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:

Canon Charts (cont.)

The Juggling of Certainty vs. Science

Click to Enlarge

One obvious problem which has been a repeated barrier to both correction and progress in the field of Textual Criticism of the NT has been a basic ideological and fundamental conflict, not just between parties, but influencing individuals attempting to practice TC.

The conflict is this:

Fundamentally, the Scientific Method is tentative and agnostic.  In order to remain truly scientific, it must deal in probabilities, and ever hold the door open to new discoveries which can not only modify current ideas, but completely overthrow them.  Diagrammed as above, one can see that it forms an Endless Loop, without ever establishing any permanent, universal truth. 

Those engaged in Textual Criticism on the other hand, while desperately desiring to garner the support and also credibility of scientific method, nonetheless cling to ideas which at base are in fundamental opposition to science.  First, is the idea of a fundamental Objective Reality, a non-changing universal truth applicable to every situation, and second is the idea that science 'progresses' inevitably toward greater and greater accuracy and surety in regard to believed facts.

Neither of these ideas is really a part of Scientific Method, or a necessary ingredient of Scientific philosophy, even though both ideas have been around as long as science, and have been more often than not inextricably bound up with scientific investigation.

The growth of science in the 19th century, also saw advancing alongside it the field of mathematics.  In this field, especially the concepts of Convergence, developing from Calculus, led men to believe that almost any problem could be solved by honing and improving the appropriate method of approximation, which would naturally and result in more and more accurate statements about the world.

The New Testament Text was regarded no differently: It was believed to be only a matter of time before textual-critical methods would tighten up and produce a more and more accurate 'original text', finally as sharp and accurate as a photograph, or a scientific measurement of light-speed to 8 decimal places.



Eureka! - Hort's Innovation

Surprisingly, F.J.A. Hort was instrumental in forwarding this ideology.  Contrary to current historians and various opponents, Hort's real innovation in Textual Criticism was not "the genealogical method", or the advancement in the evaluation of various sources.  It was the innovation of what is now called in modern mathematics and computing as "iteration".

Iteration is the application of a set of instructions, a 'program' or algorithm,
 repeatedly, usually to refine or home in on a result.  Imagine for instance, a lathe that shapes table-legs.  It shapes the wood by repeated cutting away of waste, leaving the desired pattern behind. 

An Algorithm is usually fixed, but sometimes having optional paths or choices built in.  The flexibility comes through a testing, measurement or decision process (as in the flowchart above, where the 'diamond' shapes mark points in the flow where choices will be made).  

Some objects in mathematics are better and more efficiently expressed as algorithms - a group of ordered steps or instructions, meant to be applied like a recipe or prescription, and often actually acting as a description of a process or phenomenon.  Other objects can ONLY be described by algorithms.  Unfortunately, some objects cannot be expressed by algorithms at all.

When mathematicians began to notice algorithms, they discovered other sometimes disturbing properties of said 'objects', such as the fact that some mathematical objects and ideas have no algorithm at all.  (the calculation of PI or the search for Prime Numbers are examples of things that must be calculated by 'brute force' and crude testing rather than elegant formulas).

When mathematicians noticed that some problems and ideas cannot be expressed by algorithms, it became clear that some problems were by their very nature "unsolvable".

On a simpler level, it was clear that some  'formulas' simply did not and could not 'converge'; that is could not settle down and spit out one single numerical answer.   Likewise, algorithms simply did not always produce a useful or reliable result, nor could they even come to an end.  They were like run-away processes, and if left to themselves would get stuck in endless loops, or randomly wander the universe of numbers.

Hort's assumption was that by using the novel idea of "iteration", meaning the repeated application of textual-critical principles and techniques, to further and further refine the content and certainty of the text, one could arrive as close as possible to the original text as the extant data and the scientific process allowed.

Unfortunately, Hort was wrong on this entire idea:

(1)  There was nothing in the realm of science that indicated that discovering the 'original text' was even possible let alone probable.

(2)  There was nothing that suggested that text-critical methods could or should converge toward any fixed text, let alone the true original text.

(3)  Iteration itself had no magical power to force the textual variants to converge into a 'near certain' text, in spite of its allure and mathematical usefulness in certain situations.  If the applied method was flawed, or ill-defined, the opposite result was inevitable.

(4)  The success of iterative methods in other areas of science had no bearing on iteration as an intelligent or useful technique in textual criticism.   In order for iteratiion to work, the techniques to be iterated must first be sound.

Later, when men of religion attempted to apply mathematical and scientific concepts and techniques to the problem, they were inevitably biased and their work tainted by their own conviction that these methods would converge to an absolutely certain 'original text', and that this was the way God intended us to acquire this certainly established, authoritative, original text.

Nobody thought to inquire and investigate thoroughly what methods that God Himself chose to preserve and deliver the text, and what this meant for the credibility of textual criticism of the NT as a historical science.

As it turned out, God did not use the historical-critical techniques of NT Textual Criticism to preserve and supply the NT text.  God chose simpler, and quite apparently, more reliable methods than those proposed and used by modern Textual Critics to 'reconstruct' the NT text.

These facts strongly suggest that those who wish to establish, secure, or restore the NT text ought to imitate the methods used historically by God Himself for the last 2000 years.

Nazaroo

Later dates for MSS: Codex W = 700 CE, P52 = II-III cent

H. Houghton has reported in  "Recent Developments in NT TC (2011, Early Christianity 2.2, p. 245-268:

"...There have also been developments in the dating of certain manuscripts. The Freer Gospels (032, W), famous for their unique text in the Longer Ending of Mark, were initially assigned to the fourth or fifth century. However, following the redating of the manuscripts used for the original comparison and the subsequent discovery of similar material, including the Cologne Mani Codex, Schmid has suggested that it may have been copied at least a century later. [29]  Parker and Birdsall's consideration of the palaeography and catena of Codex Zacynthius (040, Ξ) prompt them to propose a date of around 700 for the majuscule underwriting, rather than Hatch's suggestion of the sixth century. [30]   The date of the earliest surviving fragment of the New Testament, P52, has also been the subject of a recent review by Nongbri. [31]  This cautions against the uncritical adoption of the earliest suggested date of 125 CE and demonstrates that a date in the late second or early third centuries remains palaeographically possible. As more and more comparative material becomes available online, it will not be surprising if the dating of other manuscripts is reassessed. ...

---

29. Ulrich Schmid, "Reassessing the Palaeography and Codicology of the Freer Gospel Manuscript," in The Freer Biblical Manuscripts: Fresh Studies of an American Treasure Trove ed. Larry W. Hurtado (SBLTCS 6. Atlanta GA: SBL, 2006), 227–49.

30. D.C. Parker and J. Neville Birdsall, "The Date of Codex Zacynthius (Ξ): A New Proposal," JTS 55.1 (2004): 117–31 (reprinted in Parker, Manuscripts, Texts, Theology, 113–20).

31. Brent Nongbri, "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel," HTR 98.1 (2005): 23–48.

 It seems what has long been suspected by outsiders is turning out to have some substance and basis, namely that manuscripts generally have been dated too early, and more revisions are in the works, either by their over-enthusiastic discoverers, or else apologists. 

Nazaroo

Does Inerrancy imply Fixed Word-order?

‘One set of words in one set order is the Bible.’

What doesn’t appear to have been openly addressed in the discussion so far, is the source for this idea, and its implications for any theory regarding the original autographs.
If we believe in the inerrancy and precision of the original autographs, then the idea of a specific and unique word-order is inevitable, both historically – (a) Evangelist X and Apostle Y wrote or dictated specific words in a specific order at a specific time and place, and objectively – (b) The revealed word of God is stable and fixed for any reasonable time and place and language, and does not and should not require any re-ordering, word-substitution, or reorganization (i.e., it is ‘complete’ and ‘perfect’ in itself, and sufficient as given).
When these two necessary premises are seen as statements about the nature and objective reality of an original and initial revelation in a spoken and written (NT) Holy scripture, and their implications followed to their logical conclusion, we get a few more basic observations and perhaps even axioms:

(1) Although similar ideas can be expressed in different words, expressions, and idioms, God has chosen a specific expression for His revelation in 1st century Greek, and this was and remains adequate and complete for its purpose and task.
(2) In the first century, although God did give and empower translation into other languages (i.e., Pentecost), He gave no further instructions to modify or alter the expressions given through His apostles and evangelists, or suggestions, beyond oral preaching of the message as each was able.
(3) The early Church also was strongly aware of the dangers of paraphrase, and editing to the core Gospel message, and ultimately rejected “harmonies” of the Gospels like Tatian’s as replacements for the original written gospels. The impulse of the Holy Spirit was always conservative, preserving what went on before, and not replacing either OT or NT documents with innovations.
(4) Translations likewise should always then be based on the originals, and once made in a competent and sufficient manner, they ought to be left in their chosen form, so as not to unnecessarily multiply confusion or doubt as to statements in Holy Scripture meant to be taken at face-value.

From this perspective, the idea of a ‘fixed’ word-order and means of expression for an authoritative NT in any language is a normal and reasonable development of what has taken place historically and in light of early church practice.
This doesn’t require ‘demonization’ of other translations or arrangements or idiomatic expression, but only that these be left in their own place, in the hands of oral preachers and teachers, meeting the needs of those without the educational background to fully absorb the traditional text.

peace
Nazaroo

The "Godly Men" - infamous boners and frauds of Textual Criticism

The following articles will aptly begin with the documentation of some of the most ridiculous and unscrupulous frauds to have taken place in the history of textual criticism:

Unitarian Dishonesty

A Review of Shameful Acts

The posthumous takeover of Wetstein's Greek NT by Semler may have been one of the first in a series of frauds and deceptions by the Unitarians, but it was not to be the last.
At this time, we can list at least four major deceptions perpetrated by the Unitarians in their zeal to destroy the Textus Receptus and with it mainstream Christian doctrine:

1. 1765: J. Semler's Takeover and Rewrite of Wetstein's Prolegomena.
2. 1808: T. Belsham's Takeover and edit of Bishop Newcome's English NT.
3. 1856: S. Tregelles' Takeover and rewrite of Horne's Introduction.
4. 1862: C. Gregory's Takeover and ghost-write of Tischendorf's Prolegomena.

The similarities of the fraud in each case are stunning: (1) in each case, the success and reputation of the original author is capitalized on. (2) in each case, permission was either not obtained, or fraudulently obtained. (3) in each case, the author was dead or dying when the Unitarians stepped in. (4) In each case, history was rewritten, and minds diverted from what was really happening. (5) In each case, the original authors are praised but at the same time dismissed as in significant 'error' for deviating from the Unitarian/Hortian party position on the NT text.

We'll carry on from here shortly.

Peace
Nazaroo

Different Versions of Christian Denominationalism

Obviously in the West, we get two basic views of the splintering of Christianity, that of the Protestants, and that of the Roman Catholics.

---

It might be refreshing to look alternately at the Greek Orthodox version of events, to assist us with some kind of consensus, at least as to what has exactly happened.

Here is the Greek Orthodox Diagram of the 'Great Schism' and subsequent events:

Greek Orthodox View:  Click to Enlarge / Backbutton

Greek Orthodox consider themselves to be true "Catholics", and other break-away groups essentially heretical and a result of apostacy.

Earlier branches of Christianity are also considered 'break-away' churches:

Greek Orthodox View: Early Years

Of course Greek Orthodox are in agreement with many of the basic historical facts, as shown on these timelines.    They would acknowledge for instance, the Sacking of Constantinople by the Latins (1204), and the Fall of Constantinople to the Muslims (1453):

Greek Orthodox View: Later Years

 Presumably these events are not interpreted as the 'hand of God' in judgement, but rather the consequences of the sin of others.  The main break for Greek Orthodox is between it and the Latin Roman Catholic Western half of Europe.  The Latins stand geographically between the Greek Orthodox East and the Protestant Reformation lands.   The split between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants is probably perceived as distant and less significant.

---

Not surprisingly, other smaller churches which branch off in the East see themselves as more central and emphasize details of their own dependence and distinctions:

Click to Enlarge

---

Roman Catholics unsurprisingly see themselves as the central and true branch of Christianity, with others splitting off:

Click to Enlarge

In this view, Roman Catholics happily garner support from Anglicans (Church of England), who have preserved much of the ritual of basic Catholicism, and also call themselves "catholic".   Rome nonetheless maintains its own doctrinal distinctions as central and authoritative, over and against Anglican traditions.

---

Protestant Groups naturally focus on their own origin and development, but the basic facts are usually not in serious dispute.  It is more a question of doctrine, practice, and authority which separates Protestants from 'Catholic' groups:

Click to Enlarge

The larger Protestant churches, founded in the British Empire, Northern Europe and the West, tend to make themselves central:

Click to Enlarge

Likewise we see Each Denomination providing their own idea of important events:

If self-centeredness were a contest, the United Church seems to have taken the cake in terms of Denomination-Centric presentations:

Click to enlarge

---

... more comments to follow...

Nazaroo

Venn Diagrams for Evolution of Textual Criticism

New Testament Textual Criticism has changed, in method, in scope, and in perceived goals.   This can be illustrated with a series of Venn-Diagrams as follows:

The 18th Century Period (Mill, Wetstein, Bengel, Griesbach)

The early naive period is characterized by narrow concentration on collation, consensus, apologetics, with only a very crude and basic understanding of scribal habits and transmission.   The materials were scarce,  undocumented, and difficult of access.  No scientific methodology was developed, and TC was done on the basis of 'common sense' and conjectural instincts; sometimes overpowered by emotion and suspicion (e.g. RC conspiracy theories).   The Unitarian Movement began a steady ascent and became a dominant political force.

Click to Enlarge

The 19th Century Period (Lachmann, Scholz, Hort, Scrivener, Lake, Kenyon, )

 By this time crude 'canons' were being applied, based on guesstimates or opinions of scribal habits and political/religious activity influencing the transmission of the text.  Now other political and social factors also made a big impact, such as the democratic movements, Marx, and Darwin, and the rise of scientific rationalism.  The accumulated data, reasoning, and outlook was well summarized and encapsulated by the Westcott/Hort theory.   The historical-critical viewpoint was embraced and became the defacto standard for academia as universities became secularized.

 The 20th Century Period (von Soden, Hoskier, Colwell, Souter, Brown, Metzger, Aland, Hodges, Ehrman)

With stunning new discoveries, such as hoards of earlier papyri, which required a complete re-evaluation of the history and usage of the Greek language, and with thorough efforts at systematic collation, both the achievements (e.g. the WH text) and the viewpoint had to be fundamentally changed.   It became apparent that the transmission history was quite different and the complexity of the problem was greater than previously assumed.
   Goals and interests were significantly modified and expanded.   The original NT text appeared to some as a retreating mirage.   Others found new reason to return to the traditional text.   The divide became deeper and entrenched as TC split into two different factions.
At the same time, newer more scientific study was leading to completely different conclusions about textual transmission and scribal habits.  The old paradigms of Westcott/Hort and the Alexandrian priority were falling apart.

 The 21st  Century Period (Royse, Fernandez, Hurtado, Head)

Now many previous political/religious issues begin fading into history, such as the Unitarian/Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox controversies.  The greatly relaxed environment of the late 20th century causes old goals and disciplinary boundaries to be abandoned.  New ideas are pursued, in a discipline now largely dominated by secular academia.  The approach has become far more holistic and inclusive, with extensive interaction and dialogue between related disciplines.

The basic problems concerning methodology and results however, remain unsolved, and the field remains deeply divided over the fundamental issues.

Nazaroo

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing: Modern Evangelicals

The current fight over the text of the New Testament is one of the main battlefields in an ideological war, paradoxically fought right in the heart of the American Bible Belt and community.

It is easy to understand how this deep split has developed over time.

The Early Reformation (c. 1500-1700)

The first wave of the Reformation was a reaction to widespread sloth, dereliction of duty and corruption in the European Churches, built up through centuries of doctrinal disputes, money grubbing and power mongering , in the face of external threats, economic disasters, massive plagues and spreading illiteracy.

The 'lucky' combination of the new independence of local 'kingdoms', the importation of paper-making, the invention of efficient printing (movable type), and the deep faith of the Middle Ages made possible the mass distribution of Bibles, and a sudden increase in general literacy and interest in religion and science.

From the beginning however, the Reformation itself was plagued by inner divisions, heretical nonsense, and stubborn bigotry and ignorance.  The seeds of fracture and failure were sown from the start.   At the same time, men were inquiring and investigating issues of history and science, and knowledge of the natural world expanded rapidly.

More and more of religious thought and belief, once taken for granted, was placed in the skeptical light of human investigation and challenged by suspicion and doubt.   The Enlightenment era and the following period of Rationalism and historical inquiry seemed to leave traditional Christianity in a shambles of confusion, and opened the door to complete independence and rejection of all things religious, in favor of strict natural science.



The Second Reformation (19th - 20th cent.)

In parallel with the rising apostacy of the 19th century, large groups of people still seeking religious answers joined various cults, led by an ever increasing fountain of charismatic religious leaders.   New cults and denominations were invented as fast as men could start them.

The turn of the 19th/20th century not only saw the founding of a dozen large denominations, but also of less rigid and more vague movements, such as the Pentecostal and Evangelical and Charismatic branches of Christian thought and life.

Prior to this, in reaction to the conservativism and bigotry of the day, a significant number of Christians turned to the Unitarian movement and train of thought, in which even basic doctrines like the Trinity and the Deity of Christ were considered suspect and unimportant, and the social gospel was given higher priority.    This was often a good thing, as issues of poverty and maltreatment of children, the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women, and education took center stage in political and community activity.

But the seeds of religious doubt and apostacy were deeply sown into Western culture.  The German 'rational'/skeptical approach had done immense damage to the traditional Christian worldview. 

The Attack on the Traditional Christian Bible (1830-1970)

In hand with this heavy skepticism came repeated attempts to 'renovate' the Bible, especially the New Testament, in a misguided effort to remove 'Roman Catholic alterations' and superstitious nonsense, leaving behind a supposedly reliable 'historical' core.   The various early copies and translations, and quotations were sifted for differences in wording or 'holes' indicating something might have been added later.    In a few cases (i.e., 1st John 5:7 etc.) it did indeed look as though a zealous bishop or misguided scribe had inadvertantly added something to the text.  This gave a 'smoking gun' look to the problem, and encouraged a near-hysterical suspicion of standard Christian texts and doctrines.

A few of the oldest manuscripts (c. 4th century) also presented a significantly truncated text, missing a few large sections like Jn 7:53-8:11 and the Ending of Mark (Mk. 16:9-20), and many shorter segments.   This led rational-minded critics to class these passages as deliberate "additions" or "interpolations" into the traditional text by scribes or editors.   The summit of this tendency to favor the shorter text came with Westcott & Hort (1882) and the Revised Version.

Those who favored this approach were for the most part Unitarians and fringe-Christians who had their own ideas about what early Christianity must have looked like, before the alleged accrual of 'later Romanist doctrines'.   The Unitarian movement lived on for quite a while in American Universities and Seminaries, being an attractive compromise between modern historical science and ancient religious ideas.

The new Textual Critics became stubborn and dogmatic in their own position, insisting that the 3rd and 4th century ecclesiastical texts were the 'original' readings, and the traditional text used by the majority of Christians for the last millenium was a later artificially fabricated edition.

The trouble was, these earlier texts also showed all the signs of being ecclesiastically managed and edited texts manufactured in the 3rd century for liturgical use, and subject to the activities of unknown editors and 'correctors'.   Their own credibility as 'primitive' texts was clearly shattered by their own appearance, features and their date of manufacture.



The Attack on the Christian Old Testament: (c. 1900-1970)

The academic 'attack' upon the traditional Christian Bible did not stop however, but turned with new energy to the O.T. text.   The first probable error in the early Reformation had been the uncritical adoption of the Medieval Jewish O.T. text by Martin Luther, following the example of St. Jerome (c.400 A.D.), in an attempt to convert the Jews of Europe.  When that failed, Luther became vitriolic, publishing slanderous pamphlets against the Jews, and helping to feed the growing wave of European anti-semitism which led to Hitler's insanity.

By this time however, the damage had been done, as Protestants everywhere followed Luther's example and adopted the Hebrew O.T. in preference to the ancient Greek O.T. that had been approved by the early Church and used for nearly two thousand years.  This movement began in Germany and continues to be driven from there today, in part buoyed by Roman Catholic scholarship and support.

Partly as a backlash from the disaster of World War II (i.e., guilt re: the Holocaust), Christians in the West continued in a rather futile 'dialogue' with modern Jews, toning down their dreams of 'converting the Jews', and essentially capitulating to Jewish ideas about how the O.T. should be translated and interpreted.  (The 'Dean' has blogged on this subject).

This movement to Judaize the Christian O.T. was spearheaded by Bruce Metzger and those sponsoring the Revised Standard Version (RSV), which was revised and repackaged repeatedly to disguise its source and purpose (as the NRSV).   Metzger was also heavily involved in continuing to promote the truncated and mutilated New Testament of Hort and others who had abandoned both traditional Christianity and the traditional text.


The Modern "Evangelical" Position:

Now the battle has moved to America's Christian seminaries and Christian Universities, which were formerly independent of the secular University system, but in seeking recognition and legitimacy by secular academia have adopted many of the positions and attitudes of secular Biblical scholars.

The modern "Evangelicals" are nothing like their original founders, all of whom held strong beliefs in the primacy of the Holy Scriptures, and who rejected mutilated versions of the N.T. like the RV, and similarly perverted versions of the O.T. like the RSV and NRSV.

The modern "Evangelical" Movement seeks recognition and respect from academia at large, and has essentially switched over to the secular academic position:

(1) There is no "Divine Inspiration" for the Bible entrusted to the Church.  Whether or not the 'originals' were inspired, the current copies of the Holy Scriptures are not inspired, nor are they necessarily reliable copies of the originals. 

(2) There is no "Divine Preservation" of the text.  They have been subject to the whims and random chance that all secular hand-copies of early books have been subject to.   Its full of errors, both historical and docrinal.

This sadly, is the modern "Evangelical" position.  It resembles nothing like the vision and faith of the early Reformers, and it resembles nothing like the positions of the original Evangelicals of America.

Peace
Nazaroo

Undocumented Edits to the NT in modern versions

Fact or Fiction: You decide:

 

Here are some examples of completely undocumented mutilations of the NT text, which find their way readily into modern versions, also without so much as a footnote indicating text has been ripped out or drastically altered. In the following list "MV" means Modern Versions collectively, although one or two might have a note where the majority have nothing at all:

Matt. 15:8 UBS2 undocumented ΤΩ ΣΤΟΜΑΤΙ αυτων και
Matt. 20:7 UBS2 undocumented και ο εαν η δικαιον ληψεσθε
Matt. 20:16 UBS2 undocumented πολλοι γαρ εισιν κλητοι ολιγοι δε εκλεκτοι
Matt. 20:22 UBS2 undocumented το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθηναι...
και το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθησεσθε
Mark 11:8 UBS2 undocumented KΑI ΕΣTΡΩNNΥON ΕIΣ THN OΔON
Mark 12:33 UBS2 undocumented KΑI ΕΞ OΛHΣ THΣ ΨΥXH
Luke 4:5 UBS2 undocumented O ΔIΑΒOΛOΣ ΕIΣ OΡOΣ ΥΨHΛON
Luke 17:9 UBS2 undocumented (αυτω)
Luke 19:45 UBS2 undocumented εν αυτω και αγοραζοντας
Luke 22:68 MV undocumented μοι η απολυσητε
John 5:16 UBS2 undocumented και  εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι
John 6:11 UBS2 undocumented τοις μαθηταις οι δε μαθηται
John 8:59-9:2 MV undocumented και διελθων δια μεσου αυτων [επορευετο] και παρηγεν ουτως
John 11:41 UBS2 undocumented ου ην  ο τεθνηκως  κειμενος
John 17:12 UBS2 undocumented εν τω κοσμω

BY THE WAY, ALL OF THE ABOVE EXAMPLES ARE KNOWN PROBABLE HOMOEOTELEUTON ERRORS.
Instead of guessing how 'unlikely' it might be for scholars to be wrong, dishonest, or have a hidden agenda, open a copy of the UBS text, and see if they deleted the half-verses or not.
Check the apparatus, and see if they documented the alterations or not.
Check for yourself, and answer the question for yourself.

These aren't just Majority Text and Byzantine text-type readings.
They are readings that have been in the NT text in both Greek and Latin for 1000 years. ( - that is, the texts used by the vast majority of Christians everywhere in the Roman Empire).

Its not that critics altered the verses: its that they altered the verses without telling the reader.
What is your definition of honest?