Interview: Jeff Kloha of Museum of the Bible

     Did you know that the Museum of the Bible has a podcast, and that it often orbits the subject of New Testament textual criticism?  Recent interviews at the podcast have featured Tommy Wasserman, Juan Hernandez, and Michael Holmes.  Joining us today is Dr. Jeffrey Kloha, who serves as Chief Curatorial Officer at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., to tell us more about the MotB podcast, Today at Museum of the Bible.  Which can be heard on Spotify, Google Play, iTunes, and IHeartRadio.

 ● Dr. Kloha, when did MotB’s podcast officially begin? 

 JK:  When COVID shut down the museum, we started posting the audio from the lectures over the past several years so that people had access to museum content online.  In June 2021 we started the interview format, which we now try to post weekly.

 ● Over the course of about 90 episodes so far, the podcast has covered a pretty eclectic mixture of Bible-related topics.  Textual critics interviewed include Elijah Hixson, Peter Gurry, and more.  About how often do you expect to feature topics relevant to New Testament textual criticism?

 JK:  The theme, “Today at Museum of the Bible” reflects the wide variety of ways that people today are researching, teaching, and leading in areas related to the museum themes: the history, stories, and impact of the Bible.  The topics are eclectic because I interview people who visit them museum, or are there for a speaker series, or happen to be in Washington. We’ve had good response at the museum to topics related to manuscripts, translation, and archeology. And the museum’s Scholars Initiative sponsors two excavations in Israel and an imaging project at St. Catherine’s monastery at Mt. Sinai. So those topics do come up regularly in the podcast as well.

● Have you announced any new discoveries related to NT manuscripts on the podcast?  

 

JK:  No, we haven’t announced new discoveries on the podcast. In the interviews, I try to help convey to a general audience these interesting and sometimes esoteric topics. New discoveries would be announced first in a more formal setting, but we would certainly follow up with a podcast. One topic that we did discuss in a podcast is a revised transcription of the famous “Wyman Fragment” of Romans, which Daniel Stephens will be publishing in the next issue of New Testament Studies. We’ve been able to read more lines of text and individual letters after two rounds of multi-spectral imaging, and he also discusses the results of two C-14 tests. There aren’t any revolutionary findings in the article, but it is always helpful to refine the data and be more precise in what we know about the individual manuscripts.

 

● Repeatedly the podcast’s focus has been the Shroud of Turin.  Do you think the Shroud of Turin has been studied enough?

 

JK:  Many people, of course, will tell you that it has not.  There are some pretty intriguing unanswered questions. And as technology is refined and scientific testing becomes more precise, the right additional tests could answer some questions which currently do not have answers.  For example, the image on the Shroud has not been replicated at the same level of detail.  How was it produced?  Even if, somehow, it is connected to the resurrection of Jesus, how did that produce the image?  We’ve had a great response to that exhibit.  It is one of, if not the most, recognizable image of Jesus or any person from the Bible. So, people are familiar with it, familiar with the mystery of the object, and it gives an opportunity to point back to the ways that the Shroud reflects the descriptions of Jesus’ passion in the gospels.

 

● Is there one exhibit-item at MotB that gets more attention than all others? 

JK:  You mean other than Elvis’ Bible?  Individuals resonate with different items.  But some obvious highlights are the Washington Pentateuch, the P. Bodmer XXIV (Rahlfs 2110) Psalms papyrus, the beautiful, illuminated Hours and Psalter of Elizabeth de Bohun, and on the Impact of the Bible floor, a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1809 and the original manuscript draft of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic.”  The breadth of the museum’s collections is impressive, and in one place you can see pretty much the entire history of the Bible, from Ancient Near Eastern backgrounds to the ongoing work of translation that is still happening today.

 

Dr. Jeffrey Kloha

Our collections web database features over 500 objects with images and descriptions.   [These include P39, illuminated manuscripts, GA 0250 (Codex Climaci Rescriptus) and various highlights.]

 

● One of your most interesting episodes (to me) was an interview with Fr. Hovsep Karapetyan, about the history of Armenian Christians.  Will he return to the podcast when MotB opens the special Armenian exhibit next year?

 

JK:  Fr. Hovsep and the entire Armenian community has been wonderful to work with. In addition to Fr. Hovsep we featured Dr. Christina Maranci and Dr. Jesse Arlen on topics related to the Bible and the Armenian people. I’m sure we’ll talk with Fr. Hovsep again.

 

● Can you tell us what to expect from that upcoming exhibit?  

 

JK:  Armenians were the first nation to adopt Christianity as its official religion, and their beautiful alphabet was invented to create a written language for the Bible. Their liturgy, church architecture, and manuscripts are both familiar and also have a uniqueness to them. And the story of the history of Christianity among the Armenians is one of perseverance through many challenges: The Parthians, Islam, Mongols, Communism all attempted to stamp out Christian identity. And their resilience even through horrific events like the Armenian Genocide is inspiring. So, in way way, the exhibit will be a “history of the Bible” and “impact of the Bible” exhibition as expressed through the Armenian people.

 

● Will there be a new Armenian-exhibit-related book?    

 

JK:  We’re hoping to produce an exhibition guide for the project.  The exhibition will not feature any new finds or research projects.  The Matenadaran has an amazing collection and a very talented staff, and they are in the process of making their resources available more broadly. I really appreciate how the Matenadaran is on the highest hill in Yerevan, with the main boulevard leading up to it. It is a wonderful symbol of the centrality of the written word and the Scriptures to Armenian identity.

 

● When you interviewed Mark Gaither of CSNTM, he referred to four Greek manuscripts at MotB that a team from CSNTM has photographed.  Those are 0206, GA 1361, GA 2120, and Lect 2383.  Does MotB have more than those four?  What about minuscule 64? 

 

JK:  We have not imaged that manuscript because it is in fragile condition and will need extra care and time for imaging, more than the CSNTM team had time for.  The museum has received a grant to equip its own imaging lab, so we will make and release high-res images when that equipment is up and running.

 

● Is there a set of complete digital page-views of GA 1429 that could be made available online? 

 

JK:  Brian Hyland, one of our curators, has become quite expert at provenance research and tracing down tiny clues to complete a manuscript’s history. The page on our site gives a pretty detailed summary of Brian’s research, and our decision to return this manuscript to the monastery where it was used by the community prior to the terrible looting in 1917. We hope that other institutions with manuscripts from that monastery, including some in the U.S., also return the items in their holdings. 

            We believe that it is the right thing to do, and we were already in discussions with the Ecumenical Patriarchate for a collaboration. We are honored to display several manuscripts on loan from the Patriarchate as well as liturgical objects that show the connection between the biblical text and liturgical practices. So, it has blossomed into a great exhibition for our guests, and the monastery will have their manuscript back again. We will be returning the manuscript physically in late September during an event at the monastery.

 

● How much stuff does MotB have from the Schoyen Collection?  Will it be the focus on a future podcast-episode?

 

JK:  We have about a dozen objects that had been in the Schoyen collection previously, including the Wyman Fragment. On our collections database you can search the term “Schoyen” and see most of them. They were released by that collection, placed on the market, and have sufficiently documented ownership history that we can hold and display them.

 

● Dumbarton Oaks is only about a 15-minute drive from the Museum of the Bible.  Has MotB ever kicked around the idea of working out a co-operative venture with Dumbarton Oaks, displaying the manuscripts and other antiquities that are there?

 

JK:  One of the great things about Washington is the many museums, many of which have objects that are connected to the Bible and its impact. The National Gallery, of course, has a stunning collection of religious art.  The Walters Museum in Baltimore has a fantastic manuscript collection.  And Dumbarton Oaks has a surprisingly large and deep collection of Byzantine materials, including manuscripts.  Pre-COVID I talked with them about a few potential ideas. But whether those bear fruit or not, people can still head over there and see their collection (and gardens), which is worth a visit all on its own.

 

● Is there any chance of ever seeing Codex W at the MotB, or highlighted it at the podcast?

 

JK:   The Freer Gallery, unfortunately, does not display that manuscript.  They do have a full set of high-resolution images online.  But the manuscript is apparently in fragile condition and at this point they are not comfortable displaying it, let alone loaning it.

 

● Is MotB able to host special events or exhibits featuring items from American manuscript-collections, like the ones at Chicago and Duke?

 

JK:  Most of the loans are for special exhibitions.  So, if it makes sense for the content and goals of the exhibit, we reach out to institutions for potential loans.  One challenge that many people may not be aware of: almost all museums cap the length of manuscript loans at three months.  Parchment is a very durable material, of course, but travel and changes in relative humidity can cause parchment to buckle, which then may cause ink to flake off the surface.  So, loans for manuscripts are among the most difficult.  For the permanent galleries, we prefer to rely on items from our own collections.

 

● What subjects can we expect to be covered in 2022-2023 at the podcast?

 

JK:  In the fall we will have a special exhibition on the Samaritans, and for Christmas one on the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem – two very interesting topics and great exhibitions.  There will definitely be some conversations about those.  And, in January we will be opening a special “Scripture and Science” exhibition, so again that will be an ongoing topic. And we are also adding lectures featuring archeologists and researchers from the Israel Antiquities Authority—again, archeology is a popular and important topic. Beyond that, it will be pretty much whoever shows up at Museum of the Bible.

 

Thank you, Dr. Kloha, for sharing about Today at Museum of the Bible.

An Early Egyptian Manuscript Named Mae

          Once upon a time, there was a letter named Ash.  It was a combination of the letters A and E, smashed together.  For centuries, Ash began names such Æneas, Æesop, and Æschylus, and was found in Cæsar, as well as less distinguished words such as archæology.  After a distinguished career in mediæval English, Ash eventually retired.  Ash is still employed, however, in the textual apparatus of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Græce:  “mae” is the abbreviation used there to represent two manuscripts written in Middle Ægyptian.  The first Middle Ægyptian manuscript, referred to as mae¹ in the apparatus, is the Scheide Codex (described by Metzger in 1980), a copy of practically the entire Gospel of Matthew made in the 400’s.  The second Middle Ægyptian manuscript, named mae² in the apparatus, is Codex Schøyen 2650 – a manuscript which is surprisingly important considering how little attention it has received. (Other manuscripts, extant for other New Testament books, are also called mae; in the UBS4 apparatus they are called meg.)

          Codex Schøyen 2650 was probably produced sometime in the 300’s.  It is a prized item in the collection of Martin Schøyen.  It was first described in detail in 2000 by Hans-Martin Schenke, who proposed that its text reflects a form of the text of the Gospel of Matthew that is drastically different from the canonical text – perhaps even the Hebrew text which some patristic writers suggest was the basis for the Greek text of Matthew.  This tantalizing suggestion, however, was opposed by other scholars, including the late William L. Petersen and Tjitze Baarda.  Baarda was gentle in his criticism of Schenke’s approach; Schenke died in 2002, and Baarda may have wished to adhere to the proverb, De mortuis nil nisi bonum.                 

          But let the truth be told:  mae² is a very good manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew (despite being extensively damaged; the text begins in 5:38, and every page has been damaged at least a little).  As a representative of the Alexandrian Text of Matthew its only rivals are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  If any researchers have had reservations about citing mae² as a witness for the fourth-century Coptic text of the canonical Gospel of Matthew, such doubts should be forever set aside.
          Codex Schøyen 2650 was the subject of James Leonard’s 2012 dissertation, which he prepared with the full resources of Tyndale House at his disposal; his preparation also involved a year of research at the H. Milton Haggard Center for New Testament Textual Studies.  His dissertation has since been published by Brill as Codex Schoyen 2650:  A Middle Egyptian Coptic Witness to the Early Greek Text of Matthew’s Gospel.  Leonard demonstrates with thunderous force that Schenke’s appraisal of the manuscript’s text minimized its close adherence to the Alexandrian Text (especially Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) and maximized readings which can be, and should be, regarded as points at which the translator resorted to paraphrasing, or which are the results of the Coptic dialect’s inherent inability to directly correspond to every nuance of the Greek text.
          This is not to say that mae² does not have more than its fair share of anomalies.  Leonard selected three passages for very thorough analysis:  5:38-6:18, 12:3-27, and 28:1-20.  In the first two passages, when mae²’s text initially appears to stray from the Alexandrian Text, there is almost always an explanation rooted either in the translator’s approach, in scribal mistakes, or in the limitations of Coptic syntax.  But in Matthew 28, we encounter the following oddities:

● 28:1 – Mae² adds, “when the stars were yet above” as a way of signifying that it was very early in the morning.  (Mae¹ also has a unique reading here.)

● 28:2 – Mae² says the angel “took” the stone, rather than that the angel rolled away the stone.

● 28:2 – Mae² includes not only the phrase “from the door” (agreeing with the Byzantine Text) but also “of the tomb” (agreeing with the Caesarean Text). 

● 28:5 – Mae² makes the unusual statement that when the guards shook due to their fear of the angel, “they arose as dead men.”

● 28:5 – Mae² does not have the phrase “who was crucified.”

● 28:10 – Mae² does not have the phrase “Do not be afraid.”

● 28:10 – Mae² says, “Tell my brothers to return to me in Galilee” instead of “Tell my brothers to go to Galilee.”

● 28:12 – Mae² adds “of the people” after “elders.”

          These do not add up to justification for the idea that the translator’s base-text was descended from a different source than the forms of Matthew 28 that are extant in Greek, but they do show that Egyptian translators were far from the models of precision that they are sometimes claimed to have been.

          Leonard points out a distinctive characteristic of the translation preserved in mae² that is particularly interesting:  “Mae² often compresses synonymous verb pairings to a single verb.”  Leonard illustrates this by citing 9:27, where, in the Nestle-Aland compilation and in the Byzantine Text, two blind men “cry out and say.”  The compilers of the Nestle-Aland text were so confident that this is the correct text that they did not even note that there is a variant-reading at this point. But in a few important manuscripts (C (which was corrected), L, and f¹³), the text only says that the blind men “cry out.”  Mae² agrees with this shortened reading.  Leonard mentions Matthew 9:36, 11:1, 12:44, 21:21, 23:23, 26:4, 26:74, 27:2, and 27:48 as other passages which display this phenomenon in mae².        

          This spurs a question which, although it was not even raised by Leonard, seems worth exploring:  if scribes in Egypt could thus shorten the text when translating, could they not do the same thing when transcribing?  The tendency to compress synonymous verb-pairs displayed in mae² could easily account for the short Alexandrian readings one finds in passages such as Luke 24:53, where the Byzantine reading has been regarded as a conflation.

           Mae²’s text generally adheres closely to the text of B and Aleph even at some points where they have almost no other support:  Mae² does not have 12:47 (a verse which is exceptionally vulnerable to loss due to homoeoteleuton); mae²  agrees with B in 14:24 (where B’s text, though adopted in the Nestle-Aland/UBS compilation, looks very much like something intended to ensure that “in the middle of the sea” was not misunderstood as referring to depth rather than distance); mae²  agrees with B and Aleph in 14:30 (where the word ισχυρόν was susceptible to loss via homoeoteleuton); mae² even agrees with the two flagship manuscripts of the Alexandrian Text in Matthew 27:49, where they state (in a flat contradiction of John 19:31-34) that Jesus was pierced with a spear before He died; mae² has the interpolation in a slightly different form, mentioning the water before the blood.

          In Codex Vaticanus, although the text is very strongly Alexandrian, Western readings pop up here and there, seemingly out of nowhere (such as in Matthew 27:24b).  The same phenomenon manifests itself in mae²:  the entire text of 21:44 is absent from mae², as it is from Codex D and several Old Latin manuscripts.

          Along with Leonard’s many insightful observations about the readings of mae² is a chapter about their possible impact on the Nestle-Aland compilation; Leonard proposes that at several variant-units where the evidence seems finely balanced, the weight of mae² might tip the scales.  These include variant-units in 6:33 and 12:15, among others.

Although the publisher is asking for
about $130 for a copy,
less expensive copies
can be obtained second-hand 
(at least, this was possible
when this post was written).

          Leonard does not investigate the question of possible lector-influence upon the Alexandrian Text displayed in mae², even though he provides some data which would be helpful in such an investigation.  It is sometimes thought that where the Byzantine Text has the name “Jesus” where the Alexandrian Text does not, this is due to a Byzantine tendency to add the name “Jesus” at the beginnings of lections.  In mae² we see the opposite tendency:  Jesus’ name is missing in 16:21 and 17:8.  Lector-influence may, however, be the cause of mae²’s inclusion of Jesus’ name in 9:36. 

           Now that James Leonard has provided the go-to resource for mae², irrevocably establishing it as a strongly Alexandrian witness, the stage is set for the next logical step:  a comparison of mae² to its slightly younger relative, mae¹.  Although these two manuscripts represent the same Egyptian dialect (sometimes called Mesokemic), and their production-dates are relatively close, they disagree at many important points, such as 5:44 (mae¹ has the longer form; mae² agrees with B), 6:33 (mae¹ has “of God”), 9:13 (mae¹ has “to repentance;” mae² does not), 12:47 (mae¹ includes the verse), 17:21 (mae¹ includes the verse), 24:7 (mae¹ includes “and pestilences”), etc.  That dissertation is yet waiting to be written.  In the meantime we can celebrate that Leonard’s dissertation is available.



Codex Schoyen 2650:  A Middle Egyptian Coptic Witness to the Early Greek Text of Matthew's Gospel - a Study in Translation Theory, Indigenous Coptic, and New Testament Textual Criticism, by James M. Leonard, is Copyright © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.