The first page of the Gospel of John in the Elfleda Bond Goodspeed Gospels. |
Among New
Testament manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus is among the most famous. As for minuscule 2474, few people knew of its
existence until early in 1952, when it was purchased in Istanbul
(Constantinople) by
the American collector Harry Kurdian of Wichita, Kansas ;
it was acquired by Edgar
J. Goodspeed later the same year. He
added it to the manuscript-collection at the University
of Chicago in honor of his wife,
who had died in 1949.
Let’s take
a minute to learn something about Elfleda Bond Goodspeed. Her unusual first name is the same as that of a British saint (and friend
of Saint
Cuthbert) of the 600’s. Mrs.
Goodspeed was born in 1880, at about the same time when her father, Joseph Bond, after
being diagnosed with a debilitating
condition, prayed to receive 20 years of life. His prayer was answered; though still far
from a state of strong physical health, he used that time to develop a highly profitable
home-radiator business, and in 1901, one year before his death, his daughter
Elfleda married Edgar Goodspeed. Elfleda
Bond Goodspeed was considered worthy not only of the honor of having a Greek
Gospels-manuscript named in her honor, but in addition, on the campus of the
University of Chicago, if one visits the Joseph Bond
Chapel, one can see the exquisite stained-glass
windows which her husband donated in her memory.
And now, on
to the combat!
I will
examine each manuscript’s text of these eight verses using the same standard of
comparison: each will be compared to the
text in the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation; each non-original
letter will be noted, each lack of an original letter will be noted;
transpositions will be mentioned but not considered a loss or gain;
contractions of sacred names and of the word και (“and”) will not be counted as
omissions. After the exhaustive
comparison, another comparison will be made in which itacisms (minor
interchanges of vowels) are removed from consideration.
Let’s see how the copyist of Codex
Sinaiticus did.
23 – no variation.
24 – ﬡ has ψευδοπροφητε
instead of ψευδοπροφηται (+1, -2)
24 – ﬡ has σημια instead of σημεια (-1)
24 – ﬡ does not have μεγαλα (-6)
24 – ﬡ has πλανηθηναι
instead of πλανησαι (+3, -1)
25 – no variation.
26 – ﬡ does not have ουν (-3)
26 – ﬡ has ταμιοις instead of ταμειοις (-1)
27 – ﬡ has εξερχετε
instead of εξερχεται (+1, -2)
27 – ﬡ has φαινετε
instead of φαινεται (+1, -2)
27 – ﬡ has εστε
instead of εσται (+1, -2)
[28 – ﬡ does not have the letter ο at the beginning of the
verse (at the start of οπου); however a correction has been made, possibly by
the proofreader of the manuscript, so this will not be included in the total.]
28 – ﬡ has σωμα
instead of πτωμα (+1, -2); a
correction has been made, but it is post-production, so this will be included
in the total.
28 – ﬡ has εκι instead of εκει (-1)
28 – ﬡ has συναχθησοντε
instead of συναχθησονται (+1, -2)
29 – ﬡ has εκινων instead of εκεινων (-1)
29 – ﬡ has σκοτισθησετε
instead of σκοτισθησεται (+1, -2)
29 – ﬡ has δωσι instead of δωσει (-1)
29 – ﬡ has εκ instead of απο (+2, -3)
29 – ﬡ has δυναμις instead of δυναμεις (-1)
30 – ﬡ has φανησετε
instead of φανησεται (+1, -2)
30 – ﬡ has σημιον instead of σημειον (-1)
30 – ﬡ does not have the second τοτε (-4); the word is added
above the line but this appears to be post-production.
30 – ﬡ has κοψοντε
instead of κοψονται (+1, -2)
[30 – ﬡ has πασε instead of πασαι. A correction was made
above the line; this correction looks like it was made by the proofreader, so
this will not be included in the total.]
[30 – ﬡ has ε instead of αι. A correction was made above the line; this
correction looks like it was made by the proofreader, so this will not be
included in the total.]
30 – ﬡ has οψοντε
instead of οψονται (+1, -2)
Thus, in the course of Matthew 24:23-30, Sinaiticus’ text
displays 59 letters’ worth of corruption, consisting of the addition of 15
non-original letters, and the loss of 44 original letters. This does not reflect well on the copyist. However, many of the alterations in the text
consist of small orthographic variations, within a word, he often wrote ι
instead of ει, and at the end of a word he often wrote ε instead of αι. If these orthographic quirks are removed from
the equation, then the variations in ﬡ look more like this –
● 24 – ﬡ
does not have μεγαλα (-6)
● 24 – ﬡ
has πλανηθηναι instead of πλανησαι (+3, -1)
● 26 – ﬡ
does not have ουν (-3)
● 28 – ﬡ
has σωμα instead of πτωμα (+1, -2)
● 29 – ﬡ
has εκ instead of απο (+2, -3)
● 30 – ﬡ
does not have the second τοτε (-4) –
which yields more respectable results: if we ignore itacisms, Sinaiticus’ text in
Matthew 24:23-30 has 25 letters’ worth of corruption, consisting of the
introduction of six non-original letters and the loss of 19 original letters.
Now let’s see how the scribe of minuscule
2474 did.
23 – 2474 has πιστεύσηται
instead of πιστεύσητε (+2, -1)
24 – 2474 has has ψευδοπροφητε instead of ψευδοπροφηται (+1,
-2)
25 – no variation.
26 – no variation.
27 – no variation.
28 – 2474 has γαρ after οπου (+3)
29 – no variation.
30 – 2474 has τω before ουρανω (+2)
30 – 2474 has οψοντε
instead of οψονται (+1, -2)
Thus, in the course of Matthew 24:23-30, 2474’s text
contains 14 letters’ worth of corruption, consisting of the inclusion of
nine non-original letters and the non-inclusion of five original letters. If we remove itacisms from the equation, as
was done with the text in Sinaiticus, then the corruptions in 2474 in Matthew
24:23-30 consist of:
● the
inclusion of γαρ after οπου in verse 28, and
● the
inclusion of τω before ουρανω in verse 30.
From this comparison, it may be concluded that in the
transmission-stream of Codex Sinaiticus, 59 letters’ worth of corruption were
introduced in the course of 280 years (positing the composition of the Gospel
of Matthew in A.D. 70, and the production of Codex Sinaiticus in A.D. 350),
which yields an ACR (Annual Corruption Rate)
of .21 – that is, it implies that copyists in the Alexandrian transmission-stream
were producing, on average, .21 letters’ worth of corruption each year.
When
itacisms are removed from the equation, over half of the corruptions in Matthew
24:23-30 in Sinaiticus are also removed; it then has only 25 letters’ worth of
corruption and its transmission-stream’s ACR
drops to .09.
Meanwhile,
granting a production-date for 2474 around A.D. 950, the 14 letters’ worth of corruption in minuscule
2474’s text of Matthew 24:23-30 imply that as far as the text of Matthew 24:23-30 is concerned, its transmission-stream’s ACR is only .016. When itacisms are removed from the equation,
the ACR of the transmission-stream of 2474
drops to .0057.
To review:
Sinaiticus’
text of Matthew 24:23-30 has 59 letters’ worth of corruption. Removing itacisms from consideration, it has
25 letters’ worth of corruption. This
implies that, on average, copyists in the transmission-stream that produced
this text added .09 letters’ worth of corruption each year, besides itacistic
readings.
Minuscule 2474’s
text of Matthew 24:23-30 has 14 letters’ worth of corruption. Removing itacisms from consideration, it has
5 letters’ worth of corruption. This
implies that, on average, copyists in the transmission-stream that produced
this text added .016 letters’ worth of corruption each year, besides itacistic
readings.
No matter
which set of figures one uses (with, or without, itacisms), this analysis shows
that in this contest, the much younger manuscript has a much better text, and
that the Byzantine copyists in its transmission-line worked far more carefully than
the Alexandrian copyists in the transmission-line of Codex Sinaiticus. The copyists in the Byzantine
transmission-stream that produced the text of 2474 were at least five times
better at avoiding corruption than the copyists in the Alexandrian
transmission-stream that produced the text of Codex Sinaiticus. (When itacisms are removed from
consideration, and the standard of comparison is the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform, rather than the Nestle-Aland compilation, the amount of
corruption in the Elfleda Bond Goodspeed Gospels in Matthew 24:23-30 drops to
zero.)
3 comments:
fascinating!
Great work, thanks for posting!
Thanks again James for your insightful textual analysis. I think it's time for scholars to downgrade the importance of Sinaiticus as a witness to the originals and elevate some of the other Byz Mss such as 2474.
Blessings,
Ken
Post a Comment