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
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, f13~, 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.