Luke 24:32 - An h.t. Comedy from P75 and friends

P75- (Luke 24:31-50) Click to Enlarge

What...even the oldest papyri guilty of frequent homoeoteleuton?
Who knew?

                           ... και ειπον προς 

αλληλους ουχι η καρδια ημων και

ομενη ην εν ημιν ως ελαλει ημιν 

εν τη οδω και ως διηνοιγεν ημιν 

τας γραφας...

In hindsight, who would be surprised by the slew of h.t. errors that sprang up around this unfortunate world cluster in the Egyptian, the Old Latin, geo. etc.

Even UBS2 walks away from this minefield, and follows the Traditional text, which is supported as follows:
א (A K) L P W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 0196 f1 f13 28 33 565 700 892 1010(marg) 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 2148 2174 Byz (majority of MSS) Lect, it-f Syr-p/h/pal Cop-sa/bo Arm Eth Diat. Origen-gr/lat

P75 (late 2nd, early 3rd century) seems to have made the first small fumble,
although the Old Latin readings are impossible to date at this point:

                           ... και ειπον προς 

αλληλους ουχι η καρδια ημων και

ομενη ην εν ημιν ως ελαλει ημιν 

εν τη οδω  και  ως διηνοιγεν ημιν 

τας γραφας...

The short burst of text in the master, "ΗΗΝ ΕΝ ΗΜΙΝ"
was an easy double-take, and "εν ημιν" vanished quietly.
As expected, Codex B follows the transmitted Alexandrian line faithfully.
Codex D (and its bilingual opposing page, it-d) also perpetuates this ancient error.  Origen witnesses to it, and the later georgian translation copies it.

it-aur & the Latin Vulgate (Jerome 394 A.D.) seem to have consciously deleted the second ημιν apparently in an attempt to fix a longstanding variant.

Finally, the Old Latin (?) MSS it-a/b/ff2/l/r1 delete ως ελαλει ημιν in a second independent h.t. blunder:

                             ... και ειπον προς 

αλληλους ουχι η  καρδια ημων  και

ομενη ην εν ημιν ως ελαλει ημιν 

εν  τη οδω  και  ως  διηνοιγεν ημιν 

τας γραφας...

These errors are so short that they are likely not to be line-ends but embedded homoeoteleuton cases mid-line in wider and older master-copies.

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
 

John 21:19 - GA-1241 minuscule h.t. + marginal correction

Here in this interesting minuscule MS, we can see a marginal note, apparently from the Corrector ('Diorthhtes'): see the small block of darkened text to the right of the triangular text on folio 115:

Click to Enlarge

Here is a closeup of the text itself:

In discussing this marginal note, Wieland Willker on his Textual Criticism Yahoo group explains the gaffe:

"I now know what this is.  It is a correction.
The scribe omitted 21:19a due to parablepsis (TOUTO ... TOUTO).
There is an insertion sign after θελεις, which is also in
front of the marginal text.

Best wishes,
Wieland"            (Msg #6275, textualcriticism, Yahoo groups)

James Snapp Jr. also comments, as follows:

I should've consulted Lake first; he
mentions it in his collation:

19 om TOUTO DE . . . QEON sed
add in mg. literis minut.
fors. ipse

 and this is linked to a footnote saying,

 "The second volume, which begins on f. 117, is partly written in the small writing of the marginal addition on xxi. 19. Possibly it is by the same scribe, but I think more probably by the DIORQWTHS and perhaps the rubricator of the first part."

Could it have been customary, I wonder, for the proof-reader to add the
rubrications upon pages at the same stage in which he did the proof-reading, perhaps as a way to perceive, at a glance, whether a page had or had not been proof-read?

Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr. (msg #6276)

It appears from the text it may not be a first generation singular, because the scribe has apparently inserted "KAI" in the space, probably to improve the sense of the copy he is reading, and having trouble understanding.  In other words, it was the previous scribe who made the original accidental omission.

Below is a possible reconstruction of the layout in the master-copy that caused the homoeoteleuton eye-skip, and the text lost in the main copy.

John 21:18-19 (Traditional Text)

αμην αμην λεγω σοι οτε ης νεωτερος εζωννυες σεαυτον 
και περιεπατεις οπου ηθελες οταν δε γηρασης εκτενεις τας 
χειρας σου και αλλος σε ζωσει και οισει οπου ου θελεις τουτο
δε ειπεν σημαινων ποιω θανατω δοξασει τον θεον και τουτο
ειπων λεγει αυτω ακολουθει μοι ...

This is a great example, which shows the typical structure and the procedure when such errors were noted.   It also illustrates that the same common errors occurred also in the much later copying stream, with scribes facing the same problems in every era.


peace
Nazaroo