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

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

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

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

Matt. 27:35

Matt. 27:35 (h.t.)

Click to Enlarge: (backbutton to return)

..................σταυρωσαντες  
δε  αυτον διεμερισαντο τα 
ιματια αυτου βαλλοντες κληρον 
ινα πληρωθη το ρηθεν υπο του
προφητου διεμερισαντο τα 
ιματια μου εαυτοις και επι τον 
ιματισμον μου εβαλον   κληρον

And they crucified him, and parted 
  his garments, casting lots:  
that it might be fulfilled which was 
spoken by the prophet, 'They parted 
my garments among them, and upon  
my garment did they cast lots.'

---

INCLUDE LINE: Δ Θ Φ 0250, f1, 652, f13, 22, 517, 954, 1071, 1243, 1424, 1675, al, it(a, aur, b, c, h, q), vg(part), Sy-H, mae-1 (not mae-2), Eusebius (add after verse 36:) 983
Lacuna: C, Sy-C

OMIT:  א , f13 (2 mss: 174, 828 no addition) ; it: d, f, ff1, ff2, g1, l, vg(part) do not have the addition, NA27 omits from text.
B marks omission with umlaut: (line 16 B, p. 1275) βαλλοντες κληρον, (36) και καθημενοι..

---

Because of lack of some major Byzantine support, even proponents of that text don't attempt to defend this longer reading vigorously. But the abandonment of this longer version of the verse is in fact premature.

Willker says:

'It is possible that the sentence fell out due to homoioteleuton (...κληρον - ...κληρον) but the support is bad (basically "Caesarean"). It is more probable that it has been added from the Johannine parallel (so Weiss). Rating:2? (omission probably original)'

Byzantine Text-type Never Guilty of Omission?

The first remark that needs to be made, is that if the Byzantine text-type can be guilty of "addition/conflation" everytime it has a fuller reading (according to these same textual critics), why can't it also occasionally lose some text? It can't be infallible in this regard. That alone is enough to hold the question open.


Caesarean Text-type Cannot support Haplography?

The next remark is that why is the Caesarean text-type suddenly "bad"? The majority of the omissions which modern critical NTs adopt have mainly Caesarean/Alexandrian support, not Byzantine. Here the Caesarean text finds the Byzantine guilty of haplography, and its somehow inconvenient.

That Haplography historically occured is admitted to be a fact. Examples of 1st generation haplography errors abound in all manuscripts. Why is it that actual confirmed examples are practically non-existant in modern critical NT texts? Are we to believe that not a single case of haplography was ever copied, and found its way into a text-type or group?

And why is it that approximately a third or more of possible cases have been completely left out of the critical apparatus? Could it be that they would negatively characterise a favoured text-type?

Could an extremist application of 'Prefer the Shorter Reading' be behind this inconsistent behaviour? The original justification for that rule of thumb was supposed to be based on scribal habits. In real life there must always exceptions to rules based on rough generalizations.


How Many Haplographic Features are Enough?

Willker is too honest to leave out the possibility of homoioteleuton (...κληρον - ...κληρον): But he has certainly downplayed the evidence. In actual fact, the two clauses share 19 out of 27 letters in the precise same order (70%!), in 5 - 6 character-length chunks! This is an order of magnitude stronger than a typical case of 3 or 4 letters at the end of a sentence.


Relative Priority of Matthew at Stake

When Matthew copies Mark, even Roman Catholic scholars are willing to accept the possibility of Markan Priority. This does not directly threaten Matthew's authority. But Matthew is always assumed to have priority over John, and to be roughly contemporary with Luke. John is written off as 'late' mainly on internal considerations and on the basis of the supposed "evolution" of Christian theology.

But what if Matthew wrote after John? Many synoptic/Johannine features would be better explained if that were the case, but unfortunately, the cost would be too high for some Roman Catholic groups, who find most scriptural support for 'church authority' in Matthew (Matthew is the only gospel that even mentions the word "church", and obvious clue to its later date).


This may be another reason why cases like this, in which Matthew seems to know John's content are better treated as "later additions to Matthew" rather than cases where Matthew used John.

Its no real surprise then, that Roman Catholic sponsored, and ecumenical 'modern' versions of the NT favour the exclusion of verses like this, and also favour Roman Catholic ecclesiastical manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus (B, Vatican #1209).

This is a shame, for such bias interferes with a real understanding of the historical process of transmission, and the identification of the original text.

Matt. 26:3

Matt. 26:3 (h.a.)

 ...τοτε συνηχθη-
σαν οι αρχιερεις
και οι γραμμαεις
και οι πρεσβυτεροι
του λαου

Then gathered
the chief priests,
and the scribes,
and the elders
of the people,...

---

INCLUDE LINE: K, Δ Π, 0255, 22, Byz Maj (Majority of MSS), it(c, f, ff2, h, q, r1), Sy-P, Sy-H
(+ kai oi pharisaioi) W

OMIT: P45, א, A, B, D, L, Θ, 0293, f1, 652, f13, 33vid, 565, 700, 892, 1424, pc, txt Lat(a, aur, b, d, ff1, g1, l, vg), Sy-S, Co(+ mae-2)
Lacuna: C, Sy-C
B: no umlaut

---

Another very ancient but easy case of Haplography, all the more obvious given the text of the majority of MSS, and independant manuscript support.

In the past, the heavy editing that occured with the 3rd and 4th century uncials has been ignored or denied. But the flip-flop testimony among them when taking these Haplography cases together as a group shows just how much monkey-business indeed happened. If we were to accept the current position that the old uncials best represent the state of the text in the 4th century, then we'd have to admit that the state of the text was incredibly sloppy and wild.

But there is a reasonable alternative: that the state of the text for most manuscripts was stable and reliable, and those manuscripts were copied, worn out, and recycled, while the 'survivors' represent instead some of the worst excesses in text manipulation, and were eventually abandoned.

We have no reason not to believe that when the text was standardized in the following centuries, that Christians throughout the Roman world independantly held fast to the best copies, and adopted the most accurate texts they had. If so, then the majority of copies will represent the best overall text, most of the time.

This is another case where Hort, Nestle, & UBS uncritically adopt the Aleph/B text, even when haplography best explains the MS variants.
The UBS text offers no documentation in its critical apparatus.
Naturally, 'modern' versions following UBS drop the text without a footnote, reviving a clumsy error that had been previously corrected and forgotten.

Matt. 23:14

Matt. 23:14 (h.t.) 

 

.........................................12..οστις δε υψωσει εαυτον ταπ-
......εινωθησεται και οστις ταπεινωσει εαυτον υψωθησεται
13..ουαι δε υμιν γραμματεις και φαρισαιοι υποκριται οτι κ
....ατεσθιετε τας οικιας των χηρων και προφασει μακρα π-
....ροσευχομενοι δια τουτο ληψεσθε περισσοτερον κριμα
14..ουαι δε υμιν γραμματεις και φαρισαιοι υποκριται οτι κ
......λειετε την βασιλειαν των ουρανων εμπροσθεν των αν-
......θρωπων υμεις γαρ ουκ εισερχεσθε ουδε τους εισερχο-
......μενους αφιετε εισελθειν
15..ουαι υμιν γραμματεις και φαρισαιοι υποκριται οτι περι-
.....αγετε την θαλασσαν και την ξηραν ποιησαι ενα προση-
.....λυτον και οταν γενηται ποιειτε αυτον υιον γεεννης διπ-
.....λοτερον υμων 16. ουαι υμιν οδηγοι τυφλοι οι λεγοντες
.....ος αν ομοση εν τω ναω ουδεν εστιν ος δ αν ομοση εν
.....τω χρυσω του ναου οφειλει. ...

---

Include verse 13: K W Δ Π 0107 0138 28 565 700 892 (1009) 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 (1253) 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS) (l-76) it-f Syr-p/h Copt-Bo(mss) Eth. Chrysostom Ps. Chrysos. John-Damascus

Reverse verse 13/14: f13, l-547 it-b//e/ff2/h/l/r1 Vg-Cl Syr-c/Pal(mss) Copt-Bo(mss) Diat. Origen Hilary Chrysos.(some)

Omit: א B D L Θ f1 33 892(txt) 1344 it-a/sur/d/e/ff1/g1 Vg-ww Syr-pal(mss) Cop-sa/bo(mss) Arm Geo Origen(gr/lat) Euseb. Jerome Druthmarus

---

Matthew 23:14
is an interesting and elegant case of homoioteleuton, because it is not
apparent what happened without examining the Byzantine Text and also
understanding the real mechanics of what appears to be homoioARCTON.

The reason this instance has gone unrecognised is through not
understanding both the actual mistake, and its deceptive result.

Pseudo-HomoioArcton (metamorphosis of similar beginnings)

In fact, most cases of "homoioArcton" (similar beginnings) are really homoioteleuton in disguise. The scribe's natural habit is to remember what he has just penned, and search for that in the master-copy. Thus a scribe does not usually hop from one similar beginning of a line to another, because he's not looking for the beginning of a line at all, but rather what he has just written, the end of a segment.

In pseudo-homoioarcton, a phrase at the beginning of a clause, sentence or verse actually falls at the end of a line,
in some copy, due to the practice of filling up lines and even chopping
up words to create more or less even margins on both sides. As a
result, the scribe's eye treats the piece as though it were an 'ending'
(i.e. copying right to the end of the line). He now looks back for a
line ending he has written, but finds instead a similar "beginning" or
really a line ending further down.
In the case above, the scribe most likely copied the first line of
verse 13 correctly. Then, glancing back at his master-copy, he found
the wrong line ending, namely the end of the first line of verse 14,
and started copying this second verse from the point after that.
The result however, makes it appear that the scribe has skipped the
whole verse 13 from beginning to end, because the beginnings are
identical. Another copyist or editor, not fully understanding such
subtleties, assumed that the whole verse was either added or deleted,
and since the ENDINGS of the consecutive verses are NOT similar,
homoioteleuton was not suspected.
To the amateur or inexperienced textual critic, this does not look like
what it really is, namely homoioteleuton (similar endings). Instead it
looks like a (rather unconvincing) case of homoioARCTON, which, since
that rarely occurs as such, is dismissed as the cause of the variant.
The rest of the history of the variants is made plain by this. A
corrector, noting the verse was missing, replaced it in the wrong place
(not understanding the mechanism or where the real break was), and a
new variant was created, with verse 13 and 14 reversed!
Again the original culprit is a sleepy-eyed Alexandrian scribe, with the Italians replacing the verse at the wrong spot.
The Hortians, and UBS adopt the worst possible variant (omision) as if
it were the original text, and all the 'modern' versions follow,
psychologically disturbed by the displacement of the verse in some
copies.
However, such apparent "positional uncertainties" have nothing to do
with the certainty and authenticity of the text. They are mechanical
features caused by the nature of the accidents in copying only.
The entire set of variants could really only have come about one way, with reasonable assumptions about copying habits.

Another format that could easily generate the same error is as follows:

Matt. 23:4

Matt. 23:4 (h.a.)

δεσμευουσιν
γαρ φορτια βαρεα
και δυσβαστακτα
και επιτιθεασιν
επι τους ωμους
των ανθρωπων

"For they bind heavy burdens
and grievous to be borne,
and lay them on men's shoulders;..."

---

INCLUDE LINE: B, D, K, P, W, Δ Θ, 0102, 0107, f13, 22, 33, 157, 579, Byz Maj (Majority of MSS), Lat(aur, c, d, f, ff1, g1, l, q, vg), Sy-H, sa, Weiss
652 (f1) does not omit here according to R. Champlin (Family Pi in Matthew, 1964, Studies and Documents 24). At least he is not mentioning it.
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut

OMIT: א, L, f1, 892, pc,
it(a, b, e, ff2, h), Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, bo, mae-2, Or, WH, NA25[!],

---

This is another minor accidental drop by the Alexandrian ancestor of Aleph/B, caused by the clumsy construction using "KAI". Although a short skip, it is more evidence of just how common such errors are in this group of manuscripts.

This is not any kind of 'scribal gloss', but an original piece of 'translation-Greek' that has been eliminated, smoothing out the text.

Westcott/Hort insisted on following the omission (placing text in margin), even though Hort's favourite manuscript (B) includes the line. The Textual Critical "Canon", 'Prefer the Shorter Reading' overrode all other considerations, and even common sense.

Nestle and NA25 also follow omission.
Again the lack of understanding regarding Agreement in Error, and its true significance in reconstructing the original text have resulted in modern critical Greek editions reintroducing obvious blunders.

The UBS-2 text at least gives a footnote here in the apparatus, giving modern translators a hint of the problem.

The American Standard Version (ASV) and Revised Standard Version (RSV) wisely left the phrase in the text, showing their awareness that this was a Haplography error, further modified by the interference of Caesarian editors.

Disappointingly, The New American Standard (NAS) and New International Version (NIV) take a step backward, and re-introduce the bumbling omission. Even the most ill-supported blunders manage to creep back into the text, in the quest for a 'lost' text.

Matt. 21:44

Matt. 21:44 (h.t.) 

.............................δια τουτο λεγω υμιν οτι αρ-
θησεται αφ υμων η βασιλεια του θεου και δο-
θησεται εθνει ποιουντι τους καρπους αυτης και
ο πεσων επι τον λιθον τουτον συνθλασ-
θησεται εφ ον δ αν πεση λικμησει αυτον και
ακουσαντες οι αρχιερεις και οι φαρισαιοι τας
παραβολας αυτου εγνωσαν οτι περι αυτων λεγει...

......................................"From this I say to you that
the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and
given to a people, producing the fruit of her and
he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces;
but on whomever it falls, like dust it will scatter him: and
When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables,
they understood that He was speaking about them.

---

Include Verse 44: א B ! C K L W X Δ Π (Θ 1079 1546) 0138 Family 1, Family 13, 28 565 700 892 1009 1010 1071 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 1646 2148 2174 Byz Maj (Majority of all Continuous MSS) Lect. it-aur/c/f/g1/h/l/q Vg Syr-C/p/h Copt-Sa/bo Arm Eth Geo Aphraates Ephraem Chrysostom Augustine Ps-Chrysos. etc.

Omit: D 33 it-b/d/e/ff1/ff2/r1 Syr-s Diat. Iren(Gk/Lat) Origen Euseb.

---

One can see the obvious trouble brewing as soon as the unfortunate alignment by chance occurs in some copy of the right line length.

And another line of Holy Scripture bites the dust, and vanishes, under the wandering eye of the aging copyist.

The failure to notice the obvious haplographic features are due in part to the poor choice of verse division
introduced in the Middle Ages, which splits up the "KAI" and the
preceding "AUTOS/HN", making the similarities appear to shrink by half!

But there is no real excuse for not studying the context of ANY serious omission in careful detail.

How can we believe that Hort didn't know this was a homoioteleuton error? It isn't even found in his beloved Aleph/B! Only the Latin Groaner-MS Bezae drops it! Yet Hort is compelled to bracket the verse. The credibility of the "brilliant" textual critic is now strained to the breaking-point, and his complicity cannot be hidden.

None the wiser for their previous folly, Nestle and UBS follow suit and bracket the offending verse. The Revised Standard (RSV) and New English Bible (NEB) leap to delete the verses, perhaps TOO enthusiastically for other more sensible translators like those behind the NAS and NIV.

Still another perfectly good verse is cast into doubt and disrepute, without cause.

Matt. 20:22

Matt. 20:22 (traditional text)

αποκριθεις δε ο ιησους ειπεν ουκ
οιδατε τι αιτεισθε δυνασθε πιειν
το ποτηριον ο εγω μελλω πινειν η
το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθηναι
λεγουσιν αυτω δυναμεθα
και λεγει αυτοις,  το μεν  ποτηριον μου  πιεσθε
και το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθησεσθε
το δε καθισαι εκ δεξιων μου και εξ ευωνυμων μου
ουκ εστιν εμον δουναι αλλ οις
ητοιμασται υπο του πατρος μου

But Jesus answered, "You do not
know what you are asking. Are you able to drink
the  cup   that I am about to drink?
- or the baptism that I am baptized, to be baptized with ?"
They said to Him, "We are able." and he saith unto them, of my cup Ye shall indeed drink,
and with the baptism that I am baptized with be baptized:
but to sit on my right hand, and on my left,
is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them
for whom it is prepared of my Father.

---

INCLUDE LINE: C, W, X, Δ Σ Φ f13, 33, 579, Byz, Maj (Majority of MSS), f, h, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, bo(pt) Lect

OMIT: א, B, D, L, Z, Θ, 085, f1, 788(f13), 22, pc,
Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, mae-1+2, bo(pt)

B: no umlaut

---

There is obviously plenty of opportunity for Haplography here, but we must strongly suspect some deliberate and unfortunate editing is really what occured.

A 3rd or 4th century Alexandrian editor probably looked at the first incredibly awkward clause, and jumped to the conclusion that it was in fact a marginal note of an alternate reading that had been inserted into the main text: That is, he read the "-or, ..." (20:22) as a textcritical comment by a previous copyist.

With this conclusion before him, he came to the second line, and took the "-and, ..." (20:23) as again a headsup for an alternate reading. Since the first half of each speech by Jesus makes plain sense, this editor adopted the first clause in each verse, and deleted the second clause as a secondary (incorrect alternate) reading. This editor's logic here is flawed however, since "and" is part of the reading itself, not a marginal note.


This novel solution to the plainly difficult and wordy text of Mark (as copied by Matthew) was attractive because it completely smooths out the awkwardness of the baptism references, including perhaps some sense of anachronism from their presence in Mark's original.

But the origin of these two clauses is not some imagined marginal gloss, but simply the text of Mark, which needs no explanation. It is Mark's usual clumsy translation/Semitic Greek, and its flavour has the usual (slightly anachronistic and back-viewing) features of a Markan speech of Jesus.

Another reason for rejecting the thinking and efforts of some Alexandrian editor here, is the second instance (20:23). This has the triple coincidence of homoioarcton (similar beginning), homoioteleuton (similar ending), and same length of clause (lucky alignment). From this we must strongly suspect that the original cause of the confusion and variation was indeed an accidental Haplography error in Matt. 20:23. This led to some Alexandrian editor examining the preceding verse and jumping to the idea that this was a case of alternate readings conflated from a marginal note.

Naturally this novel solution and the variant text created did not have the power to influence the entire transmission stream this late in the day (c. 2nd to early 3rd cent.), and it became a discontinued minority reading of the Alexandrian texttype.

---

Willker notes the lines originate from the parallel passage in Mark (Mk 10:38-39), and says; "Very probably copied from Mark (so Weiss). The support is not very good.".

But this is pointless. Matthew, even more than Luke, tends to copy Mark verbatum, even when its wordy or awkward, limiting himself to deleting unimportant details, not the speeches of Jesus.

Once we acknowledge that Matthew has here copied everything other single word verbatum from Mark, there is no strength nor need to claim this was some kind of later interpolation/harmonization with Mark by a copyist. The natural assumption is that Matthew simply copied Mark.

When Willker says "support is not very good", he has already rejected the traditional text (majority/Byz) used by Christians for centuries as "not very good". This bias permeates his entire commentary.

Westcott/Hort delete the verses, favouring again Aleph/B, and Nestle, UBS-2 follow. UBS says nothing in the apparatus, and so once again almost all the "modern versions" (English Translations) drop the verses without perhaps even knowing they have been hoodwinked again.

Another two clauses have been quietly deleted from the Bible without any documentation, notice, or justification.

Matt. 20:16

Matt. 20:16 (h.t.)

 

ουτως εσονται οι εσχατοι πρωτοι
και οι πρωτοι εσχατοι πολλοι
γαρ εισιν κλητοι ολιγοι δε εκλεκτοι

"..."So shall be the last first,
and of the first many last:
for many are called, but few chosen."

---

INCLUDE LINE: C, D, W, Δ Θ , f1, f13, 33, Byz Maj (Majority of MSS), Latt, Sy, mae-1, Bo(pt), [Trg]

OMIT: א B, L, Z, 085, 892*, 1342, 1424, 1675*, pc⁽¹⁴⁾, sa, bopt, mae-2 pc = 4, 5, 36, 75*, 141, 278, 423*, 571, 797, 1093, 1243*, 1403, 1574, 2418*

---

With ten different words ending in "οι" in a single compound sentence, its no wonder a tired copyist went cross-eyed here.

The original text is probably Mark 10:31, (cf. Luke 13:30) but Matthew is clearly aware of Luke's text, and probably has followed that, as he makes use of so much of Luke elsewhere.  Luke 14:24 (Byz text) also has the longer version of the verse.

We must suspect some deliberate editing here, possibly confusion, once the omission occured. The problem with Matthew's (and Luke's) text, is that two distinct sayings have indeed been apparently conflated, probably in an effort at providing a context for them both. Are we really supposed to equate the "first and last" in the first saying with the "called and chosen" in the second?

Many may feel the second saying is far more ominous, perhaps even suggesting loss of salvation. But as Jesus originally spoke these words, they probably did not imply that few would be saved, and many lost. That would be a catastrophic failure of His mission to redeem Israel and open salvation to the Gentiles. More likely we have a legitimate connection between the two sayings, implying loss of status, not loss of salvation here.

In any case, the textual evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of an early accidental omission, complicated by some frantic editing/copying. Sticking with the traditional text is again the safest course.

W. Willker admits (Textual Commentary Matthew):

This catchy saying has also been added after Lk 14:24. Nevertheless it might be an omission due to [homoioteleuton] TOI - TOI.  Note the corrected Byzantine minuscules!  This verse is the end of a lection. Possibly this caused the addition?'

- or omission...

Westcott/Hort omit the clause while following Aleph/B, and also other editors. No footnote or apparatus is provided in the UBS-text (2nd-4th ed.) and translators are wholly unaware that another important saying of Jesus has been snipped from the Gospels without even a hello.

Here is another possible format that makes the same mistake easy :

                                  Click on picture to enlarge.

Matt. 20:7

Matt. 20:7 (h.a.)

            ...λεγουσιν
αυτω οτι ουδεις ημας εμισθ-
ωσατο λεγει αυτοις υπαγετε 
και υμεις εις τον αμπελωνα
και ο εαν η δικαιον ληψεσθε

"They *said to him,
`Because no one hired us.'
He *said to them, `You go
also into the vineyard.'
and you'll get whatever is fair.'

---

INCLUDE LINE: C*, W, Δ, f13, 22, 33, Maj, f, h, q, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal ms Byz Maj (Majority of MSS), add αμπε λωνα μου και... C(Corr3), N, 174, 346, 828(=f13-part), 565, 1241, pc

OMIT: א, B, (D), L, (Z),Θ, (085), f1, 892, Lat, (Sy-S), Co αμπελωνα D, Z, 085, it, Sy-S, sa, mae-2 (+ εργαζεσθε ) NA has txt + mou for C(Corr3), but it reads Byz + mou as Swanson has it. K. Witte from Muenster confirmed this.

B: no umlaut

---

Once again Haplography strikes the tired copyist. Similar beginning spells the end for a useful but unessential clause. We can understand this as an accidental loss much better than as any kind of "copyist's explanatory gloss".

There are hundreds of unique statements in Matthew that scream out for explanation, yet copyists resisted the temptation to expand for hundreds of years. There is no probability in any copyist or editor straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel here.

The features of 'homoioarchton' are classic here. Simliar beginning and just the right length for a fumble.

W. Willker says: "Probably a harmonization to verse 4. There is no reason for an omission." - but the blatant homoioarcton is right in front of us!

W/H follow Aleph/B, with Nestle and UBS-3 in tow. No footnote is found in UBS-2, and most modern versions give no warning that another half-verse has been lost via clumsy error by the ancestor of Aleph/B.

Matt. 18:11

Matt. 18:11 (traditional text)

18:10 .................................................. ...ορατε μη κα-
ταφρονησητε ενος των μικρων τουτων λεγω γαρ υμ-
ιν οτι οι αγγελοι αυτων εν ουρανοις δια παντος βλεπ-
ουσιν το προσωπον του πατρος μου του εν ουρανοις
ηλθεν γαρ ο υιος του ανθρωπου σωσαι το απολωλος
τι υμιν δοκει εαν γενηται τινι ανθρωπω εκατον προβ-
ατα και πλανηθη εν εξ αυτων ουχι αφεις τα εννενηκ-
ονταεννεα επι τα ορη πορευθεις ζητει το πλανωμενον

Beware! -- do not
despise one of these little ones, for I say to you,
that their angels in the heavens do always behold
the face of my Father who is in the heavens;
for the Son of Man did come to save the lost.
`What think ye? if a scribe has a hundred verses,
and one of them there goes astray , does he not --
having left the copyist table, having gone into the
mountains -- then seek that which has gone astray?

---

Include verse 11: D K W X Δ Π 078 28 565 700 1071 1079 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 1646 2148 2174 Byz Maj (Majority of all Continuous MSS) Lect. l85pt it-a/aur/b/d/f/ff2/g1/l/n/q/r1 Vg Syr-C/p Arm Geo-1b Diatessaron Hilary(both variants) Chrysostom Augustine (with variations: ) (L-e/g/ 892-mg 1009 1010 1195 1216 l-[10 12 69 70 80 185pt 211 299 303 374 1642, l-950] it-c Syr-h Cop-bo(mss) eth.

Omit: א B L* f1 f13 33 892(txt) it-e/ff1 Syr-s/pal Cop-sa/bo geo-a Origen Apost. Can. Juvencus Euseb. Hilary(both variants) Jerome?

---

A second glance at the preceding line reveals a startling 14 out of 40 letters in the same order and similar position to the lost line, or 35% of the visual area for each line. almost 25% shared with the following line also helps to blur the position of the copyist.

Similar endings on three consecutive lines add to the fun, with someone in the Alexandrian stream dropping the ball early.

Naturally Hort and friends delete the verse, seeking the shortest
possible text. Nobody told them the shortest text is simply none at
all, and can be had anywhere.

The majority of modern translations delete the verse, which is I suppose some kind of 'majority reading'.

To paraphrase Metzger somewhat,

'The irony of the verse's content is overwhelming.'

Matt. 17:20-22

Matt. 17:20-22 (traditional text)

The omission of Matthew 17:21
is undoubtably yet another Haplography error, but the excuse for it is
so slim that the variant almost defies classifying, and we must leave
about an 80% chance of pure fatigue and incompetance as the real cause:

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 ανθρωπων

...faith the size of a mustard seed, you'll say to
this mountain, `Move from there,' and it will move
out; and nothing will be impossible to you:
this kind however, does not go
out if not by prayer and fasting."
And while they were gathering
together in Galilee, Jesus said to them,
"The Son of Man is going to be delivered
into the hands of men;

---

Include Verse 21: All the rest...Byz Maj (Majority of MSS), etc.

Omit: א, B Θ 33 892(txt) it-e/ff1 Syr-C/S/Pal Cop-Sa/Bo(mss) Eth(mss) Geo Euseb.

---

What can be said? The ancestor of Aleph/B is again guilty of a blunder.
The haplographic features are a poor excuse, but not non-existant.

Hort, Nestle, UBS all omit the verses, ignoring the vast quantity of
evidence for early existance and authenticity. Fasting and prayer are
not an exciting prospect for most people, even those friendly to the
Gospel message.

Most 'modern' versions follow the opinion of the critical editors over
the tradition of actual Christian use for nearly 2000 years.

Another verse slides down the slippery slope into the margin, perhaps
to disappear like other wounded soldiers cast off by generals more
concerned with abstract battles than physical realities on the ground.

By the way, if the master-copy our errorist used had dropped 2 redundant KAI's from the previous lines (a very common practice with the Alexandrians), the column width would work out perfectly, although this isn't really necessary, since right-side text-justifying wasn't standard till the 3rd/4th century, with narrower columns.

  ........................................πιστιν ως
  κοκκον σιναπεως  ερειτε  τω ορει
  τουτω μεταβηθι εντευθεν εκει  μετ
  αβησεται ουδε αδυνατησει υμιν
  τουτο δε το γενος ουκ εκπορευετ
  αι ει μη εν προσευχη και νηστεια
  ανα στρεφομενων δε αυτων εν τη
  γαλιλαια ειπεν αυτοις ο IΣ  μελλει
  ο ΥΣ  του ανθρωπου παραδιδοσ-
  θαι εις χειρας ανθρωπων...


Note that new similarities in beginning and ending of lines also appear.  This would be enough to generate the omission, which could then migrate to other MSS with a different text (i.e. with the "KAI"s still in place).

- Mr.Scrivener

Matt. 15:8

Matt. 15:8 (h.a.)

εγγιζει μοι ο λαος ουτος
ΤΩ ΣΤΟΜΑΤΙ αυτων και
ΤΟΙΣ χειλεσιν με τιμα η
δε καρδια αυτων πορρω
απεχει απ εμου

This people draws near Me (with)
the mouth of them and (with)
the lips honours Me,
but their heart is far
away from Me!

---

INCLUDE LINE: C, W, Δ 0106, f13-part, Byz Maj (Majority of MSS), f, q, Sy-H etc.

OMIT:  א  B  D  L Θ 073, 124, 788(=f13-part), 33, 579, 700, 892, 1424, pc, Lat, Sy-S/C/P, Copt(+ mae-2), Egerton 2, Clement, Origen, Didymus

Special Note::
B: has an umlaut : (a text-critical marking at line 39 A, p. 1255 : λαος ουτος ...ΤΟΙΣ χειλεσιν )

---

In the old UNCIAL (capital letter) style of writing, many letters appeared similar which do not appear the same in modern printed (small letter) texts of the New Testament. This is one of those cases where the Haplography features are quite obvious in an UNCIAL text, but difficult to spot using a modern cursive font.

The Letter Omicron (short "o" O) and Omega (long "o" Ω) in UNCIAL letters are very similar, as close as a capitol O and Q would be in English block letters. Uncial manuscripts were most often written without large spaces between words, in an effort to fit more on the page, and small strokes like "I" could often be faded or lost or taken for part of another adjacent letter.

Here a similar stretch of letters at the beginning of two lines resulted in the accidental loss of the first line.

This omission/variant is left undocumented in both Nestle and UBS-2/3, although it was noted in Westcott/Hort's original notes and Introduction.

The text-critical umlaut found in Codex Vaticanus (B, ms#1209) shows that the copyist of this manuscript was well aware of the dropped line, but faithfully copied the exemplar he was instructed to copy. In this manuscript, many hundreds of umlauts mark text-critical variants, and Codex B carefully notes the many places his exemplar departs from the common text using this technique.

Again, "modern" versions almost universally drop the half-line, because they are following the UBS text without much concern for its many undocumented differences from the Traditional text of the NT used by Christians for over a thousand years. One more time, an ancient error long abandoned has been allowed to creep back into the Biblical text undocumented.

Matt. 15:6

Matt. 15:6  - (h.t. / h.a.)

...και ου μη τιμησ-
η τον πατερα αυτου
η την μητερα αυτου

"...and does not hon-
-or his father 
or his mother

---

INCLUDE Phrase:
C K L W X Δ Π 1009 1010 1079 1195 1230 1242 1253 1344 1365 (1546) 1646 2148 2174, Byz Maj (Majority of MSS), Lect (all Lectionaries), it^-aur/f/ff1, vg^-cl, Syr^-s/p/h, Cop^-Bo?, Arm Aeth Diatess.^-Csyr, Origen Cyril

(omit: 1st "autou") f¹, l^-184, Geo^-B, Origen?

(omit: 2nd "autou") 084 f¹³, 33 700 892 1071 (1216)

(subst: KAI) it^-ff2/g1/l, vg^-ww, Chrysostom Jerome Cyril

OMIT Underlined Phrase:
- א, B, D, it^-a/d/e, Syr^-C, Cop^-Sa, Geo^-1

---

When we can see a difference of only three letters between successive awkward clauses, the Haplography alarm-bell should be going off loudly in the back of our heads. Notice the phrases are longer in Greek than in English translation (usually its the other way round). A bit of tiredness, and this adverbial modifier vanishes from a textual stream of transmission easily.

Once gone, no Alexandrian editor is going to willingly re-insert what looks like a redundancy (see verse 5 preceeding).

The awkwardness of the Greek (probably 'translation-Greek') is acutely felt here, as evidenced by at least four minor variations, all attempts to smooth the phraseology over. No wonder that a Haplography lapse was pounced on and reproduced further downstream. The full weight of the majority of every independant source of transmission is obscured by the minor variants, and the way they are listed separately in UBS-2.

Nestle rightly rejected this accidental omission, but UBS-2 follows Westcott/Hort, again presuming the omission to be original rather than an early ancestral error. Modern versions are left confused, with the American Standard Version (ASV), NIV and Revised Standard Version (RSV) omitting, while others retain the traditional text. Some later revisions of modern versions have sensibly restored the text.

Matt. 12:46-47

Matt. 12:46-47 (traditional text)

homoioteleuton

.................................................ε τι δε αυτου λαλ-
ουντος τοις οχλοις ιδου η μητηρ .....και οι αδελφοι
αυτου ειστηκεισαν εξω ζητουντες αυτω λαλησαι
ειπεν δε τις αυτω ιδου η μητηρ σου και οι αδελφοι
...σου ..εξω εστηκασιν ..ζητουντες ..σοι λαλησαι

.............................................. While he
yet talked to the people, see; his mother and his brethren
stood outside, desiring with him to speak.
Then one said unto him, see; thy mother and thy brethren
outside stand, desiring with thee to speak.

---

Include Verse: א(corr.a) Θ Π 0112 0250 family 1, family 13, 28 33 565 700 892 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz Maj (Majority of continuous MSS) lect.-333 it-a/aur/c/d/f/ff2/g1/h/l/q Vg Syr-P/H Cop-Bo Goth Arm Eth Geo Diatessaron Origen Chrysostom

Omit: א* B L 1009 l12 it-ff1 Cop-Sa

---

Never could four lines of coupled pairs be more prone to a haplographic error of the first kind.   A spark from the fireplace or a sneeze may have been enough to distract the copyist's glance, and so skip two more sacred lines of text.

And the early Egyptian copyist does not disappoint. He stumbles past the second verse in his desire to get the job done and get out of the baking copying-room in 110 degree desert weather, to enjoy a well-deserved and refreshing plunge in the cool Nile waters. Whether he was subsequently eaten by a crocodile, we may never know.

If all these haplographic boners were actually Byzantine "expansions" of the text, as Hort imagined, then our frantically driven text-bloaters were the most unimaginative ad-libbers ever born, and must have had the intellects and attention-spans of 1st graders.   But then how in that case did they have the cunning to consistently disguise their work as homoioteleuton errors? Surely the theory gives these verbose,  babbling madmen far too much credit.

Hort himself dared not completely excise this verse ( Matt. 12:47 ), and Nestle and USB timidly bracket the embarrassing gaffe, (betraying the true nature of all the other errors found in Aleph and B).

Yet the Revised Standard Version, Moffat, and Goodspeed lop off the text, and send it into oblivion, hoping to be rid of yet another wordy passage.  What Alexandrian editor confronted with Matthew's stilted, redundant but faithful recitation, wouldn't pounce on a shorter text, no matter what the original cause? And modern editors naturally follow suit.

Yet if we continue this way, reinstating every omission in every
ancient manuscript, our NT would quickly become a Swiss Cheese, and be
about as readable as a Scientology lecture, or a gem from Madame
Blavatsky.

Other possible formats that are especially vulnerable to homoioteleuton are as follows: