That in this way some depravations of Scripture may possibly have arisen, would hardly I presume be doubted.
But I suspect that the hypothesis is generally a wholly mistaken one; having been imported into this subject-matter (like many other notions which are quite out of place here), from the region of the Classics,--where (as we know) the phenomenon is even common.

Especially is this hypothesis resorted to (I believe) in order to explain those instances of assimilation which are so frequently to be met with in Codd.

B and [Symbol: Aleph].
Another favourite way of accounting for instances of assimilation, is by taking for granted that the scribe was thinking of the parallel or the cognate place.

And certainly (as before) there is no denying that just as the familiar language of a parallel place in another Gospel presents itself unbidden to the memory of a reader, so may it have struck a copyist also with sufficient vividness to persuade him to write, not the words which he saw before him, but the words which he remembered.

All this is certainly possible.
But I strongly incline to the suspicion that this is not by any means the right way to explain the phenomena under discussion.