Stephanus 223a1-b8

 S: Whereas the one that professes, on the one hand, that it makes associations for the sake virtue, but on the other hand, makes money as a wage, isn't this genus worthy to be addressed by a different name?

T: Of course.

S: By what name?  Try to say.

T: It is quite clear; for we seem to me to have discovered the sophist.  So, having said this, I at least  suppose that I would be calling him by a fitting name.

S: According to the present speech, Theaetetus, as is likely, the--of the art of appropriation, of the art of conquering (χειρωτικῆς), of the art of acquisition (κτητικῆς), of the art of hunting  (θηρευτικῆς), of hunting living creatures, of hunting on land, of hunting on dry land (χερσαίας), of the art of hunting tame animals, of hunting human beings (ἀνθρωποθηρίας), of hunting by persuasion, of hunting in private, of the art of working for a wage, of the art of money-changing (νομισματοπωλικῆς), of the art of opinion-educating (δοξοπαιδευτικῆς)--hunting of wealthy and respectable young men when it comes into being, one must call, as the present speech turns out for us, the art of sophistry.

T: Absolutely.

It's hard to know where to begin when attempting to describe what an abomination the Stranger's definition is. 

To begin with, there is the "as is likely" again--indicating uncertainty.

The phrase "the present speech" appears at the beginning and end of the speech, indicating that this can't possibly be the last word.

Then there is the fact that the word "the" is separated from the words "hunting of wealthy and respectable men by 15 words. Has anyone ever seen anything like it?

Then there is the series of arts/activities in the genitive case that follow the word "the" that don't have any obvious grammatical function. It can only be taken as the sequences of arts/activities of the previous division. 

Then there is the series of made up words, some of the arts, some not--almost all of them appearing in the big Liddell-Scott as the only time the word appears in all of Greek literature. Editors don't know what to do with some of the words and suggest including or excluding some of them.

Then there is the fact that the list does not accurately reflect the previous division. The first part of the definition of the angler and sophist (up to animal hunting) should be identical. But they're not.

This is the list as taken from 221ff.

συμπάσης γὰρ τέχνης τὸ μὲν ἥμισυ μέρος κτητικὸν ἦν, κτητικοῦ δὲ χειρωτικόν, χειρωτικοῦ δὲ θηρευτικόν, τοῦ δὲ θηρευτικοῦ ζῳοθηρικόν...

For of all art taken together, there was the half part that has to do with acquiring  (κτητικὸν), and of the acquiring part the part that has to do with conquering (χειρωτικόν), and of the part that has to do with conquering the part that has to do with hunting  (θηρευτικόν), and of the hunting part the part that has to do with animal hunting (ζῳοθηρικόν) ...

This is the Stranger's incorrect rehearsal of the divisions at 223bff.

ἡ τέχνης οἰκειωτικῆς, χειρωτικῆς, κτητικῆς, θηρευτικῆς, ζῳοθηρίας ...

The Stranger introduces a division that wasn't there before (the art of appropriation) and incorrectly puts the art of conquering before the art of ac

After the angler and the sophist part ways, these are the divisions of the sophist:

πεζοθηρικόν (220a9), τὴν ἡμεροθηρικὴν (222c3), πιθανουργικήν (222c10), ἰδιοθηρευτικῆς (222d7), μισθαρνητικοῦ (222e5), τὸν σοφιστήν (223a8--notice that Theaetetus names the person not the genus).

This is how the Stranger rehearses it (with new elements in bold):

πεζοθηρίας, χερσαίας, ἡμεροθηρικῆς, ἀνθρωποθηρίας, πιθανοθηρίας, ἰδιοθηρίας, μισθαρνικῆς, νομισματοπωλικῆς, δοξοπαιδευτικῆς, νέων πλουσίων καὶ ἐνδόξων γιγνομένη θήρα προσρητέον, ὡς ὁ νῦν λόγος ἡμῖν συμβαίνει, σοφιστική.

The additions come out of nowhere, except for the hunting of human beings, which Theaetetus mentions at 222c2, but this was not a genus the pair divided in two, so it doesn't belong in the list.

All in all, the initial rehearsal at 22b2ff was correct and made sense (each division is stated clearly, the genus first and then the part that the angler belongs to. The rehearsal at 223b2 is incorrect and does not make sense (it does not list each genus followed by the part the sophist belongs to).

All of this is an indication that the pair made a wrong turn, are on the wrong path and need to get back on track.

So what is the point of all this? 

Notice Theaetetus's reaction to the initial correct definition of the angler: 

παντάπασι μὲν οὖν τοῦτό γε ἱκανῶς δεδήλωται.

And his reaction to the incorrect definition of the sophist:

παντάπασι μὲν οὖν. 

Both are overwhelmingly positive; Theaetetus thinks both are true, and that is the problem. If someone is ignorant, you can convince them of anything, whether it's true or not. There's no way to know if Theaetetus understood the initial correct definition any better than he understood the incorrect definition of the sophist (that is, not at all). This is what makes sophistry possible--the sophist takes advantage of this ignorance and persuades the ignorant that what is false is true.