Hand to Hand Combat: Codex D vs 2397

GA 2397 - The end of John,
with a colophon.

            In the year 1303, a copyist named Hyacinthus finished the text of a Greek manuscript of the Gospels.  Below the closing verses of the Gospel of John, he wrote a little note which went something like this:  first, in red:  “The work is completed, glory to our God, in the year 6811 [from the beginning of the world].”  And then:  “Written by the hand of Hyacinthus, sinner and writing-specialist.   Reader, pray, and curse not by the Lord that the writer has finished.  And may the Lord save you all, brothers!  Amen and amen and amen.”   

            This volume, now known as minuscule 2397, is catalogued as manuscript 135 in the Goodspeed Manuscript Collection at the University of Chicago.  It is also known as the Hyacinthus Gospels, in honor of the copyist who wrote its text.  

            Hyacinthus was, it seems, devoutly dedicated to his work.  But how good was the accuracy of the text he wrote?  Let’s take a sample of the contents of minuscule 2397 and compare it to the contents of a much older manuscript – Codex Bezae.  Researcher Dr. David Parker has assigned Codex Bezae to “about 400.”  (Other researchers have given it a production-date a century or so younger.)

            Using John 15:1-10 as printed in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (27th edition) as the standard of comparison, let’s list all the differences between it and the text of 2397.  Then we will set aside differences that are usually considered minor – differences that involve vowel-exchanges, spelling, and word-order – and see how materially different the text of 2397 is from the base-text of English versions such as the ESV and CSB.  Then we will do the same kind of comparison, using the text of John 15:1-10 made by the copyist of Codex Bezae. 

2397:  Comparison to NA27

(Black diamonds signify readings that diverge from the Byzantine Textform)

1 – 2397 reads αληθηνη instead of αληθινη (+1, -1) ♦

1 – 2397 reads εστι instead of εστιν (-1)  ♦

2 – 2397 reads φερων instead of φερον (+1, -1) ♦

2 – 2397 transposes, reading πλειονα καρπον instead of καρπον πλειονα

2 – 2397 reads φερει instead of φερη (+2, -1) ♦

3 – no variants

4 – 2397 reads μεινη instead of μένη (+2, -1)

4 – 2397 reads μεινητε instead of μένητε (+2, -1)

5 – no variants

6 – 2397 reads reads μεινη instead of μένη (+2, -1)

6 – 2397 does not have το before πυρ (-2) ♦

6 – 2397 reads βαλλουσι instead of βαλλουσιν (-1) ♦

7 – 2397 reads αιτήσασθε instead of αιτήσεσθε (+1, -1) ♦

8 – 2397 reads γενησεσθε instead of γένησθε (+2)

9 – 2397 reads ηγάπησε instead of ηγάπησεν (-1) ♦

9 – 2397 transposes, reading ηγαπησα υμας instead of υμας ηγαπησα.

10 – no variants

            Thus, in John 15:1-10, 2397 contains 13 non-original letters, and is missing 12 original letters, for a total of 25 letters’ worth of corruption.  When all movable-nu variants and normal vowel-exchanges are removed from the equation, there are just two substantial variants in 2397:  the non-inclusion of το before πυρ in verse 6, and the reading  γενησεσθε in verse 8 (a reading supported by Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus), yielding four letters’ worth of corruption in these 10 verses. 

            Now let’s make the same kind of comparison, using Codex Bezae’s text of John 15:1-10:

Codex D:  Comparison to NA-27
(This takes into account the text made by the scribe, not corrections that were introduced later.)

1 – no variants

2 – D reads καρπο instead of καρπον (-1)

2 – D reads φορον instead of φερον (+1, -1)

2 – D reads καθαριει instead of καθαίρει (+1, -1)

2 – D transposes, reading πλειονα καρπον instead of καρπον πλειονα

3 – D omits all of verse 3, and the first part of verse 4 up to (and including) the word φέρειν.  That is, D omits ηδη υμεις καθαροί εστε δια τον λόγον ον λελάληκα υμιν· μείνατε εν εμοι, καγω εν υμιν. Καθως το κλημα ου δύναται καρπον φέρειν (-100)

4 – D reads μεινη instead of μένη (+1)

4 – D reads μεινητε instead of μένητε (+1)

5 – D reads γαρ after εγω (+3)

5 – D does not have εν before εμοι (-2)

6 – D reads δυνασθα instead of δυνασθε (+1, -1)

6 – D does not have ουδεν at the end of the verse (-5)

6 – D reads αυτο instead of αυτα (+1, -1)

6 – D does not have το before πυρ (-2)

6 – D reads καιετε instead of καιεται (+1, -2)

7 – D reads δε after εαν (+2)

7 – D reads υμειν instead of υμιν (+1)

8 – D reads αιτησασθαι instead of αιτησασθε (+2, -1)

8 – D does not have υμιν at the end of the verse (-4)

8 – D transposes, reading πολυν καρπον instead of καρπον πολυν

8 – D reads γένησθαι instead of γένησθε (+2, -1)

8 – D reads μου instead of εμοι (+1, -2)

9 – no variants

10 – D reads καγω instead of εγω (+2, -1)

            Codex Bezae thus has 18 non-original letters in John 15:1-10, and is missing 124 original letters, for a total of 142 letters’ worth of corruption.  When all movable-nu variants and normal vowel-exchanges are removed from the equation, Codex D has 7 non-original letters in this passage, and is missing 113 letters, for a total of 120 letters’ worth of corruption. 

            So, setting the results side by side:  if we didn’t filter the variants at all, 2397 would have a total of 25 letters’ worth of corruption, compared to 142 letters’ worth of corruption in the text written by the copyist of Codex Bezae.  If normal vowel-exchanges, transpositions, and minor spelling differences in both manuscripts are set aside, then 2397 detours from the Nestle-Aland compilation’s text of John 15:1-10 at just two points, yielding four letters’ worth of corruption.  Using the same approach, Codex Bezae has 120 letters’ worth of corruption in these ten verses.  

            Now, let’s consider the reliability of the transmission-streams of these two manuscripts.  Minuscule 2397 was produced in 1303, according to its colophon.  That means that, reckoning that the Gospel of John was written in A.D. 90, 1,213 years separate the autograph from this copy.  Using raw data, the copyists in the transmission-line of the Hyacinthus Gospels contributed one letter of corruption (either adding a non-original letter, or removing an original letter) per 10 verses once every 48.5 years.  Using filtered data (i.e., without considering benign, normal vowel-exchanges, movable-nu, and similar variants), the copyists in the transmission-line of the Hyacinthus Gospels contributed one letter of corruption (either adding a non-original letter, or removing an original letter) per 10 verses once every 303 years.

            Meanwhile, if we assign a production-date of A.D. 500 to Codex Bezae, this would mean that 410 years separate the autograph from this copy.  Using raw data, the copyists in the transmission-line of Codex Bezae contributed one letter of corruption (either adding a non-original letter, or removing an original letter) per 10 verses about once every three years.  Using filtered data, the copyists in the transmission-line of Codex Bezae contributed one letter of corruption (either adding a non-original letter, or removing an original letter) per 10 verses once every 3.4 years. 

            These results show that no matter how one filters the data, the text of John 15:1-10 in Codex Hyacinthus is over six times more accurate than the text that came from the hand of the copyist of Codex Bezae.  These results (based, admittedly, on one sample passage) also indicate that the copyists in the transmission-stream of the Hyacinthus Gospels – a Byzantine transmission-stream – were about twenty times better at copying the Greek text than the copyists in Codex Bezae’s Western transmission-stream.  I note in closing that if the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Text had been used as the standard of comparison instead of the Nestle-Aland compilation, the results would favor the Hyacinthus Gospels even more heavily.

[Readers are welcome to double-check the data and calculations in this post.]

Codex Laudianus, GA 45, GA 46, GA 57, and Friends

The Gatehouse at the
Bodleian Library.

            Sir Thomas Bodley (1535-1613) was the namesake of the second-largest library in Great Britain:  the Bodleian Library, on the campus of Oxford University.  This is the Hotel California of libraries; once a book enters the Bodleian Library, it can never leave.  The library currently contains over 12 million books, plus hundreds of pictures, sculptures, coins, and one stuffed crocodile. 

            It is also home to many Greek manuscripts – mostly ancient classical works – including some Greek New Testament manuscripts.

            Codex Laudianus (E^a, 08) is the most important Greek New Testament manuscript in the Bodleian Library.  It is a manuscript of the book of Acts, probably from the 500s, written in matching columns of Latin and Greek on each page.  This manuscript was donated by Archbishop William Laud.  It was used in Sardinia (where someone wrote a note on it, mentioning the location), and later, after being taken to England, it was used in the early 700s by the notable historian, theologian, and translator known as the Venerable Bede, who mentioned many of its unusual readings, including downright unique readings in Acts 4:10, 5:30, and 7:16. 

            Codex Laudianus is the earliest extant Greek manuscript that contains Acts 8:37, on fol. 70v, (although the verse was used in the 180’s by Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3:12:8, by Cyprian in the mid-200s in Testimonies 3:12:43, by Augustine in Sermon 49:11, and by some other patristic writers, and is found in the Coptic Glazier Codex (G67)).  Textual critic David C. Parker has commented on some corrections in this manuscript.

Two other Greek manuscripts housed at the Bodleian Library are online:

            MS Barocci 31 is GA 45, a fairly ornate manuscript of the Gospels (with portraits of the Evangelists) from the late 1200s.

            Matthew (Image 21, fol 7r)

            Mark (Image 245, fol. 119r)

            Luke (Image 389, fol. 191r)

            John (Image 635, fol. 314r)

            MS Barocci 29 is GA 46, which has been assigned to a wide variety of production-dates; the current guess is to the early 1300s. 

            Matthew (Image 63, fol. 31r)

            Mark (Image 239, fol. 118r)

            Luke (Image 359, fol. 177r)

            John (Image 563, fol. 277r)

            The Bodleian Library houses several New Testament uncials – including Codex Γ (036), known as Codex Tischendorfianus IV, and Codex Λ (039), known as Codex Tischendorfianus III, and 0134 (Selden Supra 2, fol. 177-178) (text from Mark 3 and 5) – and over thirty minuscules (including GA 47, 557, and 558).  A lectionary is also online at the Bodleian’s website:  MS Barocci 197, a palimpsest.

            Some important versional manuscripts are also kept at the Bodleian Library, including the MacRegol Gospels, also called the Book of Birr (A replica of this manuscript is in the library of Birr, Ireland).

           

             Nearby at Magdalen College, Magdalen College MS 9 is GA 57, a Greek manuscript from the late 1100s which contains every book of the New Testament except Revelation.  Here is a basic index of GA 57:   

            Matthew (Image 10, fol. 3r)

            Mark 1:11 (Image 74, fol. 35r)  (The first page of Mark is missing, but you can see traces of the imprint left by the initial “A” of Mark 1:1 in the margin on this page.  Ultraviolet light might reveal more.)

            Luke (Image 116, fol. 56r ) 

            John (Image 187, fol. 91v)

            Acts (Image 236, fol. 116r)

            James (Image 303, fol. 149v)

            First Peter (Image 310, fol. 153r)

            Second Peter (Image 317, fol. 156v)

            First John (Image 322, fol. 159r)
            Second John (Image 329, fol. 162v)

            Third John (Image 331, fol. 163v)

            Jude (Image 333, fol. 164v) 

            Romans (Image 335, fol. 165v)

            First Corinthians (Image 359, fol. 177v)

            Second Corinthians (Image 382, fol. 188r)

            Galatians (Image 398, fol. 196r)

            Ephesians (Image 406, fol. 200r)

            Philippians (Image 414, fol. 204r)

            Colossians (Image 420, fol. 207r)

            First Thessalonians (Image 426, fol. 210r)

            Second Thessalonians (Image 432, fol. 213r)

            First Timothy (Image 436, fol. 215r)

            Second Timothy (Image 442, fol. 218r)

            Titus (Image 447, fol. 220v)

            Philemon (Image 450, fol. 222r)

            Hebrews (Image 452, fol. 223r)

            Psalms (Image 470, fol. 232r)

            This manuscript received some attention from Orlando Dobbin in his 1854 book about Codex Montfortianus on page 29; Dobbin noted that it supports “Lord and God” in Acts 20:28, “God was manifested” in First Timothy 3:16, and the non-inclusion of the Comma Johanneum in First John 5:7.  Another presentation of GA 57 is online, with thumbnail-pageviews.

            Magdalen College is also home to Magdalen College MS Greek 7 (part of GA 1907) – a copy of Romans and First Corinthians.

            Perhaps the most famous New Testament manuscript on the premises of Magdalen College is Magdalen College MS Greek 17, better known as Papyrus 64, which consists of small fragments with text from Matthew 26.  The late Carsten Peter Thiede proposed that these fragments were extremely early – from the first century!  He also claimed that a few manuscript-fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls were the remains of New Testament texts.  The evidence for his position has been called into question by other researchers; nevertheless Papyrus 64 is unquestionably the earliest Greek manuscript of the text that it contains.  Stay tuned for a post focused on Papyrus 64, Papyrus 67, and Papyrus 4.

            Earlier this year, A Catalogue of Greek Manuscripts of Magdalen College, Oxford was released.  Readers who are curious about the diverse Greek manuscripts housed at Magdalen College may wish to obtain a copy.

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.

Fact-checking Wallace: GA 264 and 1221

            In the previous post, we saw that although Daniel Wallace has claimed (in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark:  4 Views, published by Broadman & Holman) that five manuscripts – minuscules 138, 264, 1221, 2346, and 2812 – contain a simple asterisk alongside Mark 16:9-20 to convey scribal doubt about the passage, 138 contains a note – part of the Catena in Marcum – that affirms the legitimacy of the passage, and the asterisk it displays is merely a marker for the unnumbered section of text that begins at verse 9.  We also saw that 138 contains diple-marks – marks intended to convey that the text they accompany are Scripture – alongside Mark 16:9-20.

            Today, let’s take a look at the next two manuscripts in Dr. Wallace’s list of manuscripts which, he claims, contain a simple asterisk next to Mark 16:9-20 to convey scribal doubt:  264 and 1221.  

             Page-views of GA 264 can be accessed at the Gallica website; it is at the Bibliothèque nationale de France and is catalogued as Greek MS #65. 

            Alongside Mark 16:9 (on fol. 127, numbered on the page as 117), there is an asterisk, sure enough.  There is also a rubric at the top of the page (accompanied by a dot-lozenge), stating that the fourth [sic] Gospel-reading for the morning (an alternative way of referring to the Heothina-series) is on the page.  The asterisk appears at the beginning of the lection identified in the rubric. 

            Similarly, when we turn in 264 to the page that contains Mark 11:12, there is a rubric at the top of the page, consisting of the title for the thirty-third chapter of the book – “About the Withered Fig Tree.”  And, in the outer margin of the page next to the beginning of the thirty-third chapter (i.e., Mark 11:12), there is an asterisk.

            Similarly, when we turn in 264 to the page that contains Luke 18:2, there is a rubric at the top of the page, beginning with the title for the sixty-first chapter of the book – “The Unjust Judge.”  And in the outer margin of the page next to the beginning of the sixty-first chapter of the book (i.e., Luke 18:2), there is an asterisk.

            Similarly, when we turn in 264 to the page that contains Luke 19:29, there is a rubric at the top of the page, consisting of the title for the sixty-eighth chapter of the book – “The Colt.”  And in the outer margin of the page next to the beginning of the sixth-eighth chapter of the book (i.e., Luke 19:29), there is an asterisk.

            Similarly, when we turn in 264 to the page that contains Mark 14:12, there is a rubric at the top of the page, beginning with the title for the forty-fifth chapter of the book – “The Passover.”  And in the outer margin of the page next to the beginning of the forty-fifty chapter (i.e., Mark 14:12), there is an asterisk.

            I leave it to my readers to discern whether these asterisks were (a) intended to convey doubt about the genuineness of Mark 16:9, and Mark 11:12, and Mark 14:12, and Luke 18:2, and Luke 19:29, or (b) part of the lectionary apparatus, intended to show the lector the beginning of the section which was mentioned in the rubric at the top of the page.

 Page-view 111
of Minuscule 1221

            What about GA 1221?  This manuscript is in the library at St. Catherine’s Monastery near Mount Sinai, catalogued as Greek manuscript #184.  Its online page-views at the Library of Congress’ website, though black and white, are crisp and clear. 

            Even if only the portion of 1221 that contains the Gospel of Matthew had survived, we could reasonably deduce that when this manuscript was pristine, it contained Mark 16:9-20, because in the upper margin of the last page of Matthew, there is a rubric for the first selection in the Heothina-series of eleven readings about the resurrection – the third of which is Mark 16:9-20.  A manuscript with any part of the series denoted would have the rest as well.  But no deduction is needed, because the beginning of Mark 16:9 is plainly displayed on page-view 111. 

            There is no asterisk accompanying Mark 16:9-20 in GA 1221.  At the top of the page, there is the rubric for the third Heothinon, along with its incipit:  “The third reading about the resurrection – ‘At that time, Jesus rose from the dead early.’”  At the beginning of the lection named in the rubric, we find a dot-lozenge.  In addition, on each side of the dot-lozenge, there is the τελος-symbol signifying the end of the preceding lection, and the αρχη-symbol signifying the lection’s beginning. 

            Other such uses of the dot-lozenge can be found in 1221 at the following places; you can consult the pictures of the pages with these passages by following the embedded links:

                        ● Before Mark 2:13 (the beginning of chapter 6, for which the rubric appears in the lower margin),

Close-up:  a dot-lozenge
separates Mk. 16:8 and 16:9 in 1221,
between "stop" and "start" symbols.

                        ● Halfway through Mark 5:24 (the beginning of chapter 13, for which the rubric appears in the lower margin),

                        ● Halfway through Mark 6:7 (the beginning of chapter 14, for which the rubric appears in the upper margin).  

                        ● In Luke 1:24,

                        ● Before Luke 1:26 (which is especially notable because the τελος-symbol and  αρχη-symbol appear here the same way they appear between Mark 16:8 and 16:9),

                        ● Before Luke 1:57,

                        ● At the beginning of Luke 2:1 (the beginning of chapter 1, for which the rubric appears in the upper margin),

                        ● At the beginning of Luke 2:21,

                        ● Halfway through Luke 2:22,

A dot-lozenge separates
Luke 1:25 and 1:26 in 1221,
between "stop" and "start" symbols. 

                        ● At the beginning of Luke 2:42 (where, again the dot-lozenge is bracketed by a τελος-symbol and  αρχη-symbol – and then appears another, smaller dot-lozenge), and 

                        ● At the beginning of Luke 3:1 (the beginning of chapter 5, for which the rubric appears in the lower margin).

            Obviously, the dot-lozenge in 1221 between Mark 16:8 and 16:9 is not an asterisk, any more than the other dot-lozenges are – and, like the others, it has nothing to do with expressing scribal doubt. 

            Next:  Fact-checking Wallace about GA 2346, 2812, and 137.

Fact-checking Wallace: GA 138

            “Second, the scribe might simply place an asterisk or obelisk in the margin, indicating doubt about these verses.  Such a symbol is found in at least five manuscripts.”  So goes a claim made by Daniel Wallace in his chapter of Perspectives on the Ending of Mark:  4 Views.  Wallace was describing two ways in which “some doubts about the authenticity of the LE” [“LE” meaning Mark 16:9-20, the Longer Ending] are indicated by copyists – the first way being the inclusion of a note.  

            Wallace’s statement runs parallel to a claim popularized by the late Bruce Metzger in his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament:  “Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that the older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.”

            Metzger’s vagueness is remarkably unhelpful; the members of the jury are left to wonder about how many manuscripts constitute “not a few,” and the little detail about the identity of those “other witnesses” – manuscripts without notes, but with asterisks or obeli – is not provided.

            Dr. Wallace, however, gave specifics:  in a footnote, Wallace listed the five manuscripts to which he referred:  “MSS 138, 264, 1221, 2346, and 2812, listed on 407 in Markusevangelium, ANTF 27.  Parker, Living Text, 127, adds 137 to this list.”

            With the addition of minuscule 137, the list of manuscripts which are claimed to have a simple asterisk accompanying Mark 16:9-20 to express scribal doubt about the passage reaches a total of six.  Page-views of all six of these manuscripts are online.  Let’s have a look!  Today we will consider the first manuscript in the list, GA 138.

Use this embedded link
to see the page-view with
Mark 16:9 in GA 138
at the Vatican Library.

            GA 138 is at the Vatican Library, catalogued as Vat. Gr. 757.  It is a commentary-manuscript in which the text is written segment by segment, with the commentary interspersed between segments of text.  The text of chapter 16 of Mark begins on page-view 156, where 16:1-5 is presented as a segment of text (accompanied in the margin by diple-marks), identified in the margin as section #231.  (These sections are the Eusebian Sections, used in the Eusebian Canons.)  It is followed by commentary.  On the next page, after the rest of the commentary on 16:1-5, the text of 16:6-8 is presented (accompanied in the margin by diple-marks, and identified as sections #232 and #233).  This, too, is followed by commentary (some of which is based on Eusebius’ comments in Ad Marinum). 

            On the next page, as the commentary continues, the left margin of the writing is disrupted, but no text is lost; it appears that the copyist was avoiding a flaw in the parchment.  On the ninth line, the text of Mark 16:9 begins.  In the outer left margin there is a single asterisk, and diple-marks accompany the text of Mark 16:9-14. 

            After 16:14, the commentary continues, and when one examines the last five lines of the commentary on Mark 16:9-14, one finds the portion of the Catena in Marcum (a commentary, much of which consists of a compilation of extracts from various authors such as Origen and Chrysostom, attributed to Victor of Antioch) in which the commentator responds to a claim which was mentioned (but not approved) by Eusebius of Caesarea in his composition Ad Marinum, to the effect that verses 9-20 are not often encountered.  The commentator’s note begins in Greek with the words Παρὰ πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται: 

“In many copies, the rest does not appear there in the Gospel of Mark, for certain persons have thought it to be spurious.” [Or perhaps this last phrase means, “and because of this, certain persons have thought it to be spurious.”] “But we, from accurate copies – having found it in many of them, corresponding to the Palestinian Gospel of Mark  – have, as truthfulness requires, also included the account of the resurrection of the Master, after ‘for they were afraid.’”  

            (If one were to take in hand John Burgon’s 1871 book The Last Twelve Verses of Mark Vindicated, and turn to Appendix E, one would find this entire note, in Greek, with an apparatus indicating textual variations extracted from an assortment of manuscripts that contain the Catena in Marcum.)               

            After that, the text of Mark 16:15-18a (θανάσιμόν τι) completes the rest of the page.  On the next page, Mark 16:18b-20 is written (with diple-marks in the margin), followed by commentary.

            Plainly, GA 138 does not have “a simple asterisk.”  GA 138 contains the Catena in Marcum, including the note that affirms the presence of Mark 16:9-20 in many copies and in a Palestinian manuscript of Mark that was considered particularly accurate.  The asterisk in the margin alongside the beginning of Mark 16:9-20 is a side-effect of the non-inclusion of the passage in the Eusebian Canons; it does not express scribal doubt; it denotes the beginning of the section for which there was no Section-number.           

            Next:  Fact-checking Wallace about GA 264 and 1221.

____________

Quotations from Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: 4 Views © 2008 Broadman & Holman Publishers, All rights reserved.

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament is © 1971 by the United Bible Societies.  All rights reserved.