GA 0303: What Do We Have Here?

 

GA  0303 is a  single two-page manuscript containing text from Luke 13:17-29a (ending with ἀνατολων) that resides in the National Library in Paris.  Although assigned a GA number among the majuscules, it appears to be a piece of a lectionary – there are no Section numbers where ρξζ-ροε would normally be, and a rubric appears between verses 17 and 18, signaling the beginning of the 12^th Saturday after Easter, and the text of verse 18 is adulterated with an incipit phrase.  Here are its notable features, compared to the Robinson-Pierpont 2005 Byzantine Textform:

17 – the second omicron in ὁὄχλος is written above the line.

18 – ειπεν ο κς την παβο (an abbreviation for ειπεν ο κυριος την παρβολην) ομοιω η βασιλεια ουνον – reminiscent of the reading in N and U, where “kingdom of God” has been supplanted by “kingdom of heaven” – before beginning the text in verse 19

19 – κοκκως instead of κοκκω

19 – αυτον instead of εαυτον

20 – no variants

21 – εκρυψεν instead of ενέκρυψεν

22 – no variants

23 – no variants

24 – αγωνιζεσθαι instead of αγωνιζεσθε

24 – no variants

25 – εσται instead of εστε

26 – πλατιαις instead of πλατειαις

27 – υδα instead of οιδα

27 – εσται instead of εστε

27 – due to overtrimming I cannot be certain that οι did not follow πάντες but it probably didn’t

27 – τις instead of της

28 – Ισακ instead of Ισαακ

29 – no variants

A minor tear in the parchment initially make it look like a scribe marked out προς αυτους at the end of verse 24 but th444e tear shows on the opposite side of the page.

A later hand has added ΙΣ in the outer margin of the last phrase of v. 23, another sign that this witness is a lectionary.

There are at least five readings that impact translation:

· 0303 supports μεγα, “great” in v. 19, supported by P45 A K Ν W Δ Θ Π Ψ Byz and the KJV Rheims CEV EHV Tregelles.  The Tyndale House GNT does not include μεγα but mentions it in the apparatus.

· 0303 supports the non-inclusion of Και, “And” at the beginning of v. 20.  Inclusion is supported by P45 P75 À B L and the Textus Receptus.  Yes you read that correctly:  Erasmus’ compilation agree with the oldest copies here, disagreeing with the majority.

· 0303 supports the Byzantine πύλης (“gate”) instead of the Alexandrian θύρας (“door”) in v. 24.

· 0303 supports the inclusion of Κε Κε “Lord, Lord”), disagreeing with the Alexandrian non-repetition of Κε in v. 25.

· 0303 supports υμας (“you”) in v. 27, disagreeing with its non-inclusion in P75 B L.  UBS4 indecisively bracketed υμας.  The CSB NIV NLT clearly are based on the text with υμας; others are too vaguely worded to tell.

A nice little witness to the early Byzantine text with a text more accurate than that of À – but it should be relisted as a lectionary!

 

 

 

Codex A and the PA: When Nothing is Something

      The UBS4 apparatus correctly listed “A^vid” as a witness for the omission of John 7:53-8:11.  Wieland Willker (2012 Textual Commentary) provides more detail:  “'A has a lacuna from 6:50-8:52a. It is certain that A did not contain the PA. I have made a reconstruction of this from Robinson's Byzantine text with nomina sacra. It fits the space exactly without the PA (+ 1.5 lines) taking into account the following phenomenon: Some people noted that at the beginning of the first existing folio two extra lines in slightly smaller letters have been added and speculated about its implications for the contents of the lost folios. But there is a simple explanation: A* omitted Jo 8:52 due to homoioteleuton: εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα - εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.  A scribe added the missing verse in part at the bottom of the last missing page and in part on top of the first existing page. M. Robinson concurs with this view.”

Let's visualize:  here are the pages of Codex Alexandrinus before and after the lacuna:  

Fill the four absent pages with the John 6:50-8:52 without 7:53-8:11, with each page containing about the same as these two pages ( letters and letters), and you get what Willker described - there's no room for John 7:53-8:11 to fit or to come remotely close to fitting.

Putting the absent text into eight columns of 51 lines each and 20-25 letters per line, accounting for ekthesis and nomina sacra contraction, we something like this . . . .

"Vid" does not convey the clarity of this strongly enough.  I propose that in the future when the findings of codicological analysis are so obvious, the apparatus should read "VID," not "vid."   Codex Alexandrinus very obviously did not have John 7:53-8:11 in its text of the Gospel of John when it was pristine.  

 

Byzantine-friendly New Testaments in the Marketplace

Over a decade ago I noted the rise of four English New Testaments based on the Byzantine Text, and I decided to see how things stand now in 2025.

The World English Bible continues to be offered in multiple editions.

Gary Zeolla's Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament remains available. 

 
Paul Esposito's English Majority Text Version is still available.

G. Allen Walker's Modern Literal Version is offered at mlvbible.info.

Laurent Cleenewerck's Eastern Orthodox New Testament (my personal favorite) is on the market in a nice portable edition at New Rome Press and on Amazon.  

Adam Boyd has released The Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version.

The New Tyndale Version is also available in a variety of editions, including the military-themed Leader's Bible.

A cornucopia of resources about the Byzantine Text, including links to PDFs of the 2005 Robinson-Pierpont compilation of the Byzantine Text and Robinson's essay, The Case for Byzantine Priority, is still available at https://sites.google.com/a/wmail.fi/greeknt/home/greeknt .

I do not subscribe to Byzantine Priority, but I applaud these English versions which help bring the church out of the shadow of Lucianic Recension advocacy and closer to the text God inspired and to the message he intended (and continues to intend) to convey to his people.