Meet Lectionary 261

          In 1753, a French ambassador whose last name was Desalleurs – and who had been stationed at Constantinople – presented a gift to King Louis XV:  a Greek Gospels-lectionary, now known as Lectionary 261.  (At the National Library of France, where it resides, it is known as Supplemental Greek manuscript 37.)  This is no ordinary lectionary; it is finely illustrated, not only with headpieces for each Evangelist, but with many other small illustrations in the margins.  It contains Gospels-lections for both the Synaxarion – the calendar that is annually reset at Easter – and for the Menologion – the feast-days that are affixed to specific unchanging days of the calendar.  According to Scrivener’s Plain Introduction, fourth edition (1894), its pages measure 13 inches high and 10 and 7/8ths inches wide.

A headpiece in Lectionary 261,
featuring the Evangelist Luke.

            Lectionary 261 has been assigned a production-date in the 1000’s or 1100’s (see, however, the detail about its colophon).  Its text, written in two columns on each page, appears to be an excellent representative of the Byzantine Text.  To give some idea of the quality of its text, let’s have a quick round of hand-to-hand combat! – Lectionary 261 versus Papyrus 75 in John 2:14-22; go! 

Papyrus 75 deviates from the Nestle-Aland compilation at the following points in Luke 2:14-22:

● 2:14 – P75 has τας before βοας (+3)

● 2:15 – P75 has ως after ποιησας (+2)

● 2:15 – P75 has τα κερματα instead of το κερμα (+3, -1)

● 2:15  P75 has ανεστρεψεν (+1)

● 2:  P75 has οτι (+3)

● 2:  P75 does not have υμιν (-4)

● 2:  P75 uses an underlined μ as a numeral instead of writing out τεσσερακοντα.

            Setting aside the use of a numeral, that means that in John 2:14-22, Papyrus 75 has 12 non-original letters, and is missing 5 original letters, for a total of 17 letters’ worth of textual corruption.  (If we were to penalize P75 for using a numeral, its total deviation from NA27’s text would consist of 30 letters’ worth of corruption.  But we won’t.) 

            In comparison, the text of Lectionary 261 has the following deviations from NA27:

● 2:15 – Lect 261 has ανεστρεψεν (+1)

● 2:16 – Lect 261 has πολουσι instead of πολουσιν (-1)

● 2:16 – Lect 261 has ποιητε instead of ποιετε (+1, -1)

● 2:17 – Lect 261 has δε after εμνήσθησαν (+2)

● 2:18 – Lect 261 has ειπον instead of ειπαν (+1, -1)

● 2:20 – Lect 261 has ειπον instead of ειπαν (+1, -1)

● 2:20 – Lect 261 has τεσσαρακοντα instead of τεσσερακοντα (+1, -1)

● 2:20 – Lect 261 has ωικοδομήθη instead of οικοδομήθη (+1, -1)

● 2:22 – Lect 261 has ω instead of ον (+1, -2)

            Thus Lectionary 261 has 9 non-original letters in John 2:14-22, and is missing 8 original letters, for a total of 17 letters’ worth of textual corruption – even when the orthographic variation involving τεσσαρακοντα is included (which isn’t quite fair to Lectionary 261, because P75’s scribe did not spell out the word).  This means that in this particular passage, the text of Lectionary 261 is as accurate as the text of Papyrus 75.  In addition, while in Lectionary 261’s transmission-line the word δε was added in verse 17, and ω was substituted for ον in verse 22, the alterations in the text of Papyrus 75 included the insertion of three words, and the omission of one word.  Or to put it another way:  based on this small sample, the text from the ancient Egyptian papyrus looks like it has been edited, whereas the text from the medieval lectionary looks like it has only been subjected to very minor orthographical and grammatical tweaking.          

In John 2:15, P75 agrees
with the Byzantine Text and
disagrees with Codex Vaticanus.

            Another thing worth noticing:  the Byzantine reading at the end of verse 15 – ανεστρεψεν – is supported not only by Lectionary 261 but also by Papyrus 75.  Is this ancient vindication of the Byzantine reading making an impact on critically edited texts of the New Testament?  A little:  ἀνέστρεψεν was adopted by Michael Holmes for the SBLGNT, but the recently released Tyndale House GNT still reads ἀνέτρεψεν, and this must have been deliberate, since the starting-point for the Tyndale House edition was the compilation made in the 1800’s by Samuel Tregelles, who adopted ἀνέστρεψεν. 

            Lectionary 261 does not have the story of the adulteress in its Synaxarion-section; the lection for Pentecost flows without interruption from the end of John 7:53 to the beginning of John 8:12, with which it concludes.  That is not unusual.  In the Menologion-section, however, the lection for Saint Pelagia’s day (October 8) is present, as John 8:3-11, with κατείληπται in verse 4, and with Και at the beginning of verse 5, and with ειπον εκπειράζοντες and εγραφεν in verse 6, and other unusual readings.  Mark 16:9-20 is included as the third of eleven readings in the Heothina-series, pertaining to Christ’s resurrection.  Luke 22:43-44 is not only included but is accompanied by a small illustration depicting Christ praying and being visited by the angel.

            After the last page of the Menologion, which is sloppily expanded by a later hand, a different scribe has added a lection from Matthew 14:1-13.  This is followed by several lines of some sort of colophon, with a date which someone seems to have calculated as 1232.

In a passage from Matthew 25,
Christ teaches about readiness.

          Lectionary 261’s text is by no means its only noteworthy feature.  Artistically, it is far above average.  Its copyist’s minuscule script is a model of efficiency and neatness; corrections in the margin are rare (one occurs in the text of Luke 8:47 where the copyist accidentally skipped from one αὐτῷ to the same word further along in the verse).  Occasionally (and especially in titles in the Menologion) a half-uncial script is used.  Many of the lection-headings appear to be written in gold, and in the first lection after the lection for Pentecost, following a large headpiece featuring the Evangelist Matthew, Matthew 18:10, 8:11, and 8:12a are written in gold before the rest of the lection continues on the next page.

            The Samaritan woman, Lazarus, Zacchaeus, the wise and foolish virgins, and the rich young ruler are among the many characters who appear in small illustrations in the margins throughout the Synaxarion-portion.  Occasionally the colorful initials are transformed into portraits of Christ.  Some Bible-readers prefer their text to be unadorned, and yet these bright initials brings to mind a happy closing thought – that what began as letters on a page may, when welcomed, implanted, and applied, end up as Christ in you. 

[A PDF of Lectionary 261 can be downloaded at the Gallica website.]  

Greek Manuscripts in the K. W. Clark Collection (Duke University)

            The Kenneth W. Clark Collection of Greek Manuscripts, at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina (USA), is among the most impressive collections of New Testament manuscripts in the United States.  It currently contains 106 Greek manuscripts – almost half of which have been digitized.  Over a dozen of these digitized manuscripts contain text from the New Testament.  (An introduction to the Kenneth W. Clark Collection can be found online at the website of the Rubenstein Library at Duke University.)    

 

Below the headpiece and title of the Gospel of Matthew
in GA 1780, the initial letter Beta is zoomorphic,
resembling a fox and snake in combat.

            Here is a list of embedded links to digital images of the New Testament manuscripts in the Kenneth W. Clark Collection that have been digitized.  Some of the other volumes are also listed.  Digitized Gospel-manuscripts are indexed with embedded links to the beginning of each book. 

MS 1 is GA 1780 (Codex Branscombius, from c. 1200), which is especially notable because it contains all 27 books of the New Testament.  (See this earlier post for a description and basic index of digital page-views of 1780.)

MS 2 is GA Lect 1619, a very late (1600’s) Gospels-lectionary, with many blank pages.

MS 3 is GA 2423, a manuscript of Acts and the Epistles, from the 1200’s.  It is not yet digitized.  Hebrews is between Second Thessalonians and First Timothy.

MS 4 is GA 2268, a leaf from the Gospel of Mark, from c. 1300.  It contains text from Mark 1:1-14.  A portrait of Mark is in the headpiece. 

The beginning of the Gospel of Mark
in Clark MS 4 (GA 2268).

MS 5 is GA 2612, a manuscript of the Gospels (1200’s).  It is not yet digitized.  The order of the Gospels is said to be highly unusual:  Mark, Luke, John, Matthew. 

MS 6 is GA 2613, a manuscript of the Gospels from the 1000’s.  The pericope adulterae does not appear in the text of John (though a note in the margin mentions it), but it appears at the very end of the manuscript, following a lectionary-table that occupies several pages after the end of John 21. 

Matthew:  9.  Mark:  183.  Luke:  297. John:  485.   

 

MS 7 is GA 2614, a manuscript of the Gospels from the 1200’s.   Matthew:  21.  Mark: 200.  Luke:  325.  John:  518.     

MS 10 is GA Lect 1965, a Gospels-lectionary from the 1100’s.  The text is formatted in two columns per page.  The Heothinon-series is included.  A PDF describing this manuscript, prepared by John Lawrence Sharpe III, is available online.

MS 12 is GA Lect 1966, a Gospels-lectionary from c. 1100.  The text is formatted in two columns per page.  The lection for Saint Pelagia’s Day (October 8), from John 8:3-11, begins on page 365.

MS 15 is GA 2615, a manuscript of the Gospels from the 1100’s.  Matthew:  5 (missing the opening page).  Mark:  145.  Luke:  233.  John:  382.  This manuscript was obtained by Kenneth W. Clark himself in 1950 in Egypt during a trip to Egypt and St. Catherine’s Monastery.  In Luke 24:42 its text includes the phrase, “and the rest He gave to them.”  A PDF describing this manuscript, prepared by John Lawrence Sharpe III, is available online.  The pericope adulterae begins (in the text of John) on 421. 

            Some pages of GA 2615 are missing at the end; the text of John breaks off in 19:12 at the end of a page.  Curiously, after the chapter-list for the Gospel of Mark and before the beginning of the text of Mark (perhaps inserted out of order by an ancient repairer of the manuscript), page 138 contains only text from John 20:30b-31.       

MS 16 is GA 2616,  a manuscript of the Gospels from the 1100’s.  Matthew:  5.  Mark: 167.  Luke:  271.  John:  443.  A PDF describing this manuscript, prepared by John Lawrence Sharpe III, is available online. 

MS 17 is a Psalter from the 1100’s. with some braided and/or colored initials.  It includes most of the Odes at the end, including the Magnificat, extracted from Luke 1:46ff.

MS 22 is GA 2491, a fragment from c. 1050.  It is not yet digitized.  It is a single leaf with text from Matthew 22:31-23:10.

MS 24 is GA Lect 1967, from the 1000’s.  It is not yet digitized.

MS 25 is GA 1813, a manuscript of the Gospels, from c. 1100.  Matthew:  19.  Mark:  145.  Luke:  225.  John:  367.   A PDF describing this manuscript, prepared by John Lawrence Sharpe III, is available online.  The copyist, Hierotheos, mentioned himself in a colophon at the end of the book.

MS 28 is GA Lect 648.  It is not yet digitized.

MS 31 is GA 2766, a manuscript of the Gospels, from the 1200’s.  It is not yet digitized.  It has pictures of the Evangelists.  A PDF describing this manuscript, prepared by John Lawrence Sharpe III, is available online.  

MS 38 is GA 2757, a manuscript of the Gospels, from c. 1100.  Matthew:  25 (Pigment from the picture of Matthew on the opposite page has severely damaged most of the text on this page.)  Mark:  165.  Luke:  261. (The headpiece to the Gospel of Luke contains the wrong title – Ευαγγέλϊον Κατὰ Μάρκον – as if the artist did not realize where he was at in the book.)  John: 421.  A PDF describing this manuscript, prepared by John Lawrence Sharpe III, is available online.          

MS 39 is GA Lect 2138, a very late Gospel-lectionary, from 1627.  The text is formatted in two columns per page.  A PDF describing this manuscript, prepared by John Lawrence Sharpe III, is available online.  The Synaxarion, Heothinon, Menologion are all included.  The copyist was Lucas Buzau, a prolific scribe whose manuscripts have reached multiple monasteries and museums.  

MS 43 is GA Lect 2145, a leaf from a Gospels-lectionary from the 1200’s, containing text from Luke 1:59-80 and Matthew 16:13-18.  It is not yet digitized.

MS 60 is GA 1423, Codex Daltonianus, a manuscript of the Gospels from c. 1000, with marginal commentary-material.  It is not yet digitized.  A PDF describing this manuscript, prepared by John Lawrence Sharpe III, is available online.    

MS 64 is GA 2757, a manuscript of the Gospels from c. 1300.  It is not yet digitized.  A PDF describing this manuscript, prepared by John Lawrence Sharpe III, is available online.

MS 65 is GA Lect 1839, a Gospels-lectionary from the 1000’s.  It is not yet digitized.

MS 82 is GA Lect 1623, a Gospels-lectionary from c. 1200.  It is not yet digitized.

MS 83 is GA Lect 302, a Gospels-lectionary from c. 1450.  It is not yet digitized. 

MS 84 is a manuscript of the Gospels from c. 1150.  It is not yet digitized. 

In Clark MS 106, on this page, in the second column,
an account of the life of Gregory, missionary to
Armenia, begins (for September 30).

MS 85 is GA Lect 451, a Gospels-lectionary from 1052.  It is not yet digitized.  The copyist’s name was Clement.

MS 89 is a fragment from a Gospels-lectionary from the 1100’s.  It is not yet digitized.  It contains text from Matthew 8:31-9:3.

MS 92 is a Gospels-lectionary from the 1100’s.  It is not yet digitized.

MS 93 is a Gospels-lectionary from the 1100’s.  It is not yet digitized. 

MS 100 is a manuscript of the Gospels and Revelation from c. 1000.  It is not yet digitized. 

MS 104 is a late lectionary (c. 1530?) with readings from the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles.  It is not yet digitized.

MS 106 has been described as a Menologion, but is a Menaion (containing saints’ biographies) for the month of September.  The text is formatted in two columns per page.  (This manuscript has been returned to Mount Athos.) 

Manuscripts Within Manuscripts: They Are Real!

Dr. Erik Kwakkel

            Regarding the previous post and the discovery of a manuscript-page containing John 7:50-8:12 within the binding of a printed book from the 1600’s – Happy April Fools Day!  There were some clues:  there is no research library in Christiania (Christiania is a small commune in Copenhagen); the subtitle to Hevelius’ Selenographia has the word Luna, not Lura (a Swedish word for “fool”); the initials of the Photomagnetic Hyperspectral Ultraviolet Light Scans (PHULS) can be pronounced “fools,” and there is no German periodical called the Zeitschrift des Lachens (“Journal of Laughter"). 

            Although this discovery was fictitious (including the digitally created picture), other discoveries – in which manuscripts are found within the bindings of other manuscripts, or within the bindings of printed books – are real, and the likelihood is very high that we are going to see more of them.  

            Rearrange the letters in the name of the fictitious Kirk Walkeek, and you can make the name of the real Dr. Erik Kwakkel of Leiden University, who, along with Dr. Joris Dik (whose name shares the same letters as the fictitious Jodi Kris) of Delft University of Technology, is developing technology and techniques which can read text on materials within book-bindings, using macro x-ray fluorescence spectrometry (MA-XRF) without dismantling the binding itself. 

Dr. Joris Dik

            Binding-materials have already been the source of several Greek uncial fragments, such as
            ● 0311 (which has text from Romans 8:1-13, and the earliest witness to the non-inclusion of εκ νεκρων in 8:11a),
            ● 0312 (which has text from Luke 5, from the late 400’s),
            ● 0313 (which has text from Mark 4:9 and 4:15 – from the late 400’s, with a distinct Byzantine reading),
            ● 0314 (which has text from John 5:43, from the late 400’s), and
            ● 0315 (which has text from Mark 2:9, 2:21, 2:25, and 3:1-2 – from the 300’s or 400’s!) – all fragments obtained by Christopher de Hamel.  (For some more information about 0313 see my report about it from 2015,)

This isn't real
either.  But
something like
 it is  –
wait and see.

            Kwakkel, who blogs about his work at https://medievalbooks.nl/ , also shares many images that he encounters in the course of his research at http://erikkwakkel.tumblr.com/ (often with brief analytical notes), as well as images and notes contributed by other researchers.  

            Entries from an earlier blog, now a sort of archive, can be found at the Turning Over a New Leaf project, found at https://medievalfragments.wordpress.com/ and assorted images related to the project – hundreds of them – can be found at Flickr. Several of his lectures are also available online, such as this one about  professional medieval book-production. 

            It is just a matter of time, I suspect, before the remains of a Greek manuscript will be found embedded within a book-binding.  (If one could aim a MA-XRF machine at book-bindings in the Vatican Library, the discovery would probably be made within a week.)   If the book is not very important, the Greek manuscript will probably be physically extracted.  But if the case is otherwise, or if there is a significant risk of damage involved in the extraction-process – for example, the risk of tearing apart a page secured by glue – then perhaps textual critics should create a new category of evidence:  besides papyri, uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, versions, and patristic quotations, I recommend that the symbol “r” (“remnant” or “recycled” or, in Dutch, “rest” or “remainder”) should be affixed to whatever uncial-number or minuscule-number is assigned to a fragment that remains embedded within another book – so as to convey that there is a lack of direct accessibility to such manuscripts that is not a factor with the others.

            Who knows how many libraries within libraries there are, hidden within the bindings of books?  There’s only one way to find out.
            

Hand-to-Hand Combat: Codex Bezae vs. the Georgius Gospels

          Guess which manuscript has more corruptions in Luke 2:1-21:  Codex Bezae (for which researcher D. C. Parker has assigned a production-date around 400), or the Georgius Gospels (a minuscule manuscript from the 1200’s)?  We could use the Byzantine Textform compiled by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont as the basis for this comparison.  But instead, let’s compare each manuscript’s text of Luke 2:1-21 – Luke’s narrative about the birth of Christ – to the Nestle-Aland compilation.

          The text of Luke 2:1-21 in the Georgius Gospels (GA 2266) – page-views of which can be viewed at the Goodspeed Manuscript Collection’s website – deviates from the NA27 text at the following points. (Agreements between 2266 and the RP2005 Byzantine Text are accompanied by a triangle.  Agreements between 226 and the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text (against RP2005) are accompanied by a square.)

       

2:1 – 2266 has εξηλθε instead of εξηλθεν.  (-1)  ■

2:2 – 2266 has η after αυτη. (+1)  ▲

2:3 – 2266 has ιδιαν instead of εαυτου.  (-6 and +5)  ▲

2:4 – 2266 has Ναζαρετ instead of Ναζαρεθ. (-1 and +1)  ▲

2:5 – 2266 has μεμνηστευμενη instead of εμνηστευμενη. (+1)  ▲

2:5 – 2266 has the word γϋναικι before ουση. (+7)  ▲

2:5 – 226 has εγγυω instead of εγκυω. (-1 and +1)  

2:7 – 2266 has τη before φατνη. (+2)  ▲

2:9 – 2266 has ιδου after the first και. (+4)  ▲

2:10 – 2266 has θοβηστε instead of θοβειστε. (+1 and -2)  

2:11 – 2266 has εστι instead of εστιν. (-1)  ■

2:12 – 2266 does not have και before κειμενον. (-3)  ▲

2:14 – 2266 has ευδοκια instead of ευδοκιας. (+1)  ▲

2:15 – 2266 has οι ανοι (the contraction of ανθρωποι) after οι αγγελοι και. (+10)  ▲

2:15 – 2266 has ειπον instead of ελαλουν. (-7 and +5)  ▲

2:16 – 2266 has ηλθον instead of ηλθαν. (-1 and +1)  ▲

2:16 – 2266 has ανευρον instead of ανευραν. (-1 and +1)  ▲

2:17 – 2266 has διεγνωρισαν instead of εγνωρισαν. (+2)  ▲

          In addition, 2266 contracts the following words which appear at the ends of lines:

2:4 – 2266 has Γαλιλ′ instead of Γαλιλαιας.  (-4)

2:11 – 2266 has πολ′ instead of πολει.  (-2)

2:12 – 2266 has κειμεν′ nstead of κειμενον. (-2) 

2:21 – 2266 has επλησθησ′ instead of επλησθησαν.  (-2)

The Georgius Gospels (GA 2266)
MS 727-Image 270

          In a strict letter-by-letter count, without considering contractions of nomina sacra , abbreviations of και, and the contractions at the ends of lines, in 2266, 22 letters of the original text have been lost, and 43 non-original letters have been introduced.   Thus, whether via addition or subtraction, the text of 2266 differs from the text of NA27 by 65 letters.

          Aside from spelling-variants, these 65 letters’ worth of difference between the text of Luke 2:1-21 in the Georgius Gospels and in the Nestle-Aland compilation consist mainly of these seven variants:

            ● the interchange between ιδιαν and εαυτου in verse 3,

            ● the introduction of γϋναικι in verse 5,

            ● the introduction of ιδου in verse 9,

            ● the absence of και in verse 12,

            ● the ς at the end of ευδοκιας.  (This changes the meaning of the phrase.)

            ● the introduction of οι ανθρωποι in verse 15, and

            ● the interchange between ειπον and ελαλουν in verse 15. 

Now let’s look at the text of Luke 2:1-21 in Codex Bezae.

. . . Are you sure you’re ready?  Take a deep breath.

2:1 – D moves εγενετο to follow αυτη instead of πρωτη.

2:3 – D has πατριδα instead of πολιν. (+6, -4)

2:4 – D has γην instead of την. (-1)

2:4 – D has Ιουδα instead of Ιουδαιαν. (-3)

2:4 – D has Δαυειδ instead of Δαυιδ. (+1)

2:4 – D has καλειτε instead of καλειται. (+1, -2)

2:4-5 – D moves απογραφεσθαι συν Μαρια τη εμνηστευμενη αυτω ουση ενκυω to immediately follow Βηθεεμ.  Within the transposed portion, D has απογραφεσθαι instead of απογραφασθαι, and Μαρια instead of Μαριαμ, and ενκυω instead of εγκυω.  (+2, -3)

2:5 – D has Δαυειδ instead of Δαυιδ. (+1)

2:6 – D has ως δε παρεγεινοντο instead of εγενετο δε εν τω ειναι αυτους εκει.  (+14, -26)

2:6 – D has ετλησθησαν instead of επλησθησαν.  (+1, -1)

2:8 – D has Ποιμενες δε instead of Και ποιμενες.  (+2, -3)

2:8 – D has χαρα ταυτη instead of χωρα τη αυτη.  (+1, -2)

2:8 – D has τας before φυλακας.  (+3)

2:9 – D has ιδου after the first και.  (+4)

2:9 – D does not have κυριου after δοξα.  (-6)

2:10 – D has υμειν instead of υμιν. (+1)

2:10 – D has και before παντι.  (+3)

2:11 – D has υμειν instead of υμιν. (+1)

2:11 – D has Δαυειδ instead of Δαυιδ.  (+1)

2:12 – D has υμειν instead of υμιν.  (+1)

2:12 – D has εστω after σημειον.  (+4)

2:12 – D does not have και κειμενον.  (-11)

2:13 – D has στρατειας instead of στρατιας.  (+1)

2:13 – D has ουρανου instead of ουρανιου.  (-1)

2:13 – D has αιτουντων instead of αινουντων.  (+1, -1)

2:15 – D moves οι αγγελοι to follow απηλθον.

2:15 – D has και οι ανθρωποι before οι ποιμενες. (+10)

2:15 – D has ειπον instead of ελαλουν. (+3, -5)

2:15 – D has γεγονως instead of γεγονος. (+1, -1)

2:15 – D has ημειν instead of ημιν.  (+1)

2:16 – D has ελθον instead of ελθαν. (+1, -1)

2:16 – D has σπευδοντες instead of σπευσαντες.  (+2, -2)

2:16 – D has ευρον instead of ανευραν.  (+1, -3)

2:16 – D does not have τε before Μαριαμ. (-2)

2:16 – D has Μαριαν instead of Μαριαμ. (+1, -1)

2:17 – D does not have τουτου at the end of the verse.  (-6)

2:18 – D has ακουοντες instead of ακουσαντες.  (+1, -2)

2:18 – D has εθαυμαζον instead of εθαυμαζαν.  (+1, -1)

2:19 – D has Μαρια instead of Μαριαμ.  (-1)

2:19 – D has a transposition:  συνετηρει παντα instead of παντα συνετηρει.

2:19 – D has συνβαλλουσα instead of συμβαλλουσα.  (+1, -1)

2:20 – D has ιδον instead of ειδον.  (-1)

2:21 – D has συνετελεσθησαν instead of επλησθησαν.  (+6, -1)

2:21 – D has αι before ημεραι.  (+2)

2:21 – D has αι before οκτω.  (+2)

2:21 – D has το παιδιον instead of αυτον.  (+9, -5)

2:21 – D has ωνομασθη instead of και εκληθη.  (+8, -9)

2:21 – D has συνλημφθηναι instead of συλλημφθηναι. (+1, -1)

2:21 – D does not have τη before κοιλια.  (-2)

2:21 – D has μητρος after κοιλια.  (+6)

          That’s 106 additions of non-original letters, and 109 subtractions of original letters.  Whether by addition or subtraction, the text of Luke 2:1-21 in Codex Bezae differs from the text of NA27 by 215 letters (without considering the transpositions).   For comparison:  compared to NA27, the corruptions in 2266 amount to 65 letters (or 75, if we toss in the letters lost in end-of-line contractions), and the corruptions in D amount to 215 letters.

          Setting aside spelling-variations and transpositions, these 215 letters’ worth of difference between the text of D and the Nestle-Aland compilation consist mainly of these 23 variants: 

● 2:3 – D has πατριδα instead of πολιν. (+6, -4)

● 2:4 – D has γην instead of την. (-1)

● 2:4 – D has Ιουδα instead of Ιουδαιαν. (-3)

● 2:6 – D has ως δε παρεγεινοντο instead of εγενετο δε εν τω ειναι αυτους εκει.  (+14, -26)

● 2:8 – D has χαρα ταυτη instead of χωρα τη αυτη.  (+1, -2)

● 2:8 – D has τας before φυλακας.  (+3)

● 2:9 – D has ιδου after the first και.  (+4)

● 2:9 – D does not have κυριου after δοξα.  (-6)

● 2:10 – D has και before παντι.  (+3)

● 2:12 – D has εστω after σημειον.  (+4)

● 2:12 – D does not have και κειμενον.  (-11)

● 2:15 – D has και οι ανθρωποι before οι ποιμενες. (+13)

● 2:15 – D has ειπον instead of ελαλουν. (+3, -5)

● 2:16 – D has ευρον instead of ανευραν.  (+1, -3)

● 2:16 – D does not have τε before Μαριαμ. (-2)

● 2:17 – D does not have τουτου at the end of the verse.  (-6)

● 2:21 – D has συνετελεσθησαν instead of επλησθησαν.  (+6, -1)

● 2:21 – D has αι before ημεραι.  (+2)

● 2:21 – D has αι before οκτω.  (+2)

● 2:21 – D has το παιδιον instead of αυτον.  (+9, -5)

● 2:21 – D has ωνομασθη instead of και εκληθη.  (+8, -9)

● 2:21 – D does not have τη before κοιλια.  (-2)

● 2:21 – D has μητρος after κοιλια.  (+6)

          Now let’s revisit those seven variants in 2266 that constituted its main disagreements with the NA27 compilation.  Do you think they might be late readings that somehow got attached to the text in the Middle Ages, like snowflakes attaching themselves to a snowball as it rolls down a hill?  Let’s take a look at the allies of 2266, and see how old these readings are.

● 2:3 – ιδιαν instead of εαυτου:  supported by Codex A.

● 2:5 – γϋναικι:  supported by Codex A.

● 2:9 – ιδου:   supported by Codex A. 

● 2:12 - και is absent:  supported by Codex A.

● 2:14 – ευδοκια:  supported by L, Eusebius, Ambrose, Jerome, and Chrysostom (among others)

● 2:15 – οι ανθρωποι:  supported by Codex A.

● 2:15:  ειπον:  supported by Codex A.    

          Thus, compared to the text of Codex A, we see practically no “snowball effect” in the transmission of the text of Luke 2:1-21 in 2266.  If these readings are accretions, they are early ones.  Furthermore, compared to the text of Codex D, 2266 has by far the more accurate text.  Using the Byzantine Text as the basis of comparison, 2266 has almost no deviations.  Using the Nestle-Aland compilation as the basis of comparison, 2266’s text has lost 22 original letters and added 43 non-original letters – mostly in agreement with Codex A.  Meanwhile the text of Codex D has lost 109 original letters, and has accrued 106 non-original letters (and also contains several transpositions). 

          Again:  the Georgius Gospels is the clear winner.  In Luke 2:1-21, using NA27 as the basis of comparison, the Georgius Gospels has only one-third as much corruption as Codex Bezae contains.  

   

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

Lectionary 35: A Neatly Written Treasure

 

The beginning of the lection for the
Feast of the Transfiguration (Mt. 17:1ff.)
in Lectionary 35.  (Facsimile)

        Lectionary 35 is a beautifully written Greek uncial lectionary from the 900’s.  It is part of the Vatican Library’s manuscript collection, and is cataloged there as Vat. gr. 351.  Unlike full Synaxarions or Menologions (the main two kinds of lectionaries – for the movable days, calculated from Easter, and for the celebrations assigned to specific dates– Lectionary 35 contains a total of only 25 lections:  the twelve major feasts (the Δωδεκάορτον), ten of the eleven morning-time Resurrection lections (the Heothina series), and lections for Palm Sunday and Maundy Thursday.  

          Each lection is preceded by its own headpiece – framing the title on three sides, north-east-west.  Most of the headpieces are simple frames, but they vary; some have braids and others are more ornate.  Gold, green, and blue are the main colors.  Within the headpieces, each lection-title is written in golden ink.  The main text is written in a very dark brown (almost black) ink.  Initials at the beginnings of lections are large, multi-colored (mainly gold) and simply decorated; the initial tau sometimes has a face, and sometimes is entwined by a serpent (probably to suggest the typology of John 3:14-15).  Smaller initials are red. 

          Red markings appear throughout the manuscript to assist the lector.  The text is Byzantine with some itacistic variants.  A four-petal blossom-symbol separates sentences.  There are no margin-notes, and, as far as I could tell in my brief examination of the manuscript, no corrections.   

          According to Scrivener, Lectionary 35 measures 13 and ¼ inches tall and 9 and ⅞ inches wide.  Even though the lettering is exceptionally large, with only 10 or 11 lines on each page, the margins are wide on all outer sides. 

          The letter-forms are designed to maximize legibility.  Look at the facsimile for examples of the “hammock mu,” the “cocoon nu,” and the “spaded omega.”

          The extant pages of Lectionary 35 are in remarkably clean condition; damage is minimal.  Possibly the copyist’s failure to include Heothina #6 caused the manuscript to be set aside shortly after its production, and it was never supplemented.          

          Digital images of Lectionary 35 (Vat.gr. 351) are online at the website of the Vatican Library.  The beginnings of each of its lections can be seen via the following index of links:

          

The Major Feasts:

       Jn. 1:1ff. (Easter) (1r)

       Lk. 24:36ff. (Ascension-Day) (5v)

       Jn. 7:37 (Pentecost) (11r)

       Mt. 17:1 (Transfiguration) (16r)

       Lk. 10:38 (Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary) (19v)

       Lk. 4:16 (Beginning of a new Indiction (15-year cycle)) (22v)

       Lk. 1:39 (Birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary (25v)

       Lection for the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (mainly excerpts from Jn. 19) (29r)

       Mt. 2:1 (Feast of theNativity – Dec. 25) (37v)

       Mt. 3:13 (Jesus’ Baptism, i.e., Feast of Lights) (43r)

       Lk. 2:22b (Presentation in the Temple) (fol. 45v)

       Lk. 1:24 (52v) (Annunciation)

       Jn. 12:1 (58r) (Palm Sunday)

The Morning-time Series on the Resurrection:

       Mt. 28:16 (#1) (65r)

       Mark 16:1 (#2) (67r)

       Mark 16:9 (#3) (70r)

       Luke 24:1 (#4) (74v)

       Luke 24:12 (#5) (78v)

(Heothinon #6 - Luke 24:36-52 - is missing.  Apparently it was accidentally skipped during production.

       Jn. 20:1 (#7) (87v)

       Jn. 20:11 (#8) (91v)

       Jn. 20:19 (#9) (95v)

       Jn. 21:1 (#10) (101v)

       Jn. 21:14 (#11) (108r)

Lections for Easter-week

       Mt. 21:1 (Palm Sunday) (114v)

       Mt. 26:1 (Maundy Thursday) (120r).  The text continues through 131v (which is the last page with text; the last line ends near the end of Matthew 26:72).

           In Lectionary 35, as in most lectionaries which include lections for Easter-time, the lection for Maundy Thursday combines passages in a way which, in a roundabout way, may be highly relevant to the study of two major textual variants:  John 7:53-8:11 and Luke 22:43-44.  Lectionary 35 is a convenient lectionary to use to show this combination due to its remarkable legibility.  

          After Mt. 26:20, the text jumps smoothly to John 13:3 and continues through John 3:17.  Then the text jumps back to Matthew 26:21 and proceeds from there.

          After the end of Mt. 26:39, the text jumps to Lk. 22:43.  After the text of Luke 22:43-45a, kai anastas apo ths proseuchs (And rising up from prayer), the text jumps back to Mt. 26:40 (at ercetai).           The jump to and from John 13:3-17 (the Foot-washing lection) is interesting because it shows that the transplantation of a passage such as John 7:52-8:11 may be due to the influence of the lection-cycle, rather than to the passage’s status as a “floating anecdote” from a non-Scriptural source (as is frequently claimed).  

          In manuscript 225 (made in 1128), John 13:3-17 appears in the text of the Gospel of Matthew following Mt. 26:20.  This adaptation, in which a passage was transplanted from its usual location to a different location, made the lector’s job a little easier when, instead of using a lectionary, he was reading from a continuous-text copy of the Gospels; the lector would not have to jump around the text so much.  (The copyist of 225 also moved John 7:53-8:11 to follow John 7:36, so that it would precede, rather than interrupt, the Pentecost-lection.)  Likewise the transplant of John 7:53-8:11 (to the end of the Gospel of John, or to the end of Luke 21, or to a location before or after the lection for Pentecost (that is, either after Jn. 7:36, or after Jn. 8:12) does not necessarily imply that it was ever a “floating anecdote” but, instead, that its dislocation was the result of the format of the Pentecost-lection, in which the lector read John 7:37-52 and then skipped the next 12 verses, and resumed by reading Jn. 8:12.

          The dislocation of Luke 22:43-44 into the text of the Gospel of Matthew (after Mt. 26:39) in the family-13 group of manuscripts is similarly explained as a transplant provoked by lection-usage for one of the major feasts.  Taking this a bit further, one may deduce that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the absence of these two verses in some of the earliest manuscripts of Luke is a side-effect an adaptation in a very early lection-cycle. 

           It is possible that insights into early lection-cycles may explain other textual variants.  Although lectionaries are sometimes considered relatively minor witnesses to the New Testament text, it seems clear that significant insights may be gained by the study of manuscripts such as Lectionary 35. 

Lessons from a Medieval Fragment of Second Timothy and Titus

          In the Goodspeed Manuscript Collection at the University of Chicago there is a twelfth-century manuscript called “2 Timothy and Titus Praxapostolos Fragment,” known as manuscript #943 in the collection, and identified as 2425 in the Gregory-Aland identification-system.  Manuscript 2425 contains text from Second Timothy (3:6-4:22) and Titus (1:1-3).  It also contains a Hypothesis (Summary) of Titus.

This detail from 2425 shows text from Second Timothy 3:15-4:3a,
including a variant in 4:1 that is not in the Nestle-Aland apparatus.

          The text of this minuscule fragment displays a strong adherence to the standard Byzantine Text.  It varies from the Robinson-Pierpont 2005 compilation of the Byzantine Textform at only four points – in Second Timothy 3:8, reading Μωϋσεῖ (Byz: Μωϋση), 3:11, reading ἐγένοντο (Byz:  ἐγένετο), 4:1, reading Κυριου (Byz:  του Κυριου) and 4:13, reading φαιλόνην (Byz:  φελονην).  (In the fourth case, the Byzantine Text itself is split; φαιλόνην is mentioned in the margin of RP-2005.)  Thus the difference between the text of Second Timothy 3:6-Titus 1:3 in this manuscript, and the text of RP-2005 amounts to eight Greek letters.  2425 is thus an excellent representative of its text-type.  It shows the stability of the Byzantine transmission-stream in the Middle Ages, at least for the Pastoral Epistles.  
          A couple of longer readings that are found in the text of Second Timothy in Codex Alexandrinus, produced in the 400’s (“and carnal pleasures” in 3:6, and “as a good soldier in Christ Jesus” in 4:5), are not in the text of 2425, and two shorter readings in Codex Alexandrinus (the non-inclusion of “the love” in 3:10 and the non-inclusion of “me” in 4:17) that were not adopted in NA27 are not supported by 2425 (that is, 2425 and the Byzantine Text agree with NA27 against Codex A at all four points).    

          Two other things may be learned from 2425:

          ● Considering the textual stability implied by a comparison of 2425 and the Byzantine Text, the often-repeated claim that “no two New Testament manuscripts agree exactly” is almost certainly wrong.  At least one book of the New Testament – perhaps Second Timothy or Titus or Jude – was very probably reproduced in a form that is shared exactly by more than one manuscript.

The STEP-Bible:  better than NA27.

          ● In the course of collating the text of 2425, I noticed a significant variant-unit in Second Timothy 4:1 that is not in the Nestle-Aland apparatus.  The words “the Lord” – του Κυριου in Greek – are not in the Alexandrian Text, but the word Κυριου is supported by 2425 (in which Κυριου, being a sacred name, is contracted as Κυ and overlined).  The reading του Κυριου is included in the Byzantine Text (and is supported by the Peshitta).  To put this another way:  a variant in Second Timothy 4:1 that has an impact on translation, and which is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, is not in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece at all.  It’s not in the text of NA-27 and it’s not in the apparatus.  You won’t find it in the UBS Greek New Testament anywhere either.  It’s not mentioned in the NET either.  The Byzantine reading is, however, listed in the footnotes of the SBL-GNT, and it is also included in the apparatus of the STEP-Bible prepared at Tyndale House, although the specific variant attested by 2425, in which Κυριου is in the text but is not preceded by του, is not mentioned.  I conclude that the claim that “it is certain that the original wording is found either in the text or in the apparatus” may be an overly optimistic assessment when applied to the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece.