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!
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.)
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:
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.
Post a Comment