On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Matthew Johnson <mejohnsn@...
> wrote, in part:
[I'm going to ignore the question of the relationship between D and d,
even though it seems obvious to me that the two are closely related --
perhaps not translated from each other, but clearly assimilated --
to get to the question I know more about.]
>PS: Is anybody on this list working on a similarly detailed work on
What are you hoping for? We obviously can't compare its Greek and
Latin sides. :-)
But are you interested in a study of 1739, or of 1739 and its relatives?
Birdsall's dissertation was a fairly comprehensive look at 1739, 0121,
6, 424**, and 1908 in Paul. You should also study Zuntz on 1739.
Gamble had something to say about it in Romans, but I don't agree
with his conclusions (he completely ignored the relatives of 1739,
which to my mind invalidates his conclusions).
French scholars (Duplacy, Amphoux) have done extensive work on the
Catholic Epistles, including studying Family 1739.
The groups who are working on the text of Acts have also reached
some conclusions, but I don't know what they are except that they
have established the existence of a Family 1739 there also.
Finally, I have been working on 1739, off and on, for about five
years now. At the moment I amlooking at 1739's closest relatives in
Paul (0243 and 1881, neither of which was known to Birdsall).
It will be a while before I get all this material into shape, but
you can see an outline of the information at my web site (URL
below). I won't claim it's all you'll want, but it's what I could
put together in a few hours. Look in the section on the minuscules,
then go to the entry on 1739 and family 1739.
Robert B. Waltz
Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)