Hortians examine Mark 3:32 - homoeoteleuton

 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)

Mark 15:27-29

Mark 15:27-29 (Traditional Text)

και συν αυτω σταυρουσιν δυο ληστας
ενα εκ δεξιων και ενα εξ ευωνυμων αυτου
και επληρωθη η γραφη η λεγουσα
και μετα ανομων ελογισθη
και οι παραπορευομενοι εβλασφημουν
αυτον κινουντες τας κεφαλας αυτων
και λεγοντες ουα ο καταλυων τον ναον
και εν τρισιν ημεραις οικοδομων


And with him they crucify two thieves;
the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith,
And he was numbered with the transgressors.
And they that passed by railed on him, shaking their heads,
and saying, "Ah, thou that destroyest the Gospel of Mark,
and reconstruct it in three editions,..."

---

INCLUDE VERSE 27:

Include Verse 27: K L P Δ Θ Π 0112 0250 family 1, family 13, 28 33 565 700 892 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz Maj (Majority of continuous MSS) lect.-10/211/883/1642/ it-aur/c/ff2/l/n/r1 Vg Syr-P/H/Pal Cop-Bo(mss) Goth Arm Eth Geo Ps.-Hyppolytus(vid) Origen Euseb.Can.(mss) Vigilius(vid)

OMIT: א , A B C D X Ψ Lect. it-d/k Syr-s Cop-Sa/Bo(mss)/fay(vid) Eus.Can.(txt) Ammon.

---

These passages are also known as the "KAI" passages for a reason:

Its Mark's monotonous habit of starting every sentence, nearly every clause, with "KAI".

Just look at what occurs previously in the narrative:


15:16 ...KAI
17 KAI.....KAI...
18 KAI.....
19 KAI.....KAI.....KAI...
20 KAI.....KAI.....KAI...
21 KAI.....
22 KAI.....
23 KAI.....
24 KAI.....
25....KAI...
26 KAI...
27 KAI......KAI...
28 KAI.....
29 KAI.....KAI...
30
31....KAI...
32....KAI.....KAI...


The sheer frequency of this stylism puts experienced copyists on guard, but of course even the best scribe will eventually succumb to a few of these common errors of homoioarcton with KAI.


And so it was inevitable that the Alexandrian tradition would also pick up a few of these "KAI-droppings", and pass them on to infect others.

From there as expected, the self-appointed correctors of the 4th century adopted the gaffe.

Modern editors of the critical text don't hesitate to pounce on this obviously early reading (mistake), incorporating into the reconstruction of the horrible accident that is called the "Alexandrian Text-type".

Unfortunately, as an 'Agreement in Error', this omission is no candidate for the original text of Mark, who wrote in Rome, not Alexandria, and whose text is better preserved by the Latins who Mark evangelized.

'Modern' versions, oblivious to the real nature of the critical Greek text, unanimously omit the verse, in spite of the loud warning in the apparatus of UBS, including the ASV, NAS, NIV, RSV, NEB, etc.


What will it take to get the text of Mark restored to its purity?

The Scripture was certainly fulfilled, but we'll never hear of it if we follow the empty-headed choices of modern editors of the NT.

Mark 14:68

Mark 14:68

O ΔΕ HΡNHΣΑTO ΛΕΓΩN OΥTΕ
OIΔΑ OΥTΕ ΕΠIΣTΑMΑI ΣΥ TI ΛΕΓΕIΣ
KΑI ΕΞHΛΘΕN ΕΞΩ ΕIΣ TO ΠΡOΑΥΛION
KΑI ΑΛΕKTΩΡ ΕΦΩNHΣΕN
KΑI H ΠΑIΔIΣKH IΔOΥΣΑ ΑΥTON

But he denied it, saying,
"I neither know nor understand what you mean."
and he went out into the gateway,
and the rooster crowed.
and the maid saw him,...

---

INCLUDE LINE:

A, C, D, Δ Θ ψ ^corr., 067, f¹, f¹³, 33, 1424, Byz (Majority of all continuous MSS),

Latin, Syr^p,h, sa^mss, bo^mss, goth, Eus. etc.
(also add euthews) 517, 954, 1424, 1675, pc¹¹
OMIT: א , B (no umlaut),
L, W, ψ*, 222, 579, 892, c, Sy^S, (sa^mss), bo,
WH, NA25

---

Here even the UBS-2 text dares go no further than [single-bracketing] the line as undecided/doubtful. Yet many a modern version stumbles into this trap.

It seems unreasonable to think even an inexperienced Alexandrian scribe doesn't know what a rooster is, and so find himself compelled to expunge the foreigner.

But can any modern Bible editor/translator even hope to present a credible argument that this Markan prophecy-fulfilling line and key plot-element was not an original part of Mark's Gospel?   Please spare us the effort.

Mark 14:19

Mark 14:19 (Trad. Text)

HΡΞΑNTO ΛΥΠΕIΣΘΑI
KΑI ΛΕΓΕIN ΑΥTΩ
ΕIΣ KΑTΑ ΕIΣ MHTI ΕΓΩ
KΑI   ΑΛΛOΣ MHTI ΕΓΩ

They began to be sorrowful,
and to say to him
one by one, "Not I?"
and yet another, "Not I?"

---

INCLUDE LINE:    D, Θ, f1, 700, Byz (Majority of all MSS),
it(a, d, f, ff², i, k, q), Sy-H^mg, arm, geo, Or, Gre, Bois, Trg^mg

(eimi/kai) A, 28 267 517 892 954 1071 1424 1675 pc² (+kurie/rabbi) A, 267
(subst. just [kai] o allos) c, 579
etc.

OMIT: א , B (this time with an umlaut!),
C, L, P, W, Δ, ψ 828(~f¹³), 1342, 2786, al¹²⁵, Latin(aur, l, vg), Syr, Cop

Lacuna: 33, B: umlaut! (p. 1299 B, line 28) eis mhti egw, o` de. eipen

Again one will look in vain for any documentation in the UBS Greek text, or even a footnote mentioning the omission in modern versions.

---

This bit of superfluous Markan wordiness was bound to be excised by a trigger-happy Diothores ('overseer/corrector') at some point.
You knew no Alexandrian Editor would let this stand for long. It would just go against every editing impulse he spent his whole life mastering. And how could textual critics and modern versions do otherwise?

Yet no sensible copyist could have created this alleged 'insertion'. We would also have to account for this reading dominating the Byzantine tradition (Majority of MSS). To be a mere gloss, it would require five consecutive improbabilities:

(1) We have to imagine that some copyist or commentator added this highly unlikely line in the margin, which adds nothing to the narrative or dialogue at all, except clumsy wordiness. Since there is no theological motive, it must be sheer stupidity.

(2) Yet another equally and incredibly stupid copyist would be required to turn it from the margin of one manuscript into the very text of another.

(3) The 'bloated' manuscript would have to be chosen by copyists to be a winning master-copy. Which means its text (and representatives) ought to reflect the Byzantine text-type, not the Alexandrian.

(4) Both it and most subsequent copies must have passed multiple examinations for such common errors by correctors and public readers, even in places like Alexandria, Antioch and Caesaria.

(5) These 'bloated' copies must have been the exemplars of choice for the entire Byzantine text-type, resulting in a 2,000 to 1 preponderance of the reading in the majority of subsequent MSS.

Yet viewed as original to Mark, it reflects just exactly his expected wordy style, which constantly includes superfluous and often incidental details that all subsequent editors (including Luke and Matthew) occasionally feel compelled to eliminate for the purpose of efficient story-telling and good grammar.

Even Weiland Willker comments wryly in his exhaustive online textcritical commentary:

"The omission could be due to haplography: mh,ti evgw, - mh,ti evgw,. This is
probably true at least in part, note the 125 Byzantine MSS!

The longer text is rather awkward, since the "saying to him one after another"
includes already the 'allos' and allows no continuation (Hoskier: "very pleonastic
clause", "absolutely Mark-like"). Perhaps this was the reason for the omission?
On the other hand the words could have been added as an intensification or
enhancement (so Güting TC Mark, 2005, p. 657).

The reading of A, f13 et al. is a (partial) harmonization to Mt (note the 'rabbi', by
A). The reading of 579 makes good sense. "Is it me or another one?"

Note that both Mt and Lk have eimi against Mk (Minor Agreement).

Rating: 1? (NA probably wrong)

External Rating: - (indecisive)
(after weighting the witnesses)"

- W. Willker, online comm.

To this we can only add that the words "could also be an original intensification or enhancement" (ala' Guting), with Mark intending to point an accusing dramatic finger at Peter or more likely, Judas.

But if even textual critics cannot decide whether the line is original or not, why delete it at all?

Mark 12:33

Mark 12:33 (traditional text)

KΑI TO ΑΓΑΠΑN ΑΥTON ΕΞ OΛHΣ THΣ KΑΡΔIΑΣ
KΑI ΕΞ OΛHΣ THΣ ΣΥNΕΣΕΩΣ
KΑI ΕΞ OΛHΣ THΣ ΨΥXH
KΑI ΕΞ OΛHΣ THΣ IΣXΥOΣ
KΑI TO ΑΓΑΠΑN TON ΠΛHΣION
ΩΣ ΕΑΥTON ΠΕΡIΣΣOTΕΡON ΕΣTIN
ΠΑNTΩN TΩN OΛOKΑΥTΩMΑTΩN KΑI ΘΥΣIΩN


and to love him with all the heart,
and with all the understanding,
and with all the soul,
and with all the strength,
and to love one's neighbour as oneself,
is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."

---

INCLUDE LINE:  A, 087, f13, 33, 1424, etc. Byz (i.e., Majority text-type, uncials & cursives), Latin, syr^p,h cop^(sa,bo), goth, etc.

OMIT: א , B (no umlaut), L, W Δ Θ Ψ f ¹, 28* 565 892 1241 1342 2542, pc, syr ^s, cop^(sa,bo),


NOTES: Assorted Latin MSS attempt to harmonize the passage with the LXX and other gospels without uniformity or success (e.g., Deut. 6:5, Mk 12:30, Lk 10:27, Matt. 22:37). Variants in these other places are instructive.


Tregelles (1861) brackets it, Hort (1882) adopts Aleph/B without even a note, UBS (1965) follows but mentions no variant at all. Modern versions follow suit using the UBS text, without apparently even knowing they have dropped a half-verse from the Bible.

---

Of course you didn't expect an Alexandrian scribe to get this one right did you?


Well, this is an obvious accident waiting to happen. And it did: to the whole Alexandrian geneaological tree. But not a single monkey climbed back up to replace the lost floorboard in the clubhouse.

Apparently 'souls' are an expendable item in Egypt.

And yet of all places, this would have been the one we would have hoped the modern versions would dare not follow brain-dead critics. And yet they did, right into the soul-less land of Mordor.

Mark 11:25-26

Mark 11:25-26 (Traditional text)

Click to Enlarge

.........και οταν στηκητε προσευχομενοι αφιετε
ει τι εχετε κατα τινος ινα και ο πατηρ υμων ο εν
τοις ουρανοις  αφη υμιν τα παραπτωματα υμων
ει δε υμεις ουκ αφιετε  ουδε   ο πατηρ υμων ο εν
τοις ουρανοις  αφησει   τα παραπτωματα υμων

And when ye stand praying, forgive,
if ye have ought against any: that your Father
which is in heaven will forgive you your trespasses.
But if ye do not forgive, neither your Father
which is in heaven will forgive your trespasses.

---

Include Line: A (D) K X Θ Π (C f1 1079 f13 33 1009) 28 1010 1071 1195 1230 1241 1242 (1253) 1344 1365 1546 2148 2174 Byz Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS) Lect. (l-10/12/32sm/69/70/80/303/333/374/313/1579) it-a/aur/b/c/d/t/ff2/(i)/q/r1 Vg Syr-P/H Copt-Bo(mss) Goth Eth Diat. (Cyprian) Augustine.

Omit: א B L W 565 700 892 1216 it-k/l vg(ms) Syr-S/pal copt-Sa/Bo arm geo

---

One could not ask for a more complete nor harsher example of homoioteleuton, combined with homoioarcton, combined with another whole pair of lines with both. Its a recipe that demands disaster.

And disaster strikes in Egypt, right where scribes are most likely to be sloppy, and least likely to catch the boner, and even less likely to correct it, even if spotted. After all, its a chance to jettison some Markan redundancy free of charge.

Nor do modern editors miss the opportunity: like their ancient counterparts in Egypt, they lop the whole verse out, in spite of it being the greatest example of a scribal error by omission that we can find.

Everything is in place, from the longer length of line to the early Egyptian witnesses, and all nod their head in agreement that the verse is better left unwritten, and unspoken: The threatening content alone is offensive enough for all to hope its just an elaborate scribal hoax by some hell and damnation preacher.

All 'modern' versions expunge the pesky verse, making those longwinded Sunday sermons just that little bit shorter and more pleasant, so we can proceed to the afternoon horse-racing.

Mark 11:8

Mark 11:8 (Traditional text)

  ... KΑI ΠOΛΛOI TΑ IMΑTIΑ
ΑΥTΩN    ΕΣTΡΩΣΑN   ΕIΣ THN OΔON
ΑΛΛOI ΔΕ ΣTOIΒΑΔΑΣ KΥΨΑNTΕΣ ΕK TΩN
ΑΓΡΩN KΑI ΕΣTΡΩNNΥON ΕIΣ THN OΔON
KΑI OI     ΠΡOΑΓONTΕΣ
KΑI OI ΑKOΛOΥΘOΥNTΕΣ
ΕKΡΑZON ΩΣΑNNΑ ΕΥΛOΓHMΕNOΣ
O ΕΡXOMΕNOΣ ΕN ONOMΑTI KΥΡIOΥ


and many, their garments
(they had) spread on the road,
but others spread leafy branches
which they had cut from the fields
and spread on the road.
and those who went before
and those who followed cried out,
"Hosanna! Blessed is he
who comes in the name of the Lord!"

---

The UBS-2 (1968) text doesn't even give notice that they have deleted a line from the traditional text here, and so the textual evidence must be sought elsewhere (for instance from W/H's Introduction of 1882, or Tischendorf's 8th ed.). But this section of Mark is so loaded with duplications of phrase that it is a wonder there were not many more mistakes and textual variants. The style of prose of the rest supports the inclusion of the phrase, not its exclusion.

---

Its easy to see here how the scribe, already fatigued by having to work with a 'wordy' Byzantine text-type, went completely cross-eyed and lost a line out of this cluster. What is ironic is that the scribe drops a line on the first "KAI", and doesn't even make it to the next line, where an even greater potential haplography hazard awaits.

Again, nobody in the Alexandrian stream was going to pick up the pieces here, And we could have predicted that critics would just close their eyes and hope the shorter text would at least remove some of the headache.

Modern versions follow along, like donkeys tracking a retreating carrot on a stick. But not even telling the reader of the deletion of a half-verse must be labelled a dubious practice.

Mark 10:7

Mark 10:7 (Traditional text)

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to Return

           ...ΕNΕKΕN TOΥTOΥ KΑTΑΛΕIΨΕI
ΑNΘΡΩΠOΣ TON ΠΑTΕΡΑ ΑΥTOΥ KΑI THN MHTΕΡΑ
KΑI ΠΡOΣKOΛΛHΘHΣΕTΑI ΠΡOΣ THN ΓΥNΑIKΑ ΑΥTOΥ
KΑI ΕΣONTΑI OI ΔΥO ΕIΣ ΣΑΡKΑ MIΑN
ΩΣTΕ OΥKΕTI ΕIΣIN ΔΥO ΑΛΛΑ MIΑ ΣΑΡΞ ...

'For this reason a man shall leave
his father and mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.' -
So no longer
are they two but one flesh. ...

---

INCLUDE LINE: ... All other Uncials, Byz (all other cursives), Lect (all Lectionaries), all other versions, all other patristic evidence

OMIT: (א), B, ψ 892* syr ^s, goth

---

There it is again, this time likely from an older single-column papyrus with its wider columns:

similar start of line (Homoioarcton), which morphs into a homoioteleuton, resulting in the loss of the third line here.

No doubt this was an early boo-boo. And it was quickly corrected and/or prevented from entering all the surviving streams of transmission...

- except, of course, the two Alexandrian MSS and a handful of followers: critics and modern versions numbly strike out the line.

It should be noted that the diverse clustering of the textual support between cases (as well as variations like length of line) indicate that these omissions come from different times and places.

This plainly demonstrates that at least some of these omissions cannot be the original text. But it IS possible that NONE of the omissions are original.

Mark 9:49-50

Mark 9:49-50 (traditional text)

... ΠΑΣ  ΓΑΡ ΠΥΡI ΑΛIΣΘHΣΕTΑI KΑI ΠΑΣA ΘΥΣIΑ ΑΛI ΑΛIΣΘHΣΕTΑI KΑΛON TO ΑΛΑΣ ΕΑN ΔΕ TO ΑΛΑΣ ΑNΑΛON ΓΕNHTΑI ΕN TINI ΑΥTO ΑΡTΥΣΕTΕ ΕXΕTΕ ΕN ΕΑΥTOIΣ ΑΛΑ KΑI ΕIΡHNΕΥΕTΕ ΕN ΑΛΛHΛOIΣ For everyone with fire (will be) salted And every sacrifice with salt salted. good (is) salt; but if the salt has lost its saltness, how will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another."

---

INCLUDE LINE: A (C) K (X) (Θ) Π PSI 28 892 1010 1071 1079 (1195) 1216 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 1646 2148 2174 (1009 1010c 1546 Lect^303,1127c) Byz (Majority of MSS), Lect (Lectionaries), it^f,l,q vg^cl (vg^ww) syr^p,h cop^(bo) goth aeth Diat. (D) it^{(a)b d ff2 i} (it^aur,c,k)

OMIT: (א), B, L,(W) Δ f ¹, f ¹³, 28* 565 700 syr ^s, cop^sa,(bo), arm geo, (Diat^a-part)

---

Here we have the alternate error, the similar ending of a line (Homoioteleuton) even more strongly than the beginning. The result is the same: loss of a line, and the usual suspect manuscripts, critics, and modern editions follow along, although this ancient error never even made it into the Latin via mixture or 'correction'.

The lesson is the same: Early mistake does not equal original text. Although the reading should be documented in any publication of the lost exemplar for Aleph/B, it should never have been adopted by those editing printed Bibles. Another case of misapplication of resources, allowing old errors to creep back into the working text.

We can see other potential trouble brewing as well, when the word "salt" appears five times in a few clauses. But we don't expect to see every potential case of haplography actually occur in the fragmentary samples of the textual stream that we now possess.

Mark 8:26-27

Mark 8:26-27 (homoioArcton)

                         ...KΑI ΑΠΕΣTΕIΛΕN
ΑΥTON ΕIΣ OIKON ΑΥTOΥ ΛΕΓΩN
MHΔΕ ΕIΣ THN KΩMHN ΕIΣΕΛΘHΣ
MHΔΕ ΕIΠHΣ TINI EN TH KΩMH
KΑI ΕΞHΛΘΕN O IHΣOΥΣ KΑI OI
MΑΘHTΑI ΑΥTOΥ ΕIΣ TΑΣ KΩMΑΣ
KΑIΣΑΡΕIΑΣ THΣ ΦIΛIΠΠOΥ

...And he sent
him away to his home, saying,
"Nor into the town enter,
Nor tell anyone in the town."
And Jesus went on with his disciples,
to the villages of Caesarea Philippi;

---

INCLUDE LINE: + A C K X Δ Π 33 700 (892) 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 (1546) 1646 2148, Byz (Majority of MSS), Lect (all Lectionaries), syr^p,h, cop^(bo), goth, Aeth, Diatess.^a,(p). (D), it^(c),d,(q), (Θ), f¹³, (565), (1216, 2174), (arm), geo ^A, it^{(s),aur,b,f,(ff2),(i),l} vg geo^B, (124), syr^h-mg.

OMIT: ( - MHΔΕ ΕI ΠHΣ TINI EN TH KΩMH) - א, B, L, f ¹, syr ^a, cop^sa,bo,fay, geo¹, (it^k)

---

The scribe copies the first line beginning with 'MHΔΕ', then looking back at his exemplar fails to notice TWO lines starting with 'MHΔΕ' and continues from 'KΑI' (in line 4). The similar content in both lines doesn't help either. The error could be made multiple times from the same poorly laid out mastercopy, and once in the transmission stream could be duplicated further. Alexandrian editing practices ensured that this briefer reading would find its way into other copying streams via 'mixture'.

Once again, the shared omission by Aleph/B suggests either a common ancestor, or else a common set of readings by which such manuscripts were corrected by the copyists in the scriptorium where the two were made. But the very argument for a common ancestor identifies this as an error, not the original text (original readings do not distinguish text-types).

Instead of noting the obvious, modern versions follow their blind guides and the critical text of Westcott/Hort. They mistake the identification of an early intermediary text as the original text. Early intermediary texts by definition and nature must contain errors, and these are often identifiable. When errors can be identified, they should not be adopted as though they were original readings.

Mark 6:33-34

Mark 6:33-34 (traditional text)

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to Return

KΑI  ΕIΔON  ΑΥTOΥΣ ΥΠΑΓONTΑΣ
KΑI  ΕΠΕΓNΩΣΑN    ΠOΛΛOI
KΑI   ΠΕZH  ΑΠO  ΠΑΣΩN  TΩN
ΠOΛΕΩN   ΣΥNΕΔΡΑMON   ΕKΕI
KΑI ΠΡOHΛΘON          ΑΥTOΥΣ
KΑI ΣΥNHΛΘON      ΠΡOΣ  ΑΥTON
KΑI  ΕΞΕΛΘΩN ΕIΔΕN ΠOΛΥN OXΛON
KΑI  ΕΣΠΛΑΓXNIΣΘH   ΕΠ  ΑΥTOΥΣ
OTI HΣΑN ΩΣ ΠΡOΒΑTΑ MH ΕXONTΑ
ΠOIMΕNΑ KΑI HΡΞΑTO  ΔIΔΑΣKΕIN
ΑΥTOΥΣ ΠOΛΛΑ...

And they saw them going,
and (the) people knew them,
and they ran on foot from all the towns,
and       got there    ahead of them,
and they   gathered  together  to Him,
and leaving (the boat) He saw a huge crowd,
and he had compassion on them, because
they were like sheep without a shepherd;
and he began to teach them many things.

---

Here we have started a new line for each clause beginning with KΑI, as early amateur copyists commonly did, copying clause by clause. One instantly gets a sense of the frequency with which Homoioarcton (similar beginning) type errors could occur, due to Mark's simple narrative style. Almost every 5th or 6th line, features present themselves in a way to invite disaster.

---

include both lines: + και συνηλθον προς αυτον (/αυτου[ς]) - A, K, D, Π, f^13~, 1009 1010 1071 1195 1216 1230 1242 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174 (1253, 1344), & Maj. of Greek MSS, it ^{f, (q)}, syr ^h, Aeth

omit line 6 (only): - και συνηλθον προς αυτον - א, B, L, , 892, 1241, + 13 lectionaries (!)
omit line 5 (only): ( - και προηλθον αυτους ) - D ^greek, 28, 700 it ^b

---

the 6th line (underlined) is dropped by Aleph, B, critical Greek texts, and modern versions.

Here both a similar beginning and ending (and middle!) of two consecutive lines has caused the scribe's eye to slip and drop a line from the ancestor of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two manuscripts stand alone (along with the 'usual suspects', a handful of lesser Alexandrian witnesses), against the overwhelming evidence for inclusion of the verses from all other text-types and witnesses (early fathers, versions etc.)

The alternate and independant, but identical type of error by Codex D underlines both how easily such errors happened and the difficulty early scribes had catching them before they were propagated into the textual stream.

Neither line adds anything to the narrative, and they could not have been concocted by copyists. They simply reflect the all-too-common and well documented long-windedness and redundancy of Mark's natural style.

Yet moronically, almost all modern versions follow the painfully obvious error of the 'two oldest and bestest manuscripts' against all other textual evidence, and common sense.

Nothing is really lost by the adoption of either reading, except of course the reputation of the Alexandrian scribes, and the credibility of modern Bible editors.