Every text transmitted across centuries is subject to the risks inherent in manual copying. In the case of the Hebrew Old Testament, the phenomenon of random omissions by scribes, attributable to parablepsis, poses a critical area of interest in objective textual scholarship. Copyists, working by eye, can inadvertently skip material when their eyes move from one word or phrase to another bearing similar beginnings (homoioarcheton) or endings (homoioteleuton). This article examines the nature of these errors, the manuscript tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures, the methods by which they are detected, and how rigorous textual criticism—grounded in the Masoretic tradition and supported by other ancient versions—serves to restore the accuracy of the text.

The Nature Of Parablepsis And Its Variants In Hebrew Manuscripts

Parablepsis describes the phenomenon in which a scribe’s eye unintentionally leaps from one word or phrase to a similar one, thereby omitting the intervening text. When the two similar units are at the beginning, the error is known as homoioarcheton—“similar beginning.” When they are at the end, the error is called homoioteleuton—“similar ending.” Both result in the loss of text, from a single word to several verses. These errors are inherently mechanical; the scribe does not intend to alter the text but instead is distracted or overly reliant on line‑by‑line similarity.

For example, suppose two lines in a Hebrew manuscript begin with the same Hebrew word or phrase. The scribe’s eye, after finishing copying the first, might jump to the matching phrase and resume copying from there—thus skipping everything in between. Similarly, if two lines end identically, the scribe finishing one line might inadvertently see the same ending in the next line and move on, overlooking any text placed between them.

These errors are well attested in Hebrew manuscript tradition. Over centuries, multiple such omissions have been identified, particularly in the transmission of the Hebrew text in manuscripts preceding, contemporaneous with, and following the Masoretic era. Because the Masoretic scribes were meticulous—and developed extensive apparatus of massora and marginal notes—many such corruptions were detected and marked. But in pre‑Masoretic manuscripts and some medieval copies, omissions persisted.

The Manuscript Tradition: From Ancient Scrolls To Masoretic Codices

By the time of the fourth through tenth centuries C.E., the Masoretes had devoted themselves to preserving the Hebrew Scriptures with exceptional care. They relied on codices such as the Codex Leningrad B 19A (dated 1008 C.E.) and the Aleppo Codex (10th century C.E.) as their primary textual base. Their method involved detailed marginal annotations, including notes on word counts, unusual spellings, and variant readings, which served to guard against scribal errors and omissions.

Before the Masoretes, Hebrew scribes known as Sopherim, and earlier groups, transmitted the sacred text. Their copies were less uniform, and thus more vulnerable to mechanical errors. Once the Masoretes consolidated and stabilized the text, they became the custodians of what is now understood as the Masoretic Text, considered by objective textual studies to reflect a highly faithful restoration of the original Hebrew.

Even so, parablepsis could have introduced variants in the Masoretic tradition itself. Where marginal notes or cross‑references indicated something missing, later scribes could restore material. The presence of such notes in the margins is evidence of the Masoretic commitment to textual fidelity. In the great manuscripts, these marginal notations often point to known omissions or raise alerts where text appears disrupted.

Detection And Recovery Of Omissions In The Textual Tradition

When a scholar suspects an omission, one compares the Masoretic Text with other ancient textual witnesses: the Septuagint (LXX), the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and the Vulgate. These versions, though secondary, often preserve readings that fill gaps or reflect what may originally have stood in Hebrew.

For instance, if a passage in the Masoretic Text seems unexpectedly brief, but the Septuagint reads more expansively, the omission may be due to homoioteleuton or homoioarcheton in the Hebrew scribe’s work. The objective historian then examines which reading is more likely original. One must assume the principle of lectio difficilior potior—that the more difficult reading is preferred—only where it aligns with manuscript evidence. But the Masoretic evidence often carries preeminent weight, unless the DSS or a consistent Septuagint reading strongly supports longer or different text, especially when there is internal coherence with the rest of the Hebrew text.

Consider a hypothetical example: The Masoretic Text in 2 Sam. 3:23 reads a shorter version of a phrase. The Septuagint, DSS fragments (if extant), and Targum preserve a longer clause providing contextual clarity. The omission in the Hebrew may have resulted from homoioteleuton between two identical line endings. A textual scholar carefully assesses the Hebrew context, the weight of the Masoretic tradition, and the combined testimony of external versions. Where the longer reading improves sense, aligns with other witnesses, and plausibly fills an unmarked gap, restoration may be made—always with humility and evidence‑centered justification.

Examples And Scholarly Method

While specifics vary, scholars point to several textual spots where omission is evident. In Psalm passages, genealogies, and narrative descriptions, near‑identical construction frequently leads to omissions. One case often cited is in genealogical lists where repetitive names or phrases create a risk of homoioteleuton. When the Septuagint or the DSS renders a list with names that the Masoretic Text lacks, the omission is plausibly due to copyist error.

Another category involves parallel poetic lines in Psalms or prophetic oracles. If two lines share a repeated phrase or structure, a scribe could skip from one to the next. A longer poetic line or theological clause missing in the Masoretic but present in the Septuagint or in DSS fragments suggests such a mechanical lapse.

Quantitative tools developed by Masorean scholars, such as counts of letters in certain portions, cross‑references about unusual words, and statistical records of hapax legomena, reinforce detection. When counts fail or anomalies are noted, the scribe or later corrector marks the text—another layer of correction.

Objective Preservation Through Transmission

From the objective viewpoint, the Hebrew text’s preservation rests on two pillars: the painstaking diligence of Masoretic scribes and the comparative support of ancient translations and scrolls. The Masoretic apparatus is not infallible, but its structured approach to cross‑checking lends superior reliability. When random omissions occurred, they were often flagged or corrected. When they escaped notice, later manuscript cousins or parallel versions sometimes preserved the omitted material.

The operational principle is to treat the Masoretic Text as the primary text, to resist the temptation to reconstruct on the basis of variant readings alone, and to restore only when evidence demands. Thus the objective scholar upholds the Masoretic tradition, not as infallible, but as the most faithful surviving text, while recognizing that human error introduces places where more than one line of evidence demonstrates an omission.

Representative Examples of Random Copyist Omissions in Hebrew Manuscripts

The phenomenon of random omissions, whether caused by parablepsis or simply inattentive transcription, is well documented across multiple manuscript traditions of the Hebrew Old Testament. Below are several specific examples, including those you provided, along with additional documented instances that illustrate how these errors manifest and the importance of critically evaluating shorter readings—even when no obvious visual cue is present.

5 31 (Exodus 8:8)
ויצא משה ואהרן מעם̇ פ̇ר̇ע֯ה ו̇יצעק משה֯ אל יהוה̇
“And Moses and Aaron exited from before {Pharaoh}. And Moses cried out to Jehovah.”
Here, the word “Pharaoh” was inadvertently omitted, breaking the sense of the passage. The omission was corrected by a second hand, likely once the nonsense was recognized. No clear visual cause is apparent, indicating the omission was entirely random.

32 i 7 (Exodus 12:37)
ויסעו בני ישראל מרעמסס סכתה כש̇ש {א֗} מאו̇ת אלף ר̇גלי ה̇גברים
“And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six {hun-}dred thousand footmen.”
In this case, the scribe initially omitted the word “hundred” (מאות), jumping to the word “thousand” (אלף), producing a dramatically smaller and inaccurate figure of 6,000. The error was noticed and corrected by erasing the initial erroneous aleph.

37 2 (Fragmentary, Uncertain Reference)
ויבא משה ואהרן אל פרעה ולא שמע
“So entered Moses {and Aaron to} Pharaoh, but he did not listen.”
This example lacks a known canonical reference. The omission of both “Aaron” and the connecting preposition leaves the text incoherent. A secondary hand added the missing elements. No visible trigger exists, yet the omission is unmistakable.

4QExod-b (Exodus 20:17)
לא תחמד אשת רעך… וכל אשר לרעך
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife… or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
In 4QExod-b, the second clause “or anything that belongs to your neighbor” was omitted. There’s no homoioteleuton to explain it, yet it was restored in subsequent traditions, confirming the omission was not original.

4QDeut-n (Deuteronomy 6:5)
ואהבת את יהוה אלהיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאדך
“You shall love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.”
A variant reading in 4QDeut-n omits “with all your soul” (ובכל נפשך), leaving a truncated command. No visual cause like homoioteleuton is present, and yet the shorter text distorts the syntactic balance and theological emphasis.

MT Jeremiah vs. LXX Jeremiah (Jeremiah 27:1)
בראשית ממלכת יהויקים בן יאשיהו
“In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah…”
The Masoretic Text reads Jehoiakim, while the Septuagint has Zedekiah, which corresponds with the content of the surrounding verses. Scholars argue the scribe of the MT could have skipped or misread an original that mentioned both, especially since this kind of omission aligns with internal inconsistencies in chapter placement. Whether this is homoioteleuton or confusion is debated.

1 Samuel 14:41 (Conflation in LXX and MT)
Masoretic:
ויאמר שאול אל יהוה אלהי ישראל הבה תמים
LXX (longer):
And Saul said, “O Lord God of Israel, why have You not answered Your servant this day? If this guilt is in me or in Jonathan my son, give Urim; but if it is in Your people Israel, give Thummim.”
The LXX preserves a much longer and coherent ritual context. The MT’s abrupt phrasing could result from homoioteleuton—repeating endings “give” or “Urim/Thummim” may have caused the eye to skip. Here the MT reflects an apparent random omission that leaves a liturgical and narrative gap.

Genesis 4:8 (Cain’s Speech Omitted)
MT:
ויאמר קין אל הבל אחיו ויהי בהיותם בשדה…
“And Cain said to Abel his brother… and it came to pass, when they were in the field…”
The text implies a speech but omits the content. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint include the phrase: “Let us go out to the field”—a phrase likely omitted in the MT due to homoioteleuton between “field” and “in the field” or the similar structure bracketing Cain’s speech.

These examples underscore the principle that even in the absence of clear visual triggers, scribal omissions still occur and must be evaluated through comparative manuscript analysis. The Masoretic Text remains the foundational standard, but where it exhibits signs of random loss and this is corroborated by multiple early sources such as the Septuagint or Dead Sea Scrolls, restoration is textually warranted. Recognizing the reality of such omissions challenges the simplistic assumption that the shorter reading is always preferable and emphasizes the necessity of a balanced, evidence-based approach to textual criticism.

Conclusion

Through an objective, historical‑grammatical approach, the study of parablepsis, homoioarcheton, and homoioteleuton in the Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts reveals both the fragility and resilience of the textual transmission. Copyist omissions were a known hazard, yet the craftsmanship of the Masoretes, combined with comparative analysis of the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Targums, and Vulgate, provides a principled method for identifying and correcting these errors. Where the Masoretic tradition is intact, its authority holds; where mechanical omission is evident and corroborated by authentic ancient witnesses, textual recovery is warranted. The process reflects confidence in the textual tradition and respect for the evidence—a commitment to restoration through rigorous scholarship, not skepticism.

You May Also Enjoy

Hebrew Manuscript Studies: An Introduction

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS