Monday, September 19, 2016

Hand-to-Hand Combat: P72 vs 6 - The Final Fight

          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.

        Now let’s consider these results together with the previous two contests between minuscule 6 and Papyrus 72, to see how the texts of these two manuscripts compare in the entire Epistle of Jude:
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.

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


Daniel Buck said...

According to Tommy Wasserman, the microfilm IS clear, except at αιωνιον in v. 21.

Wayne said...

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.

James Snapp Jr said...

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!)

Steven Avery said...

"More accurate ... NA27"

Where have you claimed or supported the idea that NA27 is a standard of accuracy?"