Followers

Showing posts with label Delta. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Delta. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 14, 2021

The Invisible Variant in Luke 2:15

           Although promoters of an assortment of Bible versions frequently insist that footnotes give their readers plentiful information about textual variants, many variants, especially those which scarcely affect the meaning of the text, are not mentioned in any footnotes in any major English versions.  An example of this appears in Luke 2:15:  in the middle of Luke’s Christmas narrative, after a multitude of heavenly hosts finishes praising God (regarding the famous variant in Luke 2:14, see this post), and as the shepherds decide to investigate the town of Bethlehem, immediately following οἱ ἄγγελοι, the Byzantine text has the words καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι (“and the men”) before οἱ ποιμένες (“the shepherds”).

          This is an invisible variant:  the KJV’s base-text (the Textus Receptus) includes καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι, and the ESV’s and NIV’s primary base-text (the Nestle-Aland compilation) does not; the WEB’s base-text is Byzantine; the NRSV’s base-text is (almost always) Alexandrian.  Yet this phrase – “the shepherds said to one another” – is identical in English in all four of these English versions (and in the EOB-NT, CSB, EHV, and NET).  One would never realize from the renderings in almost all English versions that one base-text has three more words.  Wayne A. MitchellNew Heart English Bible, which points out the variant in a footnote, is an exception, as are some editions of the KJV with a similar marginal footnote.

                This variant has become invisible in more ways than one.  It was in Tregelles’ 1860 Greek New Testament (albeit within single-brackets), but although the Tyndale House GNT (2017 edition), is, its editors say (in the Preface, p. vii) “based on a thorough revision of the great nineteenth-century edition of Samuel Prideaux Tregelles”), not only is καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι not included in the text, but there is no apparatus-entry to inform readers of the existence of this variant.  Likewise, although this variant was initially included in the apparatus of the UBS GNT, in the fourth and fifth editions it has mysteriously vanished without a trace. 

          Which reading is original?  Metzger acknowledged, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (1971, corrected edition 1975), that “The fact that the longer reading is characteristically Lukan in style argues strongly in its favor.”  Nevertheless the longer reading was rejected by a majority of the UBS editorial committee which “preferred to make a decision on the basis of preponderance of external evidence.” 

          This statement from Metzger is not easy to defend when one looks at what the preponderance of external evidence is.  À B L W Q (which moves οἱ ἄγγελοι to precede εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν) X f1 565 (which also omits εις τον αγγελοι earlier in the verse) 700 and 1071 appear to be almost the only manuscripts that support the non-inclusion of καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι.  The Vulgate, the Sahidic version, and the Peshitta support the shorter reading, but versional evidence is inherently tenuous in this particular case because more than one translator could independently decide that the sense of the passage could be sufficiently rendered without translating the appositive phrase here, as can be seen from various English versions.   The Harklean Syrian (made in the early 600s) appears to support ἄνθρωποι καὶ οἱ ποιμένες.  Καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι is supported by Codex A, Codex D, Γ, K (017, Cyprius), M, Δ, P (024), S (028), U, Y, and Ψ.   Codex M ends a page exactly after οἱ ἄγγελοι, and καὶ οἱ ἄνοι begins the first line on the next page.  Minuscules 33 157 892 1010 and 1424 are among the many minuscules that support the longer reading, as does the Gothic version.  Codex D’s word-order is apparently unique in this verse; D begins verse 15 with Και εγενετο │ως απηλθον οι αγγελοι απ αυτων │εις τον ουρανον και οι ανθρωποι.  Small gaps appear in D before Και εγενετο and before και οι ανθρωποι.  Codices C, N, and T are lacunose here. 

Codex Delta supports
the longer reading
.


        At the outset of the third chapter of Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, John Burgon briefly commented on this variant, pointing out that the scribe of À omitted the οἱ before ἄγγελοι, “whereby nonsense is made of the passage (viz. οἱ ἄγγελοι ποιμένες).”  Burgon considered the shorter reading to have originated due to homoeoteleuton elicited by the six clustered-together recurrences of οἱ in this verse.  More recently, Michael Holmes seems to have agreed, inasmuch as καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι is included in the text of the SBL-GNT.  I consider Burgon’s observations completely valid, and Metzger’s appeal to the “preponderance of external evidence” is basically code for “the pro-Alexandrian bias of the editors.”  Καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι should be included in future compilations.



 

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Codex Sangallensis: The Amplified Vulgate

John 21:20b-23a
in Codex Sangallensis,
page 394.  A Latin double-reading
(highlighted) is at the start of 20:23
.

            Codex Sangallensis (Δ, 037) is best-known for its Greek text; it is one of the “consistently cited witnesses of the second order” used in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece compilation.  Its Latin Gospels-text, known as δ or Vetus Latina 27, has some interesting features too.  For the most part, it agrees with the Vulgate, the translation that Jerome made in 383-384, and for which he consulted ancient Greek manuscripts.  Occasionally its text contains additional words which mean approximately the same thing as the main Latin text are included; for this reason, 037’s Latin text may be thought of as the Amplified Vulgate.
            Even before the text of the Gospels begins in Codex Sangallensis, the main text of Jerome’s Preface to the Vulgate Gospels (Epistula Ad Damasum) – a secondary attachment to the Gospels-codex – is supplemented by notes – some interlinear and some in the margins – which explain or simplify the meaning of the text.  For example, in the sentence in which Jerome mentions two causes to feel comforted although his work is bound to be rejected by some individuals, “first cause” (prima causa) and “second cause” (seconda causa) are written above the main text, just to ensure the reader’s understanding. 
            Occasionally such supplemental material is accompanied by a special symbol, consisting of the combination of a dot, a vertical line, and another dot (×½×).  This symbol, which stands for the Latin words id est (“that is”), sporadically accompanies notes and supralinear readings in the Gospels-text.  In 1891, the prolific researcher J. Rendel Harris (in a detailed study) investigated the significance of this symbol and the material it accompanies, as part of a broader investigation of the source, or sources, of the verbal amplifications in the Latin text of 037.  Harris sought to determine whether the copyist had freely and spontaneously added clarifications to the text, or else derived the amplifications from a second Latin exemplar, with an Old Latin Gospels-text.      
            The presence of supplemental notes, including a few with the ×½× symbol, in the Epistula Ad Damasum, does not interlock well with the idea that the copyist was consulting an Old Latin text that was completely independent from the Vulgate, inasmuch as Epistula Ad Damasum cannot have been an integral part of any Old Latin text.  Yet, Codex Sangallensis also contains the Argumentum Matthai – one of the “Monarchian” Prologues, not written by Jerome (contrary to the title given to it in 037) – and in its text, too, the ×½× symbol introduces some (but not all) supplemental notes.  For instance, where the text mentions that Matthew’s record of Christ’s genealogy involves the beginning of the covenant-sign of circumcision and God’s sovereign election, the marginalia identifies Abraham and David specifically as the individual ancestors whose lives involved these things. 
Clearly, the ×½× symbol is capable of accompanying interpretive comments.  But most of the interpretive comments are not introduced by it; for instance, where the Prologue mentions that Christ was born under the Law (making an allusion to Galatians 4:4), a supralinear note (with no symbol accompanying it) identifies this as a reference to circumcision.      
Sometimes, in the text of the Gospels, the symbol accompanies material which is paralleled in Old Latin manuscripts.  More frequently, although the symbol is lacking, the Latin amplification seems to be drawn from a written source, rather than inserted due to a whim of the copyist.  (And, on occasion, the Latin text simply isn’t there, showing that it has not been rigorously conformed to the accompanying Greek text.) 
Let’s look into the first eight chapters of Matthew for a closer look at some of the features which have earned this manuscript a place among the Vetus Latina).  The word vel (“or”) is usually abbreviated.
            Mt. 1:20a – δ:  Noli (the Vulgate reading) vel ne
             Mt. 1:20b – δ:  timeas in the text; vel timere (the Vulgate reading) is supralinear
            ● Mt. 1:20c – δ:  uxorem before coniugem
            ● Mt. 1:20d – δ:  ut nascetur after natum
            ● Mt. 2:12 – δ:  gap above being divinely warned; Latin text resumes with ne redirent
            Mt. 2:20 – δ: ×½× quaerentes before quaerebant
            Mt. 2:23 – δ: ex (not Vulgate per)
            Mt. 3:2 – δ: ×½× penitete before penitentiam
            Mt. 5:40 – δ: vestimentum vel before pallium
            Mt. 5:44 δ:  gap above those who curse
            Mt. 6:13 – δ:  majestas vel gloria over δοξα (glory).  The Greek text and the Latin text include the doxology.
            Mt. 6:31 – δ:  vel cogitate after ne solliciti estis (Vulgate:  Nolite ergo solliciti esse) above Do not worry.  The Greek text and the Latin text both continue with the words your soul.   
            Mt. 6:33 – δ:  the Latin text agrees with the Vulgate (adicientur); a note in the margin says vel adponent.
            Mt. 6:34a – δ:  the verse begins with Ne and the Vulgate reading (Nolite) has been written above it, with et.     
            Mt. 6:34b – δ:  the text has cogitetis and sollicite esse has been written above it; vel te (te being the alternate word-ending, so as to form cogitate) follows in the text.
            Mt. 7:1a – δ:  Ne is in the main text; Nolite vel is written above it.
            Mt. 7:1b – δ:  iudicate is in the main text; vel re is written after it (implying iudicare)
            Mt. 7:13 – δ:  above destruction, the Latin line has an abbreviated form of interitum followed by vel mortem.  Neither is the Vulgate reading (perditionem).
            Mt. 8:15 – δ:  above λογω (word), written in contractions, are the words verbo vel sermo.  Verbo is the Vulgate reading.
            Mt. 8:17 – δ:  above δια (through) are the words ex vel per.  Per is the Vulgate reading.
            Mt. 8:34 – δ:  above μεταβη is the word transiret, the usual Vulgate reading, but accompanying it in the nearby margin is ascenderet.  

            The double-readings in these eight chapters alone (and Harris collected many more) adequately compel the conclusion that the copyist is not spontaneously augmenting the Latin text with synonyms; a second Latin exemplar is being cited.  
            This does not mean that every supplemental note represents a variant in the Latin text –for example, on page 310, in Luke 24:24, the ×½× symbol precedes a note identifying those who visited the tomb as Peter and John.  But often the double-readings are explained far more plausibly as citations of a secondary Old Latin source than as explanatory notes added by the copyist. 
Two outstanding indications that the copyist was using a second Latin exemplar occur in Matthew 10:31 – where the Greek word διαφέρετε (“better”) is matched by the Latin meliores (the Vulgate reading) which is augmented by vel praecellitis – and in a cluster of double-reading in Matthew 12:34-35; the motive for the double-readings in these places seems particularly unlikely to have been to make the passage clearer to the reader.    
           
             An interesting ocurrence of the ×½× symbol is in Mark 9:23, where in the first line of page 167 the words of Jesus begin with το ει δυνη παντα δυνατα (“‘If you can’?  All things are possible . . .”) but the Latin text reads si potes and then, above παντα, ×½× credere omnia; the copyist seems to have recognized that his Greek and Latin texts did not match up at this point. 
Luke 20:15-23
            It may be worthwhile, as we finish our examination of the Latin text of Codex 037, to notice what J. Rendel Harris noticed about some of the Latin alternate-renderings that occur in the first part of Matthew 25:  where the text of δ disagrees with, or is augmented by, a non-Vulgate reading, the non-Vulgate reading often agrees with the Latin text of Codex Bezae.  This seems to compel the conclusion that not only are the amplifications of δ’s Latin text echoes of a secondary exemplar, but that this secondary Latin exemplar contained a Western text similar to what is found in the Latin pages of Codex Bezae.             
            Thus, Codex Sangallensis may be considered congruent to two and a half manuscripts: 
● the Greek text (most of which is thoroughly Byzantine in Matthew, Luke, and John, but a mixture of Byzantine and Alexandrian in Mark) and
● the interlinear Latin text (most of which represents the Vulgate, with some adjustments to correspond to the Greek text) and
● the amplifications in the Latin text (which echo an Old Latin exemplar).  
           
           

Pictured:  Luke 20:15-23 in Codex Sangallensis (037).   
Red Underline = Δ disagrees with NA and Byz.  Notice the reading λαλοις (where the text should be αλλοις; the copyist apparently accidentally reversed the first two letters) at the end of the third line, in verse 16.  
Red and Green Underline:  Δ disagrees with NA but agrees with Byz.
Dashed Orange Underline:  Δ agrees with NA but disagrees with Byz.
Blue Background:  Non-Vulgate readings in δ.
Yellow Background:  Double-reading in δ. 
Large letters in the text alongside the purple bracket:  a chapter-title, About the question about the tax-money.  The chapter-number (71) is in the left margin.



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




Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Codex Delta: Block-Mixed?

Mark 16:1b-17a
in Codex Sangallensis
.
(verse-numbers added)

            Codex Δ (037, Sangallensis), which we described in the previous post, is possibly the most important Greek-Latin Gospels-manuscripts produced in medieval Europe.  Bruce Metzger, in his handbook The Text of the New Testament, concisely described its text in Matthew, Luke, and John as Byzantine, and its text in Mark as Alexandrian.   This would make it a “block-mixed” manuscript, that is, a manuscript in which at least one portion echoes an ancestry not shared by the rest.
            That is, however, a somewhat oversimplified description of Codex Δ’s text.  The easiest way to show this is to drag you, patient reader, through lists of some of the readings in the manuscript.  First, let’s take a look at some of Δ’s non-Byzantine readings in the first 10 chapters of Matthew, Luke, and John:

Matthew
2:9 – Δ reads αυτοις, agreeing with L. 
3:16 – Δ is missing the first two words of the verse.
4:18 – Δ includes ο Ις near the beginning of the verse.
5:34 – Δ does not have τω before Κω, agreeing with L.
6:10 – Δ reads ελθατω instead of ελθετω agreeing with À, D, and W)
7:29 – Δ includes αυτων at the end of the verse (agreeing with À Β Κ Π).
8:16 – Δ adds ακαθαρτος (so as to emphasize that Jesus cast out the unclean spirits).
9:23 – Δ omits τους before αυλητας.
10:5 – Δ reads εισελθητε instead of απελθητε, and then απελθητε instead of εισελθητε.  
10:9 – Δ reads χαλικον instead of χαλκον.
10:33 – Δ omits (via h.t.) this verse; it is added by a corrector.

Luke
1:17 – Δ reads Κυ instead of αυτου after ενωπιον.
1:28 – Δ moves ο αγγελος to a location between αυτην and ειπεν (agreeing with À 69 579 700).
1:70 – Δ does not include των after αγιων.
2:15 – Δ does not include και οι ανθρωποι (agreeing with À B L W)
2:21 – Δ reads αυτον instead of το παιδίον (agreeing with À B A K L W Π).
2:36 – Δ reads μετα ανδρος ετη επτα (agreeing with À B* L N W).
3:4 – Δ does not include λεγοντος (agreeing with À B D L W)
6:1 – Δ does not include των before σπορίμων (agreeing with À* B A L W).
6:10 – Δ does not include υγιης but includes ως η αλλη (agreeing with A K Π).
7:6 – Δ does not include ο εκατοντάρχος.
8:21 – Δ does not include αυτον after ποιουντες (agreeing with P75 B A D L W).
8:36 – Δ does not include και after αυτοις (agreeing with P75 À B L).
9:20 – Δ reads αυτους instead of αυτοις.
9:33 – Δ reads υπ’ instead of απ’ (agreeing with L).
9:50 – Δ reads υμων instead of ημων after καθ’ (agreeing with P75 B À* D K L).
10:22 – Δ reads επιγινωσκει instead of γινωσκει (agreeing with C 33 700).

John
1:20 – Δ reads Εγω ουκ ειμι instead of Ουκ ειμι εγω (agreeing with P66 P75 B À A L).
1:22 – Δ reads ειπαν instead of ειπον (agreeing with P66 P75 B).
1:34 – Δ reads εωρακα instead of εορακα (agreeing with P66 B À A C L M N).
2:3 – Δ inserts (but a corrector removes) τοις καθημενοις before του Ιυ. 
2:4 – Δ does not include ο Ις.
3:8 – Δ reads αλλα instead of αλλ’ (agreeing with B 579 700).
4:8 – Δ does not include την before πολιν.
4:14 – Δ reads διψει instead of διψήση (or διψήσει)
4:21 – Δ does not have μοι after πιστευσον.
4:31 – Δ does not include αυτον.
4:37 – Δ does not have ο before αληθινος (agreeing with B L N 33).
5:25 – Δ does not have υμιν after λεγω.
5:28 – Δ does not have ωρα after ερχεται.
5:28 – Δ reads ακουσωσιν instead of ακουσουσιν or ακουσονται (agreeing with P66c À L)
6:5 – Δ does not include τον before Φιλιππον (agreeing with P66 B À D L 33)
6:16 – Δ does not include το before πλοιον (agreeing with P75 B À L 33 700)
6:22 – Δ reads ειδον instead of ιδων (agreeing with P75 B A 33)
6:44 – Δ reads με instead of εμε after προς (agreeing with B E M Θ U)
6:55 – Δ does not include μου after αιμα.
8:14 – Δ does not include the last phrase (from after υμεις – via h.t.).
8:24 – Δ reads πιστευσηται instead of πιστευσητε (agreeing with P66 L W)
8:39 – Δ reads εποιειτε αν (agreeing with L K M N Π 33).
9:1 – Δ does not include ο Ις.
9:27 – Δ reads μαθηται αυτου instead of αυτου μαθηται (agreeing with P66 À L D 33 157). 
9:32 – Δc reads ηνεωξεν (agreeing with B N W), corrected from ενεωξεν.
9:39 – Δ reads κρισιν instead of κριμα.
10:26 – Δ reads αλλα instead of αλλ (agreeing with P66 P75 B À A L W 33).
10:30 – Δ reads μου after πατηρ (agreeing with W 700).
10:34 – Δ reads ειπον instead of ειπα (agreeing with A D M S U 33).
10:39 – Δ reads ουν after Εζητουν (agreeing with P66 À A K L W 33).

These samples show that when the text of Δ drifts away from the Byzantine Text in Matthew, Luke, and John, it is often in quirky ways that can be attributed to the copyist – and when this explanation fails, the departure is often toward the Alexandrian Text – but the detour is always brief.  Once itacisms, variations in names, and obvious blunders are filtered out, the real mixture in the text of Δ in Matthew, Luke, and John is minimal.  It would be misleading to describe this manuscript’s Greek text in these three books as anything but Byzantine.
           
Now let’s look at the text of Mark in Δ.  It is quite different!

In Mark, the text of Δ  is much more Alexandrian – it supports “in Isaiah the prophet” in Mark 1:2, for instance – but not as much as some concise descriptions of the manuscript have led readers to believe.  Its text agrees with the Byzantine text at the end of Mark 1:2 (including εμπροσθεν σου), at the end of 1:5, at the beginning of 1:8 (including μεν), at the end of 1:9, 1:10 (επ not εις), at the beginning of 1:13 (Δ includes εκει), at the beginning of 1:14 (Μετα δε, not Και μετα), at the beginning of 1:16 (Περιπατων δε, not Και παραγων), and near the beginning of 1:19 (Δ includes εκειθεν before ολιγον). 
By the time Mark 1:20 is reached, the reader of Codex Δ has also encountered several readings which are neither Alexandrian nor Byzantine.  So should Δ’s text in Mark be considered an poorly transcribed form of the Alexandrian Text, or is it a Mixed Text (combining Alexandrian and Byzantine readings)?  The only sure way to find out is to sift through the text itself.  Let’s investigate some sample-passages and see whether Δ is allied more closely with B (representing the Alexandrian Text – using the readings it displayed when it left the scriptorium) or with A (representing the Byzantine Text), setting aside variant-units where Δ agrees with neither B nor A.

● Mark 2:1-12: 
1 – Δ  reads εισηλθεν (agreeing with A, not with B)
1 – Δ reads Καφαρναουμ (agreeing with B, not with A)
1 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)
1 – Δ reads εις οικον (agreeing with A, not with B)
2 – Δ includes ευθεως (agreeing with A, not with B)
3 – Δ’s word-order agrees with A, not with B)
4 – Δ reads προσεγγίσαι (agreeing with A, not with B)
4 – Δ reads εφ ω (agreeing with A, not with B)
5 – Δ reads Ιδων δε, agreeing with A, not with B)
5 – Δ does not include σου (agreeing with B, not with A)
7 – Δ reads βλασφημιας (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ reads ευθεως (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ includes ουτως αυτοι (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ includes αυτοις (agreeing with A, not with B)
9 – Δ reads αφίωνται (agreeing with A, not with B)
9 – Δ reads σοι (agreeing with A, not with B)
11 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)
12 – Δ reads ευθεως και (agreeing with A, not with B)
12 - Δ reads εναντιον (agreeing with A, not with B)
12 – Δ includes λεγοντας (agreeing with A, not with B)
12 – Δ’s word-order agrees with A, not with B
 That’s a score of 19 agreements with A, and 2 agreements with B.  

● Mark 4:1-12
1 – Δ reads συνάγεται (agreeing with B, not with A)
1 – Δ reads πλειστος (agreeing with B, not with A)
2 – Δ reads ησαν (agreeing with B, not with A)
3 – Δ includes του (agreeing with A, not with B)
5 – Δ reads ευθυς (agreeing with B, not with A)
5 – Δ does not include της (agreeing with A, not with B)
6 – Δ begins the verse with και ότε (agreeing with B, not with A)
6 – Δ reads ο ηλιος (agreeing with B, not with A)
6 – Δ reads εκαυματίσθη (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ reads αλλο (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ reads αυξανόμενον (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ reads εις (before εφερεν) (agreeing with B, not with A)
9 – Δ reads Ος εχει (agreeing with B, not with A)
10 – Δ reads Και οτε (agreeing with B, not with A)
10 – Δ reads τας παραβολας (agreeing with B, not with A)
11 – Δ’s word-order agrees with A, not with B [although Δ has γνωναι]
12 – Δ reads γινεται (agreeing with B, not with A)
12 – Δ reads αφεθη (agreeing with B, not with A)
Codex Δ agrees with B against A twelve times, twice as much as it agrees with A against B.    

● Mark 6:14-29
14 – Δ reads ελεγεν (agreeing with A, not with B)
14 – Δ reads εγηγερται (agreeing with B, not with A)
14 – Δ reads Ιάννης (agreeing with A, not with B)
14 – Δ’s word-order agrees with B, not with A
15 – Δ reads Ηλιας, agreeing with A, not with B
15 – Δ does not include εστιν (agreeing with B, not with A)
16 – Δ reads ειπεν (agreeing with A, not with B)
16 – Δ reads οτι (agreeing with A, not with B)
16 – Δ does not include αυτος (agreeing with B, not with A)
16 – Δ does not include εκ νεκρων (agreeing with B, not with A)
17 – Δ reads γαρ (agreeing with B, not with A)
17 – Δ reads Ιάννης (agreeing with A, not with B)
17 – Δ’s word-order agrees with B, not with A 
18 – Δ reads Ιάννης (agreeing with A, not with B)
19 – Δ reads εδυνατο (agreeing with A, not with B)
20 – Δ reads Ιάννην (agreeing with A, not with B)
20 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)
21 – Δ reads εποίησεν (agreeing with B, not with A)
21 – Δ reads Γαλιλαίας (agreeing with A, not with B)
22 – Δ reads αυτου (agreeing with B, not with A)
22 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)
22 – Δ’s word-order agrees with A, not with B
23 – Δ does not include ο (after ο τι) (agreeing with B, not with A)
23 – Δ does not include με (agreeing with B, not with A)
24 – Δ reads και (agreeing with B, not with A)
24 – Δ reads Ιωάννου (agreeing with A, not with B)
24 – Δ reads βαπτιζοντος (agreeing with B, not with A)
25 – Δ reads ευθυς (agreeing with B, not with A)
25 – Δ’s word-order agrees with B, not with A
25 – Δ reads Ιωάννου (agreeing with A, not with B)
26 – Δ reads ανακειμένους (agreeing with B, not with A)
26 – Δ’s word-order agrees with B, not with A
27 – Δ reads ευθυς (agreeing with B, not with A)
27 – Δ reads ενεγκαι (agreeing with B, not with A)
27 – Δ reads και (agreeing with B, not with A)
29 – Δ reads ηλθον (agreeing with A, not with B)  
Thus in this section there are 16 agreements with A and 20 agreements with B.  Half of those agreements with A, however, involve the orthography of proper names, so if the effects of the unusual spelling employed by B’s copyist are withdrawn from the equation, it is clear that in this passage, Δ favors the Alexandrian Text about two-thirds of the time.  (Also, a reading of Δ in verse 19 that disagrees with B and A resembles the reading in B far more than the reading in A.)   

Mark 8:1-10 
1 – Δ reads παλιν πολλου (agreeing with B, not with A)
2 – Δ reads τρεις (agreeing with A, not with B)
2 – Δ includes μοι (agreeing with A, not with B)
3 – Δ reads και τινες (agreeing with B, not with A)
3 – Δ reads εισιν (agreeing with B, not with A)
4 – Δ includes οτι (agreeing with B, not with A)
4 – Δ reads ερημίας (agreeing with B, not with A)
5 – Δ reads ηρωτα (agreeing with B, not with A)
6 – Δ reads παραγγέλλει (agreeing with B, not with A)
6 – Δ reads παρατιθωσιν (agreeing with B, not with A)
7 – Δ reads ειχαν (agreeing with B, not with A)
7 – Δ reads και ταυτα παρατιθέναι (agreeing with B, not with A)
9 – Δ reads και εφαγον (agreeing with B, not with A)
9 – Δ does not include οι φάγοντες (agreeing with B, not with A)
10 – Δ does not include αυτος (agreeing with A, not with B)
10 – Δ reads Δαλμανουθα (agreeing with A, not with B)
Thus in this section, Δ allies with B against A 12 times, while joining A against B only four times.  In all of those four places, B’s reading is also opposed by À L 33.  So, if we consider an agreement of À and L and 33 to represent the Alexandrian Text better than B at points where B sings a solo (or at least a solo among the uncials), then Codex Δ never agrees with A against the Alexandrian Text in this passage.  Here, Δ is solidly Alexandrian.      

Let’s take one more sample:
Mark 14:1-9.
2 – Δ reads δε (agreeing with A, not with B)
3 – Δ reads ελθεν (agreeing with A, not with B)
3 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)
3 – Δ reads την (agreeing with B, not with A)
3 – Δ does not include κατα (agreeing with B, not with A)
4 – Δ includes και λέγοντες (agreeing with A, not with B)
5 – Δ reads ενεβριμωντο (agreeing with A, not with B)
6 – Δ reads ειργάσατο (agreeing with A, not with B)
7 – Δ reads αυτοις (agreeing with B, not with A)
7 – Δ does not include παντοτε (agreeing with A, not B)
8 – Δ includes αυτη (transposed) (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ’s word-order (μου το σωμα) agrees with A, not with B
9 – Δ includes δε (agreeing with B, not with A)
9 – Δ includes τουτο (agreeing with A, not with B)
In these nine verses, Δ agrees ten times with A against B, and only four times with B against A.  In verse 9, the Byzantine Text includes δε, thus disagreeing with A.  This passage is much more Byzantine than it is Alexandrian.       

Exactly how the text of Mark in Codex Δ obtained its unique mixture of Alexandrian and Byzantine readings is an unanswered question.  Perhaps the creator of Δ’s exemplar possessed two Greek copies of Mark – an early Byzantine Gospels-manuscript and a manuscript with a strongly Alexandrian text – and created an eclectic Greek text by selecting, from both manuscripts, whatever reading seemed to better confirm the copyist’s native Latin text.    
Adding to the mystery is the occasional appearance of readings with strange allies, such as Δ’s bare ειπεν in 6:25 (allied with family-1), and its non-inclusion of κλασμάτων in 8:8 (allied with W – see also their shared non-inclusion of και Σιδωνος in 7:24).  We do not have to solve this question, however, to notice the implications of the data:  Codex Δ does not simply have an Alexandrian Text in Mark; the text of Mark in Codex Δ is heavily mixed throughout, and at any given point its reading is almost as likely to be Byzantine as it is likely to be Alexandrian.       

Notably, Codex Δ includes Mark 16:9-20 (without any notes or asterisks, and with Eusebian section-number 234 given to the final section, beginning at 16:13) – and there, too, the text is mixed.  There are non-Byzantine readings in verses 11 (υπ’ αυτης εθεαθη, a transposition), 14 (Δ includes εκ νεκρων – cf. Justin Martyr’s First Apology chapter 50), 16 (Δ has ο before βαπτισθεις, agreeing with L), 17 (καιναις is omitted, agreeing with C* L Ψ), 18 (Και εν ταις χερσιν is included in Δ, agreeing with C L Ψ 1 1582 33 579), and 19 (Κς Ις, agreeing with Irenaeus’ quotation of the verse and with C* K L 33 579, rather than just Κς – and εν δεξια rather than εκ δεξιων).  
As one can see by a close examination of the text of Mark 16:17-18 in Codex Δ, the interlinear Latin text is not derived from the Greek text that it accompanies; in Mark 16:17-18, the Greek text lacks καιναις but the Latin text has novis; the Greek text has “And in their hands” (Και εν ταις χερσιν) but this is not reflected in the Latin text.  This might provoke a curious observer to look a little more closely into the Latin text.  Is it all a normal Vulgate text?  We shall look into that question in the next post.
           



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

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

Meet Codex Delta (037, Sangallensis)

Codex Delta - Lk. 22:24-33a
(verse numbers superimposed)

            Hundreds of manuscripts reside in the Abbey Library of Saint Gallen in Switzerland; over 600 of them have been digitized and can be read online.  In today’s post (and the two posts after this one), we shall visit one that is of particular importance:  Codex Sangellensis, also known as 037 or Delta (Δ).  This nearly complete Greek-Latin manuscript of the Gospels (it is missing John 19:17-35) was made in the mid-800s.  Although it is known to New Testament textual critics as the Codex Sangellensis, there are so many other important manuscripts in the library that it might be better to just call it Δ (Delta).  
            (Many other important Biblical manuscripts are in the same collection, including the fifth-century Latin Codex Sangallensis 1395 – possibly the oldest manuscript with an essentially Vulgate text – and Codex Sangallensis 51 – a Latin copy of the Gospels with Celtic affinities and an unusual text of John – and 0130, a Greek palimpsest-fragment with text from Mark 1-2 and Luke 1-2.  In the manuscript-catalog of the collection, Δ is Sangallensis 48.)
            The parchment pages of Codex Δ are not particularly large:  they measure about 22.5 cm tall and 18.5 cm wide.  The letters are uncials, but the script looks like more like Latin lettering than the uncials found in older codices such as Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus.     

CODEX Δ’s EXEMPLAR’S FORMAT:  PER COLA ET COMMATA

            Codex Δ has an unusual format.  It is an interlinear manuscript; a Latin translation appears between the lines of Greek text.  In addition, whereas most manuscript of the Gospels put chapter-titles (kephalaia) in the upper margins, in Δ they generally appear (except in most of Mark) in the main text, interrupting the Gospels-text.  
In addition, as Heinrich C. M. Rettig reported in 1836 in his definitive study of the manuscript, the copyist(s) of Δ copied from an exemplar in which the text was formatted colometrically, that is, per cola et commata – that is, instead of seeking to fill approximately the same amount of space per line (so as to justify the margins), the scribe of Δ’s exemplar wrote so as to limit each line to a particular clause, phrase, or subject. 
In Δ the colometric format has been completely abandoned, but it is echoed:  enlarged letters (spruced up, not very artistically, with touches of red, yellow, or purple pigment) – which may appear at almost any point in a line in Codex Δ – signify where the lines began in Δ’s exemplar.  Colometric text-arrangement was used especially (but not exclusively) by Irish monks, so it is not surprising that it was used in a manuscript at St. Gallen; the city was founded (in A.D. 612) by monks from Ireland.

NEIGHBORING MATERIAL IN THE CODEX

            Codex Δ has some text besides the four Gospels:  it opens with the sole surviving text of the composition Carmen of the Gospel by Pseudo-Hilarius, written in a jagged script with black ink.  Following this, there is Jerome’s Prologue to the Vulgate Gospels – a feature that indicates the primarily Latin-speaking background of the copyists.  It is written in neat Latin characters.  Red ink is used at some points.  Frequent interlinear and marginal glosses (some of which are rather lengthy) express alternate forms of the text, in a script that is easily distinguishable from the main text.  On page 15 we encounter the Latin Argumentum Matthei, that is, a book-summary of Matthew (“Mattheus ex Iudaae sicut in ordine primis ponitur,” etc.), with a list of 28 Latin breves (chapter-summaries) on the next two pages.
            (Also, added in the otherwise empty leftover space below the end of the Gospel of Matthew, there is a list of scenes for Gospel-illustrations, though no such illustrations appear in the codex, nor is there room for them.)  

QUIRE-NUMBERS AND A BASIC INDEX

            Finally on page 19 the Greek text begins with the list of chapters for the Gospel of Matthew.  This is the actual beginning of the manuscript; the preceding portions have been bound together with it, but the quire-numbers at the tops of the pages reveal the original shape of the Gospels-manuscript. These quire-numbers indicate that the manuscript was made mostly in four-sheet quires (or, quaternions):  the quire-numbers show up at  regular intervals, more or less every 16 pages:  #2 on page 33, #3 on page 49, #4 on page 65, #5 on page 81, #6 on page 95, #7 on page 111 (this quire, containing the last part of Matthew, has an extra sheet), #8 on page 131 (where the kephalaia for Mark begin), #9 on page 147, #10 on page 163, #11 on page 179, #12 on page 195 (where the text of Luke begins), #12 on page 211, #14 on page 227, and so forth, all the way up to #24 on page 372.   (One would expect #25 to appear on page 388, but it’s not there.)
            On page 29 there is a good example of memorial space in the text of Matthew 4:23.
            On page 34 there is an interesting correction in the text of Matthew 6:22-23:  after the copyist’s line of sight jumped from the εσται at the end of verse 22 to the εσται in verse 23, he wrote part of verse 23 but then realized his mistake and went back to the beginning of verse 23.  Interestingly, not only the Greek text, but also the Latin, display this mistake, and both have been corrected via the addition of dots (a way of signifying that the words were not to be read).  Something similar occurs in the text of Matthew 7:4-5 on page 36.  Similarly on the last line of page 44, the copyist has left space at the end of Matthew 9:35.
            The text of Matthew concludes on page 129.  Below the large subscription, there is a list of scenes from the Gospels to be depicted in illustrations – although no such illustrations appear in the codex.
           The kephalaia-list for Mark begins on page 131, in two columns, all accompanied by interlinear Latin.  
            The text of Mark begins on page 133.  It should be pointed out that although the chapter-titles in Matthew are typically embedded in the text, in Mark the chapter-titles usually appear at the top and/or bottom of the page; chapter-numbers appear in the margin, and the first letter of the chapter is written slightly larger than other capitals.  However, this was not done with complete consistency; on page 163 a title appears within the text, and after page 176 titles are embedded in the text more often than they appear in the margins.
            On page 159, it appears that Mark 7:16 was not written by the main copyist, but he left significant space empty on the line after the end of 7:15.  An asterisk-like mark appears in the left margin.  Mark 7:16 has been added in the memorial-space in light brown ink.
              On page 167, it looks like the final words of Mark 9:29 were initially not included, but blank space was reserved for them – and they have been written in the blank space (in Greek and Latin) in a lighter ink (and the spelling was adjusted by a later corrector). 
            Memorial-space appears on the last line of page 170, where a blank space appears instead of “Do not defraud” (Μη αποστερήσης) in Mark 10:19; these words, however, have not been added; the blank space here has remained blank. 
            After the subscription of Mark’s Gospel, Luke’s kephalaia-list begins on page 191, in two columns. 
On page 195 the text of Luke begins.  On page 196, diple-marks appear in the margin alongside Luke 1:12-17, as if perhaps the scribe had seen this passage as an expansion of an Ode in a Psalter.  Zachariah’s song is also accompanied by emphatic diple-marks beginning in Luke 1:68.
            Throughout Luke, chapter-titles are embedded in the text; occasionally a title appears at the top of the page but this seems more by chance than design.
            The genealogy in chapter 3 is formatted in three columns.
             On page 263 there is a very thorough erasure in the text of Luke 13:25; probably a phrase was accidentally repeated (from και to και). 
            On page 298 (pictured) we find the remarkable unique reading on the last like:  Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his eyes in Luke 22:32.
            On page 300, Luke 22:43-44 is included in the text; asterisks accompany each line of the passage in the margin.
            The chapter-list for the Gospel of John is on page 316, in two columns. 
The Gospel of John begins on page 318.
On page 333, John 5:4 is included in the text, beginning with a reference to an angel of the Lord.   
The text of John ends on page 395.

CODEX Δ HAS A BROTHER:  CODEX BOERNERIANUS

Codex Δ probably has a very close historical relationship to Codex G (012), also known as Codex Boernerianus, a copy of the Pauline Epistles.  If they were not different parts of the same manuscript, then they were probably produced by copyists who intended for them to be volumes in the same multi-volume New Testament set.  Both manuscripts are the same size, and both are Greek-Latin, and both are written in basically the same script.  Both manuscripts feature notes in the margins that mention Gottschalk of Orbais, a religious figure who lived in the 800s.  
       
Pages 348 and 349 of Codex Delta.
MEMORIAL SPACE FOR JOHN 7:53-8:11

The copyists of Δ and G used memorial-space to signify their awareness of the existence of some passages that they did not find in their exemplars:  in Codex Δ, after the copyist wrote John 7:52, he began the next line with the first phrase from John 8:12 – but then left a prolonged blank space.  John 8:12 resumes (from the beginning of the verse) on the next page.  The blank space in Δ is not large enough to contain all of John 7:53-8:11 but its purpose – to signify that the copyist was aware of the absent verses – is unmistakable.  Similarly in Codex 012, the copyist did not write the contents of Romans 16:25-27 after 14:23 – but he left a gap after 14:23, conveying that he was used to seeing more text there than what was in his exemplar.

  In the next post, we shall explore the types of text that are in Codex Δ:  its text has been described as mainly Byzantine in Matthew, Luke, and John, and mainly Alexandrian in Mark. But there’s more to the story.