In this section I am discussing the transmission of the scripture documents. We observed in the previous post that scripture was transmitted by scribes who copied the texts. I hinted that there are common scribal errors. The first is homeoteleuton, as indicated in the title of the post.

Homeoteleuton involves two lines which end in the same way or with the same word. A lapse in concentration may cause the scribe to skip the second line under the assumption that it has already been copied.

A classic example of this kind of scribal error is in Matthew 19.9-10. I have cited the ESV and the SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT). The ESV attempts at a word for word translation and also gives variant readings in its apparatus. The text of the SBLGNT is as follows:

λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ
τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ
καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται
καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται.
Λέγουσιν αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταί·
Εἰ οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ αἰτία τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
μετὰ τῆς γυναικός, οὐ συμφέρει γαμῆσαι.

The ESV text is as follows:

And I say to you: whoever divorces
his wife except for sexual immorality
and marries another, commits adultery
and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
The disciples said to him,
“If such is the case of a man with his wife,
it is better not to marry.”

Note that the bold faced fourth line is actually in the alternate reading of the ESV. The similar ending of the third and fourth lines could have resulted in a scribal error of missing the fourth line altogether. Note, however, that most modern translations do not include the fourth line of text and instead read:

“And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality and marries another, commits adultery.”

The reasons for this decision are varied and we will discuss this in later posts in this section. However, it is important to note two things. First, homeoteleuton is almost always a case of an accidental error of skipping a line. Second, since the final sentence needs to make sense, it is only in the rarest of situations that the alternate readings are actually in opposition to each other.

This can be seen in the above example. The difference in the two readings are not in opposition to each other, though the shorter reading is somewhat less explicit about the status of a divorced woman.

Nevertheless, the above example clearly indicates what homeoteleuton is and how the text could be amended accidentally.