Luke: New probable h.t. errors

Several new possible homoeoteleuton errors have been found in the WH/UBS text in Luke's Gospel vs. the traditional text:

5:20 ...ειπεν αυτω ανθρωπε...
6:15  ...Ιακωβον τον του αλφαιου...
7:28  ...Ιωαννου του βαπτιστου ουδεις...
8:27  ...-σεν αυτω ανηρ τις...
10:27 ...εξ ολης της καρδιας...
10:32 ...λευιτης γενομενος κατα...
11:4  ...πειρασμον αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου και...
11:48  ...οικοδομειτε αυτων τα μνημεια δια...
13:2  ...αποκριθεις ο Ιησους ειπεν...  (probable Nomina Sacra blunder: EIS O IS)
16:21  ...απο των ψιχιων των...
17:9   ...ου δοκω ουτω...
19:5   ...ειδεν αυτον και ειπε
23:8   ...πολλα περι...
23:11 ...περιβαλων αυτον εσθητα...
23:35 ...αρχοντες συν αυτοις λεγοντες..
24:12  ...oθονια κειμενα μονα...
24:32  ...ην εν ημιν ως...
24:36a ...αυτος ο Ιησους εστη...(probable Nomina Sacra blunder)
24:36b ...αυτων και λεγει αυτοις ειρηνη υμιν πτοηθεντες...
24:46  ...γεγραπται και ουτως εδει παθειν τον ...

This brings the total for Luke up to about 30 probable h.t. errors in Aleph/B.

A few comments are in order:

The omission of αυτω/αυτον is so frequent (there are dozens), that omitting this reflexive pronoun may at least in some cases be a deliberate policy.

The two Nomina Sacra blunders are interesting for similar reasons.  The use of the Nomina Sacra obviously invites more errors in copying, and so we must suspect that again at least some of the common omissions of the names "Jesus", "Lord" etc. are not so much from an excising policy as from the copy offering too many opportunities for scribes prone to such errors.  The inconsistent use of the Nomina Sacra over the years also invites more opportunities for a mistake.


11:4 is a weaker example, however this is re-strengthened when we see that the omission is a typical line-length, as is 24:36b.  Also, generally speaking, tired copyists don't need any excuse at all to skip a line, and any similarity would assist in generating the error.  

Nazaroo