Matt. 23:14

Matt. 23:14 (h.t.) 

 

.........................................12..οστις δε υψωσει εαυτον ταπ-
......εινωθησεται και οστις ταπεινωσει εαυτον υψωθησεται
13..ουαι δε υμιν γραμματεις και φαρισαιοι υποκριται οτι κ
....ατεσθιετε τας οικιας των χηρων και προφασει μακρα π-
....ροσευχομενοι δια τουτο ληψεσθε περισσοτερον κριμα
14..ουαι δε υμιν γραμματεις και φαρισαιοι υποκριται οτι κ
......λειετε την βασιλειαν των ουρανων εμπροσθεν των αν-
......θρωπων υμεις γαρ ουκ εισερχεσθε ουδε τους εισερχο-
......μενους αφιετε εισελθειν
15..ουαι υμιν γραμματεις και φαρισαιοι υποκριται οτι περι-
.....αγετε την θαλασσαν και την ξηραν ποιησαι ενα προση-
.....λυτον και οταν γενηται ποιειτε αυτον υιον γεεννης διπ-
.....λοτερον υμων 16. ουαι υμιν οδηγοι τυφλοι οι λεγοντες
.....ος αν ομοση εν τω ναω ουδεν εστιν ος δ αν ομοση εν
.....τω χρυσω του ναου οφειλει. ...

---

Include verse 13: K W Δ Π 0107 0138 28 565 700 892 (1009) 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 (1253) 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS) (l-76) it-f Syr-p/h Copt-Bo(mss) Eth. Chrysostom Ps. Chrysos. John-Damascus

Reverse verse 13/14: f13, l-547 it-b//e/ff2/h/l/r1 Vg-Cl Syr-c/Pal(mss) Copt-Bo(mss) Diat. Origen Hilary Chrysos.(some)

Omit: א B D L Θ f1 33 892(txt) 1344 it-a/sur/d/e/ff1/g1 Vg-ww Syr-pal(mss) Cop-sa/bo(mss) Arm Geo Origen(gr/lat) Euseb. Jerome Druthmarus

---

Matthew 23:14
is an interesting and elegant case of homoioteleuton, because it is not
apparent what happened without examining the Byzantine Text and also
understanding the real mechanics of what appears to be homoioARCTON.

The reason this instance has gone unrecognised is through not
understanding both the actual mistake, and its deceptive result.

Pseudo-HomoioArcton (metamorphosis of similar beginnings)

In fact, most cases of "homoioArcton" (similar beginnings) are really homoioteleuton in disguise. The scribe's natural habit is to remember what he has just penned, and search for that in the master-copy. Thus a scribe does not usually hop from one similar beginning of a line to another, because he's not looking for the beginning of a line at all, but rather what he has just written, the end of a segment.

In pseudo-homoioarcton, a phrase at the beginning of a clause, sentence or verse actually falls at the end of a line,
in some copy, due to the practice of filling up lines and even chopping
up words to create more or less even margins on both sides. As a
result, the scribe's eye treats the piece as though it were an 'ending'
(i.e. copying right to the end of the line). He now looks back for a
line ending he has written, but finds instead a similar "beginning" or
really a line ending further down.
In the case above, the scribe most likely copied the first line of
verse 13 correctly. Then, glancing back at his master-copy, he found
the wrong line ending, namely the end of the first line of verse 14,
and started copying this second verse from the point after that.
The result however, makes it appear that the scribe has skipped the
whole verse 13 from beginning to end, because the beginnings are
identical. Another copyist or editor, not fully understanding such
subtleties, assumed that the whole verse was either added or deleted,
and since the ENDINGS of the consecutive verses are NOT similar,
homoioteleuton was not suspected.
To the amateur or inexperienced textual critic, this does not look like
what it really is, namely homoioteleuton (similar endings). Instead it
looks like a (rather unconvincing) case of homoioARCTON, which, since
that rarely occurs as such, is dismissed as the cause of the variant.
The rest of the history of the variants is made plain by this. A
corrector, noting the verse was missing, replaced it in the wrong place
(not understanding the mechanism or where the real break was), and a
new variant was created, with verse 13 and 14 reversed!
Again the original culprit is a sleepy-eyed Alexandrian scribe, with the Italians replacing the verse at the wrong spot.
The Hortians, and UBS adopt the worst possible variant (omision) as if
it were the original text, and all the 'modern' versions follow,
psychologically disturbed by the displacement of the verse in some
copies.
However, such apparent "positional uncertainties" have nothing to do
with the certainty and authenticity of the text. They are mechanical
features caused by the nature of the accidents in copying only.
The entire set of variants could really only have come about one way, with reasonable assumptions about copying habits.

Another format that could easily generate the same error is as follows: