A.C. Clark (1914): h.t. singulars - Codex B

In chapter 5 of Clark's book The Primitive Text.., (1914), he lists many of the singular readings found in Codex Vaticanus (B), which present h.t. features:

-------------- QUOTE: ---

"B is written in 3 colums, with 42 lines / page and an average of 16-17 letters/line.  As compared with Aleph, B is a reticent witness.  It is, however, clear that it is derived from an ancestor containing 10-12 letters to the line. 

...the following omissions of B, or B-1, against Aleph, may represent lines of the model:

Mark  1:35      ...εξηλθε και απηλθε(ν)...  (10 chars) om. B (h.t.)
Mark  14:10  ...προς τους αρχιερεις ...  (11 chars) om. B (h.t.)
...
Acts 23:28:
                                                 ...βουλομενος δε 
  γνωναι την αιτιαν δι ην ενεκαλουν αυτω
  κατηγαγον αυτον εις το συνεδριον αυτων

where B omits κατηγαγον...αυτων (33 letters)  om. B (h.t.)

Matt. 10:37
...ο φιλων πατερα η μητερα υπερ εμε ουκ εστιν μου αξιος  
και ο φιλων υιον η θυγατερα υπερ εμε ουκ εστιν μου αξιος


where B omits  και... αξιος (42 letters)  om. B (h.t.)

Here the Oxyrh. papyrus 1170 (4th cent.) also omits the next clause (62 letters), which makes for a total of 104 characters in that MS.'

------------------------------ END QUOTE ---
mr.scrivener

A.C. Clark (1914) on homoeoteleuton (Pt. 2)

Continuing from A.C. Clark's first book, The Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1914):

"Chapter 1 (p. 1fwd):

'I referred to homoeoteleuton as a frequent cause of omission.  The word strictly means similarity of termination, but it is often used for any similarity, e.g., at the beginning of words, which would more appropriately be called homoeoarcton, or for the repetition of the same word (repetitio or geminatio [=dittography]).  In all such cases, the copyist was liable to pass from one similar word to the other, omitting the intervening words [and one copy of the doubled word].   The most frequent cause of omission is the repetition of the same word. 

...

I now proceed ...to outline the method which should be followed by anyone who embarks upon a similar inquiry.  The first task is to ascertain the content of a line in the archetype.  For this purpose 'telescoped' lines are of primary importance.  In all probability the common unit will be at once revealed.  The next step is to tabulate the omissions of the rival families, arranging them in order of magnitude.  It will then appear when multiples of a unit figure among the omissions.  The separate families should be treated in the same manner. 

The information thus acquired must be combined with that furnished by transpositions, dislocations, migratory variants, and corruptions of all kinds.   The most minute flaws are often the most important for the purposes of investigation. 
Above all the inquirer must not shrink from the labor of counting the letters.  No shorter method, such as that of numbering the lines of a printed text, can have any cogency which is possessed by the actual figures. 

I have seldom carried out a long numeration without being richly rewarded.  I imagine the reason to be that in the long passages occasional irregularities correct each other, and the average remains clearly visible.  Also, it is only in them that we can hope to find indications of the longer divisions, viz. columns, pages, and folios in the archetype.'

 Chapter 2 (p. 11 fwd)

"...I thought it well to prepare myself by making some examination of the Oxyrhynchus papyri.  ...I had to satisfy myself whether the lines exhibit regularity in content similar to the Old Latin MSS.  I found that this was so.  The papyri are of all shapes and sizes, sometimes written in long lines, but more commonly in columns of various breadth.  Sometimes they contain some 40 letters or more to the line, sometimes about 35, more frequently about 28, 24, or 22, very frequently 16-19, while a fair number, ...are written in very narrow columns, averaging 10-12 letters, or even less.  In all, however, although abnormally long or short lines occur, the general average soon asserts itself. 

...

In my work upon Latin MSS, I have found that where there are two or more columns in a codex, the tendency is for one column to be squeezed.  If there are three columns, it is generally the middle one that suffers; if there are two, the column on the left is often a little broader than the one on the right.  

The papyri are particularly free from abbreviations apart from a particular class, viz., nomina sacra.  ...

Also some of the Uncials, especially B and D, are chary in the use of abbreviations beyond IS XS THS PNA OUNOS PR US ANOS.  However on the whole, the bulk of the evidence is on their employment, and, as I do not wish to avail myself  of any license, I have treated this as normal.   There is some uncertainty as to the use of letters to express numerals.  ... The Uncials vary greatly in this respect.  On the whole it seems safest to suppose that the numerals were written in full, but the other possibility has to be taken into account.   

On examining the papyri I found many phenomena similar to those which I had observed in Latin MSS. "

A.C. Clark (1914) on homoeoteleuton

A.C. Clark produced two important works on NT TC, the first being The Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1914), and the second, his Critical Text of Acts (1933).  Although his continued investigation resulted in modifications and additional details, his basic position remained committed.

Here are some exerpts from the first book (Primitive Text..):

"PREFACE

...Whenever the readings of two MSS ...are compared, ...one of them does not contain passages which occur in the other.   In all such cases there are two possible explanations, viz., that the words are spurious, ...inserted by an interpolater..., or that they are genuine, and have been accidentally omitted by the other [copy].  The hypothesis of accident [omission] is highly probable, when there is a reason which will account for the omission. 

One such reason is universally recognized, viz., homoeoteleuton. [h.t.]  When a similar ending, or word occurs twice in the same sentence, a copyist [could have] easily passed from the first passage to the second, omitting the intermediate words.  This saut du meme au meme ["jump from meme to meme"] is the most prolific cause of omissions. 

There is another reason which is not infrequently suggested by editors, viz., that the scribe has accidentally omitted a line, or several lines, of his model.  When we have two MSS, one which is known to be a transcript of the other, we find actual instances of such omissions.  In the vast majority of cases however, we have only the copy, not the [exemplar].   Since all scribes [copyists] are subject to the same errors, it is reasonable to suppose that omissions in a particular MS may represent a line or number of lines [skipped] in an ancestor... the problem is to find an objective criterion..to detect line-omissions. 

...[groups of] short passages...doubted on the ground of their omission by a MS or family, frequently contain the same, or nearly the same number of letters.  Longer passages in the same way [are] multiples of this unit.  The natural inference is that the unit [and longer omissions] correspond to [physical] lines in [the layout of] an ancestor.

Ancient Uncial MSS are written with few abbreviations and no space between words [with] the number of letters per line ...a more or less constant [average] quantity.

It was also easy for a copyist to omit other divisions in his [exemplar], viz., a colum, page, or folio [folded sheet].   Since it is usual for MSS to have the same # of lines per page, it follows that the contents of columns, pages, & folios are similar [in size]. 

...

The chief result of my investigation has been to show the falsity of the principle brevior lectio potior ("prefer the shorter reading").  This was laid down by Griesbach as a canon of criticism in the words:

"Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auctoritate penitus destituatur, praeferenda est verbosiori.  Librari enim multo proniores ad addendum fuerunt quam ad omittendum." 

 "The Shorter reading, unless the authority of the witnesses completely lacks a weight and age, is preferable to the verbose. Copyists were  much more prone to add than to omit."

[But] this statement has no foundation in facts.  I may also observe that it is not so easy to invent as it is to omit. 
...
I had been brought up to look on the Revised Text as final, to smile at persons who maintained the authenticity of St. Mark 16:9-20 or St. John 7:53-8:11, and to suppose that the 'vagaries' of the 'Western text' were due to wholesale interpolation.   The object which I had in view was merely to study the mutual relations of the oldest Greek Uncials, notably, the Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus (Aleph), and Alexandrinus (A).  I was however, soon dislodged from this arrogant attitude, and irresistibly driven to very different conclusions. 
...
Nowhere is the falsity of the maxim 'Prefer the shorter reading' more evident than in the New Testament.  The process [over time in copying] has been one of contraction, not expansion.  The primitive text is the longest, not the shortest."

(- Clark, 1914,  Preface, iii-vii)

...

Whitney on h.t. errors (part 2) - Codex Vaticanus 1209

Again, on p. 27 of his introduction, Whitney shows that Codex B is no less rife with homoeoteleuton errors than Sinaiticus:

Codex B:  Mark 

 1:9 [and] it came to pass...
2:12  '...and glorified God, [saying,] "We never..." ' etc. (OL b follows!)
4:16  "These...are they that are sown upon the rocky ledges, [who,]
         when they have heard..." etc.

7:15   "..that defile [the] man..."  reading now "that defile a man."  This is a common error of B's.  In 12:30, this MS stands alone omitting the article 3 times!

10:46    ['And they come to Jericho.']

14:24    'And he said [unto them], "This is..." etc.
14:32   "Sit ye [here], while I pray..." 
15:12   "What then [will ye that] I shall do with [him whom] 
            ye call the King of the Jews?"
15:34   "My God, [my God,] why hast thou forsaken me?" (either edited or omitted accidentally as h.t.)

mr.scrivener

Vaticanus Singulars - Steven Avery's Research

I take the liberty of quoting Steven Avery's recent post on FightingFundamentalForums for review by those interested in h.t. questions, and the quality and nature of Codex Vaticanus 1209 (B).   Steven here in turn quotes an early examination of B by an editor of the British Quarterly Review:



"Perhaps the earliest article that saw the Vaticanus printing and recognized the corruption was also in the British Quarterly Review, back in 1858. Remember, this is before the strange Hortian theories of a pure Vaticanus, simply the observations of men of sense and intelligence and discernment.

================================================

British quarterly review - Vol 28 - (October, 1858)
http://books.google.com/books?id=fwcYAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA315
p. 315-332

Art. II.— Vetus et Novum Testamentum, ex antiquissimo Codice Vaticano. Edidit ANGELUS MAIUS, S.R.E. Card. Romae. Joseph
Spithöver. 1857. 5 vols. 4to.

At last, this long-expected work, which has, for the last twenty years, sorely tried the patience of the Biblical scholars of Europe and America, has made its appearance. The Vatican codex—the queen of MSS.—to inspect which Bentley, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and many others, have made journeys to Rome—is no longer a sealed book, an unknown volume. (p. 315)

================================================

On p. 320 is discussed Luke 2:14, Mark 3:29 and Luke 8:54, Matthew 6:13 and Luke 11:2, then the ending of Mark and the blank page, the blank page being new information. Then John 1:18 and John 5:3-4, the Pericope Adultera and Acts 8:37, Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 3:15.

... It now remains to mention one or two characteristic features of the MS. which the publication of its text will be the means of making generally known.

One thing which is very observable, in turning over the pages of this magnificent edition, is the vast number of mistakes which the original copyist has committed—that is to say, the very frequent substitution of one word for another, as the result of sheer carelessness. There is a notion very widely diffused amongst students of the Greek Testament that these most ancient MSS. of the sacred volume, so beautifully written in large uncial letters, are as much distinguished by their correctness as they are by their antiquity. The publication of the text of the famous Vatican codex is likely to scatter to the winds all such enthusiastic ideas ... (p.321-322)

The verses he then discusses as "carelessness of the original writer" are Mark 1:24, Mark 13:13, Luke 16:12, Acts 4:25, 1 Peter 2:1, 2 Peter 2:13 (2 errors), John 3:3, 1 Corinthians 1:2, Philippians 2:1, Romans 14:18, Jude 1:21, Romans 5:1 and Galatians 6:10.

Then he goes into the "most numerous class of blunders .. interchange of the personal pronouns" .. 2 Corinthians 1:6, 1:21 (twice) 5:12, "and so on throughout the copy"

Notwithstanding thee numerous errors we have already referred to, the omissions of the copyist still remain to be noticed; and this fault, of passing by what should be inserted, is undoubtedly the characteristic feature of this ancient MS. (p. 323 underlining added)

Examples are given at Mark 6:17, Mark 10:29, Mark 15:4, Luke 19:25, John 1:4, John 1:13 , John 3:34, John 4:3 (the last few were corrected by the original scribe in the margin).

Now in all these examples nothing can be plainer than that the transcriber of the Vatican codex accidentally, and by oversight, omitted to insert the words in question; and then, either discovered his error at the time, or else on reading through the MS. observed the deficiencies. In some cases half a verse is thus left out, and afterwards supplied in the margin, as at Acts xxiii. 28, where six words are wanting in the text, and afterwards added; —viz., κατήγαγον αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ συνέδριον αὐτῶν. (p. 323-324)

Let us stop for a minute. Are you getting the picture ? We have a blunderama scribe working on the Vaticanus NT. And yes, discussing the omissions ... the scribe would catch some of the blunders and place the real Bible text in the margin. Yet what does that tell you about the hundreds of other places of minority and ultra-minority abbreviated text ? Simple logic says that the scribe's proclivity for missing text, by lack of skill, or homoeoteleuton, or rushing, or any one of a number of possibilities, also was in play for a great many of those dozens to hundreds of other omissions. So if there are weak omissions, and there are hundreds to thousands overall, many very significant .. the exemplar of the scribe can only take some of the blame. The Vaticanus scribe caused much of the problem.

This is important, deep, fundamental to understanding why the modern versions have their corrupt, abbreviated text.

Let's take a break for a bit, and I hope we are all learning from the history and the study.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Shalom,
Steven Avery 

___________________________________

Hats off to Steven for digging out this early material.

Peace

Nazaroo

Matthew 10:37 - Codex B/D: Early h.t. Vanishes from UBS4!

This is a remarkable reading, not because it has any credibility as a reading (it is an obvious homoeoteleuton error, acknowledged by most critics and editors), but because of its strange history in the UBS text.

Here is the omission in Codex Vaticanus with its marginal correction:

Click to Enlarge: backbutton to return

It was duly and seriously noted in the apparatus of the UBS2 (1968, = NA26 etc.) and is indeed an important reading, because it appears to be a clear case of a previous error by a very early scribe, copied in independent lines to both Codex Vaticanus (B, and corrected in the margin there), and Codex Bezae (D).   That is, this was probably not committed coincidentally by both scribes, but by an ancient common ancestor, and duly copied (or cross-pollenated long before the 4th century).  Matt. 10:36-38:

  ..................... ..και εχθροι τ-

ου ανθρωπου οι οικιακοι αυτ-

ου ο φιλων πατερα η μητερα 

υπερ εμε ουκ εστιν μου αξιος 
και ο φιλων υιον η θυγατερα

υπερ εμε ουκ εστιν μου αξιος
και ος ου λαμβανει τον σταυ

ρον αυτου και ακολουθει οπ

ισω μου ουκ εστιν μου αξιος

 The similar ending extends to 1 1/2 lines, even at 23 characters per line.  This is an old error, from the 2nd or early 3rd century when papyrus copies of individual gospels carried only one or two columns per page.

The Master-Copy may have looked something like this:

Click to Enlarge

The UBS4 Fiasco:

But why did UBS4 (4th ed.  1993) remove it from the apparatus?    Surely not because it would damage the reputation of either Codex Vaticanus (B) or Codex Bezae.  Bezae is already well-known as a quirky and often unreliable text.   And if this is an error from a previous common ancestor, it cannot harm the reputation of the careful and skillful copyists of Vaticanus.

The answer is in the word "error".    Why?  Because it is a clear example of the careful copying of an ancient error by Codex Vaticanus.  An error of homoeoteleuton.  And it brings ALL such possible errors into sharp focus, especially those Variation Units where Vaticanus shares the omission with Codex Sinaiticus (א).

Because at least 75 of these probable h.t. errors, supported by (א/B) have been adopted as if they were original readings by the Hortian editors of the UBS text.

A large number of these readings are supported by earlier (2nd-3rd cent.) papyri, such as P66 and P75.  This was taken to mean the readings were original.  But the evidence can be more easily taken as proof of the obvious:  That most of these early h.t. errors do indeed go back to the 2nd century, but this fact merely reflects the poor state of the text and copying practice in that era, and not the purity of the 'Alexandrian' transmission stream behind (א/B).

So why delete from the apparatus this obviously significant h.t. error?  Because it, along with many other embarrassing cases, detracts from the reputation of the Alexandrian text-type, and the wisdom of following it.

peace
Nazaroo

Codex B: Acts 19:34 - dittography

We also must consider the opposite error, of accidental repetition of a letter, word or phrase (dittography), from the very same cause, namely a homoeoteleuton error, an eye-skip due to similar ending of lines.

We see this in Codex Vaticanus (B) at Acts 19:34:

Codex B: Acts 19:34 - dittography   Click to Enlarge

The phrase "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians" (ΜΕΓΑΛΗΗΑΡΤΕΜΙΣΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ = μεγαλη η Αρτεμις Εφεσιων) appears twice in Vaticanus while it only appears once in other manuscripts.  The cause was the similar line-end just before it ( ...των ...ιων ). 

Possibly the immediate master-copy that the scribe of Vaticanus was using for Acts was 20-21 characters per line in width, and resembled Codex Alexandrinus.  This was a very popular line-width in the early 4th century.

mr.scrivener

Hort on Homoeoteleuton & Codex B

 Although Hort wrote hundreds of convoluted pages in support of his favorite MSS, א and B, he was undoubtedly clever enough to avoid going too far, too often in many of his arguments.  As a result, he presents surprisingly lucid discussions on many occasions, sometimes as a necessary concession.

In one place, Hort is remarkably instructive on the subject of homoeoteleuton:

"¶ 312.  When the singular readings of B are examined for the purpose here explained, it is found that on the one hand the scribe reached by no means a high standard of accuracy, and on the other his slips are not proportionally numerous or bad.  Like most transcribers, he occasionally omits necessary portions of text because his eye returned to the exemplar at the wrong place. 

As the longer portions of text so omitted consist usually either of 12 to 14 letters or of multiples of the same, his exemplar was doubtless written in lines of this length.

Often, but not always, an obvious cause of omission may be found in homoeoteleuton, the beginning or ending of consecutive portions of text with the same combinations of letters or of words. Reduplications due to the same cause likewise also occur, but more rarely. 

More characteristic than these commonest of lapses is a tendency to double a single short word, syllable, or letter, or to drop one of two similar consecutive short words, syllables, or letters." 

(Hort, Introduction, ¶ 312, p. 234)

This paragraph informs us on many levels.  Hort concedes the following:

 The Scribe of B

(1)  The scribe of B is not very accurate, and makes plenty of mistakes.

(2)  Often the singular omissions of B are simple homoeoteleuton errors.

(3)  Many singular omissions lacking homoeoteleuton features are caused by the very same error, namely, eye-skips.

(4)  The singular omissions of B are mainly accidental haplographic errors.

(5)  The scribe omits text more often than he adds text (i.e., dittography).

(6)  The omissions are numerous enough to characterize the scribe as undistinctive and these lapses are among the commonest errors.

(7)  These errors are consistent enough to determine the probable column-width of the scribe's immediate exemplar, namely, 12-14 letters per column.

(8)  What really IS distinctive of the scribe of B is his own frequent habit omitting or duplicating even shorter portions of text, on the size of words, syllables, letters. (Hort immediately gives 13 examples.)

Hort is also very adamant and certain that the singular omissions are indeed accidents, and not alleged 'tendencies' or conscious habits of deliberate editing:

"¶ 313. ... A current supposition, ....that the scribe of B was peculiarly addicted to arbitrary omissions, we believe to be entirely unfounded, ..." (Hort,  ibid. p. 234)

Of particular importance in the list above, are (3) and (5), which speak volumes about the real nature of the omissions in both   א/B.

And (7), while it cannot be accredited to Hort (in fact, we believe Rendel Harris originated this kind of analyis: see our Harris Article) is equally important to our study of the ancestors of the ancestor of   א/B.

Procedurally, Hort was quite right to set aside non-singular omissions in characterizing the scribe of B (e.g., ignore omissions shared with א and other manuscripts), since these are likely to be errors from previous scribes, and not the final copyist of B. (cf. ¶ 314,  ibid. p. 235).   

Yet for our purposes, there is no need nor reason to set them aside at all.  They may not characterize the scribe of B, but they certainly characterize the scribes of previous copies in the chain prior to the common ancestor of  א/B. 

As we have noted, if singular readings can be classified on the basis of their physical features, (i.e., homoeoteleuton, & random omissions), and they can even be used to determine the column-width of exemplars, then obviously so can non-singular readings, provided the results are assigned to the right ancestor in a plausible transmission history.   There is no logical reason to treat them differently than singular readings, or assign different causes. 

Hort avoided this discussion, since his quest to construct the oldest possible text overrode his caution regarding the value of those old readings.  Hort did not openly discuss the possibility of homoeoteleuton in the 70  א/B omissions which have those very features, as this would have not only disqualified them and exposed the flaw in his own plan for textual reconstruction, but it would have weakened severely the credibility of the other 130 omissions as candidates for the original text as well.

In closing, Hort contrasts the omissions in the Western text, which he concedes may be deliberate and conscious, with the omissions of B as follows:

"¶ 314.  ...If however a like scrutiny is applied to important words or clauses, such as are sometimes dropped in the Western texts for the sake of apparent directness or simplicity, we find no traces whatever of a similar tendency in B.  

Omissions due to clerical error, and especially to homoeoteleuton, naturally take place sometimes without destruction of sense: and all the analogies suggest that this is the real cause of the very few substantial omissions in B which could possibly be referred to a love of abbreviation.    As far as readings of any interest are concerned, we believe the text of B to be as free from [deliberate] curtailment as that of any other important document."

(Hort, p. 237).

Thus again, Hort insists that singular omissions, (and omissions generally), if demonstrated, are in virtually all cases accidental errors, not deliberate edits.  This is an important point, for it paints a consistent picture not only of singular errors (those which belong to B itself), but also of non-singular omissions, which on the very same basis have probably arisen from the very same transcriptional causes, in other earlier exemplars. 

mr.scrivener

Contrasting Uses of the Asterisk

Here is a highlighted reproduction of Codex Colberto-Sarravianus, showing the use of an asterisk to indicate passages not found in the Hebrew (Massoretic) text, but appearing in the LXX (and vise versa: the asterisk is used for one case, the double-horizontal dot for the other). The symbol is repeated at the beginning of each line to indicate the extent of the section. This usage may have been coined by Origen himself in creating the Hexapla (a six-column comparative Hebrew/Greek OT). In any case, it is very early.

Click on this to view bigger

For contrast, we can see the same symbol (an asterisk) used in the NT pretty consistently to indicate the place where text should be re-inserted, because it was accidentally dropped by the copyist (homoeoteleuton). Below is the first column of John from Codex Vaticanus:

click to view and then backbutton

The first omission seems to have been caught by one corrector (later?), while the second may be by another. The first instance shows a more formal and organized correction, with the asterisk used to indicate where the insertion should go.

click to view

The second case does not require this, since the omission is at the end of the line, but it may be visible there. Not all correctors used the asterisk for this, but it seems a very common and useful convention.

mr.scrivener

Codex B: Jn 17:15 homoioteleuton

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to Return

Mr. Scrivener describes ably the situation here:

"The full force of the homoeoteleuton features is not seen until previous lines are considered at an appropriate line-length, as above. Fully 53% of letters are duplicated in the previous line, and another 20% in the line before that. There are 12 different vulnerable letter-alignments possible with this line-length alone. One can double that taking an alternate line-length of 15 chars per line."  

- Mr. Scrivener, TC-Alt-List

Any early papyri could have about this line-length, and be the culprit creating the opportunity for Codex B's blunder.    But other line-lengths offer similar opportunities:

 
Since there is no extant immediate ancestor for B, it could very well be a mistake by the copyist of B himself.

On the other hand, these errors are so common, that Codex B may have simply copied the error from his exemplar, and so we have a previous scribe to blame.

All textual critics recognise and class this as a "first-generation error", and so it will not be found in the apparatus of any critical edition of the Greek NT.

But this example along with the judgement of the majority of critics makes an obvious point:  Codex B and/or his ancestors were quite capable of making homoioteleuton errors and failing to catch them, allowing repetition of these mistakes for at least 1 or 2 copying generations.

 It is critically important then, to examine every minority reading found in Codex Vaticanus and its supporting witnesses, that presents the features of a probable homoioteleuton omission.

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to Return