Fri Nov 1 08:41:17 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Nov  1 08:41:17 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id IAA08483; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:39:51 -0500
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:35:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: More on 2427
In-Reply-To: <961031093907_1947357730@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1116



On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 WFWarren@aol.com wrote:

> Wouldn't a logical extension of this logic be to consider B a copy of P75
> based on like percentages?  

The P75/B connection has been heavily analyzed, particularly by Carlo M.
Martini in his monograph in Italian, and the conclusion appears to be
that both B and P75 have a common ancestor, but that B is not a direct
copy of P75.  It is of course possible that 2427 and B might have a (lost)
common ancestor, but given the date of 2427 in relation to B, it seems
more likely in that case that 2427 is either a copy of B, with corrections
being made in the process, or that the exemplar of 2427 was copied from B,
with corrections then added in from a non-B type of MS.

Does anyone have the percentage of agreement between B and P75, from
Martini or other sources?


_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back