Return to Index

Matt. 15:6 (traditional text)

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

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

---

INCLUDE LINE: 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: - 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 restored the text.

Return to Index

Matt. 15:8 (traditional text)

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 to 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.

Return to Index

Matt. 20:7 (traditional text)

            ...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-Palms 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.

Return to Index

Matt. 20:16 (traditional text)

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.

Return to Index

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.

Return to Index

Matt. 23:4 (traditional text)

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.

Return to Index

Matt. 26:3 (traditional text)

 ...τοτε συνηχθη-
σαν οι αρχιερεις
και οι γραμματεις
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.

Return to Index

Matt. 27:35 (traditional text)

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.

Return to Index

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.

Return to Index

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.

Return to Index

John 6:11 (traditional text)

ελαβεν δε τους αρτους ο IΣ [Jesus]
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.

Return to Index

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: but Jesus 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.

Return to Index

John 10:12-13 (traditional text)

ο μισθωτος δε  και ουκ
ων ποιμην ου ουκ εισιν
τα προβατα ιδια θεωρει
τον  λυκον  ερχομενον
και  αφιησιν  τα προ-
βατα  και φευγει και ο
λυκος αρπαζει αυτα και
σκορπιζει  τα προβατα
ο'δε μισθωτος  φευγει
οτι μισθωτος εστιν και
ου μελει αυτω περι των
προβατων.

"But the hireling, and not
the shepherd, whose sheep
are not his own, sees the
wolf coming,
and abandons the sheep,
and he flees; and the
wolf captures these, and
and scatters the sheep.
But the  hireling will flee,
since he is a hireling, and
does not care about the
sheep."

---

INCLUDE LINE: A^(corr), X, Δ ψ, 0141, f13, 22(marg), 157, 565, 700, 1071, 1424,
Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS)
Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, goth, [Trgmg]

OMIT LINE: P45, P66, P75, א, A*, B, D, L, W, Θ, 0211, f1, 22*, 33, 579, 1241, al, L253, d, e, Sy-S, Sy-Pal, Co, aeth, arm
W: further omits οτι μισθωτος εστιν, C: lacuna, B: no umlaut

All 3 main Greek Critical Texts Omit  the text: (WH, N, UBS2)
All Modern versions RETAIN THE TEXT (ASV NAS NIV RSV NEB NBV etc.).

---

Here is perhaps a wonderful example, because not only is the External Evidence (textual features) overwhelming in favour of a simple Haplography error, but the Internal Evidence is also overwhelming in favour of the fuller text.

In fact, the evidence is so strong for an accidental omission, that not a single 'modern' version has dared to omit the line! It seems that dozens of committees of editors and Bible critics had to confess over and over again that dropping the line made the whole parable/analogy absurd.

Why? Because then the last half of the verse, which talks of the Wolf, runs straight into " - because he is a hireling", making the Hireling and the Wolf the very same person, and making the story of the hireling fleeing from the wolf nonsensical and ridiculous.

Believe it or not, Westcott/Hort adopted the omission, insisting on mechanically following the textual evidence no matter how foolish, in search of the ever-retreating mirage of the 'Neutral Text'. Nestle, and UBS-2 blindly follow, believing (perhaps rightly) that this 'agreement in error' proves an earlier ancestor for Aleph/B.

Yet by the 1950s, thank God, somebody began to strongly suspect that this 'ancient ancestor' of Aleph/B was not the original text after all, but an all-too-human copy of the Gospels no better executed or preserved than any other manuscript, version, or ancient quotation of the text.

But what to do? Instead of taking a long hard second look at the dozens of omissions of whole and half-verses, of phrases and clauses, they had been busy deleting from the Holy Bible, the editors did what we can expect all cowards to do: Say nothing, and quietly ignore the "assured results" of Textual Criticism in this case, and hope that nobody noticed the embarrassing gaffe utterly entrenched in the Alexandrian Text.

Note that even the normally slavish Codex W simply couldn't stand the Alexandrian text as he found it, and decided to solve the problem his own way, by again deleting yet another half-line, to cover the awkward connection where the text came together after the first boo-boo.

But what should the editors of 'modern' versions have learned from this embarrassing episode? They should have recognised the dubious quality of these 'ancient' witnesses, and downgraded their authority. They should have learned to put more trust in the thousands of early Christians who wisely abandoned such poor copies of Holy Scripture in favour of better ones, and who independantly preserved the Traditional Text for us.

Return to Index

John 11:41 (traditional text)

     ...ηραν ουν  τον λιθον
ου ην  ο τεθνηκως  κειμενος
ο δε IΣ ηρεν τους οφθαλμους
ανω και ειπεν πατερ ευχαρισ-
τω σοι οτι ηκουσας μου

...then they took away the stone
from where the dead was laid;
But   Jesus   lifted His eyes
up and said, "Father I thank
You since You have heard Me..."

---

INCLUDE LINE: C(corr.3), Δ, 0141, f13, 700, 892S, 1424, Byz Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS)

OMIT LINE: P66, א, B, C*, (D), L, W, X, Θ ψ, 0233, 33, 157, 1241, pc, Lat, Sy, sa, ac2, arm

---

Once more, the reading is completely missing from the UBS-2 apparatus, and Nestle/Aland don't give adequate documentation either in their footnotes: They simply list the Traditional reading as "Byz" (=Byzantine). W. Willker has supplied at least some witnesses.

Many MSS are simply lacking the pages (e.g. P59/P75 ), but there is early Uncial support for the line, making both readings very old. The strongest clues to what happened are the double-Haplography features: similar beginning AND ending of lines, as well as similar letters in mid-line.

As with other examples, the wild variation in support between these potential cases of Haplography clearly indicate that these omissions come from different and independant sources: that is, many of them must be in fact errors, and not 'lucky preservations' of the original text.

We should not be surprised to find a rich supply of cases which suggest one of the most common errors, Haplography. The only more frequent mistakes will be spelling errors and word-order reversals, when a scribe skips a word and stuffs it in immediately afterward to avoid having to erase.

In this case, all the 'modern' versions drop the line without notes, snipping off yet another bit of text, and reviving one more ancient gaffe.

Return to Index

John 13:31-32 (traditional text)

οτε ουν εξηλθεν λεγει ο IΣ νυν
εδοξασθη ο υιος του ανθρωπου
και  ο θεος εδοξασθη εν αυτω
  ει  ο θεος εδοξασθη εν αυτω
και  ο θεος  δοξασει αυτον εν
εαυτω και ευθυς δοξασει αυτον

Then as He left, Jesus said, "Now
is glorified the Son of Man,
and God is glorified in Him:
if God is glorified in Him,
God also will glorify Him in
Himself, and glorify Him immediately!"

---

INCLUDE LINE: א(Corr.2), A, C(Corr.), K, Δ Θ ψ, f13, 33, 157, 565, 700, 1241, 1424, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS) Lat(aur(C), e, f, ff2(C), q, r1, vg), Sy-P, sa, bo(pt), goth, Or(Lem), Nestle/Aland-25th ed.

OMIT LINE: P66, א*, B, C*, D, L, W, X, Π*, f1, 2*, 579, 1071, al, L253, it(a, aur*, b, c, d, ff2*, l, 11A, 29, 47), vg(mss), Sy-S, Sy-H, ac2, mf, bo(pt), Westcott/Hort (1882)

---

Westcott/Hort follow their favoured manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus/Sinaiticus (B/Aleph). The UBS text places the line in single brackets, because it can't bring itself to firmly commit to the obvious Haplography, due to the ongoing (and increasingly embarrassing) deference for the early Alexandrian witnesses, chiefly Aleph/B.

But here even Nestle balked, and left the traditional text alone.

The only 'modern' version to follow Westcott/Hort here is the old American Standard Version of 1901. Virtually every New Testament scholar since Hort (1882) has long since abandoned defending this absurd omission by the old Uncials, and no modern translation has been willing to adopt the cut.

Even the support of Papyrus 66 (P66) gives no confidence in this boner, in which the original two lines differ by only a single letter! But the error was old, and copied by those using the Alexandrian manuscripts as their master-copies. Thankfully, independant and uncontrolled copying prevailed, preserving the line in the majority of MSS.

Its not that this omission is catastrophic to the passage, which retains reasonable sense without it. But no scribe/editor would insert an unneeded complex conditional clause (an "If...then" statement) into a flat monologue, especially when it adds absolutely nothing to the message.

The lesson is plain however: the Alexandrians were indeed prone to dropping lines and failing to correct them, allowing many such worthless variants to sneak into the copying stream. And it really is a worthless variant, when it adds nothing to the text either way.

Return to Index

John 17:12 (traditional text)

οτε ημην μετ αυτων
εν τω κοσμω
εγω ετηρουν
αυτους εν τω
ονοματι σου

"While I was with them
in the world,
I was keeping
them in your name [Father]..."

---

INCLUDE LINE: A, CC3, DC, X, D, Δ Θ ψ 0141, f13, 33, 157, 579, Maj, f, q, Sy, arm, goth
Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS)

OMIT LINE: P60(7th CE), P66, א, B, C*, D*, L, W, f1, 1071, pc, Lat, Co, Did

---

Another minor, but significant case of Haplography (homoioarcton - similar beginnings).

Its just a small stutter in the copying stream, but no argument can be made that anyone could even have conceived of adding "in the world" to this sentence, for any reason. The content of the phrase is so self-evident that no one could imagine needing to spell it out.

Only the original author (John the Evangelist), who is instead simply keeping a record of an actual speech, would have included this. You don't tug on superman's cape, and you don't needlessly shorten a speech from Jesus.

By now we've come to expect Aleph/B's ancestor to drop lines from time to time.

Why do all 'modern' versions leave out the text? Because the UBS-2 Greek text (following Westcott/Hort) has dropped the phrase, without any footnote at all. Most of the English translators were probably unaware of yet another undocumented and unwarranted alteration of the traditional text.

Return to Index

John 19:16-17 (traditional text)

τοτε ουν παρεδωκεν
αυτον αυτοις ινα
σταυρωθη παρελαβον
δε τον ιησουν
και απηγαγον
και βασταζων
τον σταυρον αυτου

So then [Pilate] Handed him
over to them in order to
be crucified. And they
took along Jesus
and led him off,
and carrying
his cross, ...

---

INCLUDE LINE: D(S), K, P, D, Q, 157, 1071, 1241,
Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS)
(KAI) A, N, W, 0290, f1, 565, 579 al
(+ auton) - א,
(+ eis to praitwriaon) - M?, U, G, 700, al, Lect(mss), Sy-Pal(mg)
(+ kai epethhkan autw ton stauron) - f13, L844, Or(Lat) (118)

OMIT LINE: B, L, X, ψ, 0141, 33, pc, it(a, aur, b, c, e, ff2, r1), bo

---

It matters not whether the eye slipped across a long line or down a short one in a Haplography accident, and we can expect a fair share of short skips as well as long ones, when the result is still readable and does not alarm the proof-readers. This is just one such common example.

Many are of course repaired, not least because it is easier to erase only a short phrase than a whole line. Consequently, many short skips are fixed on the fly.

Yet here, as elsewhere, Westcott/Hort take the textual readings of Aleph/B, while Nestle follows, and UBS-2 as well. The obvious Haplographic features of the variants have gone unnoticed.

Naturally most 'modern' versions simply use the UBS-text, and another short but undocumented error finds its way back into modern translations.