How reliable are the manuscripts Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus, compared to medieval manuscripts? Ask that question to promoters of
translations based on the Nestle-Aland compilation – versions such as the NIV,
NLT, ESV, and CSB – and the answer you receive will very probably be something
like, “Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were made in the 300s. The older a manuscript is, the closer it is
to the original document; thus, the text in these two ancient manuscripts is more
accurate than what one finds in medieval manuscripts.”
That seems reasonable, right? Yes indeed.
On the other hand, it seemed reasonable for centuries to think that the
sun revolves around the earth. All the
textbooks said so. There is just one way
to tell whether what seems reasonable is factual: scientific testing.
When it comes to testing the accuracy of Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus, we have a problem: what
shall one use as the standard of comparison?
If the Nestle-Aland Novum
Testamentum Graece is used, there is a problem: the Nestle-Aland compilation is the same as
the UBS compilation; the UBS Greek New Testament’s Introduction acknowledges
that its editors began “on the basis of Westcott and Hort’s edition of the
Greek New Testament,” and Westcott and Hort (back in 1881) acknowledged that
they esteemed Vaticanus and Sinaiticus so highly that they (the editors) were
willing to reject their agreements only tentatively, even when their readings
opposed all other Greek manuscripts. So
there is a bit of a circularity problem when an echo is used as the standard by
which to measure the quality of the voice from which it came.
Another option might be to use the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform as the standard of comparison – but then
the objection would arise that such a standard would give an unfair advantage
to the medieval manuscripts. So,
acknowledging the echo-problem, let’s put Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and two medieval manuscripts in a boxing-ring – today we leave the usual arena in the
Gospels, and turn to Colossians 3:1-11 – and see which manuscript’s text is
more accurate.
The two medieval manuscripts going up against the two “oldest and most reliable” heavyweights are minuscule
6 and minuscule
2401. Let’s take a brief look at the
medieval challengers.
Minuscule 6 has a distinguished history: it was one of the collection of manuscripts cited
by Stephanus in his printed Greek New Testament in 1550/1551. Its production-date is not certain; in the
1800s, Scrivener consider it to be from “xi or later” but the production-date
given in the Nestle-Aland Introduction
is “XIII” – the 1200s. Stephanus cited it
as witness #5 (“ε′”). The Nestle-Aland
compilers gave it special treatment, listing it as a “Frequently Cited Witness”
in Acts and the Pauline Epistles. It is
one of the few manuscripts that does not include the words “in Ephesus
The
description of minuscule 6 in Scrivener’s
Plain Introduction (1894 edition)
is brief: “In text it much resembles
Codd. 4, 5, and 75. 12mo, 5½ ´ 4½, ff. 235,” – supplemented by book-prologues,
chapter-lists, chapter-numbers in side-margins, chapter-headings, Eusebian
section-numbers in the margins in the Gospels, and a liturgical calendar of
lections with St. Chrysostom’s liturgy; the
writing-material is parchment. Scrivener
continues: “This exquisite manuscript is
written in characters so small, that some pages require a glass to read them.” Robert Waltz provides some additional
information about MS 6 at the Encyclopedia
of New Testament Textual Criticism, including the observation by Wisse
that 6’s Gospels-text is affiliated with a subgroup of family-Π. I would say, too, that some parts of its text
have a special closeness to the text of 1739.
Minuscule
2401 is part of the
Goodspeed Manuscript Collection at the University of Chicago, where it is
nicknamed “The Theophanes Praxapostolos.”
It was produced in the 1100s. In
addition to the books of Acts, the Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews), and
almost all of the General Epistles (pages from Second Peter are missing), it
has book-summaries (part of the Euthalian Apparatus) and stichoi-counts.
Before
we investigate the text of Colossians 3:1-11 in minuscules 6 and 2401, let’s
consider how Vaticanus and Sinaiticus each compare to the Nestle-Aland
compilation. (As in past comparisons,
the contractions of sacred names are not counted as variants, and words that
are bracketed in NA are counted as part of the text. Calculations will be made of the raw total
amount of variation, and of non-trivial variation.)
Vaticanus Compared to NA27
3:1 – no variation
3:2
– no variation
3:3
– no variation
3:4
– B reads μων instead of υμων (+0, -1) (A close examination of the online digital image of this page of the manuscript shows that the copyist wrote ΖΩΗΜΩΝ.)
3:5
– no variation
3:6
– no variation
3:7
– B does not include επι τους υιους της απειθειας (-24)
3:8
– B reads νυνει instead of νυνι (+1)
3:9
– no variation
3:10
– no variation
3:11
– no variation
Number
of non-original letters: 1
Missing
original letters: 25
Total
number of letters lost or added: 26
It
looks like the Nestle-Aland compilation is practically a transcript of Codex Vaticanus,
until we reach verse 7. That’s a
significant non-inclusion. (The NIV, by
the way, presently does not include επι τους υιους της απειθειας in its
base-text; the reading is only mentioned in a footnote.) The variant in 3:8 is an orthographic
triviality, so we can conclude that Vaticanus contains 25 letters’ worth of non-trivial variation from the Nestle-Aland
compilation in Colossians 3:1-11.
Let’s
see if Codex Sinaiticus’ text is better. Sinaiticus
has some corrections in this passage and it is not easy to tell with
complete confidence whether or not a correction was made before the manuscript
left the scriptorium, or at some later time. I will simply follow the main uncial text, and
mention the corrections.
Sinaiticus Compared to NA27
3:1
– À has εν instead of τω
(+2, -2) (Each letter in εν has been
marked over with “/” and τ and ω have been written above the line.)
3:1
– À does not have εστιν (+0,
-5) (The word has been added above the
line by a later corrector.)
3:2
– no variations
3:3
– no variations
3:4
– À reads υμις instead of
υμεις (+0, -1)
[3:5
– À’s scribe initially did
not write υμων after μελη; the word
is added above the line. The addition is
not counted as part of the text of À.]
3:5
– À reads πορνιαν instead of
πορνειαν (+0, -1)
3:5
– À reads πλεονεξειαν instead of πλεονεξειαν (+1, -0)
3:6
– À reads απιθιας instead of
απειθειας (+0, -2)
3:7
– À reads υμις instead of
υμεις (+0, -1)
3:8
– À does not read και υμεις (+0, -8) (The words have been
added in the side-margin.)
3:9
– no variations
3:10
– À reads επενδυσαμενοι instead of ενδυσαμενοι
(+2, -0)
3:11
– À does not have τα after
αλλα (+0, -2) (The word has been added by a corrector above the line.)
Number
of non-original letters: 5
Missing
original letters: 22
Total
number of letters lost or added: 27
When we remove trivial orthographic variants from the
picture, and if we give the corrections in verse 8 the benefit of the doubt by
assuming that it was made before the codex left the scriptorium, then the list
of disagreements between À and NA boils down to just five –
3:1
– À has εν instead of τω (+2, -2)
3:1
– À does not have εστιν (+0, -5)
3:8
– À does not read και υμεις (+0, -8)
3:10
– À reads επενδυσαμενοι instead of ενδυσαμενοι
(+2, -0)
3:11
– À does not have τα after αλλα (+0, -2)
This
yields 21 letters’ worth of non-trivial
variation. Together, Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus contain 46 letters’ worth of non-trivial variation in Colossians
3:1-11. Now let’s look at this passage
in minuscules 6 and 2401.
MS 6 Compared to NA27
3:1
– no variation
3:2
– 6 does not have της [At least I did not see της in the microfilm-images from the National Library of France. Digital images might clarify this point, and
I invite others to investigate.] (+0,
-3)
3:2
– 6 does not have τω before Θω
(+0, -2)
3:3
– no variation
3:4
– 6 reads ημων instead of υμων (+1, -1)
3:4
– 6 reads υμων after μελη (+4)
3:5
– 6 reads ειδωλαλατρεια instead of ειδωλαλατρια (+1, -0)
3:6
– no variation
3:7
– 6 reads αυτοις instead of τουτοις
(+1, -2)
3:9
– 6 appears to read πεκδυσαμενοι instead of απεκδυσαμενοι (-1) [I suspect that the letter is present in the MS
but not visible in the microfilm.]
3:10
– no variation
3:11
– 6 reads πασι instead of πασιν (-1)
Number
of non-original letters: 7
Missing
original letters: 10
Total
number of letters lost or added: 17
When we remove trivial orthographic variants from the
picture, then the list of disagreements between 6 and NA27 boils down to the
following:
3:2 – 6 probably
does not have της (+0, -3)
3:2 – 6 does not have τω before Θω (+0, -2)
3:4 – 6 reads ημων
instead of υμων (+1, -1)
3:4 – 6 reads υμων
after μελη (+4)
3:7 – 6 reads αυτοις instead of τουτοις (+1, -2)
3:9 – 6 appears to read πεκδυσαμενοι instead of απεκδυσαμενοι (-1)
which
yields 6 non-original letters and 9 missing original letters, for a total of 15
letters’ worth of non-trivial variation (or less, depending on whether or not
της is in verse 2 and depending on
whether the α in απεκδυσαμενοι is
there or not).
Now let’s turn to our final combatant.
2401 Compared to NA27
3:1
– no variations
3:2
– no variations
3:3
– no variations
3:4
– 2401 reads ημων instead of υμων (+1, -1)
3:4
– 2401 does not include συν αυτω
(-7) (This non-inclusion is supported by
Codex A.)
3:5
– 2401 reads υμων after μελη
(+4) (This reading is supported by Codex
A.)
3:6
– no variations
3:7
– 2401 reads αυτοις instead of τουτοις (+1, -2)
3:8
– no variations
3:9
– no variations
3:10
– no variations
3:11
– 2401 does not include βαρβαρος (+0, -8)
There
are no trivial readings in Col. 3:1-11 in 2401, so the raw data and the final
totals are the same: its text has 6
non-original letters, and is missing 18 original letters, for a total of 24 letters’ worth of non-trivial
variation.
Final
score:
Letters’
worth of non-trivial variation in Vaticanus:
25
Letters’
worth of non-trivial variation in Sinaiticus:
21
Letters’
worth of non-trivial variation in 6: 15
Letters’
worth of non-trivial variation in 2401:
24
Conclusion
This little two-on-two contest does not verify the
popular axiom “The older the manuscript,
the better the text.” Vaticanus is
slightly older than Sinaiticus, and both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are at least
600 years older than minuscule 6. Yet,
using NA27 as our proxy for the original text, the young minuscules 6 and 2401 introduce,
combined, only 39 letters’ worth of non-trivial deviations from the original
text, while ancient Vaticanus and Sinaiticus introduce 46 letters’ worth of non-trivial
deviations from the original text.
As an additional exercise, suppose we possessed a
manuscript that read exactly like the Robinson-Pierpont 2005 Byzantine Textform
in Colossians 3:1-11. Here is how it
would compare to the NA27 compilation:
Byzantine Textform (RP2005) Compared to
NA27
3:1
– no variation
3:2
– no variation
3:3
– no variation
3:4
– Byz reads ημων instead of υμων (+1, -1)
3:5
– Byz reads υμων after μελη
(+4)
3:6
– no variation
3:7
– Byz reads αυτοις instead of τουτοις (+1, -2)
3:8
– no variation
3:9
– no variation
3:10
– no variation
3:11
– no variation
Thus,
in Colossians 3:1-11, the Byzantine Text, with six non-original letters present
and three original letters absent, is closer to the original text than any of the
manuscripts in today’s contest – if the Nestle-Aland compilation, which relies heavily on the “the most reliable manuscripts,” is used as the standard of comparison.
Great work, James! Sad to see the Byzantine compilation not given an equal footing by the consensus.
ReplyDelete