Homoioteleuton Errors in Modern NT Translations

Every single one of these translations uses a critical Greek text
which mutilates the New Testament by deleting some 200 whole and half-verses.

They did this on the flimsy basis that these were added to the text by
editors and copyists, in part by accident but mostly by intent,
for explanatory purposes or to reinforce or invent favorite doctrines.

However, modern scientific scholarship has shown that these are almost
all simply scribal errors, and accidental omissions mainly by homoioteleuton,
that is, lines were dropped due to similar endings or beginnings.

For the real statistical knowledge about scribal errors, these articles
should be consulted, which show that the general tendency was to omit,
not add text to the New Testament.

General Articles on Errors:
 J. Wetstein (1751): Older MSS - Older not = Better!
 J. Burgon (1882): Haplography - mechanics of error
 B. Weiss (1887): Omissions - & most common errors
 F.W. Shipley (1904): Dittography - & omissions
 H. Gamble (1977): Interpolation - Identifying Marks
 L. Haines (2008): Scribal Habits - 'Shorter Reading'?
 J.Royse (2008) Shorter Reading? - & Griesbach
 W. Pickering (2009) Oldest = Best MSS? - early errors
 T. Holland (2009) "Oldest & Best MSS" - & Byzantine

Errors in Specific MSS:
 B.B. Warfield (1887): Haplography - examples from א
 S. F. Kenyon (1901): Haplography - more ex. from א/B
 H. von Soden (1911): Omissions - in Codex א/B
 H.A. Sanders (1912): Haplography - in Codex W
 E.C. Colwell (1969): Haplography - & P⁴⁵, P⁶⁶, P⁷⁵
 D.A. Carson (1979) & homoeoteleuton - Lk 14:26
 Jongkind (2005): א - tests Singular Readings Method!
 J. Hernandez (2006): Errors of א in Rev - singular OMs
 J. Royse (2008): Scribal Habits - P^{45,46,47,66,72,75}
 J. Royse (2008) homoeoteleuton - singular omissions
 J. Krans (2010) GA-3 - famous insertion: 2 Cor 8:4
 Scrivener (2010) homoeoteleuton - P-Oxy-1780 new!


For specific information on the actual verses that modern (per)versions
leave out, or place in the margin or footnotes, or bracket as if they were
unreliable or in doubt, or possible additions, look at these examples:

Text Variants influenced by & affecting Doctrine: (1) Mark 7:19 (a)

 

 

 

The Problem with Mark 7:19

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, and let Roman Catholics write their bibles for them. The UBS Greek text was overseen by Cardinal Martin.

peace
Nazaroo