Pen, Print, & Pixels 2022 - Report on Day One

The Plano Marriott at Legacy Town Center

           This past week, on May 19-20, specialists in New Testament from around the world – Britain, Germany, Australia, Amsterdam, Arizona – gathered at the Dallas/Plano Marriott at Legacy Town Center for the Pen, Print, & Pixels Text and Manuscript conference, hosted by the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.

          Daniel Buck was there, and was able to attend about half of the sessions.  He had these takeaways from the first day of the conference:

          The speakers were generally in agreement that there is still much new ground to be turned in the field of New Testament textual criticism.

          l Hugh Houghton foresees much more to discover in palimpsests through Multi-Spectral Imaging, and much to be gained from the study of family relationships in catena manuscripts.

          l Timothy Mitchell envisions learning more about how published work made it into circulation, and especially how they were guarded against tampering once they passed out of the authors’ direct control, by studying numerous references to that process in Greco-Roman classical works.

          l Peter Montoro has only just started us off in tracking down more examples of back-eddies in the transmission stream where continuous text manuscripts textually feed off of patristic homilies, such as a singular reading in GA 104 at Romans 2:26 from Chrysostom's homilies (Jan Krans, a bit later in the day, cited John 1:28 in Origen as such a case).

          l Dirk Jongkind thinks that it’s time to turn a corner in our approach to singular readings (proposing that they should be weighed both before and after counting them), and may even be ready to remove the old but not-quite-yet-ancient landmark of the Gregory-Aland numbering scheme.

          l Ryan Griffin wants us to further change the modern critical text to align more closely with the “Western” readings of p46 at three places in Philippians.

          l Edgar Ebojo sees a lot of work to be done in using distinctive line endings, especially in reconstructing inextant text and in distinguishing the scribes by their idiosyncratic ways of writing them.

          l Jan Krans is not at all ready to declare the “folly and duty” of proposing new textual emendations to be complete.

          And that was all just from some of the first day’s sessions.

Zooming in on some specific details:

          Hugh Houghton explained how looking beyond the continuous text in the dozens of catena manuscripts allows us to classify them into families, and even to identify family readings which are a direct result of chopping the text into lemmas.  Frequently the beginning or ending content of a lemma is completely excised in the process, and for no other reason than ease in production; only that content worthy of commentary was thought essential for inclusion.

          Now we can directly identify the source of omission for which, in such cases, could be accounted for by no previously identified scribal habit. Houghton urges the special identification of catena manuscripts, suggesting that prefixes or superscripts to GA numbers could be used for this process. He foresees that a lot more about family relationships between manuscripts will emerge as we do this.

Dirk Jongkind

          Dirk Jongkind asked the question, “Is the use of singular readings on the way out?” He certainly hopes so, at least when it comes to studying scribal habits—because more recent research (such as the research conducted by himself and Elijah Hixson) shows that focusing on just singular readings overlooks a lot of the data – especially in MSS like 01 and 0319.  However, he’s not about to throw out the whole idea.  He finds singular readings to still be useful for studying individual MSS and scribes:  all scribes make similar errors, but they don’t make them all in the same way.  But when it comes to focusing on singular readings to cast light on the canons of criticism, he points out that the same data, once in the hands of different scholars, has led to opposite conclusions.  

          Jongkind pointed out that there are two categories of evidence:  singular readings, and changes made by a particular scribe as he copied his exemplar.  In an ideal world the first would be a subcategory of the second, maybe even completely overlapping, but this is far from the case in the five manuscripts for which it can reasonably assumed that we have both the exemplar and the copy.  Instead we have three possible categories:  

          (1) singular readings that are not scribal errors because they were actually copied from a lost exemplar,

          (2) singular readings that are scribal errors because they were committed first-hand, and

          (3) “undetected” scribal errors that are not singular readings, because they were easy mistakes to make and thus several unrelated manuscripts share them (thus causing the most common scribal errors to be excluded from being counted under such a scheme).

          He mentioned five manuscripts for which the figures for both of the latter categories have been tabulated (three of these actually being the purple codices for which Elijah Hixson argued that he had been able to reasonably reconstruct their common exemplar, wherever two of the three agreed).  These five vary considerably as to which proportion of their scribal errors are also singular readings, showing that the approach that only looks at singular readings is flawed, in that it excludes much of the available data from consideration.

          Jan Krans gave a thorough history of conjectural emendations going back to 1453  showing that emendation of the New Testament text did not become a major practice until Erasmus and Beza, before tapering off quite a bit since the end of the 19th century (perhaps due in part to the lack of a classical education by today’s scholars).  He even did some textual criticism of the emendations, showing how confusing ellipsis marks for ditto signs in one listing of known emendations had a similar effect on subsequent lists.

Fortunatianus Speaks!

            Fortunatianus’ Latin commentary on the Gospels, written c. 350 – about the same time as the production of Codex Sinaiticus, “The world’s oldest Bible” – has been found, edited, and translated!  The announcement of its discovery by Dr. Lukas Dorfbauer in 2012 is old news to regular readers; that was mentioned here a couple of years ago, and Roger Pearse had spread the news about it before that.  But now its text has been thoroughly studied and edited, and it has been translated into English.  Dr. Hugh Houghton tells about what has been done with the commentary of Fortunatianus since its rediscovery in an article at The Birmingham Brief.
          

            This discovery is highly significant, because Fortunatianus quoted from the New Testament over and over.  A quick survey of the Scripture-index in Hugh Houghton’s translation of Fortunatianus’ Commentary on the Gospels indicates that he made over 300 utilizations of New Testament passages, especially from the Gospel of Matthew.  This abundance of Scripture-quotations allows analysts to get a pretty good idea of the kind of Latin text that was used by Fortunatianus.  Here are some passages in which Fortunatianus’ Scripture-citations involve passages in which textual variants occur:

            ● Mark 1:1 – Fortunatianus reads, “In Isaiah the prophet,” disagreeing with the reading in most Greek manuscripts, “in the prophets.”

            ● Matthew 1:25 – Fortunatianus reads “she gave birth to a son,” disagreeing with the reading in most Greek manuscripts, “she gave birth to her firstborn son.”

            ● Matthew 13:55 (or Mark 6:3) – Fortunatianus reads “Is this not the son of Joseph the craftsman [or, carpenter],” thus adding Joseph’s name.

            ● Matthew 2:18 – Fortunatianus reads “weeping and much wailing,” disagreeing with the reading in most manuscripts, “grieving and weeping and much wailing.”

            ● Matthew 8:28 – Fortunatianus reads “Gerasenes,” not “Gergasenes.”

            ● Matthew 9:13 – Fortunatianus reads “to repentance,” agreeing with the majority of manuscripts and disagreeing with the Alexandrian base-text of the ESV, NIV, NLT, etc.

            ● Matthew 10:8 – Fortunatianus includes the phrase “raise the dead.” 

            ● Matthew 10:10 – Fortunatianus reads “staff” instead of “staffs.”

            ● Matthew 16:2-3 – Fortunatianus confirms the inclusion of all of these two verses.

            ● Matthew 20:28 – Fortunatianus uses a text which, like Codex Bezae, contains a brief passage at this point resembling Luke 14:8-10.

            ● Matthew 21:31 – In the text cited by Fortunatianus, the answer to Jesus’ question is given as “The latter,” instead of “The first.”

            ● Matthew 24:26 – Fortunatianus’ Latin text had an apparently unique addition which referred to false claims of the Messiah’s appearance not only in the wilderness, and in inner rooms, but also “in the mountains.” 

            ● Matthew 24:36 – Fortunatianus’ text includes “or the Son,” and he expounds upon this reading in his commentary, proposing that this statement should not be taken literally.

John 1:18, quoted in Fortunatianus'
commentary, with "only-begotten Son."

            ● John 1:18 – Fortunatianus very clearly uses “only-begotten Son,” and not “only-begotten God.”

            ● John 1:28 – Fortunatianus reads “Bethany,” but – echoing Origen somewhat – he proposes that “Here, then, we find a mistake either of the Latin translator of the copyists.”  And he proceeds to mention that “Bethara” (rather than Bethabara) is the “house of preparation,” and is the name of the place where John began to baptize. 

            ● John 1:34 – Fortunatianus reads “the chosen one of God” instead of “the Son of God,” but then continues with something else:  “And I have seen and borne witness that this is the chosen one of God.  And this is the Son of the highest God, begotten of him.” 

Who Was Fortunatianus?

            How much is known about Fortunatianus?  Unfortunately, not much, except that he was a bishop in Aquileia in the mid-300’s.  Jerome mentions him in De Viris Illustribus, in chapter 97:  “Fortunatianus, an African by birth, bishop of Aquileia during the reign of Constantius [reigned 337-361], composed brief commentaries on the Gospels arranged by chapters, written in a rustic style.  And he is held in detestation because when Liberius, bishop of Rome, was driven into exile for the faith, he was induced by the urgency of Fortunatianus to subscribe to heresy.” 

            Depite giving such a negative appraisal of Fortunatianus’ theology, Jerome was willing to praise Fortunatianus’ commentary in Epistle X (To Paul of Concordia), as he requested a copy of it, stating, “You are asked to give me the pearl of the Gospel, the words of the Lord, pure words, even as the silver which from the earth is tried, and purified seven times in the fire; I mean the commentaries of Fortunatianus and – for its account of the persecutors – the History of Aurelius Victor, along with the Letters of Novatian, so that, learning the poison set forth by this schismatic, we may the more gladly drink of the antidote supplied by the holy martyr Cyprian.”  (This could be understood, I think, as a cautious compliment, as if to say that Fortunatianus’ commentary contains fine silver if one is willing to go through the trouble of refining it, or that it is a pearl, if one is willing to pick out the valuable part from the unclean material around it.)

Where Was Fortunatianus?

            Before describing the commentary, a brief description of Aquileia may be helpful.  During the time when Fortunatianus served as its bishop, the city of Aquileia, along the coast of the northeastern corner of Italy (on a modern map, northeast of Venice and northwest of Trieste), was one of the most prominent and prosperous cities of the Roman Empire.  An imperial palace was among its buildings, and Constantine himself visited there, and in 340, Constantine II was killed near the city.  It remained one of the empire’s finest cities until it was attacked and destroyed by the Huns in 452.

What Book Does Fortunatianus Comment on the Most?

            Fortunatianus focused mainly on the Gospel of Matthew.  His method of commenting is far from systematic or exhaustive.  Those who approach this Latin text – which is extant, mostly, in a manuscript which can be viewed page by page at the Codices Electronici Ecclesiae Coloniensis (CEEC) website – expecting a verse-by-verse analysis of all four Gospels will be disappointed.  Fortunatianus’ main focus is the Gospel of Matthew.  He spends hardly any time on the Gospel of Mark, and although he covers John chapter 1 very thoroughly, most of John’s Gospel receives only spotty attention.  The episodes in Luke which are not repeated in the Gospel of Matthew receive some attention from Fortunatianus; almost all the rest is set aside.  In addition, except for parenthetical uses, the chapters which one might assume would be a commentary’s zenith – those about Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection – do not receive close attention.

Does Fortunatianus Use John 7:53-8:11 or Mark 16:9-20?

               Fortunatianus gives no hint that he is aware of the pericope adulterae, but this should not be overplayed:  Fortunatianus only used a single verse from John 6, and a single verse from John 7, and four verses from John 8, none from John 9, and two from John 10, and none from John 11.  We do not therefore conclude that Fortunatianus was unaware of the healing of the man who was born blind, or of the resurrection of Lazarus.  Fortunatianus’ sequential, focused commentary on the Gospel of John stops after his description of Jesus’ first miracle.  After John 2:11, the rest of Fortunatianus’ utilizations of passages from the Gospel of John are fairly random and sporadic, not systematic. 

            Fortunatianus does not explicitly quote from Mark 16:9-20; however, in a passage which inexactly echoes the comments of Irenaeus about the symbols of the Evangelists, Fortunatianus states that “it is not inappropriate that he [that is, Mark] bears the image of an eagle, since he demonstrates that Christ flew to heaven.”  The only reference in the Gospel of Mark to Jesus’ ascent to heaven is, of course, 16:19.  And in another place, Fortunatianus writes, “Jesus showed that, after he had trampled down death, and risen from the dead, he himself would preach everywhere through his apostles” – which, while not a quotation of Mark 16:20, seems like a strong allusion to it.  And, near the start of his commentary, Fortunatianus mentions that the evangelist Mark “lists his [that is, Christ’s] Passion and Ascension and sitting at the right hand of the Father.”

How Does Fortunatianus Organize the Text?

            Fortunatianus begins his commentary with a summary of each Gospel’s thematic emphasis, metaphorically expressed as one of the faces of the cherubim (Matthew as a man, Luke as an ox, Mark as an eagle, and John as a lion) and as one of the rivers of Eden.  Fortunatianus proceeds to build an allegorical case for the inevitability that the apostolic gospel should be fourfold, arguing that a divine pattern, in which the gospel of the twelve apostles is displayed in four parts, is shown in the high priest’s breastplate (which had three rows of four gemstones) and in the shape of a walnut shell, and via various typologies in the Old Testament.    

            He then shifts directly into a interpretation of the first two chapters of Matthew, offering reasons why Matthew’s genealogy and Luke’s genealogy go in different chronological directions, and why Matthew mentions 42 generations but only names 41, and why Matthew 1:25 does not imply that Joseph and Mary were intimate, and so forth. 

            After finishing his comments on Matthew 1-2, Fortunatianus introduces a list of the sections of each Gospel which he proposes to interpret:  129 sections from Matthew (consisting of material from 1:17 to 27:51), thirteen sections from Luke (consisting of material from 2:1 to 5:12 (or 5:16, where the episode concludes)), and 18 sections from John (consisting of material from 1:1 to 2:11).  Fortunatianus mentions that he will also comment on a few things that the other Gospels do not cover.  Having this established the borders of the territory to be explored, he proceeds.

What Kind of Interpretation Does Fortunatianus Give?

            While Fortunatianus does not deny the historicity of the reports of events in the Gospels, he consistently interprets them so as to convey a spiritual, typological, or allegorical lesson; as he says in the course of commenting on Matthew 15:  “Even though we can see that these were fulfilled on a literal level, they also have a spiritual meaning” – and this spiritual meaning is his constant quarry. 

A few forms of
the quadrans.

           Two examples may illustrate the quality of Fortunatianus’ interpretive method.  Commenting on Matthew 5:26, he writes:  “The quadrans [the Roman coin that is called a “farthing” in the KJV] is the smallest sin.  It says that you will not come out from there except when the account of all your sins, even of the smallest, has been paid off.  For a quandrans has three dots on it. What do these three dots represent, if not the Trinity?  It is necessary that if anyone does not acknowledge wholeheartedly that the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is made of one substance, they are called to account for this.  For just as a quadrans consists of one, so the Trinity is of one substance.”

            Modern commentators of all theological persuasions may chuckle at the notion that the true lesson of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:26 is about the necessity of belief in the Trinity.  And yet, while we may prefer historically grounded commentaries, how many historically grounded commentaries have you read that mentioned the dots on a quadrans?  

            Occasionally Fortunatianus shares genuinely interesting data-nuggets, and makes some edifying connections.  However, most of what he sees requires some extreme squinting.  Commenting on Matthew 15:28, where Jesus addresses the foreign woman with the words, “O woman,” Fortunatianus perceives that Jesus’ answer began with the letter Ω (that is, in Greek, omega), and that because omega is the last letter of the Greek alphabet, this signifies that it is in the last days that the church has believed in the Son of God, and given Him his due worship.

What Is Fortunatianus’ Canon?

             Fortunatianus described the Septuagint with approval; he quoted Habakkuk 3:2 with its distinct reading; he utilized passages from Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, and Susanna.  This shows that he recognized an Old Testament canon broader than the 39-book canon; yet it cannot be safely assumed that he regarded texts such as First and Second Macabees as authoritative. 

            Fortunatianus utilized passages from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, First John, and Revelation.  It is plausible that he simply did not have an occasion to quote from Philemon, Second John, Third John, and Jude – but the lack of quotations from Hebrews is interesting.  Fortunatianus took for granted the authority of Revelation, citing its contents 14 times.

What Theology Does Fortunatianus Promote?

            Fortunatianus affirms orthodox beliefs.  He describes Trinitarian theology as apostolic, and Arianism as deviant.  For the most part, he is more interested in drawing out intellectually stimulating or spiritually edifying lessons from specific passages, one by one.  Although the paths he takes to his conclusions are twisted – any occurrence of the number three will serve as the basis for a lesson about the Trinity – the conclusions themselves are orthodox or, at least, benign.  He affirms that baptism is for the remission of sins; commenting on John 1:12-13 he states that the church bears children of God “through the baptismal font.”

            Fortunatianus seems like a complete stranger to the tradition about the dormition of Mary, expressing a belief that Mary was put to death with a sword, as suggested by the prophecy of Simeon in Luke 2:35.  Another unusual belief to which he subscribes is that the John, though included among the twelve apostles, was quite young during Jesus’ ministry – young enough to be the little child mentioned in Matthew 18:2-4.

            It should probably be noted, in response to some sensationalistic and inaccurate news-reports about Fortunatianus and how he interpreted the Gospels, that Fortunatianus did not deny the historicity of the Gospels’ accounts about Jesus; he simply emphasized the spiritual lessons that he saw in the typological aspect of things.  (Peter Williams has made some brief comments on this theme.)       

                

How Can Fortunatianus’ Commentary Be Accessed?

Dr. Hugh Houghton describes some
of the work involved in translating
Fortunatianus' commentary in a short video.

            DeGruyter has released Dr. Lukas Dorfbauer’s critical edition of Fortunatianus’ commentary on the Gospels as Volume 103 in the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum series.  It is currently priced at $114.99 and is described as “of extraordinary significance for patristics.”  A most welcome item for academic libraries.  A volume containing analytical essays about Fortunatianus’ work is also available.

            Dr. Hugh Houghton has completed an English translation of Fortunatianus’ commentary.  The translation is also distributed by DeGruyter, and hardcover copies of it may be purchased for $68.99.  The English translation was part of a project funded by the European Research Council, and its funds also made possible the provision of digital versions of Dr. Houghton’s English translation of Fortunatianus’ commentary on the Gospels which are available to download for free in Open Access via a series of links at their website (just scroll down a bit on that page to see the links).  Thank you to all concerned, and congratulations to Dr. Dorfbauer and Dr. Houghton upon the completion of this important work!

Early Latin Evidence for John 7:53-8:11

          Many commentators reject John 7:53-8:11, echoing Bruce Metzger’s well-known comments.  The NET, for example, states that this passage (the passage about the adulteress, also called the pericope adulterae) “is not contained in the earliest and best MSS and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John.”  Yet all major English Bible translations include it.  It may seem difficult to account for this friction as a result of any factors other than ecumenical or financial priorities, but there is another consideration:  recognition of the possibility that the vast consensus of commentators are wrong, and that the 1,495 Greek manuscripts which contain the passage are right. 

          But in that case, how does one account for the early manuscripts which do not have these 12 verses between John 7:52 and 8:12?  My basic answer is that very early in church history, John 7:37-52 was read in some churches as the annual Scripture-passage for Pentecost-day, and that 8:12 was used as the conclusion of the reading, skipping the 12 verses in between.  A lector marked his manuscript to signify that those 12 verses were to be skipped during the Pentecost-reading – but when his manuscript was later used as an exemplar, the copyist misunderstood the marks as if they meant that he, the copyist, was to skip those 12 verses, and that is what he dutifully did, and thus they disappeared in all subsequent copies descended from manuscripts of John made by that particular copyist.       

          Another possibility is that instead of merely skipping the passage, a copyist simplified the Pentecost-lection by transplanting these 12 verses to the end of the Gospel of John – where indeed the passage is found in the best representatives of the Caesarean text of the Gospels (minuscules 1 and 1582 among others).  (Via this step, the Pentecost-lection became one uninterrupted block of text.)  Although these manuscripts are medieval, their line of descent is traceable to an ancestor-manuscript made in the late 400’s, the text of which has some affinities with a form of text used by Origen in the 200’s.  (For instance, Origen mentioned that he had manuscripts which called Barabbas “Jesus” in Matthew 27:16-17, and this rare reading tends to be supported by the leading members of this group of manuscripts.)

          If, in earlier manuscripts, John 7:53-8:11 was transplanted to the end of the book, we would have no way to know it from the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of John.  Due to damage, the text of Papyrus 66 cannot be confidently reconstructed after 21:17.  Papyrus 75 is in even worse shape; incidental damage has caused its extant text of John to end in 15:10.  Due to damage, the Lycopolitan Codex of John (an early Coptic manuscript) has no more text after 20:27.  Codex N, too, is damaged, and its last extant text of John is in 21:21, leaving it an open question if anything followed after 21:25.  As for Codex L and Codex Δ, their copyists testified to the presence, as well as to the absence, of the passage, as I have shown previously. 

          These six Greek manuscripts – P66, P75, N, L, and Δ – constitute five of the first ten Greek manuscripts that are typically listed as evidence against John 7:53-8:11; however, on the question of whether or not they retained the passage after John 21:25, they appear to be silent.  Similarly, we cannot discern with certainty that the blank spaces after the end of John in Codex Sinaiticus, Codex A, and Codex W are merely examples of filler-space, or of space reserved for the pericope adulterae by copyists whose exemplars lacked the passage but who revertheless recollected it. 

          But I want to give you more today than just a reminder of the tentative and incomplete nature of the testimony of most of the major Greek uncials which are often described or listed by commentators as if they speak uniformly and without qualification against the inclusion of the pericope adulterae.  Regarding the often-asked question about why the account appears in different locations within John 7-8, and even at the end of Luke 21, I will simply refer you to my book, A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11, so that we may focus today on something else which I am confident you will find interesting.

          It is not unusual to find, in ancient Gospels-manuscripts, book-divisions, often marked by chapter-numbers, chapter-titles, and sometimes brief chapter-summaries.  (These divisions are different than the Eusebian Canons and Sections, which I have described elsewhere.)  Latin copies contain a variety of chapter-lists, or capitula, and chapter-summaries, or breves.  (The terms are practically interchangeable.)  One of the earliest examples of Latin capitula is in Codex Fuldensis (produced c. 546), in which the Vulgate Gospels-text was formatted to correspond to an exemplar which bishop Victor of Capua thought might have been a Latin version of the Diatessaron made by Tatian around 172.  The chapter-numbers and list from Victor’s lost exemplar were preserved in Codex Fuldensis – and they include a chapter-summary which covers the pericope adulterae – #120:  “De muliere a Iudaeis in adulterio deprehensa.”

          As old as Codex Fuldensis is – and its exemplar must have been older yet – another form of Latin chapter-summaries is assigned to the 200’s – the Cy form, so-called to signify that it was created by a contemporary of Cyprian.  This is one of several forms of Latin chapter-summaries which were collected in 1914 by a researcher named Donatien De Bruyne.  His book, Sommaires, Divisions et Rubriques de la Bible Latine, written in French, is helpfully available online at the Gallica website as a free download.  When one turns to page 320, one can find the relevant chapter-summary, #30, that is, in Roman numerals, XXX: 

“Ubi adulteram dimisit et se dixit lumen saeculi et de testimonio suo et patris; ibi ait :  si me nossetis, et patrem meum nossetis, loquens in gazofilatio et quod non eum inuenientes in peccatis suis morituri essent, et quod illi essent de isto saeculo, ipse non esset et quod quaerentibus quis esset respondit : initium, et de patre locutus est non cognoscentibus quia cum illo est qui eum misit.” 

Click here to see the full-color page-view of this chapter-summary.

          As far as the pericope adulterae is concerned, the opening words of this chapter-summary are very significant, because they refer to the dismissal of the adulteress before summarizing the other contents in the thirtieth portion of John.  The beginning of this chapter-summary runs something like this in English:  “Wherein he dismissed the adulteress, and said that he was the light of the world, and described his testimony and the testimony borne by his Father.  He said, If you knew me, you would have known my Father also.  And he was saying in the temple-treasury that those who did not find him would die in their sins, and that they were of this world, but he was not.”
          The Cy form of the chapter-summaries, though initially created to accompany an ancient Old Latin text, has survived – barely – by being grafted onto a standard Latin text.  The Cy chapter-summaries are extant primarily in only two known manuscripts:  Vatican Barberini 637, and Munich BSB Clm. 6212.  (They are partly preserved in the British Library in Harley 1775.)  

          Happily, digital images of both of these two manuscripts are accessible online.  The Vatican’s page-views are under strict copyright, but once you arrive at the Vatican Library’s website, it is easy to find Barberini 627, and to turn to page 99r, looking for chapter-summary #30 in the left column of the page.  Similarly, to view the full-color page-view of the same chapter-summary at the top of page 131v of the other manuscript, visit this embedded link.  Hugh Houghton has noted that the Munich manuscript was thought by McGurk, who studied it, to have been copied from a much earlier exemplar produced in the 500’s.  

          You may be asking, why is this form of Latin chapter-divisions, extant in just two manuscripts from the 800’s and 900’s, associated with Cyprian?  Basically this is a conclusion drawn from cumulative evidence in the form of special repeated points of correspondence between the text that is used in the chapter-summaries (especially where rare terms are used, and when quotations are included) and Cyprian’s Gospels-quotations.  Hugh Houghton, in a 2011 article in Revue Benedictine, noted that the text embedded in this form of chapter-summaries has affinities “to the citations of both Cyprian and Tertullian.”    

          As Hugh Houghton has reported, De Bruyne also noted the antiquity of the chapter-summaries known as Type I; Houghton has placed this form in the 300’s.  In John, Type I’s chapter-summary #16 says, “Adducunt ad eum mulierem ‘in adulterio deprehensam,’ and in one form of this chapter-summary, found in six manuscripts, the text continues, “in moechatione ut eam iudicaret.”    The form of the chapter-summaries which De Bruyne lists as Type D also has these words, followed by “quod nemo miserit super illam manus.”  (See page 264 of his book.)  An interesting feature of this particular chapter-summary is that it contains the loan-word moechatione, suggesting that this chapter-summary was based on an Old Latin text which someone had translated from Greek rather literally, at least at this point.

          Type I of the chapter-summaries tends to accompany a distinct form of the Old Latin text which is basically a form of the Gospels-text which was used by Ambrose of Milan in the 370’s-390’s.  According to Houghton, this was also, in general, the form of the Latin text used by Zeno of Verona (c. 300-371).  

          So, to sum up:  various forms of Old Latin chapter-summaries, the earliest of which has been deduced via the detection of shared readings to have been based on a form of the Latin text of the Gospels used by, or at approximately the same time as, Cyprian in the 200’s, are a cluster of significant witnesses for the pericope adulterae.   To those who may want to locate where the pericope adulterae is summarized in the forms of chapter-summaries of the Gospel of John which are presented by De Bruyne, here they are:

A:  (none)

B:  (none; this is a shorter form of Type A.)

B^r:  VII:  Iesus supra mare ambulat . . . . [and after several sentences] De muliere adultera.  Iesus lumen mundi se esse non credentibus Iudaeis in gazophilacio docens praedicat.

Ben:  XXI:  De muliere in adulterio deprehensa.

C:  XX:  Mulierem in adulterio deprehensam atque ad se adductam nec ab accusatoribus condemnatam ipse sub condicione qua ulterius non peccaret absoluit.

D:  XVIII:  De muliere in adulterio depraehensa. [in moechatione u team iudicaret, quod nemo miserit super illam manus].  

I:  XVI:  Adducunt ad eum mulierem in adulterio deprehensam.  (See above for expanded form.)

W:  XVI:  De muliere in adulterio deprehensa.

Cat:  XVI:  Adducunt ad Iesum mulierem deprehensam [in adulterio], et ego sum lux mundi, et uos secundum carnem iudicatis, et neque me scitis neque patrem meum, et si non credideritis quia ego sum moriemini.        

I^for:  (none) 

Pⁱ:  XVI:  De muliere in adulterio deprehensa.       

Cy:  XXX:  Ubi adulteram dimisit et se dixit lumen saeculi . . .  (See above)

In:  No mention of the adulteress, but XVI:  Iesus autem ascendit in montem Oliueti.

Vich:  VII:  (at the end of the summary) Mulierem adulteram liberans lucem mundi se dicit.

Z:  XVIII:  De muliere in adulterio deprehensa.

  

          The pericope adulterae is not supported by forms A and B (which are the same in John), or by form I^for; however, even this is conceivably an effect of the conciseness of these summaries rather than evidence that the passage was absent in the texts accompanied by the chapter-summaries.  In any event, we have here twelve witnesses (much more, of course, if we were to count each manuscript individually instead of the chapter-lists themselves, but less if we were to group together four similar forms) for the inclusion of the pericope adulterae.  

          Furthermore, none of them show any signs of deviation regarding the sequence in which the episode occurs in the text of the Gospel of John.  This is quite strong evidence that the passage was in its usual location following John 7:52 before it was moved to the back of the book.  This should motivate those who treat the pericope adulterae’s dislocations as anything other than the effects of lection-cycles and special formatting of the Pentecost-lection to reconsider their position.  In addition, claims that convey that no early versions included John 7:53-8:11 should be withdrawn.

Houghton's Latin New Testament: An Essential Resource

          Earlier this year, Hugh Houghton gave the field of New Testament textual criticism a great gift:  a definitive introduction to the transmission of the New Testament in Latin.  His recent book, The Latin New Testament:  A Guide to Its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts, is excellent.  Metzger’s 1977 description of the Old Latin and Vulgate texts (in pages 285-374 of The Early Versions of the New Testament may now be dismissed in peace, like a candle extinguished at sunrise.

          The main text of the book is conveniently divided into three parts:  History (describing the rise of the Old Latin and the Vulgate in patristic times, and their dissemination in the Middle Ages), Texts (describing the various resources and compilations of the Latin text, especially the Vulgate), and Manuscripts (with descriptions of the features often found in Latin manuscripts, and a remarkably thorough catalog of Latin manuscripts of text-critical importance.  The bibliography, appendices, and indices occupy the final third of the book.  

          Houghton’s account of the development of the Old Latin version is full of fascinating details which may cause even experienced researchers to wonder if they have given the Old Latin evidence the attention it deserves.  For example, in the course of making a case that the Old Latin witnesses of the Gospels share a common Latin ancestor, Houghton does not neglect to mention the example from Mark 9:15, which has been enlisted for this purpose for a long time:  gaudentes (rejoicing) appears in the Latin text of “all pre-Vulgate Latin manuscripts,” which seems to imply that behind them all there was a Greek text which read προσχέροντες (i.e., minus itacism, προσχαίροντες), as in Codex Bezae, rather than the usual reading προστρέχοντες (running).  This example, however, is not left to carry the case by itself; Houghton also cites readings in the majority of Old Latin copies in Luke 1:9, Luke 9:62, Luke 22:11, Matthew 27:60, and more. 

          It is still possible to believe Augustine’s statement (in De Doctrina Christiana, 2:11) that “The Latin translators cannot be counted.  For whenever, in the first ages of the faith, a Greek manuscript came into the hands of anyone who had also a little skill in both languages, he made bold to translate it forthwith.”  However, the shared anomalies in the Old Latin manuscripts – some of which imply a shared Greek base-text, or the same rendering of once-used Greek words – imply that these translators did not work in full independence; we must picture them sharing a Latin source and proceeding to adjust it in various ways.

          Houghton also makes it clear that despite Aland & Aland’s attempts to downplay Greek text-types, text-type-based categorization is very much alive in Old Latin research.  He presents 14 forms of the Latin text, ranging from the early forms used by Tertullian and the translator of Irenaeus, to the Stuttgart Vulgate text.  Some of the most prominent Latin text-types are:

● K, the text used by Cyprian,

● I, an Italian text closely resembling the Vulgate,

● A, a text used by Augustine,

● R, the text used by Lucifer of Cagliari, and

● S, a Latin text used in Spain.

          Houghton also shows that it is important not only to notice textual relationships, but also to detect shared features in the meta-text (or paratext) of Latin manuscripts:  the formatting of the text, as well as supplemental materials such as canon-tables, chapter-summaries, and even the use of different colors of ink, can contribute to important discoveries.  For example, there are 13 different forms of the capitula (chapter-summaries), and early Old Latin forms are sometimes found in later manuscripts in which the Gospels-text is Vulgate.  The most significant example of these forms of the capitula is KA Cy, which Houghton assigns to the first half of the 200’s.  Although this form of the capitula is found mainly in later manuscripts with an essentially Vulgate text, “The affiliation of the passages quoted in these lengthy summaries corresponds very closely to the text of Cyprian and VL 1” [i.e., Codex Bobiensis].  The significance of this is felt when it is observed that KA Cy describes the pericope adulterae as the sixteenth chapter of John, and thus indirectly constitutes a very early witness for the inclusion of the passage. 

          Readers of The Latin New Testament will likely gain a new insight or new information every few pages, whether the subject is a Latin manuscript, a lectionary (such as VL 32, from the 500’s), a patristic writer, or a modern-day editor.  After reading this book, it will be obvious that the Old Latin evidence is much more extensive than it was believed to be just 40 years ago.  The use of letters to represent Old Latin manuscripts (such as k for Bobiensis) is manifestly insufficient, and the Beuron system which Houghton uses throughout the book will inevitably replace it; indeed it must replace it in order to allow all relevant Latin witnesses to be coherently identified.  

VL 8 (Codex Corbeiensis) - with the
pericope adulterae (BnF Lat. 17225).

          Sixteen illustrations supplement the text (including a photo of Codex Complutensis with the Comma Johanneum), but a far greater supplement is the provision of links to digital photographs of many of the manuscripts in the catalogue in chapter 10.  This represents a real step forward, allowing readers the ability to virtually see many of the manuscripts online.  The Vetus Latina website, which Houghton maintains, helpfully supplements the book, and so does his website.  One can find there, among other things, a list of Old Latin Gospels-manuscripts (many of which have been fully digitized), Houghton’s article Latin Chapter-divisions, Capitula Lists, and the Old Latin Version of John, and his essay on the text of Luke in VL 11A, which appeared in the Festschrift for the great Roger Gryson, one of the giants, with Bonifatius Fischer, Hermann Josef Frede, and others, upon whose shoulders Houghton stands.

          It is traditional for authors to say that if they have seen further than their respected predecessors, it is because they are dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants.  Readers of Houghton’s work, however, may be justified if they adjust the axiom somewhat, recognizing that they are reading the work of a giant standing on the shoulders of other giants in a relatively obscure field that has finally been made accessible, comprehensible, and up-to-date.    

          Last but not least, let us applaud the publisher, Oxford University Press, for distributing this monumental book at a reasonable price:  Amazon offers the hardcover edition for $39.95, and the Kindle edition for $14.57.

The Latin New Testament:  A Guide to Its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts, is © H.A.G. Houghton 2016, and is published by Oxford University Press.