Subject: More on 2427

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 13:01:37 -0700

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
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 21:19:06 -0500 (EST)

>    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. 

I would not consider it a forgery or an unauthentic MS, since after all,
the Kurzgefasste List even includes at least one MS as legitimate which
was hand copied in the 19th century! 

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:31:26 -0700

>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
[email-masked]