It’s time
for another round of hand-to-hand combat!
Since it’s almost Christmastime, our combatants will square off in Luke
2:1-18, a passage which contains the accounts of the birth of Christ and the
angels’ visit to the shepherds who were keeping watch over their flocks.
The competitors in today’s contest are the
famous
Codex
Bezae (D, 05) – which nowadays is usually assigned to the early 400s – and
GA
2370, a remarkably small minuscule Gospels-manuscript from the late 1000s,
one of several
Greek
New Testament manuscripts at the Walters Art Museum (the manuscript is also
known as
Walters
522).
Before proceeding,
let’s consider a few details about 2370:
● 2370 is a
nearly complete copy of the four Gospels; the last verse on its last (damaged)
page is John 21:3.
● The story
of the adulteress is included (7:53 begins on page-view 521, numbered as fol.
253 at the top and as 248 at the bottom).
However, the pages from 247a (numbered
as 242 at the bottom) (beginning in John 6:32) to 261 are secondary; the main
copyist’s work resumes on 262a
(page-view 539) in Jn. 10:14. A few of
the secondary pages were inserted upside-down.
● Each
Gospel is accompanied by a picture of the Evangelist, and an icon-like
headpiece. For Mark, the headpiece is a
portrait of Christ (with hardly any pigment surviving); for Luke, the headpiece
is an icon representing the birth of John the Baptist; Zachariah stands in the
margin, and Luke is represented in the initial.
For John, the full-page portrait shows John dictating to Prochorus, and
the headpiece is a portrait (fairly intact) of Christ.
This contest may
provide a convenient test of the idea that the oldest a manuscript is,
the better its text tends to be.
If the
assigned production-dates for these two manuscripts are correct, then the
copyists in the transmission-line of GA 2370 had more than twice as
much time as the copyists of in the transmission-line of Codex D to make
additions, omissions, and other mistakes in the text.
Let’s compare their contents and see which
text is more accurate, using as our standard of comparison the
Tyndale House Greek New Testament.
As in
earlier rounds of Hand-to-Hand Combat, a few ground rules are in play. A point is assigned to each manuscript for
each non-original letter in its text, and a point is also assigned to each
manuscript for each original letter that is absent from its text. Transpositions are mentioned, but do not
result in any points unless there is an actual loss of a letter or
letters. Nomina sacra (i.e., sacred-name contractions) and other
contractions in and of themselves are not considered variants, unless the
contraction is of a word that is not in the original text. Movable-nu differences are not noted in this comparison.
Luke 2:1-18 in GA 2370
1 – no variants
2 – has η after
αυτη (+1)
3 – has ιδιαν
instead of εαυτου (+5, -6)
4 – no variants
5 – has μεμνηστευμένη
instead of εμνηστευμενη (+1)
5 – has αυτου
instead of αυτω (+2, -1)
5 – has γυναικι
before ουση (+7)
5 – has εγκύω
instead of ενκύω (+1, -1)
6 – no variants
7 – has τη before
φατνη (+2)
8 – no variants
9 – has ιδου
before αγγελος (+4)
10 – no variants
11 – no variants
12 – does not have και
before κείμενον (-3)
13 – no variants
14 – has ευδοκια instead of ευδοκιας (-1)
15 – has και οι
ανθρωποι after αγγελοι (+13)
15 – has ειπον
instead of ελάλουν (+5, -7)
16 – has ηλθον
instead of ηλθαν (+1, -1)
17 – has διεγνώρισαν
instead of εγνώρισαν (+2)
18 – no variants
Thus, when we look over 2370’s text and compare it to the
Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament, as if the Tyndale House
edition is the original text, 2370’s text of Luke 2:1-18 contains 45
non-original letters, and is missing 20 original letters, for a total of 65 letters’ worth of scribal
corruption.
Now let’s look at the same passage in Codex Bezae, which is
estimated to be at least 500 years older than GA 2370. In a couple of places, there is a correction
in the manuscript; to keep things simple I removed these variants from
consideration after making mention of them.
Luke 2:1-18 in Codex Bezae (D, 05)
1 – no variants
2 – transposes to εγενετο απογραφη πρωτη
3 – has πατριδα
instead of πολιν (+6, -4)
4 – has Ναζαρεθ
instead of Ναζαρετ (+1, -1)
4 – has Ιουδα instead of Ιουδαίαν (-3)
4 – has καλειτε
instead of καλειται (+1, -2)
4 – transposes the last phrase of v. 4 and the first phrase
of v. 5
5 – has απογράψεσθαι
instead of απογράψασθαι (+1, -1)
6 – has ως instead
of εγενετο before δε (+2, -7)
6 – has παρεγείνοντο
instead of εν τω ειναι αυτους εκει
after δε (+12, -19)
6 – has ετελέσθησαν
instead of επλήσθησαν (+4, -3)
7 – no variants
8 – has δε after
ποιμενες instead of και before
ποιμενες (+2, -3)
8 – has χαρα
ταυτη instead of χωρα τη αυτη (+1, -2) [correction in MS]
8 – has τας
before φυλακας (+3)
9 – has ϊδου
before αγγελος (+4)
9 – does not have κυρίου (ΚΥ) after δοξα (-6, or -2 if counted as contracted sacred
name)
10 – has υμειν
instead of υμιν (+1)
10 – has και
before εσται (+3)
11 – has υμειν
instead of υμιν (+1)
12 – has υμειν
instead of υμιν (+1)
12 – has εστω
after σημειον (+4)
12 – does not have και
κείμενον (-11)
13 – has στρατειας
instead of στρατιας (+1)
13 – has αιτουντων
instead of αινουντων (+1, -1)
[correction in MS]
15 – no variants
15 – moves οι αγγελοι to follow απηλθον
15 – has και οι
ανθρωποι before οι ποιμενες (+13)
15 – has ειπον
instead of ελάλουν (+5, -7)
15 – has γεγονως
instead of γεγονος (+1, -1)
[correction in MS]
15 – has ημειν
instead of ημιν (+1)
16 – has ηλθον
instead of ηλθαν (+1, -1)
16 – has σπευδοντες
instead of σπευσαντες (+2, -2)
16 – has ευρον instead of ανευρον (-2)
16 – does not have τε
before Μαριαμ (-2)
16 – has Μαριαν
instead of Μαριαμ (+1, -1)
17 – does not have τουτου
(-6)
18 – has ακουοντες
instead of ακουσαντες (+1, -2)
18 – has εθαυμαζον
instead of εθαυμασαν (+2, -2)
Thus, when
we look over Codex D’s text of Luke 2:1-18, and compare it to the Tyndale House
edition of the Greek New Testament, as if the Tyndale House edition is the
original text, D’s text of this passage contains 76 non-original letters, and
is missing 86 original letters, for a total of 162 letters’ worth of scribal
corruption.
Can we make
the score – only 65 letters’ worth of corruption in 2370’s transmission-line
over 900 years, but 162 letters’ worth of corruption in Codex D’s
transmission-line over 350 years! – a little closer by removing trivial
spelling-related variants from consideration?
If we overlook the variant-units that involve the spelling of Ναζαρετ in verse 4, καλειται
in verse 4, εγκύω in verse 5, απογράψασθαι in verse 5, the corrected reading in
verse 8, υμιν in verses 10, 11, and 12, στρατιας in verse 13, the corrected
readings in verses 13 and 15, ημιν in verse 15, ηλθαν in verse 16, Μαριαμ in
verse 16, and εθαυμασαν in verse 18, Codex D’s text of Luke 2:1-18 still
contains 62 non-original letters, and is still missing 74 original letters,
yielding a total of 136 letters’ worth of scribal corruptions.
Thus we see
that 2370, a medieval minuscule that is not mentioned in the textual apparatuses
of the Nestle-Aland, UBS, or Tyndale House compilations (or any other textual
apparatus that I know of), contains a text of Luke 2:1-18 that is, at minimum, twice as accurate as the
text of Luke 2:1-18 in Codex Bezae.
In
addition, in at least four places in this passage, I suspect that the Tyndale
House edition of the Greek New Testament contains a corruption.
● First,
the spelling of ενκύω (εγκύω in NA, in Tregelles, in Scholz, in Baljon, in
Souter, in Holmes’ SBLGNT, and in Byz) in 2:5:
what justifies the adoption of this anomaly?
● Third, in
verse 9, ἰδού is broadly attested by A D Κ Θ Byz 157 1424 OL Vulgate Pesh, and should be retained. Contrary to Metzger’s proposal that it is
difficult to imagine why copyists would have omitted “behold,” it is not hard
at all to reckon that they felt over-beholden, in light of the recurrence of
the same term in v. 10 (and in 1:20, 1:31, 1:36, 1:38, 1:44, 1:48, and in 2:25). The word ἰδού is omitted in 2:25 by D and N;
it is also omitted by D in 6:23, 7:12, and 8:41, 9:39 (where ℵ also omits),
10:25, 23:15, and 24:13. The same
phenomenon is on display at Lk. 17:21 and 19:19 in 157, and at 22:21 in f13,
and at 23:29 in P75, D, and f13, and in 24:49 in P75 and
D. (Readers may also compare how the
word “Behold” has disappeared from some English versions, even though ἰδού remains
in their base-text.)
● Fourth,
in verse 15, it is easy to notice that the words καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι are vulnerable
to accidental parableptic loss, situated between οἱ ἄγγελοι and οἱ ποιμένες,
especially when ἄνθρωποι is written in contracted form (και
οι ανθοι οι).
Tregelles included these words in his Greek
New Testament, albeit in brackets.
Burgon’s brief comments on this passage (in
Causes of Corruption, page 36) remain forceful.
Finally, especially
in light of the approach of the Christmas season, a feature in 2370 draws our
attention:
the
headpiece for the Gospel of Matthew is a
Nativity
icon – or what is left of one.
Mary
and the baby Jesus are depicted in the center of the picture; when the icon was
pristine, the red paint around Mary represented her red bed-mattress. Joseph
and other characters are also in the picture.
Above the picture is the heading for the lection assigned to the Sunday
before Christmas (for the Holy Fathers).
In the outer margin next to the main picture are representations of
Abraham and David.
This small manuscript
was apparently used by some very devout readers, whose kisses gradually took
away most of the pigment.
Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.
In addition, the British Library’s website offers several
essays on subjects relevant in one way or another to the field of New Testament
textual criticism, including the following:
