Codex W: h.t. singular list - from Sanders

Sanders (1912) the editor of the facsimile photos of Codex W, in his detailed account of the text gives a list of cases where he is certain that the reading is a result of homoeoteleuton (like endings) errors by the copyist of the manuscript itself (i.e., not copied from the exemplar).

"Omissions by carelessness or because of like endings, which can be definitely assigned to our scribe:

Matt.   4:21-22    [h.t./h.a. combo]
Matt.  15:18         [h.t. ]
Matt.  16:2-3
Mark   6:23
Mark   7:13
Mark  11:15
Luke    8:31
Luke  15:19
Luke  15:24
Luke  17:35   [h.t.]  (A most interesting case; the scribe himself corrected his mistake after writing 3 words)
John   5:11-12 (perhaps from a parent [h.t., replacement quire])
John   21:4.

The regular scribe is relatively free from such errors, if we consider the rapid style of his script and the length of the MS ... Only in the case of those characteristics which run through the MS without change can we assume our scribe responsible. Among these I venture to draw deductions only from those pronounced characteristics which are rare to non-existent in other Biblical MSS. In this class we may enumerate: tendency towards aspirated consonants, αλλα before all vowels, κα for και , and the decided tendency towards Attic or other old forms [of Greek]. The most of these find their nearest parallels in the early papyri and the oldest uncials of Egyptian origin, thus confirming the supposed Egyptian origin and suggesting an early date....

On the preceding page I have listed 12 cases of longer omissions by our scribe; 9 of these were due to like endings [homoeoteleuton] and 3 to like beginnings [homoeoarcton] of successive phrases.  We may assume that these omissions would more easily occur if the parallel parts stood at the beginnings or ends of neighboring lines, and thus may draw inferences as to the length of line in the parent MS. 

The 3 omissions in Matthew are respectively 214, 44, and 36 letters long, indicating a line of either 20 or 40 letters in the parent.  As W has about 30, it seems quite certain that the parent did not agree [in line length]. 

In Mark the 3 omissions are of 36, 30, and 14 letters each.  These lengths might be consistent with a line length similar to W, but seem to point to a line of about half the length. 

In Luke, the lengths of the 4 omissions are 17, 27, 22, 65 letters, which would seem to suggest the short line attributed to the parent of Matthew.  

In John there are 2 omissions of this type; one comes between the first and second quires and is 69 letters long; the other, at  Jn 21:4 is 49 letters long.  We are also assisted by a repetition 139 letters long, covering 5 lines in the repeated form and 5 lines and 8 letters in its first form.  If we may unite the evidence of these three, the parent MS would seem to have had a line from 23 to 25 letters in length, i.e., again a different length, and so indicating a different parent.

The average amount of text written on a 16-page quire of the MS is 10 and a half pages of the Oxford 1880 edition.   Yet the first quire of John has about eleven and a half pages, and the last two full quires of Luke (crowded writing noted above, p. 7) contain nearly 12 pages of text each.  It is easy enough to explain large quires toward the end of a gospel, if crowding would have saved an extra small quire, but such is not the case here, as Luke ends on a four-page quire.  This looks like a hint that the parent MS had larger quires.  The larger first quire of John suggests a similar guess for that gospel as well.  We shall find this though confirmed in our study of the text affiliations later." 

Of those listed by Sanders, we have already looked at a few analyzed by Schmid ("Reassessing the Palaeography..", see the links above in our list).  We will have a closer look at a few others as well shortly.

mr.scrivener