homoioteleuton

Tommy Wasserman on Mark 1:1 - homoeoteleuton

2011-10-18T12:22:00.000-07:00

Click to enlarge: backbutton to return

Tommy Wasserman has examined Mark 1:1 closely, and comes to the conclusion that it is a probable omission due to homoeoteleuton.

In the picture above, one can see an early corrector re-inserting the lost words "Son of God" (in Nomina Sacra abbreviation) above the line.
Wasserman believes this is the earliest layer of correction, and hence contemporary with the manuscript itself, probably before it left the scriptorium. (This manuscript has many corrections, including the replacement of several whole folios by an overseer, which must have happened before it left the scriptorium also, because the Euse. Canons are missing from some replacement pages, but present on others.)

The Evangelical TC Blog has linked to his audio lecture below:

Tommy's excellent presentation on the text of Mark 1.1 is now available in audio via the CSCO website (where it is also described as argued persuasively):

Tommy Wasserman, ‘The “Son of God” was in the Beginning,’ lecture (44min)
Wasserman, Question and Answer, (28min)

In his analysis, Tommy Wasserman notes that there are either 6 genitive endings of words in a row, or else 4 Nomina Sacra, creating an easy situation for error. In his opinion, the argument that omissions are unlikely in the very beginning of a book is outweighed by both the textual evidence and the intrinsic evidence regarding Mark's style and purpose.

Dr. Maurice Robinson on Textual Variants

2011-09-28T01:42:00.000-07:00

Recently, in discussions of a few key variants at the KJV Debate blog, Dr. Robinson has restated his position on the role of errors in the evolution of the textual variants:

" The further blanket claim that I “ascribe error and scribal slips to all the errors of Aleph & B” is simply incorrect. While I do maintain (on the basis of a careful examination of scribal habits) that scribal error is a primary cause of textual variation, I also clearly presume deliberate alteration and recensional activity to have occurred among the Alexandrian manuscripts (as per my 1993 article, “The Recensional Nature of the Alexandrian Texttype”). The leading principle in this regard is to presume scribal error as an initial factor so long as transcriptional probabilities suggest such, then to presume intentional change at whatever points transcriptional probabilities seem to be transcended for what appear to be stylistic or content-based “improvement” concepts in the eyes of particular scribes.
I trust this will clarify the matter."

A .pdf version of Dr. Robinson's article can be found also here: The Recensional Nature of the Alexandrian Texttype.

F. Gardiner (1875) on Homoioteleuton

2011-09-27T08:55:00.000-07:00

Gardiner originally gave a rather long article in Bibliotheca Sacra Apr 1875, reprinted as a book(let) of about 80 pages, complete with some useful charts showing the overlap for the known Uncials and the various books of the NT.

Beginning at about pg 10, Gardiner discusses homoioteleuton as follows:

"To illustrate these [accidental errors], one or two instances under each head are selected from Mr. Hammond's recent convenient little manual (Outlines of Textual Criticism applied to the New Testament. By C. E. Hammond, M.A. Oxford : Clarendon Press. 1872. From this work much of the present paper has been abridged.)

Under errors of sight belong omissions from what is technically called Homoioteleuton. Thus, in Codex C, the words τουτο δε εστιν το θελημα του πεμψαντος με are omitted in John 6:39, because the last three words had occurred immediately before, and the eye of the scribe passed on from their first to their second occurrence. This happens especially when the same words occur at the end of consecutive lines.

To the same head belong the many instances, more generally in the uncial MSS., arising from the confusion of similar letters such as Α, Λ, Δ ; or Ε ς, Θ Ο. From this arose the well-known and well-disputed reading in 1 Tim. 3:16. Similar letters or syllables are sometimes omitted and sometimes inserted; thus in Matt. 26:39 for ΠΡΟΣΕΛΘΩΝ Cod. B has ΠΡΟΕΛΘΩΝ, and in Luke 9:49 Cod. H has εκβαλλοντα τα δαιμονια for εκβαλλοντα διαμονια . Letters, too, are sometimes transposed, so that in Acts 13:23 for ΣΠΑΙΝ, Codd. H and L read ΣΠΙΑΝ {σωτηρα Ιησου} . The number of errors from this source is very large, as the margin of any critical edition will readily show."

Gardiner's remarks show once again that 19th century Textual Critics were perfectly able to understand and quite capable of identifying homoeoteleuton errors.

However, they restricted their notice of these to singular readings, and consistently refused to use the evidence of their own eyes to extend these observations, and extrapolate them to the lost exemplars and archetypes of the surviving manuscripts, even when they knew full well that key manuscripts (like א and B) had common ancestors and at least partially shared lines of transmission.

These factors should have alerted them to the high probability that omissions with identical h.t. features shared by such MSS were obviously also earlier h.t. errors, and not to be inserted into reconstructions of the 'original text'.

But this observation would have run counter to the widespread and overriding agenda to 'dethrone the Textus Receptus'.

Nazaroo

David Robert Palmer on h.t. in NA27 & John

2011-09-23T22:57:00.000-07:00

It appears that David Robert Palmer, Bible translator and textual critic, who has provided a complete set of .pdf translations along with the Greek text and an extensive but concise apparatus, has followed with interest our research on homoeoteleuton errors in the popular critical texts such as the UBS text.

He has chosen to include in his apparatus some of our observations regarding h.t. errors, in his latest version of the Greek text of John:

"[to] Steven Avery: when I opened my translation of the gospel of John, I see this:
'Codex Barococciani 206 θ, A.D. 692'
I apparently already corrected [this] sometime in the past, probably in 2008. You have an old copy of my work.

Here, get the current one: Greek-English John w Apparatus http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/johnwgrk.pdf The current one [Greek text of John with apparatus], unlike the copy you have, also has adopted 3 or 4 suggestions from Nazaroo as to instances of homoioteleuton in the NA27 text. So, your copy is very much out of date.

David Robert Palmer
http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/

Message #4544 Sept 23, 2011, TC-Alt List

Our thanks to Mr. Palmer, for taking our work into consideration when updating his textual apparatus.

Nazaroo

A.C. Clark (1914): h.t. singulars - Codex B

2011-09-17T19:56:00.000-07:00

In chapter 5 of Clark's book The Primitive Text.., (1914), he lists many of the singular readings found in Codex Vaticanus (B), which present h.t. features:

-------------- QUOTE: ---

"B is written in 3 colums, with 42 lines / page and an average of 16-17 letters/line. As compared with Aleph, B is a reticent witness. It is, however, clear that it is derived from an ancestor containing 10-12 letters to the line.

...the following omissions of B, or B-1, against Aleph, may represent lines of the model:

Mark 1:35 ...εξηλθε και απηλθε(ν)... (10 chars) om. B (h.t.)
Mark 14:10 ...προς τους αρχιερεις ... (11 chars) om. B (h.t.)
...
Acts 23:28:
...βουλομενος δε
γνωναι την αιτιαν δι ην ενεκαλουν αυτω
κατηγαγον αυτον εις το συνεδριον αυτων

where B omits κατηγαγον...αυτων (33 letters) om. B (h.t.)

Matt. 10:37
...ο φιλων πατερα η μητερα υπερ εμε ουκ εστιν μου αξιος
και ο φιλων υιον η θυγατερα υπερ εμε ουκ εστιν μου αξιος

where B omits και... αξιος (42 letters) om. B (h.t.)

Here the Oxyrh. papyrus 1170 (4th cent.) also omits the next clause (62 letters), which makes for a total of 104 characters in that MS.'

------------------------------ END QUOTE ---
mr.scrivener

Codex א: Singulars - h.t. List from A.C. Clark (1914)

2011-09-04T13:46:00.000-07:00

Chapter IV (p. 24 fwd) in A.C. Clark's book, The Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts (1914) is not only loaded with a startlingly large list of rarely mentioned h.t. errors, (critics who push the WH text rarely call attention to the faults of /B), but he shows how investigation into the column-width of the master-copy provides additional confirmation and insight into the h.t. process.

Clark explains:

"[Sinaiticus] is written in four columns with 48 lines per page and an average of 13-14 letters to the line. [this column-width is important for what follows] ...
The internal evidence shows that א is derived from an ancestor with an average of 10-12 letters per line.

Examples:

Luke 11:1 διδαξον ημας προσευχεσθαι, καθως και Ιωαννης εδιδαξε τους μαθητας αυτου. omit και Ιωαννης (10 letters) - א .
The words are necessary to the sense, since John has not been mentioned previously.

John 19:23 και εποιησαν τεσσαρα μερη εκαστω στρατιωτη μερος και τον χιτωνα ην δε ο χιτων αρραφος ... omit και τον χιτωνα (12 letters) - א .

Sometimes we have multiples of the same unit in immediate proximity, e.g.;

Mark 13:8

εγερθησεται γαρ

εθνος επι εθνος

και βασιλεια

επι βασιλεια- (ν)

εσονται σεισμοι

κατα τοπους και

εσονται λιμοι

και ταραχαι αρ

χαι ωδινων ταυ-

τα...

(1) omit επι βασιλεια- (11 letters) - א .

(2) omit κατα τοπους και εσονται λιμοι (22 letters) - א .

(homoeoteleuton).'

Clark gives over a dozen more examples, all multiples of similar line-lengths:

Jn 12:31 - omit   νυν ο αρχων του κοσμου τουτου (24 letters) - א
Jn 3:20-21 - omit   ουκ ... το φως και (22 letters) - א
Jn 3:20-21 - omit   ο δε ...τα εργα αυτου (57 letters) - א
The omissions [above] are due to the coincidence of h.t. with line division. We may assign to this ancestor such short omissions as:

(10 letters, h.t. ) Matt. 23:35 - omit   [...Ζαχαριου] υυ Βαραχιου - א
(12 letters, h.t. )   Mk 12:25 - omit   ουτε γαμουσιν - א
(13 letters, h.t. )   Lk 12:18 - omit   [...α μου] και τα αγαθα μου - א

"There is however, the possibility that there is a larger unit representing an intermediate ancestor. We must therefore, take into consideration omissions of 14-19 letters. The cases I have noticed are:

(14 letters, h.t. - א ) Matt 28:3
(15 letters, h.t. - א ) Matt. 16:9
                         Luke 6:14
(16 letters, h.t. - א ) Jn 1;25
                         Jn 8:20
(17 letters, h.t. - א )   Jn 17:17
(18 letters, h.t. - א )   Matt. 27:56
                           Mark 10:33
(19 letters, h.t. - א ) Matt 7:27

(20 letters, h.t. - א ) Mk 12:30
(21 letters, h.t. - א ) Matt 19:18
                             Luke 8:47
(22 letters, h.t. - א ) Matt 27:52
                             Luke 16:16
                             John 3:20
(24 letters, h.t. - א ) Matt. 25:43
                             Mark 6:4
                             John 12:31
(27 letters, h.t. - א ) Luke 12:37
(28 letters, h.t. - א ) John 6:55
(29 letters, h.t. - א ) John 4:45
                             John 16:17
(30 letters, h.t. - א ) Matt 5:45
                             John 4:4
(32 letters, h.t. - א ) Matt 13:39
                             John 5:26
(33 letters, h.t. - א ) John 6:39
(35 letters, h.t. - א ) Matt. 10:39
(42 letters, h.t. - א ) Luke 17:9
(43 letters, h.t. - א ) Matt. 9:15
                             John 15:10
(44 letters, h.t. - א ) Matt. 15:18-19
(45 letters, h.t. - א ) Luke 12:52
(47 letters, h.t. - א ) Mark 6:8
(54 letters, h.t. - א ) Luke 10:32
                             Luke 14:15
(57 letters, h.t. - א ) John 3:21
(60 letters, h.t. - א ) Matt. 5:19
(61 letters, h.t. - א ) Mark 6:28
(64 letters, h.t. - א ) Luke 17:35
(71 letters, h.t. - א ) Matt. 26:62-63
                             John 16:15
(84 letters, h.t. - א ) Mark 10:35-37
(92 letters, h.t. - א ) Mark 1:32-34
(101 lett.,   h.t. - א ) John 20:5

(192 lett.,   h.t. - א ) John 19:20

A.C. Clark (1914) on homoeoteleuton (Pt. 2)

2011-08-31T19:13:00.000-07:00

Continuing from A.C. Clark's first book, The Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1914):

"Chapter 1 (p. 1fwd):

'I referred to homoeoteleuton as a frequent cause of omission. The word strictly means similarity of termination, but it is often used for any similarity, e.g., at the beginning of words, which would more appropriately be called homoeoarcton, or for the repetition of the same word (repetitio or geminatio [=dittography]). In all such cases, the copyist was liable to pass from one similar word to the other, omitting the intervening words [and one copy of the doubled word]. The most frequent cause of omission is the repetition of the same word.

...

I now proceed ...to outline the method which should be followed by anyone who embarks upon a similar inquiry. The first task is to ascertain the content of a line in the archetype. For this purpose 'telescoped' lines are of primary importance. In all probability the common unit will be at once revealed. The next step is to tabulate the omissions of the rival families, arranging them in order of magnitude. It will then appear when multiples of a unit figure among the omissions. The separate families should be treated in the same manner.

The information thus acquired must be combined with that furnished by transpositions, dislocations, migratory variants, and corruptions of all kinds. The most minute flaws are often the most important for the purposes of investigation.
Above all the inquirer must not shrink from the labor of counting the letters. No shorter method, such as that of numbering the lines of a printed text, can have any cogency which is possessed by the actual figures.

I have seldom carried out a long numeration without being richly rewarded. I imagine the reason to be that in the long passages occasional irregularities correct each other, and the average remains clearly visible. Also, it is only in them that we can hope to find indications of the longer divisions, viz. columns, pages, and folios in the archetype.'

Chapter 2 (p. 11 fwd)

"...I thought it well to prepare myself by making some examination of the Oxyrhynchus papyri. ...I had to satisfy myself whether the lines exhibit regularity in content similar to the Old Latin MSS. I found that this was so. The papyri are of all shapes and sizes, sometimes written in long lines, but more commonly in columns of various breadth. Sometimes they contain some 40 letters or more to the line, sometimes about 35, more frequently about 28, 24, or 22, very frequently 16-19, while a fair number, ...are written in very narrow columns, averaging 10-12 letters, or even less. In all, however, although abnormally long or short lines occur, the general average soon asserts itself.

...

In my work upon Latin MSS, I have found that where there are two or more columns in a codex, the tendency is for one column to be squeezed. If there are three columns, it is generally the middle one that suffers; if there are two, the column on the left is often a little broader than the one on the right.

The papyri are particularly free from abbreviations apart from a particular class, viz., nomina sacra. ...

Also some of the Uncials, especially B and D, are chary in the use of abbreviations beyond IS XS THS PNA OUNOS PR US ANOS. However on the whole, the bulk of the evidence is on their employment, and, as I do not wish to avail myself of any license, I have treated this as normal. There is some uncertainty as to the use of letters to express numerals. ... The Uncials vary greatly in this respect. On the whole it seems safest to suppose that the numerals were written in full, but the other possibility has to be taken into account.

On examining the papyri I found many phenomena similar to those which I had observed in Latin MSS. "

A.C. Clark (1914) on homoeoteleuton

2011-08-31T14:50:00.000-07:00

A.C. Clark produced two important works on NT TC, the first being The Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1914), and the second, his Critical Text of Acts (1933). Although his continued investigation resulted in modifications and additional details, his basic position remained committed.

Here are some exerpts from the first book (Primitive Text..):

"PREFACE

...Whenever the readings of two MSS ...are compared, ...one of them does not contain passages which occur in the other. In all such cases there are two possible explanations, viz., that the words are spurious, ...inserted by an interpolater..., or that they are genuine, and have been accidentally omitted by the other [copy]. The hypothesis of accident [omission] is highly probable, when there is a reason which will account for the omission.
One such reason is universally recognized, viz., homoeoteleuton. [h.t.] When a similar ending, or word occurs twice in the same sentence, a copyist [could have] easily passed from the first passage to the second, omitting the intermediate words. This saut du meme au meme ["jump from meme to meme"] is the most prolific cause of omissions.
There is another reason which is not infrequently suggested by editors, viz., that the scribe has accidentally omitted a line, or several lines, of his model. When we have two MSS, one which is known to be a transcript of the other, we find actual instances of such omissions. In the vast majority of cases however, we have only the copy, not the [exemplar]. Since all scribes [copyists] are subject to the same errors, it is reasonable to suppose that omissions in a particular MS may represent a line or number of lines [skipped] in an ancestor... the problem is to find an objective criterion..to detect line-omissions.
...[groups of] short passages...doubted on the ground of their omission by a MS or family, frequently contain the same, or nearly the same number of letters. Longer passages in the same way [are] multiples of this unit. The natural inference is that the unit [and longer omissions] correspond to [physical] lines in [the layout of] an ancestor.
Ancient Uncial MSS are written with few abbreviations and no space between words [with] the number of letters per line ...a more or less constant [average] quantity.
It was also easy for a copyist to omit other divisions in his [exemplar], viz., a colum, page, or folio [folded sheet]. Since it is usual for MSS to have the same # of lines per page, it follows that the contents of columns, pages, & folios are similar [in size].
...
The chief result of my investigation has been to show the falsity of the principle brevior lectio potior ("prefer the shorter reading"). This was laid down by Griesbach as a canon of criticism in the words:
"Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auctoritate penitus destituatur, praeferenda est verbosiori. Librari enim multo proniores ad addendum fuerunt quam ad omittendum."
"The Shorter reading, unless the authority of the witnesses completely lacks a weight and age, is preferable to the verbose. Copyists were much more prone to add than to omit."

[But] this statement has no foundation in facts. I may also observe that it is not so easy to invent as it is to omit.
...
I had been brought up to look on the Revised Text as final, to smile at persons who maintained the authenticity of St. Mark 16:9-20 or St. John 7:53-8:11, and to suppose that the 'vagaries' of the 'Western text' were due to wholesale interpolation. The object which I had in view was merely to study the mutual relations of the oldest Greek Uncials, notably, the Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus (Aleph), and Alexandrinus (A). I was however, soon dislodged from this arrogant attitude, and irresistibly driven to very different conclusions.
...
Nowhere is the falsity of the maxim 'Prefer the shorter reading' more evident than in the New Testament. The process [over time in copying] has been one of contraction, not expansion. The primitive text is the longest, not the shortest."

(- Clark, 1914, Preface, iii-vii)

...

Houghton (2011) on Scribal Habits

2011-08-20T02:33:00.000-07:00

Recently H.A.G.  Houghton in his review, has noted some of the advances found in new literature on scribal habits and the papyri, which we excerpt below:

Houghton, H.A.G. (2011) Recent developments in New Testament textual criticism. Early Christianity, 2 (2). pp. 245-268.

'The study of scribal habits reflects ongoing interest in individual documents. Recent publications focus on P45, (50) P66, (51) Codex Sinaiticus, (52) the major manuscripts of Revelation, (53) and a detailed survey of six important New Testament papyri. (54) One resulting observation is that material is more commonly omitted than added in extant papyri, reinforcing the fact that the text-critical canon of lectio breuior potior must not be applied indiscriminately. (55)

Although the identification of scribal practice has traditionally proceeded on the basis of 'singular readings' peculiar to a manuscript, the number of genuinely unique readings (not taking into account nonsense forms) is being diminished as more manuscripts are transcribed in full. The current definition adopted for a singular reading as one "which has no Greek support in the critical apparatus of Tischendorf's 8th edition" (56) will have to be reviewed with the publication of the ECM.
A further methodological issue is that, given the gaps in our knowledge of the tradition, the presence of a particular form in the first-hand text of a given manuscript cannot necessarily be ascribed to the copyist's choosing but may have been inherited from the exemplar: the characteristics isolated by the study of singular and sub-singular readings apply not so much to the scribe as to the form of text found in the manuscript. Only the study of corrections and other annotations provides firm evidence for the intervention of individuals. This also poses problems for accounts of theologically-motivated alterations to the biblical text, made popular by Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.(57)

While certain variants may be interpreted theologically, only if a consistent pattern can be identified within a single manuscript are there grounds for identifying a particular bias – which was most probably not introduced by the copyist but by an editor during the preparation of the text for copying. The claim that "some scribes" modified the text by independently introducing identical variants is implausible (unless the separate emergence of the readings can be demonstrated) and fails to take account of the nature of the copying process.' (58)

50. J.K. Elliott, "Singular Readings in the Gospel Text of P45," in The Earliest Gospels ed. Charles Horton (JSNTSupp 258, London: T&T Clark, 2004), 122–31.

51. Peter M. Head, "Scribal Behaviour and Theological Tendencies in Singular Readings in P. Bodmer II (P66)," in Textual Variation ed. Houghton and Parker, 55–74.

52. Dirk Jongkind, Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (TS 3.5, Piscataway NJ: Gorgias, 2007).

53. Juan Hernández Jr, Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse. The Singular Readings of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi (WUNT 2.218. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006).

54. James R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (NTTSD 36. Leiden: Brill, 2008).

55. See also Peter M. Head, "The Habits of New Testament Copyists. Singular Readings in the Early Fragmentary Papyri of John," Bib 85.3 (2004): 399–408.

56. E.C. Colwell, "Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text," in The Bible in Modern Scholarship ed. J. Philip Hyatt (Nashville TN: Abingdon, 1965), 372–3.

57. Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York & Oxford: OUP, 1993); see also Wayne C. Kannaday, Apologetic Discourse and the Scribal Tradition. (SBLTCS 5. Atlanta GA: SBL, 2004).

58. On this, see especially Ulrich Schmid, "Scribes and Variants – Sociology and Typology" in Textual Variation ed. Houghton and Parker, 1–23, and other papers in the same volume; Michael W. Holmes, Text of P46: Evidence of the Earliest 'Commentary' on Romans?" in New Testament Manuscripts ed. Kraus and Nicklas, 189–206.

Certainly, Hernández (2006), Jongkind (2007), and Royse (2008) have gathered and analyzed a vast amount of detailed data from the papyri, and these three works stand out especially high above their contemporaries, and must be considered highly recommended reading. It is hard to see however, what value Bart Ehrman's work can be granted, given his crippling atheistic bias in regard to the Bible text, - or what little there is remaining that can be milked out of Colwell's acknowledged pioneering (pre 1965), but now hopelessly out of date study.

Better choices for new readers in this field would be probably be Zuntz' study on the Epistles, Sturz' foundational work on The Byzantine text-type, and Dr. Maurice Robinson's valuable article on the same topic. In regard to key passages of the NT relevant to Textual Criticism, the work of James Snapp Jr. on The Ending of Mark must be considered essential reading to those wishing to avoid confusion and the inevitable disinformation now rampant in the current literature on T.C.

Houghton also notes the findings of Schmidt and Holmes, regarding the unlikelihood of coincidental but identical readings by independent copyists. But this can be very misleading, as a large number of significant cases of homoeoteleuton involve extensive segments of duplicate strings of letters, allowing sometimes hundreds of different line alignments and 'situations' which would generate identical outcome-texts even though the scribes skipped at different places. (See many of our posts here illustrating this).

click to enlarge

Nazaroo

E. Mitchell (1896) and Royse (2008) on homoeoteleuton

2011-08-19T06:47:00.000-07:00

Because of the sometimes shocking lack of skill exhibited by 19th century textual critics in being able to recognize rather compelling homoeoteleuton (h.t.) errors, one gets the impression that they were wholly ignorant of them, or else had no real grasp of how to go about finding and positively identifying them.

We suspect that there is some kernel of truth to the overwhelming incompetence of textual critics, particularly in the period between 1830 to 1880, encompassing the labours of Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford & Hort.

In particular, the many apologists and promoters of the 'new text-critical methods' seem perpetually unable to comprehend the ramifications of their own words. It appears that they readily lifted explanations and descriptions of the text-critical process (repeatedly), and yet failed to see the consequences of their own statements.

Another case in point here is Edward Mitchell, author of The Critical Handbook of the Greek NT (Harper, 1896). This is again not a true handbook at all, for it does not train, equip, or even introduce the actual methods of TC in a way that would enable someone to reliably practice it. Instead it is a reassuring promotional introduction to the popular (by the 1890s) views of Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf and Hort. Although providing several pages on TC methods, it lacks even proper illustrations of popular canons.

It also misleads badly as to the applicability of various rules. When Mitchell turns to various TC problems, we find the following seemingly reasonable and sensible statement:

" para. 9. The Nature of Various Readings

Since no manuscripts are extant which date earlier than the 4th century, it is obvious that all now existing are the result of transcriptions from previous copies, and are liable to such variations and imperfections as are incident to all copies...
...
3. Frequently a clause is lost by what is called homoeoteleuton (Grk: ομοιοτελευτον), where two clauses happen to end with the same word, and the transcriber's eye passes from one to the other. Omissions from this cause occur in the Sinaitic MS in the New Testament - according to Scrivener, no fewer than one 115 times - though many of them are supplied by a later hand."

Clearly Mitchell shows himself well aware of the potential problem of h.t. errors in even the most ancient manuscripts, like Aleph and B. Yet, happily and uncritically following the claims of Lachmann, Tregelles, and Hort, Mitchell sees no conflict at all between this observation (above) and his third Textual-Critical Canon (p. 122 fwd):

"3. We may next mentions the canon of Griesbach, Brevior lectio praeferenda est verbosiori, 'The briefer reading must be preferred to the longer.' The reasonableness of this rule results from the tendency of scribes to incorporate marginal notes or fuller parallel passages, or to amplify OT quotations. And yet it must be modified by the consideration that words and clauses are sometimes omitted to remove difficulties (see Bengel's canon, 2. above), or through Homoeoteleuton. [!!]"

It is glaringly obvious that Mitchell has no clue about the ramifications of his statements here, or else he is engaging in some kind of deception.

First of all, he misquotes Griesbach, for Griesbach's 'canon' is actually much larger and more complex than stated here. This is because it was originally given with many limitations and explanations which reveal its unsuitableness and inapplicability to most Variation Units. This has been noted and expounded by others, including Royse, recently:

Royse on Griesbach's canon < - - Click here.

Secondly, If his words above are to have any connection to reality, then Hort's text and the whole methodology of elevating "Prefer the Shorter Reading" to a universal canon must be rejected as naive and unrealistic.

The question remains, whether popularizers like Mitchell (and the promoters of the Revised Version etc.) were just dutifully copying what real textual critics had written, or they really understood what they were saying, and thus were engaging in a kind of Orwellian 'newspeak'.

mr.scrivener

Quote from BibleVersionDiscussionBoard

2011-08-08T15:07:00.000-07:00

In review of Nazaroo's lists of h.t. errors, a few comments were posted at the Bible Version Discussion Board in the TC forum there:
"SAWBONES wrote:
This is the very problem with Nazaroo's fancied "homoeoteleuton errors everywhere"; if it were anywhere near as common a cause for the various proposed examples of "dropped" words and phrases as he imagines,

OOGRS>>>[Well Nazaroo is not here to answer for himself anymore, but I will say in his defense that nearly all of his examples of HT,HA on his Masterlist are legitimate cases of (nearly) undeniable corruption by HT/HA. I say this from experience because I have worked nearly everyone of them out and another 70 or 80 more. Most of which was done before Nazaroo gave us the benefit of his list and was done independently of his research. This is the reason I was able to add a couple dozen more instances within the synoptic Gospels. My personal list of HT exceeds 155 instances and this is not counting HA and HM (of which I have found about 30 or so ). I assure you that about 90 percent of these are basically clear cut cases. (i.e. Luke 17:24, Luke 23:23, Matt 10:37, Matt 15:16, Matt 23:4, Matt 9:49, Mark 10:7, Mark 14:68, Luke 24:51, Matt 14:30, John 5:44, Acts 23:28, Rom 14:21, Matt 19:9, Luke 16:21, Acts 2:37, Acts 6:9, I Cor 10:19, Mark 1:40, Luke 19:38, Luke 24:53, Acts 22:12, Luke 5:38,9, John 6:42, John 11:51 etc.etc.) I do agree with your suspicion though. Not so much of Nazaroo's conclusions but of your suspicions of HT/HA being so prevalent. There are some cases were Ht is one of several internal considerations, therefore which one do we choose? Another thing to remember is that there is no way to know 100 percent that HT/HA has occurred in any place, no matter how much evidence (external) is against such and such omission. It is only probabilities which we can propose, not proof.]

OOGRS>>>[John 11:51 is case in point, P66 and codex D omit 'EKEINOU' all other available authorities retain. "ENIAUTOU" is the preceding word and now all is clear. A tired or careless (or just human) scribe skipped from ...OU to ...OU. So although we cannot say it is an indisputable fact that HT occurred here, we can say that it is highly probably. ]

T.S. Green (1856) on homoeoteleuton

2011-08-07T14:06:00.000-07:00

Many of those involved in the critically important period in which omissions of 4th century uncials were adopted wholesale as original readings, were fully aware of the likelihood and danger of accidental and non-original omissions. T.S. Green is an example of an analyist who appears to give more than mere lip-service to the problem of h.t. and other accidental omissions:

"The work of [copying] can never be altogether exempt from the corruptions of mere accident, arising from the wanderings of the eye and the slips of the pen. A place affected by various readings should, therefore, be carefully scanned for the detection of any probable mechanical cause of such mischief, anything likely to betray a copyist into unwitting mistakes. Of the endless shapes which these might take two kinds may be especially mentioned, the interchange of words slightly differing in form, and omissions of words and clauses by oversight." (A Course of Developed Criticism, 1856) intro.

h.t. in 1st Timothy - J.K. Elliott

2011-07-30T07:58:00.000-07:00

I repost a 2007 post by Rico (Rico's Blog) to provide four more examples from Paul's first letter to Timothy, collected by J. K. Elliott:

"[This is part of a series of posts looking at "thorough-going eclecticism" as practiced by J.K. Elliott in his book The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. See the introductory post for more information. --RWB]
NB: In this post, I abbreviate "homoioteleuton" with "hom." (as Elliott does in his book). I've also posted on homoioteleuton before.
The first basic principle Elliott lists is that of hom. In his introduction, he uses 1Ti 5.16 as an example, where a shorter text (πιστος η πιστη) is explained by an instance of hom. from the longer text (ΠΙCΤοςηΠΙCΤη). Elliott writes:
'... the scribes eye has passed from the first ΠΙCΤ to the second, and he has omitted the intervening letters. Hom. seems to have been a frequent cause of error in the Pastoral Epistles ...'
Elliott provides several examples from the first chapter of First Timothy where hom. may be appealed to to explain a variant and, therefore, argue for the longer text. These instances include:
1Ti 1.9 : MS 1874, 623, and 1836 omit καὶ μητρολῴαις from πατρολῴαις καὶ μητρολῴαις. This as well can be explained by hom.: παΤΡΟΛΩΑΙCιακμηΤΡΟΛΩΑΙC. After writing the first word, the scribe's eyes skipped to the same ending on the second word, and progressed from there.
1Ti 1.10: MS 915 and 917 omit πόρνοις. The word that ends v. 9 has the same ending (ἀνδροφόνοις πόρνοις) , so hom. can be used to explain the omission: ανδροφοΝΟΙCπορΝΟΙC
1Ti 1.14: MS 1908 and 489 have καὶ ἀγάπης ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (omitting the article) while NA27 have καὶ ἀγάπης τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Elliott notes that hom. may be a contributing factor to 1908 and 489 omitting τῆς: αγαΠΗCΤΗCεν
1Ti 1.17: Uncials S^c D^bc K L P H along with TR (hence KJV) and most minuscules have μονῳ σοφῳ θῳ (only wise God) while UBS/NA have μόνῳ θεῷ (only God). Hom. can explain the longer reading as being shortened; the scribe's eyes wandered from omega to omega: μονΩσοφΩΘΩ. The scribe, I'd guess, would be less likely to omit θῳ; perhaps he could've even missed σοφῳ in his anxiousness to not miss θῳ.

Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament provides the flip side of the coin [on 1st Tim 1:17]:
"After μόνῳ the Textus Receptus inserts σοφῷ, with אc Dc K L P most minuscules syrh goth. The word is no doubt a scribal gloss derived from Ro 16.27; the shorter reading is strongly supported by good representatives of both the Alexandrian and the Western types of text (א* A D* F G H* 33 1739 itd, g vg syrp copsa, bo arm eth arab). "
Metzger, B. M., (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, (4th ed.) (572).
I'd never really considered hom. as responsible for the omission of σοφῷ; I'll have to think about this a little more.
You'll note that one consequence of a thorough-going eclecticism is that of disregarding documentary evidence. Surely one can't tell everything from textual provenance and the general quality of readings in a MS. It is possible for the better MSS to be wrong, and the less trustworthy MSS to be correct. But I'd think the better road is in the middle, not on the edges. Even so, there are some decent real-world examples above where hom. may be at play in the readings. Seeing these examples and working through them helps me know what to look for in the future when considering variants listed in various apparatuses." (- Rico's Blog, 2007)

mr.scrivener

Whitney on h.t. errors (part 2) - Codex Vaticanus 1209

2011-07-28T18:18:00.000-07:00

Again, on p. 27 of his introduction, Whitney shows that Codex B is no less rife with homoeoteleuton errors than Sinaiticus:

Codex B: Mark

1:9 [and] it came to pass...
2:12 '...and glorified God, [saying,] "We never..." ' etc. (OL b follows!)
4:16 "These...are they that are sown upon the rocky ledges, [who,]
         when they have heard..." etc.

7:15   "..that defile [the] man..." reading now "that defile a man." This is a common error of B's. In 12:30, this MS stands alone omitting the article 3 times!

10:46    ['And they come to Jericho.']

14:24    'And he said [unto them], "This is..." etc.
14:32   "Sit ye [here], while I pray..."
15:12   "What then [will ye that] I shall do with [him whom]
            ye call the King of the Jews?"
15:34   "My God, [my God,] why hast thou forsaken me?" (either edited or omitted accidentally as h.t.)

mr.scrivener

Whitney / Weiss on h.t. errors (part 1) Sinaiticus - א

2011-07-16T20:22:00.000-07:00

S. W. Whitney's two-volume opus on the Revised Version fiasco, The Revisers' Greek Text (Boston, 1892) is a veritable gold-mine of textual-critical examples, well analyzed.

In his introduction he quotes Weiss:

"The commonest mistakes are in the omission of letters, syllables, words, and clauses in cases where the like or same followed, and the eye of the copyist wandered from one to the other by homoioteleuton [i.e., in consequence of the sameness of endings]. The instances in which letters or syllables were doubled are much less frequent. .." (Weiss, Introduction to the NT, Amer. ed. Vol ii, pp. 405-406)

After a concise but excellent discussion, Whitney moves on to examples of singular (as known at that time) readings of the major Uncial MSS:

Sinaiticus (א):
Mark 1:32-34 - 'They brought unto him all that were sick

[and them that were possessed with devils.

And all the city was gathered together at the

door. And he healed many that were sick]

with divers diseases.'

οψιας δε γενομενης οτε εδυ ο ηλιος εφερον
προς αυτον παντας τους κακως εχοντας
και τους δαιμονιζομενους 33 και η πολις
ολη επισυνηγμενη ην προς την θυρανκαι
εθεραπευσεν πολλους κακως εχοντας
ποικιλαις νοσοις και δαιμονια πολλα εξε-
βαλεν και ουκ ηφιεν λαλειν τα δαιμονια
οτι ηδεισαν αυτον ...

Mark 6:34 - 'because they were [as sheep] not having a shepherd.'

Mark 9:9 - 'he charged them that they should tell no one what they had seen, [unless] after the Son of man had risen from the dead.'

Mark 10:19 - "Thou knowest the commandments, [do not commit adultery],
Do not kill, do not steal, " etc.

Mark 11:2 - "Go your way into the village [that is over against you;] and..."

Mark 14:16 - 'And the disciples went forth [and came] into the city...'

Mark 15:47-16:1 -                       'And Mary the Magdalene and Mary
                    [the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid. And when
                      the Sabbath was past, Mary the Magdalene and Mary]
                      the mother of James, and Salome, brought spices.'...

Even if some cases have been the result of copying the errors of a previous copyist, or an intermediary copy (now lost), as would often happen, the many examples give pause and indicate caution in taking any omission with such features as original simply because it is an old reading.

mr.scrivener

1st Jn 2:23 and 3:1 - early Byzantine h.t.?

2011-07-10T07:36:00.000-07:00

We have been graced with a recent clarification of Dr. Maurice Robinson's position on two possible h.t. cases, due to some discussion on TC-Alt list.
As a result of an initial communication, Mr. Scrivener had indicated Dr. Robinson's position as follows:

"Dr. Robinson has also rejected 'Byzantine homoeoteleuton errors' as an explanation for key shorter Byzantine readings. Collation data and
transmissional factors have convinced him for instance that longer non-Byzantine readings like 1st Jn 2:23 and 3:1 are certainly false."

In a second communication with Mr. Scrivener, Dr. Robinson has stated thus:

"Without proper disclaimers, it becomes quite unwarranted to cite what might be only a previous exploratory hypothesis in a manner that confuses such with the more settled conclusions based on later research and published as such.
This particularly applies to ...the previously hypothesized possibility -- and it never was more than such that was being explored -- regarding the likelihood of presumed "primitive Byzantine error" (particularly supposedly caused by homoeoteleuton, as with 1st Jn 2:23 and 3:1). For reasons now considered transmissionally impossible (in view of collation-based data), such earlier speculations have been rendered invalid and the concept totally abandoned."

It seems then, that these two Variation Units have been disqualified as possible h.t. errors by the data found in the extant MSS. Dr. Robinson is convinced that the variants could not have arisen due to an initial h.t. error, and suggests that a reconstruction of the textual history for these variants (and MSS) based on such an idea is impossible and/or would be extremely implausible.

Obviously if true, the claim would have important ramifications for other instances of possible h.t. error. The first thing to examine then, is the textual data, to get a sense of why Dr. Robinson has taken his position:

1st John 2:22-24 including 2:23b, (TR, Scrivener's text):

22 τις εστιν ο ψευστης
ει μη ο αρνουμενος οτι ιησους ουκ εστιν
O Xριστοσ ουτος εστιν ο αντιχριστος ο αρ-
νουμενος τον πατερα και τον υιον 23 πας ο
αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει
ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει
24 υμεις ουν ο ηκουσατε απ αρχης εν υμιν
μενετω εαν εν υμιν μεινη ο απ αρχης ηκου-
σατε και υμεις εν τω υιω και εν τω πατρι
μενειτε ...

Clearly the potential for h.t. errors here is incredibly strong, if the longer text were original. The UBS2/4 apparatus here is non-existent, so we have to turn to Tischendorf's 8th to pick up something of the MS spread:

ο ομολογων τ. υι. και τ. πατ. εχει according to אABC(4th-5th cent.) P(9th cent.) al35 fere cat vg (et. harl ) cop (in sah lacuna est, adest verovox extrema τον πατερα) syr-utr arm aeth Or-1,301 and 4,281,282 Eus-ps22 Cyr-hr115 Cyr-ioh797 Thphyl; item ο (Melet Cyr-ose add δε)
ο ομολογων τ. υι. και τ. πατ. ομολογει (Cyr-bis ομολ και τ. πατ.) Melet ap Epiph-868 Cyr-ioh924 and ose57; item qui (m add autem) confitetur filium, et filium et patrem (Leif et pa. et. fil.) habet m6 Cyp-265,296 Leif-220 Hil-907 etc. ..
Stephen (= Gb Sz) omits according to K (9th cent.) L (9th cent.) al plu (9 ap Scri, 7 ap Mtthaei) Oec

Hodges/Farstad (Maj. text 2nd ed. 1985) simply list the omission as Ε vs. M, avoiding the full Gothic Siglum, and acknowledging that the Byzantine MSS are also split on this reading, although the majority of them appear to omit the verses. They follow the omission however, since they are publishing the Majority text.

Here it looks like almost all the early Uncial support goes to the inclusion. This is not a mere Aleph/B phenomenon then, but a problem that would seem to require better early MS support if we are to take the omission itself as genuine.

(to be continued)

John 5:44b - Steven Avery: Alexandrian homoeoteleuton causes confusion

2011-07-03T01:11:00.000-07:00

The variant, John 5:44b, is as follows:

monou qeou ou zhteite (traditional text, Byz., א A C etc.)

monou ---- ou zhteite (B, P66, P75 [early Alex. h.t.])

monou qu ou zhteite (form of text with nomina sacra abbreviation)

ΜΟΝΟΥΘΥΟΥΖΗΤΕΙΤΕ... (physical written form with abbrev.)

monou [qeou] ou zhteite ... (Westcott/Hort text)

I've taken the liberty of reposting this discussion by Steven Avery from TC-Alt List, for the benefit of those studying h.t. errors and modern translations:

----------------------------------------- QUOTE: (Steven Avery) ---

[TC-Alternate-list] John 5:44b - the honour that cometh from God only ? - text and translation issues

Hi Folks,

Related verses, first.

Luke 5:21
And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying,
Who is this which speaketh blasphemies?
Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

Mark 10:18
And Jesus said unto him,
Why callest thou me good?
there is none good but one, that is, God.

Daniel Buck had an interesting post about a sister verse on a sister list.
About the "from God only" verse, John 5:44.
His post is at bottom, we will work our way there.

This post covers both the textual and translational issues, weaving a tapestry :) .

================================================

John 5:44 (AV)
How can ye believe,
which receive honour one of another,
and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

================================================

HISTORICAL VERSIONS

This English, which fits the context excellently, was simply the English Bible text through the Reformation era and into the 1800s. There is no indication of any other understanding of the text from the Greek and Latin experts of the Reformation era.

Studylight.org
Wycliffe 1395 - ye seken not the glorie `that is of God aloone?
Tyndale 1526 - the honoure that commeth of God only?
Coverdale 1535 - and seke not the prayse, that is of God onely?
Rheims 1582 - glory which is from God alone, you do not seek?
Geneva 1587 - the honour that commeth of God alone?

We should remember that in the 1500s and 1600s, the learned men in the Bible church and university centers were extremely skilled in Latin and Greek, iron sharpeneth, without arcane papers and publish or perish. Reading the Bible and the ECW, reading classics, speaking to one another daily, even having debates in Biblical Greek. While today's scholars can even be non-fluent in the language. This simple truth of scholastic and linguistic distinction can be a bit hard for today's scholars to acknowledge, understandably.

================================================

RESOURCES

Laparola
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=50&rif2=5:4

Major, overwhelming, evidence for the traditional text, and a severe Alexandrian split.

As stated by Will Kinney in discussing modern version confusion.

The So-called "Science" of Textual Criticism. Science or Hocus-Pocus?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/scienceoftextcrit.htm
Here Vaticanus, P66 and P75 all unite in omitting the word GOD,
yet it is in Sinaiticus, A and D and this time the NASB, NIV include it too!

John Hurt
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B43C005.htm#V44
monou qeou ou zhteite
monou qeou ou zhteite - brackets for (qeou) in WH

World Wide Study Bible
http://www.ccel.org/wwsb/John/5/44

John Gill (1697-1771) does reference the fact that the versions and the Greek have variant readings.

and seek not the honour that cometh from God only;
or "from the only God", as the Vulgate Latin; or "from the one God", as the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions render it:

================================================

ECW

This is the type of verse where there what need to be a close examination of the the ECW. Since the English can conceivably have the same translation issue as in the Bible text, yet often the context makes the understanding clear.

Hilary of Poiters - De Trintitate 9:22
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.ix.html
But there is reproof of the unbelief which draws an earthly opinion of Him from the teaching, that goodness belongs to God alone ... For, in this very same discourse in which He pronounces that His works testify of Him that He was sent of the Father, and asserts that the Father testifies of Him, that He was sent from Him, He says, The honour of Him, Who alone is God, ye seek not ... . But there is reproof of the unbelief which draws an earthly opinion of Him from the teaching, that goodness belongs to God alone .... He comes in the name of the Father: that is, He is not Himself the Father, yet is in the same divine nature as the Father: for as Son and God it is natural for Him to come in the name of the Father. Then, another coming in the same name they will receive: but he is one from whom men will expect glory, and to whom they will give glory in return, though he will feign to have come in the name of the Father. By this, doubtless, is signified the Antichrist, glorying in his false use of the Father�s name. Him they will glorify, and will be glorified of him: but the glory of Him, Who alone is God, they will not seek.

And by the context of the usage it is clear that Augustine is most consistent with the Traditional Text understanding.

Augustine
On the words of the Gospel, John v. 39, �Ye search the Scriptures,
because ye think that in them ye have eternal life,� etc. Against the Donatists.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vii.lxxxi.html
Then a little after; �How can ye believe, who look for glory one from another, and seek not the glory which is of God only?�

The translator of Gregory of Nyssa is interesting, as he ends up with both phrases.

Gregory of Nyssa
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.all.html
For the very glory that was bestowed on the lawgiver was the glory of none other but of God Himself, which glory the Lord in the Gospel bids all to seek, when He blames those who value human glory highly and seek not the glory that cometh from God only. For by the fact that He commanded them to seek the glory that cometh from the only God, He declared the possibility of their obtaining what they sought. How then is the glory of the Almighty incommunicable, if it is even our duty to ask for the glory that cometh from the only God, and if, according to our Lord�s word, �every one that asketh receiveth

Diatessaron
http://www.thomasephillips.info/diatessaron.htm
And how can you believe, while you receive praise one from another, and praise from God, the One, you seek not?

================================================

SIMPLICITY, CLARITY, CONSISTENCY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT

and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

Contextually this is very sound, intuitively obvious to the most casual observer .. as the context of the verse and section is clearly where does honour come from ? Yet in the late 1800s a new translation was begun.

The new dubious translation took over most of the Westcott-Hort modern versions, and the NKJV.

ERV - the glory that cometh from the only God ye seek not?
ASV - and the glory that [cometh] from the only God ye seek not?

NIV - praise that comes from the only God?
NET - praise that comes from the only God?
Holman - you don t seek the glory that comes from the only God.

NKJV - honor that comes from the only God?

Three that did not go into this particular error.

NRSV - comes from the one who alone is God?
Youngs - and the glory that is from God alone ye seek not?
NLT - the honor that comes from God alone.

================================================

TEXTUAL --> CORRUPTION BY WHO ?

The dropping of qeou was noted by John WIlliam Burgon to be a corruption. Notice that it is hard to determine to what extent the corruption in the English began because of Vaticanus lacking qeou. Burgon does not give it a special doctrinal aspect.

Chapter IV. Accidental Causes of Corruption (1896)
John William Burgon - Edward Miller editor
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/corruption.iii.v.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=c3VCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA45
From the fact that three words in St. John v. 44 were in the oldest MSS. written thus,� [Greek: MONOUTHUOU] (i.e. [Greek: monou Theou ou]), the middle word ([Greek: theou]) got omitted from some very early copies; whereby the sentence is made to run thus in English,��And seek not the honour which cometh from the only One.� It is so that Origen, Eusebius, Didymus., besides the two best copies of the Old Latin, exhibit the place. As to Greek MSS., the error survives only in B at the present day, the preserver of an Alexandrian error.

Overall, there is an emphasis in modern translation theory to rewrite the NT text to put the current Christology emphasis into the text, even if awkward to the text and context. (Think e.g. of Granville Sharp and 1 John 5:20.) This verse is sort of the flip side of a Granville Sharp translation corruption.

UNITARIANS (LOW CHRISTOLOGY)

In fact, this looks like it was pushed by George Vance Smith, for the Revision, with doctrinal considerations being significant.

Texts and margins of the revised New Testament affecting theological doctrine briefly reviewed. (1881)
George Vance Smith
http://books.google.com/books?id=TdfYDjdkRlwC&pg=PA45
The sole Deity of the Father has been re-affirmed in a remarkable case in which the authorised version had singularly misrepresented the original words. 'The only God ' of John v. 44, affords evidence equally strong and clear with that of John xvii. 3, that the writer of this Gospel could not have intended to represent Jesus, the Christ, or Messiah, or even the Logos in him, as God in the same high sense of Infinite and Eternal Being in which He is so.

This Greek text, in translation, was changed in the Revision as described here:

Presbyterian Review
Notes on the Revised New Testament (1833)
Marvin R. Vincent
http://books.google.com/books?id=OUk9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA668
John v. 44,
"the only God," laying the emphasis on God as God alone,
and on the honor as taking its character from that fact ;
and not on the fact that the the honor can be had from only one source.

Notice that the Revisionists were apparently going with the Vaticanus text in this translation change, as they put qeou in brackets. (With the corrupt text the translation fits better, in fact it is virtually mandated, because of the change of emphasis "the only" becomes .. "the only what" .. becomes .. "the only God".) However later other versions decided on this translation for the traditional text.

Thus the NASV translation is considered particular friendly to those with an aversion to the Lord Jesus Christ as God manifest in the flesh:

Joel Hemphill
http://www.trumpetcallbooks.com/trinity_truth.html
"The one and only God ...the Father"

And thus most NT today follow the new translation idea.

================================================

RECENT DEBATE - HUSHBECK - NACHIMSON

The traditional translation here is sometimes attacked.

KING JAMES VERSION ONLY
by Elgin L. Hushbeck Jr.
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/hushbeck_article.html
... poor translations ....In John 5:44 the Greek text very clearly reads "...and seek not the honor that comes from the only God." Among other things this is a strong statement of monotheism. Yet for some reason the King James Version translates this as "and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?" Here any reference to monotheism is removed, and it becomes a statement that honor only comes from God.

Notice the backwards logic -- any reference to monotheism is removed. A typical case of taking the modern debate and retrofitting it to an earlier time .. when there was no dispute and debate and the text was fully accepted. Nothing was removed in the AV, whether you consider the text pure or incorrect.

The Rudimentary Factor Underlying Infallibility
Alleged "Errors" In The A.V. 1611
Jeffrey D. Nachimson
http://www.gospelbaptist.net/gpage.html2.html
In Greek, the passage looks like this: "pos dunasthe humeis pisteusai doxan para allelon lambanontes, kai ten doxan ten para tou monou theou ou zeteite;" ...

Beginning in verse 30 in John 5, Jesus Christ discusses the plethora of witnesses that testify to his ministry and authority. He lists the testimony of John the Baptist (vs. 32-35); his works (vs. 36); the Father (vs. 37); the scriptures (vs. 39); and notice in verse 41 where Jesus Christ states exactly where he DOESN'T GET HIS HONOR FROM! Why the discussion is how to know if something or someone is from God, AND THE HONOR THAT ONLY GOD CAN GIVE! No one in this context bats an eye about monotheism! There isn't an inclination anywhere in 47 verses that one person (including the lost Pharisees) is discussing the necessity of monotheism. For Hushbeck to conjecture that the A.V. rendering doesn't uphold monotheism in the passage because it doesn't translate the prepositional phrase as an adjective, is bordering on the realm of the absurd. The point is where do REAL testimonial witnesses and honor originate? REAL honor comes from God ONLY, not the only God.

John 5:41
I receive not honour from men.

Nachimson is right on the basic issue of context. My thought .. when you incorrectly change the translation to match one idea, you eliminate or lessen, and confuse and confound, the actual sense of the text. (Similar to what we see in the Granville Sharp retranslation verses.)

Nachimson
... it is evident that based upon the context of John 5, and the clear fact that adjectives (even if in the attributive position in a prepositional phrase) can function adverbially to form a more idiomatic structure in the English translation. Thus, the A.V. 1611 preserves the better reading "that cometh from God only?" instead of, "that comes from the only God?" ...

In fact, the contextual argument is probative, while the grammatical can remain ambiguous. Thus when Hushbeck was defended here by Henry Neufeld:

Anatomy of a KJV Only Argument
By Henry Neufeld
http://henrysthreads.com/2006/07/anatomy-of-a-kjv-only-argument/

Neufeld takes Nachimson to task on attitude points (the 'ol KJB and attackers arguments) and minor points (e.g. the phrase "form a more idiomatic structure in the English translation"). And he does emphasize the points that allow us to consider the grammar ambiguous (ie. Nachimson over-tinged his grammatical presentation).

Neufeld does not seem to understand how attackers of the traditional text work their trade when they fabricate a little error here or there in the AV. (Classic example, Daniel Wallace and others and the gnat). "Oh, we weren't really attacking the Bible, we were simply pointing out an error". Yet they go through hoops to fabricate the error, rather than simply offering an alternative translation.

However Neufeld flops on the basic point. You have to be a bit naive not to see that context is king in the verse, and the context fits the traditional text .

(Unless you use the Alexandrian corruption, a point missed by everybody).

=====================================================

Now we go to Daniel. Daniel also began an interesting thread on this in the b-greek forum in March 2011.
Text of the tc-list below.

TC and the translation of John 5:44b - March, 2011
Daniel Buck
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tclist/message/995

Daniel takes a slightly different approach. One weakness in the textual theory of corruption is that "the only God" is not really the historical understanding of the verse, so to presume a corruption away from what was not understood is questionable. Plus if "the only God" was a problem, you should see a lot of variants on the ultra-solid textually John 17:3.

John 17:3
And this is life eternal,
that they might know thee the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Also the timing is wrong, since the textlines were divided by the 200s and the doctrinal emphasis would be centuries later.

These are common type problem in an Ehrmanesque approach.
Although Daniel tends to be far more logical, consistent and sensible than Bart :) .

====

VULGATE

Presumably the tampered Vulgate text was the Nova Vulgate, which really should be called a Vulgate at all. As to a large extent it is simply a Westcott-Hort (or NA) text brought to Latin. In this case perhaps they took the Hortian-Vance-Smith-modern translation to mangle the historical Latin.

However, according to Gill the Vulgate does support "from the only God", but this does not match the Latin ECW like Hilary and Augustine, nor does it work with what is shared by Daniel "from God alone ... Vulgate (all 15th-16th century editions)".

So the Vulgate questions are still a bit in the air.

=======================

On the basic textual question, I doubt that there was much of a doctrinal motive in the word dropping corruption, but the two main Greek texts could easily lead to multiple Latin texts.

Remember, too, that motives are not either-or. An initial word-drop can be totally accidental, its maintenance in the line can include a scribal motive component that includes doctrinal preference. This seems to be overlooked in most discussions.

========================

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Another point overlooked, on another topic. In the first centuries, century one and two, maybe three, Bible transmission was likely often single books, or small groups of books. Thus there is no "one size fits all" type of text-type applicability. Mark's gospel could of been far more influenced by Latin elements, (even original Latin or Graeco-Latin elements, and possibly back-translations) while the geography--transmission--> of John's gospel could be very different than Luke-Acts. Variables abound.

Afaik, this is not mentioned in the Hortian fantasies of the neutral and Alexandrian dual textlines. However, it also does not seem to mentioned by any text-line adherent, including the Greek Byzantine and Majority proponents. Their theories want to go back to a single exemplar for the NT. However there was no such thing, as writing and transmission of the NT books had both independent and overlapping components.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY

Daniel Buck

There is a question of translation in the latter part of John 5:44, and textual criticism can help to answer it.

The Greek text:
KAI THN DOXAN THN PARA TOU MONOU QEOU OU ZHTEITE?

and the glory the from the only God not you seek?

The question is, can this be translated "from God alone" as it is in all English Bibles from the 14th to 18th centuries?

Here is how the Latin manuscripts translate it (fine-tuning of the translations by Latin scholars would be welcome):

from God alone | e g1mg 9A f l 11A Vulgate (all 15th-16th century editions)
from God who alone is | ff2 aur q
from him who is God alone | r1
from the only God | a d c Vulgate (all modern editions)
. . . God . . . | j
from the sole (one) | a
from him that is the only (one)| b

Now, interestingly enough, behind some of these Latin variants lie variants in the Greek text.

from the only begotten God | N022, 1071
from God | 1519
from the only (one) | p66 p75 B03 W032 228 355* (also the mss from all Coptic dialects, and some Armenian mss)

Evidence from Syriac should also be examined. It has been translated both ways-- the only God, and God alone.

Apparently the difficulty in deciding the meaning of this phrase, TOU MONOU QEOU, has led to some of the textual diversity. There seems to have been a definite reluctance to understand Jesus as referring to "the only God," resulting in the loss of either MONOU or QEOU. Yet "the only God" fits the context of John 5 very well, in which Jesus is being accused, through referring to God as "My Father," of making himself equal with God--something he never said outright in John, as deity-emphatic as that gospel is.

I don't know if this verse has ever made it onto the list of Orthodox Corruptions, but it's possible that a reluctance to have Jesus minimize his deity could have been behind some of the textual changes we see above.

On the other hand, the tendency only in the last century and a half has been to adamantly insist on a translation of "the only God," even going so far as to putting a reading into the Vulgate never before found in any printed edition. This phenomenon could also bear investigation.

--------------------------- END QUOTE ---

Mr. Scrivener's Additional Comment:

Re: John 5:44b - the honour that cometh from God only ? - text and translation issues

It is interesting to note the following in regard to both the variant and its
interpretation:

Trollope (1842) skips comment, with the English text presenting no difficulty in
his view.

Burton (1852) regards the traditional text as secure and so self-evident that he
skips comment on the verse entirely.

Bloomfield (1847) takes the traditional interpretation at face value and ignores
the blunder of Codex B's text:

"Here is traced the reason for their unbelief, by their fostering such passions as stifle the love of God, and consequently the love of truth, for itsown sake; especially pride and vain-glory.
- πως δυνασθε ] This must, of course be understood of what is socontrary to the usual order of causes and effects, that it cannot be expected to happen. And δοξαν λαμβ. must be taken with due qualification."

Wordsworth (1877) accepts the traditional text, ignoring the homoeoteleuton of
B, but remarkably takes the alternate translational suggestion without
hesitation, in favour of the Trinity:

"44. παρα του μονου θεου] from the Only God. (1 Tim 1:17) Lest the Jews should imagine that He was contravening their Law which says (Deut. 6:4) 'the Lord our God is One Lord.',because He had spoken of Himself and the Father as Two Persons (verses 17-23), He here affirms the Divine Unity, and teaches them that they who profess zeal for the One God do not honour Him aright (see v23), unless they honour the Son even as they honour the Father. A warning to those who claim for themselves the title of Unitarians, and deny the Divinity of Christ. No one can be said to believe in the Divine Unity who rejects the doctrine of the Trinity."

Alford (1863) even more surprisingly, but accurately in this case, upholds the
traditional text also, easily identifying the reading of Codex B and its allies
as a homoeoteleuton error. Here even Alford has abandoned the critical text,
retaining "God" in the main text and relegating the variant to the footnoted
apparatus:

"om θεου (homoeotel) B lat-a b copt-dz arm-mss Orig Eus. "

Alford opts for the alternate interpretation however:

"44. ...παρα του μονου θεου] not 'from God only' (E.V. and De Wette), which is ungrammatical (requiring μονου to be either after θεου, see Matt.4:4; 12:4, 17:8, or before του θεου, Luke 5:21; 6:4; Heb 9:7 - Lucke); but from the only God: in contradistinction to the idolatry of the natural heart, which is ever setting up for itself other sources of honour, worshipping man, or self, - or even, as in the case alluded to in the last verse, Satan, - instead of God. The words του μονου θεου are very important, because they form the point of passage to the next verses; in which the Jews are accused of not believing the writings of Moses, the very pith and kernel of which was the unity of God, and the having no other gods but Him. "

Alford's position on the interpretation seems to have the stronger rational
element in regard to the situational context (internal intrinsic evidence), but
Wordsworth's position has the weight of tradition as opposed to the novelty of
the Unitarians.

As Steven Avery has shown, there is also another element of internal evidence,
the very argument of Jesus that honour (homage) belongs to God /alone/. In this
case, Jesus and his Jewish audience can be assumed to take for granted that "God
is one", and the debate is rather about the appropriateness of honours being
commonly and frequently given to peers, and its negative effect on worship and
honour of God.

The very fact that Jesus and the Jewish interpreters agree on the Torah teaching
that 'God is One' (and expects this view) makes it less likely that Jesus would
emphasize that rather than the more central (to this argument) Torah teaching,
that 'God is jealous' (cf. Ten Commandments) and expects critically important
minimal behavioral standards.

mr.scrivener

mr.scrivener

Luke: New probable h.t. errors

2011-06-22T11:04:00.000-07:00

Several new possible homoeoteleuton errors have been found in the WH/UBS text in Luke's Gospel vs. the traditional text:

5:20 ...ειπεν αυτω ανθρωπε...
6:15 ...Ιακωβον τον του αλφαιου...
7:28 ...Ιωαννου του βαπτιστου ουδεις...
8:27 ...-σεν αυτω ανηρ τις...
10:27 ...εξ ολης της καρδιας...
10:32 ...λευιτης γενομενος κατα...
11:4 ...πειρασμον αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου και...
11:48 ...οικοδομειτε αυτων τα μνημεια δια...
13:2 ...αποκριθεις ο Ιησους ειπεν... (probable Nomina Sacra blunder: EIS O IS)
16:21 ...απο των ψιχιων των...
17:9   ...ου δοκω ουτω...
19:5   ...ειδεν αυτον και ειπε
23:8   ...πολλα περι...
23:11 ...περιβαλων αυτον εσθητα...
23:35 ...αρχοντες συν αυτοις λεγοντες..
24:12 ...oθονια κειμενα μονα...
24:32 ...ην εν ημιν ως...
24:36a ...αυτος ο Ιησους εστη...(probable Nomina Sacra blunder)
24:36b ...αυτων και λεγει αυτοις ειρηνη υμιν πτοηθεντες...
24:46 ...γεγραπται και ουτως εδει παθειν τον ...

This brings the total for Luke up to about 30 probable h.t. errors in Aleph/B.

A few comments are in order:

The omission of αυτω/αυτον is so frequent (there are dozens), that omitting this reflexive pronoun may at least in some cases be a deliberate policy.

The two Nomina Sacra blunders are interesting for similar reasons. The use of the Nomina Sacra obviously invites more errors in copying, and so we must suspect that again at least some of the common omissions of the names "Jesus", "Lord" etc. are not so much from an excising policy as from the copy offering too many opportunities for scribes prone to such errors. The inconsistent use of the Nomina Sacra over the years also invites more opportunities for a mistake.

11:4 is a weaker example, however this is re-strengthened when we see that the omission is a typical line-length, as is 24:36b. Also, generally speaking, tired copyists don't need any excuse at all to skip a line, and any similarity would assist in generating the error.

Nazaroo

Homoeoteleuton blunders from UBS infect the New Vulgate!

2011-06-08T14:26:00.000-07:00

Ron Conte Jr. this summer completed an evaluation of the UBS text and its negative impact on the NV (New Vulgate) Latin edition. He lists several key points online here:

"I was dismayed and appalled by the decisions of the editors of the Nova Vulgata, especially to abandon the Latin scriptural tradition approved by the Council of Trent, and adopt in its place the critical Greek text of Matthew by the (Protestant) United Bible Societies. The UBS text, and the NV as well, omits over one hundred words from the Gospel, found in the Latin Vulgate, includes at least a couple of whole verses.

See the article for more critical comments about the NV.

Its clear that some honest Roman Catholic scholars at least have noted in detail exactly what is wrong with the UBS text, and the devastating impact on Bible texts and translations it has had for the last 50 years.

Conte uses the following abbreviations:

CV - Clementine Vulgate
NV - Nova Vulgata from vatican.va
FS - Fischers Stuttgart edition (1975)
TR - Textus Receptus
MT - Majority Text (Hodges/Farstad, 1982)
UBS - 4th ed. 1993

Among the many flaws of the UBS text, Conte lists the following homoeoteleuton errors in UBS erroneously followed by the editors of the NV (new Vulgate version):

Matthew:

5:44 - NV omits 'do good to those who hate you', also omits 'and slander you', in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.

12:47 - NV changes 'seeking you' to 'seeking to speak with you', in accord with the Greek.

15:6 - NV omits 'or his mother' and changes 'commandment of God' to 'word of God' in accord with UBS Greek, contrary (on both points) to CV, FS, TR, MT.

15:8 - Again, it is clear that the NV rephrases the Vulgate to agree with the UBS Greek, even when the TR and MT agree with the Latin. There is a basis in both the Latin and Greek scriptural traditions to retain the Vulgate wording, and yet it is cast aside, making the NV a Latin version of the UBS Greek. The result is not very useful, since if a scholar wants to consult the UBS text, he would certainly prefer to look at the Greek text itself, rather than a Latin rendering of it.

"Also, ... the NV departs from the Latin scriptural tradition, substituting the Greek wording of the UBS text, so that the decision of Trent on the place that the Latin text has in the Church cannot be applied to the NV."

"The reader may also have noticed by now that the Stuttgart text in Latin does not usually edit the CV to conform to the Greek. Rather, the Stuttgart text (FS) is a moderate edit of the Vulgate. The editors of FS Matthew clearly had in mind to keep to the Latin scriptural tradition, or at least to recapture the essence of Saint Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Their editorial decisions in Matthew have kept the Latin text distinct from the Greek text, like two different co-equal witnesses to the truth of the Gospel. By comparison, the Nova Vulgata has subjugated the Latin scriptural tradition entirely to the Greek, like a slave to a master. The Stuttgart edit is what the Nova Vulgata should have been."

18:11 - NV omits verse 11, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.

20:16 - NV omits 'For many are called, but few are chosen' in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.

23:14 - NV and FS omit verse 14, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT. ( MT has verses 13 and 14 transposed.)

26:3 - NV changes the Latin word 'atrium' to the word 'aulam' (a Latin word derived from Greek), in accord with the Greek text.

27:35 - NV and FS omit the portion of the verse stating that this event of dividing his garments fulfills the prophecy of the Old Testament, in accord with UBS and MT, but contrary to CV and TR.

The NV would be no worse in its text if the project had been done by the Protestant scholars at the UBS. In fact, the FS is the work of a group of mostly Protestant scholars at the German Bible Society, and even they have seen fit to retain the CV test of Matthew in the vast majority of cases. So a group of Protestant scholars has created a Latin Bible, the Stuttgart edition of the Vulgate, which retains the Latin scriptural tradition and which generally follows the CV reading. But a group of Catholic monks, at a Benedictine monastery -- a monastery associated in past times with Saint Jerome---, who were given the task of updating the CV, have completely abandoned the Latin scriptural tradition, and have caused the NV to conform slavishly and unthinkingly solely to the Protestant UBS Greek text. If I did not know better, I would conclude that the monks of that monastery were Protestants, and that the editors of the FS were Catholics."

Final Comments

" ...The Greek critical text of the United Bible Societies has the indisputable advantage of making the entire Bible thinner, lighter, and less expensive to publish. But the Latin and the other Greek texts have the advantage of not deleting words from inspired and inerrant Divine Revelation. The reader will have to decide for himself which advantage is to be preferred.

While it is certainly true that we must never add words to Sacred Scripture, we are also morally obligated not to delete words from Sacred Scripture."

- exerpted from Problems with the NV in Matthew,
Ronald L. Conte Jr. (June 18, 2010)

Textual Critics' Report Card (Part 2) - Updates

2011-05-24T03:30:00.000-07:00

We have added Wordsworth, Tischendorf's 8th edition, Alford, and von Soden, and cleaned up Nazaroo's previous chart (see his previous post here):

Click to Enlarge:

Also, by treating Matthew 27:35 as a probable interpolation (int.) on other textual grounds (i.e., its not supported by any credible text-type), we have been able to re-evaluate the scores for better accuracy, with some expected results:

Winners:

Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont now score highest, with Scholz being penalized slightly for relying upon the Latin support without sufficient warrant.

The caution and experience of Bloomfield, Wordsworth, Duncan, Griesbach and Schott continue to keep them in good stead. All these critics score nearly 90% or above on correctly detecting homoeoteleuton errors (and avoiding a false h.t. positive).

Borderline Failures:

Tischendorf's 7th edition gains some points, but still scores him barely enough for a passing grade, catching about half the potential h.t. readings correctly. he could have scored higher by flipping a coin!

Alford likewise scores dismally, having bought into the "ancient MSS are best" theory, but his good sense prevents him from total failure.

Shabby Performances:

Tregelles, Lachmann and Merk remain in the high 30s, for the following reasons: Tregelles' caution and good sense prevent his faulty method from leading him into the worst blunders. Lachmann's poor theory is thankfully hindered by ignorance of actual variant readings, and Merk's indiscriminate favoring of the Vulgate helps him squeak out of a few more mistakes than expected.

Catastrophes:

Tischendorf's 8th edition is quite a face-plant, losing over 30 points from his previous attempt. F.H.A. Scrivener's and E. Miller's assessment of Tischendorf's abandonment of caution in favor of the readings of his newly discovered Aleph are amply confirmed.

Von Soden is a sad failure, with his trust in 19th century canons leading him into darkness and grave errors in spite of his careful collation of the Byzantine minuscules.

Nestle/Aland and Hort score slightly better, their irrational preference for the shorter text actually giving them the correct answer on one false positive.

Generally speaking, the Roman Catholic editors score higher by simply relying on the Vulgate rather than having a superior method or skill.
Hort and the Germans score the worst, buying into Lachmann's naive theories about how to correct and publish a critical text.

mr.scrivener

Textual Critics' Report Card (Part 1)

2011-05-15T13:15:00.000-07:00

  Critical Editions of the NT can be rated on a variety of scales, and many of these measures are reasonably objective. For instance, some obvious and basic categories are:

(1) Completeness of Apparatus: In many cases, important variants can be left out of an apparatus. A recent trend has been to 'dumb down' the apparatus for students (and apparently translators!), including only those Variation Units deemed of use or relevance to translations.

(2) Accuracy of Apparatus: Historically, many a 'good' apparatus has turned out to be based on incomplete or inaccurate collations, which lowers reliability and confidence in support claims for readings.

(3) Accuracy of Reconstructed Text: The philosophy, theories and methods of, and the data available to various editors significantly affects their results, and this can mislead researchers hoping to use their findings.

Many such scales and ratings are straightforward, but rating the quality of textual reconstruction can be complex, and involve subjective components.

Reliable Subsets of Variation Units:

One can however turn to the more reliable and solid general data, such as studies of scribal habits and errors, to select Variation Units (VUs) that can be classed by identifiable physical features, such as probable homoeoteleuton errors (h.t.).

No solution to a Variation Unit can be absolutely certain, and all such evaluation must be based on probability.   But scientific decision making in such cases can and will be based on reasonably objective probability estimates, independently of philosophies or personal preferences.

The great majority of special VUs with unique homoeoteleuton features will indeed be homoeoteleuton errors (h.t.).   So, although we cannot know in any individual case its exact cause and transmission history, or even be absolutely certain of its correct identification as h.t., we can rely upon probability to make the reasonable assumption that the majority of VUs with homoeoteleuton features are in fact homoeoteleuton errors (h.t.).

For instance, although editorial glosses and marginal insertions sometimes happen, it is extremely implausible that the majority of such cases would have h.t. features. Glosses and insertions arise independently in many times, places, and circumstances, and there is no plausible mechanism that would justify any claim that any significant numbers of these would have such features.
Even marginal insertions would be accidental or naive in nature, and would not be deliberately given h.t. features in the process of incorporating them into the text.
Only a very sophisticated interpolator could deliberately incorporate h.t. features into an interpolation. But now the motive would be lacking. The majority of h.t. Variation Units have no theological or historical importance. They don't support orthodox or heretical doctrines, and they don't impart significant information to the story.   Deliberate edits to the text invariably have doctrinal impact and political motive, but they are rarely disguised in any manner to appear to be something else. This level of sophistication is simply absent from cases currently known.

In a word, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck. This makes Variation Units with h.t. features ideal for testing reconstruction methodology.

Evaluating Critical Greek Texts:

Since it is extremely unlikely that the majority of h.t. errors would be anything else but h.t. errors, any method of reconstruction that fails to handle the majority of errors correctly must be considered a failure.   This observation can form a basis for checking and evaluating various methods and attempts at NT textual reconstruction.

We have taken as a base the 15 probable h.t. errors found in Matthew, which have been taken seriously as possibly something else (i.e., they are included in most apparatus*).

13 Critical Greek Texts Evaluated: Click to Enlarge

Alongside each editor is his 'score', that is, his success-rate at correctly identifying h.t. errors and avoiding the mistake of incorporating the omissions into his text.

A word or two on each textual critic is appropriate here, by way of explanation for the scores.

The Success Stories

Hodges/Farstad, Robinson/Pierpont: These two editor teams have managed to avoid mis-diagnosing 90% of h.t. errors, simply by following a rule which has confined their work to the Byzantine text-type (i.e., follow majority readings). Since most of the h.t. errors on the list were sourced from Alexandrian manuscripts with little numerical support, they were lost as background noise to the Byzantine stream of transmission. It may be, in the case of both of these teams, that they came to prefer the Byzantine text as a result of examining the features of other text-types, including h.t. errors. But their method in fact enables them to avoid these mistakes automatically. But, Matt. 27:35 was rejected by them for the same reasons: The verse isn't in the Byzantine text. We are not concerned with the correctness of any particular reading. Our evaluation is only based on probabilities for the VU group as a whole, and the group of readings chosen by each editor as a group.
For whatever reason, these two teams have scored high honours on our report-card.

Bloomfield / Duncan: Bloomfield, bringing a vast wealth of knowledge to the task, and applying a conservative approach, has also scored equally high honours. He was not constrained to prefer the 'Majority Text' (note: Matt. 27:35!), and he was quite willing to make reasonable amendments to the TR, in the same manner as Burgon. His knowledge and caution served him well here, helping him to avoid most errors. Duncan probably follows Bloomfield's lead here, although he is well aware of others; he duplicates most of Griesbach's apparatus.

Griesbach / Schott: These two score remarkably low, but their methods were not yet on a sure scientific footing. What has saved Griesbach here from many errors has been his own knowledge of scribal errors, and his caution in emending the text (something later editors were notably lacking). Schott's method is similar. Both also have respect for the Latin textual stream, which was later regarded with suspicion and abandoned by other Protestant editors.

Scholz: A popular editor who produced a conservative text, he was satisfied in most cases to note what he considered more significant variants. Although lacking the most accurate collations, he had a wealth of textual evidence at his disposal, not significantly altered by subsequent discoveries and publications. His high regard for the Byzantine text-type has assisted in keeping him out of trouble with Alexandrian h.t. errors. Ironically, this Roman Catholic editor scores the highest, showing that the popularity of his text in England may have been well founded.

The Failures

Tischendorf / Tregelles: These two largely followed the theories and methods proposed by Lachmann, especially choosing reliance upon the "oldest evidence". Unfortunately, they have failed to properly assess both the significance of common scribal habits, and the witness of the majority of MSS, and so have failed to identify Alexandrian h.t. errors. Tischendorf scores higher, in part because of his reliance upon the Latin tradition, which has largely escaped the h.t. errors of the Alexandrian stream. Tregelles however, with his dogged insistence on only using the oldest MSS, gets bogged down. Tregelles was aware of the potential for scribal errors, correctly identifying some, but let age of MSS override his caution and judgement here.

Merk: This Roman Catholic editor depends largely on the work of von Soden. He does better than Tregelles, but ultimately fails with this aspect of the text, as he also was under the heavy influence of Lachmann and the state of contemporary textual theories. His reverence for the Latin also helps him to avoid a few of the worst errors here: Had he trusted the Latin text more, he would have probably got a passing score, even with a poor method and his lack of understanding of scribal habits.

Hort / Nestle-Aland: Its no real surprise that Hort, although knowing quite well the problem of homoeoteleuton errors, scores the lowest here. He elevated Griesbach's 'Canon', "Prefer the shorter reading" (originally heavily limited), into a universal overriding principle. His (unstated) purpose appears to have been to create the shortest possible text. The Nestle/Aland text was largely taken over by Aland, and adopted by the German-based UBS group. The agenda here appears to be to maintain a text distinct from the King James Version at all costs, and the various NA/UBS editions have largely ignored both new evidence and theoretical advances. The UBS text has been adopted almost universally by translators of modern versions, mostly it seems under the funding and influence of the Roman Catholic church.

nazaroo

* (Many other virtually certain h.t. errors are never noted or included in any apparatus, being unanimously recognized by all textual critics as h.t. errors, if for no other reason than that they are singular readings found only in one manuscript.)

Tregelles (1844) on h.t. in Codices A, C

2011-05-15T13:05:00.000-07:00

In S. P. Tregelles' first serious work, The Book of Revelation in Greek (1844), he made his first attempt at textual criticism of a NT book, and attempted to base his text solely or nearly completely on ancient manuscripts. Since Codex B is missing Revelation, and Aleph had not been procured and published, Tregelles relied on Codex A mainly, supplemented by Codex C (where extant) and also a few readings from Codex Basilianus (Vatican 2066, then unpublished), and the later MS 38 (Vatican 579).

Even though Tregelles was one of the most extreme textual critics, insisting on preferring the readings of the oldest MSS over all other evidences, he lists some 20 cases where he recognized that even the combined witness of both A and C were still in error, even though they were in agreement. Most of these were misspellings (itacisms etc.), but one notable exception was identified by Tregelles as a certain homoeoteleuton type error, Rev. 13:7:

13:6-7 :

........................................................................................και ηνοιξεν το
στομα αυτου εις βλασφημιαν προς τον θεον βλασφημησαι το ονομα
αυτου και την σκηνην αυτου και τους εν τω ουρανω σκηνουντας
και εδοθη αυτω πολεμον ποιησαι μετα των αγιων και νικησαι αυτους
και εδοθη αυτω εξουσια επι πασαν φυλην και γλωσσαν και εθνος

Tregelles seems still to have mis-identified this omission itself, perhaps by naivity, since he actually describes it as a homoeoarcton (similar line beginning) error.

" - omitted from the similar beginning of two clauses; the transcriber's eye must have past from one και εδοθη to the other. " (Tregelles, Introduction, p. xxxiii)

In fact it is not homoeoarcton. Its a very strong and ordinary homoeoteleuton error (i.e., similar line ending), and it could have arisen from a half-dozen different line-ending arrangements:

............ και ηνοιξεν το στομα αυ-
του εις βλασφημιαν προς τον θεον
βλασφημησαι το ονομα αυτου και τ-
ηνσκηνην αυτου και τους εν τω ου-
ρανω σκηνουντας και εδοθη αυτω
πολεμον ποιησαι μετα των αγιων κ-
αι νικησαι αυτους και εδοθη αυτω
εξουσια επι πασαν φυλην και γλωσ
σαν και εθνος

(example alignment at 26/52 chars per line)

This could in fact have arisen independently from two different master-copies with entirely different alignments, still resulting in the exact same final text in both Codex A and Codex C. Because this is such an easily reproduced error, which could have happened in two dozen different configurations, there is no need to assume any dependency or mixture between them.

Five years later (1849), when completely overhauling his Greek and English text, Tregelles maintained the same opinion. In his English footnote he writes;

" The clause 'And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them,' is omitted in the most ancient MSS, A and C, and also by Irenaeus; but as all the ancient versions contain them, the omission was probably occasioned by the two following clauses (in the Greek) commencing with precisely the same words; a transcriber, in such cases continually passed from one clause to another."

Tregelles also retains the line in his final GNT (1857) Volume 6 (p. 982), noting in the apparatus the following:

[include] Aleph, 1 mg.2 rubr. 7. 38. Q. 91. 95. Vulg. Memph. Aeth. Prms. Eraz. Cmpl. | ad fin. ver. post ethnos Syr. | om. AC. 1*. 14. P. Arm. Zoh. Iren. 326.

mr.scrivener

Alford (1863) on H.T. in Tischendorf

2011-05-06T14:32:00.000-07:00

In his prolegomena, Alford (1863) brings attention to an omission by Tischendorf (7th ed.), which is according to Alford an h.t. error:

"His [Tisch.] adoption of readings was not always distinguished by watchfulness to detect trips [eye-skips] of transcribers, as e.g. in John 6:51, where the homoeoteleuton δωσω ... δωσω was obviously the first source of confusion: see also Luke 24:51-52. ..." (Alford, The Greek Text, Vol. 1, p. 77 para.I.)

This reading is not even noted in UBS4, which leaves the surrounding variants without proper explanation. Merk (9th ed. 1964), based on von Soden, gives in the notes:

| εστιν Ta(in) B L 579 D 1071 251 850s lat pl. syv sa+] + ην εγω δωσω rel. f q sypih ar gg bo |

Nestle (24th ed. 1960) gives:

⸂ του εμου א a e r1 sys-s ; T | ⸀ ζησεται P66 B C Hesch.pm; W |
:. Kai comm | ⸉ 5-9 1-4 א m Tert; Th-r1 | ⸆ ην εγω δωσω Hesch. Θ pl f q; h-rs

These are a little more informative apparatus but still terse.

Hodges/Farstad also add a note, while retaining the longer text:

⸂ 1-4, 8-13 P66 (P75vid) B C versus Maj; (8-12, 1-4 א ).
- Which is perhaps more readable.

The traditional text runs:

... εγω
ειμι ο αρτος ο ζων ο εκ του ουρα-
νου καταβας εαν τις φαγη εκ του-
του του αρτου ζησεται εις τον αιω
να και ο αρτος δε ον εγω δωσω
η σαρξ μου εστιν ην εγω δωσω
υπερ της του κοσμου ζωης...

Although the text as it stands is not a 'pure' homoeoteleuton case, it seems clear there was an error of omission loosely based on similar endings or phrases. Here probably Alford is right, in preferring the Majority text, even though he himself favours the Uncial texts most of the time.

mr.scrivener

Codex א: Singulars - List from Godet (1864)

2011-05-01T16:18:00.000-07:00

Here is another list of Singular Readings from Codex Sinaiticus, courtesy of Godet (transl. from the French).   Most of these were quickly identified as homoeoteleuton and similar errors by Godet himself, following Tischendorf and other textual critics:

From: Classic Commentary Library

Commentary on the Gospel of John, Vol.2: ch6-end
by Godet

Footnotes starting on page 17

John's Gospel (ch. 6 to end)

5:26      Aleph (א) omits “you seek me”
5:38-39 Aleph (א) , C omits “sent me...sent me”
5:22     Aleph (א) omits ”on account of this”
7:50     Aleph (א) omits “came to him by night”
8:20     Aleph (א) omits “teaching in the temple”
8:35     Aleph (א) , X, Γ, omits “the son remains forever”
9:21     Aleph (א) omits “ask him”
9:38-39a Aleph (א) omits the whole verse
10:42     Aleph (א) omits “in the place”
12:31     Aleph (א) omits “now is the judgment of the world”
15:10     Aleph (א) omits “if...my love”
16:15     Aleph (א) omits the whole verse
16:17     Aleph (א) omits “micron …. palin
17:17     Aleph (א) omits “thy word is truth”
18:32     Aleph (א) omits “had spoken”
19:20-21 Aleph (א) omits the whole verse as far as 21 Alla (1 ½ vs. missing)
20: 4       Aleph (א) omits “and the other disciple”
20:5b-6 Aleph (א) omits whole verse
12: 20     Aleph (א) omits “akoluthontaos”

Most of these are both singular and plain h.t. errors.

Luke 24:32 - An h.t. Comedy from P75 and friends

2011-04-20T22:29:00.000-07:00

P75- (Luke 24:31-50) Click to Enlarge

What...even the oldest papyri guilty of frequent homoeoteleuton?
Who knew?

... και ειπον προς
αλληλους ουχι η καρδια ημων και
ομενη ην εν ημιν ως ελαλει ημιν
εν τη οδω και ως διηνοιγεν ημιν
τας γραφας...

In hindsight, who would be surprised by the slew of h.t. errors that sprang up around this unfortunate world cluster in the Egyptian, the Old Latin, geo. etc.

Even UBS2 walks away from this minefield, and follows the Traditional text, which is supported as follows:
א (A K) L P W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 0196 f1 f13 28 33 565 700 892 1010(marg) 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 2148 2174 Byz (majority of MSS) Lect, it-f Syr-p/h/pal Cop-sa/bo Arm Eth Diat. Origen-gr/lat

P75 (late 2nd, early 3rd century) seems to have made the first small fumble,
although the Old Latin readings are impossible to date at this point:

... και ειπον προς
αλληλους ουχι η καρδια ημων και
ομενη ην εν ημιν ως ελαλει ημιν
εν τη οδω και ως διηνοιγεν ημιν
τας γραφας...

The short burst of text in the master, "ΗΗΝ ΕΝ ΗΜΙΝ"
was an easy double-take, and "εν ημιν" vanished quietly.
As expected, Codex B follows the transmitted Alexandrian line faithfully.
Codex D (and its bilingual opposing page, it-d) also perpetuates this ancient error. Origen witnesses to it, and the later georgian translation copies it.

it-aur & the Latin Vulgate (Jerome 394 A.D.) seem to have consciously deleted the second ημιν apparently in an attempt to fix a longstanding variant.

Finally, the Old Latin (?) MSS it-a/b/ff2/l/r1 delete ως ελαλει ημιν in a second independent h.t. blunder:

... και ειπον προς
αλληλους ουχι η καρδια ημων και
ομενη ην εν ημιν ως ελαλει ημιν
εν τη οδω και ως διηνοιγεν ημιν
τας γραφας...

These errors are so short that they are likely not to be line-ends but embedded homoeoteleuton cases mid-line in wider and older master-copies.

The new SBL Text and Hort (continued)

2011-04-15T18:54:00.000-07:00

Here is a chart for Matthew listing significant omissions by both Hort and the SBL Greek NT:

Click to Enlarge

The same is true of Mark as well: Here both W/H and SBL are in column 1, and the type of error is listed in column 2


Click to Enlarge

Matthew 5:44 - When Good h.t. Errors go Bad...

2011-04-07T00:08:00.000-07:00

A quick look at the surrounding text explains easily how this early pair of omissions arose:

Matthew 5:44-45 - Double Homoeoteleuton Blunder

Click to enlarge

.........................................εγω δε λεγω 5:44

υμιν αγαπατε τους εχθρους υμων

ευλογειτε τους καταρωμενους υμας

καλως ποιειτε τους μισουντας υμας (29-30 cpl)

και προσευχεσθε υπερ των

επηρεαζοντων υμας

καιδιωκοντων υμας (15-16 cpl) 5:45
οπως γενησθε υιοι του
πατρος υμων του εν ου-
ρανοις οτι τον ηλιον
αυτου ανατελλει επι πο-
νηρους και αγαθους και
βρεχει επι δικαιους και
αδικους...

It appears likely that these two early omissions occurred separately, but close together in the copying stream. The width of the master-copy was probably about 29-30 cpl for the first omission to pop up, with both a similar ending and an unfortunate similar beginning of the next line, either of which alone could have caused an omission, but with both could have doubled the probability. Interestingly, seven different letter alignments with the same column width would generate the exact same omission.

The close proximity may be a coincidence, and one omission may have reinforced the credibility of the other as an original reading.

"But I say to you, love your enemies,

bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you,

and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,"

The real problem here is not accounting for the omission, but accounting for its perpetuation. But the difficulty of the message with the included phrases is more than enough to create a powerful attraction for the shorter reading, especially in manuscripts prepared for public reading. Why give possible eavesdropping spies and enemies fodder for further abuse or accusations?

The inclusion of the material, by any sensible standard is "the more difficult reading" in terms of the criterion of embarrassment etc.

This is a classic case of errors which arose by accident receiving an undeserved circulation in the name of later, more sophisticated expediency by orthodox editors consciously striving to produce the most 'appropriate' text under early circumstances of persecution and outsider hostility.

Omit Both Phrases: אB f1 it-k syr-c/s cop-sa/bo Origen

Include Both: D* D-cor K L W Δ Θ Π f13 28 33 565 700 892 1009 1010 1079 1195 1216 1241 1242-c 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz/Maj (Majority of MSS) Lect. it-c/d/f/h Syr-h/pal Goth arm eth geoA(B) Apost. Const., Chrysost. etc.

Steven Avery notes the following:

Dean John Burgon (by posthumous editor Edward Miller) wrote quite a bit about Matthew 5:44 here:

The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text (1896) p. 144-153
http://books.google.com/books?id=c3VCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA144

Burgon is mostly discussing the external evidences, emphasizing the massive Greek support, and a lot of detail on the early church writers.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Codex Bezae - Luke 22:19b-20 - Massive Eye-Skip

2011-04-04T08:27:00.000-07:00

One of the most remarkable things about the Lukan Omissions found in the last chapters is that they are all multiples of 22 letters, suggesting the original master-copy from which the error-prone text was made had a layout of 22 characters per line (cpl).

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton returns here

Already some 4 of these omissions have been noted in the literature as probable homoeoteleuton errors (Luke 4:5, 9:55-6, 11:54, 24:42) , and so the remaining 3 cases look strongly like similarly simple Eye-Skips by the very same scribe who generated the others. This now lost copy, forming one of the common ancestors for Bezae (and perhaps some early Syriac and OL copies), seems to have been responsible for a number of errors which crept into the copying streams at various points.

Luke
22:19b-20

152 letters:
22 cpl

το υπερ υμων διδομενον του-

το ποιειτε εις την εμην ανα-

μνησιν ωσαυτως και το ποτη-

ριον μετα το δειπνησαι λεγ-

ων τουτο το ποτηριον η και-

νη διαθηκη εν τω αιματι μου

το υπερ υμων εκχυνομενον

Hort [[DB]] /
SBL [SB]

mr.scrivener

Vaticanus Singulars - Steven Avery's Research

2011-04-02T20:54:00.000-07:00

I take the liberty of quoting Steven Avery's recent post on FightingFundamentalForums for review by those interested in h.t. questions, and the quality and nature of Codex Vaticanus 1209 (B). Steven here in turn quotes an early examination of B by an editor of the British Quarterly Review:

"Perhaps the earliest article that saw the Vaticanus printing and recognized the corruption was also in the British Quarterly Review, back in 1858. Remember, this is before the strange Hortian theories of a pure Vaticanus, simply the observations of men of sense and intelligence and discernment.

================================================

British quarterly review - Vol 28 - (October, 1858)
http://books.google.com/books?id=fwcYAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA315
p. 315-332

Art. II.— Vetus et Novum Testamentum, ex antiquissimo Codice Vaticano. Edidit ANGELUS MAIUS, S.R.E. Card. Romae. Joseph
Spithöver. 1857. 5 vols. 4to.

At last, this long-expected work, which has, for the last twenty years, sorely tried the patience of the Biblical scholars of Europe and America, has made its appearance. The Vatican codex—the queen of MSS.—to inspect which Bentley, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and many others, have made journeys to Rome—is no longer a sealed book, an unknown volume. (p. 315)

================================================

On p. 320 is discussed Luke 2:14, Mark 3:29 and Luke 8:54, Matthew 6:13 and Luke 11:2, then the ending of Mark and the blank page, the blank page being new information. Then John 1:18 and John 5:3-4, the Pericope Adultera and Acts 8:37, Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 3:15.

... It now remains to mention one or two characteristic features of the MS. which the publication of its text will be the means of making generally known.

One thing which is very observable, in turning over the pages of this magnificent edition, is the vast number of mistakes which the original copyist has committed—that is to say, the very frequent substitution of one word for another, as the result of sheer carelessness. There is a notion very widely diffused amongst students of the Greek Testament that these most ancient MSS. of the sacred volume, so beautifully written in large uncial letters, are as much distinguished by their correctness as they are by their antiquity. The publication of the text of the famous Vatican codex is likely to scatter to the winds all such enthusiastic ideas ... (p.321-322)

The verses he then discusses as "carelessness of the original writer" are Mark 1:24, Mark 13:13, Luke 16:12, Acts 4:25, 1 Peter 2:1, 2 Peter 2:13 (2 errors), John 3:3, 1 Corinthians 1:2, Philippians 2:1, Romans 14:18, Jude 1:21, Romans 5:1 and Galatians 6:10.

Then he goes into the "most numerous class of blunders .. interchange of the personal pronouns" .. 2 Corinthians 1:6, 1:21 (twice) 5:12, "and so on throughout the copy"

Notwithstanding thee numerous errors we have already referred to, the omissions of the copyist still remain to be noticed; and this fault, of passing by what should be inserted, is undoubtedly the characteristic feature of this ancient MS. (p. 323 underlining added)

Examples are given at Mark 6:17, Mark 10:29, Mark 15:4, Luke 19:25, John 1:4, John 1:13 , John 3:34, John 4:3 (the last few were corrected by the original scribe in the margin).

Now in all these examples nothing can be plainer than that the transcriber of the Vatican codex accidentally, and by oversight, omitted to insert the words in question; and then, either discovered his error at the time, or else on reading through the MS. observed the deficiencies. In some cases half a verse is thus left out, and afterwards supplied in the margin, as at Acts xxiii. 28, where six words are wanting in the text, and afterwards added; —viz., κατήγαγον αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ συνέδριον αὐτῶν. (p. 323-324)

Let us stop for a minute. Are you getting the picture ? We have a blunderama scribe working on the Vaticanus NT. And yes, discussing the omissions ... the scribe would catch some of the blunders and place the real Bible text in the margin. Yet what does that tell you about the hundreds of other places of minority and ultra-minority abbreviated text ? Simple logic says that the scribe's proclivity for missing text, by lack of skill, or homoeoteleuton, or rushing, or any one of a number of possibilities, also was in play for a great many of those dozens to hundreds of other omissions. So if there are weak omissions, and there are hundreds to thousands overall, many very significant .. the exemplar of the scribe can only take some of the blame. The Vaticanus scribe caused much of the problem.

This is important, deep, fundamental to understanding why the modern versions have their corrupt, abbreviated text.

Let's take a break for a bit, and I hope we are all learning from the history and the study.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

___________________________________

Hats off to Steven for digging out this early material.

Peace

Nazaroo

The Basis for a Positive h.t. Identification

2011-03-25T09:01:00.000-07:00

The following is culled and developed from a recent discussion at Fighting Fundamental Forums, which resulted in a useful exchange and explanation of the methodology and procedure for identifying probable homoeoteleuton, homoeoarcton and other similar accidental errors.

Q: Aren't the so-called errors simply presumptions made by those who have a preference for the Textus Receptus (TR) and Byzantine manuscripts?

The question speaks as if the "deductions" were simply opinions or fashions, and that the decisions about the nature of the variants were made on the basis of some predisposition or preference for the TR.

This is certainly not the case for the 75 homoeoteleuton cases examined in the Aleph/B text. Here's the simple reason why:

You can't turn these 75 homoeoteleuton cases inside-out on the basis of another opinion or some other preference, and have any kind of coherent explanation for the omissions/additions, or equally plausible explanations for the other variants. One of the most basic 'canons' of TC is a preference for the reading that explains the arising of the other variants. That is, the explanation and temporal sequence is preferred which accounts best for the physical features of the whole Variation Unit.

These cases are judged to be homoeoteleuton cases on the basis of their physical features alone, not predetermined preferences for, or predisposition to favour a given view or text-type.

Homoeoteleuton cases in the Byzantine text-type are also in the same boat.

No preferences or opinions can change their physical features. Its these physical features that class them as possible homoeoteleuton errors, and nothing else.

Q: What is the standard text which makes these cases errors? For an error to be deducted, a strong standard needs to be established. Haven't you erected the Traditional Text as the standard against which you judge the Alexandrian?

If this really were the case, then one could claim a methodological weakness, or at least a presumption. But that is not how textual criticism is legitimately being done here.

(1) Textual Evidence: Legitimate Use

The texts themselves can't speak or recommend readings.

The textual evidence (External Evidence) can only be used legitimately in certain ways: Textual witnesses are used to establish areas of variation (Variation Units), and the variants themselves.

The manuscripts (MSS), 'versions" - early translations (ETs), early Christian writers (ECWs), these witnesses are collated in order to find the boundaries where a variation exists, and list support for each variant reading. The apparatus so generated establishes each reading's geographical and temporal extent, and its earliest appearance. That is pretty much all textual evidence can do.

Next it is up to textual critics to evaluate and interpret these variants, using rational and impartial scientific methods and principles, to create a plausible and probable history that can explain how the variants arose, and what the original text was.

Possible homoeoteleuton errors are identified by using a combination of textual evidence and internal evidence, using the following methodologies:

(2) Internal Evidence: Legitimate Use

The Internal Evidence is a different kind of evidence entirely. It breaks down into two basic categories:

(a) Transcriptional Evidence (Scribal Habits): Since we look at the lost originals through the lens of copyists, we must understand thoroughly how the coloring of this lens affects the text. This first of all comes from examinations of individual manuscripts, the work of the scribes themselves.

(1) Singular Readings: For maximum reliability of findings, singular readings (unique readings not found in other manuscripts) are used to evaluate copyists. These have the highest probability of being accidental errors or quirky edits by the actual copyist of the manuscript.

(2) Accidental Readings: Additionally, singular readings are sorted into probable accidents (where the unique reading makes no sense, or less sense, and where an accident best explains the alternatives), and possible deliberate edits (readings which make sense, have theological or historical value, and cannot be explained as accidents).

By concentrating on probable errors, we can identify patterns and probable causes, as well as general habits and tendencies of copyists. This in turn helps to identify other variants which don't have the appearance or probability of being mistakes.

(3) Transcriptional Probabilities: From examining hundreds of MSS and the copying habits displayed therein, the features of and general probabilities for various types of errors (and scribal modifications) are established.

Please note: The knowledge of transcriptional errors is not established by comparing text-types or groups to one another.
The features and probabilites of transcriptional errors are instead established by collecting unambiguous instances of each type of error in individual manuscripts, not those in text-types or groups. By this approach, the common features that all instances share can be noted, the common causes of the errors understood, and reliable statistics generated.

The effect of scribal habits upon text-types or groups is based on the accumulation of individual scribal habits in the process of transmission. Thus our knowledge of groups or text-types can only come from understanding the effects of the individual copyists and editors on the text. We must first study individual copyists to understand text-types.

This is why individual manuscripts are studied first, and the most general habits and tendencies are established, to build a solid foundation for the study of transmission and text-types.

This knowledge is carefully built up before any further application of Transcriptional Evidence can be applied to Variation Units or text-types.
Important examples of such preliminary studies are given below:

E.C. Colwell (1969): Haplography - & P⁴⁵, P⁶⁶, P⁷⁵
Jongkind (2005): א - tests Singular Readings Method!
J. Hernandez (2006): Errors of א in Rev - singular OMs
J. Royse (2008): Scribal Habits - P^{45,46,47,66,72,75}
J. Royse (2008) homoeoteleuton - singular omissions

From such studies, more reliable observations, and solid canons can be established, as in the following discussions:

H. Gamble (1977): Interpolation - Identifying Marks
L. Haines (2008): Scribal Habits - 'Shorter Reading'?
J.Royse (2008) Shorter Reading? - & Griesbach

When a given Variation Unit is examined, the text-types involved and their textual support are not relevant for discovering and evaluating generalized transcriptional features.

Remember that Transcriptional Evidence has to do with the kinds of errors and changes that ALL copyists are vulnerable to, independent of time-period, location, or text-type. Text-types are not internal evidence.
When we identify a Variation Unit as a possible instance of homoeoteleuton, we don't do this on the basis of text-type, nor by comparing a given variant inside the Unit to another variant as if one were a standard and the other a mistake.

We identify whole Variation Units as homoeoteleuton instances by the features that the whole Variation Unit presents, regardless of text-type or opinion regarding individual variants within the Variation Unit.

It is not the variants that are identified as homoeoteleuton, but the entire Variation Unit itself which is classified as possible homoeoteleuton. This is done on the basis of its intrinsic features, which are independent of text-type or manuscript support, and its not done on the basis of favoring a specific text-type within the Variation Unit.

The Classification 'homoeoteleuton' (h.t.) belongs to the Variation Unit, not the individual variants in it. The Classification of 'text-type' belongs to individual readings, not the Variation Unit, which is an over-arching structure involving all text-types and groups.

Variation Units identified as possible or probable homoeoteleuton cases occur in all text-types, and in all manuscripts and witnesses. They are not 'text-type' specific, and they are not defined or determined by choosing any text-type as a standard. That is just nonsense.

All the probable homoeoteleuton cases we have identified have been identified on the basis of their own intrinsic features as shown, and not on the basis of their agreement or disagreement with the Textus Receptus or the UBS text (or any other text). The only subsequent process imposed upon the full group of homoeoteleuton cases was this:

On certain occasions we chose to talk about those cases mistakenly adopted by the UBS text, and this necessarily involved selecting those cases as a sub-set of the complete list.

We can certainly provide other lists of probable homoeoteleuton cases in the TR, or the Western Text, or the critical texts of Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, or Tischendorf, or Hodges/Farstad if you like. But again all of these examples will be established by their actual features, not by evaluating textual support or favoring text-types.

We can group homoeoteleuton errors according to text-type or geographical extent only AFTER we have already found them.

(b) Intrinsic Probability (Author's Intent): This is another category of evidence discussed by Hort and others. It refers to what it was that the author was most likely to have written.

Intrinsic Probability involves grammatical evidence (vocabulary and syntax), literary evidence (content and structure), and sometimes theological evidence (what the author believed or knew, based on what he shows elsewhere and what is historically known or plausible) But AGAIN it is not based on text-types or favoring one form or source over another. It is also a kind of INTERNAL evidence, not TEXTUAL per se. But that is another subject.

Q: ...it seems that Nazaroo's text-critical philosophy is a thoroughgoing eclecticism. If all that external evidence can do is give you various readings, with geneaological & geographical aspects concerning those readings, then you fall very much in line with J. K. Elliott.

This is really a basic misunderstanding. We are not advocating any particular philosophy or method of Textual Criticism. We can find flaws with all of them. The point is rather that certain specific tasks in TC require solid techniques. These do not then become the 'only method', or a generalized philosophy. They remain limited specialized techniques, only justifiable with clear and specific applications in view.

Q:    In order to identify the cases in question as specific examples of probable homoeoteleuton, with resultant dropout of text, isn't an actual exemplar containing the "missing" text presumed to exist or have existed?

Again the question assumes we are creating hypothetical entities, when in actual fact we are limiting ourselves to previously documented textual variants found within Variation Units.   It is well-recognized that almost all variants are 'old', and stem from the early centuries (1st - 3rd cent. A.D.)
The variants themselves are already attested, although in some cases by later manuscripts, or appear as minority readings.   We don't postulate any new archetypes or lost exemplars. We simply stick to known units in the standard apparatus and give all well-attested variants the possibility of being an original reading.
That is the natural starting point for all textual criticism. We assume that we don't know the original reading with absolute certainty, and evaluate variants based on textual and transcriptional evidences we find.

(1) Since we start with textual evidence, compiling Variation Units from variants actually found among real manuscripts, we don't need to conjecture any texts out of thin air, and in fact we reject entirely any conjectures which lack actual manuscript support. We limit ourselves to variants supported by good textual evidence.

(2) The only 'conjecture' or 'presumption' involved is the openmindedness to consider any well-attested variants as possible cases, and check to see if the Variation Units involved have the physical features required.

(3) The evaluation is conducted on the basis of the most generalized and well-known scribal habits and tendencies (the most reliable kind), and is not dependent upon text-types or peculiar local practices, or temporary trends found in particular eras, such as "Alexandrian editng techniques" or 'Western tendencies of conflation'.

(3) At this stage, no preference for text-types or geographical/temporal witnesses need be considered, nor should it be. It would be far more 'presumptive' in that sense if we pre-selected and favoured text-types like the Alexandrian as more probably "original".

(4) Remember that we are investigating all text-types, and all eras, and the only focus or 'bias' will be our attention upon the earliest and most reliable textual evidences. The Variation Units we use are composed and filled out utilizing data from all text-types, and will often naturally group the evidence largely by text-type in many cases. But that is not a free choice or preference on the part of those collating manuscripts for the apparatus. That is just the way the evidence naturally falls, and organizes itself.

(5) We ourselves have no hesitation in using for instance the good data collected and organized in the UBS4 apparatus, or that found in any other good critical apparatus, like Tregelles, Tischendorf, or von Soden.

(6) It would be far more biased to focus only on the errors of a certain preselected text-type or group of manuscripts, and thereby imply or give the impression that other text-types were superior, or focus on a supposed superior text-type, and presume others were inferior.

(7) But what we really have done is to look at all text-types and witnesses, and to use independent data and evaluations of scribal habits, to categorize Variation Units found in all text-types and manuscripts.

Again we recap, that we don't use conjectural reconstructions of non-existant texts, but instead restrict ourselves to known and well-attested textual variants supported by real manuscripts, versions and text-types.

Nor do we begin with presumptions or preferences for text-types or manuscripts. We deliberately put those aside and appeal to independent data on scribal habits and errors, culled first of all from hard textual evidence, such as the singular readings and corrections found in individual manuscripts of all types.

We apply already accumulated knowledge about scribal errors, knowledge which has stood the test of time, passed peer review, and has been accepted by textual critics of all viewpoints. We stick to the most well-understood, well-known and reliable data on scribal habits, such as the mechanisms of omission and dittography due to homoeoteleuton and homoeoarcton features of the texts.

We have investigated homoeoteleuton in both the reconstructed archetypes of manuscripts like Aleph/B, and actual singular errors found in individual manuscripts.

It should be understood that WE did not reconstruct the archetypes of Aleph/B, but that other textual critics (Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Hort, Nestle, Aland etc.) reconstructed Aleph/B on the direct basis of "agreement in text", independent of and regardless of the mechanisms for changes.

We do not dispute at all that the UBS4 text substantially represents the archetype of Aleph/B, and that textual critics have done a relatively good job at reconstructing that archetype. We don't doubt the essential genealogical tree or the fact that the UBS text is an Alexandrian text which circulated earlier than either Aleph or B.

The point is, WE did not create or conjecture an ancestor for Aleph/B. It definitely exists and conforms to the UBS text. This is not in serious dispute by any textual critic, and this reconstructed text is NOT considered "conjectural" or a mere "presumption".

But nor is the existance of the 2nd century Western text in serious dispute, or the 4th century Byzantine, or the 3rd century Old Latin or the 4th century Vulgate. These texts are as real as the manuscripts that support them, and they all reach back into the 2nd century.

The texts and readings we are using and the Variation Units are well-known, documented and accepted by textual critics of all persuasions, and are all found in the UBS4 Apparatus.

We avoid entirely any conjectural texts proposed by others, or any emendations of our own to the Variation Units.

Q: Wouldn't your resultant or corrected text be a lengthier, "fuller" text than that of any Critical Text (CT), or probably even than the Traditional Text (TT)?

This is not actually true, and logically incorrect.

Any text corrected from a subset of probable homoeoteleuton errors would only put back some of the omissions found among Variation Units, and even if these were removed from texts and apparatus, a substantial part of the basic differences between the UBS4 text and the Majority Text would remain: Some 120 omissions/additions would still be in dispute.

The text created from my data would not make a longer text than the Majority Text.

Peace
Nazaroo

Codex W: Matt. 4:21-22 - h.t./h.a. Combo

2011-03-23T09:58:00.000-07:00

Here is the first example Sanders gave as a first-hand homoeoteleuton blunder in Codex W:

Matt. 4:21-22

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to return

The standard text in the master copy probably ran like this:

[πετρον] και ανδρεαν τον αδελφον αυτου βαλλοντας αμφιβληστρον εις
την θαλασσαν ησαν γαρ αλιεις * και λεγει αυτοις δευτε οπισω μου
και ποιησω υμας αλιεις ανθρωπων οι δε ευθεως αφεντες τα δικτυα
ηκολουθησαν αυτω και προβας εκειθεν ειδεν αλλους δυο αδελφους
ιακωβον τον του ζεβεδαιου και ιωαννην τον αδελφον αυτου εν τω
πλοιω μετα ζεβεδαιου του πατρος αυτων καταρτιζοντας τα δικτυα
αυτων και εκαλεσεν αυτους οι δε ευθεως αφεντες το πλοιον και τον PAR (πατερα)
αυτων ηκολουθησαν αυτω και περιηγεν ολην την γαλιλαιαν ο IS (ιησους)
διδασκων εν ταις συναγωγαις αυτων ...

This exemplar probably had either 50 or perhaps 25 characters per line.

One can see the comedy of errors unfolding. The scribe looks from his copy to the master, searching for the line-end "τα δικτυα" but slips 3 lines lower by an homoeoteleuton (similar line end). He now writes "αυτων", but is distracted once more: he again looks back to his master-copy for the line beginning with "αυτων", and now commits the complimentary line-skip, via homoeoarcton (similar beginning). Perhaps a younger monk had pestered him with some question, and the exchange was enough to cause the double-fumble. It was some kind of Kodak moment, or it was just a bad-hair day for the scribe of W.

On the fly, the scribe of W expands some of the lesser known contractions (Nomina Sacra) such as anthropos (man), probably for readability. His text now looks like a swiss-cheese:

και ανδρεαν τον αδελφον αυτου
βαλλοντας αμφιβληστρον εις την
θαλασσαν ησαν γαρ αλιεις και λεγει
αυτοις δευτε οπισω μου και ποιη-
σω υμας αλιεις ανθρωπων οι δε ευ
θεως αφεντες τα δικτυα.../...αυτων
.../... ηκολουθησαν αυτω
και περιηγεν ολην την γαλιλαιαν ο
IS διδασκων εν ταις συναγωγαις αυ-
των ...

Needless to say, other scribes who may have occasionally used Codex W as an exemplar would have probably rolled their eyes at this zinger, and quietly ignored this reading in favor of any other handy copy.

mr.scrivener

Codex W: h.t. singular list - from Sanders

2011-03-22T05:44:00.000-07:00

Sanders (1912) the editor of the facsimile photos of Codex W, in his detailed account of the text gives a list of cases where he is certain that the reading is a result of homoeoteleuton (like endings) errors by the copyist of the manuscript itself (i.e., not copied from the exemplar).

"Omissions by carelessness or because of like endings, which can be definitely assigned to our scribe:
Matt.   4:21-22    [h.t./h.a. combo]
Matt. 15:18     [h.t. ]
Matt. 16:2-3
Mark 6:23
Mark 7:13
Mark 11:15
Luke    8:31
Luke 15:19
Luke 15:24
Luke 17:35   [h.t.] (A most interesting case; the scribe himself corrected his mistake after writing 3 words)
John 5:11-12 (perhaps from a parent [h.t., replacement quire])
John   21:4.

The regular scribe is relatively free from such errors, if we consider the rapid style of his script and the length of the MS ... Only in the case of those characteristics which run through the MS without change can we assume our scribe responsible. Among these I venture to draw deductions only from those pronounced characteristics which are rare to non-existent in other Biblical MSS. In this class we may enumerate: tendency towards aspirated consonants, αλλα before all vowels, κα for και , and the decided tendency towards Attic or other old forms [of Greek]. The most of these find their nearest parallels in the early papyri and the oldest uncials of Egyptian origin, thus confirming the supposed Egyptian origin and suggesting an early date....

On the preceding page I have listed 12 cases of longer omissions by our scribe; 9 of these were due to like endings [homoeoteleuton] and 3 to like beginnings [homoeoarcton] of successive phrases. We may assume that these omissions would more easily occur if the parallel parts stood at the beginnings or ends of neighboring lines, and thus may draw inferences as to the length of line in the parent MS.

The 3 omissions in Matthew are respectively 214, 44, and 36 letters long, indicating a line of either 20 or 40 letters in the parent. As W has about 30, it seems quite certain that the parent did not agree [in line length].
In Mark the 3 omissions are of 36, 30, and 14 letters each. These lengths might be consistent with a line length similar to W, but seem to point to a line of about half the length.
In Luke, the lengths of the 4 omissions are 17, 27, 22, 65 letters, which would seem to suggest the short line attributed to the parent of Matthew.
In John there are 2 omissions of this type; one comes between the first and second quires and is 69 letters long; the other, at Jn 21:4 is 49 letters long. We are also assisted by a repetition 139 letters long, covering 5 lines in the repeated form and 5 lines and 8 letters in its first form. If we may unite the evidence of these three, the parent MS would seem to have had a line from 23 to 25 letters in length, i.e., again a different length, and so indicating a different parent.

The average amount of text written on a 16-page quire of the MS is 10 and a half pages of the Oxford 1880 edition. Yet the first quire of John has about eleven and a half pages, and the last two full quires of Luke (crowded writing noted above, p. 7) contain nearly 12 pages of text each. It is easy enough to explain large quires toward the end of a gospel, if crowding would have saved an extra small quire, but such is not the case here, as Luke ends on a four-page quire. This looks like a hint that the parent MS had larger quires. The larger first quire of John suggests a similar guess for that gospel as well. We shall find this though confirmed in our study of the text affiliations later."

Of those listed by Sanders, we have already looked at a few analyzed by Schmid ("Reassessing the Palaeography..", see the links above in our list). We will have a closer look at a few others as well shortly.

mr.scrivener

Codex Bezae - Matt 23:34 h.t. blunder

2011-03-18T11:00:00.000-07:00

Here is another rather transparent h.t. omission, either by the scribe of D or an ancestor:

Click to Enlarge

This could be a double-line at about 22 characters per line in the master-copy, or a single line skip at 42-44 cpl. This area of text appears especially prone to h.t. errors, and does not disappoint.

Codex D:

Codex D: Matt 23:34 - Click to Enlarge

John 5:12 - Codex W: ...h.t. damage caused by a book-repair!

2011-03-17T12:17:00.000-07:00

The chain by which our attention was drawn to this remarkable story is relatively long linkage in itself. I noted Mr. Scrivener's post on codex W, in which Dr. Tim Finney in a comment drew attention to Urlich Schmid's article contained in Dr. Larry Hurtado's book, The Freer biblical manuscripts (2006). There Mr. Schmid cites a discovery by Henry Sanders in volume 9, The NT MSS in the Freer Collection Pt 1: the Washington MS of the 4 Gospels (1912), p. 135-6, who in turn quotes Sir F. Kenyon in passing. Well, thats enough name-dropping. Lets cut to the chase.

First the essential facts. Codex W (or the book of John therein) somehow lost the first quire from the book of John. It had quires of 8 leaves (4 sheets) each, although a few leaves are missing, with the opposing leaves belonging to those sheets sown back in during a re-binding. The current 1st quire of John is a replacement quire, by a different hand. Although it appears older from deterioration, this could simply be because of poorer quality parchment. The handwriting difference between the main book and the replacement quire is obvious:

Scribe W (main text in gospels):

General features:
good slant, smooth straight lines of text, good spacing between lines,
most letters about the same size and on the line.
Occasional outdented letters same size as normal text.

Letters are elegant, but not fancy.
Phi (φ) - not oversized, Omicron (ο) - stout, often pear-shaped, Xi (ξ) - unique. Omega (ω) - angular, plain. Psi (ψ) - Unusual, straight bar. Epsilon (ε) - stout, substantive. Alpha (α) - often angular, but varies.


note Xi (ξ) in bottom right	Psi (ψ) - Unusual, straight bar.


Phi (φ), overhanging Kai	Omicron (ο) - stout, pear-shaped

Scribe JnQuire1: (replacement quire)


Oversize Phi, K in midline, less slant	Round Omega, Upright Alpha, std Upsilon


Enlarged Outdent, uneven crowded lines	Oversized phi, angular epsilon, oval omicron.

Such examples establish that the scribe of Quire 1 (Jn) tried to imitate W but was not as skilled or consistent. Certain features of his own style (e.g., enlarged phi) overrode his concern or ability to match the original.

The Seam between Quire 1(scribe Q1) and Quire 2 (scribe W)

Now lets turn to what happened, as the new scribe tried to match up his quire:


- replacement page,	Original John continues...

Here is Sanders' original description of the action:

"...we may thus with safety date the whole MS as not later than the early part of the 5th century [A.D.]. But does this also apply to the first quire of John? Dr. Kenyon (op.cit.) thinks not and dates it tentatively in the 7th or 8th century, on the basis of the writing, which he classes as a Slavonic sloping uncial [script]. It seems impossible to separate so far the two parts of the MS, and fortunately we do not have to rely entirely on the comparison of styles of writing. It is certain that this strange quire was written to fill a gap, to supply a lost quire. On the last page of it the text is stretched and ends of lines left vacant after each sentence, so as to come out just even; The three preceding pages were just as plainly crowded, an extra line even being added on each page. It must be admitted that the writer was both inexperienced and had before him a copy quite different in size of page [layout]. Yet with all his care to make his quire come out even he omitted nearly a verse at the end. This not only emphasizes the difference in form of the MSS from which and for which he was copying, but proves conclusively that one was not the parent of the other. In other words, he was not copying an injured or wornout quire, but was striving to arrange in a quire a certain amount of text. His task was to copy as far as the words κραβατον σου και περιπατει of Jn 5:12, but he stopped with the same words in verse 5:11. This might have been an omission in the parent text and be explained as due to 'like endings' [h.t.], but the fact that the omission falls exactly at the end of the quire seems sufficient proof that it was first made in copying this inserted quire." (Sanders, p. 135-6)

A few remarks are needed at this point. Even though this took place in the replacing of a quire, right on a seam, it was still a homoeoteleuton error, an eye-skip by the copyist. The difference is that it is unlikely to have happened without the 'opportunity' of the repair, and was unlikely to have been present in the original quire.

Sanders goes on to try to argue that the quire itself is older than Codex W[!] The only 'evidence' he has of this is the condition of the replacement quire, but that can be better explained as the result of poorer quality vellum (improperly prepared), and different inks. He claims to have seen an erased letter "a" above a slightly displaced quire number, but no other scholar has found any evidence of this.

We stop our discussion here, because our interest is only in this interesting case of yet another way a homoeoteleuton error can and did find its way into a surviving copy of the Gospels.

Peace,
Nazaroo

Matthew 10:37 - Codex B/D: Early h.t. Vanishes from UBS4!

2011-03-10T09:43:00.000-08:00

This is a remarkable reading, not because it has any credibility as a reading (it is an obvious homoeoteleuton error, acknowledged by most critics and editors), but because of its strange history in the UBS text.

Here is the omission in Codex Vaticanus with its marginal correction:

Click to Enlarge: backbutton to return

It was duly and seriously noted in the apparatus of the UBS2 (1968, = NA26 etc.) and is indeed an important reading, because it appears to be a clear case of a previous error by a very early scribe, copied in independent lines to both Codex Vaticanus (B, and corrected in the margin there), and Codex Bezae (D). That is, this was probably not committed coincidentally by both scribes, but by an ancient common ancestor, and duly copied (or cross-pollenated long before the 4th century). Matt. 10:36-38:

..................... ..και εχθροι τ-
ου ανθρωπου οι οικιακοι αυτ-
ου ο φιλων πατερα η μητερα
υπερ εμε ουκ εστιν μου αξιος
και ο φιλων υιον η θυγατερα
υπερ εμε ουκ εστιν μου αξιος
και ος ου λαμβανει τον σταυ
ρον αυτου και ακολουθει οπ
ισω μου ουκ εστιν μου αξιος

The similar ending extends to 1 1/2 lines, even at 23 characters per line. This is an old error, from the 2nd or early 3rd century when papyrus copies of individual gospels carried only one or two columns per page.

The Master-Copy may have looked something like this:

Click to Enlarge

The UBS4 Fiasco:

But why did UBS4 (4th ed. 1993) remove it from the apparatus? Surely not because it would damage the reputation of either Codex Vaticanus (B) or Codex Bezae. Bezae is already well-known as a quirky and often unreliable text. And if this is an error from a previous common ancestor, it cannot harm the reputation of the careful and skillful copyists of Vaticanus.

The answer is in the word "error". Why? Because it is a clear example of the careful copying of an ancient error by Codex Vaticanus. An error of homoeoteleuton. And it brings ALL such possible errors into sharp focus, especially those Variation Units where Vaticanus shares the omission with Codex Sinaiticus (א).

Because at least 75 of these probable h.t. errors, supported by (א/B) have been adopted as if they were original readings by the Hortian editors of the UBS text.

A large number of these readings are supported by earlier (2nd-3rd cent.) papyri, such as P66 and P75. This was taken to mean the readings were original. But the evidence can be more easily taken as proof of the obvious: That most of these early h.t. errors do indeed go back to the 2nd century, but this fact merely reflects the poor state of the text and copying practice in that era, and not the purity of the 'Alexandrian' transmission stream behind (א/B).

So why delete from the apparatus this obviously significant h.t. error? Because it, along with many other embarrassing cases, detracts from the reputation of the Alexandrian text-type, and the wisdom of following it.

peace
Nazaroo

Codex Bezae - semi-singulars in Luke 24

2011-03-06T17:00:00.000-08:00

These minority readings seem to be a perennial favorite among modern critics who prefer the world's shortest text, because they have garnered some support from the Old Latin manuscripts. This support is rather suspect however, in the first place because the Latin was a translation from Greek, and so rather dependent upon the quality of early Greek MSS, and also secondary as a translation. This extends further when we note (as it isn't very often in the apparatus) that the Old Latin MS "δ" is simply the Latin side of the very same manuscript "D" (Codex Bezae 5th cent.), i.e., it is really only a single witness, since the Greek and Latin have been consciously cross-harmonized to agree with each other. Thus the citation, It-d is still D.

The original F.H.A. Scrivener describes the parallel Latin column in Bezae as follows:

"its own parallel Latin translation is too servilely accommodated to the Greek text to be regarded as an independent authority" (Plain Introduction, vol.1, p. 103)

That a few other Old Latin MSS have the same reading will not be surprising if Codex D was at one time used as a reference in the Latin West.

The three omissions of interest here are:

Luke 24:36, 24:40, and 24:51.

These have the unusual feature of the letter count being a multiple of 24-25 letters. That is, the column-width of the master-copy from which the blunder was made was about 25 letters wide.

As it turns out, two out of three of these have homoeoteleuton features, and one appears to be a simple eye-skip (of which Codex Bezae sports many).


Click to enlarge: backbutton to return

The last example is particularly strong, with both homoeoteleuton and homoeoarcton features.

Diagrams courtesy of Mr. Scrivener

peace
Nazaroo

Codex W: h.t. singulars - James Royse (cont.)

2011-03-01T11:36:00.000-08:00

We continue our brief review of James Royse's article ("The Corrections in the Freer Gospels Codex") in the collection (book) edited by Dr. Hurtado, The Freer biblical manuscripts: fresh studies of an American treasure trove, (2006).

"Matt. 15:18-19: The scribe made not quite the same leap as did א*,
33vid, bo-ms. The latter witnesses leapt from της καρδιας εξερχεται of 15:18 to της καρδιας εξερχονται of 15:19 and proceeded with ονται διαλογισμοι κτλ. The scribe of W, however, must have made the leap from εξερχεται of 15:18 to εξερχονται of 15:19 (abetted by the general similarity of the words, of course) and then proceeded with διαλογισμοι κτλ. Thus W* wrote the singular verb of 15:18. It is remarkable that the corrector simply shifted the verb rather than restoring the omitted words: clearly he also lost his way in moving back and forth between exemplar and copy." (- Royse, p. 203)

Codex W: Matt. 15:18-19 - h.t. singular (click to enlarge)

Codex W displays the result, an uncorrected homoeoteleuton error (accidental omission).

Evaluating h.t. in Aleph/B - James Snapp weighs in

2011-02-28T07:49:00.000-08:00

James Snapp has has taken the time to examine our lists of probable h.t. errors in Matthew and Mark in the light of his own research, and offered the following report-card at TC-Alternat-list:

"Mr. Scrivener,

I compared your list of proposed parableptic errors elicited by h.t. in Mt and Mk to my translation of Mt based on the Equitable Eclectic text, and to the Greek Uncial Archetype of Mark.

Results:

In Mk we agree in 10 out of 10 cases.

In Mt we agree in 9 out of 13 cases. [~70%] The passages where I favor the shorter reading are:

(1) Mt. 15:8 - The variants in this citation should be considered together.

(2) Mt. 20:7 - The Byz reading is a conformation to the preceding text in v. 4. How does your proposed KAI-to-KAI skip account for the shorter reading? Where is the second KAI?

(3) Mt. 20:22 - h.t. could explain the shorter reading in 20:23, but not the shorter reading in 20:22; harmonization to Mk. 10:38-39 explains them both.

(4) Mt. 26:3 - a judgment based on internal evidence is difficult; the shorter reading is explicable by h.t. or by h.a. But the external evidence for the shorter reading is widespread. P45 and Codex A and several Old Latin copies and the Vulgate do not support the longer reading. KAI OI GRAMMATEIS is read in Mk. 14:1 and in Lk. 22:2, so early harmonization (early enough to be picked up in the Peshitta) in the Byz transmission-stream seems more likely than several independent omissions.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

To quickly answer James' question re: 20:7, we repost Nazaroo's reconstruction of the h.a. (homoeoarcton - similar beginning of line) below:

...λεγουσιν
αυτω οτι ουδεις ημας εμισθ-
ωσατο λεγει αυτοις υπαγετε
και υμεις εις τον αμπελωνα
και ο εαν η δικαιον ληψεσθε
οψιας δε γενομενης λεγει οκ-
υριος του αμπελωνος τω επι-
τροπω αυτου καλεσον τους
εργατας και αποδος αυτοις
τον μισθον αρξαμενος απο
των εσχατων εως των πρωτ-
ων...

mr.scrivener

More homoeoteleuton from OOG...

2011-02-24T23:11:00.000-08:00

In a recent post on one of the forums, a poster named "OOG" left us a message as follows:

"Now to add to Nazaroo's list of possible Homoeoteleuton in Aleph/B

{The Synoptic Gospels}

Matt. 10:23, 10:37, 12:15, 14:30, 18:29, 19:9, 23:35, 28:2,3,

Mark 1:40, 4:24, 7:4

Luke 2:15*, 6:1, 10:32, 12:14*, 16:16, 16:21, 17:35, 19:38, 22:64, 24:31, 24:52, 24:53

* more than one HT

Also a couple of corrections might improve the list : Luke 8:48 HA not HT, Luke 23:17 HA not HT,
John 11:41 (...vou,...vos)

Thank you Nazaroo for sharing this list, you have greatly increased my list of HT and HA. I hope the couple dozen extra I added (from the synoptic gospels) benefit you and everyone for that matter.

?Questions? for Nazaroo: Help me out with Matt 20:22(23?), John 3:13, 6:22, 8:59-9:1, Acts 20:15, 26:29-31 (28:29?) For one reason or another I cannot put my finger on these."

First a couple of comments on the new list:

(1) I don't see how John 11:41 is actually h.t. in the way suggested by OOG. It is possible, but requires also the scribe to have skipped the first "vou" before making the h.t. in his reconstruction. This seems less likely than the one we suggested already (normal h.t.) here: John 11:41 h.t.

(2) Luke 23:17 is not an 'either/or' situation, but rather both h.a. and h.t. But we list it as h.t. because that is the more probable cause for the line-skip of the two, with the h.a. contributing secondarily as an aggravating factor.

(3) Luke 8:48 doesn't really appear to be h.a. That is, it is likely that even though we would read it differently, the mechanics of the eye-skip suggest the "theta" was the cause. Its a short skip, and probably caused by letter-copying rather than syllable copying. See here: Luke 8:48

We have already followed OOG's lead in examining Matt. 10:23 (previous post) and will soon look at the others. In the meantime we post his list here, so that others can independently look at them.

peace
Nazaroo

Codex W: h.t. singulars - Royse

2011-02-22T11:10:00.000-08:00

We have come to a stage in the study of the most ancient Uncials where it is widely recognised that most variants and peculiarities are not "original readings", but the results of either common errors, literary edits, or amateur textual criticism by ancient scribes, long after the books were in circulation.

In an excellent article in the collection (book) edited by Dr. Hurtado, The Freer biblical manuscripts: fresh studies of an American treasure trove, (2006), James R. Royse describes in detail many accidental homoeoteleuton and corrections found in Codex Washingtonsis (W/032) ("The Corrections in the Freer Gospels Codex"). The book is a treasure-trove of information on W, and is highly recommended.

Here we offer a few examples from the article:

'Matt. 12:31. Apparently the scribe at first leapt from ...βλασφημια αφεθησεται τοις ανθρωποις to ...βλασφημια ουκ αφεθησεται τοις ανθρωποις, as in the majority text, and was going to continue on with 12:32. But after completeing one line of 12:32, the scribe caught his error, erased the entire line, and then proceeded correctly. The correction was so thorough that the original writing is completely irretrievable. Sanders argued that the original omission shows a relation between W and those MSS that read η δε...ανθρωποις and asserted: "It seems quite clear that the parent of W omitted the sentence, but it had been supplied in a marginal gloss, which was not discovered by the copyist of W, until he had written the next following line." [Sanders, 29] But this is an unnecessary hypothesis. It is simpler to suppose that W originally made the same omission by a scribal leap as did a number of other witnesses independently, but then the scribe of W caught the error before proceeding too far.' (Royse, p.188)

'Luke 17:34. The scribe at first omitted 17:35 (as did also the scribes of Aleph, pc, 1, vg-ms), by an accidental visual leap (αφεθησεται ...αφεθησεται)*, and wrote the beginning of 17:37 (17:36 [as found in ς-e, D, U, pm, lat, syr-s,c,p,h, arm] was evidently not present in the exemplar). But he then caught his error when he came to the end of the line, which also happens to be the end of page 285 of the codex, and deleted kai apokrithentes legou by placing supralinear dots and also marking with quotation marks the beginning and end of the text to be deleted. [21]'
21. Sanders (26 n.1) wrote of this instance, "A most interesting case; the scribe himself corrected his mistake after writing three words." (Royse, p.192)

Codex W: h.t. (corrected) @ Matt. 12:31 - click to Enlarge

Codex W: h.t. (corr.) Luke 17:34 (p.285)

Codex W: h.t. (corr.) Luke 17:36 (p.286)

Dr. Royse's expert view that independent errors frequently arose with coincidental results is a very important observation, relevant to both the strength of possible homoeoteleuton cases and the actual mechanisms by which omissions occurred. It means that minor support for an otherwise 'singular' reading is in many cases a mere coincidence, and also that multiple opportunities for error significantly increased the number of actual h.t. errors.

peace
Nazaroo

Matthew 10:23 - Early Byzantine homoeoteleuton

2011-02-20T17:01:00.000-08:00

Matthew 10:23 in the Traditional Text apparently runs:

οταν δε διωκωσιν υμας εν τη πολει
ταυτη φευγετε εις την αλλην
αμην γαρ λεγω υμιν ου μη τελεσητε
τας πολεις του ισραηλ εως αν ελθη
ο υς του ανου

The Aleph/B Text & Byz. runs:

οταν δε διωκωσιν υμας εν τη πολει
ταυτη φευγετε εις την ετεραν
αμην γαρ λεγω υμιν ου μη τελεσητε
τας πολεις του ισραηλ εως [αν] ελθη
ο υς του ανου

This would seem to be a minor variant, not entirely inexplicable, and attributable to some kind of brain boo-boo.

...If not for the following large problem: Two important Byzantine families, f1 and f13, as well as Origen and even the Diatessaron, and with variants, L Θ D 565, and virtually all of the Old Latin witnesses, Syriac-s, Arm Geo. and Hilary have something much fuller:

.....................οταν δε διωκ-
ωσιν υμας εν τη πολει ταυ-
τη, φευγετε εις την αλλην (/ετεραν)
καν εκ ταυτης διωκωσιν υμ-
ας, φευγετε εις την αλλην
αμην γαρ λεγω υμιν ου μη
τελεσητε τας πολεις του ισηλ
εως [αν] ελθη ο υς του ανου

"But when then, they persecute
   you in this city, flee into another,
   and out of that one, when they
   persecute you, flee into another. ..."...

Click to Enlarge

With the fuller text, it seems rather obvious that a very early homoeoteleuton type-error may have taken place, sometime after the early Latin translation. We should not be surprised at this. The extensive support throughout the Latin tradition, coupled also with major early translations, and even Origen and two major Greek MS families + Uncials as a Greek witness support, leans strongly in favor of a simple, but unfortunately early mistake.

As with other extensive homoeoteleuton lines, there are 18 different possible alignments that would generate the same error at each column width of 10, 20, or 40 cpl. (= 54 permutations!) A large number of these could also automatically generate the variation αλλην / ετεραν ) depending upon when the scribe ended the line and skipped. In other words, this is the solution that also explains the other variants in this Variation Unit. More strong internal evidence in favor of the fuller text.

Thanks to "OOG" on Bible Versions Forum for bringing this to our attention.

peace
Nazaroo

Interrupting Edit: (heh heh)

- I posted your notes from here on TC-Alt, and James Snapp Jr. pointed out he also supports this possible homeoteleuton and notes the variant in his English translation with textual notes as follows:

e – next, and if they persecute you in that one, flee to another – Aleph/B: the next, Byz: another (text supported by D SyrS)

You can download his Text from the file, "EEEE Matthew Sept 2010.doc" in the Files section of TC-Alternate-list

I now return you to your regularly scheduled Nazaroo monolog...

mr.scrivener

Homoeoteleuton & modern English versions

2011-02-14T13:51:00.000-08:00

We noted that most modern versions are now done in cooperation with the Roman Catholic church, and that they have instructed that all translations, Catholic and Protestant, be based on the UBS4 critical Greek Text. A quick check of the most popular English translations confirms almost complete conformity with UBS4, even and especially regarding the 75 known probable h.t. omissions found in the Alexandrian texts.

Click to Enlarge

Each of the three popular modern versions slavishly follows UBS4, with the result that they have wrongly omitted text 66-71 times out of 75. That is, they are all in serious error over 90% of the time.

Christians are probably better off with a New King James or equivalent text, if they want a modern version without so many mistaken deletions of text.

peace
Nazaroo

Matthew 17:21 - haplography: Aleph - Scribe D

2011-02-14T10:23:00.000-08:00

When we turn to Matthew 17:21 in Codex Sinaiticus, it turns out we don't actually have the original page written by Scribe A. Folio 209 (and its cognate) is part of a replacement sheet inserted by Scribe D.

On that sheet, a third the way down in column 2, we see a well-known omission, of verse 17:21, "But this kind does not go out if not by prayer and fasting."

Click to Enlarge

This is incorrectly (or at least inaccurately) listed in the UBS4 apparatus as an omission by "א*" , that is, the omission is supposed to be the original reading, later corrected according to UBS4 by "Aleph-2" (i.e. Corrector #2). We won't get into the difficult problem of correctly identifying the dozens of correctors of Aleph at the moment. We only want to point out that the fact that the whole page is a "replacement-sheet" has gone unmentioned.
We have no way of knowing the readings that may have been found in the two consecutive pages that have been here replaced. Just having such a drastic alteration to the MS before it even got out of the Scriptorium is an alarm-bell and a warning not to take the readings on the replacement-sheet as representing the original sheet.

It is however, important to point out that this Variation Unit does show signs of being an accidental homoeoteleuton-type error, as we have shown in a previous post here on the homoioteleuton blog:

πιστιν ως κοκκον σιναπεως ερειτε τω ορει
τουτω μεταβηθι εντευθεν εκει και μεταβησ-
εται και ουδεν αδυνατησει υμιν
τουτο δε το γενος ουκ εκπορευ-
εται ει μη εν προσευχη και νηστεια
αναστρεφομενων δε αυτων εν τη γαλιλαια
ειπεν αυτοις ο ιησους μελλει ο υιος του
ανθρωπου παραδιδοσθαι εις χειρας ~~ανων~~

Interestingly, Scribe D and his corrector (probably the same person) provide us with two other, probably more interesting variants here:

(1) instead of the Traditional text αναστρεφομενων,

we have συστρεφομενων

and,

(2) instead of the TR reading:

"τουτο δε το γενος ουκ εκπορευεται

ει μη εν προσευχη και νηστεια",

we have:

τουτο δε το γενος ουκ εκβαλλεται

ει μη εν προσευχη κ(αι) νηστεια

Both of these variants however, could simply be the scribe relying upon memory or a lectionary text, or even semi-conscious emendations.

What we can get out of this is the following. While early 19th century textual critics were prone to exclaiming "look! here is a piece of marginal gloss, being turned into text right before our eyes!" We are wise enough now (we hope) to realize that this is all but impossible, since the reading was known even to Origen (c.200 A.D.) over 100 years earlier than Sinaiticus.

On the contrary, this is just one of many unremarkable corrections, probably done by the scribe himself (Scribe D), while the manuscript was still in the scriptorium. Nor is this small infraction likely to be the reason why Scribe D felt it necessary to replace an entire sheet (double-folio = 4 whole pages) of Scribe A's work.

Although we are no closer to knowing exactly what happened here to require a folio replacement, we do have another example of an accidental omission, and a typical solution.

Note the subtle but different meanings given to the two signs used for indicating the correction. The larger straight obelisk indicates the line where the error occurred, and the smaller wavy obelisk indicates where in the main text the dropped phrase should be inserted. The method is professional, and avoids any ambiguity.

peace
Nazaroo

John 21:19 - GA-1241 minuscule h.t. + marginal correction

2011-02-13T08:59:00.000-08:00

Here in this interesting minuscule MS, we can see a marginal note, apparently from the Corrector ('Diorthhtes'): see the small block of darkened text to the right of the triangular text on folio 115:

Click to Enlarge

Here is a closeup of the text itself:

In discussing this marginal note, Wieland Willker on his Textual Criticism Yahoo group explains the gaffe:

"I now know what this is. It is a correction.
The scribe omitted 21:19a due to parablepsis (TOUTO ... TOUTO).
There is an insertion sign after θελεις, which is also in
front of the marginal text.

Best wishes,
Wieland" (Msg #6275, textualcriticism, Yahoo groups)

James Snapp Jr. also comments, as follows:

I should've consulted Lake first; he
mentions it in his collation:
19 om TOUTO DE . . . QEON sed
add in mg. literis minut.
fors. ipse

and this is linked to a footnote saying,

"The second volume, which begins on f. 117, is partly written in the small writing of the marginal addition on xxi. 19. Possibly it is by the same scribe, but I think more probably by the DIORQWTHS and perhaps the rubricator of the first part."

Could it have been customary, I wonder, for the proof-reader to add the
rubrications upon pages at the same stage in which he did the proof-reading, perhaps as a way to perceive, at a glance, whether a page had or had not been proof-read?

Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr. (msg #6276)

It appears from the text it may not be a first generation singular, because the scribe has apparently inserted "KAI" in the space, probably to improve the sense of the copy he is reading, and having trouble understanding. In other words, it was the previous scribe who made the original accidental omission.

Below is a possible reconstruction of the layout in the master-copy that caused the homoeoteleuton eye-skip, and the text lost in the main copy.

John 21:18-19 (Traditional Text)

αμην αμην λεγω σοι οτε ης νεωτερος εζωννυες σεαυτον
και περιεπατεις οπου ηθελες οταν δε γηρασης εκτενεις τας
χειρας σου και αλλος σε ζωσει και οισει οπου ου θελεις τουτο
δε ειπεν σημαινων ποιω θανατω δοξασει τον θεον και τουτο
ειπων λεγει αυτω ακολουθει μοι ...

This is a great example, which shows the typical structure and the procedure when such errors were noted. It also illustrates that the same common errors occurred also in the much later copying stream, with scribes facing the same problems in every era.

peace
Nazaroo

Matthew 10:8 - Hodges & Farstad's Homoeoteleuton Fumble

2011-02-12T07:04:00.000-08:00

A remarkable change reflected in the Majority Text published by Hodges/Farstad (both editions, 1985), is that of Matthew 10:8.

Here H/F omit the phrase "raise the dead".

TR: "λεπρους καθαριζετε, νεκρους εγειρετε" (Scrivener, 1881)
CT: "νεκρους εγειρετε, λεπρους καθαριζετε" (i.e. UBS4 1993 = א*BC*)
HF: "λεπρους καθαριζετε"... (Hodges/Farstad Majority Text 1985 =M )

What happened here? "M" in this case is not the Majority Text per se, which is represented by an Old German Sigla. In our case, "M" is just Von Soden's μ5 family of manuscripts. Hodges/Farstad have opted for the reading of this large group of MSS, which however, is in fact a minority reading within the Majority Text tradition.

It is obvious from looking at the text however, that this was a common point for homoeoteleuton errors. The Word Order Reversal (W.O.R.) found in the אB text arises from this very problem:

The Scribe responsible for the 'common ancestor' of אB made an eye-skip, as a result of h.t.:

Master: ασθενουντας θεραπευετε, λεπρους καθαριζετε, νεκρους εγειρετε...

אB writes: ασθενουντας θεραπευετε,...νεκρους εγειρετε...
...his eye skipping from the string of similar endings. After writing the phrase νεκρους εγειρετε, he immediately catches his mistake, but since word-order has no effect on the meaning, he doesn't bother to erase the whole phrase.

אB now adds:
...ασθενουντας θεραπευετε, νεκρους εγειρετε, λεπρους καθαριζετε,
He simply puts the missing text immediately afterward: from his view, problem solved: and the W.O.R. has become the Alexandrian text.

A similar error hits the μ5 family:
Now, μ5 skips the other phrase, out of several h.t. opportunities available:

Master: ...ασθενουντας θεραπευετε, λεπρους καθαριζετε, νεκρους εγειρετε...

μ5 writes: ...ασθενουντας θεραπευετε, λεπρους καθαριζετε, ...

His eye now skips back to the text following νεκρους εγειρετε. Alas, it is not caught and corrected, and he leaves us with an unnecessary variant reading.

This cluster of two minor but common errors over a 500 year span has left one group of editors confused, but if they had paid more attention to the most typical mistakes scribes make, the case would be plain. In fact, here the critical editors of the modern text have been saved from at least some embarrassment, by blindly following the אB reading, which in this case preserves the text, but not the order.

peace
Nazaroo

Modern Critical Texts & Homoeoteleuton

2011-02-11T19:15:00.000-08:00

Click to Enlarge

Here is a chart showing the main omissions in Matthew, with homoeoteleuton errors marked in green. Alongside are the major Greek New Testaments, with their readings and formats:

om    = text is omitted
om/u = omitted and omission is Undocumented.
h.t.    = homoeoteleuton omission
[sb]    = single brackets indicating doubt
[[db]] = double brackets means editors think text is spurious addition.

One can see that not only do most modern critical Greek texts follow Hort's text closely, they also copy most of his mistaken judgments regarding homoeoteleuton errors, apparently oblivious to the destructive consequences for the NT text.

peace
Nazaroo

Codex A: 1st Cor. 9:2 - homoeoteleuton

2011-02-06T03:26:00.000-08:00

All the old Uncials have singular errors involving homoeoteleuton, some of which have been recopied into later MSS.

Codex Alexandrinus loses a half-verse at 1st Cor. 9:2(b):

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to return

With or without the Nomina Sacra abbreviations at the line-ends, this text presents a lengthy span of similar text which could have aligned at the right side of a column any number of ways.

The common (original) text reads:

9:1
ουκ ειμι αποστολος ουκ ειμι ελευθερος ουχι ΙΝ ΧΝ τον
ΚΝ ημων εωρακα ου το εργον μου υμεις εστε εν ΚΩ

9:2
ει αλλοις ουκ ειμι αποστολος αλλα γε υμιν ειμι η
γαρ σφραγις της εμης αποστολης υμεις εστε εν ΚΩ

If the lines of the master-copy were similar to those of Alexandrinus, then the letters would be very evenly spaced and lines would be mostly 20 cpl.

ουκειμιαποστολοςουκει    (20)
μιελευθεροςουχιΙΝΧΝτ    (20)
ονΚΝημωνεωρακαουτοε    (20)
ργονμουυμειςεστεενΚΩ   (20)

ειαλλοιςουκειμιαποστ       (20)
ολοςαλλαγευμινειμιηγ    (20)
αρσφραγιςτηςεμηςαπο    (19)
στοληςυμειςεστεενΚΩ (19)


Click to enlarge

The actual span of homoeoteleuton is long, and any number of alignments could have presented the opportunity for an eye-skip.

mr.scrivener

Codex B: Acts 19:34 - dittography

2011-02-06T02:16:00.000-08:00

We also must consider the opposite error, of accidental repetition of a letter, word or phrase (dittography), from the very same cause, namely a homoeoteleuton error, an eye-skip due to similar ending of lines.

We see this in Codex Vaticanus (B) at Acts 19:34:


Codex B: Acts 19:34 - dittography Click to Enlarge

The phrase "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians" (ΜΕΓΑΛΗΗΑΡΤΕΜΙΣΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ = μεγαλη η Αρτεμις Εφεσιων) appears twice in Vaticanus while it only appears once in other manuscripts. The cause was the similar line-end just before it ( ...των ...ιων ).

Possibly the immediate master-copy that the scribe of Vaticanus was using for Acts was 20-21 characters per line in width, and resembled Codex Alexandrinus. This was a very popular line-width in the early 4th century.

mr.scrivener

Lukan Omissions: Masterlist

2011-01-31T23:09:00.000-08:00

Here are the collations Mr. Scrivener compiled from his review of the SBL / Hort text, for discussion:

Essentially, we see that Luke has taken about 50 serious hits from scribal errors, many of them already catalogued as homoeoteleuton skips.

peace
Nazaroo

Hortians examine Mark 3:32 - homoeoteleuton

2011-01-25T22:34:00.000-08:00

I here quote a Hortian defender named "Brandpluckt" (there seem to be two different people using the same handle) on Bible Discussion Forums. He claims that Traditional Text defenders ignore homoeoteleuton when it occurs in the Majority Text or the Textus Receptus.

We agreed to post his example, and wonder if there are actually any more plausible cases from the Byzantine text that would qualify as probable homoeoteleuton:

"On the other hand, I wonder if KJVO advocates would be willing to admit the TR purposely removed a reference to the sisters of Jesus in Mark 3:32. The TR removed the BYZ reading “and your sisters” which is also the reading (in brackets) in the NA text.
Metzger has this comment:

“A majority of the Committee considered it probable that the words και αι αδελφαι σου [and your sisters] were omitted from most witnesses either (a) accidentally through an oversight in transcription (the eye of the scribe passing from σου to σου), or (b) deliberately because neither in verse 31 nor verse 34 (nor in the parallel passages) are the sisters mentioned."

( - Bruce M. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 2nd Ed., 1994, p.70).

In other words the TR has h.t. in it also. I willing to wager we will never hear about that!"

Well, all we can say is, he is wrong; we are glad to post examples of homoeoteleuton wherever they happen to occur. Perhaps others can give examples of possible h.t. in the TR, and we will post them here and analyze them.

Of course its hard to pass over the obvious double standard the Revision Committee used when dealing with possible h.t. In almost every case where the Variation Unit had the very same h.t. features but the fault was in the Alexandrian textual witnesses or archetype, the possibility wasn't even discussed, but instead consciously avoided!

peace

Nazaroo

______________________________________

Update: Johnathan Borland has posted on the Yahoo Groups TC list the following internal analysis:

Internal reasons for including KAI AI ADELFAI SOU in Mark 3:32 include:

1. Accidental omission by homoeoteleuton error (SOU...SOU).
2. Assimilation to 3:31,33,34, where mention of the sisters is absent.
3. Harmonization to Matt 12:46,[47] || Luke 8:19,20, where mention is absent.
4. No one added the words to the Byzantine addition of Matt 12:47 (possibly omitted by h.t. error), even though KAI ADELFH is present in Matt 12:50 just as in Mark 3:35.

The internal criticism of Tony Pope is indecisive since 3:31 is narrative and 3:32 records discourse. Some in the crowd could have called attention to the sisters, just as in 6:3. At least I see its presence as no more clumsy or different than TI POIEITE TOUTO in 11:3 in conjunction with TI POIEITE LUONTES TON PWLON in 11:5. Besides, if critics thought the expression were clumsy, they could have added it to 3:31 (but no one apparently did so) or simply deleted it.

Internal reasons explain the omission and merely corroborate the text as preserved in most manuscripts, including a number of comparatively ancient ones (e.g., A D; OL-a,b,d,ff2).

Jonathan C. Borland (February 10, 2011)

F.H.A. Scrivener on homoeoteleuton in Aleph

2011-01-20T02:46:00.000-08:00

In his collation against the TR of Codex Sinaiticus, Scrivener takes time in the Introduction (p. xiv-xv) to discuss the many haplographic errors in the manuscript:

"There are no letters larger than the rest at the beginning of sentences, though the continuity of the text is much broken by a line being left incomplete (sometimes it will contain only two or three letters), in which case the first letter in the next line mostly stands out of the range of the column, encroaching on the margin (see Facsimile 2, 11. 5, 6).

This manuscript must have been derived from one more ancient, in which the lines were similarly divided, [i.e., narrow columns 12-16 cpl] since the writer occasionally omits just the number of letters which would suffice to fill a line, and that to the utter ruin of the sense; as if his eye had heedlessly wandered to the line immediately below. Instances of this want of care will be found Luke xxi. 8 ; xxii. 25, perhaps John iv. 45 ; xii. 25, where complete lines are omitted : John xix. 26 ; Heb. xiii. 18 (partly corrected) ; Apoc. xviii. 16 ; xix. 12 ; xxii. 2, where the copyist passed in the middle of a line to the corresponding portion of the line below.

It must be confessed, indeed, that the Codex Sinaiticus abounds with similar errors of the eye and pen, to an extent not unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance ; so that Tregelles has freely pronounced that "the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as very rough" (N. T. Part ii. p. 2). Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled : while that gross blunder technically known as Homoeoteleuton, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the N. T., though the defect is often supplied by a more recent hand. We have thought it right to record all such clerical errors in their proper place for the reader's information ; hut while they must he admitted to deform the face of this exquisite relique of the primitive ages of our faith, they need not he held to detract materially from its intrinsic value, much less ought they to militate against our conviction of its very high antiquity."

- F.H.A. Scrivener,
A Collation of Codex Sinaiticus., (1864) p. xiv-xv

Of course many Hortians have complained that Scrivener's count here is skewed by his use of the TR as a reference. But it must be acknowledged that Scrivener is in the main talking about singular and nonsensical readings not shared by Vaticanus, and that are traceable to the copyists who made this manuscript, 'prima manu' (1st hand, 1st generation errors). Scrivener is hardy dismissing possible variant readings that have other textual support and which preserve the sense. He highly prizes Sinaiticus, in spite of its errors, and would not ignore or abandon important readings in the process of collating plain errors.

peace

Nazaroo

Dr. Maurice Robinson on homoeoteleuton in Aleph/B

2011-01-15T12:17:00.000-08:00

The following was posted by "HoLogos" at the Bible Version Discussion Board, in response to some debating there (01/14/2011). He quotes an email communication from Dr. Maurice Robinson as follows:

Dr. Maurice Robinson occasionally sends me emails in response to things I post. He said this:

Re: Dr. Maurice A. Robinson, "In Search of the Alexandrian Archetype: Observations from a Byzantine-Priority Perspective." In Christian-B. Amphoux and J. Keith Elliott, eds., The New Testament Text in Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Lille Colloquium, July 2000. Histoire du Texte Biblique 6. Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 2003, 45-67.

Dr. Robinson said:

"The thrust of this article was that the Greek archetype MS that formed the basis for a probable Alexandrian recension was already defective, containing numerous instances of homoioteleuton omission in which the resultant reading yet "made sense." A large number of such putative homoioteleuton omissions was cited therein, some of which, I suppose, would match "Nazaroo's" own listed claims, although no particular claim based on questionable guesswork regarding line length was made therein.

However -- and this is probably important -- I would not agree with "Nazaroo" in relation to such a wholesale level of "sensible" homoioteleuton errors as he appears to claim. Were his supposition correct, the Alexandrian revisers would seem to have chosen one of the worst possible MSS on which to base their recension (and yes, I do consider the Alexandrian text to be the product of a recension, presumably created as a scholarly production intended to serve as a base for an ecclesiastical translation into Coptic); this simply would fly counter to their purpose.

In contrast, I suggest only that the chosen base exemplar did possess a number of "sensible" readings resulting from homoioteleuton. However, the remaining "shorter readings" characteristic of that texttype I presume to have arisen from the scholarly recensional process in general, likely with a primary interest in eliminating whatever were considered secondary expansions of the "Western" variety, wherein a number of otherwise "Byzantine" readings were equally eliminated in the process. The fact that many of these recensional "shorter readings" might happen to possess similar beginnings, endings or mid-portions (homoioarcton, homoioteleuton, and in some cases homoiomeson) would become more of a coincidence and a by-product of recension rather than any real error of omission per se.

Basically, my contention is that "Nazaroo" greatly overstates his case, which if correct would posit the worst possible MS as the chosen basis for the Alexandrian recension, which makes no sense, assuming the scholarly rationality of the Alexandrian revisers. Thus, the claims of "Nazaroo" end up minimizing the actual act of recension in favor of unbridled accidental omission. With this I simply would not concur (nor do I care to enter into discussion with anonymous or otherwise unknown internet posters regarding such a matter).

- Dr. Maurice Robinson"

I thank both Dr. Robinson for offering his opinion regarding this question, and HoLogos for kindly posting it for review.

Dr. Robinson's position is perfectly respectable, and must be given serious weight because of his obvious longstanding knowledge, experience, and expertise in this field.   He is certainly not obliged to accept every instance of apparent homoeoteleuton that we have proposed as being absolutely certain as to its actual cause, nor is he obliged to embrace the longer text as always being the original reading.

To clarify our own position, we ourselves are not claiming absolute certainty regarding how these variants arose, or as to the original reading in every case.   Our argument rests on the necessary consideration of the weight of probability in favor of the majority of Variation Units which have undisputed homoeoteleuton features being in fact homoeoteleuton errors.

To simplify the argument, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it is not always, but usually always, is in fact a duck.   Most homoeoteleuton featured Variation Units probably originated from homoeoteleuton errors.

This is not to say that the textual history froze at that point, or that subsequent attempts at correction or conscious editing did not take place, further complicating the history of transmission. Obviously, once variants arose and were noticed, people made efforts to fix the text and eliminate likely errors. That they did not always make the right choice is a given.

The main point is that methodologically speaking, the reasonable course is to accept VUs with homoeoteleuton characteristics as homoeoteleuton errors, unless there can be shown some other overriding reason to posit another origin for the variations. Thus the relevant TC Canon that could conceivably change a judgment of homoeoteleuton into something else would be the following:

The Reading that Explains the Others
1. That reading is to be preferred which seems to have suggested the others, or out of which it is most easy to suppose that the others would arise.

(W. Milligan, The Words of the NT, 1873)

I believe Dr. Robinson concurs with this idea, for he is suggesting that some of the Variation Units with homoeoteleuton features are not homoeoteleuton errors, but rather a result of conscious editing by Alexandrian editors in the process of making an 'Alexandrian recension'. He says,

"the remaining 'shorter readings' [still having homoeoteleuton features] ...I presume to have arisen from the scholarly recensional process..,"

Dr. Robinson also seems to make clear that this was perhaps not a single 'recension' at one point in time, but an ongoing process, perhaps part of the natural correction and editing policies apparently carried on in Alexandria over a relatively long period.

Dr. Robinson also suggests a conscious and deliberate process, for he says about this process that it was "likely" carried on,

"... with a primary interest in eliminating whatever were considered secondary expansions of the 'Western' variety..."

It must be noted that Dr. Robinson is not speaking only of Variation Units with homoeoteleuton features, but is also including other omissions in the discussion. For he says,

"many of these recensional "shorter readings" might happen to possess similar beginnings, endings or mid-portions"...

That is, some Variation Units arising from the Alexandrian "scholarly recensional process" don't necessarily have these features.

The situation is this: there are some 200+ omissions of whole/half verses in the Alexandrian text. Of these, over 80 cases have homoeoteleuton features (about 40% of Variation Units).

The first question then becomes simply, how many of the 80 homoeoteleuton featured cases are in fact actually deliberate edits by the Alexandrian recensionists (i.e. the homoeoteleuton features are a coincidence)?

The second question that arises is just as important. If we re-categorize some of these cases as deliberate edits omitting perceived 'Western expansions', as Dr. Robinson suggests, then we have to concede that these longer readings must be older than the Alexandrian readings arising from the editing process. You have to first have a reading in order to remove it. If we mark these 'Western' readings as 2nd century, then the Alexandrian editing process must have been happening after the 'Western' text was already circulating.

One keen observation must be made here. In either case (h.t., or deliberate edit), the Alexandrian reading remains secondary in both timing and credibility.
At least some of the Alexandrian deletions will be erroneous, and the older 'Western' readings will be original. Which ones? We can't simply choose on the basis of the questionable reputation of Alexandrian editors. Each Western candidate and its Alexandrian alternative must be weighed on its own merits, including other attestation.

Alexandrian Omissions (200+)
homoeoteleuton features (40%)			other unknown causes
real h.t.	editing				real mistakes
real h.t.	bad edits	good edits	good edits	bad edits	real mistakes

The chart above shows the breakdown of cases. Some textual critics believe that most variants are accidental, while others believe that most variants are a result of deliberate editing. To determine such questions, a deep analysis of scribal habits and editing habits is needed.

In any case, we see the Law of Diminishing Returns at work. Some editing activity will be in error. Dr. Robinson has already suggested that some omissions are a result of an editing policy based on personal judgment of early Alexandrian editors. If so, some of those variant readings will indeed be new innovations, and not simply a result of editors choosing between already existing readings. In other words, some edits must be inventive fictions, and not correct selections of the original text.

The success of the Alexandrian editors in spotting and correcting 'Western' expansions will in part be based on whether there actually were very many in the first place. Were there really nearly 200 insertions? Or did the Alexandrian editors get overzealous in 'purging' and 'improving' the text?

But if as Dr. Robinson says, these edits were accumulated over a significant period of time in an ongoing process, obviously a fair number of them will be relatively 'late' in the Alexandrian stream and therefore also secondary.

And if the Alexandrians were quite capable of accumulating omissions arising from deliberate edits over time, including many with homoeoteleuton features, the very same 'correction' procedures they used will likely accumulate real homoeoteleuton errors that look like 'good Alexandrian edits', since they appear the same. Real edits with homoeoteleuton features were left alone, and mistakes would have been left alone too.

In other words, from the very features found in the Alexandrian text and the explanations offered, The Alexandrian 'editing process' was intrinsically prone to accumulating accidental omissions alongside edits. Their method of editing and correction introduced significant errors over time.

From this it is plain that even if some of the homoeoteleuton cases have been incorrectly identified, and are actually deliberate edits, the end result can still be the same. Some are not original readings, and should not be brought back into the critical text. Some significant portion of homoeoteleuton cases must be acknowledged to be false readings, whether they are homoeoteleuton or not.

It is not enough to point out that some cases might not be homoeoteleuton after all:

(1) Some reliable sieve method must be actually developed that can successfully distinguish between true and false homoeoteleuton cases.

(2) Some additional method must be developed that can successfully distinguish between 'good edits' and mistaken edits in the Alexandrian textual stream.

_________________________________________________________

Now lets move onto Dr. Robinson's second point:

"Basically, my contention is that Nazaroo greatly overstates his case, which if correct would posit the worst possible MS as the chosen basis for the Alexandrian recension, which makes no sense, assuming the scholarly rationality of the Alexandrian revisers."

The doctor is quite right:

(1) This would make no sense, if we assume scholarly competence of the Alexandrian revisers.

But the problem is deeper even than this. No one has demonstrated any 'formal' Alexandrian recension at all. The Alexandrian texts show a broad diversity and suggest a constantly changing text as a result of an extended process over time, as Dr. Robinson has acknowledged.

It is not then correct to talk of a single 'recension' at all, even in the form of an ongoing 'process'. It is more reasonable suggest rather a general 'tendency' of Alexandrian copyists/correctors/editors, or perhaps even a case could be made for a conscious 'policy' regarding conciseness of text or literary style. But that is as far as we can go.

And if this is the case, then the Alexandrian 'editors' can hardly be relied upon to preserve the original text, or be hailed as "rational scholars" engaging in reliable textual criticism. This is a naive anachronism, a fool's hope and a pipe-dream.

The evidence suggests rather that the Alexandrian textual stream suffered from a glaring lack of control over the text, and a resultant ongoing accumulation of errors. The 'Alexandrian technique' was significantly flawed, and over time resulted in significant damage to the text.

What the Alexandrian textual evidence offers is not a source for 'lost original readings', but a life-lesson in the consequences of poor copying/correcting practices.

(2) The claim would also seem to make no sense, if the Alexandrians had access to good copies, or had a choice of copies, or knew the nature of the copies they had before using them.

But it is quite reasonable to pose several explanations for the poor state of the Alexandrian text.

(a) There is no reason to suppose that they would have the best copies at the very early stages, in Egyptian outposts. It is likely that like all outposts and satellite churches operating underground, they would have to settle for whatever copies were made, by amateur copyists.

(b) There is no reason to suppose they would have a choice of copies. They would not be offered a 'salad bar' of copies, from which to choose. Any new church or underground location in a new city would be given a text, period. They would be lucky to get a single copy for use in making more. It is unlikely that they even had a complete NT corpus in the first 50-100 years at most locations.

(c) There is no reason to suppose they would know a good copy from a bad one. The contents of the various NT books and letters would not be known in detail, or memorized, until organized public church reading was fully established, which took centuries to spread across the empire.

(d) Procedures of accurate copying and correction took centuries to develop. The issue of text and canon arose long after copies of every quality had spread throughout the empire.

For these reasons, it is quite plausible that the early history of the text generally suffered the most variation and error, and it is easy to see how poor copies temporarily spawned bad lines of textual transmission.

(e) The Alexandrian and Egyptian centers of copying and community did not spring up instantly with a "scholarly recensional process" in place, and rational editors following clear scientific principles of textual correction and restoration working. Such talent and method must have developed slowly, if at all.

The "scholarly recensional process" that Dr. Robinson speaks of simply did not exist in the first few centuries, and if it existed at all, it would have been most developed in the 4th century in Antioch and Rome, not Alexandria.

(3) The Claim still makes perfect sense, even if the Alexandrians did have good copies of the text(s) as their starting point and basis.

We have to add just one more critically important caveat to Dr. Robinson's objection on this point:

Dr. Robinson:

"his case, which if correct would posit the worst possible MS as the chosen basis for the Alexandrian recension, which makes no sense.."

But this is actually not true at all, and it is Dr. Robinson's objection that actually makes no sense.    Our model actually assumes that the text the Alexandrians started with was remarkably good, and similar to the Byzantine text. But it was the Alexandrians who corrupted this text through accumulated omissions (accidental or otherwise).   My contribution here refers to those omissions with homoeoteleuton features, but Mr. Scrivener's contribution to the account takes up omissions without such features.   In either case however, the longer readings are assumed to be the original readings, and whether they were omitted accidentally or as a result of deliberate editing is unimportant.

The important point is that the omissions are errors, and the missing text is original, and therefore the starting basis or 'seed' text used by the Alexandrians was in all likelihood actually quite good. It was Alexandrian copying practices over a significant period of time which corrupted the text, not the choice of starting-text.   To miss this is to miss the whole account of the textual history we are proposing.

Secondly, we can be very specific about exactly what part of the process resulted in the accumulation of errors. The Alexandrians simply didn't aggressively hunt for and correct homoeoteleuton errors, because they simply weren't aware of their frequency.   This would only be something which would become a concern after texts began to show wild variations in readings, namely in the time of Origen, (c. 200-250 A.D.) and later.

Scribal copying practices were only properly tightened up when the problem became severe enough to attract attention.   It is already quite clear that Alexandrian scribes and correctors did not correct omissions that possessed the features of homoeoteleuton, because the Alexandrian texts are rife with such omissions.

Whether or not the Alexandrians had lists of accepted omissions or simply badly chosen master-copies used for correction is moot. The fact is, by whatever primitive or inadequate correction techniques or policies that were in place in the first 2 or 3 centuries, omissions accumulated and were perpetuated.   This methodology also allowed real homoeoteleuton errors to accumulate as well, because these would have appeared identical to other Alexandrian 'edits'.

We can make two plain and rather indisputable observations about Alexandrian copying practices:

(a) In the first century or two, homoeoteleuton errors were not aggressively hunted down and corrected, and there was probably only a rudimentary correction process in place, or virtually none at all.

(b) In later Alexandrian practice, either techniques or policy allowed already accumulated omissions to remain, and also allowed more to accumulate.

In the end, the Alexandrians actually did rather quickly end up with "the worst possible MS(S) as the chosen basis for the Alexandrian recension" and this sadly makes perfect sense, contra Dr. Robinson.

________________________________________________________

Finally, we must also turn to the other omissions (some 120 cases) where there is no apparent homoeoteleuton feature to be found.

If we accept Dr. Robinson's view, these are mostly deliberate edits by Alexandrian correctors and editors. This is hardly a recommendation. But what if there is a simpler and more obvious explanation for these omissions?

What if, as Mr. Scrivener has proposed (and presented plausible evidence of), these are also largely mere haplography errors by copyists?

There are several aspects in favor of such an interpretation.

(1) The 'edits' as a group don't really make any rational sense. They don't follow theological lines, or historical lines, or even consistent grammatical lines. The best that can be shown is that some appear to be verbally redundant. But many are not. Just as some omissions lack homoeoteleuton features, some omissions lack any sign of deliberate editing.

(2) When we acknowledge that most scribes are mere copyists, not 'editors' or theologians, we must also acknowledge that most of the omissions they generate are indeed simple errors of haplography, even when they don't always present homoeoteleuton features. Mistakes are mistakes, and we should not expect every mistake to have a reconstructable explanation.

(3) The omissions have every sign of a long, random process of accumulation and change. The idea of a sustained effort at deliberate editing of the text following a single policy is artificial and lacks evidence, whereas we know the texts were copied, and copied by all too error-prone copyists.

(4) The evidence of accidental omission must be seriously considered. Large numbers of coincidences regarding line-length must be adequately accounted for according to known copying habits and formats of early texts. Just ignoring this evidence to favor a theory of 'deliberate editing' is not scientific or sensible.

The question of how many omissions are deliberate edits, and how many are simple uncaught errors must be deeply analyzed case by case, and the results collected, before any general claims are made about what percentages are involved.

peace
Nazaroo

Luke 24:51 - another ordinary accident

2011-01-09T10:48:00.000-08:00

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to return

Another long stretch of identical text, which unfortunately could fall five different ways on a wide master-copy, and still generate the exact same accidental omission via homoeoteleuton.

We've seen enough of these to recognise a trivial blunder when it presents itself. Here both P75 and B avoid the omission, and even Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected to include the line. Thus the original reading of Codex Sinaiticus in omitting stands virtually alone alongside Codex D.

Such an alignment simply shouts post-common ancestor, and there can be no rational reason to follow Sinaiticus' text here, unless we are slavishly following Hort's Universal axiom, "Prefer the shorter reading, even when its wrong."

This accident obviously happened in the Sinaiticus-only stream of transmission, very late in the game. Even the UBS2 text doesn't bother to bracket the gaffe, noting the evidence in the apparatus.

Yet somehow, the new SBL-GNT single-brackets the text, slavishly following Hort for a yet unknown reason.

Peace
Nazaroo

Luke 23:17 - Codex A style Gaffe

2011-01-09T10:12:00.000-08:00

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to return

Another classic skip, with similar endings and similar letter combinations sprinkled all around.

This is plainly a later omission, which Codex Sinaiticus has avoided, and so cannot have been in the common ancestor. The agreement of P75 (3rd cent.) with Codex B is expected, since it is an obvious offshoot of the Codex B copying stream.

Codex A (4th cent.) can hardly give the omission any further weight; Hort has already written off most of Codex A's readings because it agrees so frequently with the Byzantine text-type against his precious Codex B. Its very agreement with B reveals it was often edited to conform with the B text, right or wrong.

The UBS2 apparatus tries to break up the Majority Support for the inclusion of the verse, by listing the witnesses in separate groups, but this tactic is too transparent to give it any serious consideration.

Omit: P75 A B K L T Pi 0124 892* 1079 1241 1546 l185pt it(a) cop(sa, bo-mss), Diatessaron.

Include: א W X Delta Theta Phi 063 Family 1, Family 13, 28 565 700 1010 1195 (1216 1230 1253 1646 2174 variations) 1242 1365 2148 Byzantine Text (Majority of MSS), Lectionaries, (l70 om. autos) Italic (sur, b,c,e,f,ff2, l, q, (r1)) Vulgate Syr (p,h) Copt (bo mss) Eusebius, (1009) (892 mg+) (1071 om autois) 1344 (Arm) Geo, etc.

Insert verse after 19: D/d Syr(c,s) Eth.