Seven Interesting Variants in Jude

           Today we venture beyond the four Gospels again to briefly investigate seven  interesting variants in the one-chapter book of Jude.  The Greek text of Jude has been studied with exceptional thoroughness:  2006 saw the publication of Dr. Tommy Wasserman’s book The Epistle of Jude:  Its Text and Transmission (still available on Amazon for $50), in which one can find a list of 560 manuscripts of Jude – each of which was collated in the course of Wasserman’s research, plus his compilation of the text of Jude, a phenomenally detailed textual apparatus, and a meticulously detailed textual commentary (105 pages; compare to 4 pages covering Jude in Metzger’s  Textual Commentary on the GNT for UBS).  

● In Jude verse 3, there is a contest, mainly between κοινῆς σωτηρίας (favored by a majority of manuscripts) and κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας.  Although the latter was adopted in Nestle-Aland (and by Tregelles and Souter – but not by Scholz,), it is not easy to discern why any scribe whose exemplar had the longer reading here would omit ἡμῶν.  The sentence is easier to understand with ἡμῶν included – which is a point in favor of the shorter reading.     

          But there are couple of other horses in the race.  Κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας has the support of P72, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, 1739, 2200 et al; κοινῆς σωτηρίας is supported by 018 020 025 049 and hundreds of minuscules, but what does À say?  Something very different:  κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας και ζωης – that is, “our common salvation and life.”  (This reading also turns up in 044!)  And nestled in the text of some members of the cluster of manuscripts known as the Harklean Group (a.k.a. family 2138 – MSS 206, 429, 522, 614, 630, 1292, 1505, 1611, 1799, 1890, 2138, 2200, 2412, and 2495 – but especially 2138) are the readings κοινῆς ἡμῶν ζωης (1611 2138) and κοινῆς υμῶν ζωης (1505 2495).  Putting À’s reading alongside the others, it looks very, very much like a conflation of the readings in B and in family 2138.  

          In which case, in order for the conflation to have been made in À’s text, the Harklean Group’s text of this passage had to already exist before À was made, even though the Greek manuscripts which attest to it are medieval.  This is an instructive demonstration of how precarious it is to assume that the readings in later manuscripts must themselves be later.

● In Jude verse 4, after δεσπότην, most manuscripts (including 018 020 044 049) include the word θεον, or ΘΝ.  The major Alexandrian MSS, and 1739, and the Vulgate, support the non-inclusion of this word.  θεον could be omitted accidentally, via simple parablepsis (see the Comment-section for some data about this from Matthew Rose!) but it is easy to see why it would be added:  without the word θεον, there is one individual who is being denied by the false teachers Jude is opposing:  “our only Ruler and Lord Jesus Christ.”  With θεον included, two persons are being denied, as it says in the KJV:  “our only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (δεσπότην has been translated as the “Lord” before “God;” κύριον is the “Lord” before “Jesus Christ”).  The reading with θεον, despite its majority support, looks very much like a scribal tweak of what was initially intended to refer to a single person –  “the only Ruler, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ.”  The decision to reject θεον here as non-original goes back, among textual  critics, as least as far back as J. A. Bengel (in Gnomon V, p. 164).

● In Jude verse 5, there is an ongoing debate about whether Jude said that Jesus saved the people out of Egypt, or that the Lord saved people out of Egypt.  Wasserman adopted κύριος; as did Hort (commenting that “the best attested reading Ἰησοῠς can only be a blunder”), Tregelles, Souter, and most editions of the Nestle-Aland compilation.  But the 28th edition has adopted Ἰησοῠς.  Ἰησοῠς was also the reading adopted into the base-text of the ESV, CSB, and NET.  It was also favored by the translator Grenfell Penn in his 1836 translation – although he rendered it somewhat uniquely, so as to make the verse refer not to Jesus, but Joshua.  (These two names in Greek are identical).

          Contracted as nomina sacra, the competing variants are ΚΣ (“Lord”) and Ὁ ΙΣ (“Jesus”), or, if the article is considered secondary, ΚΣ and ΙΣ.   Setting aside a question about the arrangement of the phrases in this verse (a question which is extraordinarily complex), and focusing on the simpler question of which word at this point is original, it is initially difficult to resist the appeal of  Ἰησοῠς.  Not only is it supported by Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, 1739, 1881, the Vulgate and the Sahidic version, but, from a utilitarian perspective, it conveys an apologetically convenient point about the pre-existence of Jesus.  (This doctrine is also expressed in what is probably the earliest manuscript of Jude, P72, which reads ΘΣ ΧΡΣ (“God Christ”), but nobody seems to find this singular reading plausible.) 

          Ἰησοῠς was the reading in the 1966 edition of the UBS GNT, and a note in Metzger’s Textual Commentary shows that he and Allen Wikgren pressed for its adoption.  Years ago, I too favored the reading ΙΣ – but upon further consideration, ΚΣ commends itself as original.  I would argue that an early scribe felt that κύριος was too ambiguous (does it refer to the Father, or to the Son?) and, prompted by a tendency to see a typological pattern of the pre-existent Christ in the career of Joshua (expressed, for example, in the early composition The Epistle of Barnabas, ch. 12), replaced ΚΣ with ΙΣ – the same kind of interpretive scribal change seen in P72.  Also, it would be extraordinary for Jude, coming from the same household as Jesus of Nazareth, to attribute His actions in the days of Moses to “Jesus.”

●● Two variants in Jude verse 22, though not as famous as the one in verse 5, have an interesting history:  Tregelles, back in 1865, read the verse as καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους.   This yields a meaning that is different from what is found in almost all English versions in print today:  instead of something like “and have mercy on those who are doubting,” Tregelles’ text of verse 22 (followed perfectly here in the Tyndale House GNT) means something more like, “And refute those who cause disputes.”  Tregelles rejected ἐλεατε and ελεειτε – the first of which has early attestation (À B), and the second of which is supported by very many copies (including 020 049  056 1175) – in favor of ἐλέγχετε, which is attested by A C* 33, 1739 1611 1739 1881, the Vulgate, and the Harklean Syriac version.  

          Tregelles (along with Hort, Souter, and the editors of Nestle-Aland/UBS) also rejected the Byzantine reading διακρινομένοι in favor of διακρινομένους, which seems to fit Jude better stylistically, although it is rather difficult to define a writer’s style with a single chapter as the only basis of comparison.

          If Tregelles was correct, then most English New Testaments are based on a form of verse 22 that renders a sense that the original text did not convey.  (In the ASV, CSB, CEV, EHV, ESV, KJV, MEV, NASB, NET, NIV, NKJV, NLT, and NRSV, the verse refers to having compassion.)  This is a difficult variant, or set of variants, but I think the balance of evidence favors both of Tregelles’ decisions here – and this ought to be considered a bright bold star in the Tyndale House GNT. 

 ● At the beginning of Jude verse 25, most manuscripts, including 020 049 056 1175, along with most lectionaries, refer to μόνω σοφῶ Θεῷ (“the only wise God”).  The reading adopted in the Nestle-Aland compilation, supported by À A B C, does not have σοφῶ, which Metzger regarded as “an obvious interpolation derived from Ro 16.27.”  

    A counter-argument in favor of the majority reading, though, consists of three points:  (1) σοφῶ could be accidentally dropped via parablepsis, (2) μόνω σοφῶ Θεῷ is the more difficult reading, capable of raising the question of whether there is another deity who is not wise (Θεῷ is omitted in Romans in a smattering of copies, and transposed in Claromontanus), and (3) it seems unlikely that a scribe copying the book of Jude would think there was a need to harmonize Jude’s final verse here with Romans 14:26 (which is where μόνω σοφῶ Θεῷ appears in most copies of Romans) but not continue the harmonization by adding something about Jesus Christ – which bring us to today’s last variant under consideration.      

● Near the end of Jude verse 25, the phrase διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (“through Jesus Christ our Lord”) – or, with contracted nomina sacra, διὰ ΙΥ ΧΥ τοῦ ΚΥ ἡμῶν – is not included in most manuscripts.   Its inclusion, however, is supported by À B A C and an array of less weighty witnesses including 020 044 33 81 323 1505 1611 1881 and the Vulgate and the Harklean Syriac.  The phrase was accidentally omitted by an early scribe whose line of sight drifted from the ἡμῶν that appears immediately before this phrase to the ἡμῶν at the end of the phrase.    

 

Conflations (Part 2)

            Today we continue our consideration of conflations.

            Without Hort’s use of conflations as evidence that the Byzantine Text is derivative of the Alexandrian and Western text-types in his 1881 Introduction, he would have had a much harder time making a case for the overthrow of the Textus Receptus.  As we saw in Part 1, three of the eight examples of conflation presented by Hort are not necessarily actual conflations; the longer reading in Mark 6:33, Luke 9:10, and Luke 24:53 is capable of plausibly accounting for the origin of its shorter rivals.  

            What about the remaining five – found in Mark 8:26, Mark 9:38, Mark 9:49, Luke 11:54, and Luke 12:18?  As an exercise, let’s consider Luke 12:18: 

            B:  τὸν σειτον καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου

            P75*:  τὸν σιτον μου καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου

            P75^c À^c L f¹ 157:  τὸν σιτον καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου 

            579:  τὸν σιτον καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου

            À* D 435 Old Latin:  τὰ γενήματά μου

            39 and other Old Latin:  τοὺς καρπούς μου

            346:  τὸν σιτον μου καὶ τὰ γενήματα μου

            Byz:  τὰ γενήματα μου καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου

 

            It should be immediately obvious the first Western reading (read by À* D) is accounted for by the Byzantine Reading: from τὰ γενήματα μου καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου, the route to τὰ γενήματά μου is simple:  a parableptic drift from the first τὰ to the second τὰ.  The Alexandrian reading as attested in B P75^c À^c L f¹ 157 and 579 is accounted for in another way:  as a slight stylistic refinement, replacing τὰ γενήματα μου with τὸν σιτον μου (as in P75*) or τὸν σιτον.  It should be noticed that the copyist of P75 first wrote τὸν σιτον μου before the μου was removed.

            As for the reading in minuscule 39, supported by some Old Latin copies, this is a typical Western simplification-via-harmonization, using verbiage from the preceding verse. 

            Thus once again, while Hort’s theory that the Byzantine reading is the result of the creativity of a scribe who had two exemplar with two rival readings – one Alexandrian, one Western – cannot be refuted, neither can the theory that the Alexandrian and Western readings emerged from the Byzantine reading.

            But while Hort’s theory cannot be refuted, is it as plausible as the alternative scenario in which the Byzantine reading is original?  If a scribe had one manuscript that read τὰ γενήματά μου (my produce) and another manuscript that read τὸν σιτον μου καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου (my wheat and my goods), and the scribe wanted to combine them so as to preserve them both readings, the resultant collision would mention (1) wheat, (2) produce, and (3) goods.  But somewhere along the line, Hort’s scribe must have forgotten that he was attempting to preserve both readings; he could have simply written two sentences or clauses – “I will store there all my wheat; I will store  there all my produce and goods” – but he did not.  Hort’s proposal seems more complicated, and less plausible, than the explanation that the Byzantine reading here is original, and its Western rival is the result of an accidental omission, and its Alexandrian rival, the result of a stylistic introduction of τὸν σιτον in place of τὰ γενήματα.    

             Suppose, however, that Hort’s theory is true in all eight examples of conflation that he provided.  (Suppose, too, that the Byzantine readings in Matthew 26:70, John 10:31 and John 18:40 are added to the list.)

            This would not imply that the Byzantine Text is derivative of the Alexandrian and Western Text.  If we were to picture a conflation as the collision of two cars that became intertwined in the wreck, then it need not imply anything more than that one car was a short reading that agreed with either the Alexandrian or Western Text before it collided with its rival reading (in either an Alexandrian, or Western, exemplar) and, thus combined, became a longer reading.    

            To rephrase this as a question:  as Hort presents the rival shorter readings, why should either reading be considered exclusively Alexandrian, or exclusively Western?  If it is an early Byzantine reading, then the longer reading that supplants it is merely an example of mixture, and instead of looking at the effects of a deliberate revision or recension when we look at conflations, we are looking at sporadic accidents – the incidental effects of one form of the text driving into a locale where another form is dominant. 

            There is thus nothing about conflations that moves forward Hort’s theory of a Lucianic recension.  Plausible alternative explanations of the evidence exist, in which the Byzantine reading accounts for its truncated rivals; in addition, there is no reason to assume, if any of Hort’s eight conflations are indeed conflations of earlier readings, that neither component-reading already existed in an early form of the Byzantine Text.

           

            But if Hort’s argument from conflations does not imply that the Byzantine Text is posterior to the Alexandrian and Western text-types, what about his next point, specifically, that the non-use of distinctly Byzantine readings by patristic writers before the 300s implies that the Byzantine Text did not exist until then?  We shall, God willing, look into that claim soon.

            First, however, let’s briefly test Hort’s claim that conflations are a special characteristic of the Byzantine Text:  “We do not know of any places,” Hort wrote, “where the α group of documents [i.e., Codex B and its allies] supports readings apparently conflate from the readings of the β and δ groups [i.e., Western and Byzantine] respectively, or where the β group of documents [Western representatives] supports readings apparently conflate from the readings of the α and δ groups respectively.” 

            While this might seem to mean that representatives of the Alexandrian and Western text-types do not have conflations, that is not what it means.  It only means that conflations of Western and Byzantine readings are not detectable in the Alexandrian Text, and that conflations of Alexandrian and Byzantine readings are not detectable in the Western Text.  But consider the following:

● Matthew 3:12

            Byz:  και συνάξει τον σιτὸν αυτου εις την αποθήκην

            L 157:  και συνάξει τον σιτὸν εις την αποθήκην αυτου

            B:  και συνάξει τον σειτὸν αυτου εις την αποθήκην αυτου

            Here the reading in Vaticanus (B) looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading (with αυτου after σιτὸν) and the reading in L (with αυτου after αποθήκην) – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read “and shall gather his wheat into the barn,” and another exemplar read “and shall gather the wheat into his barn,” and the scribe combined them so as to read, “and shall gather his wheat into his barn.”

● Matthew 24:38

            Byz:   εν ταις ημέραις ταις προ του κατακλυσμου

            D:  εν ταις ημέραις εκείναις προ του κατακλυσμου

            B:  εν ταις ημέραις εκείναις ταις προ του κατακλυσμου

            Here the reading in B looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading (without εκείναις) and the reading in D (without ταις) – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read “in the days which were before the flood,” and another exemplar read “in those days before the flood,” and the scribe combined them so as to read, “in those days which were before the flood.”

● Matthew 26:22

            Byz:  εκαστος αυτων

            B À L:  εις εκαστος

            D Θ:  εις εκαστος αυτων

            Here the reading in D looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading (without εις) and the reading in B (without αυτων) – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read “each of them,” and another examplar which read “each one,” and the scribe combined them so as to read, “each one of them.”    

● Mark 1:28

            Byz:  ευθυς    

            W 579:  πανταχου      

            B C:  ευθυς πανταχου

            Here the reading in B looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading and the reading in Codex W – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read “immediately,” and another exemplar which read “everywhere,” and the scribe combined them so as to read “immediately everywhere.”  [Codex W was not discovered until after Hort wrote.]

● John 13:24

            Byz:  Σίμων Πέτρος πύθεσθαι τίς αν ειη περι ου λέγει.

            D:   Σίμων Πέτρους πύθεσθαι τίς αν ειη ουτος περι ου λέγει.

            B C L 33:  Σίμων Πέτρος και λέγει αυτω Ειπε τίς εστιν περι ου λέγει.

            À:  Σίμων Πέτρος πύθεσθαι τίς αν ειη περι ου ελεγεν και λέγει αυτω Ειπε τίς εστιν περι ου λέγει.

            Here the reading in À looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading (not, it should be observed, the Western reading in D, for D’s ουτος is nowhere to be found in À here) and the reading in Codex B – as if a copyist had one exemplar which said that Simon Peter gestured to the beloved disciple to ask who it might be of whom He was speaking, and another exemplar which said that Simon Peter gestured to the beloved disciple and told him to say who it was of whom He was speaking, and the scribe combined both readings, so as to write that Simon Peter gestured to the beloved disciple to ask who it might be of whom He was speaking, and told him to say who it was of whom He was speaking.

● John 16:4

            Byz:  ινα οταν ελθη η ωρα μνημονεύητε αυτων

            L:   ινα εαν ελθη η ωρα αυτων μνημονεύητε

            B 157:  ινα οταν ελθη η ωρα αυτων μνημονεύητε αυτων

            Here the reading in B looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading and the reading in Codex L – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read “that when the hour may come you shall remember them,” and another exemplar which read “that when their hour may come you shall remember,” and the scribe combined them so as to read, “that when their hour may come you shall remember them.”

● Ephesians 2:5

            Byz:  και οντας ημας νεκρους τοις παραπτωμασιν

            D:  και οντας ημας νεκρους ταις αμαρτιαις

            B:  και οντας ημας νεκρους εν τοις παραπτωμασιν και ταις αμαρτιαις

            Here the reading in B looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading and the reading in D – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read, “and we who were dead in trespasses,” and another exemplar which read, “and we who were dead in sins,” and the scribe combined them so as to read, “and we who were dead in trespasses and sins.”

● Colossians 1:12

            Byz:  ικανώσαντι  
            D:  καλεσαντι  

            B:  καλεσαντι και ικανώσαντι  

            Here the reading in B looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading and the reading in D – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read, “qualified” and one exemplar which read, “summoned,” and the scribe combined them so as to read, “qualified and summoned.”

● Second Thessalonians 3:4

            Byz:  και ποιειτε και ποιησετε

            F G:  και εποιησατε και ποιειτε

            B Sah:  και εποιησατε και ποιειτε και ποιησετε

            Here the reading in B (supported by the Sahidic version) looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading and the reading in F and G – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read, “and you are doing and will do,” and another exemplar which read, “and you did and are doing,” and the scribe combined them so as to read, “and you did and are doing and will do.”    

● Jude v. 3

            Byz:  της κοινης σωτηρίας

            B P72 1739:  της κοινης ημων σωτηρίας

            6 1881:  της κοινης υμων σωτηρίας

            1611 2138:  της κοινης ημων ζωης

            1505:  της κοινης υμων ζωης

            À 044:  της κοινης ημων σωτηρίας και ζωης

            Here the reading of À looks like a combination of the reading of B (and most non-Byzantine MSS, with ημων) and the reading of the Harklean Group – as if a copyist had one exemplar which read, “pertaining to our common salvation,” and another examplar which read, “pertaining to our common life,” and the scribe combined them so as to read, “pertaining to our common salvation and life.”

            So:  do apparent conflations mean that the text-type in which they are embedded is late?  No.  They do not, for three reasons:
(1)  Some apparent conflations may be cases where an original longer reading has been shortened by scribes in two different ways. 

(2)  In other cases, they may be merely combinations of a reading found in an established local text, and a reading from a manuscript representing a different, or invasive, text-type; no impetus is created for the idea that either text-type is late – only that the conflation is. 
(3)  Whatever conflations imply via their presence in the representatives of the Byzantine Text, they also imply via their presence in representatives of other text-types.  The picture is one of competing local texts existing in the second and third centuries, occasionally crashing, with the wreck-reading tending to be pushed into the Byzantine text – naturally more frequently, if its area of dominance was larger and growing – but sometimes into the Alexandrian and Western domains. 

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

Wilbur Pickering’s book The Identity of the Text of the New Testament was especially helpful when researching this post.

Glossary of Textual Criticism: D-M

(Continuing the Glossary of Textual Criticism)

Diorthotes: The proof-reader and general overseer of the production of manuscripts in a scriptorium.  

Dittography:  A scribal mistake in which what should be written once is written twice.  This can describe the repetition of a single letter, a line, or even (rarely) a whole paragraph.

 

The first table
of the Eusebian Canons
in Codex K.

Eusebian Canons:  A cross-reference system for the Gospels, devised by Eusebius of Caesarea to help readers efficiently find and compare parallel-passages (and thematically related passages).  The basic idea is that numbers were assigned to every section of every Gospel, and each number was put into one of ten lists, or canons, in a chart at the beginning of the Gospels.  The first list presented the identification-numbers of passages in which parallels exist in all four Gospels; the tenth list presented the identification-numbers of passages which appear in one Gospel only, and lists 2-9 present the identification-numbers of passages in combinations of Gospels (such as Matthew+Mark+Luke).  The Eusebian Canons were often prefaced by Eusebius’ composition Ad Carpianus, in which an explanation was given of how to use the cross-reference chart.  In some Greek manuscripts, some Latin manuscripts, and especially in Armenian manuscripts, the Eusebian Canons are elaborately decorated.  In a few deluxe copies, the text of Ad Carpianus appears within a quatrefoil frame.

            Also, in some manuscripts, the copyists have put extracts from the Canon-tables below the main text, relieving the reader of the need to consult the Canon-tables in order to identify parallel-passages.  This is called a foot-index, because it appears at the foot of the page.

           

Euthalian Apparatus:  A collection of supplemental study-helps and systems of chapter-divisions for Acts and the Epistles, developed by an individual named Euthalius (who to an extent adopted earlier similar materials prepared by Pamphilus).  Little is known about Euthalius and the extent to which his initial work has been adjusted and expanded by others; the detailed analysis Euthaliana, by J. A. Robinson, remains an imperfect but valuable resource on the subject.

Family 35:   A cluster of over 220 manuscripts which represent the same form of the Byzantine Text.  Wilbur Pickering has reconstructed its archetype.

Flyleaves:  Unused pages at the beginning and end of a manuscript.  In some cases, these pages consist of discarded pages from older manuscripts, glued into or onto the binding. 

Genre distinction:  The practice of recognizing each genre of literature in the New Testament (Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Revelation) as having its own transmission-history.

Gregory’s Rule:  An arrangement of the pages of a manuscript in such a way that the flesh-side of the parchment (i.e., the inner surface of the animal-skin from which the parchment was made) faces the flesh-side of the following page, and the hair-side of the parchment (i.e., the outer, hair-bearing surface of the animal-skin from which the parchment was made) faces the hair-side of the following page.  Only a few manuscripts, such as 059, do not have their pages uniformly arranged in this way.  (Named after C. R. Gregory.)

Harklean Group:  A small cluster of manuscripts which display a text of the General Epistles which is related to, and strongly agrees with, the painstakingly literal text of the Harklean Syriac version (which was produced in A.D. 616 by Thomas of Harkel, who made this revision of the already-existing Philoxenian version (which was completed in 508 as a revision/expansion of the Peshitta version) by consulting Greek manuscripts in a monastery near Alexandria, Egypt which he considered especially accurate).  The core members of the Harklean Group are 1505, 1611, 2138, and 2495.  Some other manuscripts have a weaker relationship to the main cluster, including minuscules 429, 614, and 2412. 

            Although the Greek manuscripts in the Harklean Group are all relatively late, they appear to echo a text of the General Epistles which existed in the early 600s, and perhaps earlier, inasmuch as Codex Sinaiticus (produced c. 350) contains in the third verse of the Epistle of Jude a reference to “our common salvation and life,” a reading which appears to be a conflation between an Alexandrian reading (“our common salvation”) and the reading of the Harklean Group (“our” (or “your”) “common life”). 

                   

Headpiece:  A decorative design accompanying the beginning of a book of the New Testament in continuous-text manuscripts, and sometimes accompanying the beginnings of parts of lectionaries.  These may sometimes be extremely ornate, especially in Gospel-books.

Homoioarcton:  A loss of text caused when a copyist’s line of sight drifted from the beginning of a word, phrase, or line to the same (or similar) letters at the beginning of a nearby word, phrase, or line.  Often abbreviated as “h.a.”

Homoioteleuton:  A loss of text caused when a copyist’s line of sight drifted from the end of a word, phrase, or line to the same (or similar) letters at the end of a nearby word, phrase, or line.  Often abbreviated as “h.t.”  (Many short readings can be accounted for as h.t.-errors, such as the absence of Matthew 12:47 in some important manuscripts.)

This detail from Lectionary 1963
features a simple headpiece, a rubric,
an initial, and an incipit before the text of
Matthew 5:42-43.

Initial:  A large letter at the beginning of a book or book-section, especially one enhanced by special ornateness and color.  In some Latin codices an initial may occupy almost an entire page.

Interpolation:  Substantial non-original material added to the text by a copyist.  Although patristic writings utilize several saying of Jesus that are not included in the Gospels, Codex Bezae is notable for its inclusion of interpolations in Matthew 20:28 and Luke 6:4.  Due in part to Codex Bezae’s text’s tendency to adopt longer readings, Hort proposed in the 1881 Introduction to the Revised Text that Codex Bezae’s shorter readings in Luke 24 are original, and that in each case, the longer reading is not original, despite being supported in all other text-types.  Hort labeled D’s text at these points “Western Non-Interpolations.”        

Itacism:  The interchange of vowels, such as the writing of ει itstead of ι, ε instead of αι, and ο instead of ω.   

Jerusalem Colophon:  A note which, in its fullest form, says, “Copied and corrected from the ancient manuscripts of Jerusalem preserved on the holy mountain.”  Fewer than 40 manuscripts have this note, including Codex Λ/566, 20, 117, 153, 215, 300, 565, 1071, and 1187; in 157 it is repeated after each Gospel.  

Kai-compendium:  An abbreviation for the word και, consisting of a kappa with its final downward stroke extended.

Kephalaia:  Chapters.  In most Gospels-manuscripts, each Gospel is preceded by a list of chapters:  Matthew has 68 chapters; Mark has 48, Luke has 83, and John has 18 or 19.  Chapter-titles typically appear at the top (or bottom) of the page on which they begin, with the chapter-number in the margin.

Lacuna:  A physical defect in a manuscript which results in a loss of text.

Lectionary:  A book consisting of sections of Scripture for annual reading.  Scripture-passages in lectionaries are arranged according to two calendar-forms:  the movable feasts, beginning at Easter, contained in the Synaxarion, and the immovable feasts, beginning on the first of September (the beginning of the secular year), contained in the Menologion.   

 

Lectionary Apparatus:  Marginalia and other features added to New Testament manuscripts in order to make the manuscripts capable of being used in church-services for lection-reading.  These features usually include a table of lection-locations before or after the Scripture-text.  Symbols are inserted in, or alongside, the text of each passage selected for annual reading:  αρχη for “start,” “υπερβαλε” for “skip,” “αρξου” for “resume,” and τελος for “end.”  Rubrics are sometimes added to identify readings for Christmas-time and Easter-time, and holidays considered especially important by the scribe(s).  Incipits, phrases to introduce the readings, often appear alongside the beginning of lections, or alongside the rubric in the upper or lower margin.  

Letter-compression:  A method writing in which letters are written closer to each other than usual, and some letters are written in such a way as to occupy less space than unusual,  This indicates that the scribe was attempting to reserve space.  It occurs especially on cancel-sheets made to remedy omissions by the main scribe.

Majuscule:  A manuscript in which each letter is written separately and as a capital.  These are also known as uncials.  Many majuscules, or uncials, are identified by sigla (singular:  siglum) such as the letters of the English alphabet, letters of the Greek alphabet, and, for Codex Sinaiticus (À), the Hebrew alphabet.  All uncials are identified by numbers that begin with a zero. 

A rare full-page miniature
in GA 2370 at the
Walters Art Museum -
Christ Blessing the Apostles.

Miniature:  An illustration, often (but not always) situated within a red frame.  The term has nothing to do with the size of the illustration; it is derived instead from the red pigment, minium, which was often used to render the frame around the picture.  (This pigment was famously used in the Book of Kells to make thousands of small dots in the illustrations.)  Miniatures of the evangelists frequently appear as full-page portraits, showing each evangelist in the process of beginning his written account; John is typically pictured assisted by Prochorus.       

Minuscule:  A manuscript in which the letters of each word are generally connected to each other.  The transition from majuscule, or uncial script, to minuscule script, occurred during the 800s and 900s, and was led by Theodore the Studite.  Uncial script was still used, however, for lectionaries in the following centuries. 

Mixture:  A combination of two or more text-types within the text of a single manuscript.  When mixture occurs, it normally is manifested as readings from one text-type sprinkled throughout a text which otherwise agrees with another text-type.  In block-mixture, distinct sections represent distinct text-types.  Codex W exhibits block-mixture; in Matthew and in Luke 8-24 its text is almost entirely Byzantine, but other text-types are represented in the rest of the Gospels-text.   

[Continued]

  

Why Codex Sinaiticus Doesn't Say What Its Website Says It Says

The website of Codex Sinaiticus
has been online since 2009.

How important is Codex Sinaiticus as a witness to the text of the New Testament?  So important that it has its own website, which features an English translation of portions of the manuscript’s contents, including the entire New Testament.

Or does it?  The home page of the website gives visitors no reason to reach any other conclusion about the English translation – but if one pokes around a bit, searching for information about the translation, this note can be found:

  

“English translation

The Codex Sinaiticus Project was primarily a conservation, digitisation, transcription and publication project.  It did not aim to undertake a new English translation of the writings preserved in the manuscript.”

Henry Tompkins Anderson
1812-1872

The note continues:  “The English translation of the New Testament part of Codex Sinaiticus used on the website was taken from the translation by Henry Tompkins Anderson in The New Testament: translated from the Sinaitic manuscript discovered by Constantine Tischendorf at Mt Sinai (Cincinnati, 1918). This out-of-copyright translation does not provide a literal translation of the text in Codex Sinaiticus, but was included in the website to serve as a navigational aid.”

In other words:  when you read the English translation of the New Testament books at the Codex Sinaiticus website, you are not really reading an English translation of the contents of Codex Sinaiticus!  You are reading a translation made by Henry Tompkins Anderson, who was a Christian preacher in Harrodsburg, Kentucky in the 1860’s – a translation which at many points does not represent the text of Codex Sinaiticus.  The only way to know whether or not the English translation really conveys what Codex Sinaiticus says is to compare the translation to the Greek text itself.   

          Here are fifteen of the many disagreements between the translation at the Codex Sinaiticus website and the text of the manuscript.  

● Matthew 5:19:  Whoever therefore shall make void one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of the heavens; but whoever shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.

          In Codex Sinaiticus, the copyist skipped the Greek words represented by “but whoever shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.”  This blunder was caused when a copyist’s line of sight drifted ahead to similar letters; the technical term for the recurrence of similar letters or words, eliciting such mistakes, is homoeoteleuton (“same ending”).  

● Matthew 7:27:  “And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell; and great was its fall.”

          The copyist of Codex Sinaiticus skipped the Greek words represented by “and the winds blew,” another mistake elicited by homoeoteleuton.

● Matthew 8:13:  “And Jesus said to the centurion:  Go; as thou hast believed, be it done for thee. And the servant was restored to health in that hour.”

          The text written by the copyist of Codex Sinaiticus has a bit more text which says, “And the centurion, returning to his house in that hour, found his servant in good health.”   This is a very bad attempt at harmonization, loosely based on the parallel in Luke 7:10.  (Also, considering that this verse ends the standard Gospels-lection to be read annually on the fourth Sunday after Pentecost, the expansion may be an early attempt to round off the anecdote with a flourish.)

● Matthew 12:13:  “Then he says to the man: Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored to soundness as the other.”

          Codex Sinaiticus’ copyist did not write the Greek words that mean “as the other.”

● Matthew 12:47:  “And some one said to him: Behold, thy mother and thy brothers stand with out, seeking to speak to thee.”

          In Codex Sinaiticus, this verse is missing.  This appears to have been elicited by another case of homoeoteleuton; verses 46 and 47 end with the same word.  

● Matthew 23:35:  “that there may come on you all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous to the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.”

          The text of Codex Sinaiticus does not have the Greek equivalent of the words “son of Barachiah.”  This could be another example of parablepsis (the technical term for the “sight detours” that sometimes occurred when a copyist lost his line of sight, especially due to homoeoteleuton or to homoeoarcton (same beginning, or similar beginnings, of words).  But it may also be a copyist’s attempt to remove a perceived difficulty from the text, if the copyist understood this passage to refer to the events in Second Chronicles 24:20-22, and believed that that this passage in Matthew referred to Zechariah the priest – who was the son of Jehoida, rather than the son of Barachiah – instead of the prophet Zechariah.

● Matthew 27:48-50:  “And immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, and having filled it with vinegar and put it on a reed, gave it to him to drink.  But the rest said: Wait, let us see if Elijah is coming to save him.  But Jesus again cried out with a loud voice, and gave up the spirit.”

          In Codex Sinaiticus (and in Codex Vaticanus) there is additional material after verse 49.  Codex Sinaiticus says, “But another took a spear and pierced his side, and water and blood flowed forth.”  Now I invite those apologists who commonly claim that textual variants do not have an impact on significant Christian doctrine to explain how, if this variant were to be adopted into the text, the doctrine of inerrancy would survive.  It is obvious that this reading in Codex Sinaiticus says that Jesus was pierced before He died, and it is equally obvious that John 19:30-37 says that Jesus was pierced after He died.  Let it be noted that there is more Greek manuscript support for the inclusion of this sentence than there is for the non-inclusion of Mark 16:9-20.  (Codex Sinaiticus also lacks the Greek equivalent of the words “of them” in verse 48.)   

● Mark 7:4a:  “And when they come from market, unless they immerse themselves, they eat not.”

          In Codex Sinaiticus (and in Codex Vaticanus), the Greek word βαπτισωνται, which refers to washing by immersion in water, has been replaced by ραντισωνται, which refers to washing by the pouring of water.    

● Luke 8:47:  “And the woman, seeing that she had not escaped notice, came trembling, and having fallen before him told before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she had been immediately restored to health.”

          The Greek text in Codex Sinaiticus is much shorter, omitting all the words in bold print, so that the text simply says, “And falling before Him, she told before all the people how she had been immediately restored to health.”

● John 4:19-20:  “The woman says to him:  Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.  Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where we ought to worship.”

          The copyist of Codex Sinaiticus did not write Κύριε (the Greek word for “Lord,” rendered as “Sir” in this context) in verse 19, and also did not write ὁ τόπος (“the place”) in verse 20.  

● John 9:37-39:  “Jesus said to him:  Thou hast both seen him, and he it is that talks with thee.  He said, Lord, I believe; and he worshiped him.  And Jesus said:  For judgment have I come into this world, that those that see not may see, and that those that see may become blind.”

          The copyist of Codex Sinaiticus did not write the bold-print words in verses 38 and 39.  These words are also missing in Papyrus 75 and Codex W – apparently the result of an early Alexandrian copyist’s misunderstanding of an exemplar in which the passage was marked for liturgical use.

● John 10:40:  “And he went away again beyond the Jordan into the place where John was first baptizing, and abode there.”

          Codex Sinaiticus’ copyist did not write the Greek words εις τον τόπον.  There is nothing to elicit an accidental mistake here.  This reading is probably a deliberate omission by someone who considered these words superfluous.

● First Corinthians 13:3:  “And though I give all my goods away in food, and though I deliver up my body that I may be burned, but have not love, I am profited nothing.”

          Instead of the usual reading καυθήσωμαι, Codex Sinaiticus (and Papyrus 46 and Codex Vaticanus) reads καυχήσωμαι, which means, “that I may boast.” 

● Second Peter 1:1:  “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those that have obtained equally precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.”

          This verse is sometimes used as proof that the author affirmed the deity of Christ, particularly when the Granville Sharp rule is applied to it.  However, with or without the Granville Sharp rule, Codex Sinaiticus does not support the deity of Christ in this verse:  instead of the name-abbreviation for the word “God” (Θυ, that is, Θεου), Codex Sinaiticus’ copyist wrote the name-abbreviation for the word “Lord” (Κυ, that is, Κυριου).  I doubt that a modern translation with this reading could easily escape the charge that it was produced by Arians.

● Jude verse 3a:  Beloved, giving all diligence to write to you concerning this common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you.”   

          The actual reading of Codex Sinaiticus is different:  instead of referring only to salvation, the text of Codex Sinaiticus refers to “our common salvation and life.”  This is a remarkable reading, because it is a conflation, or combination, of two other readings:  σωτηρίας (salvation, the reading found in most manuscripts) and ζωης (life, the reading found in a group of medieval manuscripts known as family 2138, also called the Harklean Group because the text in these manuscripts frequently agrees with the Harklean Syriac version).  Although the Greek manuscripts in this group are not particularly ancient, the reading of Codex Sinaiticus in this verse suggests that ancestor-manuscripts with a text of the General Epistles similar to what is attested by the members of family 2138 – minuscule manuscripts such as 1505, 1611, 2138, and 2412 – existed prior to the production of Codex Sinaiticus.

          As you can see, as a representation of the contents of Codex Sinaiticus, the translation made by H. T. Anderson is highly inaccurate.  If the Codex Sinaiticus website is going to continue using Anderson’s translation, its creators should take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that visitors cannot use Anderson’s translation without being informed that it is provided for navigation-purposes only and that it deviates frequently from the actual text of the manuscript.  There is no good reason to hide this important explanation on a secondary webpage.  (Another option, of course, is to adjust the translation so as to accurately conform to the contents of the manuscript.)