> ... Alexandrinian scholarship ... Origen ... Coptic version(s) ...
> Alexandrinian texttype
Everything you write is correct. I agree with you.
It is certainly POSSIBLE that P75 et al. are the result of scholarly activity. But we have no evidence for that.
It is equally likely, and I personally find it more probable, that P75 is just a faithful copy of a very early ancestor, which was very close to the original. The only scholarly activity I can envision, is that perhaps the initiator of B/03 chose from the available copies a good one, like P75. But perhaps this was just happenstance.
The Coptic version(s) are of the Alexandrian texttype. Correct. But does that mean that every MS that belongs to the Alexandrian texttype is from Egypt?
A connected problem is this:
The Alexandrian texttype is the texttype closest to the original. Therefore any MS that is close to the original will be assigned "Alexandrian". But then, what does this help? Does that mean that we find MSS close to the original only in Egypt? Certainly not.
I wrote in my commentary: "Overall it appears to me that the concept of "texttypes" is disintegrating today. It is not really helpful. It does not really help in deciding textcritical matters nor is it helpful in explaining the history of the text. I think the labels like "Alexandrian" or "Caesarean" will remain, used as textcritical jargon, but texttypes as well defined entities will be difficult to sustain."
PS: I agree with Scott Charlesworth.
Regarding Metzger's 4th, one can note a certain "rush" in producing the new entries and Ehrman admitted this. But he has an open ear ...
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany