Minuscule 1424 and the Pericope Adulterae

  

MS 1187's text of John 7:53-8:11
is similar to the text in the margin of 1424.
And they share a large annotation.

          In the super-sparse apparatus of the Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament, a note mentions that although the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) is absent in the text, the passage is present in the margin.  Unfortunately, that is about as close as readers get to a close examination of the testimony of 1424 and its annotator regarding this passage.

            Similarly in D.A. Carson’s volume on the Gospel of John in the Pillar NT Commentary series, after acknowledging that John 7:53-8:11 is present “in most of the medieval Greek miniscule [sic] manuscripts,” the author states that these verses “are absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts that have come down to us.”  Displaying a degree of one-sidedness, Carson does not discuss the Old Latin capitula at all, and he states – erroneously – “All the early church fathers omit this narrative.”  It is a challenge to imagine how any scholar can make such a claim, for one would have to ignore well-known references to the pericope adulterae in the writings of Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome, among many others.  Carson – clearly echoing Metzger as he keeps readers in the dark about the reasons for the dislocation of the passage in some manuscripts – is guilty of several other one-sided statements that cumulatively mold the evidence and give readers a false impression.  

            But rather than dwell on such mistreatments of the evidence, let’s focus today specifically on the testimony of minuscule 1424.  This manuscript was housed at the Gruber Rare Books Collection at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago until it was recently returned to Greece.  The entire manuscript has been digitally photographed by CSNTM, and the page-views can be viewed at the CSNTM website.

            When we examine the relevant page of minuscule 1424, we see that at the end of 7:52, above the line, there is a symbol that looks vaguely like the letters O and C connected by a horizontal line.  In the text, 8:12 begins at the beginning of the next line.  The O––C symbol also appears in the outer margin of the page (although the horizontal line is broken), accompanied by the text of the pericope adulterae in a form that is very similar to the text of the pericope adulterae in Codex Λ, which resembles the text that is presented in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform in italics, beginning with Καὶ ἀπῆλθον ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ, without πειράζοντες in verse 4, and without τω δακτύλω in verse 6, and when the page ends, the pericope adulterae has been presented up to a point halfway through verse 9.  Alongside the pericope adulterae in the outer (left) margin is a stack of asterisks; three are clear and there appear to be two more beneath then, albeit unclear.

            On the following page, verse 9 resumes, not at the top of the page, but in the lower margin.  A ⁒ symbol appears in the far left inner margin, above a stack of two asterisks (※) alongside the margin-text.  In 1424’s margin-text, in verse 9, ὁ Ις appears after κατελείφθη and μόνος does not appear.   In verse 11, the text does not have the words οἱ κατήγοροί σου.

            And now for the interesting part.  After 8:11 ends, there is a note (very faintly written at some points, and with lots of contraction, so this transcription is tentative):  ταυτα εν τισιν αντιγράφοις ου κειται ουδε [’Απολιναρίου·  Εν δε τοις] αρχαιοις όλα κειται·  Μνημονευουσι της περικοπης ταυτης και οι αποστολοι εν αις εξεθεντο διαταξεσιν εις οικοδομην της εκκλησίας.   

            This is essential the same note that is found in Codex Λ (039) which accompanied John 7:53-8:11 there.  It means:  “This is not in some copies, nor in those [copies] of Apollinarius.  In the ancient [copies] it is all present.  And this pericope was recollected by the apostles, which affirms that it is for the edification of the church.”
            That last sentence refers to Apostolic Constitutions 2:24, which was produced around 380.    This portion of Apostolic Constitutions, designed to prove the premise that “Our Lord Came to Save Sinners by Repentance,” includes the following statement, after mentioning Jesus’ statement in Luke 7:47:

 “And when the elders had set another woman which had sinned before Him, and had left the sentence to Him, and had gone out, our Lord, the Searcher of the hearts, inquiring of her whether the elders had condemned her, and being told, ‘No,’ said unto her, ‘Go your way therefore, for neither do I condemn you.’  This Jesus, O you bishops, our Savior, our King, and our God, ought to be set before you as your pattern.” 

This portion of Apostolic Constitutions can be traced to an earlier source:  the Syriac Didascalia.  In its seventh chapter (or in some formats, near the end of the sixth chapter), following a discussion on the Prayer of Manasseh, the author of the Syriac Didascalia states:

            “For if thou receive not him who repents, because thou art merciless, thou sinnest against the Lord God, because thou dost not obey our Lord and God in acting as He acted; for even He to that woman who had sinned, her whom the elders placed before him and left it to judgment at His hands, and went away; He them who searcheth the hearts, asked her and said to her, ‘Have the Elders condemned thee, my daughter?’  She saith to Him, ‘No, Lord.’  And our Saviour said,  ‘Go, and return no more to do this, neither do I condemn thee.”  In this therefore let our Saviour and King and God be to you a sign, O Bishops!” (Gibson’s translation)

            The Syriac Didascalia is generally assigned to the first half of the 200s, which makes this reference pretty much as old as the oldest witnesses for non-inclusion of the pericope adulterae.

The note that appears in 1424, confirming that the entire passage is not in some copies but is all present in ancient copies, and so forth, is not only shared by Codex Λ but also in minuscule 1282 (on Image 0214b at CSNTM, at the foot of the page).  In MS 1282, on this page and the one that follows, a stack of obeli accompanies the text of John 8:3-11 (but not 7:53-8:2) in the outer margin.  (In the upper margin, the chapter-title “#10 – About the Adulteress” appears in red ink.)  Minuscule 1443 has a similar format – John 7:53-8:11 is included in the text, and 8:3-11 is accompanied by a stack of obeli in the margin – but does not appear to have the note.  Minuscule 1187 also has a similar format – John 7:53-8:11 is included in the text, and 8:3-11 is accompanied by a stack of obeli in the margin, and in the lower margin of 1187 5, there is the note.

The note also appears (with minor differences) in minuscules 20 (which has the pericope adulterae after John 21), 215, 262, and 1118.  This points to a common source, for these manuscripts, along with Codex Λ, feature the Jerusalem Colophon.  (Tommy Wasserman, using information from Maurice Robinson and other resources, has confirmed this in a detailed essay.)

The presence of the both the Apollinarius Colophon  and the Jerusalem Colophon in the same manuscript indicates that the “ancient copies” referred to in the Apollinarius Colophon – in which the entire pericope adulterae is stated to be present – are the same manuscripts referred to in the Jerusalem Colophon (or, the prevalent form of it) “the ancient exemplars from Jerusalem preserved on the holy mountain.”

In addition, the close similarity of the text of the pericope adulterae in Codex Λ and in the margin of 1424 and in the text of 1187 suggests that the possibility of a historical link between these three manuscripts should be explored.  Both Λ and 1424’s margin do not have τω δακτύλω in verse 6, and in 1187, τω δακτύλω is not in the main text of verse 6 either; it is added as a correction in the side-margin.  (This variant-unit is not covered in NA27.)

           So, the next time you see 1424 listed as a witness for non-inclusion of John 7:53-8:11, remember that while that is true, it is also true that a marginal note in 1424 (shared by five other manuscripts) affirms the use of the passage in Apostolic Constitutions (c. 380, echoing a source from the early 200s) and also affirms that in ancient manuscripts, the whole passage is present, and that the ancient manuscripts being referred to were (or were thought to be) cherished copies at a holy mountain.

            

Mark 9:29 and Prayer and Fasting and the Early Church

A small but interesting textual variant occurs at the end of Mark 9:29.  A veritable tsunami of Greek manuscripts and versional copies of Mark, constituting over 99.9% of all extant witnesses to this verse, state that Jesus said, “This kind can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting.”  In three Greek manuscripts – Aleph, B, and 0274 – and in Codex Bobiensis (Old Latin k) and, according to the UBS4 apparatus, in an early stratum of the Old Georgian version represented by the Adysh Codex (produced in 897), Jesus says, “This kind can come out by nothing but prayer,” with no mention of fasting.

The UBS4 and NA-27 text, echoing the 1881 WH text, adopted the shorter reading here.  Metzger summarized the reasoning for this:  “In light of the increasing emphasis in the early church on the necessity of fasting, it is understandable that και νηστεια is a gloss which found its way into most witnesses.  Among the witnesses that resisted such an accretion are important representatives of the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Caesarean types of text.”  The UBS committee gave the adoption of the shorter reading here an “A” rating, implying that the committee-members felt that this text “is virtually certain.”

The NET supports the same conclusion:  “Most witnesses, even early and excellent ones (P45^vid Aleph² A C D L W Θ Ψ f^{1, 13} 33 M lat co), have “and fasting” (και νηστείᾳ, kai nēsteia), after “prayer” here.  But this seems to be a motivated reading, due to the early church’s emphasis on fasting (TCGNT 85, cf., e.g. 2 Clem 16:4, Pol. Phil 7:2; Did. 1:3, 7:4).  That the most important witnesses (Aleph* B), as well as a few others (0274 2427 k) lack και νηστεια, when a good reason for the omission is difficult to find, argues strongly for the shorter reading.”

Do those references provide sufficient grounds for the theory that early copyists considered fasting so important, and so commendable, that they would deliberately supplement a saying of Jesus about prayer by adding “and fasting”?  Did everyone in the early centuries of Christendom view fasting as an entirely positive activity (or rather, non-activity)?  For those who might not have convenient access to the contents of Second Clement, Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians, or the Didache, here are the references mentioned in the NET’s note:

Second Clement 16:4 says, “Know ye that the Judgment Day approaches like a burning oven, and certain of the heavens and all the earth will melt, like lead melting in fire; and then will appear the hidden and manifest deeds of men.  Therefore alms-giving is good, as repentance from sin; fasting is better than prayer, and alms-giving is better than both.  ‘Charity covers a multitude of sins,’ and prayer out of a good conscience delivers from death.  Blessed is every one that shall be found complete in these; for alms lightens the burden of sin.”

The emphasis of this passage from Second Clement, in which the author loosely quotes Tobit 12:8-9 before also quoting First Peter 4:8b, is on alms-giving, not fasting.  Almsgiving, the author says, is more praiseworthy than fasting or prayer.  Yet no copyists, as far as I know, saw fit to place “and almsgiving” after any mention of prayer in the Gospels.

               

In chapter 7 of his Epistle to the Philippians, Polycarp wrote, “Forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning, watching unto prayer, and persevering in fasting, beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God ‘not to lead us into temptation.’  As the Lord has said, ‘The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak.’”

This casual statement is hardly evidence of the sort of association between prayer and fasting that would lead a copyist to link them together like bacon-and-eggs. 

The Didache, in its opening paragraph, says, “The way of life, then, is this:  first, you shall love God who made you; second, love your neighbor as yourself, and do not do to another what you would not want done to you. And of these sayings the teaching is this:  Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you.”

That’s more like it:  the author has paraphrased the fuller reading of Matthew 5:44.  (This reference should be remembered when evaluating that variant, especially inasmuch as it is not included in the UBS-4 apparatus.)  In doing so, he interchanged prayer and fasting, indicating that the two were conceptually linked in his mind. 

However, that is not all that the author of Didache had to say on the subject of fasting.  Two other statements from the Didache should be considered.  In the seventh chapter, which gives instructions about baptism, the author states, “Before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.”  This does not supply much of a basis for the idea that copyists felt obligated to supplement Mark 9:29 by adding “and fasting.” 

When we turn to the eighth chapter of the Didache (to which the NET’s notes did not draw attention), we find some interesting additional comments about fasting:       

“Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week. Rather, fast on the fourth day and the Preparation (Friday).  Do not pray like the hypocrites, but rather as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this:  ‘Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come.  Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.  Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors.  And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Thine is the power and the glory forever.’  Pray this three times each day.”

(This reference should be remembered when evaluating the variant in Matthew 6:13.)

In the Didache, weekly fasts on Wednesdays and Fridays are commanded, but fasts on Mondays and Thursdays are prohibited on the grounds that Christians should not follow the fasting-pattern that is followed by “the hypocrites.”  This command seems to have been modeled on Matthew 6:16-18, combined with the understanding that the twice-weekly fasting of the Pharisees (mentioned in Luke 18:12) occurred on Mondays and Wednesdays.  The prayers and the fasts described in this part of the Didache are regular:  fasting was to be maintained twice a week, and prayer was to be offered three times a day.          

In Apostolic Constitutions, Book 5, which was compiled in about 380, an explanation is offered regarding why the Christians’ weekly fast-days are Wednesday and Friday.  The apostles are depicted stating that Jesus commanded them, after His resurrection, “to fast on the fourth and sixth days of the week; the former on account of His being betrayed, and the latter on account of His passion.”  In the same composition, after a variety of details about the schedule for Easter-time, the 20^th chapter concludes with the following words, framed as if the apostles themselves were speaking:

“We charge you to fast every fourth day of the week, and every day of the preparation [i.e., Fridays], and bestow upon the needy what you conserve by fasting.  Every Sabbath-day except one [the exception is Holy Saturday; this is explained in the previous chapter], and every Lord’s Day, hold your solemn assemblies, and rejoice.  For he will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord’s Day, being the day of resurrection, or during the time of Pentecost, or, in general, who is sad on a festival-day to the Lord.  For on them we ought to rejoice, and not to mourn.”

It seems sufficiently clear that by the late 300’s, and probably considerably earlier, both the instructions to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays, and the prohibition against fasting on Mondays, Thursdays, and Sundays, were common practice in the locale where Apostolic Constitutions was compiled. 

The 48^th chapter of Book 8 of Apostolic Constitutions is basically a list of rules for church-officers.  Some of these rules were about fasting:

   Rule 64:  If any one of the clergy be found to fast on the Lord’s Day, or on the Sabbath Day (with one exception), let him be deprived; but if one if the laity is found to do this, let him be suspended.

   Rule 69:  If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or lector, or singer, does not fast the fast of 40 days, or the fourth day of the week, and the day of preparation, let him be deprived, unless he is hindered by physical weakness.  And if one of the laity is found to do this, let him be suspended.  

   Rule 70:  If any bishop, or any other of the clergy, fasts with the Jews, or keeps the festivals with them, or accepts some of the presents associated with their festivals, such as unleavened bread or some such thing, let him be deprived.  And if one of the laity is found to do this, let him be suspended.”

These rules from Book 8 of Apostolic Constitutions convey that not only was the twice-weekly fast to be enforced via church discipline, but that the thrice-weekly prohibition against fasting was also to be enforced with church discipline.  The same standard was mentioned by Epiphanius, who added (in De Fide, chapter 22) the detail that the twice-weekly fast was observed until the ninth hour of the day, and who also mentioned that the twice-weekly fasting was not observed during Pentecost, or on the Day of Epiphany [by which he meant Christmas-day, the day on which Christ was born].  Thus, while it is true, as the NET’s note states, that the early church had an emphasis on fasting, it is also true that the early church emphasized the avoidance of fasting just as much.

               

All this should be kept in mind as we turn to a closer consideration of some external evidence pertaining to Mark 9:29.