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.

 

1.  Matt. 3:12     autou eiV thn apoqhkhn                    Byz À C K D 0233 1 pm lat cop

                       eiV thn apoqhkhn autou       L 892 al b ff1 g1 syp,h

 autou eiV thn apoqhkhn autou      B W pc

 

(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.)

 

 

 

 

2.  Matt. 16:11   prosecein                                 Byz Dc W X pm syc,s,h

                                                     prosecete                D Q 13 124 pc lat syp

                                                     prosecete de        À B C L 1 pc cop

                                 prosecein prosecete de         Cc 33 237 al q

 

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

 

3.   Matt. 17:25    ote eishlqen             Byz E F G K L W Y P

                                    elqonta         B 1

                                                           eiselqonta         À

                               eiselqontwn       Q 13

                                                           eiselqonti          D

 

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

 

4.  Matt. 20:21    dexiwn sou . . . euwnumwn               D Q 1 pc lat

                                  dexiwn        . . . euwnumwn sou        À B

                                  dexiwn sou . . . euwnumwn sou       Byz C L N W Z 085 13 pm syp,h

 

(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.)

 

5.  Matt. 23:25      akrasiaV                         À B D L D Q P 1 13 33 al it syh

                                                        adikiaV          Byz C K G pm f syp

                                   akrasiaV  adikiaV          W

 

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

 

6.  Matt. 24:38       ekeinaiV          pro          D 253 pc itpt  syh,pal

                                                       taiV pro             Byz À L W Q 067 0133 1 13 pl itpt vg bo

                                     ekeinaiV taiV pro          B

 

(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.)

 

7.  Matt.  26:22      eiV ekastoV                       À B C L Z 0281 33 pc sa

                                          ekastoV autwn        Byz P37,64 (P45) A W G D P S Y 074 1 13 pl syp

                                    eiV ekastoV autwn        (P45) D M Q 69 pc bo

 

(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.)

 

8.  Matt. 26:36       ou                 Byz B E F G 067 pm

                                           an           D K L W D Q 074 1 69 al

                                    ou  an           P53 A pc

 

     (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.)

 

 

 

9.  Matt. 26:70        autwn                             K al

                                                  pantwn                À B D E G L Z Q 090 13 33 al lat syp,h

                                      autwn pantwn               Byz A C W G D 0133 1 pm

 

(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.)

 

10. Matt. 27:55       ekei                   Byz B C pl lat

                                             kai              D 56 aur d

                               ekei kai              F K L P 33 syh,pal

                                   kakei                    À (syp)

 

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

 

11. Mark 1:4      o baptizwn en th erhmw       B 33 pc

                                    baptizwn en th erhmw kai                 Byz A K P W P 1 13 pl f syh,pal

o baptizwn en th erhmw kai                À L D pc bo

(en th erhmw baptizwn kai)                 D Q pc lat syp

 

(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.)

 

12. Mark 1:28     euquV                                    Byz A D E G H K M U V Y G D P S F W 0104 pm lat syp,h

                                             pantacou                W 579 pc b e q

                                  euquV pantacou               Àc B C L 0133 13 pc

                                    (omit)                À Q 1 al c ff2 r1 sys

 

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

 

13. Mark 1:40        kurie                 C L W Q pc e c ff sypal

                                                 oti           Byz À A pl syh

                                     kurie oti           B

 

      (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.)

 

14. Mark 5:42    exesthsan                 Byz P45 A K W Q P 0133 1 13 pl e syp,h

                                       exesthsan euquV       À B C L D 33 892 pc bo

                   ezesthsan panteV     D it sa

 

(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.)

 

15. John 4:29     panta osa              Byz P66,75 A D L W G D Q L P Y 086 1 13 pl lat syh

                         panta         a             À B C e a d q syp cop

                         panta osa a           579

 

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

 

16. John 5:37     ekeinoV             memarturhken    P75 À B L W 213 pc a ffa j syp,h

                                      autoV memarturhken    Byz P66 A G D Q L P Y 063 1 13 pl lat

                         ekeinoV autoV marturei             D a b c l q

 

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

 

17. John 7:39    pneuma                                      P66c,75 À K N T Q P Y pc bo

                        pneuma agion                             Byz P66 L W X G D L 0105 1 13 pl

                        pneuma           dedomenon                 lat syc,s,p  Eusebius

                        pneuma agion dedomenon   B 053 pc e q sypal,h

                        (to pneuma to agion ep autoiV)      D d f

 

(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.)

 

18. John 10:19     scisma oun                  D 1241 sys

                           scisma        palin         P(45)75 À B L W X 33 pc lat syp sa

                           scisma oun palin        Byz P66 A G D Q L P Y 1 13 pl syh

 

(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.)

 

19. John 10:31  ebastasan                     P45 Q

                        ebastasan oun              D 28 1780 pc lat sys bo

                        ebastasan        palin       (P75) À B L W 33 pc syp

                        ebastasan oun palin      Byz P66 A X P Y 1 13 565 pl f syh

 

(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.)

 

20. John 11:22     alla               1780

                                     kai        P75 À B C X 1 33 pc itpt

                           alla kai         Byz P45,66 À2 A C3 D L W Q Y W 0250 13 pl lat syp,h cop

 

(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.)

 

21. John 12:9        ocloV    poluV  Byz P66,75 A B2 I Q X Q Y 065 1 33 pl (cop)

o ocloV    poluV  À B L pc lat

   ocloV o poluV W 1010

 o ocloV o poluV  P66c

 

(Conflation or confusion? Did P66c conflate B and W? Or should we say that P66c has the original reading that everyone else [including P66*!] simplified? Note that Hort’s “late Syrian” reading now has the earliest attestation, with a vengeance!)

 

22. John 14:14        touto                P75 A B L Y 060 33 al c vg cop

                                                   egw        Byz P66 À D E G Q X G D P pm it syp,h

                                      touto egw         P66c

(This is an instructive conflation on the part of P66c. Note the early attestation for the “Byzantine” reading.)

 

23. John 16:4     autwn mnhmoneuhte                          Àc L 13 al lat

                                            mnhmoneuhte autwn              Byz K G D Y 054 1 pm ff2 sypal

                                autwn mnhmoneuhte autwn             A B Q P 33 al syp,h

                                            mnhmoneuhte                           À D a sys cop

 

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

 

24. John 17:23      kai        ginwskh              P66 À W 1 pc lat

                                          ina ginwskh               B C D L 33 pc a e sys

                                   kai ina ginwskh               Byz A Q Y 054 13 pm f q syp,h

 

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

 

25. John 18:40        palin                               P60 À B L W X 0109 pc

                                                panteV              G K N Y 1 13 33 al it syp,pal cop

                                     palin panteV    Byz (P66) A G D Q 054 0250 pm vg syh

                                     panteV palin    D

 

(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?)

 

26. Acts 7:16       tou     Sucem                      Byz P74 D Y 049 056 0142 pm lat

                                         en Sucem                      À B C al cop

                                  tou en Sucem                      Àc A E

 

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

 

27. Acts 10:48      tou kuriou                                       Byz H L P 049 056 pm

                                                       Ihsou Cristou              P74 À A B E 33 al cop

                                   tou kuriou Ihsou                            Lect. al

                                   tou kuriou Ihsou Cristou          D 81 d p

 

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

 

28. Acts 14:15       ton qeon        zwnta                        D pc

                                           qeon ton zwnta                         À

                                    ton qeon ton zwnta                         Byz P45 H L P pm

                                           qeon        zwnta                         P74 B C E 33 al

 

(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])

 

 

 

29. Acts 24:14      toiV             profhtaiV                     Byz Àc A pm syr bo

                                           en toiV profhtaiV     B C D al

                                   toiV en toiV profhtaiV                     À E

 

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

 

30. Acts 25:5       toutw                                  Byz pm

                                              atopon                     À A B C E 33 al lat

                                  toutw atopon                     Y 69 614 al syr bo

 

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

 

31. 1 Cor. 7:34      h agamoV kai h parqenoV                             P15 B P al cop

                                                    kai h parqenoV h agamoV             Byz D F G K L Y pm it syr

                                   h agamoV kai h parqenoV h agamoV            P46 À A 33 pc

 

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

 

 

32. Phil. 1:18        plhn                   Byz D E K L pm

                                             oti              B syp

                                   plhn oti              P46  À A F G P 048 33 pc sa

 

(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.)

 

33. Col. 2:2          tou Qeou kai PatroV kai tou Cristou           Byz Dc K pm Lect

                                   tou Qeou kai PatroV        tou Cristou           Àb Y pc syh

                                   tou Qeou        PatroV kai tou Cristou           0208 1908 syp

                                   tou Qeou        PatroV        tou Cristou           A C itpt sapt bo

                                   tou Qeou        PatroV               Cristou           À 048

                                   tou Qeou                                    Cristou           P46 B (alone of MSS)

                                   tou Qeou                                                                      Db H P 436 1881 sapt

                           (at least seven further variations)

 

(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.)

 

34. Col. 3:17        Kuriou Ihsou                                   Byz P46 B (Y) pl

                                                Ihsou Cristou    A C D F G

                                  Kuriou Ihsou Cristou  À D2 365 1175 pc

 

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

 

35. 1 Thess. 5:27     toiV agioiV                                     103 1984 1985

                                        toiV             adelfoiV     À B D E F G pc d e f g sa

                                        toiV agioiV  adelfoiV    Byz (P46) Àc A K L P Y 33 pl it syr bo

 

(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].)

 

36. Heb 7:22      kai                                          920

                                       kreittonoV                     Byz P46 Àc A Cc D E K L P Y pl lat syr cop

                                kai kreittonoV                     À B C 33 pc

 

(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.)

                                                                    

37. Rev. 6:1/2       kai ide                  kai idou                 Ma,b,ept

                                               kai eidon kai idou                 Mc,d,ept (A C)

                                  kai ide kai eidon kai idou                 À (alone)

 

(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].)

 

38. Rev. 6:5       kai ide                  kai idou   Ma,b

                                            kai eidon kai idou   Mc,d,ept C (A)

                                kai ide kai eidon kai idou  À (alone)

 

     (Aleph repeats the conflation.)

 

39. Rev. 6:7/8        kai ide                  kai idou              Ma,b,ept

                                                 kai eidon kai idou               Mc,d,ept

                                                 kai  idon kai idou                A (C)

                                    kai ide  kai  idon kai idou               À (alone)

 

     (Aleph repeats the conflation again.)

 

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

 

40. Matt. 4:3      autw o peirazwn       eipen                            Byz C L P Q 0233 pm k syh

                                          o peirazwn       eipen autw             À B W 1 13 33 al vg syp bo

                                autw o peirazwn kai eipen autw            D it syc,s,pal

 

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

 

41. Matt. 9:18    eiV elqwn/eiselqwn             Byz À2 C D E K M N S V W X Q 1 33 pm d f

                                      proselqwn                      À 69 157 pc q syp

                                eiV proselqwn                      À1  B lat pc

                                tiV proselqwn                      L 13 al k

                                tiV elqwn                               G al

 

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

 

42. Matt. 27:41    kai presbuterwn                                             A B L Q 1 13pt 33 al itpt vg sa

                                  kai                                    Farisaiwn               D W pc itpt sys

                                  kai presbuterwn kai Farisaiwn                Byz D F 13pt pm syp,h bo Diatessaron

 

(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.)

 

43. Luke 24:53      ainounteV                                       D itpt

                                         eulogounteV        P75 À B C L cop sys,pal

                                   ainounteV kai eulogounteV       Byz A C2 K W X D Q P Y 063 1 13 pl itpt vg syp,h Diat.

 

(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.)

 

44. Acts 20:28      tou kuriou                        P74 A C D E Y 33 al cop

                                   tou                        qeou       À B 056 0142 al syr

                                   tou kuriou kai qeou        Byz L P 049 pm

 

(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.)

 

45. Acts 25:6           pleiouV          h deka          Byz Y pm

                                                    oktw h deka            2147 pc syr

                                      pleiouV oktw h deka           E al

                            ou pleiouV oktw h deka               (P74 À) A B C 33 pc lat bo

 

      (Is this an “Alexandrian” conflation?)

 

46. 2 Cor. 11:3       thV aplothtoV                                                Byz Àc H K P Y 0121 0243 pm vg syr

                                     thV agnothtoV five early fathers

                                     thV aplothtoV kai thV agnothtoV               P46 À B G 33 pc it cop

                                     thV agnothtoV kai thV aplothtoV               D

 

(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.)

 

47. Eph. 2:5           toiV paraptwmasin                                                      Byz À A D2 pl cop

                                                                                     taiV amartiaV D (G) lat

                                     toiV paraptwmasin kai taiV amartiaV     Y

                                en toiV paraptwmasin kai taiV epiqumiaiV    B

 

(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.)

 

48. Col. 1:12       tw kalesanti                                         D G 33 pc it sa

                                 tw                                ikanwsanti      Byz P46,(61) À A C Dc E K L P Y pl syr bo

                                 tw kalesanti kai ikanwsanti      B

 

(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.)

 

49. Rev. 17:4       thV porneiaV authV                              Mb,c,d,e A

                                  thV porneiaV                       thV ghV       Ma

                                  thV porneiaV authV kai thV ghV     À (alone)

 

      (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.

 

                                          Total                  Examples

                                     --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Western text-type                 4      7, 16, 27, 40                                                

                                     --------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Codex D                          3      3, 25, 46                                                     

                                     --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alexandrian text-type            8      11, 12, 23, 31, 32, 36, 45, 46                         

                                     --------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Codex B                          7      1, 6, 13, 17, 41, 47, 48                                             

                                     --------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Codex Aleph        7      3, 29, 34, 37, 38, 39, 49                               

                                     --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Byzantine text-type             13       4, 9, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 28, 33, 35, 42, 43, 44

                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

             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.

 

50. Matt. 7:10   h kai         icqun aithsei   À B C (1) 33 pc

                                    kai ean icqun aithsh                    Byz (L W) Q al syp,h

h           ean icqun aithsh                    lat syc

h kai ean icqun aithsh                    Kc 13 al

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

 

51. Matt. 7:18    poiein . . . enegkein               À (alone of MSS)

                                enegkein . . . poiein               B (alone of MSS)

                                poiein . . . poiein   Byz Àc C K L W X Z D Q P 0250 1 13 33 pl lat syr cop

 

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

 

52. Matt. 8:1             katabanti    de autw Byz K L (D) pm (lat syp,h)

                                kai katabantoV      autou                Z syc,pal

                                       katabantoV  de autou                B C W Q 33 (lat syp,h) cop

                                       katabanti    de autou À

 

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

 

53. Matt. 9:2      sou ai amartiai    À B C W D 1 33 pc

                                soi  ai amartiai     D Dc pc k

                                soi  ai amartiai sou            Byz L Q 0233v 13 pm lat syr

                                sou ai amartiai sou            M

 

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

 

54. Matt. 10:3                                              QaddaioV        À

                                  kai                                               QaddaioV         B pc vg cop

                                  kai LebbaioV                                                      D 122 d k

                                  kai LebbaioV o epiklhqeiV QaddaioV             Byz C2 K L W X D Q P 1 pl syr

 

(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.)

 

55. Matt. 10:13     ei    de mhgh                      D sys

                                    ean de mh  h axia             Byz À B pl lat syp,h

                                    ei    de mh     axia              L

 

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

 

56. Matt. 12:4       efagen ouV            Byz (P70) C K L D Q P 0233 1 33 pl vg syh cop

                                   efagon o                B 481

                                   efagen o                 D W 13 it syp.(c)

                                   efagon ouV            À

 

(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.)

 

57. Mat. 12:46      eti autou lalountoV                      À B 33 pc lat

                                   lalountoV de autou                        D L Z 892 syp

                                   eti de autou lalountoV  Byz C W Q 1 13 pm syh

 

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

 

 

 

58. Matt. 13:28      oi de autw legousin                           B 157 pc cop

                                    oi de douloi eipon autw     Byz L W Q 1 13 pm vg syh

                                    oi de douloi autw legousin               C

                                    legousin outw oi douloi                 D it (syc,s,p)

                            oi de douloi legousin autw             À

 

(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.)

 

59. Matt. 14:6      genesiwn de agomenwn                      Byz W 0119 0136 13 pm ff1 syh mg

                                  genesioiV de genomenoiV     À B D L Z pc (syr)

                                  genesioiV de agomenoiV                      1 pc

                                  genesiwn de genomenwn                     C K N Q al (syr)

 

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

 

60. Matt. 14:34     epi thn ghn      Gennhsaret            C N 13 al sypal

                                   eiV thn ghn       Gennhsaret            Byz L 1 pm lat syp,(c,s)

                                   epi thn ghn eiV Gennhsaret            À B W D 0119 33 pc syh

                                   epi thn ghn eiV Gennhsar                D 700

 

      (Might this be an “Alexandrian/Western” conflation?)

 

61. Matt. 15:14      odhgoi eisin tufloi tuflwn             Byz C W X D P 0106 pm q

                                    odhgoi eisin tufloi                            À cop syc

                                    odhgoi eisin             tuflwn               K pc sys

                                    tufloi eisin odhgoi                            B D 0237

                                    tufloi eisin odhgoi tuflwn              Àc L Z Q 1 13 33 al lat syp,h

 

(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.)

 

62. Matt. 17:7    proselqwn . . .        hyato autwn kai eipen       Byz C L W 1 pm syh

                                proshlqen . . . kai ayamenoV autwn eipen         À B pc

                                proselqwn . . . kai ayamenoV autwn eipen        Q 13 pc

                                proshlqen . . . kai hyato autwn kai eipen        D lat syp,pal,(c)

 

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

 

63. Matt. 19:9  

mh epi          por. kai gam. allhn moicatai     Byz À Cc K L N (W) Z D Q P 078 pm vg sys,p,h

par. logou por. poiei au. moiceuqhnai               (P25) B 1 bo

par. logou por. kai gam. allhn moicatai      D 13 33 pc it syc,pal sa

mh epi por. kai gam. allhn poiei au. moi.       C 1216 pc

 

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

 

64. Matt. 20:10              elqonteV de                  Byz À L W Z 1 pm syh bo

                                      kai elqonteV         B C D Q 085 13 33 pc e syc,s,p

                                             elqonteV de kai              N 473 pc lat arm

 

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

 

65. Matt. 22:13 

     arate auton podwn k. ceirwn kai b. a                D itpt syc,s

dhsanteV autou podaV k. ceiraV ekb. a.                                  À B L Q 085 1 (13) pc itpt vg syp cop

dhsanteV autou podaV k. ceiraV arate a. kai ekb.        Byz C W 0138 pm (M F al) syh

 

(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?)

 

66. Mark 4:5      kai oti                   D W it sys

                                       opou                Byz À A pl vg syp,h

                                kai opou               B

 

      (An evident conflation on the part of B.)

 

67. Mark 7:35      dihnoicqhsan          Byz P45 A N X G P 0131 13 pm lat syr

                                     hnoighsan             À B D D 0274 1 892

                                     hnoicqhsan          L

                                  dihnoighsan             W Q pc

 

(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.)

 

68. Mark 9:49 

paV gar puri alisqhsetai                                                                B L (À W) D 0274 1 13 pc sys sa Diatapt

                                             pasa gar qusia ali alisqhsetai       D it

paV gar puri alisqhsetai kai pasa qusia ali alisqhsetai       Byz A E K N P S (C X Q Y) pm f l q vg syp,h Diatapt,p

 

(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”.)

 

69. Mark 12:17    kai apokriqeiV                                W 258 al

                                                              o de IhsouV              À B C L D Y 33 pc sy(p) cop

                                   kai apokriqeiV  o     IhsouV           Byz P45 A N X G P F 1 13 pm sy(s),h

                                          apokriqeiV de o IhsouV            D 700 pc lat

                                          apokriqeiV de                             Q 565

 

(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.)

 

70. Luke 9:57      kai              poreuomenwn                P45,75 À B C L Q X 33 pc syc,s,p bo

                                  egeneto de   poreuomenwn Byz A W Y 1 pm lat syh

                                  kai egeneto poreuomenwn                D 13 a c e r1

 

      (This would appear to be a “Western” conflation.)

 

71. Luke 10:42      enoV     de estin creia                       Byz P45,75 A C K P W G D Q L P Y 13 pl lat syc,p,h sa

                                   oligwn de creia estin h enoV           B

                                   oligwn de estin creia h enoV           P3 L C2 1 33 pc syhmg bo

   oligwn de estin           h enoV            À

 

(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.)

 

72. Luke 11:12       h kai                 P75 À B L 1 13 33 cop

                                    ean de kai          D

                                    h kai ean          Byz P45 R W X G D Q P Y pl syh

 

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

 

73. Luke 12:30           zhtei               D it

                                    epizhtousin         P75 À B L X 070 13 33 pc

                                    epizhtei                 Byz P45 A Q W G D Q L P Y 1 pl

 

      (Conflation or confusion? Note that Hort’s “late Syrian” reading now has very early attestation.)

 

74. Luke 13:2      oti tauta                 À B D L pc d e r1

                                  ta  toiauta              69 pc

                                  oti toiauta              Byz P75 A W X G D Q L P Y 070 1 pm lat syr

 

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

 

75. John 5:15        anhggeilen                                        Byz P66,75 A B G Q L P Y 063 1 pm sa (lat syh)

                                                                eipen                       À C L pc e q syc,s,p bo

                                   anhggeilen kai eipen autoiV          W

                                   aphggeilen                                         D K U D 13 33 al (lat syh)

 

(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.)

 

76. John 6:69                       o agioV tou Qeou               P75 À B C D L W

                                o CristoV o uioV   tou Qeou             Byz K P Y 0250 13 (D Q 1 33) pl lat syr Diatessaron

                                o CristoV o agioV tou Qeou             P66 cop

     

 (An instructive conflation on the part of P66.)

 

77. John 7:41       alloi     elegon  Byz P66* À D W G D P Y 0105 13 pm syr

                                  oi       de elegon   P66c,75 B L N T X Q 33 al lat

                                  alloi de elegon   1 pc e bo

 

(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!)

 

78. John 9:6       epeqhken              B pc

                                 ecrisen 661

                                 epecrisen             Byz P66,75 À A C D K L W D Q P Y 0124 0216 1 13 pl lat syr cop

(Presumably no one would wish to suggest that the “Byzantine” reading is a conflation of B and 661, even before the advent of P66,75! And yet, Hort followed B. . . . . . .)

 

79. John 9:8      tufloV hn                                              Byz C3 G D pm

                                                          prosaithV hn              P66,75 À B C D al lat cop sys,p,h

                                 tufloV hn kai prosaithV             69 pc e sypal

 

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

 

80. John 11:44       autoiV o IhsouV             Byz P45,66 À A C2 D X G D Q L P Y 0250 1 13 pl it

    autoiV                              157

   o IhsouV             700 sys

o IhsouV autoiV               L W

   IhsouV autoiV               P75 B C cop

 

(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.)

 

81. John 13:24     

puqesqai tiV an eih p. ou legei                                                                               Byz P66 A (D) K W G D L P 1 13 pl syr cop

                                                       kai legei autw eipe tiV estin p. ou legei     B C I L X 068 33 pc

puqesqai tiV an eih p. ou elegen kai legei autw eipe tiV estin p. ou legei     À

 

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

 

82. John 13:36      apekriqh                  B C L pc lat cop

                                   legei         autw        D

                                   apekriqh autw        Byz P66 À A C3 K W X G D Q L P Y 1 13 pl

 

(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.)

 

83. Acts 11:7     hkousa de                Byz L P pm

                                kai hkousa             D pc sys

                                hkousa de kai        À A B E al cop

 

      (Might this be an “Alexandrian” conflation?)

 

84. Acts 23:9     tineV                                        P74 A E 33 pc bo

                                             oi grammateiV            Byz pm

                                 tineV twn grammatewn         À B C al sa

 

      (Might this be an “Alexandrian” conflation?)

 

85. Rom. 6:12      auth                                                         P46 D E F G d f g m

                                                taiV epiqumiaiV autou       À A B C al lat cop

                                  auth en taiV epiqumiaiV autou       Byz K L P Y pm

 

(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.)

 

 

86. 1 Cor. 9:21      kerdhsw         anomouV   Byz Àc K L Y pl

                                   kerdanw touV anomouV  À A B C P 33 pc

                                   kerdhsw touV anomouV  P46

                                   kerdanw          anomouV   F G

                                   touV anomouV kerdhsw  D E

 

(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.)

 

87. 2 Cor. 7:14         epi    titou alhqeia         À B pc

                                   h proV titon alhqeia          D E F G P Y pc lat syr cop

                                   h epi    titou alhqeia          Byz P46 Àc C K L 0243 pl

 

(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.)

 

88. 1 Thess. 3:2      kai diakonon tou Qeou kai sunergon hmwn                        Byz K pl syr

                                      kai diakonon tou Qeou                                                               À A P Y pc lat cop

                                                                                      kai sunergon                 B 1962

                                                                                      kai sunergon tou Qeou              D 33 b d e mon

                                              diakonon                 kai sunergon tou Qeou    G f g

 

(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?)

 

89. 2 Thess 3:4       kai epoihsate kai poieite                                           G

                                                                   kai poieite kai poihsete  Byz Àc Dc Y pl

                                                                          poieite kai poihsete  À A pc

                                                                          poieite kai poihsate D

                                     kai epoihsate kai poieite kai poihsete     B sa

 

(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.)

 

90. Heb 9:10   

kai dikaiwmasin          D2 K L 056 075 0142 0150 0151 0209 0220 (532 MSS = 94%)[3] a vg syh

       dikaiwmata           P46 À A I P 0278 (24 MSS = 5%) b sa

kai dikaiwmata           À2 B (8 MSS = 1%)

       dikaiwma                  D (alone)

 

(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.

 

91. Matt. 10:23      feugete eiV thn allhn                                                                 Byz C K X D P pl

                                                                                                       feugete eiV thn eteran           À B W 33 pc

                                    feugete eiV thn allhn k. ek t. d. u. feugete eiV thn eteran          Q (D L 1 13) pc

 

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

 

92. Matt. 27:23     o de efh                                   À B Q 028113 33 pc sa

                                   legei autoiV o hgemwn       D L 1 pc lat syp bo

                                   o de hgemwn efh      Byz A W 064 0250 pm syh

 

      (Conflation or confusion?)

 

93. Mark 6:33   

e. kai prohlqon  autouV kai sunhlqon proV auton       Byz P84v E G K P (A N S 13) pm f (q) syh

e. kai prohlqon  autouV                                             À B (0187v) pc aur l vg (cop)

e. kai proshlqon autouV                                           L pc

e. kai proshlqon autoiV                                             D Q

e.                                             kai sunhlqon          autou        D (28 700) b

e.                                             kai        hlqon         autou        565 it Diatp

           proV         autouV kai sunhlqon proV auton        33

 

(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.)

 

94. Mark 8:26   

mhde eiV thn kwmhn eiselqhV mhde eiphV tini en th kwmh                           Byz A C E K N X D P S 33 pl syp,h Diat

mhde eiV thn kwmhn eiselqhV                                                                           Àc B L 1 pc cop sys

mh    eiV thn kwmhn eiselqhV                                                                            À W

upage eiV ton oikon sou kai mhdeni eiphV eiV thn kwmhn                          D d q

upage eiV ton oikon sou kai ean eiV thn kwmhn eiselqhV mhdeni eiphV mhde en th kwmh     13 (Q pc lat)

 

(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.)

 

95. Mark 9:38   

oV ouk akolouqei hmin kai ekwlusamen auton oti ouk akolouqei hmin        Byz A E K N P S pm syh

oV ouk akolouqei hmin kai ekwlusamen auton                                                   X (W 1) 13 pc lat

oV ouk akolouqei meq hmwn kai ekwloumen auton                                             D

                                         kai ekwlusamen auton oti ouk akolouqei hmin         C pc aur f cop

                                         kai ekwloumen    auton oti ouk hkolouqei hmin        À B D Q 0274 (L Y) pc sys,p,pal Diat

 

(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.)

 

 

96. Luke 9:10      topon erhmon polewV kaloumenhV Bhqsaidan                Byz A C W (1) 13 pm sy(p),h

                                  topon erhmon                                                                           À al syc

                                                             polin   kaloumenhn Bhqsaida                  Àc (P75) B L X 33 pc (sys) cop

                                                             kwmhn  legoumenhn  Bhdsaida                  D

                                 kwmhn kaloumenhn Bhqsaidan eiV topon erhmon      Q       

 

(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!)

 

97. Luke 9:34    ekeinouV eiselqein                             Byz P45 A D P R W X G D Q L P Y 1 13 pl sa

                                                   eiselqein                            P75 S

                                                   eiselqein autouV              À B L pc bo