Thu Oct 31 19:37:47 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Oct 31 19:37:47 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id TAA05641; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 19:36:41 -0500
Message-ID: <32796F3D.3BB2@voicenet.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 19:32:13 -0800
From: "L. Mark Bruffey" 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01b1Gold (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: More on 2427
References: <199610311710.KAA02210@wave.sheridan.wy.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 601

Dave Washburn wrote:
> 
> Bob Waltz wrote:
> > 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.
> 

> methodological questions.  Hort developed his whole text-type system
> based on the principle "identity of error implies identity of
> origin," but I'm not sure that's a valid canon. 

Didn't Hort have to compromise on this axiom in practice anyway?

Mark

Back