Romans 15:29 (h.t.)

Romans 15:29 (traditional text)

Homoioteleuton
οιδα δε οτι ερχομενος προς
υμας εν πληρωματι ευλογιας
ΤΟΥ ευαγγελιου ΤΟΥ χριστου
ελευσομαι

but I have known that coming
to you -- in the fulness of the blessing
OF THE good news OF THE Christ
I shall come.

---

INCLUDE LINE: א(corr.), ψ, 33, 88 104
181 326 330 436 451 614 1241 1877 1962 1984 2127 2492 2495
Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS)
Lect. it-d/e/m Vg-Cl Syr-P/H (Ephraem) Aeth.-ro Chrysost. THeod. (John-Dam.)

OMIT LINE:
P46, א*, A B C D G P, 81 629 630 1739 1881 it-ar/d/e/f/g/x/z, Vg-ww, Copt-Sa/Bo Arm Clement Origen-Lat Ambrosiast. Pelag. [Sedulius-Scotus ?]

---

Another short case of similar endings, this one unusual in that both ends were simultaneously dropped. But this subcategory of boo-boo is not that uncommon with short bursts of text containing multiple repetitions. Dean Burgon long ago noted a similar error in Luke 16:21 by the scribe of Codex Sinaiticus (א) which went unnoticed for centuries.


Westcott/Hort, Nestle, UBS2 all omit the phrase, completely changing the meaning of the verse. UBS-2 has it in the apparatus, but don't expect a useful footnote in the average 'modern' version.

Romans 15:24 (h.t.)

Romans 15:24 (traditional text)

.........ως εαν πορευ-
ωμαι εις την σπανιαν
ελευσομαι προς υμας
ελπιζω γαρ διαπορευο-
μενος θεασασθαι υμας
και υφ υμων προπεμφ-
θηναι εκει...
........................when
I may go on to Spain,
I  will come  to you,
for I  hope in passing
to see you, and by you
to be carried
forward hence,...

---

INCLUDE LINE: Koine Greek Byz Maj (Majority of continuous MSS)

OMIT LINE: p46 A-pc (B D G-pc W)
(- from Nestle apparatus)

---

Another simple "oops", and a line is lost. This time homoioArcton (similar beginning of line) and a shared letter midline. Depending upon the line-length of the original copied from, there is also a potential homoioTeleuton (similar ending) as well!


Westcott/Hort & Nestle omits, UBS follows (the B text) with no apparatus, and the modern versions follow UBS with no footnote.

Romans 14:21

Romans 14:21 (traditional text)

homoioteleuton

καλον το μη φαγειν κρεα
μηδε πιειν οινον μηδε εν
ω ο αδελφος σου προσκοπτει  
η σκανδαλιζεται η ασθενει

Good, [is] this; not to eat flesh,
nor to drink wine, nor to act in a
way that your brother will stumble,
or is made to fall, or is weak.

---

INCLUDE LINE: א(corr) B D G (P) ψ, 0209vid 33 88 104 181 326 330 436 451 614 629 630 (1241 transp.) 1877 1881 1962 2127 2492 2495 Byz Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS), Lect. It-ar/d/dem/e/f/g/x/s, Vg Syr-H, Cop-Sa, Arm
Ambrosiast. Basil Chrysos. Theod. (1984 1985 it-m transp.)

OMIT LINE:
א^-a, A, C, 048 81 1739 it-r1 [Syr-Pal(pt)], Copt-Bo, aeth,
Marcion Origen(pt:gr/lat), Ephraem Aug. John-Dam.

---

A simple case of homoioteleuton.

The reasoning is typical of Paul, composing on the fly and trying to cover the key cases.

Westcott/Hort omit, Nestle follows, but UBS2 omits and gives a lengthy footnote, indicating some doubt as to the correct reading.

The possible source of the omission, Marcion (whether accidental or simply opportunistic) is disturbing.


Nonetheless, all 'modern' versions also omit, leaving a confused and poorly documented lacuna.

Romans 14:6 (h.t.)

Romans 14:6 (traditional text)

HomoioTeleuton +
ο φρονων την ημεραν κυριω ... φρονει και ο
μη φρονων την ημεραν κυριω ου φρονει και ο
... εσθιων κυριω ..... εσθιει ..... ευχαριστει γαρ τω θεω και ο
μη εσθιων κυριω ουκ
εσθιει και ευχαριστει ....... τω θεω
He who is ..... regarding the day, to the Lord he doth ..... regard [it], and
he who is not regarding the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it].
He who is eating, to the Lord he doth eat, for he doth give thanks to God; and
he who is not eating, to the Lord he doth not eat, and doth give thanks to God.

---

INCLUDE LINE: Koine text, 33 etc. (miniscules), Byz Maj (Majority text)

OMIT LINE: Heschian (Egyptian = B/ א /C / A? [ΔΨ?] ) text,
von Soden gives both readings equal probability
(notes courtesy of Nestle text)

---

A formal case of Haplography could never have a more perfect form than this; the two lines differ by only three letters. 3/44 counting word-spacing, or an agreement in exact content of about 93%.

No editor or scribe would create such a monstrosity just to make Paul's argument more complete. Instead we have Paul's usual thorough "either ...or" style of debating, coupled with one tired copyist, followed by eager editors (excisors).


The dual-line structure so common in Hebrew poetry and proverb is a plain Pauline Hebraism. The internal evidence for authenticity is given in the immediately following parallelism.

WH, Nestle, UBS opt for the shorter text on the basis of the "textual evidence" (i.e., Aleph/B), and UBS inexplicably leaves out any textual footnote whatsoever.

Naturally 'modern' versions following the UBS text omit the verses without even a note to say goodbye.

Romans 13:9 (h.t./h.a.)

Romans 13:9 (traditional text)

     ...το γαρ ου μοιχευσεις
ου φονευσεις ου κλεψεις 
ου   ψευδομαρτυρησεις

ουκ επιθυμησεις και ει τις
ετερα εντολη εν τουτω τω
λογω ανακεφαλαιουται εν
τω αγαπησεις τον πλησιον
σου ως εαυτον

or, `Do not commit adultery,
Do not murder, Do not steal,
Do not bear false witness,
Do not covet;' and if there is any
other command, in this word
it is summed up, in this: `You
shall love your neighbor as yourself;'

---

INCLUDE LINE: א (P) Ψ 048 81 88 104 326 330 436 451 629 1962 1984 2127 Byz Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS) It-ar/c/dem/gig/s, Vg-cl Cop-Bo Arm Aeth Origen(Lat) Chrysostom (2495 Syr-H).  Lect,

OMIT: p46 A B D G 33 181 614 630 1241 1739 1877 1881 1985 2492 Lect. It-d/e/f/g/x Vg-ww Syr-P Cop-Sa Goth Ambrosiast. Amb. Aug. Cyril Theod. John-Dam.

---

Here's another big clump of Haplographic features waiting for a victim. And soon one scribe came, to fulfill the requirement of falling on one's copy-face.

HomoioArcton/Teleuton is written all over these five consecutive clauses. Since the list of Ten Commandments is not complete anyway, who is going to notice one of five examples falling through the cracks?


No scribe/editor would add only one commandment to an incomplete list. Its another case of Paul's wordiness causing a copyist to poke himself in the eye with his stylus.

W/H, Nestle, UBS2 all omit, following Codex B even when the oldest Uncial, Codex Sinaiticus chooses to differ, exposing this to be a Haplographic error more recent than the ancestor of either manuscript. Now is a good time to take note that papyri like P46 are not that much older (c. early 3rd cent.), and may even be close relatives of an intermediate exemplar for Vaticanus (B).

"modern" translations follow Hort in omitting the Commandment, and also omitting any witness to the tampering, false or otherwise (nyuk nyuk).

Romans 11:6 (h.a.)

Romans 11:6 (traditional text)

ει δε   χαριτι ουκετι  εξ εργων,
επει η χαρις ουκετι γινεται χαρις
ει δε εξ εργων ουκετι εστιν χαρις
επει το εργον ουκετι εστιν εργον


but if by grace,   not then from works, 
else the grace no more becomes grace;
but if from works, not then  is it grace, 
else the work  no more is work.

---

INCLUDE LINE: א(corr) (B) ψ 88 104 181 330 436 451 614 1241 (1962) 1984 1985 2492 (2495) Byz Maj (Majority of MSS) Lect. Syr-P/H, (Aeth) Chrysost. Theodor. Gennad. Ps-Oecumenius Theophyl.

OMIT: p46 א* A C D G P (81) 629 630 1739 1881 it-ar/d/dem/d/f/g/x/s Vg Cop-Sa/Bo Arm Origen(Lat) Ambrosiast. Chrysos(comm) Theod (comm) John-Damasc.

---

Paul's long argument borders on repetition, because of its completeness. This is something that often happens in writing as opposed to speaking. A letter affords a chance to be thorough.

The repeating vocabulary also creates plenty of cross-eyes while copying. It is understandable that many a scribe did not fully understand the complex arguments of Paul, and so both lines appear extremely close in both content and meaning. Only careful reading makes the complimentarity of both sentences plain.

But such precise but longwinded arguments become a fertile ground for haplography errors, as in this case. At the same time, it is possible that an Alexandrian editor felt the repetition of ideas was indeed redundant, and has sought to improve the situation by excision (possibly after the variant first appeared).

Remarkable here is that this error appears to have flooded the Latin stream of transmission, and swept the old uncials under its influence too. Nonetheless, the Greek MSS support for the line is overwhelming.

All critical editors follow the Ancient Alexandrian/Caesarean tradition of prefering the shorter text, and the modern versions follow, without explanations.

Romans 9:27-29

Romans 9:27-29 (traditional text)

..........το καταλειμμα σωθησεται
λογον γαρ συντελων   και συντεμνων
 εν  δικαιοσυνη οτι λογον συντετμημενον
ποιησει κυριος επι της γης και καθως
προειρηκεν ησαιας...
the remnant shall be saved;
for a word He is finishing, and is cutting short
in righteousness, because a word cut short
will the Lord do upon the land; even as Isaiah
saith before, ...

---

INCLUDE LINE: Aleph (corr.) D G K P 33 88 104 181 326 330 451 614 629 630 1241 1877 1962 1984 1985 (2492) 2495 Byz Maj (Majority of MSS) Lectionaries It (ar/d/dem/e/f/g/x/s), Vg Syr-H, Goth Arm Euseb. Ambros. Chrysos. Euthalius Ps-Oecumen. Theoph.

OMIT: (p46vid) Aleph* B 1739 1881 (2127) Syr-P, Cop-Sa/(Bo-part), AEth Origen Euseb., August. (Theod.) John-Damas.

---

A classic case of homoioteleuton (similar ending) with a generous overlap in the content and syllables in the middle of the sentence.

Westcott/Hort, Nestle & UBS all run after the favoured uncials, but since this time UBS-2 gave a reasonable footnote, a few modern versions like the New Berkeley Version (NBV) manage to escape repeating the mistake. They merely bracket the clause in question, but leave it in the text.