Mark 11:8

Mark 11:8 (Traditional text)

  ... KΑI ΠOΛΛOI TΑ IMΑTIΑ
ΑΥTΩN    ΕΣTΡΩΣΑN   ΕIΣ THN OΔON
ΑΛΛOI ΔΕ ΣTOIΒΑΔΑΣ KΥΨΑNTΕΣ ΕK TΩN
ΑΓΡΩN KΑI ΕΣTΡΩNNΥON ΕIΣ THN OΔON
KΑI OI     ΠΡOΑΓONTΕΣ
KΑI OI ΑKOΛOΥΘOΥNTΕΣ
ΕKΡΑZON ΩΣΑNNΑ ΕΥΛOΓHMΕNOΣ
O ΕΡXOMΕNOΣ ΕN ONOMΑTI KΥΡIOΥ


and many, their garments
(they had) spread on the road,
but others spread leafy branches
which they had cut from the fields
and spread on the road.
and those who went before
and those who followed cried out,
"Hosanna! Blessed is he
who comes in the name of the Lord!"

---

The UBS-2 (1968) text doesn't even give notice that they have deleted a line from the traditional text here, and so the textual evidence must be sought elsewhere (for instance from W/H's Introduction of 1882, or Tischendorf's 8th ed.). But this section of Mark is so loaded with duplications of phrase that it is a wonder there were not many more mistakes and textual variants. The style of prose of the rest supports the inclusion of the phrase, not its exclusion.

---

Its easy to see here how the scribe, already fatigued by having to work with a 'wordy' Byzantine text-type, went completely cross-eyed and lost a line out of this cluster. What is ironic is that the scribe drops a line on the first "KAI", and doesn't even make it to the next line, where an even greater potential haplography hazard awaits.

Again, nobody in the Alexandrian stream was going to pick up the pieces here, And we could have predicted that critics would just close their eyes and hope the shorter text would at least remove some of the headache.

Modern versions follow along, like donkeys tracking a retreating carrot on a stick. But not even telling the reader of the deletion of a half-verse must be labelled a dubious practice.

Mark 10:7

Mark 10:7 (Traditional text)

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to Return

           ...ΕNΕKΕN TOΥTOΥ KΑTΑΛΕIΨΕI
ΑNΘΡΩΠOΣ TON ΠΑTΕΡΑ ΑΥTOΥ KΑI THN MHTΕΡΑ
KΑI ΠΡOΣKOΛΛHΘHΣΕTΑI ΠΡOΣ THN ΓΥNΑIKΑ ΑΥTOΥ
KΑI ΕΣONTΑI OI ΔΥO ΕIΣ ΣΑΡKΑ MIΑN
ΩΣTΕ OΥKΕTI ΕIΣIN ΔΥO ΑΛΛΑ MIΑ ΣΑΡΞ ...

'For this reason a man shall leave
his father and mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.' -
So no longer
are they two but one flesh. ...

---

INCLUDE LINE: ... All other Uncials, Byz (all other cursives), Lect (all Lectionaries), all other versions, all other patristic evidence

OMIT: (א), B, ψ 892* syr ^s, goth

---

There it is again, this time likely from an older single-column papyrus with its wider columns:

similar start of line (Homoioarcton), which morphs into a homoioteleuton, resulting in the loss of the third line here.

No doubt this was an early boo-boo. And it was quickly corrected and/or prevented from entering all the surviving streams of transmission...

- except, of course, the two Alexandrian MSS and a handful of followers: critics and modern versions numbly strike out the line.

It should be noted that the diverse clustering of the textual support between cases (as well as variations like length of line) indicate that these omissions come from different times and places.

This plainly demonstrates that at least some of these omissions cannot be the original text. But it IS possible that NONE of the omissions are original.

Mark 9:49-50

Mark 9:49-50 (traditional text)

... ΠΑΣ  ΓΑΡ ΠΥΡI ΑΛIΣΘHΣΕTΑI KΑI ΠΑΣA ΘΥΣIΑ ΑΛI ΑΛIΣΘHΣΕTΑI KΑΛON TO ΑΛΑΣ ΕΑN ΔΕ TO ΑΛΑΣ ΑNΑΛON ΓΕNHTΑI ΕN TINI ΑΥTO ΑΡTΥΣΕTΕ ΕXΕTΕ ΕN ΕΑΥTOIΣ ΑΛΑ KΑI ΕIΡHNΕΥΕTΕ ΕN ΑΛΛHΛOIΣ For everyone with fire (will be) salted And every sacrifice with salt salted. good (is) salt; but if the salt has lost its saltness, how will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another."

---

INCLUDE LINE: A (C) K (X) (Θ) Π PSI 28 892 1010 1071 1079 (1195) 1216 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 1646 2148 2174 (1009 1010c 1546 Lect^303,1127c) Byz (Majority of MSS), Lect (Lectionaries), it^f,l,q vg^cl (vg^ww) syr^p,h cop^(bo) goth aeth Diat. (D) it^{(a)b d ff2 i} (it^aur,c,k)

OMIT: (א), B, L,(W) Δ f ¹, f ¹³, 28* 565 700 syr ^s, cop^sa,(bo), arm geo, (Diat^a-part)

---

Here we have the alternate error, the similar ending of a line (Homoioteleuton) even more strongly than the beginning. The result is the same: loss of a line, and the usual suspect manuscripts, critics, and modern editions follow along, although this ancient error never even made it into the Latin via mixture or 'correction'.

The lesson is the same: Early mistake does not equal original text. Although the reading should be documented in any publication of the lost exemplar for Aleph/B, it should never have been adopted by those editing printed Bibles. Another case of misapplication of resources, allowing old errors to creep back into the working text.

We can see other potential trouble brewing as well, when the word "salt" appears five times in a few clauses. But we don't expect to see every potential case of haplography actually occur in the fragmentary samples of the textual stream that we now possess.

Mark 8:26-27

Mark 8:26-27 (homoioArcton)

                         ...KΑI ΑΠΕΣTΕIΛΕN
ΑΥTON ΕIΣ OIKON ΑΥTOΥ ΛΕΓΩN
MHΔΕ ΕIΣ THN KΩMHN ΕIΣΕΛΘHΣ
MHΔΕ ΕIΠHΣ TINI EN TH KΩMH
KΑI ΕΞHΛΘΕN O IHΣOΥΣ KΑI OI
MΑΘHTΑI ΑΥTOΥ ΕIΣ TΑΣ KΩMΑΣ
KΑIΣΑΡΕIΑΣ THΣ ΦIΛIΠΠOΥ

...And he sent
him away to his home, saying,
"Nor into the town enter,
Nor tell anyone in the town."
And Jesus went on with his disciples,
to the villages of Caesarea Philippi;

---

INCLUDE LINE: + A C K X Δ Π 33 700 (892) 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 (1546) 1646 2148, Byz (Majority of MSS), Lect (all Lectionaries), syr^p,h, cop^(bo), goth, Aeth, Diatess.^a,(p). (D), it^(c),d,(q), (Θ), f¹³, (565), (1216, 2174), (arm), geo ^A, it^{(s),aur,b,f,(ff2),(i),l} vg geo^B, (124), syr^h-mg.

OMIT: ( - MHΔΕ ΕI ΠHΣ TINI EN TH KΩMH) - א, B, L, f ¹, syr ^a, cop^sa,bo,fay, geo¹, (it^k)

---

The scribe copies the first line beginning with 'MHΔΕ', then looking back at his exemplar fails to notice TWO lines starting with 'MHΔΕ' and continues from 'KΑI' (in line 4). The similar content in both lines doesn't help either. The error could be made multiple times from the same poorly laid out mastercopy, and once in the transmission stream could be duplicated further. Alexandrian editing practices ensured that this briefer reading would find its way into other copying streams via 'mixture'.

Once again, the shared omission by Aleph/B suggests either a common ancestor, or else a common set of readings by which such manuscripts were corrected by the copyists in the scriptorium where the two were made. But the very argument for a common ancestor identifies this as an error, not the original text (original readings do not distinguish text-types).

Instead of noting the obvious, modern versions follow their blind guides and the critical text of Westcott/Hort. They mistake the identification of an early intermediary text as the original text. Early intermediary texts by definition and nature must contain errors, and these are often identifiable. When errors can be identified, they should not be adopted as though they were original readings.

Mark 6:33-34

Mark 6:33-34 (traditional text)

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to Return

KΑI  ΕIΔON  ΑΥTOΥΣ ΥΠΑΓONTΑΣ
KΑI  ΕΠΕΓNΩΣΑN    ΠOΛΛOI
KΑI   ΠΕZH  ΑΠO  ΠΑΣΩN  TΩN
ΠOΛΕΩN   ΣΥNΕΔΡΑMON   ΕKΕI
KΑI ΠΡOHΛΘON          ΑΥTOΥΣ
KΑI ΣΥNHΛΘON      ΠΡOΣ  ΑΥTON
KΑI  ΕΞΕΛΘΩN ΕIΔΕN ΠOΛΥN OXΛON
KΑI  ΕΣΠΛΑΓXNIΣΘH   ΕΠ  ΑΥTOΥΣ
OTI HΣΑN ΩΣ ΠΡOΒΑTΑ MH ΕXONTΑ
ΠOIMΕNΑ KΑI HΡΞΑTO  ΔIΔΑΣKΕIN
ΑΥTOΥΣ ΠOΛΛΑ...

And they saw them going,
and (the) people knew them,
and they ran on foot from all the towns,
and       got there    ahead of them,
and they   gathered  together  to Him,
and leaving (the boat) He saw a huge crowd,
and he had compassion on them, because
they were like sheep without a shepherd;
and he began to teach them many things.

---

Here we have started a new line for each clause beginning with KΑI, as early amateur copyists commonly did, copying clause by clause. One instantly gets a sense of the frequency with which Homoioarcton (similar beginning) type errors could occur, due to Mark's simple narrative style. Almost every 5th or 6th line, features present themselves in a way to invite disaster.

---

include both lines: + και συνηλθον προς αυτον (/αυτου[ς]) - A, K, D, Π, f^13~, 1009 1010 1071 1195 1216 1230 1242 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174 (1253, 1344), & Maj. of Greek MSS, it ^{f, (q)}, syr ^h, Aeth

omit line 6 (only): - και συνηλθον προς αυτον - א, B, L, , 892, 1241, + 13 lectionaries (!)
omit line 5 (only): ( - και προηλθον αυτους ) - D ^greek, 28, 700 it ^b

---

the 6th line (underlined) is dropped by Aleph, B, critical Greek texts, and modern versions.

Here both a similar beginning and ending (and middle!) of two consecutive lines has caused the scribe's eye to slip and drop a line from the ancestor of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two manuscripts stand alone (along with the 'usual suspects', a handful of lesser Alexandrian witnesses), against the overwhelming evidence for inclusion of the verses from all other text-types and witnesses (early fathers, versions etc.)

The alternate and independant, but identical type of error by Codex D underlines both how easily such errors happened and the difficulty early scribes had catching them before they were propagated into the textual stream.

Neither line adds anything to the narrative, and they could not have been concocted by copyists. They simply reflect the all-too-common and well documented long-windedness and redundancy of Mark's natural style.

Yet moronically, almost all modern versions follow the painfully obvious error of the 'two oldest and bestest manuscripts' against all other textual evidence, and common sense.

Nothing is really lost by the adoption of either reading, except of course the reputation of the Alexandrian scribes, and the credibility of modern Bible editors.

Codex B: Jn 17:15 homoioteleuton

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to Return

Mr. Scrivener describes ably the situation here:

"The full force of the homoeoteleuton features is not seen until previous lines are considered at an appropriate line-length, as above. Fully 53% of letters are duplicated in the previous line, and another 20% in the line before that. There are 12 different vulnerable letter-alignments possible with this line-length alone. One can double that taking an alternate line-length of 15 chars per line."  

- Mr. Scrivener, TC-Alt-List

Any early papyri could have about this line-length, and be the culprit creating the opportunity for Codex B's blunder.    But other line-lengths offer similar opportunities:

 
Since there is no extant immediate ancestor for B, it could very well be a mistake by the copyist of B himself.

On the other hand, these errors are so common, that Codex B may have simply copied the error from his exemplar, and so we have a previous scribe to blame.

All textual critics recognise and class this as a "first-generation error", and so it will not be found in the apparatus of any critical edition of the Greek NT.

But this example along with the judgement of the majority of critics makes an obvious point:  Codex B and/or his ancestors were quite capable of making homoioteleuton errors and failing to catch them, allowing repetition of these mistakes for at least 1 or 2 copying generations.

 It is critically important then, to examine every minority reading found in Codex Vaticanus and its supporting witnesses, that presents the features of a probable homoioteleuton omission.

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to Return

Homoioteleuton Strikes! ...in many ways

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to Return

When a significant amount of text is repeated shortly beyond the first instance, then many opportunities for an unfortunate alignment are possible, as copying continues.

Paradoxically, it is not possible to say what the exact layout was in a given case, or what text was actually skipped, even though we are certain of both the starting text and the final text.  Many essentially different mistakes can generate the exact same text.

Scribes often vary the format: number of columns per page, line-width, page size.  Copying with variation results in constant realignment of text and new dangers.

Above we show how several different text-alignments with the same column width can provide hazards, and cause the omission of the exact same text independently in locations far away from one another, and under completely different conditions.  Especially in cases where copyists are justifying both sides of a column and splitting words to fit,

          number of letter-alignments = (the number of letters - 1) 

(at least one letter must be left on the previous line)

Column-width changes can also provide even more variations in alignment.  See the examples below.    When repeated phrases are a large distance apart, the intervening text in danger can break up into whole lines a number of ways.

The total number of layouts that can easily generate the same homoioteleuton error becomes:

   Layouts  = (number of line splits  X  number of letter-alignments)

Below, the text in danger spans two lines. 

In a different format, the same text is again in danger:

This text could also align again over three lines in a narrower column.

(3 x 2) = 6 independent ways a layout in a master-copy could spur the omission of the same text, in different locations, different times, and different unrelated lines of transmission.

This means that even when two manuscripts share the exact same text, indicating a homoioteleuton error, one such coincidence cannot demonstrate a genealogical dependency or an earlier error in a master-copy.   Only multiple cases in the same pair of copies could confirm a common ancestor by "agreement in error".


Peace
Nazaroo