Hort 'conflation' - Luke 9:10

Steven Avery


Luke 9:10 (AV)
And the apostles, when they were returned,
told him all that they had done.
And he took them,
and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida.

Steven Avery

p. 94
133- The clearest evidence for this purpose, as we have already seen (§ 62), is furnished by conflate readings, where they exist; and in the case of some of the primary groupings of the textual documents of the New Testament they are fortunately not wanting.
p. 95
134- We now proceed to conflate readings involving important groups of documents, premising that we do not attempt to notice every petty variant in the passages cited, for fear of confusing the substantial evidence.
p. 102

(§ 62)


Blue Letter Bible

9:10 Καὶ ὑποστρέψαντες οἱ ἀπόστολοι διηγήσαντο αὐτῷ ὅσα ἐποίησαν καὶ παραλαβὼν αὐτοὺς ὑπεχώρησεν κατ᾽ ἰδίαν εἰς τόπον ἔρημον πόλεως καλουμένης Βηθσαϊδά

Three of the earliest uncials A C W plus Peshitta and versional evidence.


9:10 (Münster)
εἰς πόλιν καλουμένην Βηθσαϊδά] (p75 Βηδσαϊδά) ‭א1 B L Ξ* 33 2542 pc (syrs) copsa copbo WH
εἰς κώμην λεγομένην Βηδσαϊδά] D (itd)
εἰς τόπον ἔρημον] (see Matthew 14:13; Mark 6:32) ‭א* ‭א2 157 (1241 ἔρημον τόπον) syrc copbo(mss)
εἰς κώμην καλουμένην Βηθσαϊδά εἰς τόπον ἔρημον] Θ (1342 τόπον καλουμένην Βηθσαϊδά τόπον) itr1
εἰς τόπον καλουμένην Βηθσαϊδά] Ψ (ita itaur itb itc ite itf itff2 itl itq vg copbo(mss) τόπον ἔρημον)

εἰς τόπον ἔρημον πόλεως καλουμένης Βηθσαϊδά or Βηθσαϊδάν] (A f13 565 l76 ἔρημον τόπον) C W Δ Ξc (f1 205 700 omit ἔρημον) f13 28 180 597 892 1006 1071 1243 1292 1424 1505 Byz Lect (syrp) syrh (arm) (eth) (geo) slav ς

omit] 1010 (579 omit καὶ παραλαβὼν... Βηθσαϊδά)

Church Fathers Scripture Index
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Luke 9:10
Last edited:

Steven Avery

James Snapp

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.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

CARM attempt - cjab

The usual place to start is Hort's 8 examples of conflations in the gospels: 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; but where these examples are limited to exclude Byzantine stylization, and other incongruities, e.g. at John 1:18, which excised and replaced an imputed "arian" (subordinationist) text "begotten God."

Snapp has tried to argue that the Alexandrian/Western manuscripts are at fault, in that they "lost" text. But I find this unconvincing. Thus, e.g. in respect of Luke 9:10, whatever view you take of the original rendition, (per Hort the Western Text reads, "a deserted place, Bethsaida"), it seems the use of "λεγομένην" in the Byzantine is unattested by most ancient manuscripts, indicating it to be a revisionist word.

Daniel Wallace

Steven Avery


12. The False Argument of "Conflation" Answered. The following eight verses are the only ones offered as alleged examples of "conflation" in Westcott and Hort's Introduction: (1) Mark 6:33; (2) Mark 8:26; (3) Mark 9:38; (4) Mark 9:49; (5) Luke 9:10; (6) Luke 11:54; (7) Luke 12:18; (8) Luke 24:53. Dean Burgon shows clearly that the above ##1, 2, 5, 6, & 7 don't even exhibit the phenomenon. Dean Burgon wrote: "The interpretation put upon them by Drs. Westcott and Hort, is purely arbitrary: a baseless imagination,--a dream and nothing more." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 258-262]. Here is what Westcott and Hort mean by conflation. You might take a car and a van someplace. In writing about this, you might have one manuscript that reads "car" and another manuscript that reads "van." Then you have a manuscript that combines the two of them and reads "car and van." Westcott and Hort alleged that this is what the Textus Receptus did in the preceding eight examples. They said there were two parts to some texts, one part from "B" and "Aleph" their "true" text, and another part from some other manuscript. They claimed that the Textus Receptus took both parts and added them together. This is what Westcott and Hort called "conflation." If "conflation" were true to fact, wouldn't they be able to produce more than eight examples of it? Yet Westcott and Hort couldn't find any more than eight, and only three have any possible hope of being proper examples.

Steven Avery

Revision Revised


Unholy Hands
Last edited: