Codex
Sinaiticus returns to the combat-ring today! Facing this heavyweight is a relatively obscure challenger:
minuscule 4. This Gospels-manuscript from the 1200’s is so
little-known that it seems appropriate to offer some information about its background (or possible background) before the
contest begins.
In the 1430’s, a clergyman named John of
Ragusa (a place known today as the coastal region around
Dubrovnik, Croatia) took
part in church councils at Basel (in Switzerland) and Florence (in Italy) as a
representative of the Dominican monastic order.
The top item on the agenda of these councils was reconciliation with the
Orthodox Church based in
Constantinople. In the course of his work, John of Ragusa
served as an emissary to
Constantinople in 1435-1437. The leaders of the Orthodox Church sent
representatives – including
Basilios Bessarion, who united with the Roman
Catholic church and was made a cardinal in 1439 – to the Council of Florence,
where, after much debate, a formal statement of unity was drawn up – only to be
rejected later by Orthodox clerics in
Constantinople.
On
May 29, 1453,
Constantinople fell to Islamic invaders. Something else had happened ten years earlier which, as it turned out, was also significant: when John of Ragusa died in 1443, he
bequeathed a small collection of manuscripts – possibly souvenirs from his visit
to
Constantinople, or perhaps gifts from Bessarion – to
the Dominican convent at
Basel. This collection included not only some
classical works but also a few manuscripts of parts of the New Testament.
Minuscule 4 – presently kept at the National Library of France as
Greek MS 84 (formerly Regius MS 2867) – is either one of those
manuscripts which John of Ragusa gave to the monks at
Basel, or else it came from some other source. There seems to be some confusion about whether or not 4 was ever at Basel, and whether or not it was used by Erasmus. But in any event, r
eadings
from this manuscript were known to
Robert Stephanus; this manuscript was denoted by the Greek
letter γʹ (
gamma) in the notations in
Stephanus’ 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament. Minuscule 4 helped define the
Textus Receptus.
Now let’s
get down to business. Two pages of
minuscule 4 conveniently contain, more or less, John 6:65-71 and 7:1-16. These 23 verses constitute the textual battleground
of today’s contest. Here are the contest’s
rules, applied to the text in both manuscripts:
● The text
of the first hand of each manuscript will be compared to the text of NA27. Words in brackets in the text of NA27 are considered part of the text.
● Transpositions
that do not involve any gain or loss of words are mentioned, but are not
included in the final totals.
● The
introduction of one non-original letter = 1 point.
● The loss
of an original letter = 1 point.
● Abbreviations
of sacred names, abbreviations of και, and easily deciphered contractions are
not counted as variants.
● If a
sacred name is absent, all its letters are considered absent, even if it is
very probable that it would have been abbreviated in the manuscript.
Here are the deviations from the text of NA27 in 4. I have marked each reading in 4 that agrees
with the Byzantine Text (RP2005) with a triangle, except for transpositions.
6:65 – 4 has ηρηκα
instead of ειρηκα. (+1, -2)
6:65 – 4 has ει instead
of η (+2, -1)
6:65 – 4 has μου (+3) ▲
6:66 – 4 does not have the second εκ (-2) ▲
6:66 – 4 has a transposition
6:67 – 4 has θελεται
instead of θελετε (+2, -1)
6:68 – 4 has ουν (+3) ▲
6:69 – 4 has (in abbreviated form) Χριστος ο υιος
instead of Αγιος (before του Θυ) (+12, -7) [Note:
one could plausibly reduce this to +9, -4, since both readings, when uncontracted, share the
letters ιος at the end. But I did not.]
▲
6:69 – 4 has (after του Θυ) του ζωητος (+9) ▲
6:70 – 4 does not have ο Ιησους (-7)
6:71 – 4 has ελεγε instead of ελεγεν (-1)
6:71 – 4 has Ισκαριωτην
instead of Ισκαριωτου (+2, -2) ▲
6:71 – 4 has a transposition
6:71 – 4 has ων (after εις) (+2) ▲
7:1 – 4 has a transposition
7:2 – 4 has no differences
7:3 – 4 has has θεωρησουσι instead of θεωρησουσιν (-1)
7:4 – 4 has a transposition
7:4 – 4 has another transposition
7:5 – 4 has επιστευων
instead of επιστευον (+1, -1)
7:6 – 4 has no differences
7:7 – 4 has no differences
7:8 – 4 is missing εγω ουκ αναβαινω εις την εορτην (-26)
7:8 – 4 has a transposition
7:8 – 4 adds ο before transposed εμος (+1) ▲
7:9 – 4 has αυτοις
instead of αυτος (+1) ▲
7:10 – 4 has a transposition
7:10 – 4 has
αλλ instead of αλλα (-1) ▲
7:11 – 4 has
ελεγων instead of ελεγον (+1, -1)
7:12 – 4 has a transposition
7:12 – 4 does
not have δε (-2) ▲
7:12 – 4 has
ελεγων instead of ελεγον (+1, -1)
7:13 – 4 has
μεντι instead of μεντοι (-1)
7:14 – 4 has ο
before Ις (+1) ▲
7:15 – 4 has
Και before εθαυμαζον (+3) ▲
7:15 – 4 does
not have ουν (-3) ▲
7:15 – 4 has
ουτως instead of ουτος (+1, -1)
7:16 – 4 has no
differences
Thus in John 6:65-7:16, compared to NA27, minuscule 4 contains 45 non-original letters, and has lost 61 original letters, for a total
of 106 letters’ worth of corruption. (In
addition, there are six transpositions in this passage in 4.)
Now let’s look at the deviations from NA27 in the same
passage in Codex Sinaiticus (in
the “Western” portion of the manuscript):
6:65 – א has ουδις instead of ουδεις (-1)
6:65 – א has εμε
instead of με (+1)
6:65 – א does not have αυτω (-4)
6:66 – א has ουν after τουτου (+3)
6:67 – א does not have εκ after πολλοι (-2)
6:67 – א does not have αυτου after μαθητων (-5)
6:67 – א has υμις instead of υμεις (-1)
6:67 – א has θελεται
instead of θελετε (+2, -1)
6:68 – א has no differences
6:69 – א has ημις instead of ημεις (-1)
6:70 – א does not has αυτοις ο (-7)
6:70 – א has και ειπεν (+8)
6:70 – א has ουχι
instead of ουκ (+2, -1)
6:70 – א has a transposition
6:70 – א does not have τους (-4)
6:70 – א does not have εις (-3)
6:71 – א does not have τον (-3)
6:71 – א has απο (+3)
6:71 – א has Καρυωτου
instead of Ισκαριωτου (+1, -3)
6:71 – א has και after γαρ (+3)
6:71 – א has εμελλον
instead of εμελλεν (+1, -1)
6:71 – א has a transposition
6:71 – א has ων after εις (+2)
7:1 – א has αποκτιναι
instead of αποκτειναι (-1)
7:2 – א has no differences
7:3 – א has a transposition
7:3 – א has θεωρουσιν instead of θεωρησουσιν (-2)
7:3 – א has a transposition
7:4 – א has ουδις
instead of ουδεις (-1)
7:4 – א has ποιων
instead of ποιει (+2, -2)
7:4 – א does not have και (-3)
7:4 – א has ζητι instead of ζητει (-1)
7:5 – א has no differences
7:6 – א does not have ουν (-3)
7:6 – א does not have ο before Ις (-1)
7:7 – א has a transposition
7:7 – א does not have εγω (-3)
7:7 – א does not have περι αυτου (-9)
7:7 – א has πονιρα
instead of πονηρα (+1, -1)
7:8 – א has αναβηται
instead of αναβητε (+2, -1)
7:8 – א has ταυτην before εγω (+6)
7:9 – א does not have δε
(-2)
7:9 – א has εμινεν instead of εμεινεν (-1)
7:10 – א has
αλλ instead of αλλα (-1)
7:10 – א does
not have ως (-2)
7:11 – א has
εκινος instead of εκεινος (-1)
7:12 – א has
a transposition
7:12 – א has
τω οχλω instead of τοις οχλοις (+2, -6)
7:12 – א does
not have δε (-2)
7:13 – א has
ουδις instead of ουδεις (-1)
7:13 – א has
a transposition
7:14 – א has
ερτης instead of εορτης (-1)
7:15 – א has no
differences
7:16 – א does
not have ο before Ις (-1)
Thus in John 6:65-7:16, compared to NA27, Codex Sinaiticus
contains 39 non-original letters, and has lost 83 original letters, for a total
of 122 letters’ worth of corruption. (In
addition, there are seven transpositions in this passage in Codex Sinaiticus.)
Now we all know what we have been
told about the manuscripts upon which the
Textus Receptus was based: they were “
The feeblest of manuscript resources” and “
Late medieval manuscripts of inferior quality” and
so forth. But this collides with what we
see in John
6:65-7:16, where minuscule 4 has less corruption than Codex Sinaiticus. (This calculation is made, remember, using the NA27 compilation as
the standard for comparison. If the
Byzantine Text were used as the standard of comparison instead, then 4 would
only have 52 letters’ worth of corruption in this passage (half of which would be in 7:8), and Codex Sinaiticus
would still have over twice that amount.)
If the rate
of corruption were even in all transmission-streams, then we could expect late manuscripts to be more corrupt than early
ones. But direct evaluations of
sample-passages show that the rates of corruption in different
transmission-streams were not
the same. About 260 years after
the Gospel of John was written, Codex Sinaiticus had more corruptions in John
6:65-7:16 than minuscule 4 had at the end of a 1,100-year-long transmission-stream.
To sum
up: even though the copyist of 4 made a major mistake in John 7:8, the text
of 4 still has less corruption in John 6:65-7:16 than Codex Sinaiticus. To be precise: 4 has 106 letters’ worth of
corruption (45 non-original letters gained; 61 original letters lost – and six transpositions) and Codex Sinaiticus has 122 letters’ worth of corruption (39 non-original letters gained; 83 original letters lost – and seven transpositions). Once again the famous heavyweight has lost to a
younger opponent.
(A tangential note: Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, and Codex Vaticanus read ουπω in John 7:8, thus agreeing with the usual Byzantine reading, and disagreeing with Codex Sinaiticus.)
[Readers are invited to double-check the data and the math in this post.]
