Subject: Re: More on 2427

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:39:09 -0500

Maurice Robinson wrote:
"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 nonexistent 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." 

Wouldn't a logical extension of this logic be to consider B a copy of P75
based on like percentages?  Granted, the location of both B and 2427 probably
lends itself to a stronger possibility in this case, but the percentages
alone would seem insufficient for such a conclusion without closer scrutiny
of the nature of the differences.  

Could a list member inform us about the history of the Vatican's manuscript
copying practices: how Greek mss. were being copied at the Vatican, during
which time periods, for what purpose, etc.  Not having studied much (if any)
about the Vatican's manuscript copying practices (nor noticed publications
related to this), any help on this matter would be appreciated and might aid
in understanding the history of 2427 (as well as that of B during its time at
the Vatican library).   

Bill Warren
Professor of NT and Greek
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary