More homoeoteleuton from OOG...

In a recent post on one of the forums, a poster named "OOG" left us a message as follows:

"Now to add to Nazaroo's list of possible Homoeoteleuton in Aleph/B

 {The Synoptic Gospels}
 
  Matt. 10:23, 10:37, 12:15, 14:30, 18:29, 19:9, 23:35, 28:2,3,

  Mark 1:40, 4:24, 7:4

  Luke 2:15*, 6:1, 10:32, 12:14*, 16:16, 16:21, 17:35, 19:38, 22:64, 24:31, 24:52, 24:53 

* more than one HT

Also a couple of corrections might improve the list : Luke 8:48 HA not HT,    Luke 23:17 HA  not HT,
John 11:41 (...vou,...vos)

Thank you Nazaroo for sharing this list, you have greatly increased my list of HT and HA. I hope the couple dozen extra I added (from the synoptic gospels) benefit you and everyone for that matter.

?Questions? for Nazaroo: Help me out with Matt 20:22(23?), John 3:13, 6:22, 8:59-9:1, Acts 20:15, 26:29-31 (28:29?)  For one reason or another I cannot put my finger on these."

First a couple of comments on the new list:

(1)  I don't see how John 11:41 is actually h.t. in the way suggested by OOG.  It is possible, but requires also the scribe to have skipped the first "vou" before making the h.t. in his reconstruction.  This seems less likely than the one we suggested already (normal h.t.) here: John 11:41 h.t.

(2)  Luke 23:17 is not an 'either/or' situation, but rather both h.a. and h.t. But we list it as h.t. because that is the more probable cause for the line-skip of the two, with the h.a. contributing secondarily as an aggravating factor. 


(3)  Luke 8:48 doesn't really appear to be h.a.  That is, it is likely that even though we would read it differently, the mechanics of the eye-skip suggest the "theta" was the cause.  Its a short skip, and probably caused by letter-copying rather than syllable copying.  See here:   Luke 8:48

We have already followed OOG's lead in examining Matt. 10:23 (previous post) and will soon look at the others.   In the meantime we post his list here, so that others can independently look at them.

peace
Nazaroo