T.S. Green (1856) on homoeoteleuton

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.

Acts 15:32-35 (h.t. +)

Using All
the Evidence

Acts 15:32-35


Is the Textus Receptus ever wrong? Of course it is.

After all, it wasn't actually produced by a careful comparison of the some 5,000 extant Greek manuscripts now available (as well as four times as many Latin).
But by providence and good fortune, the manuscripts (MSS) selected were excellent, and although those MSS were imperfect, they presented a consensus text very close to the agreement later found in the full majority of trustworthy manuscripts.

One such place where the Byzantine tradition took a minor hit was in the book of Acts 15:33. Another accidental error hit very close to this same spot, in the Alexandrian textual stream, Acts 15:34.
Surprisingly, even though both branches were damaged, we can restore the most probable original text by using BOTH traditions, along with our knowledge of scribal habits.

The first thing to observe is that all the variants at this place have no doctrinal importance at all, and in fact not even any historical relevance. Nor do any of the variants affect the ultimate meaning of the text. In fact, even the historical data lost in the damage to the text is essentially irrelevant.

All this points toward one thing: These variants are all either utterly accidental, or simply benign and naive; well-meaning meddling at the very most. No motive can be found to alter the text here, not even for art's sake. This is pure error, plain and simple.

Because we have two separate text-streams (Byzantine and Alexandrian), and we have two separate accidents, we can reverse both, and reconstruct the original text as if the ink was still wet on Luke's autographed copy!
 

Byzantine Text Damaged

Even when establishing the Majority Text, we find occasional variation units where the witnesses split nearly evenly. This is a sign of damage.
One interesting place is Acts 15:34. First lets admit the Byzantine text is damaged here also: We know this, because the Byzantine witnesses are also themselves divided in this instance, because of mixture, probably crossing over from the Alexandrian text. Had the Byzantine witnesses been united, there would be no discernable issue here.

Lets look at the Byzantine text first:

Acts 15:32-35 (Byzantine - part = TR)

ιουδας δε και σιλας και αυτοι
προφηται οντες δια λογου πολλου
παρεκαλεσαν τους αδελφους και
επεστηριξαν ποιησαντες δε χρονον
απελυθησαν μετ ειρηνης απο των
αδελφων προς τους αποστολους []

εδοξεν δε τω σιλα επιμειναι αυτου

παυλος δε και βαρναβας διετριβον
εν αντιοχεια διδασκοντες και ευαγ-
γελιζομενοι μετα και ετερων πολλων
τον λογον του κυριου 

The underlined black line is the line which has been dropped by the Alexandrian tradition (Aleph/B etc.) and even a significant part of the Byzantine textual witnesses also.

Surely this omission is OLD, since we can see it in a lot of copies; it was re-copied and re-mixed into the Byzantine text too, because of its early prevalence, extent and apparent credibility.

We can also see a few similarities at the beginning and end of the line with the previous one (in uncial script, the letters are even more similar), although the connection is too weak to explain such a pervasive booboo. .
 

 

A Secondary Oddity and a Clue

But what we really want to draw attention to is not this variant, but the other two shown in RED above; here is where the later Byzantine text differs from the Alexandrian and other witnesses.

So now lets look at the Alexandrian Text:

ιουδας τε και σιλας και αυτοι
προφηται οντες δια λογου πολλου
παρεκαλεσαν τους αδελφους και
επεστηριξαν ποιησαντες δε χρονον
απελυθησαν μετ ειρηνης απο των
αδελφων προς τους αποστειλαντας αυτους

...............................

παυλος δε και βαρναβας διετριβον
εν αντιοχεια διδασκοντες και ευαγ-
γελιζομενοι μετα και ετερων πολλων
τον λογον του κυριου

 
Here we see the more varied and longer, more complex and ambiguous text (highlighted in red).
These readings are contrary to what we know about Alexandrian scribes; the changes are not any kind of "Attic Stylistic improvements" or grammatical fixes. This is plainly the more primitive text.
The previous line to the omitted one reads,


"with peace from the brothers to those who sent them." Now it so happens that from the previous verses (Acts 15:22) that those who "sent them" were in fact the Twelve: the Apostles. It would have been absurd for a scribe to erase "Apostles" (as it reads in the Byzantine text) and write "those who sent them".
The Byzantine Text reads:


"with peace from the brothers to the Apostles." This has all the appearance rather of an emendation to the Byzantine text, to make explicit who sent them (the Apostles). The changes don't add (or take away) any information whatsoever to the text, since the people are the same in both cases (they are still the Apostles).

The Homoioteleuton Appears

But now look at what the Alexandrian text must have looked like before the line was dropped, if the Alexandrian was original in the previous line:

.ν προς τους αποστειλαντας αυτους

εδοξεν δε τω σιλα επιμειναι αυτου

 

voila!
This was an accidental omission by homoioteleuton in the early Alexandrian text.
What then happened to the Byzantine text? An entirely different haplographic error:

Here was the original line and how it ended up:

προς τους αποστειλαντας αυτους

προς τους αποστολους

 

An early copyist of the Byzantine stream made a short eye-skip from αντας to αυτους dropping the ending of the previous word.
Probably in his mind, the word "apostle" loomed large, and the vowel was automatically 'corrected' by a simple itacism.

But now, the evidence of the original homoioteleuton by the Alexandrian scribe has been obscured, and so some other cause (deliberate editing, scribal gloss) was probably speculated.

The Alexandrians couldn't restore the lost line from their own (otherwise more accurate) text, and the Byzantines had lost the evidence of the cause of the original error, and were unable to recognise it or show it was a common scribal omission.

The Reconstructed Text

Two innocent and minor haplographic errors have conspired to hide each other, and also the original text, which we can now reconstruct below:

.............................ιουδας τε και
σιλας και αυτοι προφηται οντες
δια λογου πολλου παρεκαλεσαν
τους αδελφους και επεστηριξαν
ποιησαντες δε χρονον απελυθησ-
αν μετ ειρηνης απο των αδελφων
προς τους αποστειλαντας αυτους
εδοξεν δε τω σιλα επιμειναι αυτου
παυλος δε και βαρναβας διετριβον
εν αντιοχεια διδασκοντες και ευαγ-
γελιζομενοι μετα και ετερων πολλ-
ων τον λογον του κυριου ...

 
The Alexandrians provide the first half of the paragraph, and the Byzantines provide the second half, explaining both the haplographic omission in the Alexandrian, and also the unconsious emendation in the Byzantine.

Does it matter? Not really in this case. But it shines clear light on the fact that most variants are random, and not doctrinally motivated, but are simple accidents.

It also goes a little way toward using ALL our text-critical resources (even the older MSS) to achieve a truly accurate text, as opposed to critical texts produced by rejecting en bloc large portions of the available textual evidence.

homoioteleuton - An Introduction

Mistakes and Text-Types

Deliberate Changes

Deliberate alterations to the text can be a result of common theological influences operating independantly, or they can be simply imported artificially between text-types and genealogical lines. Thus they are unreliable indicators of either text-type or genealogical dependance, even when they are perpetuated by copying.


Accidental Alterations

On the other hand, accidental errors can indeed be used to show genealogical dependance, and classify manuscripts into text-types, if these errors are of a kind that would be missed, and then perpetuated in further copies.


Haplography

The peculiar error of haplography (accidental omission) is just the ideal type of error to establish genealogical relationships and offer stable features of a text-type. An error of haplography is likely to be copied unnoticed, especially if the material dropped has no special value or theological impact. It has the further advantage of being rather easy to spot and having unambiguous features: useful cases will have a combination of likely Homoioarcton (similar beginning of a line), Homoioteleuton (similar ending), plus a lack of theological or doctrinal signficance to the omitted material.

---

Haplography in Critical Greek Texts

Of some 35 places in Mark where the critical Greek text departs from the traditional text significantly, deleting whole or half verses, almost a third are obvious cases of haplography. The manuscript evidence is also just what we would expect and require for these cases to be clinching.


Why critical Greek Texts Contain Errors

This is not an 'error' in procedure per se, to publish a critically reconstructed text, since one can reconstruct an earlier common (lost) archetype using 'agreement in error' between manuscripts. Such a text will necessarily contain the errors identified as copied from the extrapolated source to the extant MSS.

Westcott & Hort no doubt succeeded in reconstructing an early, error-ridden archetype for Aleph and B, possibly originating in the late 2nd or early 3rd century. (Since then, even earlier MSS that have been recovered that diverge from the text of this ancestor).

This text (Hort's hypothetical ancestor for Aleph and B) however should then have been corrected by carefully eliminating all known accidental errors of the haplographic type, before any further application of the text to 'correct' other texts is to be made.


Why Modern Versions should NOT Follow Critical Texts

It is a mistake however, to adopt the plain errors of any intermediary text in a finalized printed Bible, since the whole end goal of textual criticism is to eliminate errors, not re-introduce errors into the text, however ancient they may be. Thus using an 'unedited' critical Greek text is an enterprise in futility, and a clumsy misuse of valuable tools for the improvement of Bible accuracy.

---

John 8:59-9:2 - (h.a.)

John 8:59-9:2 (traditional text)

...ηραν ουν λιθους
ινα βαλωσιν επ αυτον. IΣ δε εκρυβη και εξηλθεν εκ του ιερου
και διελθων δια μεσου αυτων [επορευετο] και παρηγεν ουτως
και παραγων ειδεν ανθρωπον τυφλον εκ γενετης
και ηρωτησαν αυτον οι μαθηται αυτου λεγοντες
...
... Then they took stones to cast
upon Him: butJesus hid Himself, and went out of the Temple,
and going through the midst of them, and so he passed by;
and as He passed by, he saw a man who was born blind;
and His disciples asked Him, saying...

---

INCLUDE LINE: א(Corr.1), C, L, N, X,ψ, 070, 0141, 0211, 33, 213, 397, 579, 597, 799, 821, 865, 892, 1010, 1071, 1241, 2786, pc19, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, bo, geo2
(omit "και"/"επορευετο"): A, K, Π Δ Θ^(Corr), f1, f13, 157, Lat: f/q, goth
Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS) Lect,

OMIT LINE:
P66/75, א*, B, D, W, Θ*, 849, pc9, Lat, Sy-S, sa, ac2, arm, geo1

B: no umlaut

---

A comedy of errors seems to conspire to obscure what plainly happened here. First of all, the separation of John into chapters is very recent (c. 1500 A.D.), but the following lines clearly continue a narrative, and were normally written tightly together in ancient times.

Ironically, we must ignore the Byzantine text temporarily to put the puzzle back together.

Instead we turn to the oldest Uncial, Codex Sinaiticus for the missing pieces. Here Copyist A carefully preserves the original text, dropped by either א* or his exemplar. But Copyist A (circa 320 A.D.) discloses that the line originally had και immediately following the word 'Temple'. This was the και which caused the copyist of Codex Sinaiticus' ancestor to skip the line.


In the 2nd-3rd centuries, when copies were made on papyrus, pages had wide single columns, not groups of 3-4 narrow columns as found in Aleph/B. It must have been at this time that the omission happened.

The new format of the Uncials made on parchment (with shorter lines) made the Haplography error harder to spot, allowing it to slip under the radar in Codex Vaticanus and other MSS.

It did not help matters when the Byzantines, through independant lines of transmission deleted the "AND" (και), and so removed yet more evidence of the haplography error.

Finally, the UBS-2 apparatus, including the redundant word preceding the omission in every variant, makes the Haplography (homoioarchon) virtually invisible, even in the apparatus. Dividing up the witnesses that include the line, over minor variations, further obscures and confuses what happened.


The usual suspects, Westcott/Hort, Nestle, UBS-2 etc. perpetuate an error we escaped from for almost 2000 years. Again, 'modern' versions follow the UBS text, without even a footnote for the lost half-verse.

Its another undocumented change, which sadly loses one of the key components of the whole Chiastic Structure of this section. The fuller text shows Jesus exiting the Temple in the same supernatural way He arrived, and this compositional key is obliterated by the boo-boo.

John 6:22 - (h.t.)

John 6:22 (traditional text) -homoioteleuton

....................................................... τη επαυρ-
ιον ο οχλος ο εστηκως περαν της θαλασσης
ιδων οτι πλοιαριον αλλο ουκ ην εκει ει μη εν
εκεινο εις . ο ενεβησαν . οι. μαθηται. αυτου
και οτι ου συνεισηλθεν τοις μαθηταις αυτου
ο ιησους εις το πλοιαριον αλλα μονοι οι μαθ-
ηται αυτου απηλθον

The day following, when the people which stood
on the other side of the sea saw that there was
none other boat there, if not that one where in
those were entered, namely, His disciples,
and that Jesus went not with His disciples
into the boat, but that his disciples were
gone away alone;

---

Include Line: : א* (D Grk*), (D corr)
Θ 28 (33 1071 ((1195 1253)) 1216 1230) 700 892 1242 1344 1646 (2148
2174) Byz Maj (Majority of MSS) f13 (it-a/c/d) Syr-c/(p)/h/pal Copt-sa
Arm Geo-l/A/(B) (Chrysostom Cyril)

Omit: P75 א(corr.) A B L W Ψ 063 f1 565 1009 1010 1079 1241 1365 1546 it-aur/(b)/c/f/ff2/l/q/(r1) vg cop-bo/ach2/fay goth Nonnus

---

Mistakes like starting on the wrong line at left when it is a long one
are so commonplace and trivial that this hardly needs comment. Its
familiar to anyone who has read a book and started again on the wrong
line in the middle of a paragraph.

There is no need for yet another elaborate theory of an imaginary
editor who could invent a long-winded, awkward turn of phrase to bloat
the narrative for no purpose except perchance to fill out a line at the
end of page. Thats what dashes, dots and scribbles are for.

Why yet again did such an (imaginary) expositor pass up the chance to add a theological text of some significance?

Yet Hort denies the obvious, and entrenches this early error into the "Neutral" Text-type (Hort's pure and original invention).

The UBS edition follows Hort, with countless 'modern' versions
in tow, stuffed with useless or nonexistant footnotes, but lacking a
full text.

John 6:11 - (h.t.)

John 6:11 (traditional text)

ελαβεν δε τους αρτους ο IΣ και
ευχαριστησας διεδωκεν τοις
μαθηταις οι δε μαθηται τοις

ανακειμενοις ομοιως και εκ

των οψαριων οσον ηθελον...


And Jesus took the loaves; and when
he had given thanks, he gave to the
disciples, and the disciples to them
that were set down; and likewise of
the fishes as much as they wished.

---

INCLUDE LINE: א(Corr.2), D, Δ Θ ψ, f13, 1071, Maj, Latin: b, d, e, j, Sy-S, ac2, Bo(mss)
Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS), 157, 1424 Lect,

OMIT: P28(3rd CE), P66, P75, 01*, A, B, L, N, W, Π, 063, 0141, f1, 33, 565, 579, 1241, al, Lat, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H/sa/bo(mss), arm, goth

---

Another classic boo-boo by the Alexandrian ancestor of Aleph/B. This one of many 'perfect' Haplography cases in John, where all the necessary features are found in the textual stream.

Few Alexandrian correctors would have opted for the longer reading, given the lucky conciseness of the omission. But no complex series of 'mishaps' are likely to have been responsible for any proposed 'addition' here. Again the theological content is virtually non-existant.

The usual suspects, Westcott/Hort, Nestle, UBS-2 etc. perpetuate an error we escaped from for almost 2000 years. Now every scribal blunder ever made is brought back to haunt the text, simply because it was done in Egypt/Caesarea. Again, 'modern' versions follow the UBS text, without even a footnote for the lost half-verse.

Its another undocumented change, which sadly loses some interesting details concerning the Feeding of the 5,000.

John 5:16 - (h.a.)

John 5:16 (traditional text)

και δια τουτο εδιωκον τον IN [+οι ιουδαιοι]
και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι
οτι ταυτα εποιει εν σαββατω

and because of this they persecuted Jesus
and sought Him to murder (Him),
since these He did in the Sabbath...

---

INCLUDE LINE:
A, N, X, Δ Θ ψ, f13, 213, 865, 1071, Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS),Latin: - e, f, q, r1, 27, Sy-P, Sy-H, Bohairic etc. Lect,

OMIT: P^-66/75 א, B, C, D, L, W, 0141, f1, 69, 33, 397, 565, 579, 597, 821,
892, 1010, 1241, 2718, 2786, pc20,
Lat(a, aur, b, c, d, ff2, l, vg), Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, bopt

---

Here one can imagine a typical 3rd-4th century manuscript, with its contractions of Sacred Names and common words, such as Jesus, Christ, God, Jews, etc., allowing for shorter lines and compacted Uncial (capital) letters.


The result is another opportunity ripe for a Haplography error, and sure enough a clause was dropped at some point. That the Jews were seeking to kill Jesus is quite plausible, given the reason for the anger: public defiance of the Sabbath, in the very Temple of Jerusalem. And we need not limit this to the religious authorities, as Paul's experience in Acts demonstrates.

Not something a Jewish scribe would easily invent, but quite natural to leave omitted, for the purpose of toning down blanket accusations and racial hostilities.


The split among the Syriac versions shows both readings to be as old as the 2nd century.


The UBS text doesn't even note the variant. It becomes yet another completely undocumented alteration of the Traditional text, almost unanimously adopted by 'modern' versions simply because they follow UBS or Nestle/Aland by habit.

John 3:13 - (h.a.)

John 3:13 (traditional text)

...και ουδεις
αναβεβηκεν εις τον
ουρανον ει μη ο εκ
του ουρανου καταβας
ο υιος του ανθρωπου
ο ων εν τω ουρανω


"...And no one has ascended
up to heaven, if not the One
coming down out of heaven,
the Son of Man;
the One in heaven."

---

INCLUDE LINE:
A/A(corr), K Δ Θ Π ψ 050 (063) f¹ f¹³, 28 565 700 892 1009 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174

Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS),

Lect, l ^{-184 211 (s,m),883 1579 (m)}, it^{-a/aur/b/c/f/ff2/j/l/q/r1}, vg, Syr^-P/H/Pal?, Cop^-Bo(mss), Arm Geo, Diatess., Hippolytus Novatian, Origen^-Lat, Dionysius Eustathius Jacob-Nisibus Aphraates Hilary Lucifer Basil Amphilochius Didymus Epiphanius Chrysostom Nonnus Cyril Theodoret (0141, 80, Syr^-S)

OMIT: P^-66/75 א, B L W^-supp, 083 086 0113 33 1010 1241 Cop^{-Sa/Bo(mss)/Ach2/fay}, Aeth, Diattess.^-(arm)/v, Origen^-Lat.mss, Apollinaris, (Didymus, Cyril)

---

Here is a case where giving credence to an omission which is in fact a Haplography error becomes ludicrous: Virtually every early father and writer that can be checked cites the full verse. Two fathers appear influenced by Caesarean editors in a couple of copies. Thus as well as overwhelming manuscript support, we have overwhelming patristic support in favour of including the line as original, to say nothing of the obvious 'internal' criteria, the physical requirements for homoioarchton (accidental omission from similar beginning of line/phrase).

As expected, Westcott/Hort follow Aleph/B, Nestle and UBS follow Hort, and half the 'modern' translations follow UBS. The comedy of errors forms a long chain of unbroken dumbness. Surprisingly, the American Standard Version (ASV) and New English Bible (NEB) manage to drag their heads out of the sand long enough to avoid this re-introduction of an ancient error. P66/75 show the blunder to be very ancient, but once again generated by the usual suspects, clumsy Alexandrian editors interfering with the text.

Although once the line was lost in some copies, it is possible to see a theological motive for leaving it out (among Arians, or those who deny the pre-existance doctrine of Christ), but why look for conspiracies, when stupid explains so much? Occam's Razor can be sensibly applied here.

Look in vain for sensible or enlightening footnotes in modern versions.


4th Century Editing

Of course the initial booboo doesn't fully explain the course of its repetition.
F.H.A. Scrivener is most enlightening on the subsequent history of this obvious blunder:

19. John 3:13 Westcott & Hort remove from the text to the margin the weighty and doubtless difficult, but on that account only the more certainly genuine, words ο ων εν τω ουρανω. Tischendorf rejected them (as indeed does Prof. Milligan) in his Synopsis Evangelica (1864), but afterwards repented of his decision.

The authorities for omission are א, B L (which read [also] read μονογενης θεος ['onlyborn god'] in Jn 1:18), T^b [6th cent.], MS 33 among the MSS. CDF are defective here: buth the clause is contained in AEGHKMSUVΓΔΛΠ, and in all cursives save one, A* and one Evalngelistarium (44) omitting .

No versions [translations] can be cited against the clause except one MS of the Bohairic: it appears in everyone else, including the the Latin, the four Syriac, the Ethiopic, Georgian and the Armenian.

There is really no Patristic evidence to set up against it, for it amounts to nothing that the words are not found in the Armenian versions of Ephraem's Exposition of Tatian's Harmony (see Vol. I p.59 note 2); that Eusebius

might have cited them twice but did not; that Cyril of Alexandria, who alleges them once, passed over them once; that Origen also (in the Latin xlat.) neglected them once, inasmuch as he quotes them twice [!], once very expressly. Hippolytus [220 A.D.] is the prime witness in their behalf, for he draws the theological inference from the passage (αποσταλεις ινα δειξη αυτον επι γης οντα ειναι και εν ουρανω), wherein he is followed in two places by Hilary and by Epiphanius. To these add Dionysius of Alexandria [3rd cent.], Novatian [3rd], Aphraates the Persian, Didymus [4th], Lucifer, Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, John of Damascus (3x), Cyril of Alex., Chrystostom & Theodoret (4x each);

- Indeed as Dean John Burgon has shown, ¹ more than 50 passages from 38 ecclesiastical writers; and we then have a consensus of versions and writers from every part of the Christian world, joining Codex A and the later MSS in convicting א, B L &c., or the common sources from which they were derived, of the deliberate suppression of one of the most mysterious, yet one of the most glorious, glimpses afforded to us in Scripture of the nature of the Saviour, on the side of His proper Divinity."

---

1. The Revision Revised, p. 133. Also Miller's Textual Guide, App. VI.

-F.H.A. Scrivener, Plain Introduction, (4th Ed.,1889 Ed. Miller) Vol. 2, Ch 12: Examples pg 360 fwd