Wow, great, how could you locate it that fast?
So:
1) In Jerome it is systematically "amianton" (insofar one could treat two occurrences as a system)
2) Note how in Cod. Sang 118 it is "vel lini" (not "vel ligni") without any correction!
3) The "quod" I think is inserted by another scribe (note the difference in "u")
These corrections (lini -> ligni and inserting "quod") look to me like corrections of later readers who wanted to bring this text in accordance with some later version which was probably already corrupted.
The fact that we observe this in two different and geographically diverse manuscripts is if not convincing then at least suggestive.
"Amianton" on the margin is by another scribe of course - like a matter of reference perhaps.
So:
1) In Jerome it is systematically "amianton" (insofar one could treat two occurrences as a system)
2) Note how in Cod. Sang 118 it is "vel lini" (not "vel ligni") without any correction!
3) The "quod" I think is inserted by another scribe (note the difference in "u")
These corrections (lini -> ligni and inserting "quod") look to me like corrections of later readers who wanted to bring this text in accordance with some later version which was probably already corrupted.
The fact that we observe this in two different and geographically diverse manuscripts is if not convincing then at least suggestive.
"Amianton" on the margin is by another scribe of course - like a matter of reference perhaps.