Hand to Hand Combat: GA 2414 versus Sinaiticus in John 10 - and a variant in John 10:12-13

GA 2414 is more interesting and important than the average New Testament manuscript.  It resides in Greece in the Public History Library in the village of Zagora - a place that has been occupied for quite a long time.   The manuscript is assigned to the 900s.  It is fully indexed on the CSNTM website.  

How does its (Byzantine) text compare to, say, the text of Sinaiticus in one of the most famous passages in the Gospels - verses 10-16 of Jesus' "Good Shepherd" discourse in John 10?  Let's find out, using the text of NA27 as the referee.  Trivial deviations from the compilation such as final nu and nomina sacra contractions will be noted but not counted as variants.

John 10:10-16 in GA 2414 

10 - has εχουσι instead of εχουσιν (-1)

11 – no variants

12 – has δε between μισθωτὸς and και [+2]

12 – has εισι instead of εστιν [+2, -3]

12 – has τὰ πρόβατα after σκορπίζει [+9]

13 – begins with Ὁ δὲ μισθωτὸς φεύγει [+17]

14 – has γινώσκομαι ὑπο τῶν ἐμῶν instead of γινώσκουσι με τὰ ἐμα [+11, -7]

15 – no variants

16 – transposes, reading με δει instead of δει με

16 – reads γενήσεται instead of γενήσονται [+1, -2]

2414 has 42 non-original letters added and 13 original letters missing, for a total of 55 letters’ worth of corruption.

Now let's compare Sinaiticus' text to NA27:

10 – has αιωνιον after ζωην [+7]

10 - has εχουσι instead of εχουσιν (-1)

11 – no variants

12 – has δε between μισθωτὸς and και [+2]

12 – has εισι instead of εστιν [+2, -3]

12 – has τὰ πρόβατα after σκορπίζει [+9]

13 – begins with Ὁ δὲ μισθωτὸς φεύγει [+17]

14 – has γινώσκομαι ὑπο τῶν ἐμῶν instead of γινώσκουσι με τὰ ἐμα [+11, -7]

15 – no variants

16 – transposes, reading με δει instead of δει με

16 – reads γενήσεται instead of γενήσονται [+1, -2]

That’s 18 non-original letters included, and 11 original letters omitted, for a total of 29 letters’ worth of corruption.  Codex Sinaiticus wins!  

Or so it seems.  Much depends on what happens at the end of verse 12 and the beginning of verse 13.  The NASB renders these two verses as follows:  "He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters the flock.  He flees because he is a hired hand and does not care about the sheep."  

            The italicized words salvage the problem:  without them, the antecedent of  the entity who flees is the wolf!  The shorter Alexandrian reading is clearly the more difficult reading - but it is so difficult that it is rather nonsensical. What, if the Byzantine reading is original, could have elicited the creation of the shorter reading?  Simple parablepsis:  If a copyist wrote, after a line ending in σκορπίζει, the words τα πρόβατα ὁ δε μισθωτός φευγει, inattentiveness could have cause a subsequent scribe to omit all six words, skipping from -ει to -ει.  Major Alexandrian witnesses - P66, P75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, 019, etc. - weigh in for the shorter text, as well as 05 032 and the Sinaitic Syriac and the Coptic version.       

            Byzantine witnesses are not entirely uniform.  Most MSS read τα πρόβατα ὁ δε μισθωτός φευγει but Swanson notes that Codex Π 565 and 1071 read ὁ δε μισθωτός φευγει (and the Peshitta and the Latin texts concur) - suggesting to me that an early exemplar written in narrow columns read 

        πρόβατα καὶ φευγει

        και ὁ λύκος ἁρπάζει

        αὐτὰ και σκορπίζει

        ὁ δε μισθωτός φευγει - 

four consecutive lines ending with -ει.

       This is an especially notable variation-unit - not only because the non-inclusion of the six or four words is accounted for so readily, but also because the shorter reading is supported by the primary witnesses in both the Alexandrian and Western transmission lines - so the Byzantine reading would be, in theory, a non-Western elaboration.  At the same time, the sentence without ὁ δε μισθωτός φευγει is jarring - Jesus' subject jumps from the role of the wolf to the role of the hireling without warning.  One could argue that the shorter reading is thus the more difficult reading - but it can also be argued that the shorter reading is so difficult that it is unlikely to be what John initially wrote.  

        I propose that the text of John 10:13 should be amended in the Nestle-Aland compilation to include ὁ δε μισθωτός φευγει.  If the calculation of letters' worth of corruption is altered accordingly, GA 2414 has 38 letters' worth of corruption, and Codex Sinaiticus has 47.  Yet again the outcome of the contest depends on the selection of the umpire.

 

 

  

                     

How We Got the New Testament (in 22 minutes)

           A new video that I've prepared is at YouTube:  How We Got the New Testament.  It's  a slide-show presentation that covers the basics of the history of the transmission of the books of the New Testament from their initial distribution to the present day.  Viewers are introduced to papyrus copies, parchment copies, majuscule (uncial) script, and minuscule script.  They are also informed of a few developments the New Testament went through in the Middle Ages.   

          Pages of Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Bezae. and Codex Cyprius are shown, and early versions are also featured, such as the Vulgate and the Peshitta.   Viewers are then informed of a few developments the New Testament text went through in the Middle Ages, such as the recycling of parchment, and illumination.

Tyndale at the stake

         When a person asks, "How did we get the New Testament?" the identity of the "we" affects the answer.  After all, some people-groups still don't have the New Testament in their native language.  After the first nine minutes, the focus is on how the English-speaking church got the New Testament.  Viewers are briefly introduced to Lorenzo Valla, Desiderius Erasmus, William Tyndale, and other individuals from the Renaissance and Reformation era.   Early English versions are described, up to and including the King James Version, before the era of modern textual criticism is covered:  the contributions of Bengel, Griesbach, Scholz, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort are briefly described.

          The last five minutes focus on the spread of the New Testament in what is (for better or worse) English as it is spoken today. and developments subsequent to Westcott and Hort (such as the papyrus discoveries at Oxyrhynchus.  

        How We Got the New Testament is suitable for church-viewing and Bible-study groups.  

    

Production-Dates: How Do We Get Them?

           Sometimes when first-time observers read about the production-dates of New Testament manuscripts, one of the first things they notice is that most of the dates are not very precise.  Several factors contribute to establishing the approximate production-date of a manuscript.  Let’s look at some of them today:   colophons, script, content, material, special factors, and radiocarbon dating.

          COLOPHONS.  Notes written by a scribe, or scribes, involved in the production of the manuscript – sometimes state when the manuscript was made.  Such notes, or colophons, immediately simplify the task of assigning a production-date.  Medieval scribes who wrote colophons with dates typically used calendars in which the first year of the earth was 5509.  Sometimes the production-date was given in terms of the reign of a particular Byzantine Emperor.  Robert Waltz has provided a detailed explanation of how production-dates mentioned in colophons should be interpreted.  Rarely, dates are given in terms of the number of years A.D. (Anno Domini, “the year of the Lord”).  

          SCRIPT.  Usually, there is no colophon, so analysts attempting to determine a manuscript’s production-date must resort to a study of the handwriting displayed in the manuscript.  This involves the field of paleography (or “palæography”), the study of ancient writing.   The method of Greek handwriting changed over time – from the majuscule, or uncial, lettering of the early copies (and formal and informal variations), to the minuscule lettering of later copies (with variations such as Perlschrift, Bouletée, and “Ace of Spades” minuscule).

Bernard de Montfaucon
(1655-1741)

The first systematic study of Greek palaeography was made by Bernard de Montfaucon, a Benedictine monk, in 1708.   Almost instantly, paleography grew into a scientific field of study.  In 1912, Edward Maunde Thompson published An Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography, a book which remains useful today.  American scholar Bruce Metzger focused on Biblical writings in his 1981 book Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography.  Recently, Timothy Janz has written Greek Paleography From Antiquity to the Renaissance, which is available to read at the Vatican Library’s website.   With just a few hours of effort, readers of Janz’s introduction can gain plenty of information about palaeography (and view the specific scripts in manuscripts at the Vatican Library).

      Manuscripts’ production-dates assigned on the basis of paleography tend to have an unavoidable range of about 100 years, because we have no way of knowing whether an anonymous scribe was just beginning his (or her) career – in which, hopefully, he would continue for 50 years – or whether his career was approaching its end.  If a scribe continued using the script he possessed when he first learned to write, then that script could endure throughout his whole career.  (Theoretically a scribe could adjust his own handwriting over time, but there is not much to go on to suggest that such a thing was normal.)        

          CONTENT.  A manuscript cannot, of course, be written before the events that are recorded in the manuscript.  Some New Testament manuscripts – more than you might expect – mention  historical events (especially in lectionary-calendars accompanying the Biblical text) that provide a solid basis for discerning the limits of when a manuscript was made.  For example, if a lectionary calendar mentions the feast-day for Cosmas the Hymnographer, bishop of Maiuma, and Andrew of Crete, it must have been produced after the mid-700s.  If a lectionary-calendar mentions Lazarus the Wonder-worker, its production-date must be later than the period when Lazarus the Wonder-worker was active in the 900s.

          (The Latin term for the earliest possible production-date is the terminus a quo.   The Latin term for the latest possible production-date is the terminus ad quem.)

          MATERIAL.  All New Testament manuscripts are made of papyrus or parchment or paper.  (There is a small class of witnesses, which used to be represented by the letter “T” in a Fraktur-style font, which can include other material such as very small manuscripts, amulets, and inscriptions.)  Characteristics of these materials can influence the dating of a manuscript – especially when the paper features a watermark, which can narrow down not only the production-date of a manuscript but also its provenance (where it comes from).

          SPECIAL FACTORS.  Sometimes the provenance of a manuscript helps define the limits of its production-date.  For example, the manuscript known as GA 0212 (which technically should not be in the list of continuous-text New Testament manuscripts, because it is not a continuous-text New Testament manuscript) was found in the ruins of Dura-Europos, a place which was beseiged and destroyed by a Roman army in 257.  Thus 0212’s terminus ad quem cannot be later than 257.

          Even after taking all of the above into consideration, specialists sometimes get production-dates wrong.  One example is found in the 27^th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, where the editors assigned GA 2427 a production-date of “XIV?” (p. 711), and ranked it as a “consistently cited witness of the first order” in Mark (See the Nestle-Aland Introduction, p. 47* and p. 58*).  GA 2427 is indeed cited very frequently throughout Mark in NA27’s textual apparatus. 

          But in NA28, GA 2427 is gone.  In 2006, Wieland Willker already described 2427 as a fake, and, as Willker reported, Stephen Carlson demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that 2427 is a forgery, based primarily on Philip Buttmann’s 1860 Greek New Testament (as he explains in an article at the SBL Forum Archive).  Tommy Wasserman gives additional details about the exposure of 2427 in a 2009 post at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog.  Margaret Mitchell of the University of Chicago (now retired) gave a lecture in 2012 which will leave viewers with no reason to imagine that GA 2427 was made no earlier than 1860.             

          So, experts can be fooled, at least temporarily, by well-made forgeries – even with careful consideration of colophons, script, material, and special factors.  Which brings us to the last resort:
          RADIOCARBON ANALYSIS.   A small amount of parchment that undergoes carbon-14 tests can yield an approximate production-date for the material.  (The date when the material was used may be later.)  This is usually not done (because the carbon-14 tests involve the destruction of the things they test).  But sometimes it is.  For instance the Ethiopian Garima Gospels, initially assigned a production-date in the 1000s, was suspected by Jacques Mercier of being much earlier.  Mercier submitted small sample fragments of the manuscript to radiocarbon tests, which gave one fragment a date of  330-540, and another fragment a date of 430-650 (as reported in 2011 in the journal of Kenyon College).  And just like that, the Garima Gospels went from being a minor witness to the Ethiopic Version to being confirmed as a contender (with the Rabbula Gospels of 586) to be the oldest illustrated manuscript of the Gospels.  Perhaps what is presently a last resort should in the future be the first resort, where parchment is involved, and when the requisite amount of material can be spared, and the cost of radiocarbon analysis is not prohibitive.  Rare is the parchment New Testament manuscript that does not have a blank border that could be removed without appreciable loss.

                                              

Hand to Hand Combat: Sinaiticus vs. 490 in Luke 15:1-10

            It’s time for a round of hand-to-hand combat!  Today’s arena:  Luke 15:1-10, a famous passage in which Jesus delivers the Parables of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin.  The combatants:  Codex Sinaiticus (from c. 350) and minuscule 490 (from the 1000s).  Codex Sinaiticus (À) comes to the fight with a considerable advantage:  copyists had only about 300 years to introduce corruptions into its text, while at least 940 years separate GA 490 from the autograph (positing a composition-date for the Gospel of Luke in the early 60s).  One might naturally expect À to have the more accurate text.  Let’s see if the evidence confirms this.

            As in other rounds of hand-to-hand combat, I will make a close assessment of all deviations from the stand-in for the original text; the Tyndale House Greek New Testament serves as our proxy.  Sacred-name contractions and other contractions and abbreviations are not counted as variants; transpositions are mentioned but not treated as losses or gains of materials unless an actual loss or gain occurs.  The recorded text of each MS in the comparison is the text of the MS prior to later, post-production corrections.  After the initial raw data is collected, it will be filtered so as to set aside itacisms and some other untranslatable variants.

Luke 15:1-10 in Sinaiticus:

1 – no differences

2 – À does not have ουτος (-5)

2 – À has προσδεχετε instead of προσδεχεται (+1, -2)

3 – no differences

4 – À has καταλιπει instead of καταλειπει (-1)

4 – À has ου after εως (+2)

5 – no differences

6 – À has συνκαλει instead of συγκαλει (+1, -1)

6 – À has συνχάρητέ instead of συγχάρητέ (+1, -1)

7 – À has εστε instead of εσται (+1, -2)

7 – À has χριαν instead of χρειαν (-1)

7 – À has εχουσι instead of εχουσιν (-1)

8 – À has ζητι instead of ζητει (-1)

9 – À has συνκαλει instead of συγκαλει (+1, -1)

9 – À has συνχάρητέ instead of συγχάρητέ (+1, -1)

10 – no differences

            Thus, in these 10 verses, Sinaiticus’ text has lost 16 original letters and gained 8 non-original letters, for a total of 24 letters’ worth of corruption.  When we filter out trivial variants, there are only two variants of substance here:  the absence of ουτος in verse 2 and the presence of ου in verse 4, yielding a total of seven letters’ worth of corruption. Can GA 490 do better than that?  Let’s see:

Luke 15:1-10 in GA 490:         

1 – transposition:  εγγίζοντες αυτω

2 – 490 does not have τε (-2)

3 – 490 has ειπε instead of ειπεν (-1)

3 – no differences

4 – transposition:  εν εξ αυτων

4 – 490 has ου after εως (+2)

5 – 490 has εαυτου instead of αυτου (+1)

6 – no differences

7 – transposition:  εσται εν τω ουνω

7 – 490 has εχουσι instead of εχουσιν (-1)

8 – 490 has οτου instead of ου (+2)

9 – 490 has τας before γείτονας (+3)

10 – transposition:  χαρα γινεται ενώπιον

10 – 490 has γινεται instead of γεινεται (-1) [NA reads γινεται]

            Thus, in these 10 verses, GA 490’s text has lost 5 original letters and has gained 7 non-original letters, for a total of 12 letters’ worth of corruption.  490’s text also contains four transpositions.  When we filter out trivial variants, there are five variants remaining:  (1) the absence of τε in verse 2, (2) the presence of ου in verse 4, (3) εαυτου instead of αυτου in verse 5, (4) οτου instead of ου in verse 8, and (5) τας in verse 9 – yielding a total of 10 letters’ worth of corruption. 

            So, in terms of strict formal accuracy, 490’s text retains more of the original text, and loses less than À does, by a score of 24 to 12.  But if we set aside matters of spelling, À wins, barely, by a score of 7 to 10.  (One could arguably reduce 490’s score to 9 if one sets aside as trivial the difference between εαυτου and αυτου in verse 5.)

I note in passing that there could be a case for adopting ου after εως in Luke 15:4.  This reading is supported by À A Δ Y M N f¹ f¹³ 579 et al.  

GA 804 Looked Like a Gospels-Manuscript - Except For This!

            In October 2014, I wrote about GA 804, a small Gospels-manuscript from the 1000s with a text that often agrees with K and Π.  This manuscript, housed in Athens at the Hellenic Parliament Library, was digitized by a research-team from the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.

            Today, I want to zoom in on the contents of the ten pages in GA 804 that appear after its Eusebian Canon-tables and chapter-list and immediately before the text of Matthew.  These pages (viewable at the CSNTM website) were once part of a different manuscript – a lectionary, containing assorted extracts from various New Testament books.  They contain Galatians 4:4-7 (a Christmastime reading), First Corinthians 9:19-22, First Corinthians 10:1-3 (part of a lection for the ceremonial Blessing of the Water on January 5), Titus 2:11-14, Titus 3:5-7 (these two segments from Titus form part of a lection for January 6, Epiphany), Hebrews 7:7-17 (a lection for February 2), and Hebrews 2:11-18 (a lection for Good Friday).  The last page of the lectionary (on which the last part of Hebrews 2:18, after περασθείς, can still be read) was reused to contain an illustration (now badly faded) of the apostle Matthew. 

            Let’s briefly sift through the text, ignoring most of the many itacisms, and looking at its readings especially at points where the Byzantine Textform has a reading different from NA27.  A few other readings are also recorded:

Gal. 4:6 – 804 does not have ὁ Θς before το πνα

Gal. 4:6 – 804 has ημων instead of υμων, agreeing with P46 À A B C

Gal. 4:7 – 804 has αλλ’ instead of αλλα, agreeing with Byz

Gal. 4:7 – 804 has θυ δια χυ, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:20 – 804 has ως υπο νομον, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:21 – 804 has θω, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:21 – 804 has Χω, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:22 – 804 has Και at the beginning of the verse

I Cor. 9:22 – 804 has ως, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:22 – 804 has τα, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:23 – 804 has Τουτο, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:24 – 804 has Η before ουκ

I Cor. 9:26 – 804 has δε after Εγω

I Cor. 9:26 – 804 has πϊκτευω instead of πυκτευω

I Cor. 9:27 – 804 has αλλ’ instead of αλλα, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 10:1 – 804 has δε, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 10:1 – 804 has ηλθον instead of διηλθον, agreeing with 1241^s

I Cor. 10:2 – 804 has εβαπτισθησαν, agreeing with NA. 

I Cor. 10:3 – 804 has an h.t. error:  the scribe’s line of sight went from the first occurrence of το αυτο to the second occurrence, skipping the intervening words.  (This indirectly supports the Byzantine reading)

Titus 2:11 – 804 has η σριος, agreeing with Byz

Titus 2:13 – 804 has πρς instead of σωτηρος

Titus 2:13 – 804 has Ιυ Χυ, agreeing with Byz

Titus 2:14 – 804 has εαυτον before λαον, instead of εαυτω

Titus 2:14 – 804 has καλλων instead of καλων

Titus 3:4 – 804 has φιλανια 

Titus 3:5 – 804 has ελειον, agreeing (with itacism) with Byz

Titus 3:5 – 804 has ανακενησεως instead of ανακινώσεως

Titus 3:6 – 804 has γενώμεθα instead of γενηθωμεν

Titus 3:7 (lection-segment concludes at the end of the verse)

Heb. 7:9 – 804 has επως (itacism)

Heb. 7:10 – 804 includes ὁ before Μελχισεδέκ, agreeing with Byz

Heb. 7:11 – 804 has αυτην ενομοθετήτο (agreeing with Byz, sort of)

Heb. 7:11 – 804 has χρειαν instead of χρεια

Heb. 7:11 – 804 has μη instead of ου

Heb. 7:14 – 804 has ουδεν περι ερωσυνης, agreeing (essentially) with Byz

Heb. 7:17 – 804 has μαρτυρειται, agreeing with NA

Heb. 7:17 – 804 does not have οτι

Heb. 7:17 – 804 has ει before ιερευς

Heb. 2:14 – 804 has σαρκός και αιματος, agreeing with Byz

            Thus, we have here the remains of a mostly Byzantine lectionary – with a few readings that stand out:  

● The absence of ὁ Θς in Galatians 4:6 would make this reference to God less explicit.  This shorter reading is supported by B and 1739.

● φιλανια in Titus 3:4 is not exactly a textual variant; it is a seldom-seen sacred name contraction; uncontracted, the word is φιλανθρωπία.  (It is featured in the Kacmarcik Codex in a section about nomina sacra contractions.  (Dr. David Calabro tells a little more about the Kacmarcik Codex in this brief video.))

● εβαπτισθησαν in I Cor. 10:2 is supported by the formidable array of À A C D (i.e., Claromontanus, not Bezae), Ψ 33 1611 1505.  Yet the usual Byzantine reading, ἐβαπτίσαντο, is supported (with a slight spelling difference) by Papyrus 46 B K et al.  The Tyndale House GNT adopts ἐβαπτίσαντο here, in agreement with a note added by Bruce Metzger in his Textual Commentary, which would mean that those who crossed the Red Sea baptized themselves.

● ημων in Galatians 4:6 causes the sentence to refer to our hearts, rather than your hearts.  

● The sacred-name contraction πρς in Titus 2:13 is weird:  uncontracted, this would be Πατρος, “Father” – which does not work very well with Granville Sharp’s Rule in play; a reader of such a sentence might conclude that Paul mean that our God and Father = Jesus Christ.  But this would not be the only instance of a copyist writing the wrong sacred-name contraction.   

● μαρτυρειται in Hebrews 7;17 – The Byzantine reading μαρτυρει might have originated in a parableptic error in which the final syllable -ται was accidentally skipped.

● ει before ιερευς is not adopted in Hebrews 7:17 in the Nestle-Aland compilation, the Byzantine Text, the Textus Receptus, Pickering’s f35 archetype, or the Tyndale House GNT.  Yet a case could be made for its genuineness:  scribes might naturally insert the equivalent of “are” here, but scribes might just as naturally conform the quotation to the Greek text of Psalm 110 (Psalm 109:4 in the Septuagint) that is being quoted – or omit it accidentally.  The inclusion of ει has early and diverse support from Papyrus 46, K, 1175, and 1739.  

This data should augment and clarify the Informational Document for GA 804 at CSNTM which was drawn up by Daniel B. Wallace.  In addition, the statement “238b–239b: PA; πν is written vertically in red letters between 7.52 and 7.53” should be corrected:  those red letters are not πν; they are υπ, and they are part of the lectionary marginalia instructing the lector to jump (υπερβαλε) ahead to 8:12, where one sees in the margin the instructions for the lector to resume (αρξου).

I do not know if this lectionary has received its own official identification-number.  Perhaps such a step should be delayed until a careful investigation can be made to see if these pages are part of a lectionary which already has an identification-number.

Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.

I also invite you to read and contemplate some of the Scriptures in these pages – First Corinthians 10:1-3, Galatians 4:4-7, Titus 2:11-14, Titus 3:5-7, Hebrews 2:11-18 – as you celebrate the coming new year 2020!

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.  

           

Challenging the "Expansion of Piety" Theory

            Today, let’s take a look at readings in manuscripts of the Gospels which are said to be the effects of the piety of scribes.  Where the original text refers to Jesus via a pronoun, scribes sometimes inserted Jesus’ proper name; where the original text says “Jesus,” a slight expansion was made – “the Lord Jesus,” or “Jesus Christ” – as an expression of scribal piety.  Or so it has been claimed.  Here are some examples of this phenomenon, taken from the Synoptic Gospels:

Matthew

● 8:6 – In the original text, the centurion makes his request to Jesus without any introductory word.  The later manuscripts add “Lord” so as to convey a higher level of respect for Jesus.

● 8:22 – The original text does not have Jesus’ name in this verse.  Scribes inserted Jesus’ name to emphasis the focus of His call to “Follow Me.”

● 9:22 – The original text does not have Jesus’ name in this verse.  Scribes added Jesus’ name to increase the narrative’s clarity. 
● 14:16 – The original text did not have Jesus’ name in this verse.  Scribes added Jesus’ name to increase the narrative’s clarity.

● 14:27 – The original text did not have Jesus’ name in this verse.  Scribes added Jesus’ name to increase the narrative’s clarity.

● 15:1 – The original text did not have Jesus’ name in this verse.  Scribes added Jesus’ name as a way of introducing a new episode or scene.

● 15:28 – The original text did not have Jesus’ name at the beginning of the verse.  Scribes added Jesus’ name to increase the narrative’s clarity.

● 16:21 – Whereas Vaticanus and Sinaiticus simply refer to “Jesus” here, later manuscripts read “Jesus Christ.”

● 17:15 – The later manuscripts add “Lord” to introduce the man’s request, so as to convey a higher level of respect for Jesus.

● 19:8 – Some later manuscripts add Jesus’ name, increasing the clarity of the passage.

● 19:18 – Some of the oldest manuscripts do not have Jesus’ name in this verse, indicating that His name was added by scribes to increase the clarity of the passage.

● 20:23 – Byzantine scribes added Jesus’ name to the passage, perhaps to augment its usefulness as an isolated saying when memorized.

● 20:30 – Later scribes added “Lord” to introduce the man’s request, so as to convey a higher level of respect for Jesus.

● 26:50a – Later scribes added Jesus’ name at the beginning of this verse to increase the clarity of the passage. 

Mark

● 1:40 – The later manuscripts add “Lord” to introduce the man’s request, so as to convey a higher level of respect for Jesus.

● 2:4 – Some later minuscules add Jesus’ name to increase the clarity of the passage.

● 2:19 – The original text did not include Jesus’ name; it was added to increase the clarity of the passage.

● 5:13 – One very late manuscript piously expands the text so as to refer to “the Lord Jesus.” 

● 9:39 – The oldest manuscripts do not have Jesus’ name in this verse.

● 10 21 – A small group of uncials adds Jesus’ name to this verse, increasing its clarity.

● 10:42 – A small group of minuscules which appear to have been strongly influenced by lectionaries adds Jesus’ name in this verse, introducing a new episode or scene.
● 10:51 – Two ancient manuscripts do not have Jesus’ name in this verse, indicating that it was added by scribes to increase the clarity of the passage. 

● 12:29 – A small group of minuscules which appear to have been strongly influenced by lectionaries adds Jesus’ name in this verse, introducing a new episode or scene.
● 14:62 – A small group of manuscripts influenced by lectionaries adds Jesus’ name to this verse to increase clarity.

Luke

● 2:39 – A small group of minuscules (and a few other manuscripts) which appear to have been strongly influenced by lectionaries adds Jesus’ name in this verse.

● 5:8 – The original text does not have Jesus’ name; it (or “the Lord”) is added in later manuscripts.

● 5:8 – The original text does not have “O Lord” at the end of this verse; it is added in later manuscripts (probably as a harmonization). 

● 5:19 – Minuscule 1424 substitutes Jesus’ name in place of “Him” at the end of the verse.
● 5:26 – A small group of manuscripts (including Codices D and W, and f¹³) inserts “and glorified God,” a formulaic augmentation.

● 7:6 – The scribe of 579 added “Lord” to preface the request, so as to convey a higher level of respect for Jesus.

● 8:46 – Codex Bezae (D) inserts Jesus’ name near the beginning of the verse.

● 9:59 – Although Vaticanus and D have the word “Lord,” P45 and P75 display the earlier form of the verse, without it.

● 10:1 – Minuscule 1424 adds “the Lord” to introduce a new episode or scene.

● 14:2 – A small group of minuscules which appear to have been strongly influenced by lectionaries adds Jesus’ name in this verse.

● 14:22 – D adds “Lord” to preface the servant’s statement.

● 16:15 – One relatively recent manuscript has “in the sight of the Lord,” a slightly more formal wording than “in the sight of God.”

● 18:19 – D adds Jesus’ name to increase the clarity of the passage.

● 18:38 – A small group of uncials adds Jesus’ name to this verse.

● 18:42 – D adds Jesus’ name near the beginning of this verse, increasing the clarity of the passage.
● 20:34 – D adds Jesus’ name near the beginning of this verse, increasing the clarity of the passage.

● 22:52 – D and a small group of minuscules which appear to have been strongly influenced by lectionaries insert Jesus’ name in this verse.

● 23:20 –A small group of minuscules which appear to have been strongly influenced by lectionaries adds Jesus’ name in this verse.

● 23:26 – A small group of manuscripts influenced by lectionaries adds Jesus’ name to these two verses to increase clarity.

            You can see how, over the years, copyists consistently added to the text . . . .

            Wait a second . . . something’s wrong here.  O silly me! Somehow I stated the opposite of what I should have written down in that list!  My bad.  Let’s look at the data again – this time, correctly, and in a little more detail:

Matthew

8:6 – À* doesn’t have “Lord” but Vaticanus (B) and the Byzantine Text (“Byz”) (and NA27) do.

8:22 – Although À and 33 do not include “Jesus,” B and Byz (and NA27) do.

9:22 – Although À and D do not include “Jesus,” B and Byz (and NA27) do.

14:16 – À and D do not include “Jesus,” but B and Byz (and NA27) do.

14:27 – À and D do not include “Jesus,” but B and Byz (and NA27) do. 

15:1 – D and f¹ say “to Him” instead of “to Jesus,” but B and Byz (and NA27) support “to Jesus.”

15:28 – D does not include “Jesus” but B and Byz (and NA27) do.

16:21 – B and À have “Jesus Christ.”  Byz (and NA27) only has “Jesus.”

17:15 – À does not include “Lord,” but B and Byz (and NA27) do.

19:8 – À has “Jesus” but B and Byz (and NA27) do not.  

19:18 – B and Byz (and NA27) include “Jesus” but some much younger manuscripts (such as 1424, 788, and f¹³) do not. 

20:23 – D, Δ and f¹³ have “Jesus” but B and Byz (and NA27) do not.

20:30 – D, 118, and 157, and 565 do not have “Lord,” but B and Byz (and NA27) do.

26:50a – P37 and À do not support “”Jesus,” but B and Byz (and NA27) do.

Mark

● 1:40 – B says “Lord,” but Byz and À A D K Δ Π 33 f¹ (and NA27) do not.

● 2:4 – D inserts “Jesus,” but B and Byz  (and NA27) do not.

● 2:19 – D and W do not include “Jesus” but B and Byz (and NA27) do.

● 5:13 – D has “Lord Jesus,” but Byz and A Κ Π only have “Jesus.”  B À W (and NA27) have neither.

● 9:39 – D W f¹ f¹³ 28 565 do not include “Jesus” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

● 10:21 –A Y K Π do not include “Jesus” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

● 10:42 – W and f¹ do not include “Jesus” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

● 10:51 – Θ and 565 do not include “Jesus” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

● 12:29 – W and f¹ do not include “Jesus” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

● 14:62 – f¹³ and 579 do not include “Jesus” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

Luke

2:39 – Γ 700 f¹ 788 do not have “of the Lord” (Κυ) but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

5:8 – D does not include “Jesus” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

5:8 – À does not have “Lord” at the end of the verse, but B and Byz (and NA27) do..

5:19 – B has “before them all” and 1424 has “to Him,” but À and Byz (and NA27) support “before Jesus.”

5:26 – D* M Ψ W S 124 579 118 157 f¹³ omit “and they glorified God.” (h.a. error)  The phrase is included by B À and Byz (and NA27).

7:6 – 579 does not have “Lord,” but B À A D L W and Byz (and NA27) do.

8:46 – D does not have “Jesus” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

9:59 – B* and D do not have “Lord,” but P45 P75 À and Byz do.  NA27 has it in the text within brackets.

10:1 – D and 1424 do not have “the Lord,” but P45 P75 A B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

14:2 – f¹ does not have “Jesus,” but P45 P75 A B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

14:22 – D 1071 do not have “Lord,” but P75 A B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

16:15 – B has “the Lord,” but P75 A À D K W and Byz (and NA27) support “God.”

18:19 – D and G do not have “Jesus,” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

18:38 – A E K Π 579 do not have “Jesus,” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

18:42 – D does not include “Jesus,” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

20:34 – D does not include “Jesus,” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

22:52 – D and f¹ do not include “Jesus,” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

23:20 – f¹ has “Him” at the end of the verse, but P75 A B À and Byz (and NA27) support “Jesus.”

23:26 – f¹ has “Him” at the end of the verse, but P75 A B À and Byz (and NA27) support “Jesus.”

            Here we have more than 40 example of passages in which the river of scribal piety appears to run backwards:  the Byzantine reading is shorter than a rival reading, or a later manuscript’s reference to deity is shorter than the reference in much older manuscripts.  (Many more examples could be added.)  This evidence starkly defies the theory – advanced by Dan Wallace and others – that scribes operated on the principle of “When in doubt, don’t throw it out,” as if when copyists encountered readings that seemed possibly original, they kept them in the text, causing the text to grow with each generation of recopying.  If scribes had really operated that way, the medieval Greek text would have many more conflations, and many more Western readings, than it does. 

            Instead, in the real world, we see over and over that although the scribes who transmitted the Byzantine Text were not impervious to the temptation to augment or clarify the sense of a passage, especially at the beginnings of lections (via the introduction of a proper name where a pronoun had stood in the exemplar), we do not see in the Gospels a distinct tendency to expand divine names or titles.  In addition, there was something going on – especially in manuscripts such as À and 28 and 1424 – that caused some scribes to omit some proper names.

            It is simply inadequate to list (as James White does on page 75 of The King James Only Controversy) five readings from the Gospels (or a dozen), and proceed as if the case is thus proven that Byzantine copyists typically expanded divine names and titles out of a sense of piety.  As far as the text of the Gospels is concerned, it is extremely difficult to verify such a thing; to the extent that the Byzantine Text substitutes Jesus’ name where the original text has a pronoun, this was done for clarity’s sake, rather than for piety’s sake.

            Consider the New International Version:  in Matthew chapters 1-14, the NIV reads “Jesus” 31 times where the word Ιησους is not in the NIV’s Greek base-text.  Using the yardstick that has been used to judge the Byzantine Text, shall we say that all those occurrences of Jesus’ name are “expansions of piety”?  No; the NIV’s translators simply wanted to increase the clarity of the translation.  Look at Matthew 4:18, Matthew 12:25, Mark 2:15, Mark 10:52, and Luke 24:36) in the NIV (based on the Nestle-Aland text), and you will see that the NIV has “Jesus” in English in all five verses. 


(Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.)