Hand to Hand Combat: Codex D vs 2397

GA 2397 - The end of John,
with a colophon.

            In the year 1303, a copyist named Hyacinthus finished the text of a Greek manuscript of the Gospels.  Below the closing verses of the Gospel of John, he wrote a little note which went something like this:  first, in red:  “The work is completed, glory to our God, in the year 6811 [from the beginning of the world].”  And then:  “Written by the hand of Hyacinthus, sinner and writing-specialist.   Reader, pray, and curse not by the Lord that the writer has finished.  And may the Lord save you all, brothers!  Amen and amen and amen.”   

            This volume, now known as minuscule 2397, is catalogued as manuscript 135 in the Goodspeed Manuscript Collection at the University of Chicago.  It is also known as the Hyacinthus Gospels, in honor of the copyist who wrote its text.  

            Hyacinthus was, it seems, devoutly dedicated to his work.  But how good was the accuracy of the text he wrote?  Let’s take a sample of the contents of minuscule 2397 and compare it to the contents of a much older manuscript – Codex Bezae.  Researcher Dr. David Parker has assigned Codex Bezae to “about 400.”  (Other researchers have given it a production-date a century or so younger.)

            Using John 15:1-10 as printed in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (27th edition) as the standard of comparison, let’s list all the differences between it and the text of 2397.  Then we will set aside differences that are usually considered minor – differences that involve vowel-exchanges, spelling, and word-order – and see how materially different the text of 2397 is from the base-text of English versions such as the ESV and CSB.  Then we will do the same kind of comparison, using the text of John 15:1-10 made by the copyist of Codex Bezae. 

2397:  Comparison to NA27

(Black diamonds signify readings that diverge from the Byzantine Textform)

1 – 2397 reads αληθηνη instead of αληθινη (+1, -1) ♦

1 – 2397 reads εστι instead of εστιν (-1)  ♦

2 – 2397 reads φερων instead of φερον (+1, -1) ♦

2 – 2397 transposes, reading πλειονα καρπον instead of καρπον πλειονα

2 – 2397 reads φερει instead of φερη (+2, -1) ♦

3 – no variants

4 – 2397 reads μεινη instead of μένη (+2, -1)

4 – 2397 reads μεινητε instead of μένητε (+2, -1)

5 – no variants

6 – 2397 reads reads μεινη instead of μένη (+2, -1)

6 – 2397 does not have το before πυρ (-2) ♦

6 – 2397 reads βαλλουσι instead of βαλλουσιν (-1) ♦

7 – 2397 reads αιτήσασθε instead of αιτήσεσθε (+1, -1) ♦

8 – 2397 reads γενησεσθε instead of γένησθε (+2)

9 – 2397 reads ηγάπησε instead of ηγάπησεν (-1) ♦

9 – 2397 transposes, reading ηγαπησα υμας instead of υμας ηγαπησα.

10 – no variants

            Thus, in John 15:1-10, 2397 contains 13 non-original letters, and is missing 12 original letters, for a total of 25 letters’ worth of corruption.  When all movable-nu variants and normal vowel-exchanges are removed from the equation, there are just two substantial variants in 2397:  the non-inclusion of το before πυρ in verse 6, and the reading  γενησεσθε in verse 8 (a reading supported by Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus), yielding four letters’ worth of corruption in these 10 verses. 

            Now let’s make the same kind of comparison, using Codex Bezae’s text of John 15:1-10:

Codex D:  Comparison to NA-27
(This takes into account the text made by the scribe, not corrections that were introduced later.)

1 – no variants

2 – D reads καρπο instead of καρπον (-1)

2 – D reads φορον instead of φερον (+1, -1)

2 – D reads καθαριει instead of καθαίρει (+1, -1)

2 – D transposes, reading πλειονα καρπον instead of καρπον πλειονα

3 – D omits all of verse 3, and the first part of verse 4 up to (and including) the word φέρειν.  That is, D omits ηδη υμεις καθαροί εστε δια τον λόγον ον λελάληκα υμιν· μείνατε εν εμοι, καγω εν υμιν. Καθως το κλημα ου δύναται καρπον φέρειν (-100)

4 – D reads μεινη instead of μένη (+1)

4 – D reads μεινητε instead of μένητε (+1)

5 – D reads γαρ after εγω (+3)

5 – D does not have εν before εμοι (-2)

6 – D reads δυνασθα instead of δυνασθε (+1, -1)

6 – D does not have ουδεν at the end of the verse (-5)

6 – D reads αυτο instead of αυτα (+1, -1)

6 – D does not have το before πυρ (-2)

6 – D reads καιετε instead of καιεται (+1, -2)

7 – D reads δε after εαν (+2)

7 – D reads υμειν instead of υμιν (+1)

8 – D reads αιτησασθαι instead of αιτησασθε (+2, -1)

8 – D does not have υμιν at the end of the verse (-4)

8 – D transposes, reading πολυν καρπον instead of καρπον πολυν

8 – D reads γένησθαι instead of γένησθε (+2, -1)

8 – D reads μου instead of εμοι (+1, -2)

9 – no variants

10 – D reads καγω instead of εγω (+2, -1)

            Codex Bezae thus has 18 non-original letters in John 15:1-10, and is missing 124 original letters, for a total of 142 letters’ worth of corruption.  When all movable-nu variants and normal vowel-exchanges are removed from the equation, Codex D has 7 non-original letters in this passage, and is missing 113 letters, for a total of 120 letters’ worth of corruption. 

            So, setting the results side by side:  if we didn’t filter the variants at all, 2397 would have a total of 25 letters’ worth of corruption, compared to 142 letters’ worth of corruption in the text written by the copyist of Codex Bezae.  If normal vowel-exchanges, transpositions, and minor spelling differences in both manuscripts are set aside, then 2397 detours from the Nestle-Aland compilation’s text of John 15:1-10 at just two points, yielding four letters’ worth of corruption.  Using the same approach, Codex Bezae has 120 letters’ worth of corruption in these ten verses.  

            Now, let’s consider the reliability of the transmission-streams of these two manuscripts.  Minuscule 2397 was produced in 1303, according to its colophon.  That means that, reckoning that the Gospel of John was written in A.D. 90, 1,213 years separate the autograph from this copy.  Using raw data, the copyists in the transmission-line of the Hyacinthus Gospels contributed one letter of corruption (either adding a non-original letter, or removing an original letter) per 10 verses once every 48.5 years.  Using filtered data (i.e., without considering benign, normal vowel-exchanges, movable-nu, and similar variants), the copyists in the transmission-line of the Hyacinthus Gospels contributed one letter of corruption (either adding a non-original letter, or removing an original letter) per 10 verses once every 303 years.

            Meanwhile, if we assign a production-date of A.D. 500 to Codex Bezae, this would mean that 410 years separate the autograph from this copy.  Using raw data, the copyists in the transmission-line of Codex Bezae contributed one letter of corruption (either adding a non-original letter, or removing an original letter) per 10 verses about once every three years.  Using filtered data, the copyists in the transmission-line of Codex Bezae contributed one letter of corruption (either adding a non-original letter, or removing an original letter) per 10 verses once every 3.4 years. 

            These results show that no matter how one filters the data, the text of John 15:1-10 in Codex Hyacinthus is over six times more accurate than the text that came from the hand of the copyist of Codex Bezae.  These results (based, admittedly, on one sample passage) also indicate that the copyists in the transmission-stream of the Hyacinthus Gospels – a Byzantine transmission-stream – were about twenty times better at copying the Greek text than the copyists in Codex Bezae’s Western transmission-stream.  I note in closing that if the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Text had been used as the standard of comparison instead of the Nestle-Aland compilation, the results would favor the Hyacinthus Gospels even more heavily.

[Readers are welcome to double-check the data and calculations in this post.]

Hand-to-Hand Combat: P72 vs 6 - The Final Fight

          Minuscule 6 has beaten Papyrus 72 twice in hand-to-hand combat, showing that a manuscript produced in the 1200’s can contain a text that is more accurate from a manuscript produced in the late 200’s or early 300’s.  The second contest, though, was closer than the first one – and if one were to set aside textual variants that involve vowel-exchanges (itacisms), it was virtually a tie.  Today, Papyrus 72 and minuscule 6 meet one last time:  we will compare their texts in Jude verses 17-25.  Will Papyrus 72 finally prevail?

17 – 6 reads προειρημενον ρηματων after the first των (transposition)

17 – 6 does not have the second των (-3)

18 – 6 reads των χρονων instead of του χρονου (+4, -4)

18 – 6 reads ελευσονται instead of εσονται (+3)

19 – 6 reads εαυτους after αποδιοριζοντες (+7)

20 – 6 reads τη αγιωτατη ημων πιστει εποικοδομουντες εαυτους instead of εποικοδομουντες εαυτους τη αγιωτατη υμων πιστει (transposition) (+1, -1) [The microfilm is not clear.]

21 – no differences

22 – 6 reads ελεγχετε instead of ελεατε (+4 -3)

23 – 6 reads εσπιλομενον instead of εσπιλωμενον (+1, -1) [The microfilm is not clear; this letter is at the end of a line.  It probably reads εσπιλωμενον but I made the call against it just to be strict.] 

24 – 6 reads ασπιλους και after απταιστους και (+11)

24 – 6 reads γαλλιασει instead of αγαλλιασει (-1) [Again, the microfilm is not clear; the letter is probably present but since I could not see it, I made the call against it.]

25 – 6 reads και  after Θω (+3)

25 – 6 does not have του after παντος (-3)

25 – 6 does not have Αμην (-4)

          Thus, in Jude verses 17-25, minuscule 6 has 34 non-original letters, and is missing 20 original letters, for a total of 54 letters’ worth of corruption.  (This may be reduced to 33 non-original letters present and 17 or 18 original letters absent, for a total of 50 or 51 letters’ worth of corruption, if, as I suspect, the original letters in question are present in the manuscript but obscured in the microfilm-image.)

          Now we turn to Papyrus 72.

17 – no differences

18 – P72 does not have του after εσχατου (-3)  

18 – P72 reads εμπεκτε instead of εμπαικται (+2, -4)

18 – P72 reads επειθυμιας instead of επειθυμιας (+1)

18 – P72 reads ασεβιων instead of ασεβειων (-1)

19 – no differences

20 – P72 reads Υμις instead of Υμεις (-1)

20 – P72 reads τη εαυτων αγιοτητι πειστι ανυκοδομεισθαι instead of εποικοδομουντες εαυτους τη αγιωτατη υμων πιστει (transposition) (+15, -20)

20 – P72 reads εαυτοις at the end of the verse (+7)

21 – P72 reads τηρησωμεν instead of τηρησατε (+4, -3)

21 – P72 reads εις ζοην ημων Ιηυ Χρυ instead of ημων Ιυ Χυ εις ζωην (transposition) (+1, -1)

22 – P72 does not have Και (-3)

22/23 – P72 reads εκ πυρος αρπαζατε διακρινομενους instead of ελεατε διακρινομενους ους δε σωζετε εκ πυροσ αρπαζοντες (transposition) (+3, -20)

23 – P72 reads ελεειτε after δε instead of ελεατε (+2, -1)

23 – P72 reads μεισουντες instead of μισουντες (+1)

23 – P72 reads εσπειλωμενοι instead of εσπιλωμενον (+2, -1)

24 – P72 reads στηριξαι ασπειλους αμωμους αγνευομενους απεναντι της δοξης αυτου instead of

φυλαξαι υμας απταιτους και στησαι κατενωπιον της δοξης αυτου αμωμους (transposition) (+29, -25)

24 – P72 reads αγαλλιασι instead of αγαλλιασει (-1)

25 – P72 does not have σωτηρι (-6)  

25 – P72 reads αυτω after ημων (+4)

25 – P72 reads δοξα κρατος τιμη before δια (+8) [κρατος appears further along in the text so I considered its presence at this point a transposition.  Δοξα is repeated further along in the text.] 

25 – P72 reads αυτω δοξα και instead of δοξα (+7)

25 – P72 reads μεγαλοσυνη instead of μεγαλωσυνη (+1, -1)

25 – P72 does not have και εξουσια προ παντος του αιωνος (-28)   

25 – P72 reads τους παντας εωνας instead of παντας τους αιωνας (transposition) (+1, -2)

          Thus, in Jude verses 17-25, the text of Papyrus 72 includes 87 non-original letters, and 121 original letters are absent.  This yields a total of 208 letters’ worth of corruption in Papyrus 72’s text of Jude verses 17-25.  If NA28 is used as the standard of comparison, the text of P72 does not improve:  in verse 18, P72’s score decreases by three due to the non-inclusion of οτι and increases by three via the non-inclusion of του.    

          In this particular contest, minuscule 6 does not merely win.  It crushes and humiliates.  Its 54 letters’ worth of corruption (at most), acquired in a transmission-stream 1,100 years long, amount to only 26% of the amount of corruption acquired in Papyrus 72’s transmission-stream in the course of about 230 years.  The text of the younger manuscript, in this case, is not just better than the text in the much more ancient manuscript.  The text of minuscule 6 in Jude verses 17-25 is four times better than the text of Jude verses 17-25 in Papyrus 72.

        Now let’s consider these results together with the previous two contests between minuscule 6 and Papyrus 72, to see how the texts of these two manuscripts compare in the entire Epistle of Jude:

In verses 1-10, minuscule 6 has 15 non-original letters, and 26 original letters are absent.  41.

In verses 11-16, minuscule 6 has 31 non-original letters, and 31 original letters are absent.  62.

In verses 17-25, minuscule 6 has 34 non-original letters, and 20 original letters are absent.  54.

Totals for minuscule 6:  80 non-original letters present; 77 original letters absent.  Total:  157.

In verses 1-10, Papyrus 72 has 38 non-original letters, and 50 original letters are absent. 

In verses 11-16, Papyrus 72 has 24 non-original letters, and 79 original letters are absent.   

In verses 17-25, Papyrus 72 has 87 non-original letters, and 121 original letters are absent.

Totals for Papyrus 72:  149 non-original letters present; 250 original letters absent.  Total:  399.

          Thus, minuscule 6 has only 39% as much corruption in the Epistle of Jude as Papyrus 72 has.  Or to put it another way:  the ratio of corruption in minuscule 6 compared to Papyrus 72 is almost exactly 150:400, or 15:40, or 3:8.  If anyone still imagines that a simple appeal to “the oldest manuscripts” is decisive and persuasive, let that person carefully consider this data.

(Readers are invited to check the data and math in this post.)

Papyrus 72 versus Minuscule 6: Rematch!

          In today’s hand-to-hand combat, Papyrus 72 has returned to the ring for a rematch with minuscule 6.  We recently observed that in verses 1-10 of Jude, the text of minuscule 6 (produced in the 1200’s) was far more accurate than the text of Papyrus 72 (produced around 300).  But what happens in the six verses after that?  We will find out today!     

          This time we will examine minuscule 6 first, in Jude verses 11-16.  The same rules are in play that were used for the previous contest; each manuscript's text is compared to the Nestle-Aland-27 compilation. 

11 – no differences.

12 – 6 reads ευωχιαις instead of απαταις (+5, -4)

12 – 6 reads υμιν before αφοβως (+4)

13 – 6 reads τον before αιωνα (+3)

14 – 6 reads Προεφητευσε instead of Προεφητευσεν (-1)

14 – 6 does not have και after δε (-3)

14 – 6 reads ηλθε instead of ηλθεν (-1)

15 – 6 reads του at the beginning of the verse (+3)

15 – 6 reads παντας instead of πασαν (+4, -3)

15 – 6 reads ασεβεις instead of ψυχην (+7, -5)

15 – 6 does not  have ασεβειας αυτων after εργων (-13)

15 – 6 reads λογων after σκληρων (+5)

16 – 6 reads εισι instead of εισιν (-1)

          Thus in Jude verses 11-16 in minuscule 6, there are 31 non-original letters, and 31 original letters are absent, for a total of 62 letters’ worth of corruption.  (Three letters’ worth of corruption are movable-nu variants.)  

          Now let’s look at the text of this passage in Papyrus 72: 

11 – P72 reads Βαλαακ instead of Βαλααμ (+1, -1)

11 – P72 reads μεισθου instead of μισθου (+1)

11 – P72 reads αντιλογεια instead of αντιλογια (+1)

12 – P72 reads σπειλαδες instead of σπιλαδες (+1)

12 – P72 reads συνευχομενοι instead of συνευωχουμενοι (-2)

12 – P72 reads πυμενοντες instead of ποιμαινοντες (+2, -4)

12 – P72 reads νεφελε instead of νεφελαι (+1, -2) 

13 – P72 reads θαλασης instead of θαλασσης (-1)

13 – P72 reads απαφριζοντα instead of απαφριζοντα (+1, -1)

13 – P72 reads πλανητε instead of πλανηται (+1, -2)

13 – P72 does not have ο after οις (-1)

13 – P72 reads εωνα instead of αιωνα (+1, -2) 

13 – P72 reads τετηρητε instead of τετηρηται (+1, -2)

14 – P72 reads Επροφητευσεν instead of Προεφητευσεν (+1, -1)

14 – P72 reads αγιων αγγελων instead of αγιαις (+9, -3)

14 – P72 does not have αυτου after μυριασιν (-5)

15 – P72 reads ελεγξε instead of ελεγξαι (+1, -2)

15 – P72 reads περει instead of περι (+1)

15 – P72 does not have των εργων ασεβειας αυτων ων ησεβησαν και περι παντων after the second παντων.  The copyist’s line of sight apparently drifted from one occurrence of παντων των to the next one.  (-44)

16 – P72 reads γογγυστε instead of γογγυσται (+1, -2)

16 – P72 reads εαυτω instead of εαυτων (-1)

16 – P72 reads πορεομενοι instead of πορευομενοι (-1)

[Note:  The copyist of P72 skipped from μεμψιμοιροι to και in the text, but he corrected this mistake by writing κατα τας επιθυμιας εαυτω πορεομενοι in the lower margin of the page.]

16 – P72 does not have το after και (-2) 

16 – P72 reads ωφελιας instead of ωφελειας (-1)

16 – P72 reads χαρειν instead of χαριν (+1)

          Thus, in Jude verses 11-16 in Papyrus 72, there are 24 non-original letters, and 79 original letters are absent, for a total of 103 letters’ worth of corruption.  (Thirty-six letters’ worth of corruption involves itacisms or movable-nu.) 

          Once again, the text of minuscule 6, though far from optimal, resembles the text in the Nestle-Aland compilation more closely than does the text of Papyrus 72.  Compared to Papyrus 72, minuscule 6 has 39% less corruption in this passage.  In Jude verses 11-16, the transmission-stream of minuscule 6 – over 1,100 years long – resisted corruption significantly better than the 230-year-long transmission-stream of Papyrus 72.    

(Readers are invited to check the data and math in this post.)

Hand-to-Hand Combat: Codex B vs. Minuscule 496

          One of the combatants in today’s hand-to-hand combat is Codex Vaticanus.  There are thousands of codices – handmade books – in the Vatican Library, and in the library’s catalog, this one is Greek Codex #1,209.  It is so important for New Testament textual research that it has become known as the Codex Vaticanus (B, 03).  Its production-date has been assigned to the early 300’s.  Wieland Willker has prepared a webpage which describes Codex Vaticanus and analyzes its contents.

          Codex B was first catalogued at the Vatican Library in 1475.  (It may have been transferred to the Vatican Library as part of the estate of Cardinal Bessarion, who died in 1472.)  Some of its readings were known to Erasmus, the compiler of the first published Greek New Testament in the 1500’s.  It was cited (from John 7:39) in the preface to the 1582 Rheims New Testament.  Hort considered Codex B to be the most important manuscript in existence when he and Westcott produced the Revised Text which challenged the Textus Receptus as the base-text of English versions of the New Testament.  Many textual critics still agree with that assessment.

          Besides containing (despite considerable damage) most of the Greek Old Testament (including most of the apocryphal books), Codex B also contains text from every New Testament book except First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation.  The Gospels are arranged in the familiar order, Matthew-Mark-Luke-John.  Then Acts appears, followed by the General Epistles.  After the Epistle of Jude, the Epistles of Paul begin, but First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, and Philemon are not present; Hebrews follows immediately after Second Thessalonians.  The last extant page of Hebrews ends midway through 9:14.  This is followed by supplemental pages (which have their own identification-number, GA 1957), added long after the initial production of the codex, in minuscule script, containing the rest of Hebrews and the book of Revelation.  

          The chapter-divisions in the Gospels in Codex Vaticanus are almost unique (it does not have the Eusebian Canons and Sections).  The chapter-divisions in the Pauline Epistles are also interesting, inasmuch as they are interrupted in such a way as to show that in the exemplar of the manuscript, the book of Hebrews followed the Epistle to the Galatians.

          The production of Codex Vaticanus was undertaken by a team of two copyists, both of whom worked economically, writing three columns per page (except in the Books of Poetry, which are formatted in two columns per page), without adding grandiose ornamentation, and without deliberately placing a blank column between books – except at the end of the Gospel of Mark.  (Incidental factors in the production of the codex led to three blank spaces in the Old Testament portion; for details about those factors see this earlier post clarifying some inaccurate claims by Daniel Wallace on this subject.)

          Pages and pages could be written about the contents of this manuscript – the flagship manuscript of the Alexandrian Text.    But today, we are focusing on a single chapter:  First Peter chapter five – the battleground of today’s manuscript-duel.  This passage can be found in Codex Vaticanus on page-view 1424 at the Vatican Library’s website.

First Peter 5:6ff. in MS 496

          The intimidating task of challenging Codex Vaticanus has been accorded to minuscule 496.  496 was produced in the 1200’s or early 1300’s.  It contains all of the New Testament books except Revelation.  It was among the artifacts brought to Britain in the 1840’s by Major Charles Kerr MacDonald, who had conducted some explorations (including a visit to Saint Catherine’s monastery) in Egypt when he wasn’t busy searching for turquoise-mines.  496 is housed at the British Library as Additional MS 16184.  Digital page-views of the manuscript are online; First Peter chapter five begins on fol. 191r.

       

          It may go without saying that 496 is the underdog in this contest.  Without further introductions, let’s get this fight underway.  Instead of presenting each manuscript’s contents separately, I will present them side-by-side, one verse at a time, as they engage in a contest lasting fourteen rounds (or, rather, fourteen verses).  Once again the Nestle-Aland compilation will be the standard of comparison.  Nomina sacra contractions, as such ( and other normal abbreviations), will not be considered variants, and bracketed text in the Nestle-Aland compilation will be treated as part of the text.  

1 – B has ουν instead of τους.  496 has ουν τους.   B’s reading was in the text in NA27, but NA28 has

τους, in agreement with Papyrus 72 and Codex A. [B: +3, -4]  [496: +3]  

1 – 496 has ως instead of ο.  [496:  +2, -1]

2 – B does not have επισκοπουντες.  496 has this word, which is bracketed in NA.  [B:  -13]  

2 – 496 has αλλ instead of αλλα.  [496: -1]

2 – 496 has και before κατα θεον.  [496: +3]

2 – B does not have κατα θεον.  Papyrus 72 agrees with 496.  [B: -8]

3 – 496 has τον κληρον instead of των κληρων.  [496:  +2, -2]

3 – 496 has γενομενοι instead of γινομενοι.  [496: +1, -1] 

3 – B does not have μηδ’ ως κατακυριεύοντες των κληρων αλλα τύποι γινόμενοι του ποιμνίου.  [B: -58]

4 – Both B and 496 agree with NA in this verse.  

5 – 496 has δε οι after Ομοιως.  [496: +4]

5 – 496 has υποτασσομενοι.  [496: +13]

5 – B does not have ο before θεος.  This letter is bracketed in NA27.  [B: -1]

5 – 496 has διδωσι instead of διδωσιν.  [496: -1]

6 – 496 has επισκοπης after καιρω.  [496: +9]

7 – 496 has επιρριψαντες instead of επιριψαντες.  B has επιρειψαντες.  [496: +1]  [B: +1]

7 – 496 has μελλει instead of μελει.  [496: +1]

8 – 496 has καταπιει instead of καταπιειν.  B does not have τινα, which is bracketed in NA27.  [496: -1]  [B: -4] 

9 – B has τω before κοσμω.  This word was bracketed in the text of NA27 but is not in the text of NA28.  [B: +2]

9 – B has επιτελεισθε but it is corrected to επιτελεισθαι.  This might be a first-hand correction so I have not included it in this comparison. 

10 – 496 has στειριξει instead of στηριξει.  [496: +2, -1]

10 – B has τω after εν, before Χριστω.  496 has Ιησου after Χριστω.  [B: +2]  [496: +5]  NA27 had Ιησου in the text in brackets, but NA28 removes this word from the text entirely. 

10 – B does not have θεμελιωσει.  [B: -10]

11 – 496 has η δοξα και before το κρατος.  [496: +8]

11 – 496 has των αιωνων before αμην.  [496: +9]

12 – B has Σιλβανου instead of Σιλουανου.  [B: +1, -2]

12 – 496 has εστηκατε instead of στητε.  [496: +3]

13 – Both B and 496 agree with NA in this verse.   

14 – 496 and B both have πασι instead of πασιν.  [B: -1]  [496: -1]

14 – 496 has Ιησου αμην after Χριστω.  [496: +9]  NA27 had Ιησου in the text in brackets, but it is not in the text of NA28.

          When we consider the corruptions in First Peter chapter 5 in Codex Vaticanus, we see that B contains 9 non-original letters, and is missing 101 original letters.  The net total of the corruptions in First Peter 5 in B amounts to 110 letters’ worth of corruptions.

          When we consider the corruptions in First Peter chapter 5 in 496, we see that it contains 66 non-original letters, and is missing 9 original letters.  The net total of the corruptions in First Peter 5 in 496 amounts to 75 letters’ worth of corruptions.

          Final score:  B’s corruptions:  110 letters.  496’s corruptions:  75 letters.  Winner:  minuscule 496!

          Yes, as unlikely as it may seem, in this particular chapter, a medieval minuscule with a transmission-stream about a thousand years longer than the transmission-stream of Codex B has the more accurate text, when NA28 is used as the basis of comparison.  This victory of 496 is a stunning reminder that despite the fame of Codex Vaticanus, it does not run very far ahead of the Byzantine pack, even when the Nestle-Aland compilation is the standard of comparison.  And in some passages, Codex B’s text falls behind.  Even great champions don’t win them all.

          [Readers are invited to double-check the comparison and the arithmetic.]

Hand-to-Hand Combat: Codex W vs. Minuscule 545

The first page of Mark
in Codex W.

          In two hand-to-hand contests earlier this month, Codex Cyprius defeated Codex Sinaiticus in Matthew 5:1-20, and the Georgius Gospels (2266) crushed Codex Bezae in Luke 2:1-21.  Today, Codex Washingtoniensis (W, 032) – the oldest manuscript of the four Gospels in North America – faces a relatively young manuscript:  minuscule 545, which was produced in 1430.  

          In 1430, Lorenzo Valla was already alive, and it would be less than a century before the production of the first printed Greek text of the New Testament.  Can there really be any doubt, when comparing a manuscript from the fifth century to a manuscript from the fifteenth century, which will be shown to have the more accurate text? 

          Let’s briefly take a closer look at Codex W.  It has been called “The World’s Third Oldest Bible” by National Geographic, although that is rather imprecise inasmuch as many papyri are older than Codex W.  It is more precise to say that Codex W is possibly the world’s third oldest manuscript of the four Gospels that is essentially complete, substantially containing (despite some damage) the text of Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark.  According to Rachel Nuwer of the Smithsonian Institution (where Codex W is part of the collection of the Freer-Sackler Gallery), this manuscript was made in “the late fourth or early fifth century,” that is, around the year 400.

          Surely, inasmuch as the New Testament text gradually grew as each generation of copyists added embellishments and harmonizations, one might expect that in a well-known passage of the Gospel of Mark such as the Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:1-9), which is paralleled in Matthew and Luke, one may confidently suspect that the text of Mark in a fifteenth-century minuscule contains more corruptions than the text in a fifth-century uncial.  However, as logical as that may seem, it might not be entirely a waste of effort to make a direct comparison of Mark 4:1-9 in 545 and in Codex W. 

          One of the most notable features of Codex W is its block-mixture.  In the Gospel of Matthew, the text of Codex W is essentially Byzantine, but in Mark 1-4, its text aligns more closely with Codex Bezae.  In Mark 5-16, its closest textual relative, so to speak, is Papyrus 45.  In Luke 1:1-8:12, the text is Alexandrian, and in the rest of Luke it is essentially Byzantine again.  John 1:1-5:12 is written on replacement-pages and the text of this portion is essentially Alexandrian (albeit with some Western readings).  The remainder of the text of John is also mainly Alexandrian.

          When Henry Sanders published the text of Codex W in 1912, he proposed that its unique block-mixture may be the effect of a situation in which Roman persecutors, perhaps during the Diocletian persecution of the very early 300’s, destroyed a Christian library but did so lazily, allowing assorted pages and book-chunks to survive, and subsequently someone copied out the contents of the surviving materials, using one survivor, and then a different one, as his exemplar, and thus created the exemplar or ancestor-manuscript of Codex W.

          Another feature of Codex W is that unlike some other major uncials, its provenance is known:  it is from Upper Egypt.  Charles L. Freer purchased the manuscript in Egypt along with some other manuscripts, and at least three of them seem to have come from the same source:  a monastery in the region of Achmim, or Panopolis.  Codex W thus provides evidence of four different forms of the text of the Gospels – Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, and a local variation – all circulating in the same area in Egypt around the year 400 (or earlier). 

             

            Now let us compare the text of Mark 4:1-9 in Codex W (extracted from the “Western” portion) with Mark 4:1-9 in minuscule 545, by comparing each to the text of Nestle-Aland 27.  In the list of readings from 545, variants that agree with the Robinson-Pierpont 2005 Byzantine Textform are accompanied by a black triangle.  Readings that agree with the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text (but disagree with RP2005) are accompanied by a black square.   

Minuscule 545 differs from NA27 in the following ways:

1 – 545 has συνηχθη instead of συνάγεται.  (+4, -6)  ▲

1 – 545 has πολυς instead of πλειστος.  (+4, -6)  ▲

1 – 545 transposes εμβαντα to precede εις.  ▲

1 – 545 adds το before πλοιον. (+2)  ▲

1 – 545 has ην instead of ησαν.  (+2)  ▲

3 – 545 adds του before before σπειρει.  (+3)  ▲

3 – 545 adds τον σπόρον αυτου after σπειρει. [cf. Lk. 8:5]  (+14) 

4 – 545 has επεσε instead of επεσεν. (-1)  ■

4 – 545 has ηλθε instead of ηλθεν. (-1)  ■

5 – 545 does not have και.  (-3)  ▲

5 – 545 has δε. (+2)  ▲

5 – 545 has ειχε instead of ειχεν.  (-1)  ■

5 – 545 has ευθεως instead of ευθυς.  (+2, -1)  ▲

5 – 545 has εξανετειλε instead of εξανετειλεν.  (-1)  ■

5 – 545 does not have και οτε.  (-6)  ▲

6 – 545 has ηλιου δε ανατειλαντος instead of ανετειλεν ο ηλιος.  (+7, -5)  ▲

7 – 545 has ανευησαν instead of ανεβησαν.  [?] (+1, -1) 

7 – 545 has εδωκε instead of εδωκεν.  (-1)  ■

8 – 545 has αλλο instead of αλλα.  (+1, -1)  ▲

8 – 545 has αυξανοντα instead of αυξανομενα.  (+3, -4)  ▲

9 – 545 has ο εχων instead of ος εχει.  (+2, -3)  ▲

          Calculated by single letters, the text of 545 has thus gained 47 non-original letters, and has lost 41 original letters, for a total of 88 letters’ worth of corruption.  If, instead of NA27, we were to use the RP2005 Byzantine Textform as the basis of comparison, the corruption in 545 would amount to a total of 20 letters – five of which are cases of movable-nu, one of which is orthographic (and which is probably merely a side-effect of unclear script), and 14 of which constitute a single reading, the harmonistic inclusion of τον σπορον αυτου in verse 3.

Now let’s examine the text of Codex W.  Compared to the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation, Codex W has the following variants: 

1 – W has a transposition, reading ηρξατο παλιν instead of παλιν ηρξατο.

1 – W has προς instead of παρα.  (+3, -3)

1 – W has συνηχθη instead of συνάγεται.  (+4, -6)

1 – W adds το before πλοιον.  (+2)

1 – W has ενβαντα instead of εμβαντα.  (+1, -1)

1 – W has παρα τον αιγιαλον instead of εν τη θαλασση.  (+15, - 11)

1 – W has εν τω αιγιαλω instead of προς την θαλασσαν.  (+11, -15)

1 – W does not have επι της γης.  (-9)

1 – W has ην instead of ησαν. (-2)

2 – W has λεγων instead of πολλα και ελεγεν αυτοις εν τη διδαχη αυτου.  (+5, -35)

3 – W has Ακουεται instead of Ακουετε.  (+2, -1)

4 – W does not have εγενετο εν τω σπειρειν.  (-19)

4 – W has τ before ο μεν. (+1)      

4 – W has ορνεα instead of πετεινα.  (+4, -6)

5 – W does not have και. (-3)

5 – W has αλλα instead of αλλο.  (+1, -1)

5 – W has δε.  (+2)

5 – W has τα instead of το.  (+1, -1)

5 – W has πετρωδη instead of πετρωδες. (+1, -2)

5 – W has και οτι instead of οπου.  (+6, -4)

5 – W has ειχε instead of ειχεν. (-1)

5 – W does not have και after πολλην. (-3)

5 – W has ευθεως instead of ευθυς. (+2, -1)

5 – W has ανετειλε instead of εξανετειλεν. (+2, -3)

5-6 – W does not have δια το μη εχειν βάθος γης και οτε.  (-26)

6 – W has ηλιου δε ανατιλαντος instead of ανετειλεν ο ηλιος. (+7, -5)

7 – W has αλλα instead of αλλο.  (+1, -1)

7 – W has επι instead of εις. (+2, -2)

7 – W has αυτα instead of αυτο. (+1, -1)

7 – W has εδωκαν instead of εδωκεν. (+1, -1)

8 – W has επεσαν instead of επεσεν. (+1, -1)

8 – W has εδιδει instead of εδιδου. (+2, -2)

8 – W has αυξανομενον instead of αυξανομενα.  (+2, -1)

8 – W has φερει instead of εφερεν. (+1, -2)

8 – W has το εν and το εν and το εν instead of εν and εν and εν. (+2, +2, +2)

9 – W has ο εχων instead of ος εχει. (+2, -3)

          Calculated by single letters, the text of Codex W has gained 88 non-original letters and has lost 170 original letters, for a total of 258 letters’ worth of corruption.  Particularly remarkable are the substitutions in verse 1 and the omissions in verses 2, 4, and 5.  

          Thus, if we estimate that the Gospel of Mark was composed in the 60’s of the first century, then the text of Mark 4:1-9 in 545 took a 1,360-year journey and ended up with 88 letters’ worth of corruption.  Meanwhile, the text of Mark 4:1-9 in Codex W took a 340-year journey and ended up with 258 letters’ worth of corruption – almost three times as much corruption in one-fourth as much time.      

  

[Readers are invited to double-check the comparisons and arithmetic.]

Sinaiticus Versus Cyprius: Which is More Accurate in Matthew 5:1-20?

          The axiom, “Prefer the reading with the oldest manuscript-support” is one of the standard guidelines of New Testament textual criticism.  It is natural to assume that an old manuscript’s text is more reliable than a young manuscript’s text, because the passage of time allowed more copies to be made, and every time a copy was made, copyists had another opportunity to make mistakes.

          However, guidelines are not rules.  The accuracy of a manuscript’s text depends on how accurately copyists reproduced the contents of the exemplar, and the exemplar’s exemplar, and so forth, all the way back to the autograph (that is, the original document).

          To test the validity of the practice of giving a manuscript special value (or “weight”) just because it is older, let’s have a contest between Codex Sinaiticus (À [the Hebrew letter Aleph], 01) – hailed as “The World’s Oldest Bible,” made in the mid-300’s – and Codex Cyprius (K, 017), a medieval Gospels-manuscript.  (William H. P. Hatch proposed in 1937 that “It is altogether probable that Codex Cyprius was copied about 1000 A.D.,” but other researchers have assigned it to the 800’s.) 

          In the 1800’s, Codex K was regarded as an important manuscript, but this estimate of its value changed after the publication of Westcott & Hort’s compilation in 1881.  In 1901, F. G. Kenyon stated, referring to Codex K, “It is one of the nine extant complete uncial copies of the Gospels, but as it is as late as the ninth century, and contains the normal α-text [that is, the Byzantine Text], it is not of remarkable value.”  The people who made the fourth edition of the United Bible Societies’ compilation of the Greek New Testament seem to have agreed with Kenyon, inasmuch as they did not even mention Codex Cyprius in the apparatus.  In Bruce Metzger’s handbook The Text of the New Testament, the description of Codex Sinaiticus fills over four pages, while the description of Codex Cyprius consists of one sentence, occupying three lines.

          If we were to evaluate the accuracy of À and K using the Byzantine Text as the standard of what constitutes an accurate text, there can be no doubt that the comparison would demonstrate that the text in Codex K is far superior.  But what happens when the standard is, instead, the Nestle-Aland compilation?  When we strictly compare the text of Matthew 5:1-20 in Codex À to the text of NA27, we get the following results:

Codex À omits the letter ε eight times (in verses 3, 5, 8, 10, 13a, 13b, 15, and 19).

Codex À omits the letter ς twice (in verse 13).

Codex À omits the letter ι once (in verse 20).

Codex À omits 14 words (in verse 19, consisting of 62 letters).

Codex À has the letter ε six times where the Nestle-Aland text has the letters αι (in verses 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, and 20).

Codex À has the letters ου where the Nestle-Aland text has the letter ω one time (in verse 11).

Part of the Beatitudes
from Matthew 5 in Codex Cyprius.

          Thus, if we treat NA27 as if it represents the original text, we conclude that Sinaiticus deviates from the original text via the loss of 11 individual letters, and via the loss of the fourteen-word phrase ος δ’ αν ποιήση και διδάξη, ουτος μέγας κληθήσεται εν τη βασιλεία των ουρανων (that is, in English, “But whoever shall do and teach them, that one shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”), and via seven vowel-interchanges (itacisms) that yield a net loss of 13 original letters.  In these 20 verses, it thus appears that somewhere along the way from the original text of the Gospel of Matthew to the pages of Codex Sinaiticus, the original text lost 14 words and, in addition, 24 letters.

          In Codex K, the following deviations from NA27 are observed in Matthew 5:1-20:

Codex K omits the letter ν six times (in verses 4, 11a, 11b, 15, and 16).

Codex K has ο instead of α (in verse 1), ο instead of ω (in verse 3), and ε instead of αι (in verse 14), for a total loss of four letters via itacistic interchange.

Codex K omits the word αυτοι (in verse 7), the word οι (in verse 9), and the word τους (after προφητας in verse 12).  (Αυτοι is in the side-margin, and this is probably a first-hand correction; nevertheless I did not include it as part of the text in my calculations.)

Codex K adds the word ρημα (in verse 11), and the word και (after εγω in verse 13).

Codex K reads βληθηναι instead of βληθεν (in verse 13).

          Thus, if we treat NA27 as if it represents the original text, we conclude that Codex K deviates from the original text via the loss of six letters, and via the loss of three words, and via three itacistic changes that result in the loss of four original letters, and via the addition of two words (ρημα and και, for a total of seven letters), and via one substitution (βληθηναι instead of βληθεν in verse 13).

           

          Side by side:

          À lost 14 words (consisting of 62 letters), and also lost 24 letters, with 1 one-letter accretion.

          Κ lost 3 words (consisting of a total of 11 letters), and also lost 10 letters, with accretions totaling 10 letters.   

          Thus if we assign a penalty to each manuscript for each word or letter that deviates from the original text, whether due to subtraction, addition, or substitution, À receives 39 penalty-points, and K receives 23 penalty-points.

          If we simplify the comparison, and give each manuscript a penalty-point for each letter that deviates from the original text, whether it subtracts an original letter, or adds a non-original letter, Codex Cyprius receives 31 penalty-points, and Codex Sinaiticus receives 87 penalty-points.    

          There seems to be no way to avoid the conclusion that in Matthew 5:1-20, the text of Codex Cyprius – a manuscript with an essentially Byzantine Text of the Gospels – has descended from the autograph with much less corruption than the text of Codex Sinaiticus, even though Codex Cyprius had a much longer transmission-history.  This amply demonstrates that the idea of assigning special value to a particular manuscript because of its age is not well-grounded.

          (Readers are invited to double-check this data.  Contracted nomina sacra were not treated as errors.  Codex Sinaiticus has its own website, and fully indexed page-views of Codex Cyprius are available at the website of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.  Codex K can also be viewed and downloaded at Gallica.)