Review - Scribal Skips

            Readers who keep track of recently made English New Testaments may recognize the name of the author of Scribal Skips: 1300 Words That Fell Out of the Bible:  Wayne A. Mitchell is already known as the main developer of the New Heart English Bible.

            In a three-page introduction, Mitchell summarizes a current problem in modern-day textual criticism:  the continued use of the guideline lectio brevior potior, that is, the shorter reading is stronger.  This principle – the first guideline in Griesbach’s list of guidelines, or canons, as stated back in 1796 (and, earlier, by Bengel) – was very heavily qualified, but since then it has been applied in an oversimplified manner, to the point that all that some commentators have needed to say, when offering a case against a particular reading, is that it is longer than its rival.

            As David J. Miller pointed out back in 2006 in the journal The Bible Translator in an article titled The Long and Short of Lectio Brevior Potior, research in the past 40 years has shown that measuring the length of rival textual variants is not a valid way to decide which is original.  James Royse, for example, in a detailed examination of some early papyri (P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and P75, to be precise), determined that the copyists of those papyri made more omissions (creating shorter readings) than they made additions (creating longer readings), at a rate of 312 omissions and 127 additions – that is, at a ratio of approximately 7:3.   

            Additional research by Juan Hernández on the text of Revelation in three uncial manuscripts, and by Peter Head, in a 1990 article Observations on Early Papyri of the Synoptic Gospels, in the journal Biblica (supplemented and re-confirmed in another article in 2004), supported Royse’s findings; Head concluded his article with a statement that “If early scribes were more likely to omit words and phrases (for whatever reasons) it follows that we should not prefer the shorter reading, but rather prefer the longer reading (other factors being equal).”  Even with full consideration given to the cautionary footnote that Head added to this sentence, to the effect that “Each variant must be assessed on its merits,” at the end of the day, the point seems irresistible that a variant’s brevity is not a merit. 

            And therein lies a problem:  in the creation of the compilation of Westcott & Hort, published in 1881, the editors appear to have routinely thought that the copyists expanded the text; Hort described the tendency of copyists to expand their texts as an “almost universal tendency.”  Similarly, Eberhard Nestle, in his 1901 Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, on page 323, stated, “It is a fundamental principle of textual criticism that the lectio brevio is to be preferred.”  And if one consults the Preface to the First Edition of the UBS Greek New Testament (on page x of the UBS GNT, 4^th ed.), the editors acknowledge that Westcott & Hort’s edition was the initial basis for the UBS Greek New Testament, and Nestle’s work is listed next.  Metzger, in his handbook The Text of the New Testament, stated (4th ed., p. 303), “In general, the shorter reading is to be preferred, except where parablepsis arising from homoeoteleuton may have occurred or where the scribe may have omitted material that he deemed to be superfluous, harsh, or contrary to pious belief, liturgical usage, or ascetical practice.”
            The first exception that Metzger mentioned – cases of possible parablepsis – does not appear to have been given adequate weight.  Many shorter readings that can be explained as results of parableptic error continue to be favored over their longer rivals. This is one reason why the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece continues to confidently diverge from the 1881 text at fewer than 700 points.

            What would the text of the New Testament look like if shorter readings that can be accounted for as omissions caused by parablepsis – that is, simple scribal errors that happened when a copyist’s line of sight drifted from one letter (or letters) at one point to another point further along in the text where the same or similar letter (or letters) recurred – were rejected in favor of rival longer readings?  That question may be answered by a careful reading of the portion of Scribal Slips that focuses on the New Testament – that is, everything after page 77. 

            In the part of Scribal Slips that pertains to the New Testament text, each page features a straightforward presentation of two or three passages where there are (a) a shorter reading, and (b) a longer reading which can be explained as the original reading on the grounds that it was accidentally lost via scribal error.  External evidence is thoroughly listed for each reading.  A series of cases in Matthew helpfully exemplifies the kinds of readings that are covered:

            ● Omission of a word:  Matthew 19:11 – witnesses are listed for the longer reading (τον λογον τουτον) and for the shorter reading (τον λογον).  Then the verse is presented in English, with the omitted word within brackets:  “But he said to them, “Not all men can receive [this] saying, but those to whom it is given.”  The idea is that an early copyist’s line of sight drifted from the letters -ον at the end of λογον to the same letters at the end of τουτον.

            ● Omission of consecutive words:  Matthew 19:29 – witnesses are listed for the longer reading (οικιας η αδελφους η αδελφας η πατερα η μητερα η γυναικα η τεκνα η αγρους) and for the shorter reading found mainly in Codex Vaticanus (οικιας η αδελφους η αδελφας η πατερα η μητερα η τεκνα η αγρους).  Then the verse is presented in English, with the omitted words in brackets:  “Everyone who has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, [or wife,] or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive one hundred times, and will inherit eternal life.”  The idea is that a copyist’s line of sight drifted from η to η, accidentally skipping η γυναικα.

            ● Omission of a phrase:  Matthew 20:16 – witnesses are listed for the longer reading (ουτως εσονται οι εσχατοι πρωτοι και οι πρωτοι εσχατοι πολλοι γαρ εισιν κλητοι ολιγοι δε εκλεκτοι) and for the shorter reading (ουτως εσονται οι εσχατοι πρωτοι και οι πρωτοι εσχατοι).  The idea is that a copyist’s line of sight drifted from the letters at the end of εσχατοι to the same letters at the end of εκλεκτοι.

           

            Similarly in Mark, Mitchell pin-points readings which are shorter in the NIV, ESV, and NLT than in the KJV, NKJV, and MEV, and shows how simple scribal inattentiveness – not some devious Gnostic agenda – caused the loss of some text.  Examples:

            ● Mark 2:16 – Parablepsis accounts for the loss of the words “and drinks”

            ● Mark 10:24 – Parablepsis account for the loss of the words “for those who trust in riches”

            ● Mark 11:26 – Parablepsis accounts for the loss of the entire verse

            Even though this may give readers an illuminating view at the possible impact of scribal errors upon the text, the spotlight is not as bright as it could be.  In just two chapters of Matthew (chapters 19 and 20), readers are not shown how parablepsis may be the cause of . . .
            ► the non-inclusion of οτι in 19:8 in Vaticanus and Bezae

            ► the non-inclusion of αγαθέ in 19:16 in ℵ B L D et al

            ► the non-inclusion of ει μη εις ο Θεος in 19:17 in ℵ B L D et al

            ► the non-inclusion of ου μοιχεύσεις ου κλέψεις in 19:18 in ℵ*

            ► the cause of the non-inclusion of εισελθειν in 19:24 in ℵ L f¹ 157 et al

            ► the non-inclusion of παρα ανθρώποις in 19:26 in ℵ*

            ► the non-inclusion of οτι in 20:12 in ℵ B D et al

            ► the non-inclusion of οι in C* and H in 20:12, and

            ► the non-inclusion of 20:31 (the entire verse) in GA 2* and 157. 

But if all such instances of possible parablepsis and haplography had been included, this would be a much longer book.  The samples that Mitchell has recorded should be sufficient to cause some readers to exclaim, “Leapin’ lizards; why on earth are we relying on the Alexandrian Text; it’s full of holes?!” or similar expressions of dismay.

            There is not a lot of argumentation in this book, just straightforward presentations of evidence which may or may not constitute a genuine case of a haplography-induced scribal skip at any given point.  For instance, regarding Luke 4:5, Mitchell accurately reports that À* B L 1241 et al do not have the words ο διαβολος εις ορος υψηλον, which appear in most manuscripts immediately after the words και αναγαγων αυτον.  The idea is that a copyist’s line of sight drifted from the letters -ον at the end of αυτον to the same letters at the end of υψηλον, but one could also argue that the words have been inserted here as a harmonization to the parallel-scene in Matthew 4:8.

            Some readers might initially suspect, as they observe over and over that the shorter reading is found in the flagship manuscripts of the Alexandrian text, and the longer reading is found in the Textus Receptus, that perhaps Mitchell’s presentation is a surreptitious defense of the base-text of the King James Version.  However, the tendency for the Alexandrian Text to have the shorter reading is only a tendency; the Alexandrian text is not always shorter.  Mitchell points out that the Textus Receptus appears to be missing 39 words, in passages such as John 12:19 (where P66 À B also do not include ολος after κοσμος), James 4:12 (where the Textus Receptus, like most manuscripts, does not include και κριτης (“and Judge”) after νομοθέτης (“Lawgiver”), and Jude verse 25 (where the Textus Receptus, like most manuscripts, does not include the phrase, “through Jesus Christ our Lord”).    

            In a six-page conclusion, Mitchell maximizes the implications of the data he has presented.  The texts of the manuscripts that are routinely referred to as “oldest and best” in some Bible-footnotes are by no means safe from scribal skips; Mitchell indicts P44^vid, P45, P66, P75, and À B D L et al as containing echoes of an early parableptic error in John 10:13 in which ο δε μισθωτος φευγει was accidentally skipped after σκορπίζει at the end of verse 12.  Besides proposing that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament (in the Masoretic Text) has lost 1,279 words due to haplography, he also proposes that the Greek text of the New Testament (in the Nestle-Aland compilation, 28^th edition) has lost 327 words (in addition to which 100 words are bracketed), including four entire verses (Mt. 27:35, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, and Luke 23:17), due to scribal skips.

            Finally, in an interesting appendix, Mitchell comments about some differences between the form of some Old Testament passages and New Testament quotations of them.  These include considerations of Genesis 11:13 (compared to Luke 3:36), Genesis 47:31 (compared to Hebrews 11:21), Exodus 2:14 (compared to Acts 7:28), Psalm 8:2 (compared to Matthew 21:16), Isaiah 28:16 (compared to First Peter 2:6), Hosea 14:2 (compared to Hebrews 13:15), and more.  Often the quotation in the New Testament is identical or similar to the reading in the Septuagint.    

            Almost certainly, Mitchell’s evidence-presentations will not be persuasive in every case.  (For example, it seems to me that the longer form of Luke 11:2-4 is explained much more easily as a harmonization to the Lord’s model prayer in Matthew 6:9-13, than the shorter form is explained as due to a series of remarkable scribal skips.)  But in many cases, Mitchell has supplied a strong basis to reject “prefer the shorter reading,” and to put in its place, “prefer the reading with the simplest explanation.”   Very often a shorter reading is explained by a scribal slip with more simplicity than a longer ending is explained as the result of conscious scribal effort. 

            It is not as Mitchell provides only vague evidence for the textual losses that he proposes have occurred.  He (or his sources) apparently sifted through the contents of 28 papyri, over 80 uncials, over 110 minuscules, at least 18 Old Latin manuscripts, four editions of the Vulgate, seven Syriac (or Aramaic) texts, eight Coptic sources, five additional versions (Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Gothic, Old Church Slavonic), and the works of 62 patristic writers – all of which/whom are listed near the beginning of the book, giving readers the tools to trace the losses.  That’s far more materials than were cited in the apparatus of the Tyndale House Greek New Testament.

            Mitchell acknowledged near the end of his book that it is not exhaustive.   (A future edition could be re-titled with  “1,500” or  “1,600” in place of  “1,300.”)  First Peter 2:2, for example, could be profitably added to the list of passages where a difference among English translations may have its origin in an ancient scribe’s inattentiveness.   But Scribal Skips is already a resource which investigators of the differences among modern English translations, and their base-texts, will find highly informative and useful.

            Scribal Skips: 1,300 Words That Fell Out of the Bible is available to purchase at Amazon as a Kindle e-book for $7.99, or as a paperback for $14.99.  

 

            [Pages 1-77 of Scribal Skips cover Old Testament passages, and are not covered in this review.  But Mitchell’s h.t.-implying comparisons, which he lets speak for themselves, are often very interesting, and merit consideration from investigators of the Old Testament text, whether regarding large readings (at passages such as First Samuel 10:27-11:1 and First Samuel 14:41) or small ones (at passages such as Malachi 1:7 and 3:2).]

[P.S.  Another man named Mitchell, Jonathan Mitchell, has also made an English New Testament, using a super-amplified technique.  Wayne A, Mitchell is not the same person.]

Conflations (Part 1)

Codex Macedonianus -
the end of Luke

            What is a conflation?  A conflation is the effect of a textual collision.  Suppose a copyist sat down to make a copy of the Gospel of Luke, and checked his primary exemplar by consulting a secondary exemplar.  Suppose, further, that in Luke 24:53, his primary exemplar said that the disciples “were continually in the temple, praising God,” and that his secondary exemplar said that the disciples “were continually in the temple, blessing God.”  The copyist might decide to follow one exemplar and not the other one – or he might combine them, creating a new reading:  the disciples “were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God.”  Such a combination is a conflation.

            In 1881, Hort argued that the Byzantine Text as a whole is a secondary text – a combination of readings harvested from earlier Alexandrian and Western texts.  One of Hort’s key points was that the Byzantine Text contained conflations, and he listed eight of them:  in Mark 6:33, Mark 8:26, Mark 9:38, Mark 9:49, Luke 9:10, Luke 11:54, Luke 12:18, and Luke 24:53.  In each passage, the Alexandrian Text has a short reading, the Western Text has a short reading, and the Byzantine Text has a longer reading which, Hort argued, is a combination of the Alexandrian and Western readings.

            Hort then considered the writings of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Methodius, and Eusebius of Caesarea, and concluded that they contain no distinctly Byzantine variants:  “Before the middle of the third century, at the very earliest, we have no historical signs of the existence of readings, conflate or other, that are marked as distinctively Syrian.”  Hort concluded from these two points – (1) Eight readings in the Syrian text appear to be combinations of readings in the Alexandrian and Western texts, and (2) There are no distinctly Syrian readings in the writings of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Methodius, and Eusebius of Caesarea – that the Syrian Text should be regarded “as not only partly but wholly derived from the other known ancient texts.”  And he further extrapolated that “all readings in which the Pre-Syrian texts concur must be accepted at once as the apostolic readings, or to speak more exactly, as the most original of recorded readings.”  In other words, readings shared by the Alexandrian and Western Texts should be accepted as a matter of course no matter what the Syrian Text says.

            Hort’s proposal essentially rendered the Syrian (Byzantine) Text superfluous – and, by extension, a vast number of New Testament manuscripts which support the Syriac Text were regarded as unimportant in the enterprise of reconstructing the original text of the New Testament:  only representatives of the Alexandrian and Western Text really mattered, and in 1881 less than 50 such Greek manuscripts were known.  Hort relied on two of them above all others:  Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (À).  Hort proposed “(1) that readings of ÀB should be accepted as the true readings until strong internal evidence is found to the contrary, and (2) that no readings of ÀB can safely be rejected absolutely.”

            Thus, for the establishment of the base-text of the Revised Version, the testimony of thousands of Greek manuscripts was set aside, mainly in favor of a very small number of manuscripts that represented the Alexandrian Text, especially the Alexandrian Text as displayed in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

            With all that in the background, let’s return to the subject of conflation. 

            Although Hort’s research made an enormous impact, not everyone was persuaded.  In the 1897 Oxford Debate on New Testament Textual Criticism, Edward Miller considered it absurd to conclude that that the Syrian (Byzantine) Text is altogether secondary because of merely eight readings, and he challenged his fellow debater Dr. Sanday to produce 30 conflate readings from the Syrian Text.  In reply, Dr. Sanday did not produce 30 conflate readings, and conceded the point; his reply should be famous:  “Whatever person or whatever school produced the Traditional Text, did not systematically combine the Texts.  They were combined occasionally, and that is all one can say.  I am prepared to admit for myself that the conflations are not conclusive proof of the rightness of Dr. Hort’s theory; they could only belong to the region of hypothesis.  It is all hypothesis.”
            Nevertheless, Hort’s eight conflations are still treated as if they show that the Byzantine Text is derivative of the Alexandrian and Western Texts.  For example, on page 45 of Interpreting the New Testament Text (2006, Bock and Fanning, editors), Daniel Wallace stated the following:  “Hort argued that the Byzantine text (what he called the Syrian text) was inferior.  His arguments are still essentially valid today:  (1) conflations (i.e., a new reading combined from two earlier readings) show that the Byzantine text is secondary, because the Byzantine Text is the only text-type to conflate (cf. Luke 9:10, 24:53); (2) no ante-Nince fathers seem to quote distinctive Byzantine readings, demonstrating that the Byzantine text is late; (3) internal evidence reveals that the Byzantine text is inferior.”

            Two things should be emphasized here:  First, in 2006, conflations were presented as the number one piece of evidence for the secondary nature of the Byzantine Text.  Second, in 2006, Hort’s transmission-model was not presented as some antique theory of yesteryear, but as if it is a theory which still merits adherence – and this presentation did not come from some fringe element, but from a professor at a leading American evangelical seminary.  I conclude that those who claim that the New Testament base-text of the NIV, ESV, NLT, and CSB is not (at over 95% of its points of disagreement from the Byzantine Text) Hort’s compilation are in a fantasy-land.

            Now let’s zoom in on the two passages mentioned by Dr. Wallace:  Luke 9:10 and 24:53.  I will list the major variants in each passage, followed by some analysis of each variant-unit.  

Luke 9:10

            P75 B L 33:  εις πόλιν καλουμένην Βηθσαϊδα (to a city called Bethsaida) [P75 reads Βηδθσαιδα; L reads Βιθσαϊδαν]

            À 157:  εις τόπον ερημον (to a remote place)

            D:  εις κωμην καλουμένην Βηδθσαϊδα (to a village called Bedthsaida)

            Θ:  εις κωμην καλουμένην Βηδθσαϊδα εις τόπον ερημον (to a village called Bethsaida, to a remote place)

            A:  εις ερημον τόπον πόλεως λεγομένην Βηδσαϊδα (to a remote place of the city called Bethsaida)

            f¹:  εις τόπον πόλεως καλουμένης Βηθσαϊδα (to a place of the city called Bethsaida)

            Byz W:  εις τόπον ερημον πόλεως λεγομένην Βηδσαϊδα (to a remote place of the city called Bethsaida)

            C E F G M Π 565 f¹³ 1424:  εις τόπον ερημον πόλεως καλουμένης Βηθσαϊδα (to a remote place of the city called Bethsaida)

            K N:  εις τόπον ερημον πόλεως καλουμένην Βιθσαϊδαν (to a remote place of the city called Bithsaida)

Those who attempt to produce the reading found in most manuscripts (εις τόπον ερημον πόλεως λεγομένην Βηδσαϊδα) from the Alexandrian reading εις πόλιν καλουμένην Βηθσαϊδα and the Western reading εις κωμην καλουμένην Βηδθσαϊδα will soon find themselves frustrated, for neither one says anything about a deserted place.   But Hort’s proposal did not involve such a conflation.  Instead, Hort saw Sinaiticus’ reading as a truncated form of a Western reading (attested in Old Latin copies):  εις τόπον ερημον Βηδσαϊδα (to a deserted place, Bethsaida) or εις τόπον ερημον καλουμένον Βηδθσαϊδα (to a deserted place called Bethsaida).

However, there are simpler explanations for the Byzantine reading.  For example, a copyist wishing to harmonize the text of Luke here to the text of Matthew 14:13 (where, immediately before the feeding of the 5,000, Jesus departs εις ερημον τόπον) or Mark 6:32 (where, immediately before the feeding of the 5,000, Jesus instructs His disciples to go with Him εις ερημον τόπον) would not need a secondary exemplar to introduce εις ερημον τόπον into the text of Luke 9:10.  He would only need the parallel-passages in Matthew and Mark.

Another possibility is that the original text is preserved in C E F G M N Π 565 f¹³ 1424, and that this reading explains each of its rivals, along the following lines:

B’s reading is a simplification, elicited by a scribe’s sense that a single place cannot be both remote  (or deserted, or wilderness) and belong to a city. 

D’s reading is the same simplification, with Bethsaida downsized to a village.

            À’s reading is a harmonization, replacing Luke’s verbiage with verbiage from the parallel-passage in Matthew 14:13 or Mark 6:32.

            Θ’s reading is D’s reading with εις τόπον ερημον inserted from Mt. 14:13 or Mk. 6:32.

            A’s reading is the same as the usual Byzantine reading, with a minor transposition.

            f¹’s reading is the reading of CEFG etc., except ερημον is absent, either due to parableptic error or due to a scribe’s sense that a remote/deserted place cannot be said to belong to a city.

            Byz’s reading is the reading of CEFG etc., with the word λεγομένην taking the place of its synonym (used more frequently by Luke, and supported across multiple transmission-lines) καλουμένης.

            K and N’s reading is the reading of CEFG etc., slightly tweaked.

           

Luke 24:53    

            P75 À  B C* L and the Sinaitic Syriac, Palestinian Aramaic, Coptic, and Georgian support ευλογουντες (blessing)

            D and several Old Latin copies support αινουντες (praising).

            Byz and A C^c K M U W Δ Θ Λ Π Ψ f¹ f¹³ 33 157 565 579 1424 etc. and the Vulgate, the Peshitta, and the Armenian version support αινουντες και ευλογουντες (praising and blessing). 

            Hort claimed that this case “needs no explanation.”  Here, it is claimed, we face a simple and uncomplicated blend:  using αινουντες τον Θν in a Western exemplar and using ευλογουντες τον Θν in an Alexandrian exemplar, an editor created the reading αινουντες και ευλογουντες τον Θν.  However, what if the Alexandrian reading exists because an Alexandrian scribe considered it superfluous to say that the disciples both blessed and praised God?  And what if the Western reading exists because a Western scribe lost his place in the text and his line of sight drifted from the final letters of αινουντες to the final letters of ευλογουντες, accidentally skipping all the letters in between?  One might say that a conflation is simpler – if one finds it simple to posit an editor with two exemplars who would combine their readings here, after refraining from making any other conflations involving the many distinct Western readings elsewhere in Luke 24 – but neither theory is unfeasible.   

            Losses of text (whether deliberate or accidental) in both the Alexandrian and Western transmission-lines can give the impression that the Byzantine reading is a combination of the other two, but this impression is not necessarily the last word.  Consider Mark 6:33 – where one finds the proposed conflation upon which Hort focused the most in his 1881 Introduction.

Mark 6:33b

            À B 0187 892 and the Vulgate and some lectionaries:  και προηλθον αυτους (and they arrived first)

            L 579 1241 and the Armenian version and some lectionaries:  και προσηλθον αυτους (and they arrived first)

            Δ Θ:  και προσηλθον αυτοις (and arrived ahead of them)

            f¹:  ηλθον εκει (they came there) [without the εκει after συνέδραμον]

            f¹³:  και προηλθεν αυτους (and they arrived first)

            D:  και συνηλθον αυτου (and came together to Him)

            33:  προς αυτους.  και συνηλθον προς αυτον (before them, and gathered together to Him)

            700:  και συνηλθον αυτω (and came together to Him)

            565:  και ηλθον αυτου (and came to Him)

            Byz P84^vid E F G H K M U V Γ Π 157:  και προηλθον αυτους και συνηλθον προς αυτον (and they arrived first, and came together to Him)

            W:  verse 33 ends at συνέδραμον εκει          

            A:  και προηλθον αυτους και συνέδραμον προς αυτον (and they arrived first, and ran together to Him) [repeating a verb that occurs earlier in the verse]

            The next word in the text (in all transmission-lines) is και.

            As Willker noted, the scholar Bousset wrote about this textual contest in 1894:  “If we accept the long reading as original, then the short readings are quite easy to understand:  συνηλθον αυτου was omitted [accidentally] and D et al omitted [deliberately] the difficult προηλθον αυτους.” Is this feasible?  Let’s see: 

The loss of προηλθον αυτους is fully capable of being lost accidentally, via an accidental skip from και to και :

1.  Text before parablepsis:  και προηλθον αυτους και συνηλθον προς αυτον και

            2.  Parablepsis, και¹ to και²

            3.  Text after parablepsis:  και συνηλθον προς αυτον

            Thus the reading in D is mostly accounted for by the Byzantine reading; all that is needed at this point is for a Western scribe to replace προς αυτον with αυτου.  Meanwhile, how does one get to και συνηλθον αυτου if all one has to start with is και προηλθον αυτους?

           

            The loss of συνηλθον προς αυτον is accounted for as follows:

            1.  Text before parablepsis:  και προηλθον αυτους και συνηλθον προς αυτον και

            2.  Parablepsis, και² to και³

            3.  Text after parablepsis:  και προηλθον αυτους

            Thus the reading in B et al is accounted for by the Byzantine reading.

            So far, three “conflations” have been examined, and none of the three prove the posteriority of the Byzantine reading, let alone the posteriority of the entire Byzantine Text.  But even if all eight of Hort’s proposed conflations were airtight, this would not demonstrate the posteriority of the Byzantine Text, for a very simple reason.  God willing, I will explore that reason in Part 2.

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