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:
Mark 6:33-34 (original / traditional text)
KΑI ΕIΔON ΑΥTOΥΣ ΥΠΑΓONTΑΣ
KΑI ΕΠΕΓNΩΣΑN ΠOΛΛOI
KΑI ΠΕZH ΑΠO ΠΑΣΩN TΩN
ΠOΛΕΩN ΣΥNΕΔΡΑMON ΕKΕI
KΑI ΠΡOHΛΘON ΑΥTOΥΣ
KΑI ΣΥNHΛΘON ΠΡOΣ ΑΥTON
KΑI ΕΞΕΛΘΩN ΕIΔΕN ΠOΛΥN OXΛON
KΑI ΕΣΠΛΑΓXNIΣΘH ΕΠ ΑΥTOΥΣ
OTI HΣΑN ΩΣ ΠΡOΒΑTΑ MH ΕXONTΑ ΠOIMΕNΑ
KΑI HΡΞΑTO ΔIΔΑΣKΕIN ΑΥTOΥΣ ΠOΛΛΑ
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.
Mark 10:7 (Traditional text)
ΕNΕKΕN TOΥTOΥ KΑTΑΛΕIΨΕI ΑNΘΡΩΠOΣ
TON ΠΑTΕΡΑ ΑΥTOΥ KΑI THN MHTΕΡΑ
KΑI ΠΡOΣKOΛΛHΘHΣΕTΑI ΠΡOΣ THN ΓΥNΑIKΑ ΑΥTOΥ
KΑIΕΣONTΑI OI ΔΥO ΕIΣ ΣΑΡKΑ MIΑN
ΩΣTΕ OΥKΕTI ΕIΣIN ΔΥO ΑΛΛΑ MIΑ ΣΑΡΞ
'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.
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:
Mark 6:33-34 (original / traditional text)
KΑI ΕIΔON ΑΥTOΥΣ ΥΠΑΓONTΑΣ
KΑI ΕΠΕΓNΩΣΑN ΠOΛΛOI
KΑI ΠΕZH ΑΠO ΠΑΣΩN TΩN
ΠOΛΕΩN ΣΥNΕΔΡΑMON ΕKΕI
KΑI ΠΡOHΛΘON ΑΥTOΥΣ
KΑI ΣΥNHΛΘON ΠΡOΣ ΑΥTON
KΑI ΕΞΕΛΘΩN ΕIΔΕN ΠOΛΥN OXΛON
KΑI ΕΣΠΛΑΓXNIΣΘH ΕΠ ΑΥTOΥΣ
OTI HΣΑN ΩΣ ΠΡOΒΑTΑ MH ΕXONTΑ ΠOIMΕNΑ
KΑI HΡΞΑTO ΔIΔΑΣKΕIN ΑΥTOΥΣ ΠOΛΛΑ
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.
Mark 10:7 (Traditional text)
ΕNΕKΕN TOΥTOΥ KΑTΑΛΕIΨΕI ΑNΘΡΩΠOΣ
TON ΠΑTΕΡΑ ΑΥTOΥ KΑI THN MHTΕΡΑ
KΑI ΠΡOΣKOΛΛHΘHΣΕTΑI ΠΡOΣ THN ΓΥNΑIKΑ ΑΥTOΥ
KΑIΕΣONTΑI OI ΔΥO ΕIΣ ΣΑΡKΑ MIΑN
ΩΣTΕ OΥKΕTI ΕIΣIN ΔΥO ΑΛΛΑ MIΑ ΣΑΡΞ
'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.