Hand to Hand Combat: 1690 vs. 1691

          1690 and 1691 are both medieval Gospels-manuscripts that were photographed by CSNTM personnel in Athens in 2016-2017 at the National Library of Greece.  Both manuscripts are fully indexed at the CSNTM website.  1690 is assigned to the 1200s or 1300s.  The text on the last page of Mark in 1690 is written in a cruciform pattern.  1691 is older, assigned to the  1000s.  Its text is written in two columns per page.  Let’s see which manuscript has the more accurate text in a sample passage, using the Solid Rock GNT as the standard of comparison.  In the spirit of the season, I have selected Luke 2:1-20 as today’s textual arena.   As usual, sacred-name contractions and other abbreviations, and minor orthographic variants, are noted, but are not counted in the final tallies.

1691 in Luke 2:1-20:

1 – no -ν, just εζηλθε (-1)

2 – no variants

3 – no variants

4 – no variants

5 – no variants

6 – no variants

7 – no variants

8 – no variants

9 – no variants

10 – πεν instead of ειπεν (-2) (This might just be an unusual writing-style.)

11 – no -ν, just εστι (-1)

12 – has τη before φάτνη (+2)

13 – no variants, but the scribe apparently momentarily skipped the phrase εις τον ουρανον, which is in the margin (in the main scribe’s handwriting), correcting his mistake before the manuscript was completed.

14 – no variants

15 – has δει instead of δη (-1, +2,)

16 – no variants

17 – no variants

18 – has περι instead of προς before αυτους (+3, -3)

19 – no variants

20 – no variants

Thus, Luke 2:1-20 in 1691 has a total of 7 non-original letters, and is missing 8 original letters, for a total of 15 letters’ worth of corruption.  Setting trivial orthographic variants aside, Luke 2:1-20 in 1691 has 5 non-original letters, and is missing 5 original letters, for a total of 10 letters’ worth of corruption.  Or, with that weird “πεν” in verse 10 removed from the picture (did candle-wax hurt the text??), Luke 2:1-20 in 1691 is missing 3 letters and has 5 non-original letters, for a total of eight letters’ worth of corruption.

Now let’s see how 1690 does.

Luke 2:1-20 in 1690:

1 – no -ν, just εζηλθε (-1)

2 – no variants

3 – no variants

4 – no variants

5 – no variants

6 – no variants

7 – (has τη written in superscript before φατνη)

8 – no variants

9 – no variants

10 – no variants

11 – no -ν, just εστι (-1)

12 – no variants

13 – no variants

14 – no variants

15 – no variants

16 – does not have τη before φάτνη (-2)

17 – no variants

18 – no variants

19 – no variants

20 – no variants

Luke 2:1-20 in GA 1690 thus has no non-original letters, and is missing 4 original letters, for a total of 4 letters’ worth of corruption.  Setting aside trivial orthographic variants, 1690 has only 2 letters’ worth of corruption (the missing τη in v. 16) in Luke 2:1-20.  

Thus, today's winner is 1690, with only two letters’ worth of corruption,.  But 1691, which has only ten letters’ worth of corruption, showed its quality too, and the contest was very close. 

Happy 20th Birthday, CSNTM!

            On September 13, the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts will celebrate its 20^th year.  In honor of this occasion, let’s look at one of the manuscripts that CSNTM has brought to the public eye:  GA 1691, a Gospels-manuscript from the 1000s which resides in Athens, Greece, at the National Library of Greece.  Page-views of GA 1691 were digitized by CSNTM personnel (as reported here) and can be viewed at the CSNTM website.  The entire manuscript is indexed, making it possible for viewers to search its pages for specific passages.  

            Let’s look at a single page of GA 1691 and see what it tells us about its text and how it was used.  On the page containing Matthew 7:26b-8:5a, the following features can be seen:

(1)  Written across the top of the page is the chapter-number and chapter-title of a chapter that begins on this page:   Seven – ζ:  pe[ri] tou ekatontarch[ou] –  About the centurion (who had someone who was sick) –

(2)    A lectionary-related note, identifying the reading for the Fourth Sunday [after Pentecost].

(3)    The lection’s incipit-phrase (At that time there came to Jesus . . . ).  This is how the lector (the person who read the Scripture-passages in church-services) would begin the reading.

(4)  The chapter-number (6, represented by ϛ) and title “About the Leper” (abbreviated)

(5)  A Eusebian Section-number (63)

(6)  The chapter-number (6)

(7)  in light blue ovals:  the quick way to write “και” (“and”)

(8)  in a yellow circle:  a sacred name contraction for “Lord” (Κυριε)

(9)  in a green circle:  a τελος (telos) symbol, indicating the end of a lection

(10)  in purple cornerless rectangles:  An initial 

(11)  A sacred name contraction for “Jesus” (Iησους) 

(12) An αρχη (archē) symbol, indicating the beginning of a lection

(13) A τελος (telos) symbol, indicating the end of a lection

(14)  A Eusebian section-number (64)

And in red rectangles:  textual variants, all of which agree with the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform.

             Some may call GA 1691’s text ordinary – it is one of hundreds of representatives of the dominant Greek Gospels-text used in the Middle Ages.  But those who might yawn at 1691 should take note:  the text you see on this page is much more accurate than the text of the same passage in the ancient Codex Sinaiticus, regardless of whether one uses the Nestle-Aland NTG or the Solid Rock GNT as the basis of comparison.

            In commemoration of its 20th birthday, CSNTM has a special offer for those who join its Circle of Friends (more information about that here):  new registrants will receive free copies of the book Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, signed by co-editor (and CSNTM research fellow) Elijah Hixson.

 

 

Hand to Hand Combat: GA 1690 versus Codex Sinaiticus in John 3:22-36

          Today we present a thrilling skirmish in the arena of John 3:22-26:  Codex Sinaiticus (from the mid-300s) vs. minuscule 1690 (at the National Library of Greece, from the 1200s or 1300s).  Digital page-views of 1690 are at the CSNTM website, and Codex Sinaiticus can be viewed at Codex Sinaiticus.org .    The text of John 3:22-36 in UBS4 (which is the same in UBS5 and NA27 and NA28) shall serve as referee.  The usual rules apply:  nomina sacra contractions shall not be considered variants, and transcriptions shall be noted but not considered variants unless they involve some addition or loss of letters.

John 3:22-36 in GA 1690:

22 – has διέτριβε instead of διέτριβεν (-1)

23 – Ἰωάννης is written as ιω

23 – has σαλημ instead of σαλείμ (+1, -2)

23 – has παρεγένοντο instead of παρεγίνοντο (+1, -1)

24 – Ἰωάννης is written as ιω

25 – has Ἰωάννου written as ιω

26 – has Ἰωάννην written as ιω

26 – has ειπον instead of ειπαν (+1, -1)

26 – has μεμαρτύρεκας instead of μεμαρτύρηκας (+1, -1)

27 – has Ἰωάννης written as ιω

27 – has λαμβάνει instead of λαμβάνειν (-1)

27 – has ουδεν instead of ουδε εν (-1)

28 – does not have μοι (-3)

28 – does not have [οτι] (-3)

29 – has ἐιστηκως instead of ἐστηκως (+1)

30 – has ἐστι instead of ἐστιν (-1)

31 – has ἐστι instead of ἐστιν at the end of the verse (-1)

32 – begins the verse with και (+3)

32 – has ἑώρακε instead of ἑώρακεν (-1)

32 – has ηκουσε instead of ηκουσεν (-1)

33 – has αυτου transposed to follow μαρτυρίαν instead of after λαβων

33 – has ὁ θς after δίδωσιν (+5, expanding the nomen sacrum)

34 – no variants

35 – no variants

36 – has την before ζωήν (+3)

          The text of John 3:22-36 in 1690 is missing 18 original letters and includes 16 original letters, for a total of 34 letters’ worth of corruption.  Now let’s see how the text of À does.

John 3:22-36 in Sinaiticus:

22 – transposes και οι μαθηται αυτου to follow εις την Ιουδαιαν γην 

22 – has κακει instead of και εκει (-2)

23 – has ενγυς instead of εγγυς +1, -1)

23 – has παρεγεινοντο instead of παρεγίνοντο (+1, -1)

24 – does not have ὁ (added by a corrector) (-1)

24 – has δε συν- before ζήτησις (a corector has overdotted and written ουν above the line) (+5)

24 – has μετα ϊουδαιων instead of μετα ιουδαιου (changed by a corrector) (+2, -2)

25 – has ειπον instead of ειπαν (+1, -1)

26 – has ραββει instead of ραββι (+1)

26 – has βαπτιζι instead of βαπτιζει (-1)

27 – has λαβιν instead of λαμβάνειν (-4)

27 – has ουδεν instead of ουδε εν (-1)

28 – has υμις instead of υμεις (-1)

28 – has μαρτυριται instead of μαρτυρειτε (-2, +2)

28 – does not have [οτι] (-3)

29 – has αυτου after ἑστηκως (transposed)

30 – has αυξανιν instead of αυξανειν (-1)

31 – has ο δε ων instead of ὁ ων (+2)

31 – has επι instead of the first εκ (+2, -10

31 – does not have ἑπάνω πάντων ἐστιν (-16)

32 – begins the verse with ον (+2)

32 – has ἑώρακε instead of ἑώρακεν (ν is added above the line) (-1)

32 – has ηκουσε instead of ηκουσεν (ν is added above the line) (-1)

32 – has ουδις instead of ουδεις (-1)

33 – no variants

34 – has απεστιλεν instead of απεστειλεν (-1)

34 – has δίδωσι instead of δίδωσιν (-1)

35 – no variants

36 – does not have δε (-2)

36 – has απιθων instead of απειθων (-1)

36 – has εχει instead of ὄψεται (+4, -6)

36 – transposes μένει to the end of the verse

          The text of John 3:22-36 in  À is missing 61 original letters and includes 23 non-original letters, for a total of 94 letters’ worth of corruption. Wait; 1690 has just 34 letters’ worth of corruption here and À has 94?

         Let’s drop all those itacisms and final-νs and transpositions from consideration, boiling things down a bit, and see how things stand:

1690:

27 – has ουδεν instead of ουδε εν (-1)

28 – does not have μοι (-3)

28 – does not have [οτι] (-3)

32 – begins the verse with και (+3)

33 – has ὁ θς after δίδωσιν (+5, if the nomen sacrum is expanded)

36 – has την before ζωήν (+3)

          With trivialities set aside, the text of John 3:22-36 in 1690 is missing 7 original letters and includes 11 original letters, for a total of 18 letters’ worth of corruption.  Now let’s see how the text of À does:

Sinaiticus’ text of John 3:22-36:

23 – has ενγυς instead of εγγυς +1, -1)

24 – does not have ὁ (added by a corrector) (-1)

24 – has δε συν- before ζήτησις (a corector has overdotted and written ουν above the line) (+5)

24 – has μετα ϊουδαιων instead of μετα ιουδαιου (changed by a corrector) (+2, -2)

27 – has λαβιν instead of λαμβάνειν (-4)

27 – has ουδεν instead of ουδε εν (-1)

28 – does not have [οτι] (-3)

31 – has ο δε ων instead of ὁ ων (+2)

31 – has επι instead of the first εκ (+2, -1)

31 – does not have ἑπάνω πάντων ἐστιν (-16)

32 – begins the verse with ον (+2)

36 – does not have δε (-2)

36 – has εχει instead of ὄψεται (+4, -6)

          With trivialities set aside, the text of John 3:22-36 in À is missing 17 original letters and includes 37 non-original letters, for a total of 54 letters’ worth of corruption. (That's assuming, remember, that the editors of UBS4 got things right here.  That οτι in verse 28, and a couple of other points, look very suspect.)  

          Wait; even with trivial itacisms and final-νs and transpositions set aside, and even with UBS4 (brackets and all!) officiating, the text in 1690 (from the 1200s or 1300s) clobbers the text in À, from the 300s, by a score of 18 letters’ worth of corruption to 54 letters’ worth of corruption?  Yes. 

           1690 appears to be a member of Family Π (“K^a”).  1690 was observed by Michael Bruce Morrill (in A Complete Collation and Analysis of All Greek Manuscripts of John 18) to be in agreement with the Majority Text 96.5% of the time in John 18.  Its text of John 18 is very close to the text of 1627, 1699, 2404, and 2902.  Its text’s resilience in this passage is almost as interesting as its use of ιω as a sacred name within the text.   

 

[Readers are welcome to check the accuracy of this post.]

 

 

GA 804 Looked Like a Gospels-Manuscript - Except For This!

            In October 2014, I wrote about GA 804, a small Gospels-manuscript from the 1000s with a text that often agrees with K and Π.  This manuscript, housed in Athens at the Hellenic Parliament Library, was digitized by a research-team from the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.

            Today, I want to zoom in on the contents of the ten pages in GA 804 that appear after its Eusebian Canon-tables and chapter-list and immediately before the text of Matthew.  These pages (viewable at the CSNTM website) were once part of a different manuscript – a lectionary, containing assorted extracts from various New Testament books.  They contain Galatians 4:4-7 (a Christmastime reading), First Corinthians 9:19-22, First Corinthians 10:1-3 (part of a lection for the ceremonial Blessing of the Water on January 5), Titus 2:11-14, Titus 3:5-7 (these two segments from Titus form part of a lection for January 6, Epiphany), Hebrews 7:7-17 (a lection for February 2), and Hebrews 2:11-18 (a lection for Good Friday).  The last page of the lectionary (on which the last part of Hebrews 2:18, after περασθείς, can still be read) was reused to contain an illustration (now badly faded) of the apostle Matthew. 

            Let’s briefly sift through the text, ignoring most of the many itacisms, and looking at its readings especially at points where the Byzantine Textform has a reading different from NA27.  A few other readings are also recorded:

Gal. 4:6 – 804 does not have ὁ Θς before το πνα

Gal. 4:6 – 804 has ημων instead of υμων, agreeing with P46 À A B C

Gal. 4:7 – 804 has αλλ’ instead of αλλα, agreeing with Byz

Gal. 4:7 – 804 has θυ δια χυ, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:20 – 804 has ως υπο νομον, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:21 – 804 has θω, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:21 – 804 has Χω, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:22 – 804 has Και at the beginning of the verse

I Cor. 9:22 – 804 has ως, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:22 – 804 has τα, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:23 – 804 has Τουτο, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:24 – 804 has Η before ουκ

I Cor. 9:26 – 804 has δε after Εγω

I Cor. 9:26 – 804 has πϊκτευω instead of πυκτευω

I Cor. 9:27 – 804 has αλλ’ instead of αλλα, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 10:1 – 804 has δε, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 10:1 – 804 has ηλθον instead of διηλθον, agreeing with 1241^s

I Cor. 10:2 – 804 has εβαπτισθησαν, agreeing with NA. 

I Cor. 10:3 – 804 has an h.t. error:  the scribe’s line of sight went from the first occurrence of το αυτο to the second occurrence, skipping the intervening words.  (This indirectly supports the Byzantine reading)

Titus 2:11 – 804 has η σριος, agreeing with Byz

Titus 2:13 – 804 has πρς instead of σωτηρος

Titus 2:13 – 804 has Ιυ Χυ, agreeing with Byz

Titus 2:14 – 804 has εαυτον before λαον, instead of εαυτω

Titus 2:14 – 804 has καλλων instead of καλων

Titus 3:4 – 804 has φιλανια 

Titus 3:5 – 804 has ελειον, agreeing (with itacism) with Byz

Titus 3:5 – 804 has ανακενησεως instead of ανακινώσεως

Titus 3:6 – 804 has γενώμεθα instead of γενηθωμεν

Titus 3:7 (lection-segment concludes at the end of the verse)

Heb. 7:9 – 804 has επως (itacism)

Heb. 7:10 – 804 includes ὁ before Μελχισεδέκ, agreeing with Byz

Heb. 7:11 – 804 has αυτην ενομοθετήτο (agreeing with Byz, sort of)

Heb. 7:11 – 804 has χρειαν instead of χρεια

Heb. 7:11 – 804 has μη instead of ου

Heb. 7:14 – 804 has ουδεν περι ερωσυνης, agreeing (essentially) with Byz

Heb. 7:17 – 804 has μαρτυρειται, agreeing with NA

Heb. 7:17 – 804 does not have οτι

Heb. 7:17 – 804 has ει before ιερευς

Heb. 2:14 – 804 has σαρκός και αιματος, agreeing with Byz

            Thus, we have here the remains of a mostly Byzantine lectionary – with a few readings that stand out:  

● The absence of ὁ Θς in Galatians 4:6 would make this reference to God less explicit.  This shorter reading is supported by B and 1739.

● φιλανια in Titus 3:4 is not exactly a textual variant; it is a seldom-seen sacred name contraction; uncontracted, the word is φιλανθρωπία.  (It is featured in the Kacmarcik Codex in a section about nomina sacra contractions.  (Dr. David Calabro tells a little more about the Kacmarcik Codex in this brief video.))

● εβαπτισθησαν in I Cor. 10:2 is supported by the formidable array of À A C D (i.e., Claromontanus, not Bezae), Ψ 33 1611 1505.  Yet the usual Byzantine reading, ἐβαπτίσαντο, is supported (with a slight spelling difference) by Papyrus 46 B K et al.  The Tyndale House GNT adopts ἐβαπτίσαντο here, in agreement with a note added by Bruce Metzger in his Textual Commentary, which would mean that those who crossed the Red Sea baptized themselves.

● ημων in Galatians 4:6 causes the sentence to refer to our hearts, rather than your hearts.  

● The sacred-name contraction πρς in Titus 2:13 is weird:  uncontracted, this would be Πατρος, “Father” – which does not work very well with Granville Sharp’s Rule in play; a reader of such a sentence might conclude that Paul mean that our God and Father = Jesus Christ.  But this would not be the only instance of a copyist writing the wrong sacred-name contraction.   

● μαρτυρειται in Hebrews 7;17 – The Byzantine reading μαρτυρει might have originated in a parableptic error in which the final syllable -ται was accidentally skipped.

● ει before ιερευς is not adopted in Hebrews 7:17 in the Nestle-Aland compilation, the Byzantine Text, the Textus Receptus, Pickering’s f35 archetype, or the Tyndale House GNT.  Yet a case could be made for its genuineness:  scribes might naturally insert the equivalent of “are” here, but scribes might just as naturally conform the quotation to the Greek text of Psalm 110 (Psalm 109:4 in the Septuagint) that is being quoted – or omit it accidentally.  The inclusion of ει has early and diverse support from Papyrus 46, K, 1175, and 1739.  

This data should augment and clarify the Informational Document for GA 804 at CSNTM which was drawn up by Daniel B. Wallace.  In addition, the statement “238b–239b: PA; πν is written vertically in red letters between 7.52 and 7.53” should be corrected:  those red letters are not πν; they are υπ, and they are part of the lectionary marginalia instructing the lector to jump (υπερβαλε) ahead to 8:12, where one sees in the margin the instructions for the lector to resume (αρξου).

I do not know if this lectionary has received its own official identification-number.  Perhaps such a step should be delayed until a careful investigation can be made to see if these pages are part of a lectionary which already has an identification-number.

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

I also invite you to read and contemplate some of the Scriptures in these pages – First Corinthians 10:1-3, Galatians 4:4-7, Titus 2:11-14, Titus 3:5-7, Hebrews 2:11-18 – as you celebrate the coming new year 2020!

A Surprise in Athens

            In 2015-2016, a team of researchers from the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts visited the National Library of Greece and brought to light 21 manuscripts in the collection there in Athens.  One of them – Lectionary 2012 – has not gotten very much attention,  That is unfortunate, considering that of all the manuscripts that CSNTM’s research has brought to the attention of the Institute for New Testament Research, this is one of the oldest.

            This sheet of parchment, glued to the cover of another, later lectionary, is from an uncial Gospels-lectionary that was probably produced in the 900s.  The reverse side cannot presently be viewed, since it is glued down.  On the side that is viewable, portions of two pages (on a single parchment sheet) with text can be seen.  

            If we look at the manuscript and begin to read the third column (to the right of where the sheet was once vertically folded), we encounter text from Matthew 27:6, beginning with εξεστιν at the end of the first tattered line, followed by βαλειν αυτὰ on the next line.  The text of this column continues to the beginning of Matthew 27:9, where διὰ Ιερεμίου is the last line of the column. 

            Shifting our focus to the first column of the manuscript (first, that is, in its present glued-down state), we see text from Matthew 27:53, beginning with –λθον at the end of the tattered upper edge of the parchment.  The text continues to the end of Matthew 27:54, and then – in the same line on which Mt. 27:54 ends – the text switches immediately to the beginning of John 19:31 with οι ουν Ιουδαιοι, continuing to the words τω σαβββάτῳ which constitute the last line of the column.  At the top of the second column, the first extant line is Πιλάτον ινα.  The middle of John 19:31 occupied the non-extant portion of the column (the descender of the ρ in ηρώτησαν has survived).  The text continues to the first part of John 19:34; the last line is αλλ’ εις των στρα–.    

            Thus, in this single-sheet manuscript fragment, we have (1) Matthew’s account of the purchase of the Field of Blood, (2) Matthew’s account of the centurion’s confession, “Truly this was the Son of God,” and (3) John’s report that when the soldiers came to Jesus to break His legs, they found Him already dead.  

            Here is a complete transcript, column by column, along with a more or less line-by-line English translation.  Bracketed letters in the transcription are not visible in the photographs.  Red letters are variations from the text of the passage as found in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform.  Red crosses are features of the manuscript.

Lectionary 2012, in English.

Matthew 27:6-9a:

            [ε]ξεστ[ιν]

  βαλ[ε]ιν αυτα ·

  εις τον κορβαν[αν]

  επει τιμη αί

  ματος εστιν +

συμβούλιον δ[ε]

  λαβόντες η[γό]

  ρασαν εξ αυτ[ων]

  τον αγρον του

  κεραμέως · εις τα

  φην τοις ξένοι[ς]

  διο εκλήθη · ο α

  γρος εκεινος · α

  γρος αιματος ·

  εως της σήμερ[ον]

  τοτε επληρώ

  θη τω ρηθεν

  δια Ϊερεμίου

Matthew 27:53b-54 + John 19:31a:

                    –ηλθον

  εις τὴν αγίαν πό

  λην καὶ ενεφα

  νησθησαν πολλοις +

Ο δε εκατόνταρ

  χος και οι μετ’ αυ

  του · τηρουντες

  τον Ιν · ϊδοντες 

  τον σεισμον και

  τα γενόμενα ·

  εφοβήθησαν σφό

  δρα + λέγοντες ·  

  αληθως Θυ Υς ην

  ουτος + οι ουν Ϊου

  δαιοι · ϊνα μὴ μεί

  νη επι του στρου ·

  τα σώματα εν

  τω σαββάτω ·

John 19:31c-34a:

  Πιλάτον ίνα

  κατεαγωσιν αυ

  των τὰ σκέλει

  και αρθωσιν +

  ηλθον ουν οι στρα

  τιωται + και του

  μεν πρώτου

  κατέαξαν τὰ

  σκέλει καὶ του

  αλλου του συσταυ

  ρωθέν τος αυ

  τω + επι δε τὸν

  Ιν ελθόντες ως

  ειδον αυτον η

  δη τεθνηκότα

  ου κατέαξαν αυ

  του τὰ σκέλη +

  αλλ’ εις των στρα

         
            The extant text of this fragment differs from the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform only in matters of spelling; for all practical purposes, the two are identical.  This leads me to suspect that the writers who are responsible for spreading the claim that “No two New Testament manuscripts have the same text” have not examined very many fragmentary lectionaries.

            It would be interesting to examine this fragment with Multi-Spectral Imaging at the National Library of Greece (where it is kept as Collection-item 2460 ) to see the text on the other side.  It is interesting to see how this lection combined text from Matthew and John; perhaps a closer analysis of this kind of Good Friday lectionary-cycle could explain why the Alexandrian Text (in some of what are often called the “oldest and best” manuscripts) has a reading that resembles John 19:34 after  Matthew 27:49. 

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

What Darkened Sinaiticus?

Last year, I wrote a three-part series of posts refuting a conspiracy-claim to the effect that the famous Codex Sinaiticus is a forgery made in the 1800s.  Alas, the conspiracy theorists – particularly David W. Daniels of Chick Publications, assisted by Steven Avery – have continued to promote their theory that a man named Constantine Simonides produced the manuscript in his youth. 

Lately their website has focused on a particular question about the difference between the photographs of the portion of Codex Sinaiticus that is housed at the University of Leipzig and the portions that are housed elsewhere (mainly at the British Library, and at Saint Catherine’s Monastery):  “Why,” they ask, “are the CFA pages in Leipzig University Library white, while the remainder of the pages, described in 1845 as “white”, are stained and yellowed with age?” – the insinuation being that Constantine Tischendorf (who took most of the manuscript from Saint Catherine’s monastery during visits to Saint Catherine’s monastery in 1844 and 1859) artificially colored the second batch of pages, in an attempt to make them look ancient.  “Sinaiticus is clearly a fake,” Daniels states about Codex Sinaiticus in his book, Is the World’s Oldest Bible a Fake?, and “It is not an ancient manuscript at all.”  

The real Bible, Daniels affirms, is the King James Bible.  Much of his book has nothing to do with Codex Sinaiticus and is a presentation of KJV-Onlyist propaganda, which I shall not address here.  Instead, I shall consider today a question which Daniels raised repeatedly:  why are the pages from the first collection of pages that Tischendorf obtained in 1844 (the “Codex Frederico-Augustanus” pages housed at the University of Leipzig, in Germany) lighter in color than the rest of the pages?

Jacob W. Peterson, with a book-cradle
for manuscript photography.

            This issue about the color of the parchment seems to have been a sort of spark to Daniels’ investigations.  In his book, he describes an experience he had:  “I prayed and asked God, ‘What question should I ask?” And I heard “What color is it?”  And that was the beginning of all that you are about to read.  Please, check the facts all you want.”

            Okay.  Let’s check the facts.  To test Daniels’ claim that “someone darkened Sinaiticus,” I’ve consulted Jacob W. Peterson, a photography-specialist at the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts who has worked with almost 500 New Testament manuscripts and prepared thousands of photographs of manuscripts for CSNTM.  Here’s the conversation we had about the differences in the photographs of the different portions of Codex Sinaiticus:

Q:  Jacob, the photographs of the pages of Codex Sinaiticus at Leipzig clearly have a lighter tone than the photographs of the pages of Codex Sinaiticus at the British Library.  How do you account for this?

Peterson:  There are two explanations for what is going on here between the parts of the manuscript in the two collections and their online presentation. As that sentence hints at, these differences are part actual and part visual effect. As to the actual difference, there are undoubtedly differences in the storage conditions of these two sections of the manuscripts that likely led to some of the color difference.

For instance, you can look at other portions of the Codex Sinaiticus that are currently housed at St. Catherine’s that share the same color qualities of the London leaves.  They are just as dark, if not slightly darker.  It should be obvious that the manner in which a manuscript is stored can, and does, have an effect on its color and condition. The visual effect on the images is immediately recognizable for anyone who has worked in digital reproduction and with manuscripts in particular.

We’ll get into some of the finer details in a bit, but as an introduction, the color balance for the images appears to be off and my suspicion is that the lighting in the room had adverse effects on the resulting images. What this means is that the photographs of the Leipzig portion are not entirely accurate representations of the real leaves. Storage has definitely played a role.  I’m not saying that the leaves are actually dirty brown, but rather that the leaves are not greyish-white.

 

Same page.  Different lighting.

Q:  Here you have supplied, as an example of the effect of subtle environmental factors, two photographs of the same manuscript page. One image looks darker than the other. Did you apply lemon juice or tea to the manuscript-page before you took the second photo, or is there some other explanation?

Peterson:  Haha, no. This is a great example of how digital photography is not as simple as pointing a camera at an object, pressing a button, and out pops a perfect reproduction of the object. These images were taken about 15 minutes apart. If I remember the day correctly, we had just bought new cameras and were trying them out. We were working in a room with yellowish walls and the color would not come out correctly no matter how hard we tried. We moved the manuscript over to another room, where the walls were white, and the image was much better. So we brought the manuscript back to the main room, turned off the overhead lights, and only used the lights on our digitization stand. The correctly colored image on the left was the result. The implication is that the overhead lights were causing enough reflection off the walls to affect the color-tones in the photograph. When possible, we now use only the lighting attached to our equipment, which is designed to emit both warm and cool tones to provide as neutral lighting as possible.

Q:  When you compared the colors of the photographs of different parts of Codex Sinaiticus, what did you observe, and what does that imply about the environments in which the photographs were taken?

Peterson:  The portion of the manuscript housed in London features the typical slight variations one would expect in a manuscript. Some pages are slightly lighter, and some are darker. This is due to which side of the parchment you’re looking at (hair or flesh) and several other factors, like different kinds of animals used as sources of parchment.

The leaves at Leipzig, on the other hand, are a consistent off-white, which I would describe as having a cool-grey tone. There are a couple of problems with this:  (1) Leaves should have a little more variation than we see here due to the factors just mentioned, and (2) Manuscripts typically don’t have a cool-grey tone. Most manuscripts I’ve seen shade toward warm-yellow tones since this is more or less the default starting tone for parchment. If I were of the conspiracy mindset and knew that the images were accurate, I would actually be more inclined to think the Leipzig leaves were bleached to make them look newer. The situation would be comparable to the guys who polish the patina off of old guns to make them appear to be in better condition, but in doing so ruin their value. But I digress.

Q:  When you compare the color-charts that accompany the pages at Leipzig to the color-charts that accompany the pages at London, do you notice any difference?

Peterson:  There are immediately recognizable differences. The color chart in the London images is visually much closer to what I would expect. The color variations between the patches are clear and sharp. There’s no mistaking the magenta for a slightly different red. Similarly, the gradient of the greyscale proceeds nicely and evenly with differences between the sections noticeable at every point.

The Leipzig color charts unfortunately have some problems. The magenta and the purple patches are clearly not correct. At times the magenta is barely distinguishable from the red and the purple almost looks black. The grey and black patches are also barely distinguishable. Similarly, the greyscale portion of the chart has barely distinguishable sections on the black end and the middle grey color ends up being in the upper third of the chart rather than in the middle. To these color differences can also be added the background color for the images. I do not know for certain that they used the same board or material, but it looks that way and would be a sensible protocol. Yet, the background color does not match in the images across locations.

Q:  Does this mean that someone has been darkening the color-charts, along with the parchment, using lemon-juice or some special chemical agent?

Peterson:  Definitely not.

Q:  What, then, does it mean?

Peterson:  There are perfectly normal explanations for everything involved. Again, I think the storage conditions make up a significant portion of the differences, but the imaging has really altered our perception of the manuscript’s color.  At the NT Textual Criticism discussion-group on Facebook, I offered the possible explanation that the Leipzig portion was photographed under particularly cool lights (in the 6500K range). This would have given everything a cool-grey appearance so that what the photographers were seeing in the images was accurate to what they were seeing with their eyes. It would be like the difference between seeing things by the light of old yellow-tinted headlights versus new blue-tinted halogen headlights. The tone of the light you are using drastically influences your perception of the objects you’re looking at.

In such a scenario, the Leipzig crew did nothing blameworthy, and unfortunately their photographs were negatively affected by the lights of the room they were given to work in. Photographing manuscripts is not an easy task and there are so many variables, often out of your control, that can really affect the end product. My job is to critique photographs of manuscripts and you can ask teams working under me how much of a stickler I can be about getting things right. We have a shooting standard called “practical perfection” because we know that perfection is unattainable and sometimes there’s just nothing you can do or the equipment just won’t adjust quite right. At the end of the day, the Sinaiticus images are perfectly usable and I’d never advocate for re-imaging them because the minimal returns that would result would not be worth the risk of damaging the manuscript.

Q:  So, which possibility seems more likely to you: that Constantine Tischendorf deliberately darkened 347 pages of parchment, or that the photographs taken of the pages at Leipzig were taken under conditions that caused the parchment to look lighter than it actually is?

Peterson:  I definitely think the Leipzig leaves are artificially lighter in the images than in reality.  I made a technical measurement of the lightness value of the white square in the color target in one of the images at Leipzig, and it was 99, which is impossible given the type of target used and in comparison to the 95 value seen in the images at London.  This means that the image from Leipzig is washed out.  At minimum, it has what is technically called a Δ4 change.

Q:  Could you explain in a little more detail what is wrong with the approach being used by David Daniels?

Peterson:  The individuals who are claiming that Sinaiticus is a forgery are focusing on the HCL color values that were assigned to the images.  There is, no doubt, some objectivity and subjectivity to the process of assigning HCL color values when this is done without a spectrometer and averaging software.  Nevertheless, they provide a much better picture of the real color since they were done with the actual manuscript at hand. The conspiracy theorists have said the following about the color of the pages at Leipzig: 

“The colour of the CFA pages housed in Leipzig are consistently characterized by the CSP as S 1005-Y20R, while the leaves housed at the British Library are more variable.  They tend toward a NCS number of S 1010-Y or S1010-Y10R but vary all the way from S 1005-Y20R to S 1515-Y10R.”

They then offer this image [shown to right] as a sample of these NCS values.  You would have to be imbibing severe amounts of alcohol to think three of those colors even remotely describe Codex Sinaiticus. The GitHub generator they’ve used to convert the NCS code into RGB has serious deficiencies. If I had to guess, the code has inverted the yellow-red values. The S 1515-Y10R looks rather like actual NCS color S 1515-Y90R (As an aside, not recognizing such an issue casts strong doubt on SART’s description of Mark Michie as a “colour engineer expert”). Rather than using a second-hand generator, you are free to use the generator provided by the organization that came up with the NCS.

            Regarding the claims about supposedly radical differences in page color, let’s just say I am less than impressed.  I don’t have an explanation for why in Leipzig they seemed to have gone with a single descriptor code.  Perhaps they wanted to be a bit more specific with the larger sample size of leaves in London. Perhaps the Leipzig leaves are more uniform. Again, storage conditions perfectly explain the latter option if that’s the case.  Regardless of which of these is true, it is demonstrably untrue that the leaves in Leipzig are the cool-grey color that is shown in the digital images.  It is demonstrably untrue that those leaves are drastically different from those in London. The Leipzig leaves in actuality have a slight yellow tint that is exactly the same as, or very near to, the tint of some leaves in London.

Q:  So, how – with a minimum of jargon – would you answer David Daniels’ question, “Who darkened Sinaiticus?”

Peterson:  The natural passage of time, with possibly a little help from the British climate.  The options are to trust either (1) color science as demonstrated by L*A*B* and NCS color schemes, the physical assessment of the manuscript by a team of scholars, and my experience digitizing manuscripts or (2) A theologically motivated group who have never, to my knowledge, photographed, handled, worked with, or seen a manuscript except for perhaps in a museum display.

TTotG:  Thanks, Jacob.  I remind our readers that in addition to this explanation of the color-differences as basically a phantom-difference caused by different cameras’ environments, 20 more reasons why Codex Sinaiticus is not a forgery are listed in my earlier posts Ten Reasons Why Sinaiticus Was Not Made by Simonides and Ten More Reasons Why Sinaiticus Was Not Made by Simonides.  I would also like to draw reader’s attention to a 21st reason:   a newspaper report (mentioned by Dr. Tommy Wasserman in a comment in 2017) announcing that a fragment from Codex Sinaiticus (with text from Joshua 1) was discovered by researcher Nicholas Sarris in a book-binding from the 1700s.   

Fact-checking Wallace: GA 2346, 2812, and 137

            In two earlier posts, we saw that minuscules 138, 264, 1221 do not contain an asterisk at Mark 16:9 to convey scribal doubt about Mark 16:9-20, contrary to a claim spread by Daniel Wallace.  Another manuscript which Wallace says has an asterisk accompanying Mark 16:9-20 is GA 2346.  For some time, digital photographs of 2346 have been available to view at the website of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.  Mark 16:9 is on Image #376264.

GA 2346:  Mark 16:9 begins in
the ninth line of Scripture-text. 

            David Hester offered an analysis of the evidence in 2346 in his 2015 book Does Mark 16:9-20 Belong in the New Testament?, observing what you, too, can plainly see by consulting the photographs at CSNTM:  there is no asterisk in 2346 accompanying Mark 16:9-20.  Instead, there is a dot-lozenge between Mark 16:8 and 16:9, and in the left side-margin nearby are the symbols (τελος for “stop” and αρχη for “start”) which typically signify the beginnings and ends of lections.  At the top of the page, the rubric for the third Heothinon appears – “The third resurrection-gospel,” along with the incipit-phrase to be used by the lector when reading Mark 16:9 – “When Jesus rose early.” 

            The lack of an asterisk accompanying Mark 16:9 in 2346, and the presence of ordinary lectionary-related features in 2346, are just as obvious when consulting the reproduction of the relevant page in 2346 in the 1918 volume The Gospel Manuscripts of the General Theological Seminary (reproduced here, digitally enhanced). 

            If anyone still imagines that the dot-lozenge after Mark 16:8 in 2346 is not part of the lectionary-apparatus, let his doubts be dissolved via a consultation of

            ● the twelfth line of text in CSNTM Image 376496, where a dot-lozenge accompanies the beginning of John 1:43 (with τελος and αρχη in the margin),

            ● the ninth line of text in CSNTM Image 376499, where a dot-lozenge accompanies the beginning of John 2:12 (with τελος and αρχη in the margins), and   

            ● the first line of CSNTM Image 376511 – where a dot-lozenge accompanies the beginning of John 4:5, which is the beginning of chapter 5, the rubric of which appears at the top of the page, along with its incipit.

The next manuscript which Wallace claims to have an asterisk accompanying Mark 16:9-20 is GA 2812.  I described the relevant features of this manuscript in 2016, in the post Whatever Happened to the Zelada Gospels.  As I pointed out at the time, the Gospels-text in 2812 is accompanied in the margins by the Catena in Marcum (attributed in this case to Peter of Laodicea instead of Victor of Antioch).  A comet-symbol appears next to Mark 16:9, serving the same purpose as a footnote-number; in this case the symbol was intended to draw the reader’s attention to the note which accompanies the same symbol in the margin next to the end of Mark 16:20.  (The comet-symbol also appears at the foot of the page, probably to help guide readers to the next page to find the note about the marked passage on the preceding page.)  There we find the same part of the Catena in Marcum (already encountered in GA 138) that begins with Παρὰ πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται, and proceeds to advocate the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20, mentioning the presence of verses 9-20 in many accurate manuscripts, including the trustworthy Palestinian exemplar. 

For convenience I present here the Greek text of the note, line for line, as it is written in the margin of 2812:

Παρὰ πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ

κεῖνται ταῦτα ἐπὶφερόμενα εν τῳ

κατ[α] Μαρκον ευαγγελιῳ ὡς νόθα νομί-

σαντες αὐτά τινες εἶναι.  Ἡμεῖς δε ἐξ ἀ-

κριβῶν ἀντ[ι]γράφων ὡς ἐν πλείστοις

εὑρόντες αὐτὰ, κατ[ὰ] τὸ Παλαιστι-

ναῖον εὐαγγέλι[ον] Μάρκου ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀ-

λήθεια, συντεθείκαμ[εν] κ[αι] την ἐν

αὐτῶ ἐπὶφερομένην δεσποτικὴν

ἀνάστασιν μετὰ τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. 

Those who may want examples of the use of the comet-symbol as a mark intended to draw readers’ attention to marginalia in 2812 may consult:

The page which has Mark 6:25, where the comet-symbol appears halfway through Mark 6:25, and in the margin at the beginning of the comments about the passage,

The page on which Mark 9 begins, where the comet-symbol appears at the beginning of a note about the Transfiguration in the lower margin,

The page which has Mark 13:24, on which the comet-symbol accompanies a brief note at the foot of the page, 

A page with the chapter-list for Luke, where the comet-symbol accompanies a numeral (150) in the left margin),  

           Let’s cover GA 137 today, too.  Wallace stated, “Parker, Living Text, 127, adds 137 to this list,” that is, the list of manuscripts which, he said, have an asterisk at Mark 16:9-20 to indicate scribal doubt.  Wallace was referring to David Parker, whose description of the testimony of GA 137 and 138 in his book The Living Text of the Gospels is as concise as it is inaccurate:  “Asterisks:  137 138.” 

            Page-views of GA 137 can be viewed at the website of the Vatican Library.  Unlike the page-views of GA 138, the photographs of GA 137 are in color.  The text of Mark in GA 137 is accompanied by the Catena in Marcum; the identity of the commentary can easily be made by consulting the note at the beginning of Mark 16 and confirming that it begins with Μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἤλθεν ὁ ἄγγελος, καὶ τὸν λίθον ᾗρεν διὰ τὰς γυναῖκας, and that is how the marginalia begins at the foot of the page on page-view 309.

            (It should be noticed that the commentator, in the course of the comment on 16:1ff., utilizes Mark 16:9:  on page-view 310, beginning in the commentary that appears directly above the Scripture-text (Mark 16:3), the commentator (or the author from whom he has gotten an extract) mentions that in certain copies, the Gospel of Mark says that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene.) 

            On page-view 310, Mark 16:9 begins in the seventeenth line of text – the same line in which Mark 16:8 ends.  Between the end of verse 8 and the beginning of verse 9, written slightly above the text-line, there is a small red cross-symbol, resembling a “+” sign.  It is hard to imagine how such an ordinary symbol could ever be confused with an asterisk.  It serves the same purpose as a footnote-number, referring the reader to a note in the margin.  The note (accompanied by another red “+”) appears at the foot of the page two pages later, on page-view 312.  It is the same note – part of the Catena in Marcum – that we encountered in 138 and 2812, beginning with Παρὰ πλείστοις.    

            Thus, out of the five manuscripts which Dan Wallace described as if they have an asterisk next to Mark 16:9-20 to convey scribal doubt about the passage – 138, 264, 1221, 2346, and 2812 –  none of them really fit that description, and neither does 137.  Minuscules 137, 138 and 2812 have a note about the passage (part of the Catena in Marcum) which supports the inclusion of the passage, and 263, 1221, and 2346 have ordinary marks – not asterisks – that are part of the lectionary-apparatus, and which recur elsewhere in the manuscripts.

  

_______________

For David Parker’s statement see The Living Text of the Gospels, page 127, © David Parker 1997, published by Oxford University Press.