Christmas Combat: Luke 2:1-18 in Codex Bezae

            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.

            ● A detailed description of 2370 can be found in Georgi R. Parpulov’s Catalogue of Greek Manuscripts at the Walters Art Museum, which the author dedicated to the memory of his beloved grandfather, Konstantin Tzitzelkov.

            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?

            ● Second, there is the contest involving the final word of Luke 2:14.  Regarding this I have offered an analysis previously, vindicating the reading ευδοκια which is the basis for the phrase (and carol-lyric) “Peace on earth, good will to men.” 

            ● 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.  

           

Meet GA 804: A Pocketful of Surprises

            When a team of researchers from the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts visited Greece this past winter, they photographed a particularly interesting little Gospels-manuscript that resides at the Library of the Hellenic Parliament, in Athens.  And I do mean little:  this codex is approximately just 5.25 inches tall and 4 inches wide.  That’s smaller than a Kindle e-reader, although 804 is much thicker (a bit over two inches).  

            It would be natural to think that such a small manuscript could contain the basic text of the Gospels, and not much else – but a close examination shows that 804, while far from being a deluxe manuscript, contains Eusebian Canon-tables, Eusebius’ Ad Carpianus (an explanation of how to use the Canons and Section-numbers as a cross-reference system for the Gospels), chapter-lists for each Gospel, monochromatic icons of each Evangelist, headpieces (of which one, for Matthew, is in a quatrefoil shape), titloi at the head and foot of many pages, red initials usually at section-breaks, and lectionary-related notes, including identification of the lections for Saturdays and Sundays (and of the Eastertime readings and the eleven Heothina lections), incipit-phrases, and crimson αρχη and τελος and υπερβαλε and αρξου symbols (meaning “start,” “stop,” “jump ahead,” and “resume,” respectively) throughout the text, appearing not as later additions but with space reserved to contain them. Substantial quotations from the Old Testament are accompanied in the margin by columns of double diple-marks (>>), one in black (or brown) ink, and one in red.

            Also, before the icon of Saint John, on what was probably a blank page when the manuscript was produced, someone has written (very sloppily) a brief note describing the apostle John, identifying him as the author of the fourth Gospel, a Jew, the son of Zebedee and Salome, and brother of James.  A large smudge has removed most of the rest of the note.        

            As surprising as it may be to find such so many supplements in such a small manuscript, much more remarkable is the feature that appears in 804 before the text of Matthew begins:  after the last page of the kephalaia for Matthew (a page that has been badly torn, but carefully repaired with a series of neat stitches), the next ten pages constitute a different manuscript altogether:  they are from a lectionary, and they contain (with introductory notes and titles) excerpts from Galatians 4, First Corinthians 9, First Corinthians 10, Titus 2, Titus 3, Hebrews 7, and Hebrews 2.  Very unusually, the last page with text from Hebrews 2 (still plainly visible for three lines, after which it is only perceptible) was used to contain the icon of Saint Matthew.  Such a pictorial palimpsest is, I think, completely unique.    

            The text of 804 – extant from Matthew 1:1 to midway through John 15:19 – is interesting and merits further investigation.  Although the manuscript has been assigned to the 1000s, it echoes the earliest recoverable stratum of the Byzantine Text, often agreeing with uncials (especially K and Π, but also A and Y) against the majority of minuscules. 

            In Matthew, 804’s text’s affinities with K and/or Π pop up infrequently near the beginning, at points such as 4:20 (δικτυα αυτων, also attested by W 118 565) and 5:12 (προφήτας προ υμων), and with greater frequency near the end, at points such as 26:40 (λέγει αυτοις instead of λέγει τω Πέτρω), 26:43 (ευρεν αυτους παλιν), 26:47 (without ηλθεν) and 26:52 (μαχαίρα απολουνται) and 26:69 (without πάντων).    

            Turning to the first four chapters of Mark, 804 continues to agree with the Byzantine Text more often than it agrees with K and Π where they diverge from the usual Byzantine reading, but there are plenty of agreements with K and Π which diverge from the majority-reading.  Examples: 

            1:12 – 804 agrees with A K Π* 700:  ευθεως           

            1:13 – 804 agrees with K Π* 1:  ην εκει ημερας 

            1:15 – 804 agrees with K Π B W:  Και before λέγων

            1:16 – 804 agrees with E^c M Y Π^c 157 1424:  βάλλοντας

            1:19 – 804 agrees with C^c K M Π 157:  δικτυα αυτων

            1:35 – 804 agrees with A E Y K M U Π 157 700:  εννυχον λίαν, without ο Ιησους

            1:42 – 804 agrees with A C K Π* 157 565:  η λέπρα απ’ αυτου

            1:43 – 804 agrees with A C D K Π* 157:  εν / ην / πάντοθεν  

            2:7 – 804 agrees with A C K Π 579:  ουτω

            2:9 – 804 agrees with A B C K Π 579:  τον κραβαττον σου

            2:21 – 804 agrees with A K Π:  μήγε αιρει αυτου το πλήρωμα

            3:7 – 804 agrees with A K Π 579 700:  ηκολούθησεν αυτω   

            3:31 – 804 agrees with A K Π:  Ερχονται ουν οι αδελφοι αυτου

            3:32 – 804 agrees with A B C K Π W 33 700:  περι αυτον οχλος

            3:32 – 804 agrees with B À K Π W 1424:  without και αι αδελφαι σου

            3:34 – 804 agrees with A Y K Π f1:  λεγει ιδου

            4:1 – 804 agrees with K Π Y M f1 157:  εις πλοιον

            4:11 – 804 agrees with K Π Y D W:  παραβολαις παντα

            4:30-31 – 804 agrees with Y Π 157:  παραβάλωμεν αυτην ως κόκκω

In Luke chapter 10, 804 shares eight unusual readings with K and Π:

            10:1 – 804 agrees with B Y K Π 565:  δυο δυο

            10:1-2 – 804 agrees with Y K S Π 565:  εμελλεν / ουν

            10:2 – 804 agrees with Y K M Π:  αν εκβαλη

            10:11 – 804 agrees with A C K L M Π W^c 579 700:  includes εις τους ποδας ημων 

            10:22 – 804 agrees with P45 P75 B À D Π 579 700:  without και στραφεις προς τους μαθητας ειπεν

            10:35 – 804 agrees with Y K Π:  και ο τι δ’αν

            10:40 – 804 agrees with P75 À Y Π 157 565^supp 579 700:  κατέλιπεν

            10:40 – 804 agrees with D K Π 565^supp:  ο Ις ειπεν αυτη 

I also noticed that in Luke 14:5, 804’s text agrees with A D Y K Π by reading Και ειπεν προς αυτους and by reading ονος (with À K L Π Y 579 f1) instead of υιος.   And in Luke 19:8, 804 agrees with G K M Π 118 f13, reading προς τον Ιν.

In Luke 20, 804’s text has a detectable trace of KΠ readings:

            20:10 – 804 agrees with K Π:  απέστειλαν 

            20:19 – 804 agrees with B A K L M Π f1:  γραμματεις και οι αρχιερεις

            20:36 – 804 agrees with M Π f1:  και υιοι του Θυ (without εισιν)

            20:37 – 804 agrees with B Y K L Π W 579:  Μωϋσης 

            20:41 – 804 agrees with A Y K M Π:  τινες τον Χν

            20:44 – 804 agrees with B A K M Π 157 f1:  πως αυτου υιος εστιν  

In John chapter 3, there are only about 12 points where Κ’s readings stand out from the Byzantine text; 804 displays five of them:

            3:5 – 804 agrees with K M Π f13 1424:  απεκρίθη Ις και ειπεν αυτω

            3:14 – 804 agrees with P66 P75 B À Y K L Π 579:  Μωϋσης 

            3:16 – 804 agrees with P63 P66 À A K Π f1 565:  αλλ’ εχη   

            3:26 – 804 agrees with F K L M 157 579 700:  ειπον / ραββι

            3:28 – 804 agrees with P66 B A D Y K L Π 157 579 700:  υμοις μοι    

In John chapter 7, about a third of Π’s non-Byzantine readings appear in 804:

            7:1 – 804 agrees with P66 À* D Y K L Π f1 565:  μετα ταυτα περιεπάτει ο Ις   

            7:3-4 – 804 agrees with Κ Π L N:  τα εργα σου α / τι εν κρυπτω

            7:12 – 804 agrees with K Π:  ουχι

            7:26 – 804 agrees with P66 P75 B À D N K L Π 565:  without αληθως

            7:29 – 804 agrees with P66 À D Y N Π f1 565:  εγω δε οιδα   

            7:31 – 804 agrees with P66 P75 B À K L N Π 157 565:  without τουτων

            7:32 – 804 agrees with Y K M N Π f1 565:  Ηκουσαν ουν

            7:32 – 804 agrees with P75 K L N W Π f1 33 565:  οι φαρισαιοι υπηρέτας ινα

            7:39 – 804 agrees with P66 P75 B À D N Π f1 565:  λόγων τουτον [sic – itacism in 804]

            7:50 – 804 agrees with Y K 157:  ο ελθων προς αυτον νυκτός εις

            7:53 – 804 agrees with P66 P75 B À D Y K N W Π:  ουκ εγειρεται

            Occasionally, 804’s text is neither Byzantine nor family-Π.  For example, in Luke 7:31, where the Byzantine text begins the verse with Πολλοι δε εκ του οχλου and K Π read Εκ του οχλου ουν πολλοι, 804 matches up perfectly with B’s reading, Εκ του οχλου δε πολλοι. 

            804 has an interesting feature in Mark 11:26 – a verse which does not appear at all in the Alexandrian Text.  The loss of this verse was due to a simple mistake, caused when an early copyist’s line of sight drifted from the words τα παραπτώματα υμων at the end of verse 25 to the same words at the end of verse 26.  While this verse was lost in the Alexandrian text-stream, it underwent expansion elsewhere:  Codex M, 346 (a member of f13), 579, and 713 (the Algerina Peckover Codex), agreeing with some lectionaries, augment the verse with a repetition of the contents of Matthew 7:7.  In 804, the text that continues after the end of v. 26 runs as follows:  λεγω δε υμιν, Αιτειτε και δοθησεται υμιν.  Ζητειτε, και ευρήσετε.  Κρούετε και ανοιγησεται υμιν.  Πας γαρ ο αιτων λαμβάνει, και ο ζητων ευρισκει, και  τω κρούοντι ανοιγήσεται.  In 804, faint marks for “stop here” and “start here” are visible in the margins after the interpolation, and a fresh red “start here” mark is also present – and thus this interpolation is accounted for as a concluding flourish for a lection.  Not far away, in Mark 11:29, 804 continues to display family-Π readings, with καγω υμας after επερωτήσω, and in 11:33 αποκριθεις ο Ις, and in 12:2, δουλον τω καιρω.

            It may be fitting to mention a few more readings in 804:

            ● Matthew 6:13 includes the doxology of the Lord’s model prayer.

            ● Matthew 16:2-3 is present, and an obelus symbol (⁒) at the end of verse 3 is linked to a margin-note which reads δοκιμάζειν, a reading which appears after δύνασθε in G M N U and 33. 

            ● Matthew 17:21 is present. 

            ● Matthew 25:13 ends with “in which the Son of Man comes.”

            ● Matthew 26:39 is followed by a red υπερβαλε symbol, and a lengthy red note appears in the margin; although most of the note has been rubbed away, the word “Luke” has survived, indicating that Luke 22:43-44 was introduced here in the liturgical reading at Eastertime.

            ● Mark 15:28 is present.  A red υπερβαλε symbol appears before the beginning of the verse, and a red αρξου (“resume here”) symbol appears after the end of the verse.  

            ● Mark 16:9-20 is present, and in the lower margin an annotation identifies it as the third Heothina-lection; its usual incipit-phrase is also provided.  In the outer margin, section-breaks occur at 16:9 (214, although the preceding section-number is 233) and 16:10 (215).   

            ● Luke 14:24 includes, after δείπνου, πολλοι γαρ εισιν κλητοι ολιγοι δε εκλεκτοι (“For many are called, but few are chosen”), added as a flourish to end a lection.

            ● Luke 17:36 is not present.  

            ● Luke 22:43-44 is present, and red notes instruct the reader to resume the reading for the Maundy Thursday service at this point (having turned here from Matthew 26:39).

            ● Luke 23:17 is present.

            ● Luke 23:34 includes Jesus’ prayer for the Father to forgive those who did not know what they were doing.

            ● Luke 24:42 mentions the honeycomb.

            ● John 3:13 includes ο ων εν τω ουνω (“who is in heaven”).

            ● John 5:4 is present (with Κυ after γαρ) but most of the verse is accompanied in the outer margin by black and red double-diples (>>), which seem to have been intended to indicate that the verse is either questionable in some way, or else should be understood as a quotation.

            ● John 7:40-41 is marred by parablepsis, caused when a copyist’s line of sight drifted from the ελεγον in verse 40 to the second ελεγον in verse 41; an obelus (⁒) in the text is linked to the correction in the upper margin.  This is particularly interesting because 579 omits the same words that are supplied in 804’s correction; meanwhile, Codex M (which with 579 shares 804’s unusual reading at Mark 11:26) also has an omission in verse 41, skipping from the first ελεγον in verse 41 to the second ελεγον in verse 41, thus bypassing the words Ουτος εστιν ο Χς οι δε ελεγον. 

            ● John 7:8 reads ουπω, and further along in the verse reads ο καιρος ο εμος ουπω.

            ● John 7:53-8:11 is present, in a form very similar to the text in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform.  A red υπερβαλε symbol appears between 7:52 and 7:53 – indicating that the lector was to jump to 8:12 for the Pentecost-lection.  A red αρχη (“start here”) symbol appears at the beginning of 8:3, signifying the beginning of the lection for September 8.  In the lower margin this date is given and is described as the feast-day of Saint Pelagia.  The incipit-phrase for the lection is also provided – the beginning of verse 3 without δε.  A red τελος (stop here) symbol appears at the end of verse 11, signifying the end of the lection for Saint Pelagia’s Day. 

            John 8:12 begins on the next line, and is accompanied in the outer margin by instruction to resume the lection for Pentecost at this point.  A red τελος symbol appears at the end of verse 12, signifying the end of the lection for Pentecost.  A very faint αρχη symbol appears at the beginning of verse 12, signifying the beginning of the lection for the fifth day of the fourth week after Eastertime; this lection concludes at the end of 8:20 where accordingly a red τελος symbol appears in the text.  The lection for the fifth day of the fourth week after Eastertime is identified in the upper margin, where its incipit-phrase is also provided, all in red.

            All in all, 804 is perhaps the most significant manuscript in Greece that has been digitized by the researchers at the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.   Digital photographs of the entire manuscript, indexed page by page, are available to view at the CSNTM website.

Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post, and to explore the embedded links for additional resources.

The Nativity Icon: How Copyists Perceived Christmas

A representation of the Nativity Icon
in minuscule 157
(housed at the Vatican Library).

       It’s almost Christmas, so this might be a good opportunity to momentarily detour from the world of New Testament textual criticism, going slightly off-course into the field of New Testament iconography.  Icons, like other non-textual features in manuscripts, can sometimes help trace a manuscript’s historical background and its relationship to other manuscripts.  Let’s take some time to think about the Icon of the Nativity.  The image shown here is based on the Nativity Icon found in the important minuscule 157, but the same basic icon is found in many other manuscripts, whether the accompanying text is Greek, Latin, Armenian, or something else. 

         The Nativity Icon depicts several scenes.  The main scene, in the center, shows Mary resting on a bed, or mattress, after giving birth to Jesus.  (Usually the mattress is red; the white mattress with red and blue stripes is a relatively rare feature in the icon in minuscule 157.)  The location is a cave which served the purpose of a natural barn for animals; the cave is pictured somewhat abstractly by the opening on the hill behind Mary.  The infant Jesus is in swaddling cloths, and lying in a manger.  A cave in Bethlehem that is said to be the place of Jesus’ birth can be visited to this day.  But the icon is not intended to only convey a historical reality in its depiction of the cave.  It also signifies that the Word of God took on flesh to bring God’s light into a dark world that was in rebellion against God.  Jesus is the light; the world is the cave.  And, setting a pattern of salvation, the cave did not come to Christ; Christ came to the cave.   

          An ox and a donkey look curiously at Jesus over the edge of the manger.  These animals are not mentioned in the Gospel-accounts, but the tradition about their presence at the manger goes back at least to the 300s; they are included in sculptures depicting Christ in the manger that were sculpted in that century.  They are also mentioned in the fourteenth chapter of a composition which has come to be known as the Gospel (or, Infancy Gospel) of Pseudo-Matthew; it was not written by Matthew but its author – hundreds of years after Matthew’s time – claimed that Matthew wrote it in an attempt to promote its acceptance.  Prominent atheist Bart Ehrman has spread the claim that the tradition that Jesus was born in the cave at Bethlehem, and the tradition about the ox and donkey, both originated with this late source; however, Justin Martyr, in the first half of the 100s, mentions the cave at Bethlehem in chapter 78 of his composition Dialogue With Trypho. So does the Proto-evangelium of James, which I will describe shortly. In addition, the presence of the ox and donkey was mentioned by Ambrose of Milan, in the late 300s, in his commentary on the Gospel of Luke. 

A simple depiction of the
Adoration of the Animals,
from the 300s.

          Possibly the tradition about the animals began as an explanation of Isaiah 1:3a – “The ox knows its owner and the donkey knows its master’s crib.”  Another passage, Habakkuk 3:2, probably also had something to do with the spread of the tradition about the animals:  part of the Hebrew phrase which, in modern English Bibles, is translated as “in the midst of the years make known” was translated into Greek in intertestamental times as δύω ζώων, that is, “two living creatures,” or, “two animals,” with the result that in one form of the Greek Old Testament text, the sentence read, “You shall be known between the two living creatures.” 

          The word ζωή does not only refer to animals, but technically to any living creature, and so it is possible (if one were to treat the Septuagint’s rendering as correct) to apply this prophecy from Habakkuk not only to the scene at Christ’s birth, where He is made manifest with two animals at the manger (one clean ox, and one unclean donkey), but also to the scene at Christ’s death, where He is crucified between two thieves (one of whom repents).

          In sync with the idea that the events of Christ’s birth fit the pattern of events surrounding His death, the manger pictured in this icon is made of stone, foreshadowing that as the infant Christ was wrapped in swaddling cloths and placed in the stone manger, likewise, the body of Christ, after being taken from the cross, was wrapped in a clean linen cloth by Joseph of Arimathea (as related in Matthew 27:59) and placed in a stone tomb.

A Nativity Icon at
Saint Catherine's Monastery.

          Augmenting that theme, the Nativity Icon includes a scene that is found nowhere in the New Testament:  a scene in which two women give the infant Jesus a bath while Mary rests.  These two characters are derived from a second-century text called the Proto-evangelium (or Infancy Gospel) of James. This text was mentioned by the writer Origen, and so a simple deduction leads to the conclusion that it was written no later than the late 100s – possible even as early as the mid-100s.  It was composed to “fill in the blanks,” so to speak, regarding the background of Jesus’ family – which it does sometimes via plausible narratives, and sometimes via outlandish tales. But although all that is an interesting subject, let’s keep the focus today on the Nativity Icon:  the two women are sometimes named Salome and Zelemi.  (These are different forms of the same name.  I suspect that the scene in the icon was produced with Salome and an unnamed midwife in mind, and then somewhere along the line, someone gave the midwife a name.)  Once again, the imagery lends itself readily to a thematic application; the washing of the infant Jesus foreshadows His future baptism, at the outset of His ministry.       

          The woman Salome (not the Salome who danced for Herod; she is not named in the Gospels) is named in the Gospels, in Mark15:40 and 16:1; she is one of the women who were the first people to deliver the news about Jesus’ resurrection.  Her relationship to the family of Jesus is never explained in detail in the Gospels, but one tradition says that Joseph was a widower, and that the individuals described as Jesus’ brothers in the Gospels were the sons of Joseph from his previous marriage; similarly Salome was one of Joseph’s daughters and for that reason she was one of the individuals who were called Jesus’ sisters by the residents of Nazareth (although in Mark 6:3, the residents of Nazareth only name Jesus’ brothers).  

 

An Armenian
Nativity Icon.

        That cannot be verified but it is consistent with the tradition (also reflected in the Proto-evangelium of James) that Joseph was much older than Mary when they were married.  It interlocks with the detail stated in the Gospel of John (in 7:5) that Jesus’ own brothers did not believe on Him during His ministry; if they were all considerably older, then they might have never (or only briefly) shared the same house with Him.  It may also explain why Joseph is not on the scene during Jesus’ ministry; his absence is accounted for by his earlier decease.        

          And speaking of Joseph:  he has his own scene in the Nativity Icon:  he is situated apart from Mary and the baby Jesus, looking somewhat perplexed by everything that has happened.  There is no early tradition that explains exactly what Joseph is supposed to be thinking, but in some versions of the icon, he is accompanied by an old man who represents the devil in disguise, attempting to raise doubts in Joseph’s mind about Mary’s purity.  Faced with a choice between believing what would normally be a reasonable position (that is, that no baby is conceived without the involvement of a man), or a declaration from God, Joseph resolves to believe God – but not without a struggle.  He thus typifies everyone who fights an internal battle against doubts, and who is willing to shoulder the responsibilities that faith requires.     

          The wise men, or Magi, whose journey to honor the newborn King of the Jews is described in the Gospel of Matthew, are also in the icon.  They are three in number (although Matthew does not provide their exact number), and they have different ages – one is young; one is middle-aged, and one is elderly.  Their names and corresponding gifts are as follows: 

The Magi, pictured in a mosaic made
in the mid-500s in Ravenna, Italy.

          ● Gaspar (or Casper) the elderly wise man gave gold;

          ● Melchior the middle-aged wise man gave frankincense from Arabia;

          ● Balthazar the young wise man, who is often pictured as black-skinned, gave myrrh from Yemen.  Their names can be traced at least as far back as the 500s; they are in a mosaic in Ravenna, Italy which was made in 565, and they are also recorded in a Latin text known as the Excerpta Latina Barbari, which was probably put together around the year 500.  The wise men are typically distinguished in icons not only by their gifts but also by their unusual Persian hats.

          In earlier icons, the wise men are pictured on their way to the Christ-child; by the time they arrived, Joseph and Mary and the baby Jesus were residing in a house, according to Matthew 2:11.  In later icons, however, they are sometimes pictured at the manger with the shepherds, as in some modern-day Nativity scenes.  The old arrangement, in which Christ’s birth is celebrated on December 25 and the Feast of Epiphany (when the wise men arrive and encounter the Christ-child) is celebrated on January 6, is the basis for the custom of treating Christmastime as a 12-day-long celebration.  And, like the wise men who departed to their own country “by another way” after their visit, likewise we should all be changed by consideration of what God has done, and what He continues to do, through Christ.        

          The Gospels provide no direct evidence that the wise men were kings; however it is possible that they served as de facto ambassadors, and thus their actions may be regarded indirectly as actions done in the name of a king, or kings, depending on how many political entities sent the wise men.  It is in this sense that some interpreters have understood Psalm 72:10 and Isaiah 60:3 to be fulfilled by the wise men – “The kings of Tarshish and of distant shores shall bring presents; the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts,” and “Nations shall come to Your light, and kings to the brightness of Your dawn.”

          The wise men’s presence in the story of Christmas raised a question for thoughtful Christians in the early church:  how did the wise men know to look for a special star that would signal the arrival of the King of the Jews?  As a guide to the answer to this question, the Nativity-icon in minuscule 157 includes another Biblical scene, drawn from the book of Numbers:  the prophet Balaam points out the Star of Bethlehem to the pagan king Balak, in accord with his prophecy in Numbers 24:17:  “I shall see him, but not now:  I shall behold him, but not nigh:  there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Scepter shall rise out of Israel.”  A recollection of Balaam’s ancient prophecy – combined perhaps with the influence of Daniel among the astrologers of Persia – would prod the Magi to perceive a special significance in the Star of Bethlehem.       

An ivory panel-carving of
the Nativity Icon,
at the Walters Art Museum
in Baltimore.

          In most Nativity-icons, Balaam and Balak are replaced by shepherds.  This might have been done by an artist who was unfamiliar with the significance of these characters, and who was copying a small icon in which the names of the characters were not given and the details were not clearly defined.  Feeling that the shepherds should be included, and seeing an angel facing these two characters, the artist identified them as shepherds, and thus Balaam and Balak disappeared from the scene.  (Balak’s crown, accordingly, was apparently redrawn as an unusual hat on one of the shepherds.)  There is something thematically appealing to this development – emphasizing the teaching that we are no longer under Law, but under grace – for as Balaam and Balak are replaced by shepherds, the angel of the Lord who appeared to Balaam with a rebuke and a sword now stands as the angel who proclaimed “Good tidings of great joy which shall be for all peoples.”

          Finally, in the background, the angelic armies stand ready to be discharged to visit the shepherds, and the Old Testament prophets stand by as a cloud of witnesses, looking on as God’s plan unfolds. May we stand with them in wonder this Christmas, as heaven and earth praise God together for the salvation He has brought us through His Son.  Merry Christmas!

The Face of Jesus

Jesus the Christ
(by Richard Hook, 1962)

          Almost every year, when Christmas approaches, secular magazines publish stories about Jesus with outlandish claims and shocking headlines.  Even though these flimsy attempts to challenge the faith of Christian readers fall apart under examination, they successfully increase magazine-sales.  This year, however, it appears that the writers have gotten lazy.  Instead of introducing a new imaginary scandal about Jesus, they are recycling an old story about what Jesus might have looked like.  Originally the article The Real Face of Jesus by Mike Fillon appeared in Popular Mechanics in 2002.  The gist of that article is currently reappearing online, with plenty of embellishments; a video at the Salon website, for example, states that British scientists “were able to figure out the shape of Jesus’ head and facial muscles.”

Abgar, king of Edessa,
receiving the Mandylion.
(From a panel from Saint
Catherine's Monastery)

          When one takes a close look at the article, the events that led up to it are not hard to discern:  Richard Neave, a specialist at forensic reconstruction, was given some skull-bones that had been obtained from excavations of first-century sites in Israel.  Neave reconstructed the head of an individual whose skull-bones he had been given.
          Many of the details of the reconstruction, including the shape of the eyes, the shape of the ears, the shape of the nose, and the shape of the mouth, the pigmentation, and the hair-style, are based on guesswork – and this was acknowledged in the 2002 article.  What we have here is a reconstruction of the face of Random Dead Guy, and while the basic profile shows what somebody in first-century Judea could have looked like, it is not a scientific reconstruction of the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and hair of Jesus.  One could label Neave’s  reconstruction “The Real Face of Rabbi Gamaliel” or “The Real Face of Lazarus” or “The Real Face of the Apostle James” with more justification.
         An article called, “The Real Face of a Random First-century Jewish Man” would be more honest, but it would not sell very many magazines.  That is why we got the article-title that appeared back in 2002, and that is why we are seeing it again in 2015.  I suspect that the data from Mike Fillon’s article is being recycled not only to sell magazines but also to provide the basis for a charge of racism and/or hypocrisy against American Christians who are reluctant to open the borders to Middle-Eastern refugees, in light of the probability that Islamic extremists may take advantage of the refugee-crisis as an opportunity to enter the United States intending to do harm to Americans.  But for the moment, let’s set aside that concern, and focus on the question that has been raised:  what did Jesus look like?     

From the Catacombs of
Commodilla, at Rome.

From the Catacombs of
Marcellinus, at Rome.

          We have no scientifically verified evidence of what Jesus looked like; nor do we have early historical accounts that mention his appearance (other than two Old Testament passages:   Isaiah 50:6, which mentions the beard of the Servant of the Lord, and the prophecy in Isaiah 53:2, which indicates that His physical appearance was unremarkable).  The earliest report of an image of the face of Jesus is contained in an expanded form of a story that is found in chapter 13 of Book One of Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius wrote in the early 300’s, but he stated that he had obtained the report from an earlier account, which had been written in the Syriac language and which had been found in the archives in the city of Edessa – including the text of a letter from Abgar to Jesus, and the response from Jesus to Abgar.  This report is known as the Story of Abgar and it was extremely popular in the early Middle Ages.
        

A page from the Rabbula Gospels, depicting
Christ's death on the cross, the visit of the
women to the empty tomb, and His appearance
to the women after He rose from the dead.

          When the story was retold in the early 400’s in a composite-work called the Doctrine of Addai, it included an additional detail, stating that the emissary of Abgar, when he realized that Jesus would not go to Abgar, was allowed to paint a picture of Jesus.  (In other versions of the story, the emissary attempts to paint a picture but is unable to do so, so Jesus Himself pours water on His face and miraculously transfers the image of His face onto a cloth.)  This item, called the Mandylion, is mentioned in accounts from as late as 944, when it is said to have been taken from Edessa to Constantinople – but written details about the image itself are not given.  Several medieval artistic representations of the Mandylion, however, still exist.    

          Similarly, there is a persistent tradition that Saint Veronica – the woman afflicted with an issue of blood, who was healed when she touched the hem of Jesus’ robe, as recorded in the Gospels – saw Jesus bearing the cross, and when she tried to wipe His face with a towel, the image of His face was transferred to the towel.  This tradition is the basis for the “Sixth Station of the Cross” in Easter-processions observed by some denominations.

          The earliest artistic depictions of Jesus are in wall-paintings in the Syrian city of Dura-Europos, (which was destroyed in a war in A.D. 256).  An artist used the motif of the Good Shepherd (which is not uniquely Christian – although easily adapted to interlock with Jesus’ words in the Gospel of John) in a picture above the baptistry in the earliest known Christian house-church.  Another depiction of Jesus as the Good Shepherd is in the Catacomb of Priscilla in Rome.

Christ Pantocrator - the image itself (at left),
and the mirror-images of each half.
A similar image is at Constantinople.

          The pictures at Dura-Europos leave something to be desired as far as the details of Christ’s face are concerned.  Early pictures in the catacombs at Rome provide more detail.  In a Syriac manuscript of the four Gospels, known as the Rabbula Gospels, a series of pictures preceding the text includes several images of Jesus and His disciples.  This manuscript is from the year 586.

          Perhaps the most definitive early image of Jesus is the Pantocrator of Saint Catherine’s Monastery.  This icon, produced in the 500’s or 600’s (possibly in Constantinople during the reign of Justinian), employs a motif that is very widespread in Eastern Christendom.  The picture may have been designed to convey the dual nature of Christ – human, and divine.  Or, the two halves may represent the opposite roles of Christ on Judgment Day – either as a welcoming friend, or a weeping judge.

by Rembrandt (1648)

by Van Dyck (c. 1625)

          This kind of image – with dark, shoulder-length hair and dark eyes – was the standard depiction of Christ in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance.  Not all European artists adhered to it, but many of them did.  Sometimes when an artist resorted to a semi-abstract style (as in the Book of Kells) or blended mythological motifs with Christian ones, anything could happen.  Occasionally artists painted Christ without a beard – for instance, in Michelangelo’s Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel, and in The Supper at Emmaus by Caravaggio – but in general, the iconic features of the Pantocrator were maintained with consistency until the 1800’s. 

       An objection has been repeatedly raised about the shoulder-length hair in these depictions, on the grounds that Saint Paul, in First Corinthians 11:14, wrote, “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him?” – the idea being that Paul would not have said this if Jesus’ hair had been long.  However, it seems likely to me that Paul was thinking of hair much longer than shoulder-length.  It was not unusual in the first century for Jewish men to take temporary Nazarite vows, which (according to Numbers 6:1-8) involved, among other things, letting one’s hair grow.  Paul himself took such a vow and let his hair grow so long that when he got a haircut, his fellow-traveler Luke made a note of it, in Acts 18:18.  Thus there is no Biblical or historical objection against the idea that the length of Jesus’ hair varied from time to time.

Sallman's
Head of Christ

          In the 1800’s, some European and American artists, either guided by the imperialistic spirit of the times, or by racism, or by simple ignorance of the historical probabilities involved, portrayed Jesus with distinctly European features.   (Sometimes, artists made pictures of Jesus based on visions, too; some of these have been unfairly misinterpreted as if they were meant as representations of what Jesus looked like during His ministry.)

          This trend continued into the 1900’s, and influenced Warner Sallman, whose picture Head of Christ was so thoroughly distributed that in the United States it has almost become the definitive portrait of Christ, even though in the original painting (Sallman made several versions of this picture), Jesus has blue eyes, a feature extremely unlikely to be historically accurate.
          Sallman claimed that his picture was based on a vision, or dream, that he had experienced, and for some folks, such testimony is enough to add plausibility to the accuracy of the picture.

The face on the Shroud of Turin,
and a portrait of Jesus based on it.

          However, there are at least two good reasons not to rely on dreams as the basis of a theory of what Jesus looked like during His ministry.  First, because in Revelation, when Jesus appears in a vision, He has a glorified, heavenly form that is far different from the everyday earthly form He had during His ministry.  Second, because it is possible for a human being to subconsciously picture Jesus in a dream, using whatever preconception he has, just as it is possible for a person to dream about Jesus speaking English, or Spanish, or Arabic.  The genuineness of any particular such dream or vision is not the question at hand; I only mean to point out that they are not secure guides to what Jesus looked like during His ministry, any more than they are secure guides to what language or languages Jesus spoke during His ministry.  Dreams are very personal things.

Brian Deacon, actor -
The Jesus Film

          In the past 50 years, many artists have consciously attempted to return to a more historically plausible portrayal of what Jesus looked like.  As a result, the portrayals of Christ by more recent artists, such as Richard and Francis Hook, tend to resemble the ancient depictions found in icons, though often from different angles, and with different expressions.  

          Some artists have made portraits of Christ based on the face on the Shroud of Turin – the features of which resemble the depiction in many medieval icons.  Movies, however, have been inconsistent; some movies about Jesus have featured rather European-looking actors; others, however, such as The Jesus Film, have featured actors whose natural features resemble the iconic depiction of Jesus. 
           While we should be concerned not to misrepresent the historical aspects of Jesus’ appearance (to whatever extent they can be surmised), a higher priority should be to affirm that Christ is the fellow-heir of every member of His church, regardless of nation or language or any physical trait.  He is, as Colossians 1:15 says, the image (in Greek, εικων, eikon) of the invisible God.  If we want to see what Jesus looks like, then let us pursue His presence in our lives, seeing Christ in those in need, so that Christ may be seen in the church.  Let us consider the true meaning of Psalm 27:7-8:
        “Hear, O LORD, when I cry with my voice!  Be gracious to me, and answer me.  When You said, “Seek My face,” my heart said to You, “Your face, LORD, I will seek.””