APPENDIX D

CONFLATION OR CONFUSION?[1]

Conflation is the theory that when a scribe or editor had before him two or more manuscripts that at a given point had different readings that might "properly" be combined to produce a more "full" reading, he might do so. The result would be called "conflation" according to Hort.

 

When evaluating a putative example of conflation, due consideration should be given to the possibility that the differences may have come about because of the accidental (or intentional) omission of different parts of a "complete" original reading.

 

The list that follows comprises possible examples of conflation found to date from all sources. (There may be quite a few more discoverable by a sharp eye.) These are presented to the reader for his own evaluation and decision. They range from cases of obvious conflation and obvious omission to cases of sheer confusion where it is highly doubtful that the mechanism "conflation" was at work. Accordingly, the examples are classified into two sets of two groups each:

1. True, or simple "conflation":

a) Simple addition or telescoping of readings, or omission;

b) Addition plus simple coupling links, or omission.

2. Marginal "conflation'' or confusion:

a) Complicated by substitution, transposition or moderate internal changes, or omissions;

b) Substantial differences—"conflation" dubious.

 

The full extent of the confusion that exists will not be apparent to the reader since for most of the examples there are one or more further variations not included here because they are not relevant to the possible instances of conflation.

 

The symbols in the critical apparatus are essentially those in general use. The abbreviations pc, al, pm and rell have the same meanings as in the Nestle editions. I have represented f¹ and f¹³ by the numbers only. Only one text-type symbol is used, Byz, which stands for the "Byzantine" manuscript tradition. I have used parentheses in two ways—enclosing a papyrus they mean there is doubt as to what reading is exhibited, enclosing any other kinds of witnesses they mean the witness(es) has a slight variation from the reading of the witness(es) not so enclosed. The reader cannot fail to note that the completeness of the apparatus varies considerably from example to example—this is a reflection of the sources that were available to me.

 

Group 1. a) Simple addition or telescoping of readings, or omission.

(This would appear to be a conflation on the part of B and W. Since Hort did not follow B here, he must have been of a similar opinion.)

(An evident conflation on the part of some later MSS, building on the "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian/ Western" readings.)

(Might this be a conflation on the part of À, with "Caesarean" and "Western" embellishments?)

(Is this a "Byzantine" conflation of the "Western" and "Alexandrian" readings, or are the latter independent simplifications of the former? It should be noted that À and B are alone in omitting the first sou.)

(It seems clear that Codex W here conflates the "Alexandrian" and "Byzantine" readings.)

(This would appear to be a conflation on the part of B. Since Hort used brackets here, he must have tended to a similar opinion.)

(This would appear to be a "Western" conflation of "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian" elements. A recent meeting of papyrologists dated P⁶⁴ in the first century [!] and confirmed that it supports the Byzantine reading.)

(Before the advent of P⁵³ presumably all would agree that A has here conflated the "Byzantine" and "Western" readings. Although the papyrus antedates any extant witness to these two "text-types", I suggest that the proper conclusion is that the conflation is a very early one.)

(Shall we say that the "Byzantine" text has a conflation based on a handful of late MSS on the one hand and the combined "Alexandrian-Western" text-types on the other? It seems more probable that K etc. have simplified the "Byzantine" reading, an easy instance of homoioteleuton. In that event the "Alexandrian-Western" reading is best explained as a separate simplification of the original reading, a bit of parablepsis.)

(Here we seem to have varied witnesses conflating the "Byzantine-Alexandrian" and "Western" readings.)

(Here we have "Alexandrian" witnesses conflating the "Byzantine" reading and that of Codex B. Although there has been no accretion of new evidence, UBS³ seems to espouse this obvious conflation whereas UBS¹ did not.)

(Is this not an obvious "Alexandrian" conflation? Yet the UBS text adopts it without giving any indication that there are other readings.)

(This appears to be a clear conflation on the part of B. Since Hort did not follow B here he presumably tended to the same opinion.)

(If the producers of the "Syrian" text followed a policy of conflation, why did they neglect this fine opportunity? Note that Hort's "late Syrian" reading now has the earliest attestation.)

(This is an obvious conflation in one late MS. Note the strong early attestation for the "Byzantine" reading.)

(This appears to be a case of "Western" conflation. Note that Hort's "late Syrian" reading now has very early attestation.)

(It would appear that B here conflates "Byzantine" and "Western" elements. Since Hort did not follow B here he must have tended toward the same opinion. Note that Hort's "late Syrian" reading now has very early attestation.)

(A century ago this could have been interpreted as a "Syrian" conflation, but now we can scarcely say that P⁶⁶ conflated P⁷⁵ and D. The possibility must at least be considered that Hort's "late Syrian" reading is in fact the earliest, the original.)

(A century ago this could have been interpreted as a "Syrian" conflation, but now we can hardly say that P⁶⁶ conflated B and D. The possibility must be entertained that Hort's "late Syrian" reading is in fact the earliest. All three words end in nu, so both [or all three] shorter readings could be the result of homoioteleuton.)

(It seems obvious that the "Byzantine" reading cannot be a conflation of the "Alexandrian" reading and that of one late MS. 1780 has dropped part of the "Byzantine" reading. I suggest the same explanation for the "Alexandrian" reading. Observe that the "Byzantine" reading now has very early attestation.)

(Conflation or confusion? Did P^66c conflate B and W? Or should we say that P^66c has the original reading that everyone else [including P^66*!] simplified? Note that Hort's "late Syrian" reading now has the earliest attestation, with a vengeance!)

(This is an instructive conflation on the part of P^66c. Note the early attestation for the "Byzantine" reading.)

(This would appear to be a not very felicitous conflation on the part of B, etc.)

(This could be a "Byzantine" conflation, but the first two readings could just as easily be independent simplifications of the longer reading.)

(This could be a "Byzantine" conflation, but it could just as easily be the case that the two shorter readings are independent simplifications of the longer one; homoioarcton perhaps. Is the "Western" reading a conflation or simply a reversal of the word order?)

(This is presumably a conflation of the "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian" readings.)

(This would appear to be a "Western" conflation of the "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian" readings.)

(A century ago this might have been interpreted as a "Syrian" conflation, but now we can hardly say that P⁴⁵ conflated Aleph and D. Why not say that Hort's "late Syrian" reading is not only the earliest but also the best? I would say that the "Alexandrian" reading is decidedly inferior in terms of the discourse structure of the text, the sort of thing that would appeal to scribes without native speaker control of Koine Greek.[2])

(This seems to be a clear conflation on the part of Aleph.)

(This would appear to be a conflation of the "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian" readings.)

(Although unquestionably early, this really does appear to be a conflation on the part of P⁴⁶, etc.)

(Modern editors have tended to regard the long reading as original, but now that we know that the "Byzantine" text goes back at least to the second century we should reconsider the possibility that P⁴⁶, etc. have a conflation. In the example above they have demonstrated this ability.)

(The editors of the UBS text make the reading of B their first choice, and that of the "Byzantine" text their last choice! They must consider the "Byzantine" reading to be a prime illustration of "conflation", but how did it come about? Did "Syrian editors" borrow the two kais from Y and 0208 respectively, or did these drop parts of the longer reading? Was PatroV borrowed from Aleph, A, C or did these drop still other parts of the original? Presumably the UBS editors feel that H omitted part of B, but B could easily show the result of omission also, a not very difficult case of homoioteleuton [four words end in -ou]. I submit that the reading which best explains the rise of all the others is precisely that of the "Byzantine" text.)

(Aleph conflates, presumably. Note the early attestation for the "Byzantine" reading.)

(The "Byzantine" reading can scarcely be a conflation based on 103, so 103 must have a simplification of the "Byzantine" reading. I suggest the same explanation for the "Alexandrian-Western" reading. Both short forms could easily be the result of homoioteleuton [3 x -oiV].)

(It is clear that B could not have a conflation based on 920, unless it is the sole survivor of a very early tradition, but neither may we say that P⁴⁶ is simplifying B. Note that here it is the "Alexandrian" text that has the "fuller, smoother" reading.)

(Here Aleph conflates the readings of two groups of minuscule MSS. It follows that though these MSS are much later in date than Aleph they reflect an earlier form of the text. In 6:3/4 Aleph repeats this reading in a clear case of assimilation. The statement of evidence in examples 37, 38 ,39 and 49 is taken from The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text [Thomas Nelson, 1985].)

(Aleph repeats the conflation.)

(Aleph repeats the conflation again.)

 

Group 1. b) Addition plus simple coupling links, or omission.

(Here we presumably have a "Western" conflation of the "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian" readings.)

(Codex B appears to have a conflation, an opinion with which the editors of the UBS texts evidently concur.)

(Here, at last, we seem to have a clear "Byzantine" conflation, albeit dating from the second century.

The whole clause in the "Byzantine" text reads like this: oi arciereiV empaixonteV meta twn grammatewn kai presbuterwn kai Qarisaiwn elegon. It really seems to be a bit too full; so much so that editors trained at Alexandria might well have been tempted to improve the style by shortening it. Might the "Western" reading be the result of parablepsis? In fact, both short forms could easily be the result of homoioteleuton.)

(This is one of Hort's eight "Syrian conflations". According to Hort's own judgment Codex D has omitted 329 words from the genuine text of the last three chapters of Luke, plus adding 173, substituting 146, and transposing 243. Since the producer of D was on something of an omitting spree in these chapters, it is not unreasonable to suggest that D has simply dropped "and blessing" from the original reading, an easy instance of homoioteleuton. Nor is it hard to imagine that editors trained at Alexandria might reduce the longer reading to the proportions exhibited by the "Alexandrian" text-type. Note that once more the "Byzantine" reading has second century attestation.)

(Here we have a fine candidate for a "Byzantine" conflation, provided that the opposite interpretation is rejected. The reading of A could easily be a case of homoioteleuton and that of B the result of parablepsis or stylistic revision.)

(Is this an "Alexandrian" conflation?)

(It appears that the "Alexandrian" and "Western" texts have separate conflations. From their use of brackets we may conclude that the editors of both the Nestle and UBS editions recognize the possibility.)

(Here we have separate conflations on the part of Y and B. Since Hort did not follow B here he must have tended to the same opinion. The editors of the Nestle and UBS editions evidently agree as well.)

(This obvious conflation on the part of Codex B was acknowledged by Hort [p. 240], a judgment with which the editors of the Nestle and UBS editions are in full agreement.)

(This would appear to be a clear conflation on the part of Aleph.)

 

Before going on to examples where the required phenomena for possible conflations are less clear, it will be well to pause and see what instruction may be gained from these clear possible examples. Ignoring probabilities for the moment, I will tabulate the "possible" conflations.

 

None of the Western "conflations" has early papyrus support, and I believe there is general agreement among scholars that all seven of the "Western" instances are in fact conflations (or secondary readings). None of the B or Aleph "conflations" has early papyrus support. I believe there is general agreement among scholars that all 14 B and Aleph instances are in fact conflations (or secondary readings). (Since Hort was evidently aware of these conflations in B, it is difficult to understand how he could affirm that to the best of his knowledge there were no "Neutral" conflations.) Three of the "Alexandrian" instances (31, 32, 46) have early papyrus attestation. Modern editors have tended to include all eight "Alexandrian" readings in their texts, although some express doubt about 36 and 46. One cannot help but suspect that they are still wearing Hortian blinders, to use Colwell's phrase.

 

Six of the "Byzantine" instances (18, 19, 20, 25?, 28, 35?) now have early papyrus attestation (another two are attested by the Diatessaron). It follows that although modern editors continue to reject these readings, it can no longer be argued that they are late. If they are conflations then they happened in the second century. It is significant that in fully 35 of the 49 examples given the "Byzantine" text is possibly being conflated by other witnesses, not vice versa.

 

It is evident that all "text-types" have possible conflations and that "Western" and "Alexandrian" witnesses have actual conflations. I would argue that all the "Byzantine" instances are original, but in any case it should be clear that "conflation" may not responsibly be used to argue for a late "Byzantine" text-type. On the contrary, examples like 8, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 31, 32, 36, 37, 42, 43, and 46 might reasonably be used to argue for a rather early "Byzantine" text-type.

 

Group 2. a) Complicated by substitution, transposition, moderate internal changes, or omissions.

(This could be either a "Western" or an "Alexandrian" conflation, but presumably not a "Byzantine".)

(The editors of the UBS editions evidently agree that the "Byzantine" reading here is genuine.)

(If anyone has conflated it would seem to be the "Alexandrians". Aleph certainly has a conflation.)

(Codex M has evidently conflated, but should we say the same of the "Byzantine" text? Or are the "Alexandrian" and "Western" readings independent simplifications?)

(The "Byzantine" reading does not really present the phenomena of a conflation. The reading of Aleph is clearly wrong. The "Western" reading could easily have resulted from homoioteleuton. It is not difficult to imagine that editors trained at Alexandria might prefer a shorter reading.)

(This appears to be a conflation on the part of Codex L.)

(Aleph and the "Western" text appear to have separate conflations of the "Byzantine" reading and that of B. P⁷⁰ has efagen but no pronoun [the papyrus is broken]—thus the "Byzantine" form of the verb has the earliest attestation.)

(Is this a "Byzantine" conflation or are the other two readings independent simplifications?)

(Conflation or confusion? Both C and Aleph appear to have conflations, both based on the "Byzantine" reading plus B and D respectively. Surprisingly, the UBS text follows Aleph, without comment, while Nestle²⁴ follows C. The reading of B would seem to be a clear error.)

(Codex C and f¹ appear to have separate conflations of the "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian" readings.)

(Might this be an "Alexandrian/Western" conflation?)

(The "Alexandrian" reading appears to be a conflation of the "Byzantine" and "Western" readings. Codices Aleph and K appear to have separate reductions of the "Byzantine" reading, due to homoioarcton.)

(The "Western" and "Caesarean" readings appear to be separate conflations of the "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian" readings.)

(The "Western" text and Codex C have independent conflations of the "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian" readings.)

(An assortment of witnesses conflate the "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian" readings.)

(Is this really a "Byzantine" conflation? The longest reading is perfectly reasonable as it stands; perhaps a bit too 'full' for editors trained at Alexandria, but just right for a Jew speaking Aramaic. Might the "Western" reading be a Latin revision?)

(An evident conflation on the part of B.)

(Has P⁴⁵ conflated L and W, or have these managed independent conflations of the "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian" readings? Note that Hort's "late Syrian" reading now has the earliest attestation.)

(This is another of Hort's "Syrian conflations". But the "Alexandrian" reading could easily be the result of homoioteleuton, and a different bit of parablepsis could have given rise to the "Western" reading. Does not the presence of the article with "salt" at the beginning of vs. 50 suggest that "salt" has already been introduced in the prior context? In any case, the "Byzantine" reading has early attestation and may not be dismissed as "late Syrian".)

(Who is conflating whom? It seems more likely that Theta has simplified the "Western" reading than that the latter builds on the former. But the "Western" reading may well be a conflation of the "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian" readings. It seems clear that P⁴⁵ cannot have conflated W and B, but might these have separate simplifications of the "Byzantine" reading? Note that Hort's "late Syrian" reading now has the earliest attestation.)

(This would appear to be a "Western" conflation.)

(The MSS usually associated with the "Alexandrian" text-type are rather scattered here. Codex L and company might be said to conflate the "Byzantine" reading and that of B. Note that Hort's "late Syrian" reading now has the earliest attestation, with a vengeance.)

(Should we say that "Syrian" editors conflated the "Alexandrian" and "Western" readings, or is Hort's "late Syrian" reading really the original?)

(Conflation or confusion? Note that Hort's "late Syrian" reading now has very early attestation.)

(Did P⁷⁵ conflate B and 69? Note that Hort's "late Syrian" reading now has the earliest attestation.)

(Codex W appears to have a conflation involving the "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian" readings. Note that the "Byzantine" reading, which Hort tentatively rejected in spite of B, now has strong early attestation. The "Western" departure is based on the "Byzantine" reading, presumably the original.)

(An instructive conflation on the part of P⁶⁶.)

(Is this a "Caesarean" conflation? Note that the corrector of P⁶⁶ has taken a "Byzantine" reading and changed it to an "Alexandrian"—since he did that sort of thing repeatedly it would appear that there were exemplars of each type in the scriptorium, the more so in that he frequently did the opposite as well, i.e. changed an "Alexandrian" reading to a "Byzantine". This in A.D. 200!)

(Presumably no one would wish to suggest that the "Byzantine" reading is a conflation of B and 661, even before the advent of P^66,75! And yet, Hort followed B. . . . . . .)

(An evident conflation on the part of a few MSS.)

(157 and 700 have separate simplifications of the "Byzantine" reading. I suggest the same explanation for the "Alexandrian" reading—the editors of the UBS text evidently agree, whereas Hort did not.)

(This would appear to be an unusually blatant conflation on the part of Aleph, based on the "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian" readings.)

(A century ago this mighty have been interpreted as a "Syrian" conflation of the "Alexandrian" and "Western" readings, but now the presence of P⁶⁶ rather encourages the opposite conclusion.)

(Might this be an "Alexandrian" conflation?)

(Might this be an "Alexandrian" conflation?)

(Here is another fine candidate for a "Byzantine" conflation, unless the other two readings are independent simplifications. If the "Western" reading were original, however could the "Alexandrian" reading have come into being, and vice versa? But if the "Byzantine" reading is original the other two are easily explained.)

(Might this case involve a "Western" conflation, or perhaps two of them? Note that P⁴⁶ supports the "Byzantine" form of the verb—if it has a conflation then the "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian" components already existed in AD 200.)

(A century ago this might have been interpreted as a "Syrian" conflation, but P⁴⁶ now makes the "Byzantine" reading the earliest and enhances its claim to be the original—a claim with which the editors of the UBS text evidently concur.)

(Both "Alexandrian" readings could be the result of homoioarcton [2 x kai], or did B simplify the "Western" reading? Codex G evidently has a conflation and Codex D might be said to have one. Is the "Byzantine" reading a conflation, or is it the original with which all the others have tampered in one way or another?)

(This would appear to be a not very elegant conflation on the part of B, which is abandoned by both the Nestle and UBS texts. Codex D appears to have a separate conflation.)

(An evident conflation on the part of B, building on the "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian" readings. Note that 0220 is III century, giving the "Byzantine" reading overt early attestation.)

 

Group 2. b) Substantial differences—conflation dubious.

(The "Western" reading here seems to include a conflation of the "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian" readings.)

(Conflation or confusion?)

(This is another of Hort's eight "Syrian conflations", but unless one is prepared to argue that the "Byzantine" reading is based on 33 it does not meet the requirements for a conflation and may properly be viewed as the original that all the others have simplified. Hort's discussion of this case had been thought by some to be especially impressive, but I would say that he simply misunderstood the basic meaning of the text. In vs. 34 Jesus came out of the boat, not some secluded spot on land. The folks in Egypt could have had the same difficulty as Hort and produced the "Alexandrian" reading. The "Western" reading [and the "Alexandrian"] could be the result of a bit of parablepsis [homoioarcton—2 x kai]. The reading of 33 is evidently secondary, however it came about.)

(This is another of Hort's "Syrian conflations", but the "Byzantine" reading does not meet the requirements for a conflation and may reasonably be viewed as the original—the folks in Egypt may have felt that it was redundant, reducing it to the "Alexandrian" reading, although the latter could also be the result of homoioarcton [2 x MHDEEI]. The "Western" text rewrites the material, as it often does. The "Caesarean" reading evidently involves a conflation.)

(Here is yet another of Hort's "Syrian conflations". If this is a "Byzantine" conflation, it is built on the lesser "Western" and "Alexandrian" witnesses, and in that event where did D and B get their readings? Is it not more reasonable to regard the "Byzantine" reading as the original that the others have variously simplified? Nestle²⁴ seems to reflect essentially this opinion. In fact the "Western" reading could easily have resulted from homoioteleuton or a stylistic deletion of the third clause as being redundant. A glance at Luke 9:49 suggests that the Alexandrians harmonized Mark with Luke.)

(This is still another of Hort's eight "Syrian conflations", but the "Byzantine" reading does not meet the requirements for a conflation and may reasonably be viewed as the original. Aleph omitted and B and D have separate revisions—the idea of "a deserted place belonging to a town" apparently gave them difficulty. Theta appears to have conflated elements from all four of the other readings!)

(Conflation or confusion? Codex C would appear to have a conflation. Note that the "Byzantine" reading now has very early attestation.)

(This is another of Hort's eight "Syrian conflation", but clearly it does not meet the requirements for a conflation. The solution of this problem is linked to textual choices in verse 53, but I submit that the "Byzantine" reading here is a serious candidate for the original. The loss of the last clause in the Alexandrian MSS could be an easy instance of homoioteleuton, or they could have felt it was redundant, which could also have been the motivation for deleting the second participle. Codex D simply rewrote the material.)

(This is the last of Hort's eight "Syrian conflations". The "Western" reading could easily have arisen through homoioteleuton [2 x AMOY] and the "Alexandrian" reading be the result of a stylistic retouching.)

(Conflation or confusion? Note that Hort's "late Syrian" reading now has the earliest attestation.)

(Conflation or confusion? Note that Hort's "late Syrian" reading now has very early attestation.)

(Conflation or confusion? Note that Hort's "late Syrian" word order now has very early attestation. Might P^45,66 have a conflation, albeit early?)

(Conflation or confusion? Note that Hort's "late Syrian" reading now has very early attestation.)

(Is this a "Western" conflation? Note that the "Byzantine" reading now has the earliest attestation.)

(Is B based on D, or did D conflate B and the rest? Note that the "Byzantine" reading now has the earliest attestation. The editors of the UBS text evidently agree that it is original.)

(Line 5 could be a conflation of 1 and 4. Line 2 is probably a misspelling of 1—H became N—while 3 is also a misspelling of 1. Note that the "Byzantine" reading now has the earliest attestation.)

 

Although many of the examples in Group 2 scarcely offer the required phenomena for possible conflation, others do, to a greater or lesser extent. I will make some observations and draw some conclusions while recognizing that the evidence is not as clear as in the first section.

 

Ignoring probabilities for the moment, I will tabulate the "possible" conflations (many of which are entirely improbable).

None of the Western "conflations" has early papyrus support, and I believe there is general agreement among scholars that none of the "Western" instances, except 88, is original, whether or not the mechanism that gave rise to the readings was actually conflation in every case.

 

None of the Alexandrian "conflations" (including those of B and Aleph) has early papyrus support. I believe that all of B's instances and most of Aleph's are universally rejected (the UBS text follows Aleph in 58). Modern editors continue to adopt the "Alexandrian" instances.

 

Nine of the Byzantine "conflations" have early papyrus attestation (and in only five of the instances do any of the other readings have such support), so they may not be used to argue for a late "Byzantine" text-type. Of the fifteen cases without early papyrus attestation, in only four of them do any others have such support (85, 96, 98, 99). I submit that in at least five instances (I think 88 and 92 should also be included) the "Byzantine" reading does not exhibit the required phenomena for a conflation. Most of these are among Hort's eight "Syrian conflations", so I felt obliged to include them lest I be accused of suppressing unfavorable evidence. With reference to the remaining eight instances that may fairly be described as possible conflations, I believe they are most reasonably explained as being the original readings (see the comments under each one). It is significant that in thirty-two of the examples given in Group 2 the "Byzantine" text is being possibly conflated by other witnesses and in twenty-five examples (not necessarily the same ones) the "Byzantine" reading has early papyrus support—in three further cases some significant feature of the "Byzantine" reading has early papyrus support, and in yet another case support from the Diatessaron (2nd cent.). Of the possible "Byzantine conflations" there is general agreement that 51, 80 and 87 are the original reading.

 

Conclusion

 

The evidence presented in this appendix justifies the following statements:

1) "Western" witnesses have clear, undoubted conflations;

2) "Alexandrian" witnesses have clear, undoubted conflations;

3) many putative conflations build upon "Byzantine" readings;

4) numerous readings that were once thought to be late "Syrian conflations" now have overt early attestation;

5) it follows that Hort's statement and use of "conflation" are erroneous.

 

It has been customary to refer to the "Byzantine" text as "the later, conflated text,"[4] as if "conflation" were a pervading characteristic of this text. The evidence presented above scarcely supports such a characterization since in fully sixty percent of the examples the "Byzantine" text is being built upon and not vice versa. Reference has already been made to Hutton's Atlas (on p. 31) which provides evidence that there are over eight hundred places where the producers of the "Byzantine" text could have conflated "Western" and "Alexandrian" readings (following Hort's hypothesis) but did not.

 

I trust that the reader will not judge me to be unreasonable if I express the hope that all concerned will loyally concede that the specter of "Syrian conflation" has been laid to rest. Henceforth no one may reasonably or responsibly characterize the "Byzantine" text-type as being "conflate" nor argue therefrom that it must be late.[5]

---

[1]The title and basic format for this appendix I owe to William G. Pierpont and use with his permission. I have, however, almost tripled the number of examples and the editorial comments are mine. The principal sources for the added examples are H.A. Sturz (The Byzantine Text-Type) and Maurice A. Robinson (unpublished paper). Peter J. Johnston has contributed significantly to the statements of evidence.

[2]For a complete statement of what I mean by "discourse structure", see my book, A Framework for Discourse Analysis (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington, 1980).

[3]This statement of evidence is based on the series Text und Textwert, ed. K. Aland. It represents an almost complete collation of extant MSS.

[4]Metzger, The Text, p. 136. To my astonishment, D.A. Carson appears to still be of this opinion so recently as 1979. In his critique of the first edition of this book (The King James Version Debate, Grand Rapids: Baker, "Appendix") he declares that "textual scholars hold that a primary feature of the Byzantine text-type is its tendency to conflate readings" (p. 110) and speaks of "the Byzantine tradition in its mature conflated form" (p. 112). The reader is now in some position to form his own opinion on this subject.

[5]I am aware that the mechanism at work, especially in the Gospels, was probably harmonization in many/most cases rather than conflation. Since both mechanisms produce secondary readings the basic thrust of this appendix is not altered by a choice between them. I am also aware that I cannot prove conflation or harmonization in any instance, but then, of course, neither could Hort, and neither can anyone else.

Index of verses discussed:
[ 1 ] Matthew 3:12
[ 2 ] Matthew 16:11
[ 3 ] Matthew 17:25
[ 4 ] Matthew 20:21
[ 5 ] Matthew 23:25
[ 6 ] Matthew 24:38
[ 7 ] Matthew 26:22
[ 8 ] Matthew 26:36
[ 9 ] Matthew 26:70
[ 10 ] Matthew 27:55
[ 11 ] Mark 1:4
[ 12 ] Mark 1:28
[ 13 ] Mark 1:40
[ 14 ] Mark 5:42
[ 15 ] John 4:29
[ 16 ] John 5:37
[ 17 ] John 7:39
[ 18 ] John 10:19
[ 19 ] John 10:31
[ 20 ] John 11:22
[ 21 ] John 12:9
[ 22 ] John 14:14
[ 23 ] John 16:4
[ 24 ] John 17:23
[ 25 ] John 18:40
[ 26 ] Acts 7:16
[ 27 ] Acts 10:48
[ 28 ] Acts 14:15
[ 29 ] Acts 24:14
[ 30 ] Acts 25:5
[ 31 ] 1 Corinthians 7:34
[ 32 ] Philippians 1:18
[ 33 ] Colossians 2:2
[ 34 ] Colossians 3:17
[ 35 ] 1 Thessalonians 5:27
[ 36 ] Hebrews 7:22
[ 37 ] Revelation 6:1/2
[ 38 ] Revelation 6:5
[ 39 ] Revelation 6:7/8
[ 40 ] Matthew 4:3
[ 41 ] Matthew 9:18
[ 42 ] Matthew 27:41
[ 43 ] Luke 24:53
[ 44 ] Acts 20:28
[ 45 ] Acts 25:6
[ 46 ] 2 Corinthians 11:3
[ 47 ] Ephesians 2:5
[ 48 ] Colossians 1:12
[ 49 ] Revelation 17:4
[ 50 ] Matthew 7:10
[ 51 ] Matthew 7:18
[ 52 ] Matthew 8:1
[ 53 ] Matthew 9:2
[ 54 ] Matthew 10:3
[ 55 ] Matthew 10:13
[ 56 ] Matthew 12:4
[ 57 ] Matthew 12:46
[ 58 ] Matthew 13:28
[ 59 ] Matthew 14:6
[ 60 ] Matthew 14:34
[ 61 ] Matthew 15:14
[ 62 ] Matthew 17:7
[ 63 ] Matthew 19:9
[ 64 ] Matthew 20:10
[ 65 ] Matthew 22:13
[ 66 ] Mark 4:5
[ 67 ] Mark 7:35
[ 68 ] Mark 9:49
[ 69 ] Mark 12:17
[ 70 ] Luke 9:57
[ 71 ] Luke 10:42
[ 72 ] Luke 11:12
[ 73 ] Luke 12:30
[ 74 ] Luke 13:2
[ 75 ] John 5:15
[ 76 ] John 6:69
[ 77 ] John 7:41
[ 78 ] John 9:6
[ 79 ] John 9:8
[ 80 ] John 11:44
[ 81 ] John 13:24
[ 82 ] John 13:36
[ 83 ] Acts 11:7
[ 84 ] Acts 23:9
[ 85 ] Romans 6:12
[ 86 ] 1 Corinthians 9:21
[ 87 ] 2 Corinthians 7:14
[ 88 ] 1 Thessalonians 3:2
[ 89 ] 2 Thessalonians 3:4
[ 90 ] Hebrews 9:10
[ 91 ] Matthew 10:23
[ 92 ] Matthew 27:23
[ 93 ] Mark 6:33
[ 94 ] Mark 8:26
[ 95 ] Mark 9:38
[ 96 ] Luke 9:10
[ 97 ] Luke 9:34
[ 98 ] Luke 11:54
[ 99 ] Luke 12:18
[ 100 ] Luke 24:47
[ 101 ] John 2:15
[ 102 ] John 11:21
[ 103 ] John 11:32
[ 104 ] John 13:26
[ 105 ] John 14:5
[ 106 ] 1 Peter 5:8

Previous Appendix
Table of Contents
Next Appendix