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

Lukan Omissions: Masterlist

Here are the collations Mr. Scrivener compiled from his review of the SBL / Hort text, for discussion:

Essentially, we see that Luke has taken about 50 serious hits from scribal errors, many of them already catalogued as homoeoteleuton skips.

peace
Nazaroo

Luke 24:51 - another ordinary accident

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to return

Another long stretch of identical text, which unfortunately could fall five different ways on a wide master-copy, and still generate the exact same accidental omission via homoeoteleuton.

We've seen enough of these to recognise a trivial blunder when it presents itself.  Here both P75 and B avoid the omission, and even Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected to include the line.   Thus the original reading of Codex Sinaiticus in omitting stands virtually alone alongside Codex D. 

Such an alignment simply shouts post-common ancestor, and there can be no rational reason to follow Sinaiticus' text here, unless we are slavishly following Hort's Universal axiom, "Prefer the shorter reading, even when its wrong."

This accident obviously happened in the Sinaiticus-only stream of transmission, very late in the game.  Even the UBS2 text doesn't bother to bracket the gaffe, noting the evidence in the apparatus.

Yet somehow, the new SBL-GNT single-brackets the text, slavishly following Hort for a yet unknown reason.

Peace
Nazaroo

Luke 23:17 - Codex A style Gaffe

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to return

Another classic skip, with similar endings and similar letter combinations sprinkled all around.

This is plainly a later omission, which Codex Sinaiticus has avoided, and so cannot have been in the common ancestor.   The agreement of P75 (3rd cent.) with Codex B is expected, since it is an obvious offshoot of the Codex B copying stream.

 Codex A (4th cent.) can hardly give the omission any further weight;  Hort has already written off most of Codex A's readings because it agrees so frequently with the Byzantine text-type against his precious Codex B.   Its very agreement with B reveals it was often edited to conform with the B text, right or wrong.

The UBS2 apparatus tries to break up the Majority Support for the inclusion of the verse, by listing the witnesses in separate groups, but this tactic is too transparent to give it any serious consideration.

---

Omit: P75 A B K L T Pi 0124 892* 1079 1241 1546 l185pt it(a) cop(sa, bo-mss), Diatessaron.

Include: א W X Delta Theta Phi 063 Family 1, Family 13, 28 565 700 1010 1195 (1216 1230 1253 1646 2174 variations) 1242 1365 2148 Byzantine Text (Majority of MSS), Lectionaries, (l70 om. autos) Italic (sur, b,c,e,f,ff2, l, q, (r1)) Vulgate Syr (p,h) Copt (bo mss) Eusebius, (1009) (892 mg+) (1071 om autois) 1344 (Arm) Geo, etc.

Insert verse after 19: D/d Syr(c,s) Eth.

Luke 20:30 - "Aleph Style" homoeoteleuton

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to return

Yet another undocumented deletion in the UBS2 text, following Hort's obsession with codex B.   But this is yet again an obvious and also late omission, probably occurring originally in a manuscript from the early 3rd century and which contained either all four Gospels, or else an entire NT corpus.

One can imagine the tired scribe's eyes glossing over, as the candle-light flickers hypnotically.   He has already just copied the line in green only a notch or two above, mentally preparing him to glance at the omitted line and identify it as already done.

He glances back to the exemplar, searching for the line-end for the next row, and latches onto the wrong spot, losing two lines in the process.  All is well in Alexandrian la-la land.

Hort is too embarrassed to discuss the homoeoteleuton gaffe, but does not hesitate to follow the omission anyway, without attention-drawing comments.

peace
Nazaroo

Luke 17:36 ...undeniable boner

Click to Enlarge

With the long (56 character) omission of Luke 17:36, we only need look at the previous verse ending to understand the farce.  Fully 26 out of 28 letters, or 93% of the line is identical to that which preceded.  

An eye-skip like this could have happened with 2x28 letters per column, or 4x14, or a number of other unlucky combinations.  

With this much text being near-identical, the text itself could be in dozens of different alignments for a given width, and produce the identical omission.   

It would be surprising if more scribes didn't omit this unfortunate chunk of text.   Of course it probably did happen, but on many occasions the proof-reading would have revealed the mistake and the repair would have been made before the manuscript got out the scriptorium door.

An alternate format is as follows.  It would suggest an exemplar something like Codex Sinaiticus, which in turn suggests that this omission occurred later in the transmission chain, perhaps in the early to mid 3rd century.   Even the Byzantine text has picked up this homoeoteleuton blunder.

peace
Nazaroo

Luke 11:54 - undocumented homoeoteleuton

Click to Enlarge

Again, no record in the UBS2 apparatus, but a significant omission nonetheless, originally adopted by Hort.

There is little to say about this obvious eye-skip from the early 3rd century, when all four gospels were being gathered into single manuscripts, and even combinations of Gospels/Acts/Paul etc. were made. 

The exact same omission could have arisen with five different text-alignments, in a 20-21 letter per line manuscript.

peace
Nazaroo

Luke 8:48: Another h.t. bumble followed by critics

Another obvious but short stutter, over two instances of a relatively unusual letter, Theta.  The early copyist lost his place, and the instance is so short that even a good proof-reader would be unlikely to spot it.

Modern critics have no similar excuse however, having carefully documented the variant, and its obvious homoeoteleuton features.  Its another case where politics has overridden honesty and common sense.  The original text is lost in the Hortian card-shuffle.

This Majority Text reading is omitted and left completely undocumented in the UBS2 apparatus.   Most aren't even aware of the deletion.

Peace
Nazaroo

Luke 6:45 - Another case of early Homoeoteleuton

The several other spots showing strong similarity between the two lines, (at the beginning and middle) also corroborate the likelihood of an accidental h.t. error here.
The wide 24-25 cpl format suggests an earlier exemplar from the late 2nd or early 3rd century, something like P66 or P75.  From this estimate of date we have no hesitation in positing "anthropos" here as a Noma Sacra (Standard Abbreviation). Such a MS may or may not have been a collection of all four gospels.  Certainly this case should be grouped with other VUs of the same length already I.D.ed as h.t. errors.


mr.scrivener

---

As well as the dropping of "θησαυρου της καρδιας αυτου"  we should also note the other changes this whole verse has suffered at the hands of the Alexandrians behind the Aleph/B text. 

The copyist/editor first drops "αυτου" from the first phrase "his heart", changing it to read "the heart".  This appears to be a 'mental edit' possibly even unconsciously done.  Such words are lost all the time as copyists carry on, thinking they've copied something they've heard in their own head, but not actually written down.

More interesting is the second "ανφρωπος" ("man").   The Greek can miss the word without too much loss, but it should also be remembered that in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, this would be written as an abbreviation (as shown above) "ανος".  As such, it could easily have been accidentally skipped by homoeoteleuton in the line above, because of the "ηρος" immediately preceding.

   Thus in the Aleph/B text for this verse, we seem to have TWO homoeoeteleuton, and one brief mental lapse, causing three separate omissions in a single verse.  

Its a sad statement about the early copyist, but not a surprising one, given the some 70-80 homoeoeteleuton errors already found in this early ancestor of Aleph/B.

All of this goes again undocumented in the UBS2 Apparatus.

Peace
Nazaroo

Luke 24:42-43

Luke 24:42-43

...οι δε επεδωκαν
αυτω ιχθυος οπτου μερος
και απο μελισσιου κηριου
και λαβων ενωπιον αυτων
εφαγεν...
...but they gave Him
also a piece of cooked fish,
and part of a honeycomb:
And He took them and ate...

---

INCLUDE LINE:
K, X, Δ ψ, f1, f13,
28 33 565 700 892 1009 101 1071 1195, 1195^-marg, 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174 (1216)
Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS), Lect, l^-185m,

it^{-(a)/aur/(b/c)/f/ff2/l/(q)/r1}, vg, geo?, Cyril of Jerus.
Syr^-c/p/h*/pal, Copt^-Bo, Arm AEth. geo?,
Justin Diatess., Athanasius Augustine Cryil Proclus

OMIT LINE:
P⁷⁵, א A, B, D, L, W, 1079
It^-d/e, Syr^-s, Cop^-Sa/Bo(mss),
Clement Origen Euseb. Athan. Epiph. Cyril

---

Although yet more 4th/5th cent. Uncials are led astray, it is obvious from the complete lack of any theological content that this is again a mere Haplography error, strongly supported by the line-length, and double-overlap at beginning and mid-line.

"honeycomb" seems superfluous, and so has been consigned to the dustbin by both Alexandrian and Caesarean editors of the 4th century. Yet once again, the editors have no real power over the uncontrolled stream of transmission, and the original text survives intact in the majority of mss. The support of the early fathers for omission is dubious, since it is based on either 'arguments from silence' and/or possible paraphrasing.

Here at least, UBS-2 gives a footnote, but on the authority of WH/Nestle/UBS, 'modern' versions cast aside this interesting bit of text, which may be an allusion to Jonathan's O.T. experience of the honeycomb, and/or perhaps also Samson.

Luke 23:23

Luke 23:23

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to Return

οι δε επεκειντο φωναις
μεγαλαις αιτουμενοι
αυτον σταυρωθη-
ναι και κατισχυον
αι φωναι  αυτων
και των αρχιερεων

But they shouted with loud
noises, that He be crucified:
so those voices prevailed,
and those of the chief priests.

---

INCLUDE LINE:
A, D, K, P, W, X, Δ Θ Π ψ, 063 0250 f¹, f¹³,
28 565 700 892 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1242 (1253) 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174
Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS), Lect, ital^-c/d/f, Syr^-(c/s)/p/h, Copt^-Bo(MSS), AEthiop, Arm, Geo, Diatess. etc.

OMIT LINE:
P⁷⁵, א , B, L, 0124 1241, l^-241, Ital^{-a/aur/b/e/ff2}, vg, Copt^-Sa/Bo(mss)

---

Here we see plenty of room for the eyes to do a double-take and skip a line while copying, and sure enough, a line was lost by the Alexandrians. There is no point in hunting for theological motives for an insertion when its plainly an accidental omission.

The evidence continues to build that the Alexandrian copyists were less than careful about proof-reading their work, and so when it comes to Haplography omissions, they simply can't be trusted when it comes to the original text.

Westcott/Hort, Nestle, UBS2 all follow Aleph/B, ever hunting for the 'lost ancestor', whatever errors it may contain.

'Modern' versions stupidly adopt the reconstructed Greek, probably following along without thought for the detrimental effect it will have on the purity of the text. Again no footnotes are likely to be found for this clandestine alteration of the traditional text.

Luke 22:68

Luke 22:68

εαν δε και ερωτησω
ου μη αποκριθητε
μοι η απολυσητε

"And if I also question you,
You will by no means answer
me, nor let me go."

---

INCLUDE LINE:
A, D, K, W, (X), Δ Π ψ, 063, f13, 28 565 700 (892) 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1242 1253 1344 1546 1646 2148  Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS), Lect,  ital^{-(a)/aur/b/c/d/f/ff2/(i,j)/q/r1}, vulg., Syr-c/s/p/h, Arm Geo, Diatess.^-a/i/n

OMIT LINE:
P75, א , B, L, W, T 1241 cop^-bo, Cyril,
(+μοι ) Θ, f1, 1365 Cop^-Sa, (Ambrose?)

---

Jesus' damning response, that they had no intention of really holding a 'trial', and were not going to let Him go, is lost in the shuffle of sloppy Alexandrian copies of Luke. Perhaps scribe and Pharisee converts to 'the Way' felt the 'kangaroo-court' aspect of the Sanhedrin council by night was best left toned-down, once the omission had crept into the copy-stream.

Still, better copyists had nonetheless prevailed, until this old blunder was revived by Westcott & Hort in 1882, and perpetuated by Nestle, UBS2, and almost all 'modern' translations, uncritically following the critical texts. Again however, evidence of ancient ancestor is not evidence of original text, but precisely the contrary: Agreement in Error = common source or editing policy.

Typically, no footnote even acknowledges the omission in the English translations. Just more hidden changes and agendas.

Luke 19:45

Luke 19:45

                        ...και εισελ-
-θων εις το ιερον ηρξατο
εκβαλλειν τους πωλουντας
εν αυτω και αγοραζοντας
λεγων αυτοις γεγραπται...

Then He went
into the temple and began to
drive out those those who sold
in it,   and those who bought,
saying to them, "It is written,..."

---

INCLUDE LINE:
Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS), A, C, (D), R, W, Δ Θ ψ, f13,(28) 33, 157, 700, 2542, Lat(aur, f, vg), Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, goth,

Include & ADD Matt. 21:12b: D, L, pc, it, vg(mss), Sy-H**, arm

OMIT LINE:
א B, L, f1, 22, 579, 1241, pc, Sy-Pal, Co, geo, arabMS

(B: no umlaut)

---

Virtually all Uncials and Cursives include the line as original.

Aleph/B follow the omission, again providing evidence of at least the influence of a common ancestor through Agreement in Error. The minority reading again furnishes support for an accidental omission, not the original text.

The behaviour of D, L, etc. shows that scribes in the 4th and later centuries were willing to add material if that material was borrowed from another parallel passage. The usual culprits are guilty, but not the majority of copies.

Its easy to see how the omission makes an attractive reading, because it gets all those BUYING goods in the temple off the hook. In the altered text, only the SELLERS are driven out by Jesus: less damning, but unfortunately also less plausible historically.

The UBS text offers not even a footnote, and so naturally, all 'modern' versions based upon it exclude the phrase without even knowing it, including the ASV NAS NIV RSV NEB NBV and a few others.

This kind of systematic omission without documentation borders on fraudulent behaviour. Individuals who are purchasing a new Bible because they want updated language are simply not told the actual extent to which the text has been altered.

Luke 17:24

Luke 17:24

                         ... ωσπερ 
γαρ η αστραπη η αστρα-
-πτουσα εκ της υπ' ουρα-
νον εις την υπ' ουρανον 
λαμπει ουτως εσται και 
ο υιος του  ανθρωπου
εν τη ημερα αυτου
πρωτον δε δει αυτον 
πολλα παθειν ...

" - For as lightning that flashes
from one part under heaven to
another part under heaven, so also
will be the Son of Adam in His day.
-But first He must suffer many
passions..."

---

INCLUDE LINE: א A, K, L, W, X, Δ Θ Π ψ, 063 f1, f13, 28 565 700 892 1009 1010 1071 1079 1095 1216 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS), Lect,
it^aur/f/q/r1, vg, Sy-^(c/s)/p/h, Copt-^bo, goth arm geo.

OMIT LINE:
P⁷⁵, B, D, it-^a/b/d/e/i, Cop-SA

---

One too many "ou"s and a half-line is lost. Another classic case of homoioteleuton (similar ending).


The Editors of Aleph were more on the ball than those of B this time. B (Codex Vaticanus 1209) stands alone with D of all possible co-dependants. Perhaps this peculiarity reveals more frequent collusion or perpetuation of early mistakes than previously suspected. But nothing here suggests an original reading, or even a reading that predates circa 250 A.D.

What caused Westcott/Hort to follow B here, even without the support of Aleph? Probably his obsessive belief in the superiority of B no matter how far-fetched the reading. Not even Nestle or UBS-2 follows Hort here, and most 'modern' versions retain the traditional text, but not through any insight: they are simply following Nestle/UBS, and have no knowledge of yet another blunder by B or his exemplar.

P75 was unknown in Hort's day. Far from adding weight to the reading, the agreement of P75 only reveals its true character as a sloppy Egyptian copy prone to perpetuating accidental omissions. Neither the scribe nor the correctors' reputation is enhanced by such discoveries.

Luke 17:9(-10)

Luke 17:9(-10)

(W) OU...(W) OU... (homoioarcton)

μη χαριν εχει τω δουλω εκεινω
οτι εποιησεν τα διαταχθεντα (αυτω)
ου δοκω ουτως και υμεις οταν ποιησητε
παντα τα διαταχθεντα υμιν
λεγετε οτι δουλοι αχρειοι εσμεν οτι
ο ωφειλομεν ποιησαι πεποιηκαμεν
 

"Does the servant have thanks for this,
that he did the things commanded (of him)?
I think not! So also you, when you do all
that has been commanded to you, confess,
'Profitless servants we are, since we have
merely done what we ought to have done.'. "

---

INCLUDE LINE:
A, K, W, Δ Θ Π ψ, 063 28 565 700 892 1009 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 (2174) Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS), Lect., it^c/s, Sy-H,Goth, Antiochius, etc.
(+autw) - D, f13, l⁵⁴⁷, it^{(aur/b/d/f/ff2/i/l/q/r1)}, vg, Sy-P,Geo² Diatess.

OMIT LINE:
P75 (200 CE), א , B, L, f1, 1010 1241 it^(e), Syr-Pal, (arm), geo¹, (+autw) X (comm.), it^a, Syr-C/S, Cop-Sah/Boh, AEth, Cyprian

---

Its easy to see that what began as a simple homoioarcton omission, gained currency as an attractive reading. (There are actually 3 letters in a row forming the trap in the Traditional text).

Possibly opponents were targeting embarrassing phrases from the Gospels as early as the 2nd century. One can picture the quip: "Your Jesus himself confesses, 'I think not! '. Therefore he is no thinker!" etc.

Once an omission like this occurs, the inherent difficulty in the original reading strongly interferes with its restoration. The ellipsis is simply too convenient. Naturally when the initial variant fell into the hands of Alexandrian editors and correctors, the textual variants bloated as others adopted the 'lucky' omission for expediency, i.e., defensive/apologetic purposes.

Sadly, once again the critical Greek Text editors (WH, Nestle, UBS) adopt the Aleph/B reading without question, seeking the holy grail of an ancient (error ridden) ancestor. The REAL variant among the majority of manuscripts, namely the (autw) in the previous line, is not found in the textual apparatus, - we suspect because it is not sufficiently 'interesting'.

We suspect the translators of 'modern' versions however, have actually adopted this omission for expediency, not accuracy, like their ancient Alexandrian counterparts.

Luke 12:39

Luke 12:39

(homoioteleuton: -ai, ...kai, )

                 .... τουτο δε
γινωσκετε οτι ει ηδει
ο οικο δεσποτης ποια 
ωρα ο κλεπτης ερχεται
εγρηγορησεν αν και
ουκ αν αφηκεν διορυγη
ναι τον οικον αυτου ...

"But know this:that if
the master of the house knew
what hour the thief is coming,
he would have watched, and
not allowed his house
to be broken into."

---

INCLUDE LINE: א ^a, א^c,
A, B, K, L, P, W, X, Δ Θ ψ, 070, f1, f13,
28 33 565 700 892 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 (1253) 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174
Maj, Latt, Sy, bo^mss, goth, [Trg]
Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS), Lect, ital^{(aur)/b/c/(f)/ff2/(l,q)/r1}, (vg), syr^p/h, Copt^(sa)bo, AEth, Geo, Diatess., Basil, John-Damascus etc.

OMIT LINE:
P75 (200 CE), א^*,
it^(d)e/i, syr^c/s, Cop^sa/ach, Arm, Marcion, Tertullian.

PARTIAL LINE: (D omits 'aphhken...autou').

---

Even
Westcott/Hort rightly rejected this omission, favouring the traditional text (including the line). They at least recognized this for what it was. The Nestle'/UBS critical Greek texts however, mechanically follow every omission commited by either Aleph/B, striving to recover a lost ancestor, even when the omission is an obvious error.

The early evidence of the error (P75) combined with its virtual absence everywhere else only confirms the blunder, copied by Aleph.

Sadly, The translators of "modern" versions (NAS, NIV, NEB) still just don't seem able to get the difference between an early error, and an authentic candidate for the original text. They follow the academics and their lost exemplar off to nether-netherland.

Luke 9:55-56

Luke 9:55-56

(homoioarcton: kai..., kai... )

και ειπεν ουκ οιδατε οιου πνευματος εστε
υμεις ο γαρ υιος του ανθρωπου ουκ ηλθεν
ψυχας ανθρωπων απολεσαι αλλα σωσαι
και επορευθησαν εις ετεραν κωμην

and [Jesus] said, "Ye know not what manner of spirit
ye are of: For the Son of Man has come not
to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
and they went to another village. But as they went...

---

INCLUDE LINE:
D, K (Θ) Π ψ, 1079 1242 1546, Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS), it^{-aur/a/b/c/e/f/q/r/vg}, Syr^-C/P/H, Cop(Bo) Goth Arm Marcion Diat. Ambrose Epiph. Antioch. etc. (1195 1365 2148 2174 f¹ f¹³ l^-69)

OMIT LINE:
P^45,75 (200-250 CE), א ^Corr1, B, A, C, L, W, Δ Ξ , 28 33 565 892 1009 1010 1071 (1241) it ^-l Lect. Syr-S, Cop-Sa/Bo AEth, Basil Cyril-Jer, Jerome

---

Luke's smoother and easier to read Greek may have been copied in larger portions by scribes.

But in any case, at least FOUR identical letters similarly placed in a line is enough to allow the eye to skip when flitting back and forth from a long column of compressed letters to the copy. Any number of letters per line that would allow the "KAI E" to appear in a similar horizontal position would create the all too common hazard.

The textual evidence offered by the UBS-2 apparatus is blurred and made over-complex by the inclusion of variants from the previous verse and minor variants among the versions, making it all but useless even for establishing what the textual evidence actually is.

The readings of P45 and P75 give a weighty appearance, but once again prove too much. They are excellent evidence of a common exemplar for Aleph/B, by agreement in error, but this agreement in error only confirms thats what the reading really is: an early error that crept into the Alexandrian text-type preferred by the editors of Aleph/B.

Recommendation: Leave the verse in the text. Its clearly a beautiful example of a difficult teaching by Jesus to His apostles, and could hardly have been invented by later copyists sucking back wine and blacking out.

Luke 5:38-39

Luke 5:38-39

                  ...ΑΛΛΑ OINON NΕONΕIΣ 
ΑΣKOΥΣ  KΑINOΥΣ  ΒΛHTΕON  KΑI 
ΑMΦOTΕΡOI ΣΥNTHΡOΥNTΑI KΑI 
OΥΔΕIΣ  ΠIΩN ΠΑΛΑION  ΘΕΛΕI NΕ
ON ...


But new wine must be
put into fresh wineskins
and both are preserved;
And no one after drinking old
desires new;...

---

INCLUDE LINE:
A, C, D, R, Δ Θ ψ, f13, Maj, Latt, Sy, bo^mss, goth, [Trg]
Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS),
D, it, Sy-P, Marcion^A

OMIT LINE:
P4 (200 CE), א^Corr1, B, L, W, f1, 33, 131, 157, 579, 700, 1241, pc2, Co

PARTIAL LINE:
א *: (+ ballousin), W: (+ ballhtai) pc = 5, 301C,

(P75vid)

---

This incidental remark is easy to understand as from a wordy Markan/Q source, but impossible to fathom as a deliberate interpolation by editors or copyists (or even as an addition by Luke). The "both" naturally implies both wine and container, not for instance "old" and "new" wines. But no Christian editor would be concerned with such matters, and certainly not an Evangelist like Luke. There is no advantage for Christian dogma in adding this phrase.

It seems more likely that Luke found this in his typically wordy Markan/Q source, and if anything he might have been inclined to simplify and expunge it himself. But just because Luke might have expunged it on second or third pass, does not mean that we should do so. Leaving things like this in place gives us a much more accurate picture of the original sayings of Jesus. Simplification and 'smoothing' is the task of pastors and preachers, not restorers of the NT text.


The typical word-line length and the double trap (homoioarcton/homoioteleuton) in close proximity is a dead giveaway for considering this candidate as a haplography error.

Luke 4:5

Luke 4:5 (traditional text)

                ...KΑI ΑNΑΓΑΓΩN ΑΥTON 
O ΔIΑΒOΛOΣ ΕIΣ OΡOΣ ΥΨHΛON
ΕΔΕIΞΕN ΑΥTΩ ΠΑΣΑΣ TΑΣ ΒΑΣIΛ
ΕIΑΣ THΣ OIKOΥMΕNHΣ  ΕN ΣTIΓ-
MH XΡONOΥ ...


And [the devil] took him up,
into a high mountain,
[and] showed him all the
kingdoms of the world
in a moment of time...

---

INCLUDE LINE: A, Δ Θ ψ 0102 33 579 1342, Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS), ital(d, f, ff², l, q), Sy-P, Sy-H, bo^mss, goth

(add: lian) f¹³, c, r,¹, vg^mss, sa^mss, D, 788 (~f¹³)

INCLUDE PART:

(drop: ho diabolos) א ^c1,
D, W, f1, 700, 2542, pc, e, sa^mss, bo^pt, arm, geo

(only: ho diabolos) aur, b, g1, vg^mss Sy-S

OMIT: א*, B (no umlaut),
L, 1241, pc (sa^mss), bo^pt,
NA27

---

Completely undetectable in the English translation, but a very easy haplography mistake to make from the Greek text.

There is little that is credible in any proposal that a scribal editor might have simultaneously added the Nominal Subject (i.e., an unnecessary filling in of the 'zero-anaphora'), as well as a locative indirect adverbial phrase, all in the same emmendation of the text.

Rather, as with most haplography errors, the omission is purely accidental, catching the Subject and the unrelated predicate phrase in one clumsy skip & chop. That the result is still readable is merely unlucky, helping to hide the boo-boo , but it explains well how it was missed and subsequently copied. Mistakes that badly garble the text are far more likely to be caught and cured before a manuscript leaves the scriptorium. This one flew under the radar easily.

The unusual activity of many 3rd-4th century correctors simply reflects the extent of the confusion caused by the initial haplography, which accidentally removes TWO sentence elements. Even in the 4th century this blunder was suspicious, and the omission of the entire line was not plausible.

A footnote will also be impossible to find in modern versions, as the UBS-2 text offered nothing in the apparatus on this variant either: Its another one of the 'secret' changes, - variants "of no significance for translators" (but adopted anyway)...unless they happen to be interested in what the original text actually was.

Again Willker is instructive:

Parallel: Luke 4:5 / Matthew 4:8

The support is not good for the omission and it is slightly awkward without the words ("led him up" to what?). h.t. is possible (ON - ON), note the C1 correction of 01.
The variety of the readings indicates a secondary cause though. Very probably from Mt (so Weiss).
IQP's Crit. ed. has the Matthean "ho diabolos eis oros [[upsylon lian]] with
double brackets indicating doubt that text was present there.
This is odd, because both Mt and Lk have upsylon. Fleddermann ("Q - A reconstruction", 2005) has "ho diabolos eis oros upsylon" without "lian".

- W. Willker, Textual Commentary

Willker recognizes the probable Haplography error, and is suspicious of reconstructions that drop words with little or no textual support.