2. Clark (1914) contra Griesbach

Here is A. C. Clark's original (1914) preface to The Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts (1914):

'The chief result of my investigation has been to show the falsity of the principle brevior lectio potior ['prefer the shorter reading']. This was laid down by Griesbach as a canon of criticism in the words :

'Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auctoritate penitus destituatur, praeferenda est verbosiori. Librarii enim multo proniores ad addendum fuerunt quam ad omittendum.'  ["A shorter reading, unless the authority of the witnesses completely lacks weight and antiquity, is preferable to a verbose one.  For a copyist is much more prone to further additions than to make omissions."]

Unless my method is based upon a delusion, this statement has no foundation in facts. I may also observe that it is not so easy to invent as it is to omit.
It will be understood that my work has been almost exclusively confined to the text of Cicero. It was only recently, after I had gained confidence in the use of my method, that, in a spirit of curiosity, I happened to apply it to the text of the Gospels. The results were so surprising that I gave up, for the present, my work upon Cicero, which can only interest a small circle, and devoted myself to this more important inquiry.
I must here state that when I began my investigation, I had not made any study of New Testament criticism. I had been brought up to look on the Revised Text [1881] as final, to smile at persons who maintained the authenticity of St. Mark 16:9-20, or St. John 7:53-8:11, and to suppose that the 'vagaries' of the 'Western' text were due to wholesale interpolation. The object which I had in view was merely to study the mutual relations of the oldest Greek Uncials, notably, the Vaticanus (B), the Sinaiticus (א), and the Alexandrinus (A). I was, however, soon dislodged from this arrogant attitude, and irresistibly driven to very different conclusions.  These I can only briefly indicate here, and must refer the reader to my subsequent discussion for the evidence. 

Nowhere is the falsity of the maxim brevior lectio potior more evident than in the New Testament. The process has been one of contraction, not of expansion. The primitive text is the longest, not the shortest. It is to be found not in B/א, or in the majority of Greek MSS., but in the 'Western' family, i. e. in the ancient versions and the Codex Bezae (D). If my analysis is sound, we are brought back to an archetype of the four Gospels in book-form, which cannot be later than the middle of the 2nd century. This archetype appears to have contained the passages which have been most seriously suspected by recent critics, e.g. the End of St. Mark and St. John 7:53-8:11.  

This statement concerning St. Mark 16:9-20 will appear so startling that I must insert a caveat. I do not pretend to go one step further than I am led by the method which I have followed. The ultimate problems of New Testament autographs do not concern me. I only deal with one set of phenomena, and my starting-point is the text current in the second century. I have made no attempt to acquaint myself with the Synoptic problem, and do not venture to encroach upon the domain of the Higher Criticism. Also, I do not regard my method as a panacea. I am sensible that much must be due to accident and to mere coincidence. It is for the reader to determine, whether the cumulative evidence which I adduce is so great as, in certain cases, to transcend the limits of coincidence.
The results at which I have arrived in the case of the Acts are even more striking. It is here that the problem of the 'Western' recension has been felt most strongly. Thus a recent writer says   : 

'It is the correct method to study the Western readings in Acts first of all, and to form some kind of judgement on them, and after this to turn to the Gospels and apply to them the conclusions derived from the study of the Acts.'  (Lake, The Text of the New Testament, p. 91.)

This was not the process which I followed, but the conclusions arrived at in the case of the Acts greatly confirm the results furnished by the study of the Gospels.
It is briefly this, that all our MSS., including D, are descended from an ancestor written not in lines of equal length, as in the case of the Gospels, but in cola and commata, i. e. sense-lines of varying length, such as those found in D. The ordinary text has been developed from this by the frequent omission of lines, followed by modifications in the text. For proof of this statement I must refer the reader to the chapter upon the Acts.
I have not extended my inquiry to other parts of the New Testament, since I found that the Gospels and Acts provided more material than I could deal with in the time at my disposal. It appeared to me from some preliminary observations that the Pauline Epistles must be studied together. It is unnecessary to point out that the Apocalypse is a unique document which must be considered separately.'

(1) Clark contra Ropes

A. C. Clark, in his preface to his critical edition of the Greek text of  Acts of the Apostles (1933), comments on the unique problem of the Western (& Byz.) versus the Alexandrian (Aleph/B) text:

PREFACE  

'THE Acts of the Apostles furnish the most interesting chapter in the story of what is generally called the ' Western text '. In the Introduction to this volume (para. 1), to which I refer the reader, I show that this term is a misnomer and conveys a false suggestion when employed of a text which was current in the East, as well as in the West, in the second century A.D. : which formed the basis of the oldest versions, Syriac as well as Latin, and was used by the most ancient Fathers. These facts are allowed by the most thoroughgoing opponents of the text in question, even by Dr. Hort, and no one has stated them with greater candour than the latest editor, Prof. Ropes, as may be seen from the passage which I quote from him (p. xviii).
I therefore venture to substitute the noncommittal symbol Z [W] for this question-begging term, and denote the agreement of the oldest Greek Uncials אABC by Γ [B] (= Graeci).
I now proceed to say a few words about the special problem of Acts. This is that in Acts [W] and [B] differ conspicuously in length. [W] has a longer and [B] a shorter text. The passages which appear in [W], but are absent from [B], are very numerous ; some of them are of considerable  length, e.g. xi. 2, xvi. 39, xxv. 24-5. The question therefore in Acts which dwarfs all others is whether this extra matter is genuine or not.
Various solutions of this problem have been suggested. I will not here repeat what I have said in the Introduction (pp. xx f.), but will state quite briefly that I agree with Ropes when he says that only two solutions are possible. Either [W] is derived from [B], or [B] from [W]. He adopts the first alternative, I adopt the second. He considers that [W] was developed from [B] by expansion, I consider that [B] is an abridgement of [W]. I may remark that the solution adopted by Ropes is intrinsically less probable than that which he rejects, since it is easier to abridge than to invent fresh matter. 

A further objection is that patristic evidence for [B] is lacking before the time of Origen, while the existence of [W] in the second century A.D. is proved by the evidence of the versions and the quotations of the early Fathers. It is an act of faith to suppose that [B] was prior to [W]. The probability is that it was a revision, made not very long before the time when it begins to be quoted. These, however, are a priori arguments upon which I do not wish to insist. There is other evidence which is yielded by codex. Bezae (D), the chief Greek authority for the [W] text in the Gospels and Acts.
 This famous MS. has a peculiar feature, viz. that it is written in lines of irregular length (not, as is usual, in lines of equal length). It is usual to speak of them as ' sense-lines ', and this description fits fairly well the lines in Mt., Mk., and Acts, but it is inapplicable to those in Lk. and Jn. A description of these στιχοι as they are generally termed, will be found in the special article upon D (pp. 178-81). It is agreed that this system of division did not begin with D, but was inherited from an ancestor or a series of ancestors. The analysis which I have made, both of the Greek side of the MS. (D) and of the Latin side (Lat. d ), discloses a large number of corruptions, chiefly omissions of στιχοι, transpositions of στιχοι, and corruptions due to adjacent στιχοι(pp. 181-91), which testify to a number of intervening copies between D and a distant archetype. It is therefore quite possible that this peculiar method of line division goes back to remote antiquity.
After this prelude I proceed to state my own view, viz. that in Acts (not in the Gospels) [B] represents the work of an abbreviator who, having before him a MS. written in στιχοι similar to those found in D, frequently (not, of course, always) adopted the rough and ready method of striking out lines in his model, botching from time to time to produce a construction.
This solution did not come to me at once. The relation of [B] to [W] was first suggested to me by the observation that passages present in D, but absent from [B], very frequently occupy a line or lines in [W] , and that in many cases [B] appears to have been botched in order to provide a construction  after an omission. The evidence given by botching is of especial importance. Instances will be found on pp. xxv-vi. The only explanation which I could at first suggest was that [B] was formed from [W] by a series of accidental omissions.  

New light came from a palimpsest leaf which contains Cic. ad Fam. vi. 9. i 10. 6 in an abridged form (pp. xxviii-ix). This palimpsest omits a number of passages found in the minuscule MSS., and is on occasions impudently botched by the abbreviator in order to disguise the omissions. As the method which he followed was not apparent, I happened to apply an arithmetical test, which I have often found very illuminating when dealing with omissions. The method of application and the results of this test will be found on p. xxix. A clue was furnished by the first passages which I examined, and it soon became obvious that the abbreviator had cut out lines of his copy, botching when necessary. In my work The Descent of MSS., pp. 151-3, I have reconstituted the copy, showing the lines which were deleted and those which were retained. The same arithmetical unit is present in both.
The same test throws unexpected light upon a series of mysterious obels affixed in some MSS. to a number of passages in the speech of Demosthenes against Meidias (pp. xxx-xxxi). The results in this case are even more startling, since the evidence is spread over a larger area. I cannot see any other solution except that the obels were first affixed by an ancient critic who wished to abridge the speech and obelized passages which generally coincided with lines in his text.
I pass by some examples of minor importance, and will state briefly that I stake my case in the first place upon the evidence provided by the palimpsest of Cic. ad Fam.  

My work The Descent of MSS. appeared fourteen years ago and has been widely circulated. During this period no critic, so far as I know, has pointed out any flaw in these calculations. I venture therefore to hope that they are sound. If so, they show that some ancient abbreviators - I insert the word ' some ' to prevent misapprehension or misrepresentation - when making an abridgement, sometimes resorted to the simple device of striking out lines in their text.
In view of this evidence I now ascribe the excisions in the [B] text of Acts to an abbreviator who very frequently struck out lines in his copy. The hypothesis of deliberate abbreviation clears up a number of difficulties which were left unexplained by the theory of accidental omission (p. xxxii).  

The methods of the abbreviator are discussed on pp. xlv-lii. His most noticeable trait is his contempt for minute details. He was not interested in the ' seven steps ' which led up to the prison at Jerusalem (xii. ro) ; the hours of the day during which Paul preached at Ephesus (xix. 9) ; the statement that the rioters at Ephesus 'ran out into the street' (xix. 28); the information that Paul when sailing from Samos to Miletus broke his journey at Trogylia (xx. 15), or that on his journey from Caesarea to Jerusalem he spent a night in a village on the way (xxi. 16); that the ship carrying Paul drifted 'for fifteen days' after leaving Cyprus (xxvii. 5), or that, after Paul's arrival in Rome, ' the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard ' (A.V.) and that Paul was allowed to reside 'outside the camp' (xxviii. 16). His interest was in edification, not in topographical or chronological details. Hence his excisions are comparatively rare in the speeches and most common in the accounts of Paul's journeys. This dislike for detail caused him to substitute tame and colourless summaries for passages instinct with life and vigour, e.g. x. 25 (p. xxiii), xvi. 39, xxv. 24-5. A frequent result of his excisions is to produce obscurity. A typical example occurs in xv. 33 sq. (p. xlvii), where T omits v. 34, which explains how it was that Silas was still in Antioch (v. 40) after having previously received permission to go to Jerusalem ( v - 33)' Some writers consider this obscurity to be a laudable characteristic of Luke's style. Thus Ramsay remarks 'Luke expects much of his readers'. I cannot look on obscurity as a merit, but regard it as a fault which betrays the hand of an abbreviator.
Sometimes the cuts change the sense. Thus in xviii. 27, according to [W], Paul is invited by Corinthians residing in Ephesus to go with them to Corinth : according to [B], he went of his own will. In xix. i, according to [W], Paul wishes of his own accord to go to Jerusalem, but is told by the Spirit to return to Ephesus ; [B] merely states that he went to Ephesus, without any mention of his first plan or of the intervention of the Spirit. In xxiv. 8, according to [W], παρ'ου refers to Claudius Lysias ; according to [B], it refers to Paul. (For the absurdity of this reading cf. p. xlvii.) A more complicated case occurs in xv. i sq. (p. xlix).
Apart from these differences due to abridgement, there are irreconcilable variants. The most remarkable of these occurs in xx. 4, taken in conjunction
 with xix. 29. In xix. 29 Gaius and Aristarchus are both Macedonians : in xx. 4 Aristarchus is said to be a native of Thessalonica, but Gaius, according to [B], is Δερβαιος, i.e. a native of Derbe in Asia Minor. The [W] reading is Δοβηριος, i.e. a native of Doberus (in Macedonia). For a full discussion of this striking passage, the importance of which has hitherto escaped the notice of scholars, I refer to pp. xlix-1 and note ad loc.
There are also cases in which the reading of [B] is absurd. A striking example is in ch. xiii, where, according to [B], a sorcerer is called Barjesus in v. 6, and this name is translated by Elymas in v. 8. Barjesus, however, can mean nothing but 'son of Jesus'. For a full discussion of this passage I refer to the notes.
It seems strange that so inferior a production as the abridged text should have been accepted by the Church. It must have suited the taste of the age in which it appeared and may have been made by someone who enjoyed a reputation in his own generation. It is not always the best text that gains immediate recognition. I venture to refer to a person of no particular importance, the African Father, Primasius. Two editiones principes of his works appeared in the same year (1544), one of which was printed at Paris and the other at Bale. The Paris edition was taken from a corrupt and mutilated MS. which disguises long omissions by unskilful botching. The Bale edition was founded on a good and fairly complete MS. It was, however, the Paris edition that was several times reproduced, while the Bale edition found no successor. (Descent of MSS., p. 104.)

If the considerations which have been advanced are sound, it follows that the supremacy of what are frequently called the 'Great Uncials ' (i.e. א and B) can no longer be maintained. The chief duty of an editor  is to collect and combine the scattered evidence given by the various witnesses to the [W] text. This was done in masterly fashion by Blass in his reconstitution of what he considers to be the 'Roman form' of Acts (= [W]) as contrasted with a second edition by the same writer (= [B]). My own text is not indeed founded upon that of Blass, since I have considered all points independently and very frequently differ from him. It is, however, more like his text than that of any other editor, and I gladly acknowledge my great debt to him. On many occasions when my original view of a passage differed from that of Blass I finally became convinced that he was right. I cannot, however, accept his attribution of both [W] and [B]] to the same author (p. xxi).' 

- A.C. Clark, Acts of the Apostles, (1933) p. vii-xi

The Ancestors of Aleph/B: Luke

As we have done previously with Matthew and Mark, so we now show the proposed column-widths of the ancestors of Aleph/B for Luke.

First off, we may note the remarkable coincidence in multiples of line-length with the largest omissions:

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to return

Now consider the widest column-widths as likely to be the most ancient, and we can put the stages of accumulation of omissions in a sensible order:

Again, with the wider columns, there is more variation in letter-counts, so that we cannot be sure if we have three different exemplars and their omissions, or if these could have all occurred in the work of a single copyist from a single exemplar.   However, the sheer number of omissions suggests that this is an accumulation from several copying generations.

Again, these very popular column-widths argue strongly for exemplars with this style of column, and place the omissions in the early to mid 3rd century.

Finally, we have the left-overs:  Short omissions that could have actually happened at any time, and are unlikely to involve column-widths as a partial cause.  These skips were probably accomplished alone the same line, rather than as a skip to the next line down.


Conclusion:

Again, the best interpretation of the column-format evidence is that there were between 4 and 6 generations of copying plagued by poor correction between the earliest copy of Luke and the closest common ancestor of Aleph/B.

Thus, the common omissions of Aleph/B, far from indicating the same source (i.e., a 'pure', Neutral text), clearly indicate different origins, but similar causes, and therefore, must involve many errors in transcription, building up over several copying generations.

It is ironic but true, that although these omissions can sometimes indeed be traced several generations earlier than their popular representatives (Aleph/B), they remain errors.   They bring us no closer to the original text than any similar set of early haplography errors would, built up during that period of wilder copying and less systematic proof-reading that obviously took place in the late 2nd and early 3rd century. 

Nor can the text(s) constructed from such clumsy readings really take us any further back than the late 2nd or early 3rd century, when these mistakes arose in great numbers, in the Alexandrian stream of transmission.

mr.scrivener

SBL GNT & Hort (review cont.)

Luke: Omissions

Comparing the SBL-GNT with Hort



Here we continue reviewing the SBL GNT text, and comparing it with the Westcott/Hort text of 1882.  Of course its no real surprise that in all significant omissions of more than one word, SBL pretty much follows Hort.

Again we have highlighted omissions with obvious homoeoteleuton features using  Light GREEN.

Luke
verse	chr	whole/half-verses omitted	WH	SBL
1:28	22	ευλογημενη συ εν γυναιξιν	Om	Om
1:29	16	ιδουσα διεταραχθη	Om	Om
2:42	13	εις ιεροσολυμα	Om	Om
4:4	19	αλλ επι παντι ρηματι θυ	Om	Om
4:5	22	ο διαβολος εις ορος υψηλον (h.t.)	Om	Om
4:8	19	υπαγε οπισω μου σατανα	Om	Om
4:18	37 2x19	ιασασθαι τους συντετρ ιμμενους την καρδιαν	Om	Om
5:38	24	και αμφοτεροι συντηρουνται (h.t.)	Om	Om
6:45	23	θησαυρου της καρδιας αυτου (h.t.)	Om	Om
7:31	10	ειπεν δε ο κς	Om	Om
8:43	31	ἰατροῖς προσαναλώσασα ὅλον τὸν βίον	Om	[in]
8:45a	13	και οι μετ αυτου	Om	Om
8:45b	24	και λεγεις τις ο αψαμενος μου	Om	Om
8:48	6	θαρσει (h.a.)	Om	Om
8:54	19	εκβαλων εξω παντας και	Om	Om
9:10	11	τοπον ερημον	Om	Om
9:54	18	ως και ηλιας εποιησεν	Om	Om
9:55-6	96 2x48 4x24 (4x22)	και ειπεν ουκ οιδατε οιου πνε υματος εστε υμεις ο γαρ υιος τ ου ανθρωπου ουκ ηλθεν ψυχας α νθρωπων απολεσαι αλλα σωσαι (h.t.)	Om	Om
10:38	16	εις τον οικον αυτης	Om	Om
11:2	15	ο εν τοις ουρανοις	Om	Om
11:2	41	γενηθητω το θελημα σου ως εν ουρανω και επι της γης	Om	Om
11:4	26 2x13	αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου	Om	Om
11:11	26 2x13	αρτον μη λιθον επιδωσει αυτω ει	Om	Om
11:44	31 2x15	γραμματεις και φαρισαιοι υποκριται	Om	Om
11:54	21	ινα κατηγορησωσιν αυτου (h.t.)	Om	Om
12:39	16	εγρηγορησεν αν και (h.t.)	--	Om
17:9	10	αυτω ου δοκω (h.t.)	Om	Om
17:24	14	εν τη ημερα αυτου (h.t.)	Om	Om
17:36	56 4x14 2x28	δυο εσονται εν τω αγρω ο εις παραλη φθησεται και ο ετ ερος αφεθησεται (h.t.)	Om	Om
18:24	18	περιλυπον γενομενον	Om	Om
19:45	20	εν αυτω και αγοραζοντας (h.t.)	Om	Om
20:13	7	ιδοντες (h.t.)	Om	Om
20:23	13	τι με πειραζετε	Om	Om
20:30	33 2x17	την γυναικα και ουτο ς απεθανεν ατεκνος (h.t.)	Om	Om
22:19b-20	152 8x19	το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν ωσαυτως και το ποτηριον μετα το δειπνησαι λεγων τουτο το ποτηριον η καινη διαθηκη εν τω αιματι μου το υπερ υμων εκχυνομενον	[[DB	[SB]
22:31	14	ειπεν δε ο κυριος	Om	Om
22:43-4	141 7x20	ωφθη δε αυτω αγγελος απ ουρανου ενισχυων αυτον και γενομενος εν αγωνια εκτενεστερον προσηυχετο εγενετο δε ο ιδρως αυτου ωσει θρομβοι αιματος καταβαινοντες επι την γην	[[DB	[ins]
22:64	30 2x15	αυτον ετυπτον αυτου το προσωπον και (h.t.)	Om	Om
22:68	10	η απολυσητε	Om	Om
23:17	41 2x20	αναγκην δε ειχεν απολυε ιν αυτοις κατα εορτην ενα (h.t.)	Om	Om
23:23	15	και των αρχιερεων (h.t.)	Om	Om
23:38	48 2x24	γραμμασιν ελληνικοις και ρω μαικοις και εβραικοις ουτος (h.t.)*	Om	Om
24:1	17	και τινες συν αυταις	Om	Om
24:12		ο δε πετρος αναστας εδραμεν επι το μνημειον και παρακυψας βλεπει τα οθονια κειμενα μονα και απηλθεν προς εαυτον θαυμαζων το γεγονος	[[DB	[ins]
24:36	24 2x12	και λεγει αυτοις ειρηνη υμιν	[[DB	Om
24:40		και τουτο ειπων επεδειξεν αυτοις τας χειρας και τους ποδας	[[DB	[SB]
24:42	21	και απο μελισσιου κηριου (h.t.)	Om	Om
24:46	12	και ουτως εδει	Om	Om
24:51	25	και ανεφερετο εις τον ουρανον (h.t.)	[[DB	[SB]
24:52	19	προσκυνήσαντες αὐτὸν (h.t.)	[[DB	[SB]
VUs=50		SBL - W/H = 92% agreement in Luke	43om	46/50

Again Dr. Holmes (the editor of the SBL GNT) appears oblivious to homoeoteleuton type errors, following Hort's text slavishly on these counts.  He is of course perfectly capable of making his own textual judgments, and does so on three ocassions, but these choices seem almost arbitrary, and are certainly not based on any recognition of homoeoteleuton features.  Its as if such features did not exist, or were irrelevant to textual critical choices generally, (as is typical of Hortian critical editions).

Interestingly, when Hort avoids following an omission outright, and instead prefers double-brackets, so does Holmes on three occasions, as if Hort's judgment, (after the wreckless ignoring of homoeoteleuton 95% of the time), were something to be given any credence, on the few ocassions when Hort exercises 'caution'.  


mr.scrivener

The Many Ancestors of Aleph/B

With all the many discussions of a 'common ancestor' for Aleph/B, one can be pardoned for beginning to believe there actually was such a thing, in the manner described.

Here we present for the first time a realistic picture of the Ancestor(s) of Aleph and B:

Click to Enlarge this picture

The first problem that confronts us is that Aleph and B are whole Bibles, each having a rather full set of NT books. 

These NT books of course originated from diverse sources.   More importantly for the purposes of Textual Criticism, each of these books had its own textual history and a long period of separate circulation as independent works.

Then came an equally long period, in which the Gospels were collected into a single manuscript, probably post-Marcion (c. 200 A.D.).   Likewise, the letters of Paul circulated first separately, then were early gathered into a collection, which, with a few later additions, also circulated separately for a long time.   Also, it seems likely that Luke/Acts were originally circulated together, then split up, with Luke being gathered with the other Gospels, and Acts being collected with the Catholic Epistles (James, Peter, John etc.).   Revelation seems to have had the longest independent circulation.

Finally, these collections were gathered into a single volume (a New Testament) for the use of churches, sometime in the early 4th century, and that seems to be where Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B) originate.

Hort himself acknowledged that a single "common ancestor" for Aleph/B was actually an artificial construct, meant more as a convenience in discussing common readings, than as an actual single ancestor:

 "Whatever be the mutual relation of א and B, each of them separately (א in the apocalypse excepted), is found...to be in fact essentially a text of the 2nd century or early 3rd century.  This fact, which is independent of the coincidences of אB, so that it would remain true of  א if B were unknown, and of B if א were unknown, suggest the most natural explanation of their coincidences.   They are due...to the extreme antiquity of the common original from which ...the two MSS have diverged, the date of which cannot be later than the early...2nd century.   ...So high an antiquity would of course be impossible if it were necessary to suppose that the 'common original' was a single archetypal MS comprising all the books as they now stand.    But, ...there is reason to suspect that the great MSS of the Christian empire were directly or indirectly transcribed from smaller exemplars which contained only portions of the NT; so that the general term 'common original', which we have used for the sake of simplicity, must in strictness be understood to denote the several common originals of the different books or groups of books."

(Hort, Introduction, ¶ 301., p. 222-223). 

---

Many Ancestors:

We know then for a fact that Aleph and B did not have a single ancient ancestor, but several. 

It is acknowledged for instance that the book of Revelation in Sinaiticus is unlike any other version.

 "The Apocalypse in codex Sinaiticus is a striking example of a fourth-century text that differs substantially from modern critical editions. It exhibits dozens of differences at key points, reflecting the concerns, interests, and idiosyncrasies of its earliest copyists and readers. Taken as a whole, Sinaiticus’s text of Revelation may constitute one of our earliest Christian commentaries on the book, disclosing its fourth-century milieu and anticipating the later concerns of Oecumenius and Andrew of Caesarea." (Juan Hernandez Jr., 2009)

   In John 1:1-8:38  (the first 8 chapters) Codex Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus and all other Alexandrian manuscripts. It is in closer agreement with Codex Bezae (D) in supporting the Western Text-type.  Vaticanus on the other hand, offers a version of the Western Text-type for the Pauline Epistles.

This means that for various books, or collections of books, the two manuscripts have completely different ancestors. (at least three ancestors are involved in just the three sections mentioned).

---

Common Readings:

On the other hand, the agreements, especially the 'agreements in error', that is unique agreements between Aleph/B against almost all other authorities, does indeed seem to point to common sources. 

This is no surprise in fact, when we know that the Four Gospels began to be collected together and produced as a single book,  beginning sometime in the early 3rd century.   It must have been after this time, that most of the common readings (especially the errors, unusual minority readings) between Aleph and B arose. 

There are however several possible sources for the agreements between Aleph and B, and they must all be carefully considered in any given case:

(a)   readings common to the original copies.  These would be expected to be rather common readings also found elsewhere,  particularly in independent lines of transmission, such as other text-types.

(b)   readings (errors) which arose by coincidence because of an unfortunate feature built into the text, such as multiple instances of homoeoteleuton from varying layouts.

(c)   readings consciously modified by editors attempting to correct or improve the text, including spelling conventions and grammar corrections,  and especially omissions of parts of speech and phrases perceived to be ambiguous, wordy or clumsy.

(d)   readings deliberately chosen among already available variants, popular or preferred readings involving theological or doctrinal issues, or historical perceptions.

(e)    readings due to a mistake or selection made in a previous common ancestor.   Many readings may well be the results of accumulated errors in a common transmission-line.

---

Striking Differences:

There are also however, many differences between Aleph and B, even within books that are assumed to have a common ancestor (e.g. the Gospels);  Hoskier for instance enumerated some 3036 differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. 

Those who promote the text of Aleph/B draw attention to these differences and claim that this proves the 'ancestor' of Aleph/B goes back "several generations", perhaps as many as "ten" (this however is probably exaggerated).  The purpose of this notice is to drive back the proposed date of this 'ancestor' to the 2nd century:

"..their common ancestor must have been copied several generations before. ... Aleph and B are distant cousins from long after their common ancestor, which itself must go back several generations. Indeed, when they agree, their common reading usually is from the early 2nd century." (Wallace, Komoszewski, Sawyer, Reinventing Jesus (Kregel, 2006) p. 78. 

 However, like the common readings, these differences may also have multiple causes, some of the most obvious being:

(a)   mistakes by the scribes themselves who made Aleph and B.  Each of these (two or more) scribes must have contributed many errors to both manuscripts.  Singular readings are the prime suspects.

(b)    differences in policy or preference regarding grammatical constructions, or how to handle suspicious readings in the master-copy.

(c)   the work of correctors, who may not have left clear traces of their work.  In particular, B has been overwritten and re-inked throughout, and Sinaiticus suffers from the hands of at least 10 correctors.

(d)   inherited differences from previous generations of copying separating either manuscript from the common ancestor or master-copy.

(e)   differing usage of cross-references or secondary sources used for textual comparison.  Both manuscirpts show signs of editorial activity of various kinds in the compilation of their texts.  

From all this, and each possible cause involves real variants, it is clear that neither similarities nor differences can be easily categorized as to how they arose, or dated as to when.  

---

 Three Important Eras:

Nonetheless, a natural and straightforward procedure presents itself, namely considering the three stages of transmission,

(1)  First Era:  Separate Works  -  Individual and independent circulation of the NT books, and the differences arising from varying circumstances between them in their transmission.

(2)   Second Era:   Early Collections  -  Circulation of the groups of books as collections,  and the features they would then share, and the errors arising from this format.

(3)  Third Era:  Whole NT Volumes  -  Circulation of the groups as complete copies of the NT, and the features and errors arising in this period.

It should be clear that the common readings shared between Aleph and B must belong to the first two periods of transmission, while the readings in which they differ will likely have arisen in the third period of transmission. 

We strongly doubt that "ten generations" of errors can be identified among the differences between these two manuscripts,  and prefer to identify the date of the nearest 'common ancestor' independently, based upon what is known about when these collections were popularized.   It is reasonable then, to date the nearest common ancestor of Aleph/B to about the beginning  or middle of the 3rd century, when it is known that such collections of the Gospels circulated, as P75 demonstrates.  

Consequently, we assign common readings between Aleph/B to this time and earlier, when they would have come together to form a common text spanning all four gospels.

Differences between Aleph and B we will primarily assign to the period from about 250 A.D. (c. P75) to 320 A.D.  (the inside date of manufacture for Aleph/B).

We have already analyzed the pre-history for Mark and Matthew (see our previous posts on this), and shown it to be quite different for each book, as expected.  On the other hand, we can also combine our findings, and propose that there was a common ancestor in the line after the gospels were gathered into a collection, in which the columns were about 15 characters per line.   This narrow width suggests that the copy that generated this large group of shared errors spanning Mark and Matthew was rather recent, since narrow columns were a practice that came much later than the time of P75.    The final result of this analysis will naturally date this large group of errors to this late period, namely the late 3rd century.

We will post a list shortly.

mr.scrivener

Breaking out the Ancestors of Aleph/B: Mark

Taking the convenient list of Markan omissions from the last post in hand, one immediately notices that the five largest chunks of text uncannily break into lines with 15 characters per line.  This is a strong correlation, and not likely to be a mere coincidence.  It is further corroborated by other shorter omissions, also breaking down into lines of 14-15 characters.

Five Big Ones:  Click to Enlarge

In the following fuller list, we mark those with yellow to indicate that they may belong to an ancestor with a different line-width, since the text can be divided up several ways.   Note that the three single lines of 15 chars per line:

Ancestor 3: click to enlarge

For reasons that will shortly become apparent, we call this group of omissions "Ancestor 3".   This long list of 31 lines is a strong indication of line-width, since almost half of these Variation Units can be identified as homoeoteleuton, regardless of what width we select from the likely options.  These omissions were certainly accidental, and so were caused by layout, not content.  The lack of theological, historical, or linguistic reasons for the omissions/additions also corroborates an accidental cause.

This column width is relatively narrow, and so these omissions arose later in the copy-stream, when narrower columns were selected for the very purpose of cutting down on accidental copy-errors, i.e, 3rd century.   It reflects the style of Codex Sinaiticus in terms of page format.

Earlier MSS had wider columns, before it was realised that errors could be minimised by better choices of format.    Other groups of equal-length omissions are also found among the Aleph/B readings.

The following group, which we have labeled "Ancestor 1", conveniently groups line-lengths of 20 - 23 together.  Although the 2nd half-chart may belong to a different (later) exemplar, the wider format is variable enough that all the omissions could have been generated from one master-copy.

Ancestor 1: Click to Enlarge

Again the yellow coding indicates other possible placements for individual variants.   Relatively few omissions would be from the older layers, especially obvious homoeoteleuton, because some would be caught in subsequent generational copying and proofreading.  The omissions without homoeoteleuton features would be most difficult for correctors to find or properly identify.  We should not then be surprised that the early candidates would be fewer in number.

Candidates for Ancestor 2 are more certain, and hence more attractive, by the nature of the numbers, which offer less alternative line-lengths to choose from:

The Green color-coding here indicates more confidence both in the identification as homoeoteleuton, and the proposed line-length in the master-copy.   Although the list is shorter, the existance of the exemplar is more certain.

Ancestor 3 has been glanced at already above.  Ancestor 4 is below:

Ancestor 4:  Click to Enlarge

As the line-length decreases, the alternative options also decrease, making the identification of column-width more certain.  One or two of these omissions could have been generated in an older, wider-column exemplar, much earlier in the transmission-stream, but more manuscripts would have been manufactured in the narrower format, as copying spread rapidly in the later centuries.  The high line-count here (13 lines) lends probability to an exemplar of this width.

With Ancestor 5, we again have an encouraging number of lines of exact lengths.  With 10 and 20 letters per line, other column widths are unlikely and a poor fit, which increases the confidence level in the choice of 10. 

Ancestor 5:  Click to Enlarge

With 19 lines of about 10 characters, this seems like a solid choice for an exemplar somewhere in the copying generations, that would have generated these accidental omissions.  Alternately, 20 characters is an option for many of these readings, but would also suggest a vulnerable ancestor, such as Ancestor 1 (or 1b). 

Manuscripts with columns narrower than 10 letters would be very rare, if they existed at all.   Ancestor 6, then, really represents the 'left-overs'.  Smaller omissions that are more likely to have been generated along the same line, or in the process of memorizing a long clause.   They could have taken place at any time or generation of copy, and must be left as 'floating omissions'.

These proposed "Ancestors" must not be taken to imply that Aleph/B (the common ancestor of the two 4th century Uncials) is only a '7th generation copy' of the original Mark.  This is far from likely.

It should be remembered that good copyists and their generations will be almost undetectable, since they will have reproduced their master-copy accurately.   Only "bad" copies will be identifiable in a sorting process like the above.   

What the following shows, in comparison with what we found regarding Matthew, is that Mark has suffered at least "7 bad generations" of copying, whereas Matthew has only seemed to have suffered about 3 or 4. 

This is precisely what we should expect, since Mark is a much older document, and would have been subjected to more generations of corruption than Matthew.   What we see then, is two different lines of bad copying converging in the 'ancestor' of Aleph/B.  Originally, these gospels would have been copied as separate books, but were then brought together in the 2nd century.

The Omissions have been examined elsewhere (see our Homoioteleuton Blogsite for reconstructed layouts and textual evidences for these Variation Units.).

Our concern at the moment here is to show that:

a) Hort was wrong about the 'purity' of Aleph/B.

b) The textual history of the Aleph/B line of transmission can be reconstructed very adequately, with a proper consideration of all the available evidence and technique.

c) The Omissions of Aleph/B should never be adopted into the Christian NT text, except in certain extremely unusual circumstances. 

This is an isolated, unreliable line of transmission, and all but useless for textual correction.

mr.scrivener

The new SBL Text and Hort (continued)

We looked at Matthew, now we look at Mark, to compare W/H and the new SBL GNT.

Here we have placed all the omissions of significant portions of Holy Scripture in a chart, that is , all phrases, half-verses, and verses.   These are the common omissions which probably originate in the various ancestors of Aleph/B.

Hort of course, follows them slavishly, even when many are obvious homoeoteleuton errors.  (almost half of them).  The SBL text is in the same column as Hort, and we only note in brackets where SBL has retained a phrase or two that the Westcott-Hort text deletes.

Out of 37 serious omissions of text, the SBL-GNT follows Hort in 34 of them, for a whopping 92% agreement in Mark.

Like Hort, the SBL gives no serious consideration to homoeoteleuton errors.  It really is just the Aleph/B text, with a few minor modifications.

Mark:
verse	chrs	omissions (varying letters per column)	WH	TYPE
1:1	11 (7)	υιου του θεου	Om	(h.t.)
1:14	12	της βασιλειας	Om	--
1:42	13	ειποντος αυτου	Om	(h.t.)
3:5	12	υγιης ως η αλλη	Om	--
3:15	22 (11)	θεραπευειν τ ας νοσους και	Om	(h.t.)
6:11	74 6x12 5x15 4x18 3x24	αμην λεγω υμιν ανε κτοτερον εσται σο δομοις η γομορροι ς εν ημερα κρισεως η τη πολει εκεινη	Om	--
6:33	20	και συνηλθο ν προς αυτον	Om	(h.t.)
6:36	10 (+3)	ουκ εχουσιν	Om	(h.t.)
7:2	9	εμεμψαντο	Om	--
7:8	61 6x10 4x15 3x20	βαπτισμους ξεστω ν και ποτηριων και α λλα παρομοια τοιαυ τα πολλα ποιειτε	Om	--
7:16	26 2x13	ει τις εχει ωτα α κουειν ακουετω	Om	--
8:9	10	οι φαγοντες	Om	--
8:26	21	μηδε ειπης τ ινι εν τη κωμη	Om	(h.a.)
9:29	10	και νηστεια	Om	(h.a.)
9:38	18	ος ουκ ακολουθει ημιν	Om	(ed.)
9:44	44 4x11 3x15	οπου ο σκωληξ αυτ ων ου τελευτα και τ ο πυρου σβεννυται	Om	--
9:45-6	62	εις το πυρ το ασβεστ ον οπου ο σκωληξ αυ των ου τελευτα και το πυρ ου σβεννυται	Om
9:49	26 2x13	και πασα θυσια α λι αλισθησεται	Om	(h.t.)
10:7	38 2x19	και προσκολληθησεται προς την γυναικα αυτου	Om	(h.t.)
10:21	14	αρας τον σταυρον	Om	--
10:24	29 2x15	τους πεποιθοτας επι τοις χρημασιν	Om	--
11:8	23 2x12	και εστρωννυο ν εις την οδον	Om	(h.t.)
11:10	15	εν ονοματι κυριου	Om	--
11:23	8	ο εαν ειπη	Om	--
11:26	70 4x18 5x14	ει δε υμεις ουκ αφ ιετε ουδε ο πατηρ υμων ο εν τοις ουρ ανοις αφησει τα π αραπτωματα υμων	Om	(h.t.)
12:23	13	οταν αναστωσιν	(In)	--
12:29	15	πασων των εντολων	Om	--
12:30	15	αυτη πρωτη εντολη	Om	--
12:33	17	και εξ ολης της ψυχης	Om	(h.a.)
13:11	12	μηδε μελετατε	Om	(h.t.)
13:14	27 2x13	το ρηθεν υπο δαν ιηλ του προφητου	Om	(h.t.*)
14:19	15	και αλλος μητι εγω	Om	(h.t.)
14:27	20 2x10	εν εμοι εν τη νυκτι ταυτη	Om	(h.a.)
14:68	18	και αλεκτωρ εφωνησεν	(In)	(h.t.)
14:70	20 2x10	και η λαλια σ ου ομοιαζει	(In)	(h.t.)
15:3	22 2x11	αυτος δε ουδε ν απεκρινατο	Om	--
15:28	46 3x15	και επληρωθη η γραφ η η λεγουσα και μετ α ανομων ελογισθη	Om	(h.t.)

Of special interest, is the fact that most of the omissions, even of long passages, happen to be multiples of key column-widths, probably reflecting the lost master-copies used to make this text, and create the opportunity for the obvious proliferation of stupid accidental omissions, which went uncorrected in this Alexandrian branch of transmission.

We've listed some of the ways the longer omissions can be divided up into lines.

We can only assume that for some reason the early scribes responsible for these texts just didn't do a very good job proof-reading their own work.

mr.scrivener