A Conflation in John 16:4?

          In John 16:4a, where Jesus warns His disciples about difficult times ahead, there is an interesting textual variant.  In the Byzantine Text, the text means, strictly translated into English:  “But these things I have told you, that when comes their hour, you may remember those things of which I told you.”  

          The Alexandrian Text means something very slightly different:  “But these things I have told you, that when comes the hour, you may remember those things of which I told you.”  The Western Text, as attested by Codex D, has its own variation:  “These things I have told you, that when comes the hour, you shall remember that I told you.”  The Caesarean Text has its own reading too:  “But these things I have told you, that when comes the hour, you may remember that I told you.” 

These four renderings represent the following texts: 

Western:  Ταυτα λελάληκα υμιν ινα οταν ελθη η ωρα μνημονεύτε οτι εγω ειπον υμιν  

Alexandrian:  Αλλα ταυτα λελάληκα υμιν ινα οταν ελθη η ωρα μνημονεύητε αυτων οτι εγω ειπον υμιν

Caesarean (f¹³):  Αλλα ταυτα λελάληκα υμιν ινα οταν ελθη η ωρα αυτων μνημονεύητε οτι εγω ειπον υμιν

Byzantine:  Αλλα ταυτα λελάληκα υμιν ινα οταν ελθη η ωρα αυτων μνημονεύητε αυτων οτι εγω ειπον υμιν

          I want to focus here on the variant in the middle of the sentence, shown in bold print.  The longer reading, αυτων μνημονεύητε αυτων, looks like a combination of the two shorter readings that are listed before it; that is, this variant appears to be a conflation.  

          It may be helpful to view the data about this variant-unit that is found in the fourth edition of the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament (page 384).  Setting aside minor variants, the contest is between the following rivals:

Western (D):  μνημονεύτε (altered to μνημονευσητε via an addition above the line; see image, from the online presentation of Codex Bezae at the Cambridge Digital Library.)

Caesarean (f¹³):  μνημονεύητε αυτων
Alexandrian (B):  αυτων μνημονεύητε
Byzantine:  αυτων μνημονεύητε αυτων

The citation of D* in UBS4 is incorrect.  D* reads μνημονευτε, as shown here

            Although Hort did not list this passage as a Western Non-Interpolation, he could have.  The Western reading is shorter here, which might tempt some textual critics to propose that an early copyist, seeking to augment the clarity of the sentence, added αυτων in the margin, and some subsequent copyists placed it before μνημονεύητε, and some other copyists placed it after μνημονεύητε, yielding the Alexandrian and Caesarean readings. 

             In addition, Hort did not list this passage as an example of Byzantine conflation, although he could have:  take the Alexandrian reading (with αυτων preceding μνημονεύητε) and the Caesarean reading (with αυτων following μνημονεύητε) and blend them together, and the result is the Byzantine reading:  αυτων μνημονεύητε αυτων. 

             According to advocates of “reasonable eclecticism,” this sort of thing illustrates the secondary and derivative nature of the Byzantine Text.  When a Byzantine reading looks like a combination of the Western and Alexandrian readings, this (they say) is because the Byzantine reading is a combination of the Western and Alexandrian readings, revealing that the Byzantine Text is essentially an amalgamation of the Alexandrian Text and the Western Text.  

             And now, the plot twist.  Contrary to the impression I have given here up to this point, this variant-unit in John 16:4 illustrates an inconsistency on the part of practitioners of “reasoned eclecticism.”  In the preceding paragraphs, I mixed up the Alexandrian and Byzantine readings.  Reverse the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings as I gave them previously, and you will see the evidence as it actually exists: 

The Alexandrian variant is longer than the Byzantine variant: 

            Codex B (supported, according to Swanson, by 118 124 157 and 1071 and, according to UBS4, by P66^vid À² 0233 205 Peshitta, Harklean Syriac, and the lemma of Cyril of Alexandria) reads αυτων μνημονεύητε αυτων. 

            Codex A agrees with B but its orthography is not so good:  αυτων μνημονεύηται αυτων. 

            Codex Θ concurs, but again with a spelling-variation:  αυτων μνημονεύειτε αυτων. 

            Codex Π is a little different, with μνημονεύσητε in the middle, but it still agrees with B by having αυτων both before and after the word. 

   

The Byzantine variant is shorter than the Alexandrian variant:

            Byz (supported by K U Ψ 1582 2^c 700 Lect^pt tr) reads μνημονεύητε αυτων.

            Ε Γ Δ Λ 565 and 1424 concur, albeit with an itacism:  μνημονεύετε αυτων.  This is listed in UBS4 as a separate variant, with additional support from 1006 1241 1243 1342 Lect^pt (l1016 with αυτου).

            Codex 1 stands alone, with a different itacism:  μνημονεύειτε αυτων.

            Codex ﬡ* likewise stands alone with an itacism (also seen in A):  μνημονεύηται αυτων.

            Additional support for the Byzantine reading, according to UBS4:  0141  180 597 (892^supp l866 with αυτου) 1010 1292 1505 ff² Palestinian Syriac Boh^pt (arm) (eth) geo slav (Chrysostom).

             

Before we proceed further, we ought to take a closer look at the testimony of Papyrus 66.  As you can see from this image, there is not a lot left of the lower half of the page of P66 that contains John 16:4.  Nevertheless, a calculated guess can be made about whether or not it read αυτων μνημονεύητε αυτων, αυτων μνημονεύητε, αυτων μνημονεύητε, or just μνημονεύητε when it was in pristine condition.

            Here is the Alexandrian Text of John 16:2b-4, formatted to correspond to the array of letters in P66, with sacred names contracted:

λατρείανπροσφέρειντωθωκαιταυ

ταποιήσουσινοτιουκεγνωσαντον

πραουδεεμεαλλαταυταλελάλη

καυμινιναοτανελθηηωρααυτων

μνημονεύητεαυτωνοτιεγωειπον

υμινταυταδευμινεξαρχηςουκ

ειπονοτιμεθ’υμωνημην.

Here is the Alexandrian Text of John 16:2b-4 again – this time with a slightly different array, and without the contraction of patēra: 

δόξηλατρείανπροσφέρειντωθωΚαι

ταυταποιήσουσινοτιουκεγνωσαντον

πατέραουδεεμεΑλλαταυταλελ

άληκαυμινιναοτανελθηηωρααυ

τωνμνημονεύητεαυτωνοτιεγωει

πονυμινταυταδευμινεξαρχηςουκ

ειπονοτιμεθ’υμωνημην.

Here is the Byzantine Text of John 16:2b-4, formatted to correspond to the array of letters in P66, with all sacred names contracted:

δόξηλατρείανπροσφέρειντωθωκαι

ταυταποιήσουσινοτιουκεγνωσαν

τονπραουδεεμεαλλαταυταλελ

άληκαυμινιναοτανελθηηωρα

μνημονεύητεαυτωνοτιεγωειπον

υμινταυταδευμινεξαρχηςουκ

ειπονοτιμεθ’υμωνημην.

Here is the Byzantine Text of John 16:2b-4 again – this time with a slightly different array, and without the contraction of patēra: 

ξηλατρείανπροσφέρειντωθωκαιταυ

ταποιήσουσινοτιουκεγνωσαντονπα

τέραουδεεμεΑλλαταυταλελάλ

ηκαυμινιναοτανελθηηωρα

μνημονεύσητεαυτωνοτιεγωειπ

ονυμινταυταδευμινεξαρχηςουκ

ειπονοτιμεθ’υμωνημην.

Here is another configuration of the Byzantine Text, with patēra contracted:

λατρείανπροσφέρειντωθωκαιταυ

ταποιήσουσινοτιουκεγνωσαντον

πραουδεεμεαλλαταυταλελάλη

καυμινιναοτανελθηηωρα

μνημονεύητεαυτωνοτιεγωειπ

ονυμινταυταδευμινεξαρχηςουκ

ειπονοτιμεθ’υμωνημην.

          In this array, the Byzantine Text neatly corresponds to the remains of P66 – but αυτων would fit neatly in the space after ωρα at the end of the fourth line.

         All things considered, it seems probable that P66 contained αυτων both before and after μνημονεύητε when it was in pristine condition.

          It might also be a good idea to take a closer look at Codex Sinaiticus.  No mystery here:  it initially read μνημονευηται αυτων after ωρα, thus disagreeing with Codex Vaticanus and supporting the Byzantine reading.  A later “corrector” has added αυτων in the right margin, to be read immediately after ωρα, thus creating an agreement with B.   

          Now let’s get back to that four-way contest.  Setting aside the lightweights, here again are the heavyweight contenders:

            Western (D):  μνημονεύτε

            Caesarean (f¹³):  αυτων μνημονεύητε
            Byzantine :  μνημονεύητε αυτων
            Alexandrian:  αυτων μνημονεύητε αυτων

            Nothing stands in the way of conclusion that the Caesarean reading + the Byzantine reading = the Alexandrian reading.  Nevertheless, instead of concluding that a conflation has been made in the Alexandrian Text, the advocates of “reasoned eclecticism” resort to other hypotheses.  

            Metzger asserted (in A Textual Commentary on the New Testament, page 247) that the Alexandrian reading should be accepted “because of the strength of the external evidence (p^66vid A B Θ Π* 33) and because αυτων after ωρα was more likely to be removed as superfluous than added by copyists.”  But obviously not all copyists thought along those lines:  if the Caesarean reading was descended from the Alexandrian reading, then some copyists must have chosen to retain the αυτων after ωρα and remove the other one. 

            Before forming a deduction about why copyists did what they did, we should consider the matter of authorial style.  In the Gospel of John, ωρα is used 19 times, but never accompanied by αυτων except here in John 16:4 in the Alexandrian Text.  This consideration thus weighs in against the Alexandrian reading.  Why did this go unmentioned by Metzger? 

           

             John 16:4 is not the only passage where we encounter something that appears to be an Alexandrian conflation.  Let’s take a look at Matthew 3:12.  This variant-unit is not featured in the apparatus of UBS4, although it was included in the apparatus in UBS2 and commented upon by Metzger in A Textual Commentary.  Apparently when a different reading was adopted for UBS3 than what had been in UBS2 (in which the second αυτου is bracketed), someone made a decision to remove the variant-unit from the apparatus.  

            In Matthew 3:12 the rival variants witnesses line up as follows:

            Groucho:  εις την αποθηκην                             ([the wheat] into the barn)

            Chico:  εις την αποθηκην αυτου                      ([the wheat] into his barn)

            Zeppo:  αυτου εις την αποθηκην                     (his [wheat] into the barn)

            Harpo:  αυτου εις την αποθηκην αυτου           (his [wheat] into his barn)

 

            Can you guess which variant is attested by which text-type?  According to the apparatus in UBS2 and Swanson’s volume on Matthew, here are the witnesses’ testimonies (versional witnesses are in blue):

            εις την αποθηκην:  f¹³ it^a it^q geo^{1, A} Justin Clement Irenaeus

            εις την αποθηκην αυτου:  E L U 157 892 1195 1253 1424 1646 it^b it^ff1 it^g1 Curetonian Syriac, Sinaitic Syriac, Peshitta, Harklean, Armenian, Irenaeus Ambrose Cyril

            αυτου εις την αποθηκην:  ﬡ C D^supp K M S Δ Ω  f¹ 2 28 33 565 700 1009 1010 1230 1241 1365 2148 2174 Byz it^aur it^c it^d it^f it^l Vulgate, Sahidic, Bohairic, Hilary Augustine

            αυτου εις την αποθηκην αυτου:  B W 1071 1216 eth^{ro, pp} (eth^ms? εις την αποθηκην) geo^B 

            Although this is the same kind of scenario that is confronted when Byzantine conflations are posited, I submit that in Matthew 3:12 and John 16:4, the Alexandrian Text does not display a true conflation.  (Similarly I do not grant that every Byzantine conflation identified by Hort is actually a conflation, but that’s another subject.)  Instead, it displays the effects of a scribal phenomenon in which a copyist anticipated an approaching word and wrote it twice instead of once – once where it did not belong, and once where it appeared in his exemplar.  In other words, the double-appearance of αυτων in the Alexandrian Text of John 16:4, and the double-appearance of αυτου in the Alexandrian Text of Matthew 3:12, did not originate thoughtfully, but are essentially cases of dittography.  The Alexandrian reading in John 16:4 is not necessarily a conflation, but it is a corruption.

_______________

Postscript: 

Why Is Today’s “Reasoned Eclectic” Base-text

for Bible Versions Becoming Less Eclectic?

            The first English version to reflect the Alexandrian Text of John 16:4a was, as far as I can tell, Granville Penn’s The Book of the New Covenant, published in 1836:  “but these things I have told you, that when their time cometh, ye may remember that I told you of them.”  

            Penn did not have the resources that textual critics have today; he did not even have the resources that Westcott and Hort had when they compiled their revision in 1881.  Instead, as Penn explained in a supplemental volume, Annotations to the Book of the New Covenant, he used the text of Codex Vaticanus as the basis for his revision-work:  “I have taken the continued and entire text of the most ancient surviving manuscript, the “Codex Vaticanus” or Vatican MS., noted 1209 in the Vatican catalogue, and marked B by Wetstein; making it the basis and substance of the revision.”  

            As far as the text of the Gospels is concerned, Penn’s 1836 translation thus echoed Vaticanus (or, the imperfect editions of its text that were available in 1836), except where its readings seemed beyond hope of salvaging.  The compilation of Penn’s base-text was thus determined by the most non-eclectic principle imaginable; he gave Codex B a virtual monopoly of influence.       

            And yet, in 2015, when we examine the “reasoned eclectic” text as it currently exists, and compare it to earlier compilations used in the 1900’s as the base-texts for English translations, its degree of agreement with Penn’s base-text frequently seems to increase rather than decrease.  Consider, for example the text of John 16:4a in the NIV as it existed in 1984 (and as it was still being printed in 2002):

            “I have told you this, so that when the time comes you will remember that I warned you.” (Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version ®,  Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society.  Used by permission of Zondervan.  All rights reserved.)

            The compilers of the NIV’s base-text apparently adopted the Western reading of John 16:4a. 

            The Contemporary English Version, likewise, seems to follow the Western reading:

            “I am saying this to you now, so that when the time comes, you will remember what I have said.” (Contemporary English Version (CEV) Copyright © 1995 by American Bible Society.)

            The New Century Version, likewise, conforms to the Western reading of John 16:4a: 

            “I have told you these things now so that when the time comes you will remember that I warned you.” (The Holy Bible, New Century Version ®, Copyright © 2005 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.)

            However, in the TNIV and in the new editions of the NIV, the text of John 16:4a is different:

            “I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them.”  [Bold print added for emphasis.]  (Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version ®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc. ®.  Used by permission.  All rights reserved worldwide.)

            Thus the base-text of John 16:4 in the newly revised NIV has quietly become less eclectic than the NIV of 1984.  The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the English Standard Version (ESV), and the Common English Bible (CEB) reflect the same Alexandrian base-text of John 16:4.  It would seem, from this lone example, that although more text-critical materials are available now than ever before (in the form of newly discovered manuscripts, new editions of patristic writings, etc.) “reasoned eclecticism” is producing a text that very closely resembles what Penn produced in 1836 by ignoring almost all evidence except Codex Vaticanus.  In terms of results, it is almost anti-eclectic.