Gaffs in UBS Greek text (case by case): #1 HAPLOGRAPHY
Deliberate Changes versus Accidental Alterations
Deliberate alterations to the text can be a result of common theological influences operating independantly, or they can be simply imported artificially between text-types and genealogical lines. Thus they are unreliable indicators of either text-type or genealogical dependance, even when they are perpetuated by copying.
On the other hand, accidental errors can indeed be used to show genealogical dependance, and classify manuscripts into text-types, if these errors are of a kind that would be perpetuated. As noted above, the peculiar error of haplography is just the ideal type of error to establish genealogical relationships and offer stable features of a text-type. An error of haplography (accidental omission) is likely to be copied unnoticed, especially if the material dropped has no special value or theological impact. It has the further advantage of being rather easy to spot and having unambiguous features: the cases of use will have a combination of likely Homoioarcton, Homoioteleuton, plus a lack of theological or doctrinal signficance to the omitted material.
Haplography in Mark
Of the some 35 places in Mark where the critical Greek text departs from the traditional text significantly, deleting whole or half verses, and where modern Bibles follow them, almost a third are obvious cases of haplography. The manuscript evidence is also just what we would expect and require for these cases to be clinching:
Now many saw them going, and knew them, and they ran there on foot from all the towns, and got there ahead of them, and they gathered together to Him, and exiting (the boat) he saw a great throng, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things.
the 4th line (underlined) is dropped by Aleph, B, critical Greek texts, and modern versions.
Here both a similar beginning and ending of two consecutive lines has caused the scribe's eye to slip and drop a line from the ancestor of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two manuscripts stand alone (along with the 'usual suspects', a handful of lesser Alexandrian witnesses), against the overwhelming evidence for inclusion of the verses from all other text-types and witnesses (early fathers, versions etc.)
Yet moronically, almost all modern versions follow the painfully obvious error of the 'two oldest and bestest manuscripts' against all other textual evidence, and common sense.
Nothing is really lost by the adoption of either reading (with or without the line), except for the reputation of the Alexandrian scribes, and the credibility of modern Bible editors.
Mark 8:26-27 (traditional text)
KΑI ΑΠΕΣTΕIΛΕN ΑΥTON ΕIΣ OIKON ΑΥTOΥ ΛΕΓΩN MHΔΕ ΕIΣ THN KΩMHN ΕIΣΕΛΘHΣ MHΔΕΕIΠHΣ TINI EN TH KΩMH KΑI ΕΞHΛΘΕN O IHΣOΥΣ KΑI OI MΑΘHTΑI ΑΥTOΥ ΕIΣ TΑΣ KΩMΑΣ KΑIΣΑΡΕIΑΣ THΣ ΦIΛIΠΠOΥ
And he sent him away to his home, saying, "neither enter the town, Nor tell anyone in the town." And Jesus went on with his disciples, to the villages of Caesare'a Philip'pi;
Here again, the scribe copies the first line beginning with 'MHΔΕ', then looking back at his exemplar fails to notice TWO lines starting with 'MHΔΕ' and continues from 'KΑI'. The similar content in both lines doesn't help either.
Once again, instead of noting the obvious, modern versions follow their blind guides and the critical text.
Mark 9:49-50 (traditional text)
ΠΑΣ ΓΑΡ ΠΥΡI ΑΛIΣΘHΣΕTΑI KΑI ΠΑΣA ΘΥΣIΑ ΕΛI ΑΛIΣΘHΣΕTΑI
KΑΛON TO ΑΛΑΣ ΕΑN ΔΕ TO ΑΛΑΣ ΑNΑΛON ΓΕNHTΑI
ΕN TINI ΑΥTO ΑΡTΥΣΕTΕ ΕXΕTΕ
ΕN ΕΑΥTOIΣ ΑΛΑ KΑI ΕIΡHNΕΥΕTΕ ΕN ΑΛΛHΛOIΣ
For everyone will besalted with fire And every sacrifice salted with salt. Salt is good;
but if the salt has lost its saltness,
how will you season it?
Have salt in yourselves,
and be at peace with one another."
Here we have the alternate error, the similar ending of a line rather than beginning. The result is the same: loss of a line, and the same manuscripts, critics, and modern editions follow along right into a ditch.
'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.'
So they are no longer two but one flesh.
There you have it: similar beginnings of line again, resulting in the loss of the first line this time. The Alexandrian manuscripts, critics and modern versions numbly follow.
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
KΑI ΠOΛΛOI TΑ IMΑTIΑ ΑΥTΩN ΕΣTΡΩΣΑNΕIΣ THN OΔON ΑΛΛOI ΔΕ ΣTOIΒΑΔΑΣ KΥΨΑNTΕΣ ΕK TΩN ΑΓΡΩN KΑI ΕΣTΡΩNNΥON ΕIΣ THN OΔON KΑI OI ΠΡOΑΓONTΕΣ KΑI OI ΑKOΛOΥΘOΥNTΕΣ ΕKΡΑZON ΩΣΑNNΑ ΕΥΛOΓHMΕNOΣ O ΕΡXOMΕNOΣ ΕN ONOMΑTI KΥΡIOΥ
And many spread their garments on the road, and others spread leafy branches which they had cut from the fields and spread them on the road. And those who went before and those who followed cried out,
"Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!
Its easy to see here how the scribe, already fatigued by having to work with an 'inferior' Byzantine text-type, went completely cross-eyed and lost a line out of this cluster.
Again, nobody in the Alexandrian stream was going to pick up the pieces here, And we could have predicted that critics would just close their eyes and hope the shorter text would at least remove some of the headache.
Modern versions follow like donkeys tracking a retreating carrot on the end of a stick.
Mark 12:33 (traditional text)
KΑI TO ΑΓΑΠΑN ΑΥTON ΕΞ OΛHΣ THΣ KΑΡΔIΑΣ KΑI ΕΞ OΛHΣ THΣ ΣΥNΕΣΕΩΣ KΑI ΕΞ OΛHΣ THΣ ΨΥXH KΑI ΕΞ OΛHΣ THΣ IΣXΥOΣ KΑI TO ΑΓΑΠΑN TON ΠΛHΣION ΩΣ ΕΑΥTON ΠΕΡIΣΣOTΕΡON ΕΣTIN ΠΑNTΩN TΩN OΛOKΑΥTΩMΑTΩN KΑI ΘΥΣIΩN
and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbour as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."
Of course you didn't expect an Alexandrian scribe to get this one right did you?
Well, this is an obvious accident waiting to happen. And it did: to the whole Alexandrian geneaological tree. But not a single monkey climbed back up to replace the lost floorboard in the clubhouse. And yet of all places, this would have been the one we would have hoped the modern versions would dare not follow brain-dead critics. And yet they did, right into the land of Mordor. Apparently 'souls' are an expendable item in Egypt.
They began to be sorrowful, and to say to him one by one, "Not I?" and another, "Not I?"
Now you knew no Alexandrian Editor would let this stand. It would just go against every editing impulse he spent his whole life learning. And how could textual critics and modern versions do otherwise?
Mark 14:68
O ΔΕ HΡNHΣΑTO ΛΕΓΩN OΥTΕ OIΔΑ OΥTΕ ΕΠIΣTΑMΑI ΣΥ TI ΛΕΓΕIΣ KΑI ΕΞHΛΘΕN ΕΞΩ ΕIΣ TO ΠΡOΑΥΛION KΑI ΑΛΕKTΩΡ ΕΦΩNHΣΕN KΑI H ΠΑIΔIΣKH IΔOΥΣΑ ΑΥTON
But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you mean." And he went out into the gateway, and the **** crowed.
And the maid saw him,...
It seems unreasonable to think even an inexperienced Alexandrian scribe doesn't know what a **** is, and so find himself compelled to expunge the foreigner. But can any modern Bible editor/translator even hope to present a credible argument that this line was not an original part of Mark's Gospel? Please.
Well, that's nearly ten examples found just by a brief glance over the UBS critical text, and using their own footnotes. What are the editors of modern versions thinking?
Note that none of these examples can be interpreted as 'interpolations' by any rational argument. They cannot be 'scribal glosses' accidentally copied into the text from the margin, nor can they be deliberate edits, for none of them add any theological, apologetic, dialectic, or doctrinal content at all to any of the passages. They cannot be imaginative inventions or elaborations of the texts in which they are found, nor can they be remotely construed as 'harmonizations' either to the immediate context or Synoptic parallel passages. One will look in vain for any better explanation than simple haplography here, and this would go for about 200 such cases sprinkled throughout the New Testament.
The 19th century naive and mechanical application of the Textual Rule of Griesbach, "Prefer the Shorter Reading" is simply nonsense in these cases.
There is no plainer case for an error than a blatant haplography.
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
But new wine must be
put into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved; And no one after drinking old wine
desires new;...
Luke 9:55-56: 'and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of: For the Son of Man has come not to destroy men's lives, but to save them.' (homoioarcton: kai..., kai... )
Luke 12:39 "he would have watched and" (homoioteleuton: kai, ...kai, )
Luke 17:9 "him?! I think not!" (homoioarcton: ou.., ou.. )
Luke 17:24 "in His day" (homoioteleuton: anthropou, ...autou, )
Luke 19:45 "therein and them that bought" (homoioteleuton: ...ountaV, ...ontaV)
Luke 22:68 "Me, nor let Me go" (homoioteleuton:...qhte, ...shte)
Luke 23:23 "and of the chief priests" (homoioteleuton:...wn, ...wn)
Luke 24:42 "and of an honeycomb" (homoioarcton: kai..., kai...)
Nor can these 'oversights' by the UBS editors be in any way accidental. In fact, (besides leaving out footnotes entirely sometimes), the critical apparatus has been encumbered in order to actually DISGUISE these cases of Haplography, so that they are more difficult to spot: The editors sytematically include the previous word of every omitted portion (needlessly), making it more difficult to see exactly what was left out, and why, because the similar endings and beginnings must now be hunted down, found and compared.
(more to follow...)
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 15th March 2006 at 12:07 PM.
The Problem with this scripture is complicated by two layers of confusion.
The first concerns the Greek text.
While the Traditional (Majority/Received) Greek text of Mark reads as follows:
"...παν το εχωθεν εισπορευμενον εις τον ανθρωπον
ου δυναται αυτον κοινωσαι.
οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου την καρδιαν
αλλ' εις την κοιλιαν,
και εις τον αφεδρωμα εκπορευεται, καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα."
The Hort/Nestle/UBS text however, reads καθαριζων, ('[he was] purifying'), thus ending the quotation after εκπορευεται, and setting off the last phrase as Mark's explanation in the narrative (rather than a continuation of Jesus' speech). This reading is only supported by three manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), Vaticanus (B), and Alexandrinus (A), against the entire corpus of thousands of other MSS.
"...παν το εχωθεν εισπορευμενον εις τον ανθρωπον
ου δυναται αυτον κοινωσαι.
οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου την καρδιαν
αλλ' εις την κοιλιαν,
και εις τον αφεδρωμα εκπορευεται." - καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα.
What is the significance of the change? It represents a stage in the Romanization (Gentilizing) of the New Testament, in which early editors tried to remove the embarrassing "Jewish" elements and downplay the Jewish origins and teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, in the process of making Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire.
We can see the significant impact of the alteration of a single letter in one word in the resulting translation:
The Traditional text reads:
"...everything from outside entering into the man is not able to make him 'common'; because it doesn't enter into his heart, but into the intestine, and into the toilet passes, purifying [the man] of all the foods..."
The Traditional text is straightforward, and simply states the obvious, that even if food temporarily enters a man, it also leaves again, restoring a man's purity (e.g. through fasting). There is no "magical" meaning attached to Jesus' words, nor is it needed, in order to make sense of the teaching.
The UBS text reads:
"...everything from outside entering into the man is not able to make him 'common'; because it doesn't enter into his heart, but into the intestine, and into the toilet passes." - [he was ] purifying all foods...
Naturally, all 'modern' versions, based on these 4th century Roman heavily edited ecclesiastical texts make Mark say in the narrative that Jesus had "declared all foods clean".
But this not only rests on shakey textual ground, but it rests also on a super-imposed meaning based on Roman Catholic popular teaching.
When we look at the context, the correct reading is even clearer.
(1) Jesus lived as a law-abiding Jew during His public ministry.
(2) Had Jesus and His disciples been actually breaking the Jewish Food Laws, the Pharisees would hardly have quibbled about hand-washing, but would have accused Him (as they later did) of breaking with Jewish Law (Torah).
But the worst the Pharisees can observe is that some of Jesus' disciples forgot to wash their hands.
(3) Had Jesus taught that "all foods were clean" during His public ministry, all the Apostles would have long known of it, and Peter would have no need of any "vision" in Acts to clarify things.
(4) Nor would the Apostles in council have needed to review the matter and issue a simplified set of food-laws for Gentiles, if Jesus had taught that JEWS did not need to keep the Food Laws.
This is just another case of 19th century textual critics running after and idolizing a handful of 4th century manuscripts over and against the traditional text of the New Testament used by Christians for a thousand years.
Mark 7:19 is a good example of what happens when Protestants goof off.
peace
Nazaroo
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Thanks for all that information, N. How did you find these?
I find the whole subject very interesting. I would say, however, that I have always believed that the Lord followed Jewish food laws, as far as any other first century rabbi would have done, and that this is pretty well understood in mainstream Christian thinking.
__________________
A bruised reed shall He not break, and the smoking flax shall He not quench.
Isaiah 42:3
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
Thanks for all that information, N. How did you find these?
I find the whole subject very interesting. I would say, however, that I have always believed that the Lord followed Jewish food laws, as far as any other first century rabbi would have done, and that this is pretty well understood in mainstream Christian thinking.
I quite agree with you. To be a plausible historical teacher in ancient Israel, Jesus would have to have kept the basic food laws.
Had Jesus not done so, the Pharisees would hardly have faulted him and his disciples for not washing their hands. They would have instead condemned him for trying to change the customs of the Jewish people, as they did Paul (falsely).
peace
Nazaroo
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
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.
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Linear Mode
