The Gangster's Bible: Lectionary 1599

           At the University of Chicago, among the manuscripts that form the Goodspeed Manuscript Collection,  is a medieval lectionary called the Argos Lectionary – named after the ancient city of Argos, in Greece.  Its is also known as Lectionary 1599, or, in the catalog of the collection, MS 128.  But another name is often given to it:  “The Gangster’s Bible.”

Vincenzo Colosimo

         The story of this moniker begins, as Michael Hirsley reported in the Chicago Tribune in 1993, when, following Edgar Goodspeed’s acquisition of  GA 2400 (an extensively illustrated New Testament made around the 1100s), a student of Goodspeed showed him the Argos Lectionary.  Goodspeed wanted to find out more about it, and this led to a meeting between Goodspeed and one of the owners of Colosimo’s restaurant in Chicago – named after Vincenzo “Diamond Jim” Colosimo, who had been killed – some reports said the killer was John Torrio; others say it was Al Capone – on May 11, 1920. 

          Apparently some of the mobsters in Chicago had a special use for the Argos Lectionary:  it was used as the book on which gang-members took oaths (possibly similar to the oaths described by Michael Franzese).   

          Eventually, with the involvement of Harold R. Willoughby, the University of Chicago purchased the Argos Lectionary from its owner on very agreeable terms, and it took its place in the Goodspeed Manuscript Collection, where it is to this day. 

         Lectionary 1599 was made in the 800s or 900s, and its text is written in two columns per page measuring approximately 29 x 22 cm.   It has endured significant damage, but plenty of pages have survived which contain text from the Gospels.  Its text, like most lectionaries, is essentially Byzantine.  A few textual features may be mentioned:

Image 122:  Luke 22:4 includes και γραμματευσιν, similar to the reading in C, N, P, 157, 700.  

Image 190:  Mark 15:28 is not in the text.

Image 228:  In Matthew 27:55, εκει appears after γυναικες.

Images 134, 135, & 136:  John 13:3-17 follows the end of Matthew 28, and is followed by text from Matthew 26:21.  (This liturgical arrangement for Maundy Thursday explains why, in GA 225, John 13:3-17 is found after after Matthew 26:20.)

Images 235, 236, & 237 – Mark 16:9-20 is the third of the eleven Heothina readings.

Image 242 – In John 21:1, the incipit-phrase (used to begin the reading, in the lower right-hand column 0f text) includes αὐτοῦ ἐγέρθεις ἐκ νεκρῶν, a reading also found in Γ (036)  f¹³ 1241 and 1424.

Image 248 – In Luke 10:8-10, near the end of the first column of text, the scribe made a parableptic error when his line of sight drifted from εἰσέρχησθε καὶ in 10:8 to καὶ μὴ δέχωνται in 10:10.  Also, in Luke 10:11, the text of l1599 includes  (“from your feet”).

Image 261 – In a list of feast-days in October, the saints honored on Oct. 7 are listed as Sergius and Bacchus.  The saint honored on October 8 is listed as Saint Pelagia.  This implies that John 8:3-11 was initially included in the lectionary, before it was damaged.   This arrangement also explains why the story of the adulteress is found in family 13 in Luke 21, shortly after where the reading for Saints Sergius and Bacchus (Luke 21:12-19) is located.  This kind of textual transplant was simply for the convenience of the lector.

         

Hand-to-Hand Combat! Sinaiticus vs. Minuscule 2474

           

The first page of the Gospel of John
in the Elfleda Bond Goodspeed Gospels.

            It’s time for some hand-to-hand combat!  Today’s contest takes place in Matthew 24:23-30, a passage which contains some of Jesus’ instructions to His disciples regarding false prophets and signs of the end of the world.  The combatants:  Codex Sinaiticus – which is universally acknowledged as a very important manuscript, having been produced c. 350 – and minuscule 2474, known as the Elfleda Bond Goodspeed Gospels.

            Among New Testament manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus is among the most famous.  As for minuscule 2474, few people knew of its existence until early in 1952, when it was purchased in Istanbul (Constantinople) by the American collector Harry Kurdian of Wichita, Kansas; it was acquired by Edgar J. Goodspeed later the same year.  He added it to the manuscript-collection at the University of Chicago in honor of his wife, who had died in 1949. 

            Let’s take a minute to learn something about Elfleda Bond Goodspeed.  Her unusual first name is the same as that of a British saint (and friend of Saint Cuthbert) of the 600’s.  Mrs. Goodspeed was born in 1880, at about the same time when her father, Joseph Bond, after being diagnosed with a debilitating condition, prayed to receive 20 years of life.  His prayer was answered; though still far from a state of strong physical health, he used that time to develop a highly profitable home-radiator business, and in 1901, one year before his death, his daughter Elfleda married Edgar Goodspeed.  Elfleda Bond Goodspeed was considered worthy not only of the honor of having a Greek Gospels-manuscript named in her honor, but in addition, on the campus of the University of Chicago, if one visits the Joseph Bond Chapel, one can see the exquisite stained-glass windows which her husband donated in her memory. 

            And now, on to the combat! 

            I will examine each manuscript’s text of these eight verses using the same standard of comparison:  each will be compared to the text in the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation; each non-original letter will be noted, each lack of an original letter will be noted; transpositions will be mentioned but not considered a loss or gain; contractions of sacred names and of the word και (“and”) will not be counted as omissions.  After the exhaustive comparison, another comparison will be made in which itacisms (minor interchanges of vowels) are removed from consideration.

Let’s see how the copyist of Codex Sinaiticus did.

23 – no variation.

24 – ﬡ has ψευδοπροφητε instead of ψευδοπροφηται (+1, -2)

24 – ﬡ has σημια instead of σημεια (-1)

24 – ﬡ does not have μεγαλα (-6)

24 – ﬡ has πλανηθηναι instead of πλανησαι (+3, -1)

25 – no variation.

26 – ﬡ does not have ουν (-3)

26 – ﬡ has ταμιοις instead of ταμειοις (-1)

27 – ﬡ has εξερχετε instead of εξερχεται (+1, -2)

27 – ﬡ has φαινετε instead of φαινεται (+1, -2)

27 – ﬡ has εστε instead of εσται (+1, -2)

[28 – ﬡ does not have the letter ο at the beginning of the verse (at the start of οπου); however a correction has been made, possibly by the proofreader of the manuscript, so this will not be included in the total.]

28 – ﬡ has σωμα instead of πτωμα (+1, -2); a correction has been made, but it is post-production, so this will be included in the total.

28 – ﬡ has εκι instead of εκει (-1)

28 – ﬡ has συναχθησοντε instead of συναχθησονται (+1, -2)

29 – ﬡ has εκινων instead of εκεινων (-1)

29 – ﬡ has σκοτισθησετε instead of σκοτισθησεται (+1, -2)

29 – ﬡ has δωσι instead of δωσει (-1)

29 – ﬡ has εκ instead of απο (+2, -3)

29 – ﬡ has δυναμις instead of δυναμεις (-1)

30 – ﬡ has φανησετε instead of φανησεται (+1, -2)

30 – ﬡ has σημιον instead of σημειον (-1)

30 – ﬡ does not have the second τοτε (-4); the word is added above the line but this appears to be post-production.

30 – ﬡ has κοψοντε instead of κοψονται (+1, -2)

[30 – ﬡ has πασε instead of πασαι.  A correction was made above the line; this correction looks like it was made by the proofreader, so this will not be included in the total.]

[30 – ﬡ has ε instead of αι.  A correction was made above the line; this correction looks like it was made by the proofreader, so this will not be included in the total.]

30 – ﬡ has οψοντε instead of οψονται (+1, -2)

            Thus, in the course of Matthew 24:23-30, Sinaiticus’ text displays 59 letters’ worth of corruption, consisting of the addition of 15 non-original letters, and the loss of 44 original letters.  This does not reflect well on the copyist.  However, many of the alterations in the text consist of small orthographic variations, within a word, he often wrote ι instead of ει, and at the end of a word he often wrote ε instead of αι.  If these orthographic quirks are removed from the equation, then the variations in ﬡ look more like this – 

            ● 24 – ﬡ does not have μεγαλα (-6)

            ● 24 – ﬡ has πλανηθηναι instead of πλανησαι (+3, -1)

            ● 26 – ﬡ does not have ουν (-3)

            ● 28 – ﬡ has σωμα instead of πτωμα (+1, -2)

            ● 29 – ﬡ has εκ instead of απο (+2, -3)

            ● 30 – ﬡ does not have the second τοτε (-4) –

which yields more respectable results:  if we ignore itacisms, Sinaiticus’ text in Matthew 24:23-30 has 25 letters’ worth of corruption, consisting of the introduction of six non-original letters and the loss of 19 original letters.

Now let’s see how the scribe of minuscule 2474 did.

23 – 2474 has πιστεύσηται instead of πιστεύσητε (+2, -1) 

24 – 2474 has has ψευδοπροφητε instead of ψευδοπροφηται (+1, -2)

25 – no variation.

26 – no variation.

27 – no variation.

28 – 2474 has γαρ after οπου (+3)

29 – no variation.

30 – 2474 has τω before ουρανω (+2)

30 – 2474 has οψοντε instead of οψονται (+1, -2)

            Thus, in the course of Matthew 24:23-30, 2474’s text contains 14 letters’ worth of corruption, consisting of the inclusion of nine non-original letters and the non-inclusion of five original letters.  If we remove itacisms from the equation, as was done with the text in Sinaiticus, then the corruptions in 2474 in Matthew 24:23-30 consist of:

            ● the inclusion of γαρ after οπου in verse 28, and

            ● the inclusion of τω before ουρανω in verse 30. 

            From this comparison, it may be concluded that in the transmission-stream of Codex Sinaiticus, 59 letters’ worth of corruption were introduced in the course of 280 years (positing the composition of the Gospel of Matthew in A.D. 70, and the production of Codex Sinaiticus in A.D. 350), which yields an ACR (Annual Corruption Rate) of .21 – that is, it implies that copyists in the Alexandrian transmission-stream were producing, on average, .21 letters’ worth of corruption each year.

            When itacisms are removed from the equation, over half of the corruptions in Matthew 24:23-30 in Sinaiticus are also removed; it then has only 25 letters’ worth of corruption and its transmission-stream’s ACR drops to .09.  

            Meanwhile, granting a production-date for 2474 around A.D. 950, the 14 letters’ worth of corruption in minuscule 2474’s text of Matthew 24:23-30 imply that as far as the text of Matthew 24:23-30 is concerned, its transmission-stream’s ACR is only .016.  When itacisms are removed from the equation, the ACR of the transmission-stream of 2474 drops to .0057.

To review:

            Sinaiticus’ text of Matthew 24:23-30 has 59 letters’ worth of corruption.  Removing itacisms from consideration, it has 25 letters’ worth of corruption.  This implies that, on average, copyists in the transmission-stream that produced this text added .09 letters’ worth of corruption each year, besides itacistic readings.

            Minuscule 2474’s text of Matthew 24:23-30 has 14 letters’ worth of corruption.  Removing itacisms from consideration, it has 5 letters’ worth of corruption.  This implies that, on average, copyists in the transmission-stream that produced this text added .016 letters’ worth of corruption each year, besides itacistic readings. 

            No matter which set of figures one uses (with, or without, itacisms), this analysis shows that in this contest, the much younger manuscript has a much better text, and that the Byzantine copyists in its transmission-line worked far more carefully than the Alexandrian copyists in the transmission-line of Codex Sinaiticus.  The copyists in the Byzantine transmission-stream that produced the text of 2474 were at least five times better at avoiding corruption than the copyists in the Alexandrian transmission-stream that produced the text of Codex Sinaiticus.  (When itacisms are removed from consideration, and the standard of comparison is the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform, rather than the Nestle-Aland compilation, the amount of corruption in the Elfleda Bond Goodspeed Gospels in Matthew 24:23-30 drops to zero.)

Museums of the Bible

The Museum of the Bible

            The countdown is on for the opening of the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., scheduled for November 17, 2017.  Perhaps then we will finally see if there is anything to the rumors of a first-century manuscript-fragment of the Gospel of Mark or not.  In the meantime, let’s not overlook the various museums and research-centers in the United States that already have Bible-related materials on exhibit or in their archives.  Here is a brief look at some of them.

         

             The Freer-Sackler Gallery at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. includes several Biblical manuscripts, including the Freer Gospels, also known as Codex Washingtoniensis.    

            The Goodspeed Manuscript Collection at the University of Chicago features 68 New Testament manuscripts, most of which are available to view online.  They include the infamous “Gangsters’ Bible” and a fifth-century fragment of the Gospel of Mark found at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. 

            At Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, the David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library includes the Kenneth Willis Clark Collection of Greek Manuscripts.  Minuscule 2613 (Manuscript 6 in the Clark Collection) is among the more notable manuscripts in the collection; in 2613, the story of the adulteress is included after the end of the Gospel of John.

The Holy Land Experience

                In Orlando, Florida, The Scriptorium:  Center for Biblical Antiquities  at The Holy Land Experience houses the Van Kampen Collection, which includes several Greek New Testament manuscripts, a Coptic manuscript from the 300’s with text from Jeremiah and the apocryphal book of Baruch, and the Syriac Yonan Codex, and several respectably old Latin manuscripts, as well as later copies of the Vulgate and the books which constituted the personal research-library of Eberhard Nestle.  The Holy Land Experience theme park also offers dramas and other interactive events that teach about the Bible and its message.  (Also in Orlando:  the Wycliffe Discovery Center.)

       

             The archives of the Walters Art Museum, in Baltimore, Maryland, though not specially designated as a Bible museum, contain numerous Biblical manuscripts in Greek, Latin, Armenian, and Ethiopic.  Many of them can be viewed page-by-page online.  Occasionally exhibits at the museum focus on Biblical subjects.   

      

            The University of Michigan has very many ancient manuscripts in its collections, some of which contain New Testament material.  By far the most significant and most ancient is a 30-leaf portion of Papyrus 46.  Also of historical importance are a 1536 copy of Tyndale’s English New Testament and a 1611 Authorized (King James) Version.

            The Hill Museum & Manuscript Library in Collegeville, Minnesota has a huge collection of Biblical manuscripts in a variety of early versions, including Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic.

             The Morgan Library & Museum in New York, New York has a vast collection of medieval volumes, notable especially for their artistic content, including The Lindau Gospels and The Crusader Bible.

            The Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin has an impressive collection of medieval manuscripts which include some Biblical volumes.  One example is the Terrell Gospels, (minuscule 2322).  In 2012, the HRC has a special exhibition about the KJV and its history; some resources related to that exhibition are still online.  The center also has a permanent exhibition about the Gutenburg Bible.

            The Bible Museum at the Great Passion Play in Eureka Springs, Arkansas has a collection of printed Bibles, including Erasmus’ 1516 Novum Instrumentum.  Inspired in part by a visit to Eureka Springs, Terry Snelling recently opened The Bible Museum in Houston, Missouri (not Texas) with a small but interesting collection.

            The Dunham Bible Museum at Houston Baptist University houses a variety of manuscripts, artifacts, Bible translations into Native American languages, Bible-era coins, and high-quality replicas.  

            The Museum of Biblical History in Collierville, Tennessee features kid-friendly programs and archaeology camps, and hosts lectures about the Bible. 

            Outside the United States, there are other museums which focus on the Bible and Bible-related objects.  One that seems to get a lot of online attention (possibly because of the similarity between its name and that of the Museum of the Bible) is St. Arnaud, Australia’s Bible Museum, which has in its collection unique tapestries based on famous Bible pages.

            Many Christian colleges and universities have small antiquities-museums; one notable example in Indiana is Anderson University’s Jeeninga Museum.  On the same campus, one can find a gallery than includes what is probably the most famous religious iconic image in the world, Warner Sallman’s Head of Christ.  

Hand-to-Hand Combat: Codex Bezae vs. the Georgius Gospels

          Guess which manuscript has more corruptions in Luke 2:1-21:  Codex Bezae (for which researcher D. C. Parker has assigned a production-date around 400), or the Georgius Gospels (a minuscule manuscript from the 1200’s)?  We could use the Byzantine Textform compiled by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont as the basis for this comparison.  But instead, let’s compare each manuscript’s text of Luke 2:1-21 – Luke’s narrative about the birth of Christ – to the Nestle-Aland compilation.

          The text of Luke 2:1-21 in the Georgius Gospels (GA 2266) – page-views of which can be viewed at the Goodspeed Manuscript Collection’s website – deviates from the NA27 text at the following points. (Agreements between 2266 and the RP2005 Byzantine Text are accompanied by a triangle.  Agreements between 226 and the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text (against RP2005) are accompanied by a square.)

       

2:1 – 2266 has εξηλθε instead of εξηλθεν.  (-1)  ■

2:2 – 2266 has η after αυτη. (+1)  ▲

2:3 – 2266 has ιδιαν instead of εαυτου.  (-6 and +5)  ▲

2:4 – 2266 has Ναζαρετ instead of Ναζαρεθ. (-1 and +1)  ▲

2:5 – 2266 has μεμνηστευμενη instead of εμνηστευμενη. (+1)  ▲

2:5 – 2266 has the word γϋναικι before ουση. (+7)  ▲

2:5 – 226 has εγγυω instead of εγκυω. (-1 and +1)  

2:7 – 2266 has τη before φατνη. (+2)  ▲

2:9 – 2266 has ιδου after the first και. (+4)  ▲

2:10 – 2266 has θοβηστε instead of θοβειστε. (+1 and -2)  

2:11 – 2266 has εστι instead of εστιν. (-1)  ■

2:12 – 2266 does not have και before κειμενον. (-3)  ▲

2:14 – 2266 has ευδοκια instead of ευδοκιας. (+1)  ▲

2:15 – 2266 has οι ανοι (the contraction of ανθρωποι) after οι αγγελοι και. (+10)  ▲

2:15 – 2266 has ειπον instead of ελαλουν. (-7 and +5)  ▲

2:16 – 2266 has ηλθον instead of ηλθαν. (-1 and +1)  ▲

2:16 – 2266 has ανευρον instead of ανευραν. (-1 and +1)  ▲

2:17 – 2266 has διεγνωρισαν instead of εγνωρισαν. (+2)  ▲

          In addition, 2266 contracts the following words which appear at the ends of lines:

2:4 – 2266 has Γαλιλ′ instead of Γαλιλαιας.  (-4)

2:11 – 2266 has πολ′ instead of πολει.  (-2)

2:12 – 2266 has κειμεν′ nstead of κειμενον. (-2) 

2:21 – 2266 has επλησθησ′ instead of επλησθησαν.  (-2)

The Georgius Gospels (GA 2266)
MS 727-Image 270

          In a strict letter-by-letter count, without considering contractions of nomina sacra , abbreviations of και, and the contractions at the ends of lines, in 2266, 22 letters of the original text have been lost, and 43 non-original letters have been introduced.   Thus, whether via addition or subtraction, the text of 2266 differs from the text of NA27 by 65 letters.

          Aside from spelling-variants, these 65 letters’ worth of difference between the text of Luke 2:1-21 in the Georgius Gospels and in the Nestle-Aland compilation consist mainly of these seven variants:

            ● the interchange between ιδιαν and εαυτου in verse 3,

            ● the introduction of γϋναικι in verse 5,

            ● the introduction of ιδου in verse 9,

            ● the absence of και in verse 12,

            ● the ς at the end of ευδοκιας.  (This changes the meaning of the phrase.)

            ● the introduction of οι ανθρωποι in verse 15, and

            ● the interchange between ειπον and ελαλουν in verse 15. 

Now let’s look at the text of Luke 2:1-21 in Codex Bezae.

. . . Are you sure you’re ready?  Take a deep breath.

2:1 – D moves εγενετο to follow αυτη instead of πρωτη.

2:3 – D has πατριδα instead of πολιν. (+6, -4)

2:4 – D has γην instead of την. (-1)

2:4 – D has Ιουδα instead of Ιουδαιαν. (-3)

2:4 – D has Δαυειδ instead of Δαυιδ. (+1)

2:4 – D has καλειτε instead of καλειται. (+1, -2)

2:4-5 – D moves απογραφεσθαι συν Μαρια τη εμνηστευμενη αυτω ουση ενκυω to immediately follow Βηθεεμ.  Within the transposed portion, D has απογραφεσθαι instead of απογραφασθαι, and Μαρια instead of Μαριαμ, and ενκυω instead of εγκυω.  (+2, -3)

2:5 – D has Δαυειδ instead of Δαυιδ. (+1)

2:6 – D has ως δε παρεγεινοντο instead of εγενετο δε εν τω ειναι αυτους εκει.  (+14, -26)

2:6 – D has ετλησθησαν instead of επλησθησαν.  (+1, -1)

2:8 – D has Ποιμενες δε instead of Και ποιμενες.  (+2, -3)

2:8 – D has χαρα ταυτη instead of χωρα τη αυτη.  (+1, -2)

2:8 – D has τας before φυλακας.  (+3)

2:9 – D has ιδου after the first και.  (+4)

2:9 – D does not have κυριου after δοξα.  (-6)

2:10 – D has υμειν instead of υμιν. (+1)

2:10 – D has και before παντι.  (+3)

2:11 – D has υμειν instead of υμιν. (+1)

2:11 – D has Δαυειδ instead of Δαυιδ.  (+1)

2:12 – D has υμειν instead of υμιν.  (+1)

2:12 – D has εστω after σημειον.  (+4)

2:12 – D does not have και κειμενον.  (-11)

2:13 – D has στρατειας instead of στρατιας.  (+1)

2:13 – D has ουρανου instead of ουρανιου.  (-1)

2:13 – D has αιτουντων instead of αινουντων.  (+1, -1)

2:15 – D moves οι αγγελοι to follow απηλθον.

2:15 – D has και οι ανθρωποι before οι ποιμενες. (+10)

2:15 – D has ειπον instead of ελαλουν. (+3, -5)

2:15 – D has γεγονως instead of γεγονος. (+1, -1)

2:15 – D has ημειν instead of ημιν.  (+1)

2:16 – D has ελθον instead of ελθαν. (+1, -1)

2:16 – D has σπευδοντες instead of σπευσαντες.  (+2, -2)

2:16 – D has ευρον instead of ανευραν.  (+1, -3)

2:16 – D does not have τε before Μαριαμ. (-2)

2:16 – D has Μαριαν instead of Μαριαμ. (+1, -1)

2:17 – D does not have τουτου at the end of the verse.  (-6)

2:18 – D has ακουοντες instead of ακουσαντες.  (+1, -2)

2:18 – D has εθαυμαζον instead of εθαυμαζαν.  (+1, -1)

2:19 – D has Μαρια instead of Μαριαμ.  (-1)

2:19 – D has a transposition:  συνετηρει παντα instead of παντα συνετηρει.

2:19 – D has συνβαλλουσα instead of συμβαλλουσα.  (+1, -1)

2:20 – D has ιδον instead of ειδον.  (-1)

2:21 – D has συνετελεσθησαν instead of επλησθησαν.  (+6, -1)

2:21 – D has αι before ημεραι.  (+2)

2:21 – D has αι before οκτω.  (+2)

2:21 – D has το παιδιον instead of αυτον.  (+9, -5)

2:21 – D has ωνομασθη instead of και εκληθη.  (+8, -9)

2:21 – D has συνλημφθηναι instead of συλλημφθηναι. (+1, -1)

2:21 – D does not have τη before κοιλια.  (-2)

2:21 – D has μητρος after κοιλια.  (+6)

          That’s 106 additions of non-original letters, and 109 subtractions of original letters.  Whether by addition or subtraction, the text of Luke 2:1-21 in Codex Bezae differs from the text of NA27 by 215 letters (without considering the transpositions).   For comparison:  compared to NA27, the corruptions in 2266 amount to 65 letters (or 75, if we toss in the letters lost in end-of-line contractions), and the corruptions in D amount to 215 letters.

          Setting aside spelling-variations and transpositions, these 215 letters’ worth of difference between the text of D and the Nestle-Aland compilation consist mainly of these 23 variants: 

● 2:3 – D has πατριδα instead of πολιν. (+6, -4)

● 2:4 – D has γην instead of την. (-1)

● 2:4 – D has Ιουδα instead of Ιουδαιαν. (-3)

● 2:6 – D has ως δε παρεγεινοντο instead of εγενετο δε εν τω ειναι αυτους εκει.  (+14, -26)

● 2:8 – D has χαρα ταυτη instead of χωρα τη αυτη.  (+1, -2)

● 2:8 – D has τας before φυλακας.  (+3)

● 2:9 – D has ιδου after the first και.  (+4)

● 2:9 – D does not have κυριου after δοξα.  (-6)

● 2:10 – D has και before παντι.  (+3)

● 2:12 – D has εστω after σημειον.  (+4)

● 2:12 – D does not have και κειμενον.  (-11)

● 2:15 – D has και οι ανθρωποι before οι ποιμενες. (+13)

● 2:15 – D has ειπον instead of ελαλουν. (+3, -5)

● 2:16 – D has ευρον instead of ανευραν.  (+1, -3)

● 2:16 – D does not have τε before Μαριαμ. (-2)

● 2:17 – D does not have τουτου at the end of the verse.  (-6)

● 2:21 – D has συνετελεσθησαν instead of επλησθησαν.  (+6, -1)

● 2:21 – D has αι before ημεραι.  (+2)

● 2:21 – D has αι before οκτω.  (+2)

● 2:21 – D has το παιδιον instead of αυτον.  (+9, -5)

● 2:21 – D has ωνομασθη instead of και εκληθη.  (+8, -9)

● 2:21 – D does not have τη before κοιλια.  (-2)

● 2:21 – D has μητρος after κοιλια.  (+6)

          Now let’s revisit those seven variants in 2266 that constituted its main disagreements with the NA27 compilation.  Do you think they might be late readings that somehow got attached to the text in the Middle Ages, like snowflakes attaching themselves to a snowball as it rolls down a hill?  Let’s take a look at the allies of 2266, and see how old these readings are.

● 2:3 – ιδιαν instead of εαυτου:  supported by Codex A.

● 2:5 – γϋναικι:  supported by Codex A.

● 2:9 – ιδου:   supported by Codex A. 

● 2:12 - και is absent:  supported by Codex A.

● 2:14 – ευδοκια:  supported by L, Eusebius, Ambrose, Jerome, and Chrysostom (among others)

● 2:15 – οι ανθρωποι:  supported by Codex A.

● 2:15:  ειπον:  supported by Codex A.    

          Thus, compared to the text of Codex A, we see practically no “snowball effect” in the transmission of the text of Luke 2:1-21 in 2266.  If these readings are accretions, they are early ones.  Furthermore, compared to the text of Codex D, 2266 has by far the more accurate text.  Using the Byzantine Text as the basis of comparison, 2266 has almost no deviations.  Using the Nestle-Aland compilation as the basis of comparison, 2266’s text has lost 22 original letters and added 43 non-original letters – mostly in agreement with Codex A.  Meanwhile the text of Codex D has lost 109 original letters, and has accrued 106 non-original letters (and also contains several transpositions). 

          Again:  the Georgius Gospels is the clear winner.  In Luke 2:1-21, using NA27 as the basis of comparison, the Georgius Gospels has only one-third as much corruption as Codex Bezae contains.  

   

          [Readers are invited to double-check the comparisons and arithmetic.]

A Medieval Scroll with Text from the Gospels

          Almost all manuscripts that contain text from the New Testament in Greek are codices, that is, hand-made books.  Even the earliest catalogued fragment, Papyrus 52, is from a codex.  However, a few scrolls containing Greek text from the New Testament exist.  One of them is the D’Hendecourt Scroll in the Goodspeed Manuscript Collection at the University of Chicago (known as Manuscript #125 in the collection, and as Talisman 7 in the old Gregory-Dobschutz identification-system) . 

          This interesting item (which is not cited in the apparatus of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, and the existence of which is not acknowledged in the current Gregory-Aland identification-system) is an “apotropaic” scroll, that is, a scroll which, it was thought, endued its possessor with divine protection.  It contains text from Mark 1:1-8, Luke 1:1-7, John 1:1-14, and Matthew 6:9-13 (the Lord’s Prayer, complete with the doxology in verse 13 – not Matthew 4:9-13 as is sometimes claimed).  It also contains the Nicene Creed and Psalm 68, in Greek.  When it was in pristine condition it probably included the opening verses of the Gospel of Matthew.

Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1077, a small
manuscript made to be worn as a charm,
contains text from Matthew 4:23-24.

          The use of small scrolls containing excerpts from the beginnings, or near the beginnings, of the Gospels, as protective amulets or charms, was mentioned by the patristic writer John Chrysostom, who served in Antioch, and then Constantinople, in the late 300’s/early 400’s.  The church generally discouraged the use of such charms, but their production continued nevertheless.  Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1077 is also a talisman (probably made in the 500’s), albeit much smaller that the D’Hendecourt Scroll.  

          The scroll in the Goodspeed Manuscript Collection is one of two known portions of the same manuscript.  A longer portion is at the Pierpont Morgan Library (in New York), and it contains additional material, including Psalms 35 and 91, and invocations to Saints George (the dragon-slayer), Demetrius, Daniel, Eugenius, Artilektos, and Theodore, plus the story of King Abgar, interpolated with an unusual form of the Epistula Salvatoris – instructions (exemplified in the scroll) about how to write an inscription for divine protection.  The portion at the Morgan Library also features a colophon which informs the reader that the scroll was made in the 1,694^th year after Alexander, which yields a date of A.D. 1383.  Both portions also contain illustrations.
          Casual observers might be forgiven if they assume that the Gospels-text in a scroll made less than a century before the invention of printing must be the ordinary Byzantine Text.  Upon examination, its text agrees more closely with the Byzantine Text than with any other text-type, but it has some interesting variants.  In Matthew 6:12, the D’Hendecourt Scroll reads “αφιομεν” (agreeing with Codices D, E, L, W, Θ, and 565), which is a little different from the Byzantine reading αφιεμεν and also distinct from the Alexandrian reading αφηκαμεν.  (The early patristic writing called the Didache, as well as Clement of Alexandria (in Stromata, Book 7, ch. 13), support αφιεμεν.  The parallel in Luke 11:4 reads αφιομεν.  Usually.)   In Mark 1:1-8, the text of the d’Hendecourt Scroll runs as follows, with its most notable feature in verse 2.  (Red bold text indicates a disagreement with the Nestle-Aland text; green bold text indicates a disagreement with the Byzantine Text; purple bold text indicates a disagreement with them both.  Transpositions are not indicated.)       

Researcher Glenn Peers offers
some additional analysis of the scroll
in two papers accessible
online at Academia.

¹Αρχη του ευαγγελιου Ιυ Χυ υιου του Θυ ²ως

γεγραπται εν τω Ησαια τω προφητη ιδου

εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσω
που σου ος κατασκευασει την οδον σου εμ
προσθεν σου  ³Φωνη βοωντος εν τη ερημω ε
τοιμασατε την οδον Κυ ευθειας ποιειτε τας
τριβους αυτου · ⁴Εγενετο Ϊωαννης ^● βαπτιζων
εν τη ερημω και κηρυσσων βαπτισμα μετα
νοιας εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων. ⁵Και εξεπο
ρευοντο προς αυτον πασα η Ιουδαια χωρα
και οι Ιεροσολυμιται και εβαπτιζοντο παν
τες εν τω Ιορδανη ποταμω υπ αυτου εξομο
λογουμενοι τας αμαρτιας αυτων . ⁶Ην δε ο
Ϊωαννης ενδεδυμενος τριχας καμηλου.  και
ζωννην δερματινην περι την οσφυν αυτου.
και εσθιων ακριδας και μελι αγριον·  ⁷Και ε
κηρυσσε λεγων ερχεται ο ισχυροτερος μου οπι
σω μου ου ουκ ειμι ικανος κυψας λυσαι τον
ιμαντα των υποδηματων αυτου. ⁸Εγω μεν ε
βαπτισα υμας εν υδατι · αυτος δε βαπτι
σει υμας εν πνι αγιω : ~    

An icon at Saint Catherine's
depicts king Abgar of Edessa
being shown the cloth that bore
the image of the face of Christ.
So does an illustration on the
scroll-portion at the Morgan Library.

          The presence of an Alexandrian reading followed by so many Byzantine readings suggests that the D’Hendecourt Scroll was produced at an intersection of competing transmission-streams – a place where the Byzantine Text was prevalent but the influence of other text-streams remained significant, even in the 1300’s.  Georgian and Arabic text on the scroll also provide a clue regarding its provenance.  While it is not impossible that the scroll was made in Trebizond (where Eugenius was especially revered), its earliest known provenance is Egypt.  In addition, a small Coptic amulet-text – British Library Or. 4919(2) – also combines, albeit in an extremely concise way, the beginning of the Epistula Salvatoris and the opening verses of each Gospel.

          The most likely point of origin is Saint Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai Peninsula – the same place where Constantine Tischendorf found Codex Sinaiticus in the safe custody of monks (who were, contrary to Tischendorf’s story, certainly not burning its pages).  The motifs in one of the pictures on the D’Hendecourt Scroll (in the portion at the Morgan Library) are similar to a scene in an icon at Saint Catherine’s, in which Abgar is presented with the cloth that bore the image of Christ’s face. 

          The story about King Abgar, the letter he wrote to Jesus, and the letter that Jesus wrote (or dictated) back to him accompanying a cloth upon which Jesus had transferred the image of His face, was very well-circulated.  It was mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea in his 

Ecclesiastical History;  in Eastern Christendom it formed part of the fifth-century composite-work known as the Doctrine of Addai, and in the West an excerpt from it is preserved in a British book made in the early 800’s.)

          The D’Hendecourt Scroll thus combined two motifs that were considered to induce divine protection upon the person carrying them:  the opening verses of the Gospels, and the story of the correspondence between Jesus and Abgar, augmented by the protective inscription of symbolic letters displayed on the scroll.  Although produced as the equivalent of a lucky charm, it has some textual value, and its text should not be ignored in discussions of Mark 1:2 and Matthew 6:13. 

Lessons from a Medieval Fragment of Second Timothy and Titus

          In the Goodspeed Manuscript Collection at the University of Chicago there is a twelfth-century manuscript called “2 Timothy and Titus Praxapostolos Fragment,” known as manuscript #943 in the collection, and identified as 2425 in the Gregory-Aland identification-system.  Manuscript 2425 contains text from Second Timothy (3:6-4:22) and Titus (1:1-3).  It also contains a Hypothesis (Summary) of Titus.

This detail from 2425 shows text from Second Timothy 3:15-4:3a,
including a variant in 4:1 that is not in the Nestle-Aland apparatus.

          The text of this minuscule fragment displays a strong adherence to the standard Byzantine Text.  It varies from the Robinson-Pierpont 2005 compilation of the Byzantine Textform at only four points – in Second Timothy 3:8, reading Μωϋσεῖ (Byz: Μωϋση), 3:11, reading ἐγένοντο (Byz:  ἐγένετο), 4:1, reading Κυριου (Byz:  του Κυριου) and 4:13, reading φαιλόνην (Byz:  φελονην).  (In the fourth case, the Byzantine Text itself is split; φαιλόνην is mentioned in the margin of RP-2005.)  Thus the difference between the text of Second Timothy 3:6-Titus 1:3 in this manuscript, and the text of RP-2005 amounts to eight Greek letters.  2425 is thus an excellent representative of its text-type.  It shows the stability of the Byzantine transmission-stream in the Middle Ages, at least for the Pastoral Epistles.  
          A couple of longer readings that are found in the text of Second Timothy in Codex Alexandrinus, produced in the 400’s (“and carnal pleasures” in 3:6, and “as a good soldier in Christ Jesus” in 4:5), are not in the text of 2425, and two shorter readings in Codex Alexandrinus (the non-inclusion of “the love” in 3:10 and the non-inclusion of “me” in 4:17) that were not adopted in NA27 are not supported by 2425 (that is, 2425 and the Byzantine Text agree with NA27 against Codex A at all four points).    

          Two other things may be learned from 2425:

          ● Considering the textual stability implied by a comparison of 2425 and the Byzantine Text, the often-repeated claim that “no two New Testament manuscripts agree exactly” is almost certainly wrong.  At least one book of the New Testament – perhaps Second Timothy or Titus or Jude – was very probably reproduced in a form that is shared exactly by more than one manuscript.

The STEP-Bible:  better than NA27.

          ● In the course of collating the text of 2425, I noticed a significant variant-unit in Second Timothy 4:1 that is not in the Nestle-Aland apparatus.  The words “the Lord” – του Κυριου in Greek – are not in the Alexandrian Text, but the word Κυριου is supported by 2425 (in which Κυριου, being a sacred name, is contracted as Κυ and overlined).  The reading του Κυριου is included in the Byzantine Text (and is supported by the Peshitta).  To put this another way:  a variant in Second Timothy 4:1 that has an impact on translation, and which is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, is not in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece at all.  It’s not in the text of NA-27 and it’s not in the apparatus.  You won’t find it in the UBS Greek New Testament anywhere either.  It’s not mentioned in the NET either.  The Byzantine reading is, however, listed in the footnotes of the SBL-GNT, and it is also included in the apparatus of the STEP-Bible prepared at Tyndale House, although the specific variant attested by 2425, in which Κυριου is in the text but is not preceded by του, is not mentioned.  I conclude that the claim that “it is certain that the original wording is found either in the text or in the apparatus” may be an overly optimistic assessment when applied to the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece.