Find the missing word in this verse:
Luke 14:27 And whoever does carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
This is the text produced by the first hand of Vaticanus, though I am glad that eventually the missing ‘ου’ was added above the line.
οστις ουν \ου/ βασταζει
τον σταυρον εαυτου
και ερχεται οπισω μου
ου δυναται ειναι μου
μαθητης
Incidentally, the correction is not noted (yet) in the transcription on the NT.VMR.
Luke 14:27 And whoever does carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
This is the text produced by the first hand of Vaticanus, though I am glad that eventually the missing ‘ου’ was added above the line.
οστις ουν \ου/ βασταζει
τον σταυρον εαυτου
και ερχεται οπισω μου
ου δυναται ειναι μου
μαθητης
Incidentally, the correction is not noted (yet) in the transcription on the NT.VMR.
Dirk,
ReplyDeleteWhen was correction made? Do we have any idea if it was the original scribe?
Tim
The initial error was the original scribe unconsciously writing ουν instead of ου. That mistake was later corrected by allowing the accidental conjunction to stand and adding ου supralinearly (so also states Tischendorf).
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, the same error occurs in MS 579, but without any subsequent restoration of the negative, resulting in a highly problematic form of that verse.
Dr. R.,
DeleteThanks, I was wondering about this very issue. It appears that even Nestle Åland text assumes that the scribe meant to write ou since it lists B as a witness for the txt without any ( ). I also find the fact that the same error occured in 579 interesting, especially since Schmidtke believed 579 was based on an Alexandrian manuscript like B and Foullah said that in Luke that 579 was Alexandrian and aligned with Aleph and B.
Do you surmise that 579 was an unrelated occurrence of the same reading or would you give credence to 579 being a descendant of a B type text?
Tim
That raises some interesting questions. It certainly is possible that the 13th century MS 579 accidentally erred in the same manner, albeit without further correction. Alternatively, perhaps MS 579 had ties to B prior to the Vaticanus correction being made, or that both B and 579 stem from a common archetype that already had the uncorrected ουν present. Speculation on those points likely is futile, however.
DeleteLooks like a first-hand correction to me.
ReplyDeleteWas this section retraced?
ReplyDelete