It seems to me an important observation that in considering the existing variant units, there will always be some that aren't identified as homoeoteleuton-like accidental errors, because they lack the obvious features.
That is, our list of homeoteleuton errors will always be smaller than the actual number caused by line-skip/eye-slip mistakes. Some will always get through, and leave us puzzling as to what actually happened, when actually it was just another scribal blunder.
We should always consequently suspect that a significant number of other variant units are also simply clumsy omissions, and this option ought to be considered in almost every case of apparent omission/addition, even when features may suggest by coincidence that the omission/addition was deliberate or theologically influenced.
The study of errors in the NT manuscripts caused by similarities in nearby phrase endings.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the existance of yet more undetected haplographic skips increases the probability of correct identification of homoioteleuton errors.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a logical fallacy in there somewhere, because they are independent events. The fact of other accidental omissions cannot increase the probability of successful identification of the ones we have independently selected via homoioteleuton features in the Variation Unit.
Have you got something you haven't shown us?
peace
Nazaroo