Luke 24:13 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]299
Καὶ ἰδού, δύο ἐξ αὐτῶν ἦσαν πορευόμενοι ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ εἰς κώμην ἀπέχουσαν σταδίους ἑξήκοντα ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλήμ, ᾗ ὄνομα Ἐμμαούς.
MSS: W (p306), ℓ1 (f11v-12r), ℓ181 (f2rc2), ℓ640 (f2rc1-2)
Luke 24:13 [Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01) (4th century)]q79f7rc3
Και ϊδου δυο εξ αυτων <η> εν τη αυτη ημερα ησαν δε πορευομενοι εις κωμην απεχουσαν σταδιους εκατον εξηκοντα απο Ϊερουσαλημʼ η ονομα εμμαους
Luke 24:13 [Codex Alexandrinus (A02) (5th century)]41rc1
Και ϊδου δυο εξαυτων ησαν πορευομενοι εν αυτη τη ωρα εις κωμην απεχουσαν σταδιους εξηκοντα απο Ϊλημ· ή ονομα εμμαους·
Luke 24:13 [Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209 (B03) (4th century)]59bc1|ΡΝΑ
Και ϊδου δυο εξ αυτων εν αυτη τη ημερα ησαν πορευομενοι εις κωμην απεχουσαν σταδιους εξηκοντα απο Ϊερουσαλημ η ονομα εμμαους
Luke 24:13 [Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D05) (5th century)]281v|543
Ησαν δε δυο πορευομενοι εξ αυτων εν αυτη τη ημερα εις κωμην απεχουσαν σταδιους εξηκοντα απο Ϊερουσαλημημ ονοματι ουλαμμαους
Critical Apparatus :
(1) και ιδου δυο εξ αυτων ησαν πορευομενοι εν αυτη τη ημερα : W, ℓ1, ℓ181, ℓ339, ℓ640, ℓ1086
(2) και ιδου δυο εξ αυτων ησαν πορευομενοι εν αυτη τη ωρα : A
(3) και ιδου δυο εξ αυτον εισαν πορευομενοι εν αυτη τη ημερα : ℓ17
(4) και ιδου δυο εξ αυτων εν αυτη τη ημερα ησαν πορευομενοι : B
(5) και ιδου δυο εξ αυτων εν τη αυτη ημερα ησαν δε πορευομενοι : א*
(6) και ιδου δυο εξ αυτων εν τη αυτη ημερα ησαν δε πορευομενοι : א¹
(7) ησαν δε δυο πορευομενοι εξ αυτων εν αυτη τη ημερα : D
(8) κωμην : א, A, B, D, W, ℓ1, ℓ181, ℓ640
(9) κομην : ℓ17, ℓ339
(10) πολιν : ℓ1086
(11) εμμαους : א, A, B, W, ℓ1, ℓ17, ℓ181, ℓ339, ℓ640, ℓ1086
(12) ουλαμμαους : D
A Textual Commentary On Luke 24:13
(a) (15) cui nomen a, nomine b c d e f, vg.
(16) ammaus a, cleopas et ammaus b, emmaus c f, vg ; alammaus d, ammaus et cleopas e.
Is not this almost exactly as Jerome said : tot exemplaria, quot codices ? And when we take into account that all this variety in the Latin manuscripts is not simply due to a difference in translation, but that a similar diversity exists in the Greek,1 we can easily understand what a task it is to extricate the original text from out these conflicting witnesses. At the same time, we have evidence of the singular position in which D stands to all the others ; while the last example also affords an illustration of the way in which mistakes might arise. The reading ᾗ ὄνομα in verse 13 would preclude any possibility of misunderstanding. But suppose the reader or the translator had before him a manuscript like D, in which the reading was ὀνόματι. What happened, we shall suppose, was this. The phrase, “Emmaus by name,” was taken as referring, not to the village, but to the subject of the sentence ; the other name, Cleopas, was then inserted from verse 18, and in time placed even before Emmaus by a later copyist. And accordingly we find, even in Ambrose of Milan, that the two travellers are regularly called Ammaon et Cleopas. It was just as Jerome said : a vitiosis interpretibus male edita, a praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius, a librariis dormitantibus aut addita aut mutata.
(16) Εμμαους and ουλαμμαους. Of these (8), (15), and (16) are found only in D
(Eberhard Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, p. 121-122)