Codex Bezae - Luke 22:19b-20 - Massive Eye-Skip

One of the most remarkable things about the Lukan Omissions found in the last chapters is that they are all multiples of 22 letters, suggesting the original master-copy from which the error-prone text was made had a layout of 22 characters per line (cpl).

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton returns here

Already some 4 of these omissions have been noted in the literature as probable homoeoteleuton errors (Luke 4:5, 9:55-6, 11:54, 24:42) , and so the remaining 3 cases look strongly like similarly simple Eye-Skips by the very same scribe who generated the others.  This now lost copy, forming one of the common ancestors for Bezae (and perhaps some early Syriac and OL copies), seems to have been responsible for a number of errors which crept into the copying streams at various points.

Luke  22:19b-20

152 letters:        22 cpl

το υπερ υμων διδομενον του- το ποιειτε εις την εμην ανα- μνησιν ωσαυτως και το ποτη- ριον μετα το δειπνησαι λεγ- ων τουτο το ποτηριον η και- νη διαθηκη εν τω αιματι μου το υπερ υμων εκχυνομενον

Hort [[DB]] /    SBL [SB]

mr.scrivener

Codex Bezae - Matt 23:34 h.t. blunder

Here is another rather transparent h.t. omission, either by the scribe of D or an ancestor:

Click to Enlarge

This could be a double-line at about 22 characters per line in the master-copy, or a single line skip at 42-44 cpl.  This area of text appears especially prone to h.t. errors, and does not disappoint.

Codex D:

Codex D: Matt 23:34  -  Click to Enlarge

Matthew 10:37 - Codex B/D: Early h.t. Vanishes from UBS4!

This is a remarkable reading, not because it has any credibility as a reading (it is an obvious homoeoteleuton error, acknowledged by most critics and editors), but because of its strange history in the UBS text.

Here is the omission in Codex Vaticanus with its marginal correction:

Click to Enlarge: backbutton to return

It was duly and seriously noted in the apparatus of the UBS2 (1968, = NA26 etc.) and is indeed an important reading, because it appears to be a clear case of a previous error by a very early scribe, copied in independent lines to both Codex Vaticanus (B, and corrected in the margin there), and Codex Bezae (D).   That is, this was probably not committed coincidentally by both scribes, but by an ancient common ancestor, and duly copied (or cross-pollenated long before the 4th century).  Matt. 10:36-38:

  ..................... ..και εχθροι τ-

ου ανθρωπου οι οικιακοι αυτ-

ου ο φιλων πατερα η μητερα 

υπερ εμε ουκ εστιν μου αξιος 
και ο φιλων υιον η θυγατερα

υπερ εμε ουκ εστιν μου αξιος
και ος ου λαμβανει τον σταυ

ρον αυτου και ακολουθει οπ

ισω μου ουκ εστιν μου αξιος

 The similar ending extends to 1 1/2 lines, even at 23 characters per line.  This is an old error, from the 2nd or early 3rd century when papyrus copies of individual gospels carried only one or two columns per page.

The Master-Copy may have looked something like this:

Click to Enlarge

The UBS4 Fiasco:

But why did UBS4 (4th ed.  1993) remove it from the apparatus?    Surely not because it would damage the reputation of either Codex Vaticanus (B) or Codex Bezae.  Bezae is already well-known as a quirky and often unreliable text.   And if this is an error from a previous common ancestor, it cannot harm the reputation of the careful and skillful copyists of Vaticanus.

The answer is in the word "error".    Why?  Because it is a clear example of the careful copying of an ancient error by Codex Vaticanus.  An error of homoeoteleuton.  And it brings ALL such possible errors into sharp focus, especially those Variation Units where Vaticanus shares the omission with Codex Sinaiticus (א).

Because at least 75 of these probable h.t. errors, supported by (א/B) have been adopted as if they were original readings by the Hortian editors of the UBS text.

A large number of these readings are supported by earlier (2nd-3rd cent.) papyri, such as P66 and P75.  This was taken to mean the readings were original.  But the evidence can be more easily taken as proof of the obvious:  That most of these early h.t. errors do indeed go back to the 2nd century, but this fact merely reflects the poor state of the text and copying practice in that era, and not the purity of the 'Alexandrian' transmission stream behind (א/B).

So why delete from the apparatus this obviously significant h.t. error?  Because it, along with many other embarrassing cases, detracts from the reputation of the Alexandrian text-type, and the wisdom of following it.

peace
Nazaroo

Codex Bezae - semi-singulars in Luke 24

These minority readings seem to be a perennial favorite among modern critics who prefer the world's shortest text, because they have garnered some support from the Old Latin manuscripts.  This support is rather suspect however, in the first place because the Latin was a translation from Greek, and so rather dependent upon the quality of early Greek MSS, and also secondary as a translation.   This extends further when we note (as it isn't very often in the apparatus) that the Old Latin MS "δ" is simply the Latin side of the very same manuscript "D" (Codex Bezae 5th cent.), i.e., it is really only a single witness, since the Greek and Latin have been consciously cross-harmonized to agree with each other.  Thus the citation, It-d  is still D. 

The original F.H.A. Scrivener describes the parallel Latin column in Bezae as follows:

"its own parallel Latin translation is too servilely accommodated to the Greek text to be regarded as an independent authority"  (Plain Introduction, vol.1,  p. 103)

That a few other Old Latin MSS have the same reading will not be surprising if Codex D was at one time used as a reference in the Latin West.

The three omissions of interest here are:

Luke 24:36, 24:40, and 24:51.

These have the unusual feature of the letter count being a multiple of 24-25 letters.  That is, the column-width of the master-copy from which the blunder was made was about 25 letters wide.

As it turns out, two out of three of these have homoeoteleuton features, and one appears to be a simple eye-skip (of which Codex Bezae sports many).

Click to enlarge: backbutton to return

The last example is particularly strong, with both homoeoteleuton and homoeoarcton features.

 Diagrams courtesy of Mr. Scrivener

peace
Nazaroo