Tommy Wasserman on Mark 1:1 - homoeoteleuton

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.

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

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

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

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

Matthew 17:21 - haplography: Aleph - Scribe D

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

F.H.A. Scrivener on homoeoteleuton in Aleph

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