Luke 17:9(-10)

Luke 17:9(-10)

(W) OU...(W) OU... (homoioarcton)

μη χαριν εχει τω δουλω εκεινω
οτι εποιησεν τα διαταχθεντα (αυτω)
ου δοκω ουτως και υμεις οταν ποιησητε
παντα τα διαταχθεντα υμιν
λεγετε οτι δουλοι αχρειοι εσμεν οτι
ο ωφειλομεν ποιησαι πεποιηκαμεν
 

"Does the servant have thanks for this,
that he did the things commanded (of him)?
I think not! So also you, when you do all
that has been commanded to you, confess,
'Profitless servants we are, since we have
merely done what we ought to have done.'. "

---

INCLUDE LINE:
A, K, W, Δ Θ Π ψ, 063 28 565 700 892 1009 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 (2174) Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS), Lect., it^c/s, Sy-H,Goth, Antiochius, etc.
(+autw) - D, f13, l⁵⁴⁷, it^{(aur/b/d/f/ff2/i/l/q/r1)}, vg, Sy-P,Geo² Diatess.

OMIT LINE:
P75 (200 CE), א , B, L, f1, 1010 1241 it^(e), Syr-Pal, (arm), geo¹, (+autw) X (comm.), it^a, Syr-C/S, Cop-Sah/Boh, AEth, Cyprian

---

Its easy to see that what began as a simple homoioarcton omission, gained currency as an attractive reading. (There are actually 3 letters in a row forming the trap in the Traditional text).

Possibly opponents were targeting embarrassing phrases from the Gospels as early as the 2nd century. One can picture the quip: "Your Jesus himself confesses, 'I think not! '. Therefore he is no thinker!" etc.

Once an omission like this occurs, the inherent difficulty in the original reading strongly interferes with its restoration. The ellipsis is simply too convenient. Naturally when the initial variant fell into the hands of Alexandrian editors and correctors, the textual variants bloated as others adopted the 'lucky' omission for expediency, i.e., defensive/apologetic purposes.

Sadly, once again the critical Greek Text editors (WH, Nestle, UBS) adopt the Aleph/B reading without question, seeking the holy grail of an ancient (error ridden) ancestor. The REAL variant among the majority of manuscripts, namely the (autw) in the previous line, is not found in the textual apparatus, - we suspect because it is not sufficiently 'interesting'.

We suspect the translators of 'modern' versions however, have actually adopted this omission for expediency, not accuracy, like their ancient Alexandrian counterparts.