Monday, August 8, 2011

Quote from BibleVersionDiscussionBoard

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. ]


  1. My list of HA HM HT now exceeds 400 and I still don't see the light at the end of the tunnel here! If singulars of miniscules, papyri and the lesser researched uncials are all counted, we will soon have thousands of instances of this type of scribal error.


    In Matthew 1:11, correct ιωσιας δε εγεννησεν τον ιεχονιαν (“and Josiah begat Jechoniah”) to Ιωσιας δε εγεννησε τον Ιωακειμ · Ιωακειμ δε εγεννησε τον Ιεχονιαν (“and Josiah begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jechoniah.”)

    The additional words were probably omitted accidentally via homoioteleuton when the eyes of an early scribe skipped from one "begat" to another. Without Jehoiakim, there are only 41 generations in the genealogy, whereas Matthew 1:17 requires 42 generations, or three sets of 14 generations. See Adam Clarke's Commentary.