Lectionary 1276

A fragment of Lect 1276,
with the Gospels-text
artificially enhanced.

           Around 5,600 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament – ranging from small fragments to full 27-book collections – are known to exist.  About 2,500 of them are lectionaries.  Yet although lectionaries constitute over 40% of our New Testament manuscripts, the study of lectionaries is perhaps the most neglected area in New Testament text-critical research.   Lectionaries are considered so unimportant in some circles that the textual apparatus of the recently published Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament does not ever cite a lectionary.  There is a reason for some of this neglect – or avoidance – of lectionaries:  in the case of at least eight out of ten lectionaries, if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all – basically the same form of text, divided into the same segments, assigned to the same days and occasions, with only minor anomalies such as the inclusion of a special feast-day to honor a local cleric or a bishop’s patron saint.

            The lectionary we are examining today is different:  lectionary 1276 is a small fragment that was published in 1900 by Charles Taylor, as part of the immense research-project involving the materials obtained by him and Solomon Schechter from the Cairo Genizah.  Being only a small fragment, lectionary 1276 does not contain much text; only a few lines from Matthew 10:2-4 and 10:11-15, and John 20:11-15 are extant.  But what makes Lectionary 1276 special is its age:  its online profile at the website of Cambridge University states, “The upper script” – that is, the writing in the Hebrew composition for which the lectionary’s parchment was recycled – “is Hebrew with sparse Palestinian vocalisation, and has been dated to the 8th or 9th century by Allony and Diez-Macho (1958-1959: 58). The under script is a Greek biblical majuscule that has been dated to between the 6th and 9th centuries.  Tchernetska (2002: 248-249) believes that the 6th-century date is more likely.”  Natalie Tchernetska is not the only researcher to prefer a production-date in the 500s for lectionary 1276; Carroll D. Osburn also accepted this dating in his 1995 essay The Greek Lectionaries of the New Testament.  If this is the case, Lectionary 1276 is not only one of our earliest Greek lectionaries, but I reckon that it is among the 20 oldest Greek manuscripts of any kind which preserve the passages that it contains.

Another piece of Lect 1276,
with the Gospels-text
artificially enhanced.

            The identification of this manuscript as a lectionary is elicited by three features:  first, it has text from Matthew 10 and John 20, and it has the title “Gospel According to Matthew” written above the excerpt from Matthew; in addition, Taylor noted that there appears to be the remains of a sub-title which means “for the fifth day,” which is not unusual in lectionaries preceding readings assigned to Thursdays.

            Since lectionary 1276 is a palimpsest, it is not easy to discern its contents via a simple view of the fragment.  However, if one accesses the online page-views at Cambridge University's digital library, selects “Open with Mirador” from the sub-menu (accessible after pressing the three-bar button), toggles the side panel (again using the three-bar button), rotates the view, and adjusts Contrast to about 140% and Brightness to about 120%, it becomes much easier to perceive the Greek uncial letters through the Hebrew writing.                         

            What kind of text was in this lectionary?  With so little text to work with, it is not easy to make a sure assessment; nevertheless, it appears to be Byzantine, in consideration of the following readings.

The text of Lect 1276,
based on Charles Taylor's
transcription.

            ● In Matthew 10:3, Lect 1276 supports Θαδδαῖος ὁ ἐπικληθεις Λεββαῖος.  This reading is not supported by Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, or Bezae; B and À read Θαδδαῖος and D reads Λεββαῖος.  Metzger asserts that the Alexandrian and Western readings have been combined to produce the longer reading, and Willker concurs, calling the Byzantine reading “an obvious conflation.”   However, a few things weigh against this:  first, no such conflation is in the Byzantine Text in Mark 3:18, where the Alexandrian text names Thaddeus and the Western text names Lebbaeus.  If the Alexandrian reading is nothing but a replacement of Λεββαῖος with Θαδδαῖος, or vice versa, then one of these readings accounts for the other as a simple name-substitution.  But the Western reading is accounted for by the Byzantine reading, if an early copyist’s line of sight skipped from the end of Λεββαῖος to the end of Θαδδαῖος, causing the loss of the phrase “who was surnamed Thaddaeus.”  The support for the Byzantine reading is very broad; it includes Σ L Δ W Θ 157 700, and the Peshitta, and it is quoted, c. 380, in the Apostolic Constitutions (VI:14) and by Chrysostom.  Its presence in Lectionary 1276 adds to the extent of its early attestation.       
            ● In Matthew 10:11, Lect 1276 supports δ’ αν πόλιν η κώμην.  Codex D has a drastically different word-order; f¹ does not include η κώμην, and f¹³ puts η κώμην after εισέλθητε, indicating that Lect 1276’s text is neither Western nor Caesarean.  Yet, it does not strictly agree here with the Alexandrian and Byzantine form of the verse either; as Taylor observed, εισέλθητε is not in the manuscript (although he added it in his reconstruction). 

            ● In Matthew 10:13, Lect 1276 supports the usual reading ἐλθάτω, disagreeing with D which reads εστε, and with S Ω 28 which read εισελθάτω.

            ● In Matthew 10:13, Lect 1276 disagree with D again by including αξια; D replaces η αξια η with γε. 

            ● In Matthew 10:13, Lect 1276 agrees with Β À W, disagreeing with almost all other witnesses, by reading εφ instead of προς. 

            ● In Matthew 10:13, Lect 1276 reads –καμψε– which implies that when pristine, the text read ανακάμψει (as Luke 10:6 reads); Taylor observed that the minuscule 243 shares this reading, diverging from almost all other witnesses which support επιστραφήτω.

            ● In Matthew 10:14, Lect 1276 supports the inclusion of μη δέξηται, disagreeing with B*.

            ● In John 20:11, Lect 1276 supports the spelling ϊστήκει, agreeing with À L A N W Δ, and disagreeing with B D^supp K and most manuscripts, which read ειστήκει.         

            ● In John 20:11, Lect 1276 supports the normal reading προς, disagreeing with À (which reads εν).

            ● In John 20:11, Lect 1276 supports the word-order εξω κλαιουσα, agreeing with B L N W and disagreeing with Π Μ Κ Θ Ψ and most manuscripts.

            ● In John 20:13, Lect 1276 does not support the inclusion of τινα ζητεις which is read by A D 579 1424.

            ● In John 20:13, Lect 1276 does not support τεθείκασιν (read by W) or τεθείκαν (read by D); it has a word that begins with epsilon, probably the normal reading εθηκαν.

            ● In John 20:15, there does not appear to be room for τινα ζητεις; however the manuscript is very difficult to read at this point.

            All in all, while Lect 1276 has only a limited amount of text, and tends to agree with the Alexandrian Text on some small points, and has anomalous readings in Matthew 10:11 and 10:13, it agrees with the Byzantine Text at the major variant-unit in Matthew 10:3.   It does not show any close association with the Western and f¹ forms of the text.

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

Mary, Martha, and John 11

            Back in 2016, an interesting text-critical thesis was proposed in Harvard Theological Review:   unusual readings in Papyrus 66, considered alongside textual variants in many other manuscripts, indicate that the character of Martha did not originally appear in the Gospel of John; she was inserted by a later writer who understood Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene to be the same person, and who wished to diminish the role of Mary Magdalene.

            Lately this theory has been getting some attention;  in 2018, Candida Moss (of Notre Dame University) concluded an article about it by stating, “for the first time there is a plausible scholarly argument for the idea that Mary Magdalene was written out of the Bible and the history books.”  And in July of 2019, Elizabeth Schrader, the thesis-writer, made an appearance at the Religion for Breakfast video-show, promoting the theory.

            Is Schrader’s main idea plausible, or has she misread the evidence?  She has misread the evidence, mainly by consistently misinterpreting scribal errors as if they have implications that they simply do not have.  This may be concisely demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt by undertaking the challenge that Schrader issued near the end of her Religion for Breakfast interview:  to demonstrate that Martha is not an addition to the Gospel of John, one needs to do the following:
            ● explain the unusual readings in P66.

            ● explain why the names are always changing in John 11:5. 

            ● explain why there’s only one sister in so much early artwork.

            ● explain why there is not similar confusion involving the names of Mary and Martha in Luke 10:38-42.

            ● explain the reading of Codex Alexandrinus in John 11:1, where the name Mary is changed to Martha, and the verse ends by referring to his sister rather than her sister.

Let’s begin.

● THE UNUSUAL READINGS IN JOHN 11:1-3 IN PAPYRUS 66

            The copyist who transcribed the text of P66 was not particularly competent.  Occasionally, he got ahead of himself and over-anticipated the text he was copying, somewhat it the same way that a typist, upon encountering the phrase “The quick brown fox jumped” at the end of a page, might continue to type “over the lazy dogs,” without bothering to turn the page – only to find a different phrase after the page is turned. 

            In John 11:1, the copyist of P66 initially wrote the Greek equivalent of “Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and Mary her sister.”  Then, realizing that he had written “Mary” twice,” he went back and corrected the text by erasing the letter iota in the second Μαριας and replacing it with the letter theta, so as to write Μαρθας.  This kind of mistake is not particularly unusual for this copyist; he made at least 15 other mistakes of dittography (writing twice what should be written once) in the text of John.  

            Apart from this careless one-letter mistake, the copyist of P66 initially wrote a normal text of John 11:1, identical to what is found in the Textus Receptus.  In verse 3, we find a reading in which, according to Schrader, “one named woman has been split into two unnamed women.”  After writing the Greek equivalent of “Sent, therefore,” (απεστιλεν ουν) the copyist initially wrote a name – either Μαριας  or Μαρθας – and continued on a little further, to the end of the line he was writing:  προς αυτον λεγουσα, that is, “to Him, saying.”  (Probably he also started the verse with και (and) and then declined to keep the word, but this does not figure into the subject at hand.)  At this point, the copyist of P66 realized that he had over-anticipated the text in his exemplar (perhaps when he finished writing λεγουσα, consulted his exemplar, and saw that it read λεγουσαι), went back, adjusted the endings of the verbs so to as to turn them into plurals (απεστιλαν and λεγουσαι), erased the name (which is why we’re not sure whether it was Μαριας  or Μαρθας , but I suspect it was Μαριας), and in the space where the name had been, wrote αι αδελφαι, that is, “the sisters.” 

            It could be said that one woman has been replaced with a reference to two woman – but to what extent is this saying anything more than that the copyist of P66 began verse 3 by assuming that it was about one woman, and then corrected his mistake?  If the presence of αι αδελφαι was the special property of an interpolated manuscript in the hands of the copyist of P66, then it certainly was well-travelled:  αι αδελφαι is the reading here in John 11:3 in Codex Vaticanus, and in Codex Sinaiticus; αι αδελφαι is the reading in Papyrus 45, and in Papyrus 75.  Likewise Origen, in his Commentary on John, VI:40, in the course of discussing a textual variant in John 1:28, mentions that John says that Bethany was the town of Lazarus, and of Martha and Mary.  If one consults Schrader’s data-tables in which the contents of many manuscripts are compared, it appears that αι αδελφαι is supported in every extant Greek manuscript in the list in which verse 3 appears – except P66, in which the copyist almost immediately fixed his mistake. 

            Schrader seems to consider problematic the inclusion of αυτης (her sister) at the end of John 11:1, arguing that the original text was αυτου.  However, by asserting that αυτου is the original reading, Schrader is arguing for a reading that originated as an expression of a tendency among some copyists (especially in Old Latin texts) to adjust the text in favor of the dominance of men – that is, in Codex A (from the 400s), 841 (from the 1400s), 1009 (from the 1200s), 1071 (from the 1100s), and in two medieval lectionaries, we see the effect of a scribal preference to refer to “his sister” instead of “her sister.”  In such a smattering of witnesses, the reading αυτου simply pops up; meanwhile in P66, P75, B, ℵ, K, L, M, S, W, Y, Δ, Θ, Π, 047, and so on, αυτης has ancient, abundant, and coherent support.

            To put it another way:  there is no genealogical connection between Codex A and the medieval minuscules 423, 841, 1009, 1071, and two lectionaries; the reading αυτου at the end of John 11:1 appears in these manuscripts not as something with ancient roots, but as something more like a weed that has sprouted from the minds of what a few copyists thought the text should say.              

           

            Before moving on to the next point, I should address a reading in the important medieval minuscule 157:  In John 11:1, the words και Μαρθας are absent.  Is this evidence that minuscule 157 echoes some ancient exemplar in which Martha did not appear in the narrative?  No; what has happened is that the preceding word Μαριας appears at the end of a line; the copyist lost his line of sight as he began the next line, shifting forward to the letters at the end of και Μαρθας.  Thus he accidentally skipped those two words – but their presence in his exemplar is obvious from the words that he wrote next:  της αδελφης αυτης (that is, her sister).  Schrader observes that 157 thus “nonsensically” applies a feminine pronoun to Lazarus, but it seems not to have registered that the obvious explanation of this nonsense-reading is that a simple scribal mistake has been made, rather than that a lost Martha-less form of John 11 is being attested.

● THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF NAMES IN JOHN 11:5

            The text of John 11:5 in most Greek manuscripts says, “Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.”  Whether one consults the UBS compilation or the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform, or Michael Holmes’ SBL-GNT, or even the Textus Receptus, they all agree:  ἠγάπα δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν Μάρθαν καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῆς καὶ τὸν Λάζαρον.  The text of P66 is identical with the exception that Jesus’ name is contracted (as is typical in Greek manuscripts) and the word αὐτῆς is not in the text; however it is supplied in the margin.   

            An assortment of other manuscripts disagree, primarily because of two scribal tendencies:  (1)  the tendency to supply names, so as to make the text more explicit, and
(2)  the tendency to put Mary’s name first, so as to correspond to the order of names given when the characters are introduced in John 11:1.

            Under the influence of those two natural tendencies, some copyists rewrote the verse to say, “Now Jesus loved Mary and her sister Martha, and Lazarus.”  This may be considered the Caesarean form of the verse, attested in a special cluster of manuscripts (consisting mainly of Θ, f¹, f¹³, 543, 565, 828, and others), the members of which share other textual features, such as unusual placements of the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11).  

            A few other manuscripts list Martha first, but add Mary’s name, so as to say, “Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister Mary, and Lazarus.”  Schrader lists two medieval manuscripts – 2561 and 2680 – which support the form, “Now Jesus loved Mary and her sister and Lazarus,” thus putting Mary’s name in the place formerly occupied by Martha’s name.  

            What is not seen in any of these Greek manuscripts is a form of the text in which Martha is entirely absent.  Even in the few relatively late manuscripts in which her name does not appear in 11:5, she is referred to as Mary’s sister.  When the rival readings are analyzed, from the more explicit to the less specific, and from those harmonized to 11:1 to those less harmonized, the anomalies are easily sorted out and the usual, ordinary text is confirmed, and the flow from more specific to less specific, and from more harmonized to less harmonized, is generally matched by the flow from the  younger to the older witnesses.  In other words, the consistent picture shown by Greek manuscripts in John 11:5 is that the insertion of Mary’s name, and the transposition of Mary’s name to the front of the list, and the loss of Martha’s name, are late scribal adjustments, not echoes of an ancient exemplar.

            Furthermore, it is not accurate to say that the names in John 11:5 are “always changing.”  The verse is altered in the Caesarean Text, i.e., in select members of f¹ and  f¹³.  But in most manuscripts (including P45, P75, ℵ, B, A, K, L, W) it is stable.  In all Greek manuscripts of John 11:5, the verse conveys that Jesus loved Martha and Mary and Lazarus, whether the names of all three individuals are supplied in this verse or not.

● THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS IN EARLY CHRISTIAN ARTWORK

            In Schrader’s thesis, there is very little emphasis on artwork; her appeal to artwork in the Religion for Breakfast interview may be something that was just thrown in.  Nevertheless, it may be briefly considered:  artwork is art, and the degree of detail provided in a work of art is subject to the whims, abilities, and resources of the artist.  Artists have creative freedom which copyists do not.  A depiction of the resurrection of Lazarus in the Catacomb of the Giordani shows only Jesus and Lazarus.  Similarly in a mosaic on the wall of the Basilica of Sant’Apollinare Nuovo, made around 530, a scene depicts the raising of Lazarus without any females present.  Likewise the Murano Diptych, from the 400s-500s, depicts Jesus and Lazarus, but no women.  And at the Museo Pio-Cristiano at the Vatican, a scene on a sarcophagus-lid from the cemetery of Saint Agnes depicts the resurrection of Lazarus, but without anyone except Jesus and Lazarus. 

               Should we therefore assume that the artists of these four early works of art knew a form of John 11 in which Mary and Martha (and the crowd of mourners accompanying them) do not appear?  (Meanwhile The Jonah Sarcophagus depicts two women present at the raising of Lazarus.)  I think the point is already clear:  it would be absurd to treat ancient artwork as a means to answer the question at hand.

● THE STABILITY OF NAMES IN LUKE 10:38-42

            Why, we are invited to ask, is there instability involving the names of Mary and Martha in John 11:1-12:2, but not in Luke 10:38-42, where the same two characters are depicted?  There are two very simple reasons why this is the case.  First, Luke 10:38-42 constitutes only five verses, in which Mary’s name appears twice and Martha’s name appears four times, and the two names never appear side-by-side; in contrast, John 11:1-12:2 constitutes 59 verses – or 46, if we exclude John 11:47-57, which is really a different scene – in which Mary’s name appears eight times and Martha’s name appears eight times, and both names appear in the same sentence twice (in v. 1 and v. 19).  The passage in Luke is one-eighth the length of the passage in John, and it provides very little opportunity to get the sisters’ names mixed up.

            The second reason is that while in John, each sister is described as a sister of Lazarus, and both sisters undertake similar actions (both say the same thing to Jesus, in John 11:21 and 11:32), in Luke their actions and attitudes form a stark contrast; Martha is busy, while Mary is sitting at Jesus’ feet.  It is impossible not to see this contrast in the episode in Luke; it forms the foundation of the lesson that is intended to be conveyed.  Meanwhile, in John, the two sisters are described similarly, and say similar things.  There is a stark contrast between them in Luke which precludes confusion of the two individuals, whereas in John there is not.  

A hypothetical reconstruction
of the uncorrected text of John 11:1
in Codex A.  The manuscript is online.

● THE TEXT OF JOHN 11:1 IN CODEX ALEXANDRINUS

            In Codex Alexandrinus, the text that stands in the manuscript now says, “Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and Martha his sister,” differing from the usual text only by the presence of “his” (αυτου) instead of “her” (αυτης), a difference addressed already.  When the copyist initially wrote out this verse, however, he made another, more significant mistake (which was detected by the researcher Cowper in 1840). 

            Normally, the text of John 11:1 goes, Ἦν δέ τις ἀσθενῶν Λάζαρος ἀπὸ Βηθανίας, ἐκ τῆς κώμης Μαρίας καὶ Μάρθας τῆς ἀδελφῆς αὐτῆς – “Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha.”  But besides shifting from αυτης to αυτου (and thus causing the text to refer to “his sister Martha”), the copyist of Codex A made a parableptic error, skipping from the letters –as at the end of Μαρίας to the same letters at the end of καὶ Μάρθας, thus skipping the two words καὶ Μάρθας.  A clever correction was made:  the word κώμης was erased, and then written in small letters at the end of the previous line, and the newly blank space was filled with the words Μαρίας καὶ Μάρθας. 

            That’s all there is to that scribal mistake and correction.  The other mistake in John 11:1 in Codex A – αυτου instead of αὐτῆς – was addressed in the first point.

            Although Schrader’s five-part challenge has been answered, there are two additional components of her thesis that I will address here. 

● IS “ΑΥΤΗ” IN JOHN 11:4 A DATIVE FEMININE SINGULAR?

            This point is slightly technical:  should the word αυτη in 11:4 be understood as if it was meant to signify the person Jesus was addressing – causing the sentence to begin, “Upon hearing that, Jesus said to her” – or should it be understood (as most English translations render it) instead as a nominative term, causing the sentence to begin, “Upon hearing that, Jesus said, “This,” and so forth.   The copyist of P66 put a comma-like mark before αυτη, as if he perceived that the text could initially seem ambiguous without it, and wished to ensure that readers would understand the αυτη to mean “This” instead of “to her.”

            And the copyist of P66 wasn’t the only scribe to do so.  Codex Sinaiticus has a separating mark between ειπεν and αυτη.  In Codex Vaticanus, ειπεν ends a line, and some empty space is leftover, before αυτη begins the next line.   Jumping ahead several hundred years, the Elfleda Bond Goodspeed Gospels displays a separating dot between ειπεν and αυτη.  I am confident that many other copies share this feature, so as to elicit the understanding that “This sickness” was the intended meaning.  In some other manuscripts, such as 138 and 1321, the risk of ambiguity has been eliminated by moving αυτη to the other side of ἡ ἀσθένεια. (Schrader lists a total of 12 Greek manuscripts with this reading, and seems to consider each one as somehow problematic, but this is simply a clarifying transposition.)   Following this clever adjustment, some copyists conflated both placements; as a result, seven manuscripts Schrader has examined have αυτη both before, and after, ἡ ἀσθένεια.  (These, too, are counted as problematic by Schrader.)

            The translator of the Latin text in the Old Latin Codex Carotensis (VL 33) seems to have been at a disadvantage; his Greek exemplar(s) apparently did not have distinction-making marks or separation-spaces in this verse, and due to this ambiguity, this manuscript has the phrase “dixit ei,” that is, “said to her,” in John 11:4.  This is a symptom of a Latin translator’s confusion, however; it does not indicate that αυτη was meant to be understood this way. 

● WHO SERVES SUPPER IN JOHN 12:2?

            In P66 – after Martha’s name has appeared in – John 12:2 begins not with the usual ἐποίησαν (“they made), but with the singular ἐποίησεν.  This is a very slight variation, probably elicited by a scribe’s desire to relieve readers of the burden of asking who “they” were; the resultant sense, with ἐποίησεν, is that Lazarus made a supper for Jesus.  Minuscules 295 and 841, Schrader has observed, share this reading.

            A little further along in the verse, P66 says that Martha served.  This is the reading of almost all manuscripts, whether early or late – but – but Schrader has observed that minuscules 27, 63, and 1194 have Mary’s name here, instead of Martha’s.  I leave it to readers to mull over the probabilities:  is this a simple effect of scribal inattentiveness, sparked by anticipation of Mary’s actions in the following verse, or do three Byzantine minuscules preserve the original reading, against all other Greek manuscripts?

IN CONCLUSION . . .

            There is more material in Schrader’s thesis that I have not considered in this brief essay.  However, the major points have been covered, and her five-point challenge has been answered.  Although Schrader has collected many variant-readings in John 11 (which must have taken considerable work), a very large majority of the readings in question, and especially the variants at the core of her arguments, are the effects of scribal carelessness, or the effects of scribes’ desire to augment the clarity the text.   

            This tends to hollow out her claim that one in five of the Greek manuscripts she has examined displays some problem involving the character of Martha in John 11:1-12:2; the evidence points toward a different and unremarkable direction:  copyists were sometimes careless, and sometimes desired to augment the clarity of the text.  None of these textual variants suggests anything remotely resembling the massive interpolation that Schrader has proposed.



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

[In the first posting of this post, I had the words απεστιλεν and απεστιλαν mixed up.  My bad.]

           

How to Read a Greek Gospels Manuscript

            Today, let’s look into how to read a Greek manuscript of the Gospels – an important skill that every New Testament textual critic should have.  If you do not already know some New Testament Greek, use This List of Free Resources for Learning New Testament Greek, and after a year or so you should have enough skill to understand everything that I am about to describe.

            Now let’s explore an important medieval Greek manuscript of the Gospels:  minuscule 9.  All Greek manuscripts are important, but this one is especially significant historically, because it was used by the scholar Robert Stephanus in his compilation of the Greek New Testament in 1550.  That is, out of the hundreds of Greek Gospels-manuscripts that exist, this is one that was studied and used the most in the 1500s, as the Textus Receptus – the base-text for the King James Version – was developed. Minuscule 9 – called witness ιβ′ (i.e., #12) by Stephanus – is kept at the National Library of France.  It was produced in 1168.  You can download page-views of the entire manuscript from the Gallica website – just select “Manuscripts” from the options in the first sub-menu there, and then search for Grec 83, and use the menu on the far left of the page to complete the download.  (You will need to agree to Gallica’s Terms & Conditions.)

           

            After opening the manuscript, the first thing we find is a summary of the manuscript’s contents, written relatively recently.  Most manuscripts that are kept in library-collections have this sort of note, and if we pay attention to their contents, we may save some time; these notes often tell readers a little about the manuscript’s history, and list the page-numbers on which each Gospel begins, and also tell about whatever sections might be missing or out of order.  We can deduce from the information on this page that minuscule 9 was once known as Regius 83 (when it was in the library of the king of France), a useful data-nugget if one ever wishes to look for references to this manuscript in books written before its Gregory-Aland inventory number became the standard nomenclature by which it was known.

            Next, we encounter in minuscule 9 a one-page Prologue to the Four Gospels.  It looks like someone had intended to draw the symbols of the Evangelists in the four corners of the page, surrounding the semi-cruciform text – if you look closely you can see the sketched outline of Mark’s lion in the northwest corner – but this task was never completed.  The Prologue explains the symbolic connection between the Gospels and their symbols (man, lion, ox, and eagle).

            On the next page, framed within a red border, is Eusebius of Caesarea’s letter To Carpian (Ad Carpianus), which provides brief instruction on how to use the Eusebian Canons, Eusebius’ cross-reference system for the Gospels.  The title appears in uncial letters, the outlines of which were drawn, and then filled with red pigment.  There is an elaborate initial “A” in which blue, red, and yellow pigment has been used.  Within the text, the letter omicron and a few other letters are sporadically filled in or outlined in red.  (This feature appears frequently in the Gospels-text as well.)  An English translation of Eusebius’ letter to Carpian is online, and so is a table of the Canons themselves.

            Next, several pages are filled by the Eusebian Canons.  The canon-lists are framed by decorative columns, resembling rounded doorways at the entrance to a temple.  At the end of the canons, two columns have been left blank.  Then comes the Kephalaia, or chapter-list, for the Gospel of Matthew, filling a page and a half. 

            After a blank page, the text of the Gospel of Matthew begins, after its title, which is written in large red letters.  A huge initial “B,” somewhat reminiscent of the initials in the Bury Bible, but not quite as ornate, fills most of the page; the rest of the text on the page is written in uncials.

            On the next page, the text of Matthew continues.  The Greek book-title has been written at the top of the page, and at some point this was supplemented by the Latin book-title as well. 

            Continuing to the following page, readers may notice small Greek letters beta and gamma in the outer margin.  These are section-numbers, corresponding to the section-numbers that appear in the Eusebian Canon-tables.  Within the text, one can detect small breaks where one section ends and another begins; the first letter of the new chapter is written in red. Also, you can see at the beginning of the chapter a small “+” symbol.  Often (as we see here in minuscule 9 at the third section), this “+” is accompanied by another symbol that represents the word arche, “beginning/”  This means that at this point, a daily reading begins.  Often the arche-symbols are supplements by telos-symbols, signifying the ends of the segment for the daily reading.   (If we turn ahead to page 11, at the end of Matthew 2:12 we can see a telos-symbol at the end of a line, and alongside the next line, the arche-symbol is in the margin.)

            By the way, if you have learned your Greek numerals, you can easily follow along with the section-numbers that are in the inner margin of the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece.  Sometimes, a manuscript’s section-numbers will not correspond exactly to the Nestle-Aland arrangement, but they usually do.

            In minuscule 9, ordinary page-numbers have been added in the upper right corner of the page – although it is more precise to call the numbers in this manuscript leaf-numbers rather than page-numbers, because they appear on every other page, denoting the individual leaf, on which there is (a) a front page, and (b) a back page.  If we turn to page 10a, we will see in the left margin a stack of four symbols (each looking like “├”).  Sometimes such marks appear in the form of little arrow-markers (>).  They are there to indicate that in the lines of text that they accompany, there is a quotation from the Old Testament.

            If we look at the bottom of page 10a, we will see a chapter-number – α – and the chapter-title (περι των μαγων, that is, About the Wise Men).  At the top of leaf 12, the next chapter-number and chapter-title (titloi – the same as the Kephalaia, except they appear here one at a time) are supplied at the top of the page, and the chapter-title also appears in the outer margin alongside the exact point where the chapter begins – in this case, at Matthew 2:16.  (For more information about the Kephalaia, see the post Kephalaia:  The Ancient Chapters of the Gospels.)  Sometimes, the titloi appear at the foot of the page.

            Occasionally, one will encounter a hole in the parchment, such as the one in minuscule 9 on leaf 17.  Almost always, these holes were made during the preparation of the parchment, and scribes simply wrote around them. 

            Also in minuscule 9, one will occasionally find little notes written in Latin in the margin.  Four such notes can be seen on the front of leaf 20.

            On leaf 22, some damage has occurred to the manuscript, and a repair has been attempted: part of the lower portion of the leaf has been ripped away.  Newer parchment has been glued to the old parchment, and the small portion of the text that was lost has been supplied in different handwriting.  Technically, this small bit of writing (less than four full lines) on the younger parchment qualifies as a supplement.

            On leaf 24, we see the effect of a recurring problem in medieval manuscripts:  when manuscripts were bound or rebound, sometimes their pages were also recut, and sometimes this was carelessly done, resulting in over-trimming.  Fortunately in this case, no Gospels-text was lost, but the book-title at the top of the page has been cut.  (Also notice on this page the Latin translations of the chapter-numbers and chapter-titles.)

            On the back of leaf 27, there is something interesting:  in the text, Matthew 9:26 ought to read, και εξηλθεν η φημη αυτη εις ολην την γην εκεινην.  However, the copyist skipped the words η φημη.  When this scribal error was detected, the missing words were added in the margin, accompanied by a triangular set of red dots (\), and the same symbol was added in the text at the point where the words η φημη should be read.

            On leaf 28b, we encounter two more interesting features:  first, at Matthew 10:4, there is a short margin-note about Judas.  And in the text of Matthew 10:5, the copyist momentarily omitted the word εθνων but caught his mistake and added the word above the line at the place where it belongs.

            On leaf 29a, there is another \ mark in the margin, but in this case it is not in red, and there is no identical mark in the text; instead, in the outer margin, there is a Latin note accompanied by two dots – ‥ – a distigma, or umlaut-like symbol.

            Moving along to leaf 37, we can see that somebody added red “<” marks in the outer margin, to acknowledge the quotation from Isaiah 42 that Matthew makes in 12:18-21.  These marks are not as neat as some others, though, so it is possible that a different scribe is responsible.
            On 37b and 38a, the original book-title that had been at the top of the page, apparently trimmed away, has been replaced in very different handwriting.

            In the margin of 53a, alongside Matthew 19:27, there is a lectionary-related symbol in the margin:  in addition to arche and telos, here we see arcou – that is, “resume.”  Sometimes a lection consisted of more than one segment of text, and this symbol introduced the second segment.           

            On 59a , there is another example of the use of the ‥ mark.  In this case, the ‥ appears directly above the telos symbol that follows the end of Matthew 21:43, and another ‥ appears in the margin, accompanying the note του ορθρου.  This indicates that this passage was a morning-time reading in the lection-cycle.   If this echoes the treatment of this passage in some otherwise unknown early lection-cycle, it might have something to do with the absence of Matthew 21:44 in a few early witnesses – but such a lection-cycle would have to be extremely early, inasmuch as one of the witnesses in which Matthew 21:44 appears to be missing is Papyrus 104, which competes with Papyrus 52 for the title of the earliest extant fragment of the New Testament text.

             On 67a, in the margin alongside the end of Matthew 24:37, we encounter another lectionary-related mark:  υπ, written with the υ below the π.  This abbreviation stands for hyperbale, or, “jump ahead, signifying that the rest of the lection consisted was somewhere other than the immediately-following text.  In this case, we find arcou “resume”) just a little further down the page, alongside Matthew 24:43. 

            On page 80a, there is a textual variant in the margin:  νυκτος is added to Mt. 27:64, between αυτου and κλέψωσιν.  This reading is supported by L M 565 700 892 1424 and the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, and a correction in 1582.

            At the end of Matthew, on 81b, only slightly separated from the end of 28:20, there is a colophon, that is, a closing-note by the scribe:  the end of the words of Matthew, from the Gospel according to Matthew, which Matthew wrote in Hebrew in Palestine, in the eighth year after the ascension of Lord.  Written in 2,522 remata, 2,560 stichoi.    This is followed by what appears to be the name of the scribe, Solomon, in stylized lettering.

            On the very next page, 82a, the Kephalaia are listed for the Gospel of Mark, below a braided heading-marker, for which red, blue, yellow, and green pigments were used.   

            A few pages appear to be missing – the last page of the Kephalaia-list has been replaced – but the Gospel of Mark begins intact, with a very large initial “A” on 85a.  The opening title, drawn in red hollow uncials, is rather unusual.           

Getting crazy with the flourishes.

            On several of the pages of Mark which follow, one may notice an idiosyncrasy of the scribe: when the word και appeared in the last line on a page, he often wrote it as a και-compendium, i.e., an abbreviation, and extended the final stroke in a fancy design below the line.  Sometimes the flourish is reinforced with red ink (as on page 111.)  The stalks of the letters φ and ψ on the last line of a page are sometimes similarly embellished.

            The Gospel of Mark ends on 131b, and a nice little headpiece introduced the Kephalaia-list for Luke, with a red cross in the margin.

            On 133b, in the space left after the end of Luke Kephalaia-list, someone has added a portrait of Luke the Evangelist, writing his Gospel at a desk, framed within a heavy green background on three sides.  What appears to be a blue easel with clawed legs sits nearby.
            On 134a, the text of the Gospel of Luke begins, below the unusual title and alongside a large initial “E.”  On the next page, the book restarts at verse 5 (which is not unusual in medieval manuscripts) and there is another large initial “E,” very different in style from the first one.

            On 137b, the copyist made an embarrassing mistake:  he completely skipped Luke 1:51, right in the middle of the Magnificat.  The missing verse has been added in the margin.  A smaller mistake was made in 2:15; the words το γεγονος are missing in the text; they have been supplied in the margin.

            On 144b, the genealogy begins, and the format is unusual:  numbers are assigned to each individual, and the numbers continue on the next page, on which the text is arranged in three columns.  On 145b, the scribe returns to a single-column format, but the numbers continue, all the way up to the reference to God, at the end, who is numbered 77.

            On leaf 179 there is a small patch at the bottom.

            On 183b, in Luke 13:28, there is an initial omicron that is shaped like a fish.  Another fish-initial is on 214a.  Similar initials occur in some lectionaries. 
            In the first line of 187b, the initial in Luke 15:11 is unusually large.
            On 199a, the scribe skipped the words εν ποια in Luke 20:2.  They are added in the margin.

            The Kephalaia-list for the Gospel of John is on 215a, with a red and green braided headpiece.  On the opposite side of the page there is a full-page portrait of John, composing his Gospel, framed on three sides by a thick green border. 

            The next leaf is clearly a supplement, the original opening page containing the text of John 1:1-14a, is lost. 

            On 237a, there is a “jump ahead” symbol alongside the line where John 7:53 begins, instructing the lector to move ahead to 8:12 on the next page, where an αρξου (“Resume”) symbol appears.  (This neatly illustrates a hypothesis regarding the early loss of John 7:53-8:11: an early copyist, unfamiliar with the local lectionary in which John 7:53-8:11 was skipped in the lection for Pentecost-Day, possessed an exemplar in which he saw instructions to “Jump ahead” at the end of John 7:52, and to “Resume” at 8:12, and, thinking the instructions were meant for him rather than for the lector, omitted the intervening verses.  (See for more information my e-book, A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11).

             On 239a, a distigma (‥) appears in the margin of John 8:36, where the copyist left out the word ουν.  Another distigma appears in the text to indicate where the word belongs.

           

The full-page colophon
after the end of John.

The text of John concludes on 241a.  241b contains a cruciform-framed colophon that includes stichiometric information.  

            Beginning on 272a below a decorative headpiece, there is a lection-calendar for Sunday lections, beginning with the lection for Easter.  Incipit-phrases (the opening words of a lection as read in the church-service) are included.  This is the normal annual Synaxarion calendar.  An interesting minor detail in these pages is the assorted knot-like designs which occasionally appear, apparently serving no practical purpose – they seem to be doodles. Similar knots appear in a wide range of manuscripts.

            On 280a, a braided headpiece precedes another part of the lection-calendar. 

            Another headpiece is on 285b; yet another one begins 287a, which has as part of its design a “Jesus Christ, Victor” cross.  The incipit-phrases for Easter-week lections follow.

            On 288a, after another headpiece, the Heothina-series of lections is covered, even though no special marks accompany the text of these lections in the Gospels-text.    
            On 288b, there is another headpiece.  The heading introduces the Menologion-readings for the month of September. That is, unlike the first part of the lection-calendar, in which all dates are arranged in relation to Easter, these feast-days are assigned to dates on the calendar.

            On 289b, another headpiece introduces incipit-phrases for the Menologion-readings for the month of October.  On 290a, we see that Sergius and Bacchus’ feast-day is commemorated on October 7, and Pelagia’s feast-day is commemorated on October 8.  This is consistent with the designation of John 8:3-11 as the lection in the Menologion for October 8. 

            At the top of 290b, another headpiece introduces incipit-phrases for the Menologion-readings for the month of November.

            At the top of 291b, there is another headpiece – better executed than some of the others.  The list that follows provides incipit-phrases for the lections read in December.

            More headpieces and more monthly lection-lists, with more knot-doodles in the margins, along with simple pictures of the symbols of the Evangelists, continue, to the end of the manuscript’s text on 248b.  Then after a few blank pages, the back cover is reached.

            All in all, minuscule 9 is a pretty good manuscript to use to get acquainted with the standard format of medieval Greek Gospels-manuscripts.  It does not have an overwhelming amount of marginalia; its script is reasonably neat; its appearance is not marred by incessant corrections. I hope this review of minuscule 9 has been informative and instructive. 

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

Comparing Sinaiticus and Byz in John: 100 Differences

            Having looked at 180 translation-impacting differences between the Byzantine Text and the text in Codex Sinaiticus in the Synoptic Gospels (60 in Matthew, 60 in Mark, 60 in Luke), today we complete the set, looking at 100 translation-impacting differences between the Byzantine Text and the text that was written by the copyist of Codex Sinaiticus in the Gospel of John. 

            The readings from Sinaiticus in this list vary in size and in the amount of impact that they have on translation – in one case, 12 verses are affected; in some other cases, a single word is changed.  In several cases, the reading in Codex Sinaiticus constitutes a historical error.

            Red dots accompany cases where the Byzantine Text and the Nestle-Aland compilation both disagree with the reading written by the copyist of Codex Sinaiticus.  Black dots accompany cases where Codex Sinaiticus and the Nestle-Aland compilation agree with each other and disagree with the Byzantine reading; there are fourteen such cases (among these particular 100 variant-units).

● 1.  In John 1:15, does John the Baptist say that Jesus is the One he was speaking of before?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 2.  Does John 1:17 affirm that grace and truth come from Jesus Christ?

            ﬡ:  no (the word “Christ” is absent)

            Byz:  yes

● 3.  Does John 1:18 refer to “the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father” or to “only begotten God in the bosom of the Father”?

            ﬡ:  only begotten God in the bosom of the Father

            Byz:  the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father

● 4.  Does John 1:20 emphasize John the Baptist’s confession by mentioning twice that he confessed?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 5.  In John 1:34, does John the Baptist affirm that Jesus is the Son of God, or that Jesus is the chosen one of God?

            ﬡ:  chosen one of God

            Byz:  Son of God

● 6.  Does John 2:3 contain a phrase which says that they did not have wine, because the wine for the marriage-feast was finished?

            ﬡ:  yes

            Byz:  no

● 7.  Does John 2:6 say that the waterpots were standing there?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 8.  Does John 2:10 specifically say that Jesus manifested His glory?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 9.  Does John 2:12 mention Jesus’ disciples?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

               

● 10.  Does John 2:21 specify that Jesus spoke of the temple of His body?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 11.  In John 3:8, does Jesus describe “everyone who has been born of water and of the Spirit”?

            ﬡ:  yes

            Byz:  no (Jesus describes “everyone who has been born of the Spirit”)

● 12.  Does John 3:13 mention “the Son of Man who is in heaven”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 13.  Does John 3:16 affirm that God gave His only begotten Son?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 14.  Does John 3:20 affirm that everyone who hates the light does not come to the light?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 15.  Does John 3:21 affirm that the one who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 16.  Does John 3:31 affirm that He who comes from heaven is above all?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 17.  Does John 4:1 refer to Jesus as “the Lord”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 18.  Does John 4:9 say that Jews have no dealings with Samaritans?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 19.  In John 4:19, does the Samaritan woman refer to Jesus as “Lord”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 20.  Does John 4:39 specify that many of the Samaritans believed on Him?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 21.  Does John 4:45 say that the Galileans received Him?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 22.  Does John 5:3 mention that the sick people were waiting for the moving of the waters?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 23.  Does John 5:4 say that an angel stirred up the waters, and that the one who first entered the pool after the waters were stirred up would be healed?

            ﬡ:  no (the entire verse is absent)

            Byz:  yes

● 24.  Does John 5:9 say that the man immediately became whole?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes        

● 25.  Does John 5:14 mention that the healed man found Jesus healing in the temple?

            ﬡ:  yes

            Byz:  no

● 26.  Does John 5:16 say that the Jews sought to kill Jesus?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 27.  In John 5:25, does Jesus refer to an hour that is coming and now is?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 28.  Does John 5:26 say that the Father has given to the Son to have life in Himself?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 29.  In John 6:10, how does John describe the place where Jesus fed the five thousand?

            ﬡ:  there was much place in that place

            Byz:  there was much grass

● 30.  In John 6:10, about how many men were present?

            ﬡ:  three thousand

            Byz:  five thousand

● 31.  Does John 6:11 say that Jesus gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to those who were sitting down?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 32.  Does John 6:15 say that Jesus withdrew from the crowd, or that He escaped the crowd?

            ﬡ:  He escaped

            Byz:  He withdrew

● 33.  In John 6:26, does Jesus’ statement begin, “You seek me”?

            ﬡ:  no
            Byz:  yes  

● 34.  Does John 6:27 say that God the Father has sealed the Son of Man?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 35.  In John 6:39, does Jesus say something specifically about the will of the One who sent Him?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 36.  In John 6:42, do the Jews affirm that they know Jesus’ mother?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 37.  In John 6:46, does Jesus say that He who is from God has seen the Father?

            ﬡ:  no; Jesus says that He who is from the Father has seen God.

            Byz:  yes

● 38.  In John 6:47, does Jesus say that the one who believes in Him has eternal life?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 39.  In John 6:55, does Jesus say that His blood is truly drink?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 40.  Does John 6:64 refer to Jesus as “the Savior”?

            ﬡ:  yes

            Byz:  no

● 41.  In John 6:69, does Simon Peter describe Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” or as “the Holy One of God”?

            ﬡ:  the Holy One of God

            Byz:  the Christ, the Son of the living God

● 42.  In John 7:6, does Jesus say “My time is not yet come,” or “My time is not come”?

            ﬡ:  My time is not (ου) come

            Byz:  My time is not yet (ουπω) come

● 43.  In John 7:7, does Jesus say specifically that He testifies concerning the world?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 44.  In John 7:8, does Jesus say, “I am not going up to this feast,” or “I am not yet going up to this feast”?

            ﬡ:  I am not (ουκ) going up to this feast

            Byz:  I am not yet (ουπω) going up to this feast

            (Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, and Codex Vaticanus agree with Byz here)

● 45.  Does John 7:22 begin with “Therefore”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 46.  In John 7:26, do the people ask a question about the high priest?

            ﬡ:  yes

            Byz:  no

● 47.  In John 7:27, do the people raise a question about the signs the Messiah will do?

            ﬡ:  yes

            Byz:  no

● 48.  Does John 7:35 say that the Jews said something among themselves?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 49.  In John 7:37, does Jesus say, If anyone thirsts, “let him come to Me and drink”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 50.  Does John 7:50 say anything about Nicodemus’ previous encounter with Jesus?

             ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 51.  Does the Gospel of John contain an episode about Jesus and a woman caught in adultery, in which Jesus says “Go and sin no more”?

            ﬡ:  no (John 7:53-8:11 is absent)

            Byz:  yes

● 52.  Does John 8:20 say that Jesus was teaching in the temple?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 53.  In John 8:26, does Jesus specifically say that the Father has sent Him?

            ﬡ:  yes

            Byz:  no

● 54. Does John 8:27 specifically say that Jesus was speaking of God as the Father?

            ﬡ:  yes

            Byz:  no

● 55.  In John 8:35, does Jesus affirm that the Son abides forever?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 56.  In John 8:52, does Jesus say something about death?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 57.  In John 8:57, did the Jews ask Jesus, “Have you seen Abraham,” or “Has Abraham seen You”?

            ﬡ:  has Abraham seen You?

            Byz:  have you seen Abraham? 

● 58.  Does John 8:59 report that Jesus went through their midst, and so passed by” as He left the temple?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 59.  Does John 9:10 specifically mention the Jews?

            ﬡ:  yes

            Byz:  no

● 60.  In John 9:38, does the formerly blind man say to Jesus, “Lord, I believe”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 61.  In John 9:39, does the formerly blind man worship Jesus?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz: yes

● 62.  Does John 10:10 specifically refer to eternal life?

            ﬡ:  yes

            Byz:  no

● 63.  In John 11:31, were the Jews thinking that Jesus was going to the tomb to weep there, or were they Jews saying that Mary was going to the tomb to weep there?

            ﬡ:  they were thinking that Jesus was going to the tomb

            Byz:  they were saying that Mary was going to the tomb

● 64.  In John 11:50, does Caiaphas say “It is profitable for us that one man should die,” or does he say, “It is profitable that one man should die”?

            ﬡ:  it is profitable

            Byz:  it is profitable for us

● 65.  Does John 12:1 specify that the individual named Lazarus is “the one who had died”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 66.  In John 12:25, did Jesus say that he who hates his life in this world shall keep it?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 67.  In John 12:31, does Jesus say something about the prince of this world?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 68.  Does John 13:1 say that Jesus loved “His own” who were in the world, or “the Jews” who were in the world?

            ﬡ:  the Jews

            Byz:  His own

● 69.  In John 13:6, does Simon Peter address Jesus as “Lord”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 70.  In John 13:9, does Simon Peter address Jesus as “Lord”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 71.  In John 13:10, does Jesus say something about washing feet?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 72.  In John 13:12, did Jesus take their garments, or His garments?

            ﬡ:  their garments

            Byz:  His garments

● 73.  Does John 13:22 say that the Jews looked, one another, upon the disciples?

            ﬡ:  yes

            Byz:  no

● 74.  In John 13:24, does Simon Peter (a) motion to the disciple whom Jesus loved to ask Jesus to whom He referred, and (b) tell the disciple to ask Him of whom He spoke?

            ﬡ:  yes

            Byz:  no; only the first action is mentioned

● 75.  How does John 13:32 begin?

            ﬡ:  “Also God shall glorify Him in Himself” 

            Byz:  “If God has been glorified in Him”     

● 76.  In John 13:37, Does Simon Peter address Jesus as “Lord”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes  

● 77.  In John 14:16, does Jesus say that He will keep the Father, or that He will ask the Father?

            ﬡ:  keep

            Byz:  ask

● 78.  In John 15:10, does Jesus say, “If you keep My commandments, you shall abide in My love”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 79.  Does John 15:21 say that people will do these things “to you”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 80.  In John 16:9, does Jesus say that the Comforter will convict the world concerning sin because “they believe on Me” or “because they do not believe on Me”?

            ﬡ:  because they believe on Me

            Byz:  because they do not believe on Me

● 81.  In John 16:15, does Jesus say, “All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He will take of Mine, and shall show it to you”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 82.  Does John 16:16 end with the phrase “because I go to the Father”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 83.  In John 16:17, does Jesus mention the phrase, “A little while, and you shall not see Me”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 84.  In John 17:8, does Jesus affirm that the people who were given to Him have known truly that He came from the Father?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 85.  Does John 17:10 begin with the phrase, “And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 86.  Does John 17:17 include the phrase, “Your word is truth”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 87.  In John 17:26, does Jesus refer to “the love in which You loved Me” or to “the love in which You loved them”?

            ﬡ:  the love in which You loved them

            Byz:  the love in which You loved Me

● 88.  In John 19:13, is the judgment seat in a place that is called Gabbatha, or Golgotha?

            ﬡ:  Golgotha

            Byz:  Gabbatha      

● 89.  Does John 19:20 say that the title was read by many of the Jews, and that it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin?

            ﬡ:  no (the whole verse is absent)

            Byz:  yes

● 90.  Does John 19:21 say that the chief priests told Pilate not to write “King of the Jews”?

            ﬡ:   no

            Byz:  yes

● 91.  Does John 19:23 mention that the soldiers also took Jesus’ tunic?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 92.  In John 19:26, does John say that Jesus saw His mother?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 93.  Does John 19:38 say that Joseph of Arimathea “took the body of Jesus,” or that Joseph of Arimathea “took Him”?

            ﬡ:  took Him

            Byz:  took the body of Jesus

● 94.  Does John 20:3 say that Peter and the other disciple came to the tomb?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 95.  Does John 20:5 mention that the other disciple did not enter the tomb?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 96.  Does John 20:6 say that Simon Peter came and entered the tomb?
            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 97.  In John 21:15, does Jesus call Simon “son of Jonah”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes (the Alexandrian Text has “son of John” – but ﬡ has neither)

● 98.  In John 21:20, did Peter see the disciple whom Jesus loved, following?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 99.  In John 21:21, did Peter address Jesus as “Lord”?

            ﬡ:  no

            Byz:  yes

● 100.  Does John 21:23 end with the phrase, “What is that to you”?

            ﬡ: no

            Byz:  yes

Please explain, Dr. White.

● Bonus:  Does the Gospel of John end with a statement to the effect that the world could not contain the books that would be written if all of Jesus’ deeds were written down?

            ﬡ:  no (the copyist concluded the text at the end of John 21:24, and wrote the closing-title after that.  However, his supervisor apparently overruled his decision to remove verse 25; the closing title was erased, and verse 25 was added along with the closing title below it.)

            Byz:  yes

(There are more than 100 readings in Codex Sinaiticus which mean something different than what the Byzantine reading means; I just tried to keep things tidy by limiting it to 100.)

For reference:
60 Passages in Matthew Where the Byzantine Text and Codex Sinaiticus Mean Different Things

60 Passages in Mark Where the Byzantine Text and Codex Sinaiticus Mean Different Things

60 Passages in Luke Where the Byzantine Text and Codex Sinaiticus Mean Different Things

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