Minuscule 6 has beaten Papyrus 72 twice in hand-to-hand
combat, showing that a manuscript produced in the 1200’s can contain a text
that is more accurate from a manuscript produced in the late 200’s or early
300’s. The second contest, though, was
closer than the first one – and if one were to set aside textual variants that
involve vowel-exchanges (itacisms), it was virtually a tie. Today, Papyrus 72 and minuscule 6 meet one last time: we will compare their texts
in Jude verses 17-25. Will Papyrus 72
finally prevail?
17 – 6 reads προειρημενον ρηματων after the first των
(transposition)
17 – 6 does not have the second των (-3)
18 – 6 reads των
χρονων instead of του χρονου (+4, -4)
18 – 6 reads ελευσονται
instead of εσονται (+3)
19 – 6 reads εαυτους after αποδιοριζοντες (+7)
20 – 6 reads τη αγιωτατη ημων πιστει εποικοδομουντες εαυτους instead of εποικοδομουντες
εαυτους τη αγιωτατη υμων πιστει
(transposition) (+1, -1) [The microfilm is not clear.]
21 – no differences
22 – 6 reads ελεγχετε instead of ελεατε (+4 -3)
23 – 6 reads εσπιλομενον
instead of εσπιλωμενον (+1, -1) [The
microfilm is not clear; this letter is at the end of a line. It probably reads εσπιλωμενον but I made the call against it just to be strict.]
24 – 6 reads ασπιλους
και after απταιστους και (+11)
24 – 6 reads γαλλιασει instead of αγαλλιασει (-1) [Again, the microfilm is not clear; the letter is
probably present but since I could not see it, I made the call against it.]
25 – 6 reads και
after Θω (+3)
25 – 6 does not have του after παντος (-3)
25 – 6 does not have Αμην (-4)
Thus, in Jude verses 17-25, minuscule 6 has 34 non-original
letters, and is missing 20 original letters, for a total of 54 letters’ worth
of corruption. (This may be reduced to 33
non-original letters present and 17 or 18 original letters absent, for a total
of 50 or 51 letters’ worth of corruption, if, as I suspect, the original
letters in question are present in the manuscript but obscured in the
microfilm-image.)
Now we turn to Papyrus 72.
17 – no differences
18 – P72 does not have του
after εσχατου (-3)
18 – P72 reads εμπεκτε instead of εμπαικται (+2, -4)
18 – P72 reads επειθυμιας
instead of επειθυμιας (+1)
18 – P72 reads ασεβιων instead of ασεβειων (-1)
19 – no differences
20 – P72 reads Υμις instead of Υμεις (-1)
20 – P72 reads τη εαυτων
αγιοτητι πειστι ανυκοδομεισθαι instead
of εποικοδομουντες εαυτους τη αγιωτατη υμων
πιστει (transposition) (+15, -20)
20 – P72 reads εαυτοις
at the end of the verse (+7)
21 – P72 reads τηρησωμεν
instead of τηρησατε (+4, -3)
21 – P72 reads εις ζοην
ημων Ιηυ Χρυ instead of ημων Ιυ Χυ εις ζωην (transposition) (+1, -1)
22 – P72 does not have Και (-3)
22/23 – P72 reads εκ πυρος αρπαζατε διακρινομενους instead of ελεατε
διακρινομενους ους δε σωζετε εκ πυροσ αρπαζοντες (transposition) (+3, -20)
23 – P72 reads ελεειτε
after δε instead of ελεατε (+2, -1)
23 – P72 reads μεισουντες
instead of μισουντες (+1)
23 – P72 reads εσπειλωμενοι instead of εσπιλωμενον (+2, -1)
24 – P72 reads στηριξαι
ασπειλους αμωμους αγνευομενους απεναντι της δοξης αυτου
instead of
φυλαξαι υμας απταιτους και στησαι κατενωπιον της δοξης αυτου
αμωμους (transposition) (+29, -25)
24 – P72 reads αγαλλιασι instead of αγαλλιασει (-1)
25 – P72 does not have σωτηρι
(-6)
25 – P72 reads αυτω after ημων (+4)
25 – P72 reads δοξα
κρατος τιμη before δια (+8) [κρατος
appears further along in the text so I considered its presence at this point a
transposition. Δοξα is repeated further along in the
text.]
25 – P72 reads αυτω
δοξα και instead of δοξα (+7)
25 – P72 reads μεγαλοσυνη
instead of μεγαλωσυνη (+1, -1)
25 – P72 does not have και
εξουσια προ παντος του αιωνος (-28)
25 – P72 reads τους παντας εωνας instead of παντας τους αιωνας
(transposition) (+1, -2)
Thus, in Jude verses 17-25, the text of Papyrus 72 includes
87 non-original letters, and 121 original letters are absent. This yields a total of 208 letters’ worth of
corruption in Papyrus 72’s text of Jude verses 17-25. If NA28 is used as the standard of
comparison, the text of P72 does not improve:
in verse 18, P72’s score decreases by three due to the non-inclusion of οτι and increases by three via the
non-inclusion of του.
In this particular contest, minuscule 6 does not merely
win. It crushes and humiliates. Its 54 letters’ worth of corruption
(at most), acquired in a transmission-stream 1,100 years long, amount to only
26% of the amount of corruption acquired in Papyrus 72’s transmission-stream in
the course of about 230 years. The text
of the younger manuscript, in this case, is not just better than the text in
the much more ancient manuscript. The
text of minuscule 6 in Jude verses 17-25 is four times better than the text of
Jude verses 17-25 in Papyrus 72.
In verses 1-10, minuscule 6 has 15 non-original letters, and
26 original letters are absent. 41.
In verses 11-16, minuscule 6 has 31 non-original letters,
and 31 original letters are absent. 62.
In verses 17-25, minuscule 6 has 34 non-original letters,
and 20 original letters are absent. 54.
Totals for minuscule 6:
80 non-original letters present; 77 original letters absent. Total:
157.
In verses 1-10, Papyrus 72 has 38 non-original letters, and
50 original letters are absent.
In verses 11-16, Papyrus 72 has 24 non-original letters, and
79 original letters are absent.
In verses 17-25, Papyrus 72 has 87 non-original letters, and
121 original letters are absent.
Totals for Papyrus 72:
149 non-original letters present; 250 original letters absent. Total:
399.
Thus, minuscule 6 has only 39% as much corruption in the
Epistle of Jude as Papyrus 72 has. Or to
put it another way: the ratio of
corruption in minuscule 6 compared to Papyrus 72 is almost exactly 150:400, or 15:40 , or 3:8.
If anyone still imagines
that a simple appeal to “the oldest manuscripts” is decisive and persuasive, let
that person carefully consider this data.
4 comments:
According to Tommy Wasserman, the microfilm IS clear, except at αιωνιον in v. 21.
Was this correct? 23 – P72 reads μεισουντες instead of μεισουντες (+1)
James, this is a very interesting study. If we eliminate miss spellings would the outcome be the same result? By miss spellings I mean missing a letter where it does not affect the translation.
Wayne Steury,
The entry is correct but I forgot to delete the E in the NA27 reading. I'll fix the post to reflect the correction. Thanks!
If we were to eliminate orthographic variants such as movable-nu and itacisms, the contest would be closer. (But, if we pretended that football plays that only lost or gained one or two yards didn't count, a lot of football games would probably be closer, too!)
"More accurate ... NA27"
Where have you claimed or supported the idea that NA27 is a standard of accuracy?"
Steven
Post a Comment