Wednesday, January 27, 2021

Hand To Hand Combat: Sinaiticus vs. 162 in Matthew 9:1-17

             Today, let's look at the text of Matthew 9:1-17 in two manuscripts – the famous Codex Sinaiticus, and the little-known medieval minuscule 162, a copy of the Gospels which is housed in the Vatican Library as Barb. Gr. 449.

            According to the colophon that appear after the end of John, 162 was finished by a scribe named Manuel in 1153.  Its text is primarily Byzantine, but it has some unusual readings, the best-known of which is in Luke 11:2:  instead of saying, “Your kingdom come,” it says. “Let your holy Spirit come (upon us) to cleanse us” – a reading which is also supported by GA 700, and was known to Gregory of Nyssa. 

            In Tertullian’s composition Against Marcion, Book 4, Part 26, the author asks several rhetorical questions which seem to be drawn from a sequence of phrases in Luke 11, indicating that this reading was in the text used by Tertullian:

             First, “To whom can I say, “Father”? 

            Next, “Of whom can I ask for His Holy Spirit?”

            Next, “Whose kingdom shall I wish to come?” 

            Next, “Who shall give me my daily bread?”. 

            Next, “Who shall forgive me my trespasses?” 

            And next, “Who shall not allow us to be led into temptation?”. 

This indicates that a textual variant consisting of a request for the Holy Spirit to come and cleanse us, in Luke 11:2, although supported among Greek manuscripts  by only 700 and 162, was known to Tertullian in the second century.

           162 can be viewed page by page at the website of the Vatican Library.  Here is a selective index:   

Ad Carpianus begins

Eusebian Canons begin

Icon of Matthew

Matthew 1:1

Matthew 9:1

Matthew 16:1

Matthew 22:1

Matthew 25:1

Matthew 28:16-20 (cruciform)

Mark 1:9-1:18 

Mark 1:18-27

Mark 1:1 (w/icon headpiece)  

Mark 6:1

Mark 9:1

Mark 14:1

Luke 1:1 (w/icon headpiece)  

Luke 4:1

Luke 6:1

Luke 11:1

Luke 11:2     

Luke 15:1 

Luke 20:1 

John 1:1 (w/icon headpiece)

John 5:1

John 7:53 

John 14:1  

John 18:1  

John 20:1  

John 21:25

 

Now let’s see how accurate the text of Matthew 9:1-7 in 162 is compared to the same passage in the Tyndale House Greek New Testament.

1 –  162 has Ις­ after εμβας (+3)

1 – 162 has το after εις (+2)

1 – 162 has διεπέρασε instead of διεπέρασεν (-1)

2 – 162 has κλινης instead of κλεινης (-1)

2 – has ειπε instead of ειπεν (-1)

2 – 162 has αφεωνται instead of αφίενται (+2, -2)

2 – 162 has σου (+3)

4 – 162 has ιδων instead of ειδως (+1, -2)

4 – 162 has υμεις after τί (+5)

4 – has ενθυμεισθαι instead of ενθυμεισθε (+2, -1)

5 – 162 has αφεωνται instead of αφίενται (+2, -2)

6 – 162 has κλινην instead of κλεινην (-1)

7 – no variations

8 – 162 has εθαυμασαν instead of εφοβήθησαν (+5, -6)

9 – 162 has Ματθαιον instead of Μαθθαιον (+1, -1)

10 – no variations

11 – 162 has ειπον instead of ελεγον (+3, -4)

12 – 162 has Ις­ before ακουσας (+3)

12 – 162 has αυτοις after ειπεν (+6)

13 – 162 has ελεον instead of ελεος (+1, -1)

13 – 162 has εις μετάνοιαν (+12)

14 – 162 contracts Ιωάννου to Ιω

14 – has νηστευουσι instead of νηστευουσιν (-1)

15 – no variations

16 – no variations

17 – 162 has απολουνται instead of απολλυνται (+1, -1)

 

So, compared to the Tyndale House compilation, 162 has 51 non-original letters in Matthew 9:1-17, and is missing 25 original letters, for a total of 76 letters’ worth of corruption.  If we set aside orthographic variants, the following remain: 

1 –  162 has Ις­ after εμβας (+3)

1 – 162 has το after εις (+2)

2 – 162 has αφεωνται instead of αφίενται (+2, -2)

2 – 162 has σου (+3)

4 – 162 has ιδων instead of ειδως (+1, -2)

4 – 162 has υμεις after τί (+5)

5 – 162 has αφεωνται instead of αφίενται (+2, -2)

8 – 162 has εθαυμασαν instead of εφοβήθησαν (+5, -6)

11 – 162 has ειπον instead of ελεγον (+3, -4)

12 – 162 has Ις­ before ακουσας (+3)

12 – 162 has αυτοις after ειπεν (+6)

13 – 162 has ελεον instead of ελεος (+1, -1)

13 – 162 has εις μετάνοιαν (+12).

 

And thus, with orthographic variants set aside, 162 has 48 non-original letters in Matthew 9:1-17, and is missing 17 original letters, for a total of 65 letters’ worth of corruption.

Now let’s compare the text of Matthew 9:1-17 in Codex Sinaiticus to the same passage in the Tyndale House Greek New Testament.

SINAITICUS: MATTHEW 9:1-17 compared to Tyndale House GNT.

1 – no  variations

2 – À has κλινης instead of κλεινης (-1)

2 – À has ειδων instead of ιδων (+1)

3 – no variations

4 – À has ϊδων instead of ειδως (+1, -2)

4 – (À has a spelling-correction in καρδι{αι}ϲ but it may have been made during production)

5 – À does not have και after εγειρε (-3)

6 –  À has εχι instead of εχει (-1)

6 – À has κλινην instead of κλεινην (-1)

6 – À has πορευου instead of υπαγε (+7, -5)

7 – no variations

8 – no variations

9 – À does not have εκειθεν (-7)

9 – À does not have και after λεγομενον (-3)

9 -  has λεγι instead of λεγει (-1)

9 – has ακολουθι instead of ακολουθει (-1)

9 – À has ηκολουθει instead of ηκολούθησεν (+2, -4)

10 – À does not have εγένετο αυτου before ανακειμενω (-12)

10 – has ανακειμενω instead of ανακειμενου (+1, -2)

10 – does not have και before ιδου (-3)

10 – À does not have ελθοντες (-8)

10 – has ϲυνανεκιντο instead of ϲυνανεκειντο (-1)

10 – À has μαθητεϲ instead of μαθηταιϲ (+1, -2)

11 – no variations

12 – À has χριαν instead of χρειαν (-1)

12 – has ϊατρω instead of ϊατρου (+1, -2)

13 – À has μαθεται instead of μαθετε (+2, -1)

14 – À has ημιϲ instead of ημειϲ (-1)

14 – (À has πολλα, added by a corrector, in the side-margin)

15 – À is missing ελευσονται δε ημέραι οταν απαρθη απ αυτων ὁ νυμφίος (-43)

16 – À has παλεω instead of παλαιω (+1, -2)

16 – has αιρι instead of αιρει (-1)

16 - À does not have αυτου before απο (-5)

16 – À has γεινεται  instead of γινεται (+1)

17 – À has αλλ instead of αλλα (-1)

17 – À does not have βάλλουσιν (-9)

17 – À has βλητεον after καινουϲ (+7) 

Thus, compared to the text of Matthew 9:1-7 in the Tyndale House Greek New Testament, the text written by the main scribe of Sinaiticus contains 25 non-original letters, and is missing 104 original letters, for a total of 129 letters’ worth of corruption.    

If we take orthographic variants out of the picture, the accuracy of the text written by  Sinaiticus’ main scribe improves:

4 – À has ϊδων instead of ειδως (+1, -2)

5 – À does not have και after εγειρε (-3)

6 – À has πορευου instead of υπαγε (+7, -5)

9 – À does not have εκειθεν (-7)

9 – À does not have και after λεγομενον (-3)

9 – À has ηκολουθει instead of ηκολούθησεν (+2, -4)

10 – À does not have εγένετο αυτου before ανακειμενω (-12)

10 – does not have και before ιδου (-3)

10 – À does not have ελθοντες (-8)

14 – (À has πολλα from a corrector but this correction may have been made after production)

15 – À is missing ελευσονται δε ημέραι οταν απαρθη απ αυτων ὁ νυμφίος (-43)

16 - À does not have αυτου before απο (-5)

17 – À does not have βάλλουσιν (-9)

17 – À has βλητεον after καινουϲ (+7) 

 

So, with orthographic variants set aside (even ϊατρω in verse 12), the text of Sinaiticus has 17 non-original letters, and is missing 103 original letters, for a total of 120 letters’ worth of corruption.  The text of Matthew 9:1-17 written by the main scribe of Codex Sinaiticus is far less accurate than the text of 162, even with orthographic variants removed from consideration – and the comparison is not close.

But the work of the main scribe is not the only factor to consider when it comes to Codex Sinaiticus, because this manuscript had a proof-reader, who often served as a fellow-scribe (even replacing some pages of the manuscript where the main scribe had committed some particularly egregious error).  It is not always easy to tell the difference between the work of this corrector – working before the manuscript had left its scriptorium – and some later correctors.  But my impression is that the main corrector of Codex Sinaiticus was responsible for the following corrections:

He added, in the upper margin, for verse 10, the εγένετο αυτου that is missing in the main text.

In the lower margin, he added verse 15’s missing ελευσονται δε ημέραι οταν απαρθη απ αυτων ὁ νυμφίος.  

(I attribute the addition of ελθοντες to a later corrector, and the change in verse 10 from τελωνε to τελωναι I treat as a self-correction by the main scribe.)

With the proof-reader’s input taken into consideration, Sinaiticus’ testimony is much improved:  upon leaving the scriptorium, and setting  aside orthographic variants, the codex contained 17 original letters in Matthew 9:1-17, and was missing 48 original letters, for a total of 65 letters’ worth of corruption.

So which manuscript’s text of Matthew 9:1-17 is better?  The spelling of the main scribe of Sinaiticus is obviously atrocious, but if we set orthographic variants aside, Sinaiticus' accuracy improves substantially.  And if we do not ignore the work of the proof-reader of Codex Sinaiticus, then Codex Sinaiticus’ text of Matthew 9:1-17 has a total of 65 letters’ worth of corruption – meaning that in terms of letters’ worth of non-orthographic corruption, the amount of corruption in Matthew 9:1-17 in À and the amount of corruption in 162 are exactly the same.


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

           


           

  

 

1 comment:

Ikate jone said...

i read your blog that have good stuff and very informative. but its was not properly explained. can you explain it properly? Click Here Reliable Garage Door Spring Repair in Riverside