Subject: Re: More on 2427, family resemblances

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:28:07 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> >but Geerlings thought K was just a sibling or cousin of Pi.
> 
> My inclination -- which I freely admit is based on inadequate research --
> is to consider them cousins.

Same here.

> This still, it seems to me, leaves us with the original question.
> Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that 2427 had been copied from
> a manuscript (call it X) that was copied from B. But suppose that X
> had been deliberately but sporadically corrected from another manuscript
> along the lines of, say, C (e.g. it's largely Alexandrian, but from a
> subtype that differs from B and that has a large Byzantine infusion).
> Is 2427 then a copy of B? A descendent of B? A relative of B?

I probably am most radical on this point, but I would consider that, even
if 2427 were copied directly from B, as soon as corrections, alterations
or whatever were incorporated into the text from either correction marks
in the exemplars, consultation with another exemplar, or independent
scribal alteration, the copy automatically becomes a "cousin" (1st, 2nd,
3rd, or greater depending upon the amount of difference from the
exemplar).  Only if the _only_ differences between the exemplar and the
copy were the introduction of nonsense errors or correction of the same
from the exemplar would I consider it a parent-child relationship.

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:43:46 -0700

On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]> wrote,

>On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

[ ... ]

>from the exemplar would I consider it a parent-child relationship.

For what it's worth, I agree with this statement. Parent/Child means
parent/child -- no mixture! I was just trying to bring home this
point in connection with the discussion of 2427 in relation to B.
By this definition, 2427 is *not* a child of B; some other element
has been mixed in.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]