Sunday, September 18, 2016

Papyrus 72 versus Minuscule 6: Rematch!

          In today’s hand-to-hand combat, Papyrus 72 has returned to the ring for a rematch with minuscule 6.  We recently observed that in verses 1-10 of Jude, the text of minuscule 6 (produced in the 1200’s) was far more accurate than the text of Papyrus 72 (produced around 300).  But what happens in the six verses after that?  We will find out today!     
          This time we will examine minuscule 6 first, in Jude verses 11-16.  The same rules are in play that were used for the previous contest; each manuscript's text is compared to the Nestle-Aland-27 compilation. 

11 – no differences.
12 – 6 reads ευωχιαις instead of απαταις (+5, -4)
12 – 6 reads υμιν before αφοβως (+4)
13 – 6 reads τον before αιωνα (+3)
14 – 6 reads Προεφητευσε instead of Προεφητευσεν (-1)
14 – 6 does not have και after δε (-3)
14 – 6 reads ηλθε instead of ηλθεν (-1)
15 – 6 reads του at the beginning of the verse (+3)
15 – 6 reads παντας instead of πασαν (+4, -3)
15 – 6 reads ασεβεις instead of ψυχην (+7, -5)
15 – 6 does not  have ασεβειας αυτων after εργων (-13)
15 – 6 reads λογων after σκληρων (+5)
16 – 6 reads εισι instead of εισιν (-1)

          Thus in Jude verses 11-16 in minuscule 6, there are 31 non-original letters, and 31 original letters are absent, for a total of 62 letters’ worth of corruption.  (Three letters’ worth of corruption are movable-nu variants.)  
          Now let’s look at the text of this passage in Papyrus 72: 

11 – P72 reads Βαλαακ instead of Βαλααμ (+1, -1)
11 – P72 reads μεισθου instead of μισθου (+1)
11 – P72 reads αντιλογεια instead of αντιλογια (+1)
12 – P72 reads σπειλαδες instead of σπιλαδες (+1)
12 – P72 reads συνευχομενοι instead of συνευωχουμενοι (-2)
12 – P72 reads πυμενοντες instead of ποιμαινοντες (+2, -4)
12 – P72 reads νεφελε instead of νεφελαι (+1, -2) 
13 – P72 reads θαλασης instead of θαλασσης (-1)
13 – P72 reads απαφριζοντα instead of απαφριζοντα (+1, -1)
13 – P72 reads πλανητε instead of πλανηται (+1, -2)
13 – P72 does not have ο after οις (-1)
13 – P72 reads εωνα instead of αιωνα (+1, -2) 
13 – P72 reads τετηρητε instead of τετηρηται (+1, -2)
14 – P72 reads Επροφητευσεν instead of Προεφητευσεν (+1, -1)
14 – P72 reads αγιων αγγελων instead of αγιαις (+9, -3)
14 – P72 does not have αυτου after μυριασιν (-5)
15 – P72 reads ελεγξε instead of ελεγξαι (+1, -2)
15 – P72 reads περει instead of περι (+1)
15 – P72 does not have των εργων ασεβειας αυτων ων ησεβησαν και περι παντων after the second παντων.  The copyist’s line of sight apparently drifted from one occurrence of παντων των to the next one.  (-44)
16 – P72 reads γογγυστε instead of γογγυσται (+1, -2)
16 – P72 reads εαυτω instead of εαυτων (-1)
16 – P72 reads πορεομενοι instead of πορευομενοι (-1)
[Note:  The copyist of P72 skipped from μεμψιμοιροι to και in the text, but he corrected this mistake by writing κατα τας επιθυμιας εαυτω πορεομενοι in the lower margin of the page.]
16 – P72 does not have το after και (-2) 
16 – P72 reads ωφελιας instead of ωφελειας (-1)
16 – P72 reads χαρειν instead of χαριν (+1)

          Thus, in Jude verses 11-16 in Papyrus 72, there are 24 non-original letters, and 79 original letters are absent, for a total of 103 letters’ worth of corruption.  (Thirty-six letters’ worth of corruption involves itacisms or movable-nu.) 

          Once again, the text of minuscule 6, though far from optimal, resembles the text in the Nestle-Aland compilation more closely than does the text of Papyrus 72.  Compared to Papyrus 72, minuscule 6 has 39% less corruption in this passage.  In Jude verses 11-16, the transmission-stream of minuscule 6 – over 1,100 years long – resisted corruption significantly better than the 230-year-long transmission-stream of Papyrus 72.    


(Readers are invited to check the data and math in this post.)



1 comment:

Pure Bible said...

This does show the wildness element of P72. (Reading between the lines.). And/or a poor scribe, or a scribe using a poor exemplar, e.g.bad spelling and likely singular and very weakly supported variants.

You use the words accuracy and corruption, with the implied claim that NA27 and NA28 are texts accurate to the autographs. Since that is not your actual textual position, your paper is not logical or consistent in its conclusions. Apples and oranges are mixed.