Hebrews 7:21-22 (traditional text)HomoioArcton
............ο δε μετα ορκω-
μοσιας δια του λεγοντος
προς αυτον ωμοσεν ΚΣ
και ου μεταμεληθησεται
συ ιερευς εις τ ον αιωνα
κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ
κατα τοσουτον κρειττονος
διαθηκης γεγον εν εγγυος ΙΣ
and he with an oath through
Him who is saying unto
him, `The Lord gave an
oath, and will not repent,
Thou [art] a priest - eternally,
according to the order of Melchisedek;'
according to so much of a better
covenant has Jesus become surety,
INCLUDE LINE: א(corr) A D E K L P al pler d e hal cop syr(utr) aeth Eus.(dem177.223) Byz Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS) etc.
OMIT LINE: א* B C 17. 80. f bg sah basm arm Euthal(cod) Amb.(fug saec.3)
א-a, A, C, 048 81 1739 it-r1 [Syr-Pal(pt)], Copt-Bo, aeth,
Marcion Origen(pt:gr/lat), Ephraem Aug. John-Dam.
Tischendorf's Original Apparatus:
μετα cum א D E K L P al pler etc. Item א(c) B* C Euthal(cod)
μεθ cum A B(c) etc.
| εις τον αιωνα absque additam cum א B C 17. 80. f bg sah basm arm Euthal(cod) Amb.(fug saec.3)
...ς (Gb(0)) Ln add κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ cum א(c) A D E K L P al pler d e hal cop syr(utr) aeth Eus.(dem177.223) etc.
Another obvious haplography error (HomoioArcton), costing the tail end of an important quotation.
The idea that the careful composer of Hebrews would have left out the key player in this O.T. quotation is not worth considering.
The line length is classic for a column width of 22 letters, with or without contractions (nomina sacrae). As is often the case, the cause of the omission is found in the very next verse.
Tischendorf blindly follows his favourite codex Sinaiticus, while Hort follows Vaticanus with the same result: They duplicate an early error introduced by the ancestor of both.
How many times must we find the translators of modern versions asleep at the wheel? All of them omit this line, following the WH/NA/UBS text, which by the way has no footnote even acknowledging the omission.
Another important line in the NT vanishes without a trace...