Re: Mt. 26:3 - "and the scribes"
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "james_snapp_-
>Hello James, thank you for bringing this variant to the table. First things first, the Critical Apparatus;
> This variant-unit isn't covered by UBS4 but Wieland's TCG presents the pertinent evidence well. It's mainly a case of Byz (with Codices K, P, Delta, and Sigma in full agreement), Pesh, and six Old Latin copies versus P45, Aleph, B, A, D, L, f1, f13, the Vulgate, seven Old Latin copies, the Sinaitic Syriac, and the Middle Egyptian.
> I'd say the external evidence strongly favors the shorter reading; it's early and widespread. (Is there no patristic data about this passage?? That Biblia Patristica site might be awfully handy to consult on this sort of question.)
> But, internally, the phrase in question -- KAI OI GRAMMATEIS -- would be vulnerable to parablepsis via both h.a. and h.t.; it is preceded by a word that ends in -EIS, and it is followed by KAI OI. So it is not difficult to see that these three words could have accidentally been dropped.
> Any thoughts?
> Yours in Christ,
> James Snapp, Jr.
OMIT- P45 Aleph A B D L Theta 0293(089) f1 f13 33(vid) 565 700 892 1424 Italic a.aur.b.d.ff1.g1.l. Vulg. Syr.S. Cop.Sah.
RETAIN- W(w/var.) Sigma P K Delta Pi 0133 0255 22 "The Cursives" Italic c.f.ff2.h.q.r1. Syr.Pesh.Hark. Chrysostom Augustine
[This is what I have on the variant. I have not checked Swanson, or Txt.&Txt.Wrt.]
6th century and under we have 11 witnesses which omit; (P45,Aleph,A,B,D,It.a.b.d.,Vul.,Syr.s.,Cop.sah.) and 9 witnesses which retain; (W,P,Sigma,It.f.ff2.h.,Syr.p.,Chrys.Aug.)
Once the 7th century witnesses are added to the tally we have a split 12 witnesses on each side (Omit + It.aur., Retain + Syr.h., It.q.r1.).The bulk of the later cursives retaining the words in question.
The evidence therefore if divided! (More or less, depending of course upon which Textual theories or principles one follows.)
Internal evidence must be sought. On the one hand we have the possibility of assimilation, on the other scribal error.
Wieland concisely suggest the former "a natural addition" he calls it stating, "The support is very bad.". To say that it is an addition is pure speculation on our learned moderators part. The statement that "The support is very weak" is unwarranted. The simple truth of the matter is that it's much more likely for a scribe to accidently (and without malice) omit words, than for a scribe to purposely (with or without malice) insert them.
"EIS KAI OI" Two sets of eight consecutive identicle letters occur on both sides (so to speak) of this variant. This is compounded by the fact that "EIS" and "OI" both occur twice more (each) in the immediate proximity. The potential for scribal error increases here if the Text is printed without spaces in uncial format. ("EISKAIOIGRAMMATEISKAIOI") The track record of P45, Aleph,B and D only suggest this further. These manuscripts are all full of scribal erorrs, Homoeoteleuton and Homoeoarcton being the most prolific sort. (Three of them being Uncials to boot.) Codex A may be spoken of in nearly the same manner. If anyone does not believe me simply collate a few pages of any of these codices.
This is a very clear case of Hom.Tel./Hom.Arc. and Mr. Borlands statements concerning the Latin and Coptic should be carefully noted.
It is very likely that we have more than one case of HT/HA here and that some of these witnesses or streams are the direct result of a singular scribal error.