Mark 9:49-50 (traditional text)
... ΠΑΣ ΓΑΡ ΠΥΡI ΑΛIΣΘHΣΕTΑI
KΑI ΠΑΣA ΘΥΣIΑ ΑΛI ΑΛIΣΘHΣΕTΑI
KΑΛON TO ΑΛΑΣ
ΕΑN ΔΕ TO ΑΛΑΣ
ΕN TINI ΑΥTO
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
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 Lect303,1127c) Byz (Majority of MSS), Lect (Lectionaries), itf,l,q vgcl (vgww) syrp,h cop(bo) goth aeth Diat. (D) it(a)b d ff2 i (itaur,c,k)
OMIT: (א), B, L,(W) Δ f 1, f 13, 28* 565 700 syr s, copsa,(bo), arm geo, (Diata-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.