Conflations (Part 2)

            Today we continue our consideration of conflations.

            Without Hort’s use of conflations as evidence that the Byzantine Text is derivative of the Alexandrian and Western text-types in his 1881 Introduction, he would have had a much harder time making a case for the overthrow of the Textus Receptus.  As we saw in Part 1, three of the eight examples of conflation presented by Hort are not necessarily actual conflations; the longer reading in Mark 6:33, Luke 9:10, and Luke 24:53 is capable of plausibly accounting for the origin of its shorter rivals.  

            What about the remaining five – found in Mark 8:26, Mark 9:38, Mark 9:49, Luke 11:54, and Luke 12:18?  As an exercise, let’s consider Luke 12:18: 

            B:  τὸν σειτον καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου

            P75*:  τὸν σιτον μου καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου

            P75^c À^c L f¹ 157:  τὸν σιτον καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου 

            579:  τὸν σιτον καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου

            À* D 435 Old Latin:  τὰ γενήματά μου

            39 and other Old Latin:  τοὺς καρπούς μου

            346:  τὸν σιτον μου καὶ τὰ γενήματα μου

            Byz:  τὰ γενήματα μου καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου

 

            It should be immediately obvious the first Western reading (read by À* D) is accounted for by the Byzantine Reading: from τὰ γενήματα μου καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου, the route to τὰ γενήματά μου is simple:  a parableptic drift from the first τὰ to the second τὰ.  The Alexandrian reading as attested in B P75^c À^c L f¹ 157 and 579 is accounted for in another way:  as a slight stylistic refinement, replacing τὰ γενήματα μου with τὸν σιτον μου (as in P75*) or τὸν σιτον.  It should be noticed that the copyist of P75 first wrote τὸν σιτον μου before the μου was removed.

            As for the reading in minuscule 39, supported by some Old Latin copies, this is a typical Western simplification-via-harmonization, using verbiage from the preceding verse. 

            Thus once again, while Hort’s theory that the Byzantine reading is the result of the creativity of a scribe who had two exemplar with two rival readings – one Alexandrian, one Western – cannot be refuted, neither can the theory that the Alexandrian and Western readings emerged from the Byzantine reading.

            But while Hort’s theory cannot be refuted, is it as plausible as the alternative scenario in which the Byzantine reading is original?  If a scribe had one manuscript that read τὰ γενήματά μου (my produce) and another manuscript that read τὸν σιτον μου καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου (my wheat and my goods), and the scribe wanted to combine them so as to preserve them both readings, the resultant collision would mention (1) wheat, (2) produce, and (3) goods.  But somewhere along the line, Hort’s scribe must have forgotten that he was attempting to preserve both readings; he could have simply written two sentences or clauses – “I will store there all my wheat; I will store  there all my produce and goods” – but he did not.  Hort’s proposal seems more complicated, and less plausible, than the explanation that the Byzantine reading here is original, and its Western rival is the result of an accidental omission, and its Alexandrian rival, the result of a stylistic introduction of τὸν σιτον in place of τὰ γενήματα.    

             Suppose, however, that Hort’s theory is true in all eight examples of conflation that he provided.  (Suppose, too, that the Byzantine readings in Matthew 26:70, John 10:31 and John 18:40 are added to the list.)

            This would not imply that the Byzantine Text is derivative of the Alexandrian and Western Text.  If we were to picture a conflation as the collision of two cars that became intertwined in the wreck, then it need not imply anything more than that one car was a short reading that agreed with either the Alexandrian or Western Text before it collided with its rival reading (in either an Alexandrian, or Western, exemplar) and, thus combined, became a longer reading.    

            To rephrase this as a question:  as Hort presents the rival shorter readings, why should either reading be considered exclusively Alexandrian, or exclusively Western?  If it is an early Byzantine reading, then the longer reading that supplants it is merely an example of mixture, and instead of looking at the effects of a deliberate revision or recension when we look at conflations, we are looking at sporadic accidents – the incidental effects of one form of the text driving into a locale where another form is dominant. 

            There is thus nothing about conflations that moves forward Hort’s theory of a Lucianic recension.  Plausible alternative explanations of the evidence exist, in which the Byzantine reading accounts for its truncated rivals; in addition, there is no reason to assume, if any of Hort’s eight conflations are indeed conflations of earlier readings, that neither component-reading already existed in an early form of the Byzantine Text.

           

            But if Hort’s argument from conflations does not imply that the Byzantine Text is posterior to the Alexandrian and Western text-types, what about his next point, specifically, that the non-use of distinctly Byzantine readings by patristic writers before the 300s implies that the Byzantine Text did not exist until then?  We shall, God willing, look into that claim soon.

            First, however, let’s briefly test Hort’s claim that conflations are a special characteristic of the Byzantine Text:  “We do not know of any places,” Hort wrote, “where the α group of documents [i.e., Codex B and its allies] supports readings apparently conflate from the readings of the β and δ groups [i.e., Western and Byzantine] respectively, or where the β group of documents [Western representatives] supports readings apparently conflate from the readings of the α and δ groups respectively.” 

            While this might seem to mean that representatives of the Alexandrian and Western text-types do not have conflations, that is not what it means.  It only means that conflations of Western and Byzantine readings are not detectable in the Alexandrian Text, and that conflations of Alexandrian and Byzantine readings are not detectable in the Western Text.  But consider the following:

● Matthew 3:12

            Byz:  και συνάξει τον σιτὸν αυτου εις την αποθήκην

            L 157:  και συνάξει τον σιτὸν εις την αποθήκην αυτου

            B:  και συνάξει τον σειτὸν αυτου εις την αποθήκην αυτου

            Here the reading in Vaticanus (B) looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading (with αυτου after σιτὸν) and the reading in L (with αυτου after αποθήκην) – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read “and shall gather his wheat into the barn,” and another exemplar read “and shall gather the wheat into his barn,” and the scribe combined them so as to read, “and shall gather his wheat into his barn.”

● Matthew 24:38

            Byz:   εν ταις ημέραις ταις προ του κατακλυσμου

            D:  εν ταις ημέραις εκείναις προ του κατακλυσμου

            B:  εν ταις ημέραις εκείναις ταις προ του κατακλυσμου

            Here the reading in B looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading (without εκείναις) and the reading in D (without ταις) – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read “in the days which were before the flood,” and another exemplar read “in those days before the flood,” and the scribe combined them so as to read, “in those days which were before the flood.”

● Matthew 26:22

            Byz:  εκαστος αυτων

            B À L:  εις εκαστος

            D Θ:  εις εκαστος αυτων

            Here the reading in D looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading (without εις) and the reading in B (without αυτων) – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read “each of them,” and another examplar which read “each one,” and the scribe combined them so as to read, “each one of them.”    

● Mark 1:28

            Byz:  ευθυς    

            W 579:  πανταχου      

            B C:  ευθυς πανταχου

            Here the reading in B looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading and the reading in Codex W – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read “immediately,” and another exemplar which read “everywhere,” and the scribe combined them so as to read “immediately everywhere.”  [Codex W was not discovered until after Hort wrote.]

● John 13:24

            Byz:  Σίμων Πέτρος πύθεσθαι τίς αν ειη περι ου λέγει.

            D:   Σίμων Πέτρους πύθεσθαι τίς αν ειη ουτος περι ου λέγει.

            B C L 33:  Σίμων Πέτρος και λέγει αυτω Ειπε τίς εστιν περι ου λέγει.

            À:  Σίμων Πέτρος πύθεσθαι τίς αν ειη περι ου ελεγεν και λέγει αυτω Ειπε τίς εστιν περι ου λέγει.

            Here the reading in À looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading (not, it should be observed, the Western reading in D, for D’s ουτος is nowhere to be found in À here) and the reading in Codex B – as if a copyist had one exemplar which said that Simon Peter gestured to the beloved disciple to ask who it might be of whom He was speaking, and another exemplar which said that Simon Peter gestured to the beloved disciple and told him to say who it was of whom He was speaking, and the scribe combined both readings, so as to write that Simon Peter gestured to the beloved disciple to ask who it might be of whom He was speaking, and told him to say who it was of whom He was speaking.

● John 16:4

            Byz:  ινα οταν ελθη η ωρα μνημονεύητε αυτων

            L:   ινα εαν ελθη η ωρα αυτων μνημονεύητε

            B 157:  ινα οταν ελθη η ωρα αυτων μνημονεύητε αυτων

            Here the reading in B looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading and the reading in Codex L – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read “that when the hour may come you shall remember them,” and another exemplar which read “that when their hour may come you shall remember,” and the scribe combined them so as to read, “that when their hour may come you shall remember them.”

● Ephesians 2:5

            Byz:  και οντας ημας νεκρους τοις παραπτωμασιν

            D:  και οντας ημας νεκρους ταις αμαρτιαις

            B:  και οντας ημας νεκρους εν τοις παραπτωμασιν και ταις αμαρτιαις

            Here the reading in B looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading and the reading in D – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read, “and we who were dead in trespasses,” and another exemplar which read, “and we who were dead in sins,” and the scribe combined them so as to read, “and we who were dead in trespasses and sins.”

● Colossians 1:12

            Byz:  ικανώσαντι  
            D:  καλεσαντι  

            B:  καλεσαντι και ικανώσαντι  

            Here the reading in B looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading and the reading in D – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read, “qualified” and one exemplar which read, “summoned,” and the scribe combined them so as to read, “qualified and summoned.”

● Second Thessalonians 3:4

            Byz:  και ποιειτε και ποιησετε

            F G:  και εποιησατε και ποιειτε

            B Sah:  και εποιησατε και ποιειτε και ποιησετε

            Here the reading in B (supported by the Sahidic version) looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading and the reading in F and G – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read, “and you are doing and will do,” and another exemplar which read, “and you did and are doing,” and the scribe combined them so as to read, “and you did and are doing and will do.”    

● Jude v. 3

            Byz:  της κοινης σωτηρίας

            B P72 1739:  της κοινης ημων σωτηρίας

            6 1881:  της κοινης υμων σωτηρίας

            1611 2138:  της κοινης ημων ζωης

            1505:  της κοινης υμων ζωης

            À 044:  της κοινης ημων σωτηρίας και ζωης

            Here the reading of À looks like a combination of the reading of B (and most non-Byzantine MSS, with ημων) and the reading of the Harklean Group – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read, “pertaining to our common salvation,” and another examplar which read, “pertaining to our common life,” and the scribe combined them so as to read, “pertaining to our common salvation and life.”

            So:  do apparent conflations mean that the text-type in which they are embedded is late?  No.  They do not, for three reasons:
(1)  Some apparent conflations may be cases where an original longer reading has been shortened by scribes in two different ways. 

(2)  In other cases, they may be merely combinations of a reading found in an established local text, and a reading from a manuscript representing a different, or invasive, text-type; no impetus is created for the idea that either text-type is late – only that the conflation is. 
(3)  Whatever conflations imply via their presence in the representatives of the Byzantine Text, they also imply via their presence in representatives of other text-types.  The picture is one of competing local texts existing in the second and third centuries, occasionally crashing, with the wreck-reading tending to be pushed into the Byzantine text – naturally more frequently, if its area of dominance was larger and growing – but sometimes into the Alexandrian and Western domains. 

Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post. 

Wilbur Pickering’s book The Identity of the Text of the New Testament was especially helpful when researching this post.

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.