Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Glossary of Textual Criticism: A-C


“Understandest thou what thou readest?”
That was Philip’s question to the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:30, as rendered in the KJV.  Every field of scientific study involves some specialized terms, or jargon, which might initially be difficult to understand, and New Testament textual criticism is no exception.  It is easier when you know the jargon.  The website of the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library offers a helpful multi-part review of terminology relevant to the study of Latin manuscripts.  The British Library’s online glossary of terms used in its descriptions of illuminated manuscripts is also informative.  And Robert Waltz’s Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism includes a very thorough review of the terminology used in this field.  Here is the first of several parts of a concise introductory list of some of the technical terms used in New Testament textual criticism, with their definitions.   

Alexandrian Text:  The form of New Testament text which was dominant in Egypt in the early church, displayed most accurately by Codex Vaticanus and the early Sahidic version.  Since papyrus tends to naturally rot away except in low-humidity climates such as the climate of Egypt, almost all surviving papyrus manuscripts – especially the ones found as the result of excavations in or near Oxyrhynchus, Egypt – support the Alexandrian Text.  Where Alexandrian readings deviate from the Byzantine Text, the Alexandrian reading frequently has internal characteristics that commend it as original.  In some cases, however, Alexandrian variants can be plausibly attrributed to scribal carelessness and conscious editing.  The Nestle-Aland compilation of the Greek New Testament, the primary basis for most modern English versions (the ESV, CSB, NIV, NLT, etc.) is mainly based on the Alexandrian Text.    
Ammonian Sections:  The segments into which the text of the Gospels was divided for identification in the cross-reference system developed by Eusebius of Caesarea.  There are 355 sections in Matthew, 234 in Mark, 343 in Luke, and 232 in John – at least, these are typical.  This system of text-segmentation is named after Ammonius of Alexandria, who, according to Eusebius in his letter Ad Carpianus (which often precedes the Canon-Tables), developed a cross-referencing method in which the text of Matthew was supplemented by the parallel-passages, or the numbers of parallel-passages, in the other Gospels.  It was Eusebius, however, who developed the Sections as we know them, for they cover passages in Mark, Luke, and John that are not paralleled in Matthew.
            In very many Gospels-manuscripts, the Section-numbers appear in the margin alongside the text, accompanied by the canon-number (written below it, separated by a horizontal line).  The numerals are typically written in red.  It is not unusual to see that in the text itself, the first letter on the first line after the beginning of a Section is given special treatment – either by being written larger, or by being written in different ink (often red) slightly to the left of the left margin, or both.    

Bifolio:  A sheet of writing-material (whether parchment, or papyrus, or paper), vertically folded in the middle so as to form four pages upon which text could be written.  Typically, groups of four bifolium were combined – picture a stack of four flat sheets; then picture them vertically folded, all at once, so as to form a small blank 16-page book.  Such a 16-page book is called a quire, or quaternion.  (Quires could take other forms – consisting of different numbers of sheets – and could be supplemented and repaired in a variety of ways.) 
Another way to picture a quire is as a booklet consisting of eight leaves, or folios, each leaf consisting of the front (recto) and back (verso) of half of a bifolio.  To prepare books large enough to contain all four Gospels, or large enough to contain the book of Acts and the Epistles, or even the entire New Testament, quires were sewn together to make a multi-quire codex.  Not all quires consisted of only four sheets – for example, Papyrus 45 is a single-quire codex; all its sheets were laid flat in a single stack before being sewn together.      

Breves:  chapter-summaries, especially those that appear in Latin manuscripts.  Some forms of breves appear to have originated very early in the Old Latin transmission-line, including one form – developed in the mid-200s or slightly thereafter – that includes a reference to the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11, which is absent from most early Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of John) in its usual location in the text of John.   

Byzantine Text:  The Greek text of the New Testament that is supported by a strong majority of manuscripts, as represented in the Byzantine Textform compiled by Robinson and Pierpont.   This form of the text was dominant in Constantinople and its environs (i.e., Byzantium) from the 400s onward.  Many Byzantine readings are supported by patristic testimony from the 300s and earlier; the Gothic version and the Peshitta version also provide strong (but not uniform) support for the Byzantine Text. Compared to the Alexandrian Text, the Byzantine Text tends to be longer and easier to understand.  This is, however, a general description; there are variant-units in which the Alexandrian reading is longer.
            When Westcott and Hort issued the 1881 Revised Text, Hort maintained that all distinctly Byzantine readings (which he described as “Syrian,” reckoning that the core of the Byzantine Text had previously been developed at Antioch, in Syria) should be rejected, on the grounds that the Byzantine Text as a whole was the product of a recension, that is, a carefully edited form of the text made by someone – perhaps Lucian of Antioch – whose editorial work consisted of selecting variants from exemplars drawn from Alexandrian and Western transmission-lines.  Readings that deviated from the Alexandrian and Western variants, Hort theorized, must have originated in the mind of the editor who produced the Antiochan text.  Since Hort proceeded to reject the Western Text as having been thoroughly contaminated by expansions, the 1881 Revised Text was almost 100% Alexandrian at points where these three major forms of the text disagree – and distinctly Byzantine readings, despite being supported by almost all surviving Greek manuscripts, were very few and far between.
            Hort’s theory, however, was greatly weakened by the discovery – in papyrus manuscripts which had been excavated in Egypt, and which appeared to have been produced before or during the lifetime of Lucian of Antioch – of readings which did not agree with the flagship manuscripts of the Alexandrian Text, nor with the Western Text.  This implied that whatever the origins of every distinctive Byzantine reading might be, they could not all have originated during the undertaking of a recension made in the late 200s or early 300s, because at least some distinctive Byzantine readings already existed at that time.  If the Lucianic recension ever happened, it had to involve the consultation of not only Alexandrian and Western exemplars, but also exemplars containing at least some Byzantine readings – in which case, Hort’s basis for rejecting all distinctive Byzantine readings falls to the ground. 
            Nevertheless, even after the discovery of distinctive Byzantine readings in Egyptian papyri, the heavily Alexandrian Revised Text continued to be promoted, especially in Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece, and in the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, which are the primary base-texts currently used by most translators.  In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, author Bruce Metzger – a member of the UBS compilation-committee – defended over 1,000 rejections of Byzantine readings that have an impact on translation.

Caesarean Text:  The form of the text of the Gospels displayed in manuscripts 1582, 1, and some Armenian and Georgian manuscripts.  The testimony of manuscripts 1 and 1582 is augmented by support from an assortment of other manuscripts including 118, 131, and 209).  Researcher Kirsopp Lake established that the distinct readings shared by 1, 118, 131, and 209 descend from a shared ancestor in 1901 in the volume Codex 1 of the Gospels and Its Allies.  (The recognition of 1582 as a member of the same family – and as its best Greek representative – came later).  This cluster of Greek manuscripts is called family 1,  and is generally (but not always) characterized by its members’ unusual treatment of the pericope adulterae:  the passage is put after the end of John 21, having been uprooted and transplanted as the note in 1 and 1582 explains: 
“The chapter about the adulteress:  in the Gospel according to John, this does not appear in the majority of copies; nor is it commented upon by the divine fathers whose interpretations have been preserved – specifically, by John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria; nor is it taken up by Theodore of Mopsuestia and the others.  For this reason, it was not kept in the place where it is found in a few copies, at the beginning of the 86th chapter [that is, the 86th Eusebian Section], following, ‘Search and see that a prophet does not arise out of Galilee.’”
            The Caesarean Text is also notable for referring to “Jesus Barabbas” in Matthew 27:16-17.   Advocates of the genuineness of this reading argue that early Christians suppressed it, considering it to be embarrassing that a criminal such as Barabbas had the same name as the Messiah.  Others have noted that appearance of the name “Jesus in this passage may have originated when an early scribe accidentally repeated the letters ΙΝ at the end of the word ϒΜΙΝ in verse 17, and this was misunderstood as the contraction for the word Ιησους (that is, “Jesus”). 
            It is evident that a Caesarean Text exists for all four Gospels.  It is less evident that there is a Caesarean Text of Acts and the Epistles; however, minuscule 1739 represents a distinct transmission-line, and it was copied by the same copyist who made minuscule 1582, so this should not be ruled out.  

Cancel-sheet:  a parchment sheet, folded in the middle and written on both sides, so as to constitute four pages of a manuscript, made to replace the work of the main copyist.  The most well-known examples of cancel-sheets are in Codex Sinaiticus, including the bifolium that contains Mark 14:54-Luke 1:76 (without Mark 16:9-20).       

Catena:  A commentary consisting of a series of comments by patristic authors who accompanies the Biblical text.  Unlike commentaries written by a single author, a catena combines extracts from the writings of several authors, forming a chain (Latin:  catena) of comments.  The identity of the writer being quoted is sometimes, but not always, written in the vicinity of his comments.  The earliest known Greek catena is in Codex Zacynthius (040, Ξ), an incomplete copy of the Gospel of Luke.
           
Codex (plural:  Codices):  A handmade book. 

Colophon:  a note added to the text of a manuscript.  The contents of such notes can vary; the most useful colophons are those which mention the year and location where the manuscript was produced.  They may also convey the name of the scribe, the name of the patron who sponsored the manuscript’s production, and even declare a curse against whoever might think about taking the manuscript away from the library to which it was entrusted. 

Commentary manuscripts:  A manuscript in which the text of a commentary by one individual accompanies the Biblical text.  Such material is similar to a catena, especially since although a commentary may be written by a single individual, that individual may make free and generous use of the works of other commentators, sometimes acknowledging his source and sometimes not.  As Robert Waltz mentions in his article on Commentaries in the online Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism, manuscripts with commentaries tended to have one of two forms:  one in which the commentary frames the text, and one in which segments of the text and segments of the commentary alternate.  Frame-commentaries were capable of accompanying texts unrelated to the commentary itself; alternating-commentaries, meanwhile, were always copied at the same time as the Scripture-text they accompany.  For this reason, whenever the same alternating-commentaries accompany the same text, their testimony should be “boiled down,” so to speak, to the testimony of their shared ancestor.
            Some commentaries were more popular than others.  For the Gospel of Matthew, John Chrysostom’s commentary was most popular; for Mark, the Catena-Commentary of Victor of Antioch (a.k.a. the Catena in Marcum) was widely disseminated (and sometimes wrongly attributed to other authors/compilers such as Cyril of Alexandria or Peter of Laodicea).  The commentary of Titus of Bostra was the dominant commentary on Luke.  And for the Gospel of John, copies of both the commentary by John Chrysostom and the commentary by Theophylact are abundant; the latter appears mainly in the alternating format.  Among the other commentators whose work accompanies the New Testament text in some manuscripts are Andreas of Caesarea (in specially formatted copies of Revelation), Andreas the Presbyter (in some copies of Acts and the Epistles),  Oecumenius, and Euthymius Zigabenus.        

Conflation:  a reading which is a combination of two earlier readings.  The presence of conflations implies that the text containing them emerged later than the text that contains its component-parts.  Eight apparent conflations in the Byzantine Text of the Gospels, comprised of component-parts that appear to be combinations of component-parts consisting of Alexandrian and Western readings, were a major part of Hort’s case against the Byzantine Text. 
            However, conflations appear in major representatives of all text-types, not just in the Byzantine Text.  In Codex Sinaiticus, in John 13:24, where the Alexandrian Text reads και λεγει αυτω ειπε τις εστιν and the Byzantine Text reads πυθεσθαι τις αν ειη, Sinaiticus’ text appears to combine those two phrases, reading πυθεσθαι τις αν ειη περι ου ελεγεν, και λεγει αυτω ειπε τις εστιν.  A conflation also appears in Codex Vaticanus at Colossians 1:12:  the Western Text reads καλεσαντι, the Byzantine Text reads ικανωσαντι, and Vaticanus reads καλεσαντι και ικανωσαντι, a combination of the Western and Byzantine readings.  And in Codex D, a conflation appears in John 5:37:  the Alexandrian Text (supported by Papyrus 75) reads has εκεινος μεμαρτυρηκεν, and the the Byzantine Text (supported by Papyrus 66) reads αυτος μεμαρτυρηκεν; the reading in Codex Bezae is εκεινος αυτος μεμαρτυρηκεν and this is precisely what would be produced by a copyist wishing to preserve two different readings in two different exemplars.
            Researcher Wilbur Pickering, in Appendix D of his book The Identity of the New Testament Text, investigates several more cases of apparent conflation in non-Byzantine manuscripts; while some of his examples are capable of more than one explanation, it seems sufficiently clear that the appearance of conflations in a manuscript or text-type cannot validly condemn the entire text-type as late or as posterior to other text-types.

Conjectural emendation:  A reading which is proposed as original but is not supported in any extant Greek manuscript.  The apparatus of the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece mentioned many of these from a wide variety of sources, but only one was adopted in the text (in Acts 16:12).  In the 28th edition, all mentions of conjectural emendations were removed from the apparatus – and one conjectural emendation was adopted into the text of Second Peter 3:10, altering the meaning of the sentence.   
[Continued]

Saturday, April 21, 2018

Meet 0269: A Little-known Uncial Fragment

0269
Right-side up

            Uncial 0269 is a somewhat unusual manuscript:  it is a one-leaf fragment embedded within another manuscript, Codex Blenheimus (0133, a.k.a. Codex ϒ (Upsilon), and known previously – before the discovery of Codex Washingtoniensis – as Wg).  Codex Blenheimus is a palimpsest:   its parchment pages were used in the 1400s as the material out of which a Menaeon was made.  (A Menaeon is a Greek Orthodox service-book – in this case, the services for the month of February).  Before its parchment pages were used for that purpose, they had been part of a Gospel-codex. 
Some time before the pages were recycled, a damaged page was repaired by some who had access to a strip of parchment pages from another Gospels-manuscript – one that had been produced in the 800s.  It is that strip, containing text from Mark 6:14-20, that constitutes 0269.  It was glued to the damaged page of 0133; as a result, 0269 has more text visible on one side than the other.  The lower writing on 0269 is upside-down compared to the upper writing. 
J. Harold Greenlee transcribed the text of 0269 in an article that was published in 1976 in Studies in New Testament Language and Text, a volume prepared to commemorate the 65th birthday of George D. Kilpatrick.  Greenlee had the benefit of ultraviolet light when making his transcription.  Digital images of 0269 are online (as the outer part of fol. 23 of Codex Blenheimus) but without ultraviolet light the lower writing is extremely difficult to read.  The accompanying pseudo-replica may give readers some idea of what it looked like before it was recycled.  
This pseudo-replica reconstructs
the appearance of Mark 6:14b-20
in two columns of text in 0269.
Small blue letters and verse-numbers
are supplied.  (Based on Greenlee's
transcription.)
    
The text of 0269 is distinctly Byzantine.  Its only variations from the text of the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform are orthographic:  ἀπεκεφάλησα instead of ἀπεκεφάλισα in 6:16, and ουτον instead of αυτον; this second variation, however, should not be readily accepted, inasmuch as Greenlee stated that the line containing it was read from the opposite glued-on side of the parchment; in addition, Greenlee did not mention it when listing non-Textus Receptus readings in 0269.  Meanwhile, 0269 disagrees frequently with Codex Vaticanus: 
v. 14 – 0269 reads ελεγεν; B reads ελεγον
v. 14 – 0269 reads εκ νεκρων ηγερθη; B reads εγηγερται εκ νεκρων
v, 15 – 0269 does not read δε after the first αλλοι
v. 15 – 0269 reads εστιν; B does not.
v. 16 – 0269 does not read ὁ before Ἡρωδης
v. 16 – 0269 reads ειπεν; B reads ελεγεν
v. 16 – 0269 reads οτι; B does not
v. 16 – 0269 reads εστιν; B does not
v. 16 – 0269 reads εκ νεκρων after ηγερθη; B does not
v. 17 – 0269 reads τ[ην γυ]ναικ[α]; B initially did not include these two words, but was then corrected to include them.

Nor does 0269’s text agree particularly with the Western flagship manuscript of the Gospels, Codex Bezae, which reads ελεγοσαν in v. 14, βαπτιστης in v. 14, εγηγερται εκ νεκρων in v. 14, omits προφητης ως in v. 15, reads εκ νεκρων after Ιωάνην in v. 16, includes και βαλεν in v. 17, transposes the last two words in v. 17, and reads σε in v. 18. 
Considering this data, it seems quite justifiable to call shenanigans regarding the Alands’ assignment of this fragment to Category III, as if it has a text that is mixed or unusual; its text should be confidently regarded as Byzantine. 


Saturday, April 14, 2018

Five Palimpsests

Mark 16:14-20 in Codex C,
with later Greek text
written over it.
            Today, let’s take a look at some palimpsests among the New Testament manuscripts.  What is a palimpsest?  A palimpsest – so-called because the parchment has been scraped twice; once in the course of the manuscripts’s initial production, and again when it was recycled; the term is derived from the Greek words πάλιν (again) and ψάω (scrape) – is a manuscript that has been recycled.  After the manuscript was initially produced, someone came along, took it apart, and removed the writing by washing and/or scraping it off the parchment, so that the parchment could then be used as writing-material for another composition (sometimes even another copy of part of the New Testament). 
This happened especially (but not exclusively) in places where writers did not know Greek and/or did not have the means to buy (or to easily buy) new parchment.  We are able to read palimpsests because the recyclers’ efforts to scrape away the ink were frequently only partly successful; ink embedded in the parchment-material was not so easy to erase completely.  Sometimes the lower writing (the older writing) is in the same format as the upper writing (the more recent writing that covers the older writing), but in other cases, it is upside down or sideways compared to the upper writing – and this can vary in the same palimpsest.   
            Over 50 palimpsests are continuous-text uncial manuscripts with text from the New Testament.  Here are five of them: 
Codex Ephraimi Rescriptus (C, 04) is an important manuscript made in the 400s.  In the 1100s, someone recycled its pages, and used them as writing-material for a Greek translation of some of the writings of Ephraem the Syrian, written in Greek minuscule script.  That is how the manuscript obtained its name.  For many years, European scholars attempted to read the lower writing, but with limited success.  Finally in 1843-1845, Constantine von Tischendorf (who is perhaps best-known for his acquisition of Codex Sinaiticus) carefully transcribed the text of Codex C, representing part of the Old Testament in the Greek Septuagint version (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and the apocryphal book Wisdom of Solomon) and almost every book of the New Testament (except Second Thessalonians and Second John).  Tischendorf also noticed the corrections in the text, introduced by three distinct persons in the 500s, 900s, and (probably) the 1200s. 
            Tischendorf’s work, while excellent, could be improved or at least double-checked (as R. W. Lyon attempted in 1958) by the use of multi-spectral imaging.  Hopefully this will be done before the manuscript’s Greek text becomes completely illegible as result of the harmful chemicals that were used upon it in the 1830s in attempts to make its lower writing easier to read.    
           
Codex Nitriensis (R, 027):  In the 700s, a monk named Simeon needed parchment to make a copy of the Syriac composition Against the Impious John the Grammarian, by Severus of Antioch.  To obtain the parchment, a few old Greek manuscripts were recycled:  a manuscript of Homer’s Iliad from the 400s, a manuscript of Euclid’s Elements from the 600s, and a manuscript of the Gospel of Luke from the 600s.  This manuscript was once in the impressive library of the monastery of St. Mary Deipara, which was located in the Nitrian Desert in Egypt; this is why it is called Codex Nitriensis. 
This digitally enhanced
image shows text from
Luke 16 in Codex R (027).
            After this manuscript was purchased, William Cureton (the same researcher who discovered and published the Curetonian Syriac manuscript) published its text of part of the Iliad in 1851.  Its text of Luke was studied by both Samuel Tregelles and Constantine Tischendorf; the latter published it in 1857 in his series Monumenta Sacra Inedita, volume 2 (beginning on page 56 of the downloadable file), and each page’s contents are identified in his transcription. 
Now housed at the British Library (and catalogued as Add. MS 17211), Codex R has been rebound so that the opening pages contain the portion which has text from the Gospel of Luke in the lower writing.  Tischendorf managed to not only transcribe the text but also the Eusebian Section-numbers and the marginal note seen here (which accompanies text from Luke 16 but relates to the parable of the Prodigal Son which was on the preceding page).  On some pages, quite a bit of the Greek text, written in two columns per page, is in the margins and is not obscured by the Syriac upper writing; on other pages practically all of the Greek text is thoroughly eclipsed.  Some of the British Library’s digital images of pages of Luke have been helpfully indexed.
A study of the text of R by Robert Waltz indicated that there is considerable mixture in R’s essentially Byzantine text, especially in chapters 13, 14, and 15.  It is one of the relatively few manuscripts which do not include Luke 22:43-44.  Despite the importance of Codex R, the compilers of the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece deliberately stopped citing it, as stated in the Introduction of that edition.   
           
Codex Guelpherbytanus A (024, Pe) and 026 Codex Guelferbytanus B (026, Q) are two early Greek witnesses to the Byzantine text of the Gospels.  They are often consulted together, because each one was recycled when someone in the 700s used their pages for writing-material with which to make a copy of the Latin text of Isidore of Seville’s Etymologies, a.k.a. Origins, a highly significant work in its own right.  
            The person who prepared this palimpsest also recycled pages from a Latin-Gothic copy of Romans (this text is known as Codex Carolinus, a.k.a. Beuron 79) and the lower writing dates to the 500s or 600s), a Vulgate copy of the book of Judges, a Vulgate copy of Job, a copy of Ambrosiaster’s Commentary on Romans, and a copy of the Roman author Galen’s composition On the Properties of Foods.
Tischendorf gave 024 and 026 his attention and transcribed then both:  024’s text of portions of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is recorded in Monumenta Sacra Inedita, Volume 6, published in 1869, following the title-page on digital page 276.  Tischendorf’s transcript of 026’s text of portions of Luke and John (especially Luke) follows digital page 310 in Monumenta Sacra Inedita, Volume 3, published in 1860. 
            Unfortunately, few individuals other than readers of Tischendorf’s publications (in which most of the introductions and notes were written in Latin) seem to have paid much attention to Codices 024 and 026.  Bruce Metzger did not mention them in the chapter Important Witnesses to the Text of the New Testament in his textbook The Text of the New Testament.  026, but not 024, was consulted for the Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament.  Hopefully this neglect will not last long.  A complete index of 024 and 026 (facilitating comparisons between the online digital images of the manuscript, and Tischendorf’s page-by-page transcript) is available as a free download among the files stored at the NT Textual Criticism group on Facebook.
            (Those who page through the digital page-views may also notice Isidore’s comments and diagrams about the spherical shape of the earth, the moon’s rotation around the earth, etc.)  
           
On this page from Codex Zacynthius (040),
an excerpt from the writings of Cyril of Alexandria
stands in the upper and lower margins. 
The text of Luke is written in different lettering. 
The old parchment was reused to make a medieval lectionary, written in black and ink.
Codex Zacynthius (040, Ξ) is two New Testament manuscripts in one:  the upper writing is Lectionary 299, produced in the 1200s or 1300s.  The lower writing contains, in uncial script, text from the first half of the Gospel of Luke, and was probably written in the 700s, although some researchers have proposed that it was made in the 600s or even the 500s.  The text of Luke is framed by a  catena-commentary in the margins; the excerpts from patristic writings are also written in uncials, but the letters are smaller and vertically elongated so as to avoid confusion between the Scripture-text and the patristic excerpts. 
Included among the patristic writers cited in the catena – Chrysostom, Origen, Isidore of Pelusium, Titus of Bostra, Cyril of Alexandria (especially) and more – is Severus of Antioch, who wrote in the 500s (the same person whose composition constitutes the upper writing in Codex Nitriensis); this may seem to weigh in against the idea that the catena in Ξ was made during or very shortly after his lifetime; on the other hand, Severus’ name was erased, which suggests that the manuscript was read and used by someone who was apparently not altogether willing to attribute helpful comments to Severus on account of his problematic Christological views.  
            One of the notable features of Codex 040 was noticed by Samuel Tregelles in his 1861 publication of its contents:  chapter-divisions, accompanied by the letter Ψ, are the same as those found in Codex Vaticanus.  This suggested to Tregelles what a detailed study of its text confirmed:  it often agrees with the Alexandran uncials.  At Luke 4:8, for example, Ξ is allied with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus by not including the phrase “Get behind Me, Satan” (Υπαγε οπισω μου σατανα).    
Tregelles avoided using chemicals to restore the text, preferring instead to use “every clear day for about four months” – by which I deduce that he held the pages up to sunlight (or else used a mirror to catch the sunlight and project it onto the pages) to see the lower writing.  Modern-day researchers are using new methods, including multi-spectral imaging, to continue to investigate the text of this palimpsest.

[Readers are encouraged to use the embedded links in this post to explore additional resources.]



Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Codex Sangallensis: The Amplified Vulgate

John 21:20b-23a
in Codex Sangallensis,
page 394.  A Latin double-reading
(highlighted) is at the start of 20:23
.

            Codex Sangallensis (Δ, 037) is best-known for its Greek text; it is one of the “consistently cited witnesses of the second order” used in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece compilation.  Its Latin Gospels-text, known as δ or Vetus Latina 27, has some interesting features too.  For the most part, it agrees with the Vulgate, the translation that Jerome made in 383-384, and for which he consulted ancient Greek manuscripts.  Occasionally its text contains additional words which mean approximately the same thing as the main Latin text are included; for this reason, 037’s Latin text may be thought of as the Amplified Vulgate.
            Even before the text of the Gospels begins in Codex Sangallensis, the main text of Jerome’s Preface to the Vulgate Gospels (Epistula Ad Damasum) – a secondary attachment to the Gospels-codex – is supplemented by notes – some interlinear and some in the margins – which explain or simplify the meaning of the text.  For example, in the sentence in which Jerome mentions two causes to feel comforted although his work is bound to be rejected by some individuals, “first cause” (prima causa) and “second cause” (seconda causa) are written above the main text, just to ensure the reader’s understanding. 
            Occasionally such supplemental material is accompanied by a special symbol, consisting of the combination of a dot, a vertical line, and another dot (×½×).  This symbol, which stands for the Latin words id est (“that is”), sporadically accompanies notes and supralinear readings in the Gospels-text.  In 1891, the prolific researcher J. Rendel Harris (in a detailed study) investigated the significance of this symbol and the material it accompanies, as part of a broader investigation of the source, or sources, of the verbal amplifications in the Latin text of 037.  Harris sought to determine whether the copyist had freely and spontaneously added clarifications to the text, or else derived the amplifications from a second Latin exemplar, with an Old Latin Gospels-text.      
            The presence of supplemental notes, including a few with the ×½× symbol, in the Epistula Ad Damasum, does not interlock well with the idea that the copyist was consulting an Old Latin text that was completely independent from the Vulgate, inasmuch as Epistula Ad Damasum cannot have been an integral part of any Old Latin text.  Yet, Codex Sangallensis also contains the Argumentum Matthai – one of the “Monarchian” Prologues, not written by Jerome (contrary to the title given to it in 037) – and in its text, too, the ×½× symbol introduces some (but not all) supplemental notes.  For instance, where the text mentions that Matthew’s record of Christ’s genealogy involves the beginning of the covenant-sign of circumcision and God’s sovereign election, the marginalia identifies Abraham and David specifically as the individual ancestors whose lives involved these things. 
Clearly, the ×½× symbol is capable of accompanying interpretive comments.  But most of the interpretive comments are not introduced by it; for instance, where the Prologue mentions that Christ was born under the Law (making an allusion to Galatians 4:4), a supralinear note (with no symbol accompanying it) identifies this as a reference to circumcision.      
Sometimes, in the text of the Gospels, the symbol accompanies material which is paralleled in Old Latin manuscripts.  More frequently, although the symbol is lacking, the Latin amplification seems to be drawn from a written source, rather than inserted due to a whim of the copyist.  (And, on occasion, the Latin text simply isn’t there, showing that it has not been rigorously conformed to the accompanying Greek text.) 
Let’s look into the first eight chapters of Matthew for a closer look at some of the features which have earned this manuscript a place among the Vetus Latina).  The word vel (“or”) is usually abbreviated.
            Mt. 1:20a – δ:  Noli (the Vulgate reading) vel ne
             Mt. 1:20b – δ:  timeas in the text; vel timere (the Vulgate reading) is supralinear
            ● Mt. 1:20c – δ:  uxorem before coniugem
            ● Mt. 1:20d – δ:  ut nascetur after natum
            ● Mt. 2:12 – δ:  gap above being divinely warned; Latin text resumes with ne redirent
            Mt. 2:20 – δ: ×½× quaerentes before quaerebant
            Mt. 2:23 – δ: ex (not Vulgate per)
            Mt. 3:2 – δ: ×½× penitete before penitentiam
            Mt. 5:40 – δ: vestimentum vel before pallium
            Mt. 5:44 δ:  gap above those who curse
            Mt. 6:13 – δ:  majestas vel gloria over δοξα (glory).  The Greek text and the Latin text include the doxology.
            Mt. 6:31 – δ:  vel cogitate after ne solliciti estis (Vulgate:  Nolite ergo solliciti esse) above Do not worry.  The Greek text and the Latin text both continue with the words your soul.   
            Mt. 6:33 – δ:  the Latin text agrees with the Vulgate (adicientur); a note in the margin says vel adponent.
            Mt. 6:34a – δ:  the verse begins with Ne and the Vulgate reading (Nolite) has been written above it, with et.     
            Mt. 6:34b – δ:  the text has cogitetis and sollicite esse has been written above it; vel te (te being the alternate word-ending, so as to form cogitate) follows in the text.
            Mt. 7:1a – δ:  Ne is in the main text; Nolite vel is written above it.
            Mt. 7:1b – δ:  iudicate is in the main text; vel re is written after it (implying iudicare)
            Mt. 7:13 – δ:  above destruction, the Latin line has an abbreviated form of interitum followed by vel mortem.  Neither is the Vulgate reading (perditionem).
            Mt. 8:15 – δ:  above λογω (word), written in contractions, are the words verbo vel sermo.  Verbo is the Vulgate reading.
            Mt. 8:17 – δ:  above δια (through) are the words ex vel per.  Per is the Vulgate reading.
            Mt. 8:34 – δ:  above μεταβη is the word transiret, the usual Vulgate reading, but accompanying it in the nearby margin is ascenderet.  

            The double-readings in these eight chapters alone (and Harris collected many more) adequately compel the conclusion that the copyist is not spontaneously augmenting the Latin text with synonyms; a second Latin exemplar is being cited.  
            This does not mean that every supplemental note represents a variant in the Latin text –for example, on page 310, in Luke 24:24, the ×½× symbol precedes a note identifying those who visited the tomb as Peter and John.  But often the double-readings are explained far more plausibly as citations of a secondary Old Latin source than as explanatory notes added by the copyist. 
Two outstanding indications that the copyist was using a second Latin exemplar occur in Matthew 10:31 – where the Greek word διαφέρετε (“better”) is matched by the Latin meliores (the Vulgate reading) which is augmented by vel praecellitis – and in a cluster of double-reading in Matthew 12:34-35; the motive for the double-readings in these places seems particularly unlikely to have been to make the passage clearer to the reader.    
           
             An interesting ocurrence of the ×½× symbol is in Mark 9:23, where in the first line of page 167 the words of Jesus begin with το ει δυνη παντα δυνατα (“‘If you can’?  All things are possible . . .”) but the Latin text reads si potes and then, above παντα, ×½× credere omnia; the copyist seems to have recognized that his Greek and Latin texts did not match up at this point. 
Luke 20:15-23
            It may be worthwhile, as we finish our examination of the Latin text of Codex 037, to notice what J. Rendel Harris noticed about some of the Latin alternate-renderings that occur in the first part of Matthew 25:  where the text of δ disagrees with, or is augmented by, a non-Vulgate reading, the non-Vulgate reading often agrees with the Latin text of Codex Bezae.  This seems to compel the conclusion that not only are the amplifications of δ’s Latin text echoes of a secondary exemplar, but that this secondary Latin exemplar contained a Western text similar to what is found in the Latin pages of Codex Bezae.             
            Thus, Codex Sangallensis may be considered congruent to two and a half manuscripts: 
● the Greek text (most of which is thoroughly Byzantine in Matthew, Luke, and John, but a mixture of Byzantine and Alexandrian in Mark) and
● the interlinear Latin text (most of which represents the Vulgate, with some adjustments to correspond to the Greek text) and
● the amplifications in the Latin text (which echo an Old Latin exemplar).  
           
           

Pictured:  Luke 20:15-23 in Codex Sangallensis (037).   
Red Underline = Δ disagrees with NA and Byz.  Notice the reading λαλοις (where the text should be αλλοις; the copyist apparently accidentally reversed the first two letters) at the end of the third line, in verse 16.  
Red and Green Underline:  Δ disagrees with NA but agrees with Byz.
Dashed Orange Underline:  Δ agrees with NA but disagrees with Byz.
Blue Background:  Non-Vulgate readings in δ.
Yellow Background:  Double-reading in δ. 
Large letters in the text alongside the purple bracket:  a chapter-title, About the question about the tax-money.  The chapter-number (71) is in the left margin.



[Readers are welcome to double-check the data in this post.]




Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Codex Delta: Block-Mixed?

Mark 16:1b-17a
in Codex Sangallensis
.
(verse-numbers added)

            Codex Δ (037, Sangallensis), which we described in the previous post, is possibly the most important Greek-Latin Gospels-manuscripts produced in medieval Europe.  Bruce Metzger, in his handbook The Text of the New Testament, concisely described its text in Matthew, Luke, and John as Byzantine, and its text in Mark as Alexandrian.   This would make it a “block-mixed” manuscript, that is, a manuscript in which at least one portion echoes an ancestry not shared by the rest.
            That is, however, a somewhat oversimplified description of Codex Δ’s text.  The easiest way to show this is to drag you, patient reader, through lists of some of the readings in the manuscript.  First, let’s take a look at some of Δ’s non-Byzantine readings in the first 10 chapters of Matthew, Luke, and John:

Matthew
2:9 – Δ reads αυτοις, agreeing with L. 
3:16 – Δ is missing the first two words of the verse.
4:18 – Δ includes ο Ις near the beginning of the verse.
5:34 – Δ does not have τω before Κω, agreeing with L.
6:10 – Δ reads ελθατω instead of ελθετω agreeing with À, D, and W)
7:29 – Δ includes αυτων at the end of the verse (agreeing with À Β Κ Π).
8:16 – Δ adds ακαθαρτος (so as to emphasize that Jesus cast out the unclean spirits).
9:23 – Δ omits τους before αυλητας.
10:5 – Δ reads εισελθητε instead of απελθητε, and then απελθητε instead of εισελθητε.  
10:9 – Δ reads χαλικον instead of χαλκον.
10:33 – Δ omits (via h.t.) this verse; it is added by a corrector.

Luke
1:17 – Δ reads Κυ instead of αυτου after ενωπιον.
1:28 – Δ moves ο αγγελος to a location between αυτην and ειπεν (agreeing with À 69 579 700).
1:70 – Δ does not include των after αγιων.
2:15 – Δ does not include και οι ανθρωποι (agreeing with À B L W)
2:21 – Δ reads αυτον instead of το παιδίον (agreeing with À B A K L W Π).
2:36 – Δ reads μετα ανδρος ετη επτα (agreeing with À B* L N W).
3:4 – Δ does not include λεγοντος (agreeing with À B D L W)
6:1 – Δ does not include των before σπορίμων (agreeing with À* B A L W).
6:10 – Δ does not include υγιης but includes ως η αλλη (agreeing with A K Π).
7:6 – Δ does not include ο εκατοντάρχος.
8:21 – Δ does not include αυτον after ποιουντες (agreeing with P75 B A D L W).
8:36 – Δ does not include και after αυτοις (agreeing with P75 À B L).
9:20 – Δ reads αυτους instead of αυτοις.
9:33 – Δ reads υπ’ instead of απ’ (agreeing with L).
9:50 – Δ reads υμων instead of ημων after καθ’ (agreeing with P75 B À* D K L).
10:22 – Δ reads επιγινωσκει instead of γινωσκει (agreeing with C 33 700).

John
1:20 – Δ reads Εγω ουκ ειμι instead of Ουκ ειμι εγω (agreeing with P66 P75 B À A L).
1:22 – Δ reads ειπαν instead of ειπον (agreeing with P66 P75 B).
1:34 – Δ reads εωρακα instead of εορακα (agreeing with P66 B À A C L M N).
2:3 – Δ inserts (but a corrector removes) τοις καθημενοις before του Ιυ. 
2:4 – Δ does not include ο Ις.
3:8 – Δ reads αλλα instead of αλλ’ (agreeing with B 579 700).
4:8 – Δ does not include την before πολιν.
4:14 – Δ reads διψει instead of διψήση (or διψήσει)
4:21 – Δ does not have μοι after πιστευσον.
4:31 – Δ does not include αυτον.
4:37 – Δ does not have ο before αληθινος (agreeing with B L N 33).
5:25 – Δ does not have υμιν after λεγω.
5:28 – Δ does not have ωρα after ερχεται.
5:28 – Δ reads ακουσωσιν instead of ακουσουσιν or ακουσονται (agreeing with P66c À L)
6:5 – Δ does not include τον before Φιλιππον (agreeing with P66 B À D L 33)
6:16 – Δ does not include το before πλοιον (agreeing with P75 B À L 33 700)
6:22 – Δ reads ειδον instead of ιδων (agreeing with P75 B A 33)
6:44 – Δ reads με instead of εμε after προς (agreeing with B E M Θ U)
6:55 – Δ does not include μου after αιμα.
8:14 – Δ does not include the last phrase (from after υμεις – via h.t.).
8:24 – Δ reads πιστευσηται instead of πιστευσητε (agreeing with P66 L W)
8:39 – Δ reads εποιειτε αν (agreeing with L K M N Π 33).
9:1 – Δ does not include ο Ις.
9:27 – Δ reads μαθηται αυτου instead of αυτου μαθηται (agreeing with P66 À L D 33 157). 
9:32 – Δc reads ηνεωξεν (agreeing with B N W), corrected from ενεωξεν.
9:39 – Δ reads κρισιν instead of κριμα.
10:26 – Δ reads αλλα instead of αλλ (agreeing with P66 P75 B À A L W 33).
10:30 – Δ reads μου after πατηρ (agreeing with W 700).
10:34 – Δ reads ειπον instead of ειπα (agreeing with A D M S U 33).
10:39 – Δ reads ουν after Εζητουν (agreeing with P66 À A K L W 33).

These samples show that when the text of Δ drifts away from the Byzantine Text in Matthew, Luke, and John, it is often in quirky ways that can be attributed to the copyist – and when this explanation fails, the departure is often toward the Alexandrian Text – but the detour is always brief.  Once itacisms, variations in names, and obvious blunders are filtered out, the real mixture in the text of Δ in Matthew, Luke, and John is minimal.  It would be misleading to describe this manuscript’s Greek text in these three books as anything but Byzantine.
           
Now let’s look at the text of Mark in Δ.  It is quite different!

In Mark, the text of Δ  is much more Alexandrian – it supports “in Isaiah the prophet” in Mark 1:2, for instance – but not as much as some concise descriptions of the manuscript have led readers to believe.  Its text agrees with the Byzantine text at the end of Mark 1:2 (including εμπροσθεν σου), at the end of 1:5, at the beginning of 1:8 (including μεν), at the end of 1:9, 1:10 (επ not εις), at the beginning of 1:13 (Δ includes εκει), at the beginning of 1:14 (Μετα δε, not Και μετα), at the beginning of 1:16 (Περιπατων δε, not Και παραγων), and near the beginning of 1:19 (Δ includes εκειθεν before ολιγον). 
By the time Mark 1:20 is reached, the reader of Codex Δ has also encountered several readings which are neither Alexandrian nor Byzantine.  So should Δ’s text in Mark be considered an poorly transcribed form of the Alexandrian Text, or is it a Mixed Text (combining Alexandrian and Byzantine readings)?  The only sure way to find out is to sift through the text itself.  Let’s investigate some sample-passages and see whether Δ is allied more closely with B (representing the Alexandrian Text – using the readings it displayed when it left the scriptorium) or with A (representing the Byzantine Text), setting aside variant-units where Δ agrees with neither B nor A.

● Mark 2:1-12: 
1 – Δ  reads εισηλθεν (agreeing with A, not with B)
1 – Δ reads Καφαρναουμ (agreeing with B, not with A)
1 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)
1 – Δ reads εις οικον (agreeing with A, not with B)
2 – Δ includes ευθεως (agreeing with A, not with B)
3 – Δ’s word-order agrees with A, not with B)
4 – Δ reads προσεγγίσαι (agreeing with A, not with B)
4 – Δ reads εφ ω (agreeing with A, not with B)
5 – Δ reads Ιδων δε, agreeing with A, not with B)
5 – Δ does not include σου (agreeing with B, not with A)
7 – Δ reads βλασφημιας (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ reads ευθεως (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ includes ουτως αυτοι (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ includes αυτοις (agreeing with A, not with B)
9 – Δ reads αφίωνται (agreeing with A, not with B)
9 – Δ reads σοι (agreeing with A, not with B)
11 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)
12 – Δ reads ευθεως και (agreeing with A, not with B)
12 - Δ reads εναντιον (agreeing with A, not with B)
12 – Δ includes λεγοντας (agreeing with A, not with B)
12 – Δ’s word-order agrees with A, not with B
 That’s a score of 19 agreements with A, and 2 agreements with B.  

● Mark 4:1-12
1 – Δ reads συνάγεται (agreeing with B, not with A)
1 – Δ reads πλειστος (agreeing with B, not with A)
2 – Δ reads ησαν (agreeing with B, not with A)
3 – Δ includes του (agreeing with A, not with B)
5 – Δ reads ευθυς (agreeing with B, not with A)
5 – Δ does not include της (agreeing with A, not with B)
6 – Δ begins the verse with και ότε (agreeing with B, not with A)
6 – Δ reads ο ηλιος (agreeing with B, not with A)
6 – Δ reads εκαυματίσθη (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ reads αλλο (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ reads αυξανόμενον (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ reads εις (before εφερεν) (agreeing with B, not with A)
9 – Δ reads Ος εχει (agreeing with B, not with A)
10 – Δ reads Και οτε (agreeing with B, not with A)
10 – Δ reads τας παραβολας (agreeing with B, not with A)
11 – Δ’s word-order agrees with A, not with B [although Δ has γνωναι]
12 – Δ reads γινεται (agreeing with B, not with A)
12 – Δ reads αφεθη (agreeing with B, not with A)
Codex Δ agrees with B against A twelve times, twice as much as it agrees with A against B.    

● Mark 6:14-29
14 – Δ reads ελεγεν (agreeing with A, not with B)
14 – Δ reads εγηγερται (agreeing with B, not with A)
14 – Δ reads Ιάννης (agreeing with A, not with B)
14 – Δ’s word-order agrees with B, not with A
15 – Δ reads Ηλιας, agreeing with A, not with B
15 – Δ does not include εστιν (agreeing with B, not with A)
16 – Δ reads ειπεν (agreeing with A, not with B)
16 – Δ reads οτι (agreeing with A, not with B)
16 – Δ does not include αυτος (agreeing with B, not with A)
16 – Δ does not include εκ νεκρων (agreeing with B, not with A)
17 – Δ reads γαρ (agreeing with B, not with A)
17 – Δ reads Ιάννης (agreeing with A, not with B)
17 – Δ’s word-order agrees with B, not with A 
18 – Δ reads Ιάννης (agreeing with A, not with B)
19 – Δ reads εδυνατο (agreeing with A, not with B)
20 – Δ reads Ιάννην (agreeing with A, not with B)
20 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)
21 – Δ reads εποίησεν (agreeing with B, not with A)
21 – Δ reads Γαλιλαίας (agreeing with A, not with B)
22 – Δ reads αυτου (agreeing with B, not with A)
22 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)
22 – Δ’s word-order agrees with A, not with B
23 – Δ does not include ο (after ο τι) (agreeing with B, not with A)
23 – Δ does not include με (agreeing with B, not with A)
24 – Δ reads και (agreeing with B, not with A)
24 – Δ reads Ιωάννου (agreeing with A, not with B)
24 – Δ reads βαπτιζοντος (agreeing with B, not with A)
25 – Δ reads ευθυς (agreeing with B, not with A)
25 – Δ’s word-order agrees with B, not with A
25 – Δ reads Ιωάννου (agreeing with A, not with B)
26 – Δ reads ανακειμένους (agreeing with B, not with A)
26 – Δ’s word-order agrees with B, not with A
27 – Δ reads ευθυς (agreeing with B, not with A)
27 – Δ reads ενεγκαι (agreeing with B, not with A)
27 – Δ reads και (agreeing with B, not with A)
29 – Δ reads ηλθον (agreeing with A, not with B)  
Thus in this section there are 16 agreements with A and 20 agreements with B.  Half of those agreements with A, however, involve the orthography of proper names, so if the effects of the unusual spelling employed by B’s copyist are withdrawn from the equation, it is clear that in this passage, Δ favors the Alexandrian Text about two-thirds of the time.  (Also, a reading of Δ in verse 19 that disagrees with B and A resembles the reading in B far more than the reading in A.)   

Mark 8:1-10 
1 – Δ reads παλιν πολλου (agreeing with B, not with A)
2 – Δ reads τρεις (agreeing with A, not with B)
2 – Δ includes μοι (agreeing with A, not with B)
3 – Δ reads και τινες (agreeing with B, not with A)
3 – Δ reads εισιν (agreeing with B, not with A)
4 – Δ includes οτι (agreeing with B, not with A)
4 – Δ reads ερημίας (agreeing with B, not with A)
5 – Δ reads ηρωτα (agreeing with B, not with A)
6 – Δ reads παραγγέλλει (agreeing with B, not with A)
6 – Δ reads παρατιθωσιν (agreeing with B, not with A)
7 – Δ reads ειχαν (agreeing with B, not with A)
7 – Δ reads και ταυτα παρατιθέναι (agreeing with B, not with A)
9 – Δ reads και εφαγον (agreeing with B, not with A)
9 – Δ does not include οι φάγοντες (agreeing with B, not with A)
10 – Δ does not include αυτος (agreeing with A, not with B)
10 – Δ reads Δαλμανουθα (agreeing with A, not with B)
Thus in this section, Δ allies with B against A 12 times, while joining A against B only four times.  In all of those four places, B’s reading is also opposed by À L 33.  So, if we consider an agreement of À and L and 33 to represent the Alexandrian Text better than B at points where B sings a solo (or at least a solo among the uncials), then Codex Δ never agrees with A against the Alexandrian Text in this passage.  Here, Δ is solidly Alexandrian.      

Let’s take one more sample:
Mark 14:1-9.
2 – Δ reads δε (agreeing with A, not with B)
3 – Δ reads ελθεν (agreeing with A, not with B)
3 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)
3 – Δ reads την (agreeing with B, not with A)
3 – Δ does not include κατα (agreeing with B, not with A)
4 – Δ includes και λέγοντες (agreeing with A, not with B)
5 – Δ reads ενεβριμωντο (agreeing with A, not with B)
6 – Δ reads ειργάσατο (agreeing with A, not with B)
7 – Δ reads αυτοις (agreeing with B, not with A)
7 – Δ does not include παντοτε (agreeing with A, not B)
8 – Δ includes αυτη (transposed) (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ’s word-order (μου το σωμα) agrees with A, not with B
9 – Δ includes δε (agreeing with B, not with A)
9 – Δ includes τουτο (agreeing with A, not with B)
In these nine verses, Δ agrees ten times with A against B, and only four times with B against A.  In verse 9, the Byzantine Text includes δε, thus disagreeing with A.  This passage is much more Byzantine than it is Alexandrian.       

Exactly how the text of Mark in Codex Δ obtained its unique mixture of Alexandrian and Byzantine readings is an unanswered question.  Perhaps the creator of Δ’s exemplar possessed two Greek copies of Mark – an early Byzantine Gospels-manuscript and a manuscript with a strongly Alexandrian text – and created an eclectic Greek text by selecting, from both manuscripts, whatever reading seemed to better confirm the copyist’s native Latin text.    
Adding to the mystery is the occasional appearance of readings with strange allies, such as Δ’s bare ειπεν in 6:25 (allied with family-1), and its non-inclusion of κλασμάτων in 8:8 (allied with W – see also their shared non-inclusion of και Σιδωνος in 7:24).  We do not have to solve this question, however, to notice the implications of the data:  Codex Δ does not simply have an Alexandrian Text in Mark; the text of Mark in Codex Δ is heavily mixed throughout, and at any given point its reading is almost as likely to be Byzantine as it is likely to be Alexandrian.       

Notably, Codex Δ includes Mark 16:9-20 (without any notes or asterisks, and with Eusebian section-number 234 given to the final section, beginning at 16:13) – and there, too, the text is mixed.  There are non-Byzantine readings in verses 11 (υπ’ αυτης εθεαθη, a transposition), 14 (Δ includes εκ νεκρων – cf. Justin Martyr’s First Apology chapter 50), 16 (Δ has ο before βαπτισθεις, agreeing with L), 17 (καιναις is omitted, agreeing with C* L Ψ), 18 (Και εν ταις χερσιν is included in Δ, agreeing with C L Ψ 1 1582 33 579), and 19 (Κς Ις, agreeing with Irenaeus’ quotation of the verse and with C* K L 33 579, rather than just Κς – and εν δεξια rather than εκ δεξιων).  
As one can see by a close examination of the text of Mark 16:17-18 in Codex Δ, the interlinear Latin text is not derived from the Greek text that it accompanies; in Mark 16:17-18, the Greek text lacks καιναις but the Latin text has novis; the Greek text has “And in their hands” (Και εν ταις χερσιν) but this is not reflected in the Latin text.  This might provoke a curious observer to look a little more closely into the Latin text.  Is it all a normal Vulgate text?  We shall look into that question in the next post.
           



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