Video Lecture 15: Numerals in Greek New Testament Manuscripts

         

Lecture 15:  Numerals                 

  In Lecture 15 of my ongoing series of video-lectures on YouTube, I discuss Greek numerals, and describe several textual variants in which numerals are involved, at John 19:14, Luke 24:13, Mark 6:41, Acts 27:37, Luke 10:1 and 10:17, Acts 13:33, and Revelation 13:18.

        

               I also describe the Eusebian Canons, and mention a few points in the text where they indicate what kind of text Eusebius was using when he made them.
                (27 minutes 10 seconds) 

An excerpt:

            Before we focus the next two lectures on two major textual variants, there is one small concern that still needs to be covered:  textual variants that involve Greek numerals.  In Greek, numerals were not always written out in full; in some manuscripts, they were represented by letters of the Greek alphabet that represented specific quantities.        

            This was not some sort of secret code; this was the ordinary way of writing numerals in Greek.  This chart shows the 24 usual letters of the Greek alphabet, expanded by the inclusion of three extra letters stau (or, digamma), koppa,  and sampi.  Arranged in three rows of 9 letters, you can see the numerical value that was assigned to each letter: 

Α = 1          Ι = 10          Ρ = 100

Β = 2          Κ = 20        Σ = 200

Γ = 3          Λ = 30        Τ = 300

Δ = 4          Μ = 40       Υ = 400

Ε = 5          Ν = 50        Φ = 500

Ϝ, ϛ = 6      Ξ = 60        Χ = 600

Ζ = 7          Ο = 70        Ψ = 700

Η = 8          Π = 80        Ω, ω = 800

Θ = 9          Ϙ, Ϟ = 90   ϡ = 900

             A horizontal line was added above these letters to show that they were being used as numerals.  Using these letters to represent quantities, any sum from 1 to 999 could be written using no more than three letters.

            With a mark to the lower left of a letter, it signified an amount of thousands.  In manuscripts, large numbers sometimes appear in colophons, or notes, at the end of a book, where they refer to the year in which the manuscript was made.  The standard dating-method in colophons was not a calculation of the number of years from the birth of Christ, but a calculation of the number of years from the creation of the world, which was believed to have happened in 5,508 B.C.  So if we were to encounter a Greek manuscript with a colophon stating that the manuscript was made in the 6,508^th year of the world, we would probably feel justified if we gave it a production-date around the year 1000.

One of the earliest textual variants mentioned by a patristic writer involves the numerals in Mark 15:25 and John 19:14.  Mark 15:25 says, “Now it was the third hour when they crucified Him,” that is, about 9:00 in the morning.  But in John 19:14, John states that it was “about the sixth hour” when Pilate was yet to deliver a sentence regarding Jesus’ case, before he finally handed Jesus over to be crucified in verse 16. 

            Some interpreters have reckoned that John used a different method of hour-counting, starting at midnight, whereas for Mark,  the day have 12 hours and began at the beginning of hour #1.  Thus Pilate could be making his decision at around the sixth hour – 6:00 a.m. – and after he handed Jesus over to be crucified, some time elapsed, during which Jesus was whipped, given a crown of thorns, beaten, and mocked, and was led through the streets of Jerusalem, until, at about the third hour – 9:00 a.m. – He was crucified. 

            But a different solution was proposed by the early writer Ammonius, whose proposal was later echoed by Eusebius of Caesarea in the early 300s, and by Epiphanius of Salamis in the late 300s, and by Jerome.  Ammonius explained that whereas the letter gamma ought to be written, representing the number “three,” so as to refer to the third hour, a copyist wrote the similar-looking letter “gabex,” or digamma, so as to refer instead to the sixth hour. 

Epiphanius indicates that Clement of Alexandria and Origen endorsed this solution to the harmonization-problem.  It is also attributed to Peter of Alexandria, who was martyred in 311.  In Peter of Alexandria’s testimony, preserved in very late manuscripts as part of the Chronicon Paschale, it is stated that in the text that was written by the hand of the evangelist, which is still preserved at Ephesus, and is adored there by the faithful, the reading in John 19:14 is “about the third hour,” and this is the reading in the correct books.

 We don’t know if Peter of Alexandria was making an informed statement or not, but this is interesting evidence no matter how you slice it.  In a small number of manuscripts, the text in John 19:14 supports the reading “the third hour,” including Codex L, Codex Delta, and minuscule 72.  It is significant that in the vast majority of manuscripts, copyists did not give in to the temptation to alter a single letter, or numeral, and thus remove the apparent difficulty. 

Another interesting textual variant involving a numeral occurs in Luke 24:13:  how far was the distance between Jerusalem and Emmaus?  The reading “60 stadia” has broad and early support, and represents a distance of a little less than seven miles.  Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Bezae, Codex W, and most minuscules support this reading, along with the Vulgate, the Peshitta, and the Sahidic versions.  The copyist of Papyrus 75 wrote “60” as an overlined letter, Ξ (chi). 

But some manuscripts, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Π, support the reading “160 stadia.”  This was also initially the reading in Codex N.  It is supported by the Armenian version, by the Palestinian Aramaic version, by  the Latin Codex Fuldensis, from the mid-500s, by a small number of Greek minuscules, and by a significant cluster of Arabic manuscripts, and it is endorsed by a margin-note in minuscule 34.

This reading probably reflects a belief that the city of Nicopolis and the village of Emmaus were the same place.  Nicopolis had been destroyed by forces under the Roman general Quintilius Varus in 4 B.C., and it was rebuilt after a group of citizens, led by the patristic writer Julius Africanus, successfully petitioned for its restoration in the days of the emperors Elaga-balus and Severus Alexander, in the 220s and early 230s. 

            Writing after this restoration of the city, Eusebius of Caesarea advocated the view that Nicopolis and Emmaus are the same place in his composition Onomasticon.  Jerome, who made a Latin translation of Eusebius’ Onomasticon, expressed the same view in his Epistle 108 and in his composition Lives of Illustrious Men.  However, 160 stadia is more than 18 miles.   That is a long distance for two people to cover in an afternoon, walking from Jerusalem, and then cover again in the evening, going back to Jerusalem – but it is possible. 

             The view that Nicopolis and Emmaus were synonymous was not exclusive to Caesarea, but seeing it supported in Codex Sinaiticus augments the case that Codex Sinaiticus was produced in that location.

Another interesting textual variant involving numerals appears in Mark 6:41.  The original text, with very broad support, refers specifically to the five loaves and the two fish.  But in Papyrus 45, for some reason, the copyist did not write “five” and he did not write “two” in this verse, even though his text does include the same numbers in verse 38.  Possibly in his exemplar, these words were written as numbers, and the lines above the numerals were very short, and he misunderstood them as if they were dots, that is, as if they were marks that meant, “do not write this.”

Codex Vaticanus is another important manuscript with an unusual reading involving a numeral.  In Acts 27:37, where most manuscripts state that there were 276 souls on board the ship that was about to be shipwrecked.  Codex Vaticanus, however, has “about seventy-six” written out in full.   This is also supported by the Sahidic version.  What has happened here? 

John Burgon perceived the answer:  basically, after a transposition of the words in this part of the verse, the number 276, written as a numeral, that is, as Sigma, Omicron, Stau, followed the phrase “in the ship.”   The letter omega, and the end of the word for “ship,” ploíw, was misread as if it was part of a word, hōs, meaning, “about,” and this left the overlined letters omicron, 70, and stau, six, creating the reading “about 76.”

Burgon also noted, from a common-sense perspective, “Although one might say, ‘about seventy,’ or ‘about eighty,’ is it not obvious to everyone that ‘about 76’ is an impossible expression?”  Fortunately, although Westcott and Hort adopted Vaticanus’ reading, against all other Greek evidence, Burgon’s cogent case against Vaticanus’ reading was favored by later writers, including F. F. Bruce and Bruce Metzger.

Another textual variant that involves numerals is in Luke chapter 10, in verses 1 and 17:  does the Lord sent out 70 individuals, or 72?  The Byzantine reading, 70, is supported by Codex Alexandrinus, Codex W, and almost all other Greek manuscripts.  The Western reading, 72, is supported by Codex Bezae, most of the Old Latin copies, and probably by the Sinaitic Syriac.  The Alexandrian witnesses are divided:  Sinaiticus and Codex C and Codex L support “70,” but Vaticanus and Papyrus 75 support “72.”

Papyrus 45 is not extant in Luke 10:1, but it is extant in verse 17.  Unfortunately, its testimony was misrepresented when the manuscript was first published, and the first printings of the 28^th edition of the Nestle-Aland text continued to misrepresent it, as if it supports “72.”  This mistake was only recently corrected.  In real life, Papyrus 45 supports “70,” as Bruce Metzger has observed:  the letter Omicron, representing “70,” is not followed by another numeral, but by an ordinary space-filling mark.       

The early writer Tertullian also supports “70,” and he drew a parallel to the numbers in Exodus 15:27, in his composition Against Marcion, at the beginning of chapter 24 of Book 4.  Tertullian says that the 12 springs of water at Elim correspond to the 12 apostles, and the 70 palm trees at Elim correspond to the 70 disciples.

The scope of the support for the reading “70” is sufficient to decide the question.  “72” probably originated as an allegorical representation of the Gentile nations, as listed in the Septuagint in Genesis chapter 10. 

Another textual variation:  In Acts 13:33, where almost all Greek manuscripts say that Paul is quoting from the second Psalm, Codex Bezae says that Paul quoted from the first Psalm.  Somehow this reading survived to the early 1500s in the early editions of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, and was featured in William Tyndale’s English translation in 1526.  It is indirectly supported by some patristic writers.  When Tertullian quoted Psalm 2:7 in Against Marcion, Book 4, chapter 22, he does not describe it as part of the second Psalm; he says that he is quoting from the first Psalm. 

The minority-reading in Codex D may echo the influence of an early tradition that what we know as Psalm 1 and Psalm 2 were considered a single Psalm, with what we know as Psalm 1 being a sort of Preface.  This tradition seems to have had an effect on how the Latin text of Psalms was arranged in the text used by Tertullian in the late 100s, and by Cyprian in the mid-200s, and even as late as the Venerable Bede in the late 600s and early 700s. 

            The best-supported Greek reading is clearly “the second Psalm.”  Some early translators of Acts into Latin probably were comfortable paraphrasing Paul’s reference so as to adopt the arrangement that he expected his readers to recognize.   

Seventh, the most famous textual variant in the New Testament that involves a numeral is without doubt the one that occurs in Revelation 13:18, where the number of the beast is given as 666 in most manuscripts, including Papyrus 47.  But in a few important copies, including Codex C and Papyrus 115, the number in Revelation 13:18 is “616,” written as chi-iota-stau. 

The early patristic writer Irenaeus made a detailed comment on this passage, in what may be the first mention of a textual variant, in Against Heresies, Book Four, chapters 29-30.

            Irenaeus made several guesses about the name that is represented with the numerical value of 666:  Euanthas was one guess, Lateinos was another one, and Teitan was another one.  This last possibility, Teitan, was the option preferred by Irenaeus, but he emphasized that it was only a guess, stating that if it were necessary for people in his time to know the name, it would have been revealed in John’s vision, instead of just the number of the name. 

Irenaeus thus shows that he used the text with “666,” because in each of these names, the value of the letters adds up to a total of six hundred and sixty and six.  And as if more evidence were needed, he also compared this number to Noah’s age before the floor (600 years) and the dimensions of Nebuchadnezzar’s idol in Daniel 3:1:  60 cubits high and 6 cubits wide.

In chapter 30 of Book 5 of Against Heresies, Irenaeus’ statements get even more detailed:  he affirms that 666 is the number that is found “in all the most approved and ancient copies,” and that it is endorsed by “those men who saw John face to face.”  When we consider that when Irenaeus wrote, the book of Revelation was less than 100 years old, this is extremely weighty testimony.

            Irenaeus also stated, “I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have reduced the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six tens-units,  they will have it that there is but one.”  To put it another way, Irenaeus refers to approved and ancient copies that support “666,” but he also is aware of copies that have the reading “616.”

He says, “I am inclined to think that this occurred through the fault of the copyists, as it tends to happen, since numbers also are expressed by letters; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter iota of the Greeks.”

Irenaeus does not say precisely how the letter chi (Xi, Ξ) be accidentally changed by copyists into iota.  Iota is a straight vertical line, like the letter “I,” but chi is very different. 

            It seems unlikely that a copyist could accidentally make 616 out of 666.  It may be more likely that someone believed that John was referring to the concept of “Nero redivivus,” a sort of urban legend that the Emperor Nero, who died in the year 68, was actually still alive and would one day return, leading an army from the east.  There are some references to this belief in the composition that is known as the Sibylline Oracles, and in about the year 420, Saint Augustine, in City of God, Book 20, mentions a belief that he regarded as an audacious conjecture: 

            Commenting on Second Thessalonians 2:7, Augustine stated that some individuals believe that this verse refers to Nero, whose deeds already seemed to be as the deeds of Antichrist.  And thus, he continues, “some suppose that he shall rise again and be Antichrist.  Others, again, suppose that he is not even dead, but that he was concealed that he might be supposed to have been killed, and that he now lives in concealment, in the vigor of the same age which he had reached when he was believed to have perished, and will live until he is revealed in his own time and restored to him kingdom.”

It is unlikely that anyone encountering the text of Revelation in Greek would stray from the reading “666,” which fits a pattern in which the Antichrist mimics the true Christ; the name “Jesus” in Greek has a numerical value of 888.  But someone encountering the text in some other language might look for an alternative explanation.  If one writes “Neron Caesar” in Hebrew consonants, their value adds up to 666.  If one drops the Hebrew letter nun, so as to correspond to a Latin form of Nero’s name, the name’s value thus decreases by 50, yielding the value of 616.

            This is a somewhat complicated theory.  But it might be how the reading “616” was created – via an interpretation that the Antichrist –  either literally or thematically or typologically or some other way – was expected to be the Emperor Nero.

Finally, a consideration of numerals in Greek New Testament manuscripts would be incomplete without a description of the Eusebian Canons and Sections.  Technically, the Eusebian Canons and Sections are part of the para-text, or meta-text – not part of the text itself.  They are a guide to cross-references in the Gospels. 

            At the beginning of many manuscripts of the Gospels, instead of jumping right into the text, and even before a chapter-list appears, there is a composition called “Ad Carpianus,” which is Eusebius’ brief explanation of how to use his cross-reference system for the Gospels.  In a few manuscripts this material is presented within a fairly unusual frame, shaped like a quatrefoil, or a symetrical rounded cross.  The Eusebian Canons and Ad Carpianus are included in the 27^th edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation.

Eusebius began by mentioning that he got the idea for a cross-reference system for the Gospels from Ammonius the Alexandrian, who had arranged the text of the Gospel of Matthew with the parallel-passages from the other Gospels alongside it.  Eusebius wanted to keep each Gospel-account intact, and so instead of dividing up the texts of Mark, Luke, and John, he gave each pericopé its own number, and then made a ten-part chart, in which the parallel-passage were listed, by their numbers, side by side.  

            There are ten parts to this list:
            ● The first one contains the list of passages for which there are parallels in Matthew Mark, Luke, and John.

            ● The second one lists passages, or sections, for which there are parallels in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

            ● The third one lists passages for which there are parallels in Matthew, Luke, and John.

            ● The fourth lists passages for which there are parallels in Matthew, Mark, and John.

            ● The fifth lists passages for which there are parallels in Matthew and Luke.

            ● The sixth lists passages for which there are parallels in Matthew and Mark.

            ● The seventh lists passages for which there are parallels in Matthew and John.

            ● The eighth lists passages for which there are parallels in Mark and Luke.

            ● The ninth lists passages for which there are parallels in Luke and John.

            ● The tenth lists passages that do not have parallels, but which are unique in each Gospel.           

            The same numbers are written in the margin alongside each passage.  Accompanying these numbers, called the Section-numbers, is a Canon-number, written in red, which identifies the list, one through ten, in which the passage is found.  If you see a number from 1-10 in the margin written in red below the Section-number, you will know which list to consult to find the number of the passage. 

 

             So, if you open a Gospels-book to any passage, and want to see what the other Gospel-writers wrote about the same event, then after you find the Canon-number, written in red, you can consult that list, and see the numbers of the parallel-passages in the other Gospels.  Then by finding those numbers in the margins in those Gospels, you can read the parallel-passages themselves.  

 After this introductory guide, the Canon-Tables themselves occupy several pages.  These can be very plain, or in some cases spectacularly ornate, with complex colorful golden designs, and paintings of animals, birds, and other decorations in the margins.  In some cases the artistic effort that was given to the Eusebian Canons resulted in the theft of these pages, as works of ark.  The tradition of decorating the Eusebian Canons is abundantly shown not only in Greek manuscripts but also in Latin, Ethiopic, and, especially, Armenian manuscripts.

             Although Eusebius got the idea for a cross-reference system for the Gospels from the earlier writer Ammonius of Alexandria, he clearly did not closely follow Ammonius’ Matthew-centered system.  As John Burgon pointed out in 1871, in a detailed Appendix to his book about the last 12 verses of Mark, Canon 8 and Canon 9 cannot have been part of a Matthew-centered cross-reference system.  In addition, when it is noticed that Mark has 21 unique sections, Luke has 72 unique sections, John has 97 unique sections, and 24 sections are shared by Mark and Luke, and 21 sections are shared by Luke and John, this makes a total of 225 sections which have no parallel in Matthew and thus could not be part of a Matthew-centered cross-reference system.

The Eusebian Canons also have an impact on the testimony of Eusebius regarding the last 12 verses of Mark.  Eusebius is often quoted as if he said, in the composition Ad Marinum, that Mark 16:9-20 was absent from almost all manuscripts, but in real life, his statement is much more nuanced:  he wrote that that was one of several things that something that someone might say about the passage.  Eusebius himself instructed Marinus to retain the passage, and gave instructions about how Mark 16:9 was to be read, with a pause between “Rising” and “early on the first day of the week.”  And further along in the same composition, Eusebius quoted from Mark 16:9.  So, when he wrote Ad Marinum, Eusebius appears to favor the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20.

             But according to a note that appears in some members of the textual cluster known as family-1, Mark 16:9-20 is not included in the Eusebian Canons.  Specifically, in codices 1 and 1582, although Eusebian Section-numbers appear in the margin alongside verses 9-20, these two manuscripts, along with the manuscripts 205, 2886, and 209, have a prominent note before Mark 16:9, which states, “In some copies, the Gospel comes to a close here, and so do the Canons of Eusebius of Pamphilus.  But in many, this also appears.”

So it is possible that at some point after advising Marinus to keep Mark 16:9-20, Eusebius might have changed his mind, and decided not to include these verses in the text upon which he based the Eusebian Canons.

The Eusebian Canons occasionally have text-critical significance where they testify to the presence or absence of other specific passages.  For example, Luke 22:43-44 is not in Papyrus 75 or Codex Vaticanus or Codex Alexandrinus or Codex W, but in the 100s, Justin and Irenaeus both refer to the passage.  In the Eusebian Canons Luke 22:43-44 is included as Section #283, implying that it was in the text that was used by Eusebius.

            Mark 15:28 is not in Codex Vaticanus, or Sinaiticus, or Codex D, and is also missing in over 100 minuscules – but it is listed as Section #216 in the Eusebian Canons.

            And, by not featuring an entry for Matthew 27:49 and John 19:34 in Canon Nine, Eusebius shows that his text did not contain a parallel-passage between those two passages.  In Codex Vaticanus and in Codex Sinaiticus, Matthew 27:49 is expanded so as to create a parallel between those two verses; the Alexandrian Text of Matthew 27:49 says that before Jesus died, someone came and pierced Him in the side with a spear, and blood and water flowed from the wound. 

            By not including a reference to this reading in his cross-reference system, where it would have belonged in Canon 7, Eusebius shows that his manuscripts did not have this reading.  This is a very strong indication that Eusebius did not supervise the production of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.

Finally, although a little anecdote about a detail in the early Christian composition The Epistle of Barnabas is not directly related to the New Testament, it might illustrate the kind of figurative interpretations some early Christians could give to some numerals.   The Epistle of Barnabas was probably written in the early second century.  It appears in Codex Sinaiticus, after the book of Revelation. 

            In its ninth chapter, the author refers to Genesis 14:14, emphasizing the exact number of the men under Abraham’s command who went to rescue Lot, who had been captured by a foreign confederation:  three hundred and eighteen.  The number “eighteen” was written as the Greek letters Iota and Eta, the same letters at the beginning of the name “Jesus,” or “Iēsous.”  The remaining amount, 300, was written in Greek as the letter Tau, which looks like the beams of a cross.  And thus, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas implied, even in the days of Abraham, we have an abstract picture of how Jesus, on the cross, accomplished the deliverance of the captive.

Video Lecture: Kinds of Greek NT Manuscripts

Lecture 02 -
Kinds of Greek NT Manuscripts

            The second video lecture in the series Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism is online.  This lecture, a little more than 20 minutes long, reviews different kinds of continuous-text Greek manuscripts of books of the New Testament – papyri, uncials (majuscules), and minuscules – and some of their distinctive features. 
            Sub-titles provide a running outline of the lecture.

On YouTube at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RACT7JaKOXo

Here is an excerpt:

            In our first lecture, I mentioned that there are five kinds of witnesses to the New Testament text:  (1) manuscripts, (2) versions, (3) patristic writings, (4) lectionaries, and (5) talismans and inscriptions.  Today we are taking a closer look into the distinct characteristics of each kind of continuous-text Greek manuscript.

Let me tell you an old story [Jadecarver and Student] . . . 

             Before we do anything else - before we learn the guidelines of how to make text-critical decisions, before we learn about the impact they can have upon the text, and before we investigate controversies in the field - we get to know the materials.

             A New Testament Greek manuscript is a witness that contains the Greek text of one or more New Testament books, initially formatted as one or more New Testament books.  For everything else I’m going to describe, it is probably safe to add the words:   “There are some exceptions.”  Today, we’re not exploring exceptional cases.  They’re out there, but we can look into them later.             

             With some exceptions, every substantial New Testament manuscript in existence was a codex when it was produced.  A codex is a handmade book, as opposed to a scroll.  Some witnesses used to be codices but only a single fragment of a single page has survived. 

            If a fragment has writing on both sides, from the same composition, that’s a giveaway that it was part of a codex. 

            If an early fragment has writing on just one side, and it’s not the end of the composition, that indicates that it was part of a scroll. 

            If an early fragment, such as Papyrus 13, has writing on both sides, but the writing on one side is from a different composition compared to the text on the other side, that indicates that it was part of a scroll, which first had writing on one side, and then someone decided to recycle it, and wrote on the other side.

           Our earliest witnesses were written on papyrus, pages made from the processed fibers of papyrus plants that grew along the Nile River.         

            In the 300s, after Christianity was legalized, books continued to be made out of papyrus, but parchment began to be the preferred material for New Testament manuscript-makers.   Parchment is made out of animal-skin.  At the end of the lecture, I will mention some resources that should give you a good idea of what goes into making papyrus, and what goes into the process of turning the skin of an animal into the pages of a book.

            In the Middle Ages, manuscripts began to be made out of a different material, called paper.  Some manuscripts have portions that are parchment, and portions that are paper, especially in cases where a parchment manuscript was damaged, and paper was used to replace the damaged pages.

          Now let’s consider the different kinds of continuous-text Greek manuscripts.

            First, there are the papyri.                     

            Papyrus-material, by the way, is still produced today; here’s a piece. 

            Papyrus manuscripts of New Testament books have their own catalog-numbers or names in the libraries where they reside, but for general purposes they are known by the letter “P” and a number, which represents the order in which they were found.  So, Papyrus 52 was approximately the 52^nd New Testament papyrus to be found, identified, and catalogued.  

            Papyrus manuscripts are typically the first witnesses mentioned when comparing the support for rival readings.  The earliest papyri echo a period that is earlier than all other manuscripts.  So it is natural to give them a high level of importance.  But there are seven things that should be kept in mind about the papyri.

             ● First, it is not unusual for papyri to be cited for readings that do not appear in the surviving part of the manuscript.  When it comes to papyrus fragments, there is often more to see than just what you can see.  Depending on how much text survives in a fragment, on how many pages, it is sometimes possible to create what is called a codicological reconstruction of part of the non-extant part of the manuscript.  For example, if you have fragments of two pages of a manuscript, you might be able to tell approximately how much text was on each page of the manuscript, and approximately how many pages it had.  The further the reconstruction gets from the extant text, the less useful it is for text-critical purposes.   But if a variant is large, and relatively close to the extant text, codicological reconstruction can serve as the basis on which to form a strong suspicion about whether the variant was present or absent in the manuscript, on the basis of space-considerations.     

            ● Second:  there is nothing magical about papyrus.  Copyists did not suddenly become more accurate just by writing the text on papyrus.  Papyrus 72 was probably made in the 300s, and it is one of the earliest manuscripts of the books that it contains.  But if you compare its text of the Epistle of Jude to the text of Jude in an ordinary late medieval manuscript, the text in the medieval manuscript will be far closer to the original text.    

            ● Third:  while the papyri are very old, many of them are not remarkably old.  Right now, we have about 140 papyrus manuscripts.   Forty of them were produced after the fall of the Roman Empire, in the 500s or later.    

            ● Fourth:  almost all of the papyri are fragmentary, and most of the papyri are very fragmentary.  Less than 30 early papyri – and by “early” I mean, “earlier than Jerome” – before the late 300s – consist of more than two pages. 

            ● Fifth:  the primary value and use of the papyri, by far, has been to confirm readings that were already known from other witnesses.  The number of readings found exclusively in papyri that have been securely adopted in any major edition of the Greek New Testament is zero.  In the late 1800s, textual critics had practically no papyri to work with; now we have 140, and in terms of the contents of the text, they have made very little difference.

            ● Sixth:  almost all of the papyri were found in Egypt.  That is because papyrus tends to gradually decay in climates that are not very dry, and the climate in parts of Egypt is very dry.  So if a textual critic were to say, “Let’s reconstruct the text based on the earliest manuscript,” he would produce a text based on evidence from Egypt, at least in the passages for which there is an early papyri – because that’s where papyrus lasted longer than in other places.  That kind of approach might give us a good look at the texts that were used in Egypt.  But it doesn’t really help us see what the text looked like in other locations, where there was more rain – such as the location of every church mentioned in the New Testament.  Saying, “Let’s depend primarily on the oldest evidence” is like saying, “Let’s depend primarily on the evidence that experienced the best weather.”

            ● Seventh, the production-date assigned to a papyrus manuscript is usually an estimate, with a range of 100 years.  The analysis of ancient writing, called paleography, is used to arrive at these production-dates.  In rare cases, the circumstances in which a New Testament manuscript has been found sets some parameters for its production-date; for example, if a manuscript is found in the ruins of a city that was destroyed in a particular year, we can deduce that it was not produced after that year.  But usually, paleographers assign production-dates according to the Greek script that the copyist used.

             If you look at printed English fonts from 300 years ago, and compare them to fonts in use today, you will see some differences.  The same sort of thing is true of ancient Greek handwriting; different styles of script were dominant at different times.  Paleographers study the script in detail.  But they can’t look at a script and tell you how old a copyist was when he wrote it. 

            If you reckon that a copyist in the ancient world engaged in a peaceful profession that involved copying books, he could copy a book at age 20, or at age 70 – and use the same handwriting he had learned when he had first learned to write.  There’s no way to tell if he was young, and would go on using that handwriting for another 50 years, or if he was old, and had been using that handwriting for 50 years.  So this range of about 50 years in both directions is built-into most paleographically assigned production-dates. 

           Now let’s consider the uncial manuscripts, also called majuscules.  When you read the textual apparatus in a Nestle-Aland or United Bible Societies or Tyndale House Greek New Testament, you can tell when a witness is a papyrus, because it is identified by a number after the letter P.   Similarly, you can tell when a witness is an uncial, because all uncials are numbered with numbers that begin with the numeral 0.  Codex Sinaiticus is 01, Codex Alexandrinus is 02, Codex Vaticanus is 03, and so forth.  Whether an uncial is a massive codex like Codex Sinaiticus, or a Gospels-book like Codex Cyprius, or a small fragment like 0315, every one gets its own number.  These numbers are called the Gregory-Aland numbers, because this kind of identification-system was developed by the scholar C. R. Gregory and expanded by Kurt Aland.  Different identification-systems were used before this became the standard identification-method; a comparison-chart of the obsolete methods and the standard method can be found online at the Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism.

            That is the first standard way in which uncials are identified.  But there is another method:  some uncials are also represented by letters of the English alphabet, and some uncials are represented by letters of the Greek alphabet.  Codex Alexandrinus is Codex A, Codex Vaticanus is Codex B, and so forth.  Codex Sinaiticus is represented as À, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet.  Generally, the more important an uncial is, the more likely it is to be better-known by its letter than by its number.

            There are only 26 English letters and 24 Greek letters, and we have a lot more than 50 uncial manuscripts.  Sometimes the same letter is used for different manuscripts in different parts of the New Testament.  For example, “D” is Codex Bezae in the Gospels and Acts, but in the Epistles, “D” represents Codex Claromontanus.  “E” is Codex Basiliensis in the Gospels, but in Acts, “E” is Codex Laudianus. 

            The numerical system is less likely to cause confusion, because each number represents exactly one manuscript.  But the letter-based system is easy to remember and it is used in the printed textual apparatus of the major editions of the Greek New Testament.  The only safe course of action is to learn both identification systems.

             It is not unusual for an uncial manuscript of the four Gospels to contain more than just the text of the four Gospels.  A Gospels-codex may begin with the Eusebian canons before the text of the Gospels begins, introduced by Eusebius’ letter to Carpian explaining how to use the Canons as a cross-reference tool.  Each Gospel may also be preceded by a list of its chapters; these chapter-lists are called Kephalaia.  The chapter-titles may be repeated at the top or bottom of the page of text where they begin; at these locations, they are called the titloi.  And at the end of each Gospel, one usually finds the closing-title.             

            Next come the minuscules – that’s minUscules.  Whereas uncial manuscripts are written in large letters that are usually separated from one another, minuscules are written in small letters that tend to be connected to one another in words.  Minuscule copies of New Testament books go back as early as the early 800s.  Uncial manuscripts continued to be made after that, but by the 1000s, minuscule script became dominant.  It took less time and required less materials to make a minuscule manuscript. 

            Here are a few things to know about minuscules:

            ● Minuscules should not be belittled simply because they are minuscules.  Kirsopp Lake said, “It is neither the date nor the script of a MS which determines its value for the critic, but the textual history of its ancestors.”

             ● Some minuscules are not technically continuous-text manuscripts:  they are commentaries, in which a portion of the New Testament text is written, followed by a portion of commentary, followed by the next portion of New Testament text, followed by a portion of commentary, and so forth.   This is not much different from a truly continuous-text manuscript that has the same commentary-material in the outer margins.  When several copies of the same commentary also share the same form of the New Testament text, divided into the same portions, it is clear that they share the same ancestry, and their weight should be boiled down.

            ● Some minuscules contain a high amount of abbreviation.

            ● Some uncials are partly minuscule.  It is not rare to see uncial letters and minuscule letters on the same page – occasionally, comments are written in minuscule script and the text is written in uncial script, to help prevent readers from getting them confused.

            ● Some minuscules are illustrated.  Minuscule copies of the Gospels may include full-page miniature portraits of each Evangelist before his Gospel begins.  In this context, the term “miniature” does not describe the size of the portrait; a “miniature” is a picture framed in pigment that contains red lead – a pigment called minium. 

             Often each evangelist in these pictures is accompanied by a symbolic representation:  usually for Matthew, it is a man or angel.  For Mark, it is a lion.  For Luke, it is an ox.  And for John, it is an eagle.  The symbolism is based on the visions of the seraphim around God’s throne in the books of Ezekiel and Revelation.

            Also, the initial letter of a book, or in some cases, many of the initial letters at the beginnings of sections of a book, may be artistically stylized.  When an initial is made to resemble an animal, this is called a zoomorphic initial.  In many manuscripts, at the beginning of a book, there is a large ornamental design, called a headpiece, accompanied by the title of the book.

            ● In some minuscules of the Gospels, in addition to the Eusebian Canons and chapter-lists, there are book-introductions, or summaries.  Sometimes there are lists of rare words.  In some copies of Acts, there is an itinerary of the journeys of Paul.  And sometimes, at the end of the book, there is a scribal note, or colophon, which might include information about when and where it was copied. 

           Regarding all other witnesses to the Greek New Testament:  we will hopefully look into them in future lectures.  Representatives of the Greek text of the New Testament tend to take center stage, because everything else does not contain the text that is being reconstructed.  But other witnesses are extremely important when it comes to tracking specific readings and building a history of separate forms of the text.              For example, when you see a rare reading in a Coptic manuscript from Egypt, and it also shows up in a Latin manuscript that was made in Ireland, it raises a question about how the text in these two geographically separated places is connected.  And if you see that the same reading in the same passage was quoted and interpreted by two early writers in two different locations, you can thus observe that the reading was widely distributed – and sometimes this evidence is earlier than any extant evidence from continuous-text Greek manuscripts.

             To learn more about early papyrus manuscripts and parchment manuscripts and how they were made, download Sitterly’s 1898 book Praxis in Manuscripts of the Greek Testament, and read chapters 1, 2, and 3.

            Also, watch the video, 8 minutes and 44 seconds long, that you can find at YouTube by searching there for “Beloved Essences How To Make Papyrus” –

            And another video, 3 minutes and 42 seconds long, that you can find at YouTube by searching there for “Texas Film Studio How To Make Papyrus.”

            And, watch the video about how to make parchment at Mike Rowe’s Dirty Jobs series, Season 4, Episode 26, which is also accessible at YouTube, beginning in the 20^th minute of the video.

            And, watch the video about how paper was made in the late Middle Ages at YouTube; search there for a video 15 minutes and 18 seconds long, called “Papermaking by Hand at Hayle Mill.”

           Also, if you can acquire Larry Stone’s book The Story of the Bible, do so, and read chapters 1 and 3, and be sure to look inside the pouches. 

New Testament Manuscripts at Dumbarton Oaks

The beginning of Matthew
in Dumbarton Oaks MS 5
(GA 678)

            In Washington, D.C., just a 15-minute drive from the Museum of the Bible, there is a place called Dumbarton Oaks.  Besides having a beautiful garden and a very impressive collection of antiquities of all sorts (especially Byzantine objects, some of which are displayed in a gallery), Dumbarton Oaks – founded by Robert and Mildred Bliss, and now affiliated with Harvard University – is home to several Greek New Testament manuscripts:

            ● Dumbarton Oaks MS 1 (Gospel Lectionary) is also known as GA Lect 2139.  It contains readings from the Gospels as they were arranged for public reading in church-services throughout the year.  This manuscript can be dated precisely to a specific place and time, thanks to an inscription stating that it was presented by Empress Catherine Camnene to the Holy Trinity Monastery of Chalki in the year 6571 (i.e., 1063).  After the first 42 folios, the format of the text shifts to a cruciform shape.  In addition to this rare feature, the manuscript features many small illustrations, often related to the subject of the excerpts they accompany.  Page-by-page views of the entire manuscript can be downloaded for free, and can also be viewed online.  

           

            ● Dumbarton Oaks MS 2 is not one of the Greek manuscripts I mentioned.  It was written in Georgian sometime around the year 1000.  It is a Menaion, a liturgical book, providing the accounts of saints’ lives to read on their annual feast-days; this Menaeon includes the saints’ testimonies for December, January, and February.

            ● Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, also known as GA 1521, contains the Psalms (with Odes), the four Gospels, Acts, the General Epistles, the Epistles of Paul, and an assortment of prayers.  Like MS 1, this manuscript can be viewed online page-by-page, and it can be downloaded in its entirety.  The book of Psalms begins on fol. 6, with a headpiece picturing David composing songs.  Illustrations sporadically appear, and at about page 150 they begin to occur more frequently.  A portrait of Christ appears on fol. 39r.  Page 168 features an unusual illustration which combines the Annunciation with a picture of Mary contemplating the Scriptures, accompanying the text of the Magnificat.   Some pages feature cruciform text, such as 82r and 85r.  Eusebius’ letter Ad Carpianus begins on 88r, followed by simple red Canon-tables. 

            A rather full lectionary-apparatus accompanies the Gospels-text throughout (and continued through Acts and the Epistles).  Titloi appear in the upper margins, at the appropriate places, written in gold or gold-like pigment.

            The text of the Gospel of Matthew begins on page 197, with a large headpiece depicting the evangelist (framed in blue), an elaborate initial, and marginal illustrations. 

            Mark begins similarly, and with a similar format, on page 265.  Luke begins on page 309, and ends on fol. 186v.  The opening pages of John are not present; according to a digitally added note they are extant in the Tretjakov Gallery in Moscow as #2580.  The text of John begins on page 385 in John 1:26.  On 192r, John 5:4 is included in the text.  On 19v, John 7:53 follows 7:52, with a red “Jump ahead” symbol in between; the pericope adulterae is in the text; verses 3-11 are accompanied by red “>” marks in the outer margin.  A “Resume here” symbol appears in the margin beside 8:12.  John ends on 213v.  

            On 214r there is a list of the New Testament books in the rest of the manuscript:  Acts, the General Epistles, and the Epistles of Paul (Hebrews is listed between the letters to the Thessalonians and the letters to Timothy).  On 214v the summary of the book of Acts appears in a cruciform format.

            Acts begins on 215v; Luke and his readers are depicted in a headpiece, framed in blue.

            James begins on 250r; in the headpiece James sits below a canopy, or baldachin.

            On fol. 253v the summary of Peter’s epistles is formatted in cruciform text beginning with an initial E depicting Saint Luke; in the online images one can zoom in to see its artistic details.  A digital note then informs readers that the next folio of the manuscript resides at the Cleveland Museum of Art where it has accession number 50.154.

            On 255r the text resumes in First Peter 1:21.  Second Peter begins (after a book-summary) on 258r.  (Peter appears in the initial.)  First John begins on 261r, with John depicted in a headpiece (framed in green); John also appears within the initial.  (First John 4:7, without the Comma Johanneum, is in the text on 264r.)    Second John begins on 264v.  Third John begins and ends on 265v.  266r contains the summary of the Epistle of Jude, in cruciform format.  Jude begins on 266v; Jude is depicted in a headpiece, framed in leafy green.  Jesus Christ and Saint James make cameos in the margin.  A few pages are then used to introduce Paul and the book of Romans before the text of Romans begins on 269v.  The headpiece is exceptional; it features Paul in the act of writing while two companions (Phoebe and Timothy?) look on.  Each epistle is preface by its summary, each of which has its own title.

            First Corinthians begins on 282v.  As at the beginning of Romans, the initial “Π” has been turned into a picture of Jesus Christ teaching Paul; small red titles have survived to identify the figures.

In Dumbarton Oaks MS 3,
the initial "Pi" at the start of
each Pauline Epistle depicts
Jesus Christ and Saint Paul.

            Second Corinthians begins on 294v; again the initial is a depiction of Christ teaching Paul. 

            Galatians begins on 303r.

            Ephesians begins on 307r.

            Philippians begins on 311v.  The initial, which previous consisted of Jesus teaching Paul, is here a depiction of Jesus teaching Paul and Timothy.

            Colossians begins on 315r.

            First Thessalonians begins on 318r.

            Second Thessalonians begins on 321.

            First Timothy begins on 323r.  

            Second Timothy begins on 326v.

            Titus begins on 329r.

            Philemon begins on 330v.

            Hebrews begins on 331v.  At the center of the bottom of the page, a small group of individuals is pictured, representing the Hebrews.

            On 341r, there is a distinct change in the handwriting; a different scribe has written Hebrews 13:20b to the end of the book.

            After the conclusion of Hebrews, there are several pages of lectionary-related lists and other materials. 

            The Easter-tables in this manuscript begin with the year 1084, and it may be deduced that the manuscript was made around that time.

            ● Dumbarton Oaks MS 4, also known as GA 706, contains the Gospels of Luke and John, on 254 leaves.  Like Dumbarton Oaks MSS 1 and 3, this manuscript can be viewed online and the entire manuscript can be downloaded.  Compared to MS 3, the text of MS 4 is rather plainly presented.  There are full-page miniatures of Luke (on 4v) and John (on 150v), but these might be secondary.  There is no lectionary apparatus (other than some sporadic notes by a later hand); headpieces are in plain red; initials are also in red.  There are no titloi, even the Eusebian Canon-numbers and Section-numbers are absent.  John 5:4 is on 170v.  On 190v, John 7:53 follows 7:52 (και απηλθεν εκαστος . . .) and the rest of the pericope adulterae is included before 8:12.

           

          ● Dumbarton Oaks MS 5, known as GA 678, formerly known as Phillips MS 3886, is a well-executed Gospels-manuscript, written on single-column pages of 20 lines each.  In 2016, in Volume 70 of Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Nadezhda Kavrus-Hoffmann described this manuscript very thoroughly in the article A Newly Acquired Gospel Manuscript at Dumbarton Oaks (DO MS 5): Codicological and Paleographic Description and Analysis.  This article is available at Academia.edu .
            This manuscript from the 1000s has 327 leaves; each page contains 20 lines of text in single columns.  The decorations for the Eusebian Canons are so ornate that one might think an Armenian artist was involved in their production.  After ten pages of spectacularly embellished Canon-tables, Ad Carpianus, the kephalaia (chapters-list) for Matthew, followed by a full-page picture of Christ enthroned (somewhat damaged, perhaps by kisses), and a full-page picture of Matthew.

            The text of the Gospel of Matthew begins on 14r, with a sumptuously ornate headpiece.  Titloi appear at the tops of pages, and a lectionary-apparatus (in red) appears above that, supplemented by notes, symbols and other markings in the text and margins.  Occasionally the lectionary apparatus appears at the foot of the page.  Section-numbers and Canon-numbers appear in the side-margins (always on the left of the text).  There are a few corrections to the text.  On 99r, a lozenge-dot symbol (⁘) accompanies the beginning of Matthew 28:8 in the text, probably to signify the beginning of a Resurrection Morning reading.

            Mark’s text begins (with an elaborate headpiece) on 103r.  Another ⁘ appears midway through Mark 1:13, denoting a lection-break, and again at 3:28.  On 126v, an asterisk-like mark (like ※ but empty in the center) appears at the beginning of chapter 8; there appears to have been another asterisk to the left of the text too, but it has been smudged.  On 129r, the scribe somehow wrote και μετα παρρησια in Mark 8:21b; a later correction appears in the margin, introduced by the symbol ⁜ which also appears in the text where the supplies words should be added. 

            The ⁘ symbol appears at Mark 9:10 (on 130v), at Mark 9:28 (on 132r), in Mark 9:34 (on 132v), in 10:11 (on 134v), 10:31 (at the first line on 136v), in 12:44 (on 144r), at 12:40 (on 144v), in 14:1 (on 147v), in 14:27 (on 149v), in 14:38 (on 150v), at 14:43 and 14:44 (both on 151r; the second ⁘ is accompanied by another ⁘ in the left margin), at 14:57 (on 152r), in 15:1 (on the last line of 153r), at 15:2 (with another ⁘ in the side-margin) and at 15:7 (both on 153v), at 15:12 and 15:14 (on 154r), in 15:20 and 15:23 and 15:24 (on 154v), etc., etc.  (I trust that future researchers will avoid assuming, if they see a ⁘ before Mark 16:9, that this signifies anything other than a lection-break or the beginning of a chapter.)     

            After Luke’s kephalaia and full-page portrait, the text of Luke begins on 162r. On 210v, asterisk-like marks (like ※ but empty in the center), one in the margin and one in the text, precede 12:16.  Luke 22:43-44 is in the text, on 244v.  The text of Luke ends on 254v.

            After John’s kephalaia and full-page portrait, the text of John begins on 257r.  On 282r, an asterisk-like mark (like ※ but empty in the center) precedes John 7:37, the lection for Pentecost-day.  On 283r, John 7:53 follows 7:52, with a “Jump ahead” symbol (ϒΠ) in between.  The pericope adulterae is in the text (και απηλθεν εκαστος . . . and with μη προσποιούμενος in verse 6 and προτος in verse 7 and κατακρινω in verse 11); in verse 11 απο του νυν (“from now on”) is added above the line. 

            A large asterisk-like mark (like ※ but empty in the center) appears in the margin on 302r, and another such mark appears in the text, before 13:1.  This is the beginning of an Easter-time sequence of lections for Good Friday.  In 19:11, on 308v, the scribe did not write the word ουδεμιαν; it is supplied in the side-margin, accompanied by ⁒ which appears in the margin and in the text.  John’s text ends on 326r.

           

            ● GA 669, known as the Benton Gospels, now also known as Dumbarton Oaks MS 6, is assigned to the 900s.  It is missing almost all of the Gospel of Matthew, but most of Mark (which begins with an interesting illustration – the title of the Gospel of Mark sits like a king under a baldachin – serving as a headpiece), Luke, and John have survived.  Digital photographs of the pages of this manuscript can be accessed at the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.  This manuscript has traveled quite far; after being brought to the United States in 1844, it eventually found a home in Texas in the collection of Charles C. Ryrie, until Dumbarton Oaks purchased it in 2016.

            It is not every day that one can come into the possession of a digital replica of a Greek New Testament manuscript – and the stewards of Dumbarton Oaks have provided us with the means to view and download four of them!  Thank you, Gudrun Bühl, James Carder, Jan Ziolkowski, Susan Boyd, John Duffy, and the many others who had a role in making these resources available.  May these resources reap a harvest of new and revived interest in the text of the New Testament on the part of everyone who studies them.   

            Here are some additional links to acquaint readers with the multi-faceted blessings a Dumbarton Oaks:

            The Byzantine Collection

            The Pre-Columbian Collection

            Byzantine Seals

            Museum

            The Riha Hoard

            Church of the Holy Apostles

            Spheres of Influence:  Medieval Byzantine Art

Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection is the copyright holder for the manuscripts’ page-views and derivatives of them.

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