered direct descent? For example,
I've seen people who consider F G of Paul to be direct descendents of
D -- which is simply ludicrous. I'd just like to know how others feel.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back