Are You My Mother? Minuscules 1210 and 22

            It is very rare to find a manuscript and the manuscript from which its text was copied.  That makes minuscule 1210 (housed at St. Catherine’s monastery, where it is cataloged as Greek MS 173) special.  It is one of a smattering of extant Greek manuscripts that have been shown to be copies of another extant Greek manuscript.  Here’s the smattering: 

[■ indicates that a copy is younger than the first printed Greek New Testament.] 

056 is a copy of 0142.  (Or the other way around.)

0319 is a copy of 06.

0320 is also a copy of 06.

0151 is a copy of 018.

205 is a copy of 2886. (It used to be thought that 2886 was a copy of 205; for this reason, the manuscript that is now known as 2886 used to be called 205abs – “abs” as in Abschrift, i.e., copy.)

322 is a copy of 323.

423 is a copy of 333. ■

821 is a copy of 0141. ■

872 is a copy of 2193.

1065 is a copy of 1068. ■

1089 is a copy of 1218.

1210 is (mostly) a copy of 22.

1884 is a copy of 08. ■

2110 is a copy of 0150.

2579 is a copy of 138. ■

2883 is a copy of 9. ■

2884 is a copy of 30.

2885 is a copy of 96. ■

2887 is a copy of 1160.  ■ (2887 was made in 1888!)

2888 is a copy of 1909. ■

2890 is a copy of 1983.

2889 is a copy of 1929.

2891 is a copy of 2036. ■

 

            Only eight extant manuscripts produced before the 1500s – 056, 205, 872, 1089, 1210, 2884, 2890, and 2889 – are thought to have an extant master-copy (although in a few cases there is some question as to which manuscript is the copy, and which is the master-copy). 

            Out of eight non-orphan manuscripts produced before the 1500s, five include the four Gospels (205, 872, 1089, 1210, and 2883).  This implies that except for the members of family-1 and family-13 (which are something like groups of siblings with a non-extant shared ancestor), the rest of the extant Gospels-manuscripts – something around 2,000 – fit the description that Kirsopp Lake gave them:  “the manuscripts which we have are almost all orphan children without brothers or sisters.”  (Lake also claimed that the Gospels-text in 205 was copied from 209, but nowadays they are regarded as merely close relatives; Alan Taylor Farnes suspected that they are siblings.)    

           

            Several recent investigations overlap the subject of the relationship between GA 22 and GA 1210: 

            ● Amy S. Anderson’s The Textual Tradition of the Gospels:  Family 1 in Matthew. (2004 New Testament Tools & Studies, Vol. XXXII.)

            ● Alison Welsby’s A Textual Study of Family in the Gospel of John (2011).

            ● Alan T. Farnes’ Scribal Habits in Selected New Testament Manuscripts, Including Those With Surviving Exemplars (2017).

            The information presented by Anderson (focused on the Gospel of Matthew) and Welsby (focused on the Gospel of John) shows that 22 (housed at the Bibliotheque Nationale de France as Greek MS 72) and 1210 share a very close relationship, and that they are both part of a sub-group of family 1 that consists of 22, 1192, 1210, 1278, and 2372.  Welsby’s data indicates that 1210 is a copy of 22 in John, and my comparison of their text in Mark indicates that this is also the case in Mark 2:17-16:20. 

            The text of Mark in 1210 – Sinai MS 173, included in the Library of Congress’ microfilm collection – resembles the text of Mark in 22 very closely.  According to Sanders, in his prefatory remarks in the article A New Collation of MS 22 of the Gospels in the 1914 Journal of Biblical Literature, 22 “has only 168 probable fam. 1 readings” in Mark, which Sanders correctly understood to mean that “The text of our MS has been very decidedly accommodated to the Antioch type and this agreement is evenly distributed throughout the gospel.”  To say this a different way:  GA 22’s text is mainly Byzantine, but it must have had a family-1 member in its genealogy somewhere along the way, to account for unusual readings like the following – many of which are shared by family-1.

           

Some (Not All!) Unusual Readings in GA 22 in Mark

(The variants in bold print are supported by 22 but not by 1210.)

(1) 1:2 – καθως [1210:  ως]

(2) 1:2 – Ησαιαι τωι προφητηι [1210:  τοις προφηταις]

(3) 1:10 – ως [1210: ωσει]

(4) 1:34 – Χν ειναι after αυτον  [1210:  non-inclusion]

(5) 1:35 – ο Ις after απηλθεν [1210:  non-inclusion]

(6) 2:17 – does not have εις μετάνοιαν

(7) 2:22 – does not have νέον after the first οινον

(8) 2:25 – instead of επείνασεν αυτος και οι μετ αυτου, 22 reads επείνασε και αυτος και οι μετ αυτου.  (The copyist apparent mistook the letter ν as a kai-compendium, ϗ.  This mistake would be easier to make using an uncial exemplar than with a minuscule exemplar.)

(9) 3:5 – does not have υγιης ώς ή αλλη (but there is a note in the margin)

(10) 3:24-25 – skips from σταθηναι in verse 24 to η οικια κεινη at the end of verse 25.

(10) 3:29 – does not have εις τον αιωνα after αφεσιν.

(11) 4:12 – does not have τα άμαρτήματα

(12) 4:34 – does not have ιδίοις and does not have αυτου (like 700)

(13) 5:1 – Γεργεσηνων

(14) 5:27 – does not have εν τω οχλω (like f1) but does not have του κρασπέδου (unlike f1)

(15) 5:40 – κατακείμενον after παιδίον

(16) 6:22 – does not have αυτης after θυγατρος

(17) 6:27 – αποστειλας instead of απολύσας, and does not have ο βασιλευς

(18) 6:36 – καταλύσωσι instead of αγοράσωσιν εαυτοις and does not have αρτους [1210:  αγοράσωσιν εαυτοις and has αρτους]

(19) 6:47 – πάλαι after ην (agreeing with P45)

(20) 7:8 – does not have βαπτισμους ζεστων και ποτηρίων και αλλα παρόμοια τοιαυτα πολλα ποιετε anywhere in the verse

(21) 8:4 – δυναται instead of δυνήσεται

(22) 8:15 – at the end of the verse, after και:  της ζύμης των Ηρωδιανων

(23) 8:38 – αν instead of εαν

(24) 8:38 – at the end of the verse:  does not have των αγιων [1210:  includes των αγιων]

(25) 9:13 – ηδη after Ηλιας

(26) 9:22 – δυνηι instead of δύασαι

(27) 9:23 – δυνηι instead of δύασαι without πιστευσαι

(28) 9:44 – does not have this verse

(29) 9:45 – does not have εις το πυρ το ασβεστον at the end of the verse

(30) 9:46 – does not have this verse

(31) 9:49 – does not have και πασα θυσία αλι αλισθήσεται

(32) 10:1 – does not have και or δια του after Ιουδαίας

(33) 10:32 – does not have και εθαμβουντο (h.t.)

(34) 10:40 – παρα του πρς μου at the end of the verse

(35) 11:1 – Βησφαγε

(36) 11:10 – instead of Ωσαννα, the text reads ειρήνη ουρανω και δόξα.  Then ⁒ appears in the text and also in the margin, where it is accompanied by Ωσαννα. [1210:  similar:  ειρήνη εν ουρανω και δόξα Ωσαννα]

(37) 11:21 – εξηραται [1210 appears to read εξηρανθη (agreeing with D L N Θ f1)]

(38) 11:32 – does not have οντως after Ιωάννην

(39) 12:14 – ηρξαντο ερωταν εν δόλωι instead of λεγουσιν αυτω [1210: ηρξαντο ερωταν αυτον εν δόλωι, agreeing partly with f1)]

(40) 12:35 – υιος εστι του Δαδ

(41) 13:1 – ποδαποι instead of ποταποι [1210:  ποιλιθοι]

(42) 13:1 – ποδαπαι instead of ποταπαι

(43) 14:3 – does not have κατα before της κεφαλης

(44) 14:5 – πολλα at the end of the verse

(45) 14:8 – προς instead of εις after σωμα

(46) 14:14 – μου after κατάλυμα

(47) 14:35 – επι προσωπον after επεσεν

(48) 14:42 – αγομεν instead of αγωμεν

(49) 14:43 – απεσταλμενοι after ξύλων

(50) 14:53 – αυτου instead of αυτω (before παντες)

(51) 15:4 – κατηγορουσιν instead of καταμαρτυρουσιν

(52) 15:16 – εις την αυλην instead of της αυλην

(53) 15:20 – χλαμυδα instead of πορφύραν

(54) 15:39 – αυτωι instead of εξ εναντίας αυτου

(55) 16:7 – ηγέρθη απο των νεκρων και ιδου before προάγει

(56) 16:8/16:9 Note – ⁜ εν τισι των αντιγραφων εως ωδε πληρουται ο ευαγγελιστης : εν πολλοις δε και ταυτα φερεται

(57) 16:9 – σαββατων instead of σαββατου

(58) 16:14 – εκ νεκρων after εγηγερμενον

(59) 16:18 – και εν ταις χερσιν

(60) 16:19 –  Ις after Κς

            It looks like the copyist of 1210 initially used a different exemplar of Mark – one with a strongly Byzantine text – but then began to resume using 22 as his exemplar instead, beginning around Mark 2:14-17.  To explore this idea further, let’s look at the readings in 1210 in Mark 1:1-2:17 that differ from the readings in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform, asking, “Could this reading come from 22?”

Here are 1210’s deviations from the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform in Mark 1:1-2:17.  Out of 35 variant-units (most of which are very trivial), 1210 and 22 agree with each other 17 times, and disagree 18 times.  

(1) 1:5 – εξεπορεύετο instead of εξεπορεύοντο [22:  εξεπορεύοντο]

(2) 1:5 – Ιροσολυμιται [22:  Ιεροσολυμιται]

(3) 1:9 – ὁ before Ις [22:  no ὁ]

(4) 1:9 – Ναζαρετ [=22]

(5) 1:10 – ειδε [22:  ειδεν]

(6) 1:14 – does not have ὁ Ις [22: Ις]

(7) 1:16 – ειδε [22:  ειδεν]

(8) 1:20 – after πρα:  αυτον instead of αυτων [22:  αυτων]

(9) 1:21 – εδιδασκε [22:  εδιδασκεν]

(10) 1:23 – ανέκραξε [=22] 

(11) 1:27 – εστι [=22] 

(12) 1:27 – πνευμασι [=22] 

(13) 1:34 – εθεράπευσε [=22] 

(14) 1:34 – εξέβαλε [22:  εξέβαλεν]

(15) 1:34 – ηφιε [= 22] 

(16) 1:35 – εξελθε [22:  εξελθεν]

(17) 1:37 – ζητουσι [= 22] 

(18) 1:38 – αγομεν (agrees with À) [22:  αγωμεν]

(19) 1:38 – κομοπολεις [22:  κωμοπολεις]

(20) 1:40 – after γονυπετων:  αυτωι instead of αυτον [22:  αυτον] 

(21) 1:44 – αλλα instead of αλλ’ [=22] 

(22) 1:44 – προσέταξε [=22] 

(23) 2:1 – εισηλθε [=22] 

(24) 2:1 – εστι [=22] 

(25) 2:3 – ερχον [the –ται is missing] [22: ερχονται]

(26) 2:4 – χαλωσι [=22] 

(27) 2:4 – κραβατον [22:  κραβαττον]

(28) 2:9 – κραβαττον [=22] 

(29) 2:10 – ειδειτε [22:  ειδητε]

(30) 2:11 – κραβαττον [= 22] 

(31) 2:12 – κραβαττον [= 22] 

(32) 2:12 – εναντιων [22:  εναντιον]

(33) 2:13 – εξελθε [22:  εξελθεν]

(34) 2:14 – Λευιν [=22]    

(35) 2:17 – does not have εις μετανοιαν but it is present as a secondary correction [=22, i.e., 22 does not have εις μετανοιαν but it is present as a secondary correction]

 

In GA 1210, an f1 reading appears
in Mk 16:7, and the short form of f1's
note is between Mk 16:8  and 16:9.
A lection-label for Mark 16:9-20
appears at the top of the page
(Heoth. #3) with the incipit-phrase.

            When we consider the 18 disagreements in this list, and set aside differences that can be attributed to scribal preferences regarding spelling and movable-nu, ten significant differences remain which weigh in against the idea that one of these manuscripts is a direct copy of the other one in Mark 1:1-2:17:

1:2 – 1210:  ως [22:  καθως]

1:2 – 1210:  τοις προφηταις [22:  Ησαιαι τωι προφητηι] 

1:5 – 1210:  εξεπορεύετο [22:  εξεπορεύοντο]

1:9 – 1210:  ὁ before Ις [22:  no ὁ]

1:10 – 1210:  ωσει [22: ως] 

1:14 – 1210:  does not have ὁ Ις [22: Ις]

1:20 – 1210:  after πρα:  αυτον [22:  αυτων]

1:34 – 1210 does not have Χν ειναι after αυτον [22:  has Χν ειναι after αυτον]   

1:35 – 1210 does not have ο Ις after απηλθεν [22:  has ο Ις after απηλθεν]

1:40 – 1210:  after γονυπετων:  αυτωι instead of αυτον [22:  αυτον] 

It looks rather difficult for 22’s text of Mark 1:1-2:13 to be copied from 1210, and equally difficult for 1210’s text of Mark 1:1-2:13 to be copied from 22.  But let’s extend the comparison of 22 and 1210 to the rest of Mark chapter 2.

22’s Disagreements with RP-Byz in Mark 2:18-28:
19 – εστι [=1210]

In GA 22, the same variant appears
in Mk 16:7, and the same note appears
between Mk. 16:8 and 16:9.

19 – εχουσι [=1210]

22 – does not have νέον after the first οινον [=1210; in 1210 οινον is the last word in a line]

25 – εποίησε [=1210]

25 – εσχε [=1210]

25 – επείνασε και αυτος και οι μετ αυτου [= 1210]

26 – του after Αβιαθαρ [= 1210]

26 – ιερευσι [=1210]

26 – εδωκε [=1210]

28 – κυριος is not contracted [=1210]

Whereas before Mark 2:17, the orthographic agreements were hit-and-miss, after Mark 2:17 they are perfectly aligned.  In addition, the agreements of 22 and 1210 in super-rare readings in verses 22 and 25 indicate that whatever factor elicited 1210’s disagreements with 22 prior to 2:17 has been removed, and in 1210, from this point on, we are looking at a close copy of 22’s text.

            Awareness that 1210’s text of Mark is – after 2:17 – a copy of 22 has a small impact on the analysis of the two largest major textual variants in the New Testament:  Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. 

In 1582, the long form of f1's note appears
between Mark 16:8 and 16:9.

            Between Mark 16:8 and 16:9, 22 and 1210 both feature a note which says εν τισι των αντιγραφων εως ωδε πληρουται ο ευαγγελιστης : εν πολλοις δε και ταυτα φερεται, that is, “In some copies the Gospel is finished here; in many, there is also this.”  This is a shortened form of the note that appears at this location in MSS 1 and 1582, Εν τισι μεν των αντιγράφων εως ωδε πληρουται ο ευαγγελιστης, εως ου και Ευσεβιος ο Παμφίλου εκανόνισεν· εν πολλοις δε ταυτα φεέρεται·.  The part about the Eusebian Canons was probably intentionally omitted at a time and place where the Eusebian Canons had been adjusted so as to include Mark 16:9-20.  By preserving this note, 1210 echoes 22, and 22 echoes f1.  Their weight should be boiled down accordingly.     

 In 22 and 1210, John 7:53-8:11 does not appear; John 7:52 is followed immediately in both manuscripts by 8:12.  What is intriguing about this is that 22 and 1210 are secondary members of f1; members such as 1 and 1582 represent the core of the group.  In 1 and 1582, the pericope adulterae appears after the end of John 21, prefaced by a note (also attested in GA 565) stating:
            “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 86^th chapter [that is, the 86^th Eusebian section], following, ‘Search and see that a prophet does not arise out of Galilee.’”

            The thing to see is that the details about members of f1 (provided by Welsby) constitute a guardrail which rules out the idea that John 7:53-8:11 is a barnacle that attached itself to later members of the group.   What we see is the opposite:  1 and 1582 represent the earliest stratum of the group, and their note conveys the note’s author’s knowledge of the pericope adulterae and of its presence in the text after John 7:52 in some manuscripts.  Its transplantation from a location after John 7:52, to the end of the Gospel, is reported in the note.  By the time 22 and 1210 were made, the prefatory note and the pericope adulterae were dropped from the f1 transmission-stream, although in more central members of the group, the prefatory note and the pericope adulterae had been present after John 21. 

             

                       

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