of 12 to 14 letters or of multiples of the same, his exemplar was doubtless written in lines of this length. Often, but not always, an obvious cause of omission may be found in homoeoteleuton, the beginning or ending of consecutive portions of text with the same combinations of letters or of words. Reduplications due to the same cause likewise occur, but more rarely. More characteristic than these commonest of lapses is a tendency to double a single short word, syllable, or letter, or to drop one of two similar consecutive short words, syllables, or letters. The following are examples: Mark ix 25 ⲉⲅⲱⲉⲅⲱⲉⲡⲓⲧⲁⲥⲥⲱ for ⲉⲅⲱⲉⲡⲓⲧⲁⲥⲥⲱ; Acts xviii 17 ⲧⲟⲩⲧⲱⲛⲧⲱⲛⲧⲱ for ⲧⲟⲩⲧⲱⲛⲧⲱ; Mark xiii 13 ⲉⲓⲥⲥⲧⲉⲗⲟⲥ for ⲉⲓⲥⲧⲉⲗⲟⲥ; John xiv 10 ⲁⲉⲅⲱ for ⲁⲉⲅⲱⲗⲉⲅⲱ; Luke vii 24 ⲥⲁⲗⲉⲩⲟⲙⲉⲛ for ⲥⲁⲗⲉⲩⲟⲙⲉⲛⲟⲛ; Mark iii 5 ⲗⲉⲓ for ⲗⲉⲅⲉⲓ; vi 22 ⲉⲓⲉⲗⲑⲟⲩⲥⲏⲥ for ⲉⲓⲥⲉⲗⲑⲟⲩⲥⲏⲥ; vii 21 ⲇⲓⲗⲟⲅⲓⲥⲙⲟⲓ for ⲇⲓⲁⲗⲟⲅⲓⲥⲙⲟⲓ; also without similarity of form, Mark vi 1 ⲉⲝⲏⲑⲉⲛ for ⲉⲝⲏⲗⲑⲉⲛ; vii 18 ⲁⲥⲩⲛⲧⲟⲓ for ⲁⲥⲩⲛⲉⲧⲟⲓ. Occasionally we find assimilations of ending, as Mark ν 38 αλαλαζοντας πολλας (for πολλα); Rom. xiv 18 δοκιμοις τοις ανθρωτποις (for δοκιμος); or even, but very rarely, such verbal assimilations as κήρυγμα ὃ ἐκήρυξεν in Acts x 37 for βάπτισμα ὃ ἐκήρυξεν.
313. The singular readings of Β which cannot strictly be called clerical errors, and yet which appear to be individualisms of the scribe, are confined within still narrower limits. A current supposition, to which frequent repetition has given a kind of authority, that the scribe of Β was peculiarly addicted to arbitrary omissions, we believe to be entirely unfounded, except possibly in the very limited sense explained below, while the facts which have given it plausibility are everywhere conspicuous.
