Codex A and the PA: When Nothing is Something

      The UBS4 apparatus correctly listed “A^vid” as a witness for the omission of John 7:53-8:11.  Wieland Willker (2012 Textual Commentary) provides more detail:  “'A has a lacuna from 6:50-8:52a. It is certain that A did not contain the PA. I have made a reconstruction of this from Robinson's Byzantine text with nomina sacra. It fits the space exactly without the PA (+ 1.5 lines) taking into account the following phenomenon: Some people noted that at the beginning of the first existing folio two extra lines in slightly smaller letters have been added and speculated about its implications for the contents of the lost folios. But there is a simple explanation: A* omitted Jo 8:52 due to homoioteleuton: εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα - εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.  A scribe added the missing verse in part at the bottom of the last missing page and in part on top of the first existing page. M. Robinson concurs with this view.”

Let's visualize:  here are the pages of Codex Alexandrinus before and after the lacuna:  

Fill the four absent pages with the John 6:50-8:52 without 7:53-8:11, with each page containing about the same as these two pages ( letters and letters), and you get what Willker described - there's no room for John 7:53-8:11 to fit or to come remotely close to fitting.

Putting the absent text into eight columns of 51 lines each and 20-25 letters per line, accounting for ekthesis and nomina sacra contraction, we something like this . . . .

"Vid" does not convey the clarity of this strongly enough.  I propose that in the future when the findings of codicological analysis are so obvious, the apparatus should read "VID," not "vid."   Codex Alexandrinus very obviously did not have John 7:53-8:11 in its text of the Gospel of John when it was pristine.  

 

Video Lecture: John 7:53-8:11

Now on YouTube: Lecture 18 in the series Introduction to NT Textual Criticism: John 7:53-8:11.
     Here's an excerpt from this 43-minute lecture:
     Today, we are investigating one of the most famous textual variants in the New Testament: John 7:53-8:11, also known as the story of the adulteress. The textual contest involving these 12 verses is often introduced to Bible-readers by a heading, such as the one that appears in the Christian Standard Bible between John 7:52 and 7:53: “The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11.”
     Back in 1982, when the New King James Version was published, its footnote about these verses said that they “are present in over 900 manuscripts.” More recently, Dr. Maurice Robinson has confirmed that although 270 manuscripts do not include these verses, they are supported by 1,500 manuscripts. That is a ratio of 85 to 15, in favor of the inclusion of the passage.
        But it is a well-grounded axiom that manuscripts must be weighed, not counted. Among the early manuscripts that do not include John 7:53-8:11 are Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraimi Rescriptus, Codex T, also known as 029, Codex Washingtonianus, and Codex N, also known as 022, a purple uncial from the 500s.
Most of these manuscripts represent the Alexandrian Text. The early versions based in Egypt, such as the Sahidic version, agree, along with the Ethiopic version. But some relatively early non-Coptic versions also agree: Codex Argenteus, the primary witness to the Gothic version of the Gospels, does not have the story of the adulteress. Neither does the Peshitta, which in the Gospels is frequently an ally of the Byzantine Text.
        To researchers who value the flagship manuscripts of the Alexandrian Text as if their weight is greater than all other manuscripts put together, the evidence I have just mentioned settles the question of whether John 7:53-8:11 is part of the original text of the Gospel of John. They would say that this passage is not original, and that the evidence against its genuineness is “overwhelming.” However, there is other evidence that points in the other direction. There is also a considerable amount of misinformation circulating about this passage that has to be sorted out.
        Some researchers have stated that out of the 322 majuscule manuscripts that were catalogued, as of several years ago, only three support the inclusion of John 7:53-8:11. That statement is built on a false picture of the majuscules, as if they are all majuscule manuscripts of John.
        Most of those 322 majuscule manuscripts do not have any text from chapters 7 and 8 of the Gospel of John. Using “3 out of 322 majuscules” as a frame of reference is a silly proportion; it is like combining all of the baseball games, football games, and hockey games played in 1972, and saying, “The 1972 Miami Dolphins only won 17 out of 500 games.”
        Sounds like the 1972 Dolphins weren’t very good.
        Plus, the claim that only three majuscules include John 7:53-8:11 is simply false. The uncials D, E, G, H, K, M, U, S, G, Γ, Λ, Π, Ω, 047, and 0233 support the passage. Codex F, Boreelianus, included it when the manuscript was in pristine condition. Codex Y, Macedonianus, does not have the passage, but its marginalia expresses awareness of the missing verses. In Codex Delta, and in Codex L, John 7:53-8:11 is absent, but a large blank space appears between John 7:52 and John 8:12, evidently left as memorial-space; acknowledging the copyists’ recollection of the missing verses.
I don’t want to give the impression that the way to solve textual variants is to hold a democratic election with manuscripts in the role of citizens. But since an appeal to the number of manuscripts has been attempted, we might as well improve its accuracy: The number of majuscules that have John 7-8, and include John 7:53-8:11 or part of the passage, is 16, and the number of majuscules that have John 7 and 8 that do not include John 7:53-8:11 is 18, but two of those 18 – Codex Regius and Codex Delta – leave memorial-space for the passage.
        Codex Macedonianus, already mentioned, does not include the passage but has symbols in the margin that appear to refer to it. In the case of Codex A, Codex C, and 070 – three of the 18 majuscules counted as witnesses for non-inclusion – we don’t see a text in which John 8:12 follows John 7:52; we have to depend on space-considerations. Granting that those considerations are correct, the count is 16 for inclusion, 16 for non-inclusion, and a three-vote buffer-zone that both supports a text without John 7:53-8:11 while also supporting a memory of an exemplar with John 7:53-8:11.
        In addition, a few manuscripts, such as Codex Lambda and minuscules 34 and 135, have notes that refer to the presence of the story of the adulteress in earlier copies. I will say more about this feature later in the lecture.
        What we see here are the signs of two early forms of the text of the Gospel of John: one based in the West, that included John 7:53-8:11, and one based in the East, that did not.
        The dry climate of Egypt gave an advantage to papyrus manuscripts there, allowing the writing-material to survive longer, regardless of the quality of the text that was written on it. Outside Egypt, papyrus tended to naturally experience more rapid decomposition. Partly for this reason, the heading that states that the “earliest manuscripts” do not include John 7:53-8:11 is true. But there is also early evidence in favor of the story of the adulteress.
        Jerome, writing in the early 400s, said in his composition Against the Pelagians, 2:17: “In the Gospel according to John, there is found, in many copies, Greek as well as Latin, the story of the adulteress who was accused before the Lord.”
        About 30 years earlier, in 383, Jerome had included John 7:53-8:11 in the Gospel of John in the Vulgate Gospels. In his Preface to the Gospels, Jerome wrote that he had revised the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John “by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts. Only early ones have been used.”
        In his Epistle 27, To Marcella, Jerome was more candid. He stated, “The Latin manuscripts of the Scriptures are demonstrated to be faulty by the variations which they all exhibit, and my objective has been to restore them to the form of the original Greek.” 
        So: when Jerome translated the Vulgate Gospels, he did so on the basis of “ancient Greek manuscripts” – that is, manuscripts that were already considered ancient in 383. This testimony alone goes a long way toward outweighing the early Egyptian manuscripts. We don’t know exactly how many Greek manuscripts Jerome would call “many,” but if it was more than nine, that would imply that Jerome saw as many manuscripts, made before the year 400, with the passage, as we have seen without it.
        In a composition from the 200s, called the Didascalia Apostolorum, we find the following, in Syriac, in chapter 7, after the author used King Manasseh as an example of those who have received mercy from God:
        “If you do not receive the one who repents, because you are without mercy, you shall sin against the Lord God, for you do not obey our Savior and our God, to do as He also did with her who had sinned, whom the elders set before Him, and leaving the judgment in His hands, departed. But He, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her, ‘Have the elders condemned you, my daughter?’ She said to Him, ‘No, Lord.’ And He said to her, ‘Go your way; neither do I condemn you.’ In Him therefore, our Savior and King and God, is your pattern, O bishops.”
        The author of the Didascalia appears to regard the scene about Jesus and this woman as if it as well-known as the many other passages that he refer to in this composition. He uses Jesus’ act of forgiveness as a precedent for Christian bishops to emulate. 

        Another significant early witness is found in the Old Latin chapter-summaries, or capitula. In some Old Latin copies of John, and in many Vulgate copies that preserve Old Latin supplemental material, before the text of the Gospel, there are lists of chapter-numbers, chapter-titles, and brief chapter-summaries.
        There are eleven forms of the Old Latin capitula that mention the adulteress, plus one that mentions that Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, referring to what is said in John 8:1.
        One of these forms is called the Cy form, because it is assigned to the time of Cyprian or shortly later, that is, the mid-200s or late 200s. In John’s chapter-summaries in the Cy-form of the Old Latin capitula, the summary of chapter 30 begins like this: “Wherein he dismissed the adulteress, and said that he was the light of the world.” This indicates that the story of the adulteress was in an Old Latin text in the 200s, right before John 8:12.
        Furthermore, as Hugh Houghton has confirmed, the chapter-summary in some Latin manuscripts uses a loan-word based on the Greek word for adultery. The same loan-word also appears in the text of Codex Corbeiensis, from the 400s or 500s, indicates that the Latin text here echoes a Greek text.
        The testimony of Saint Ambrose of Milan, from about the 380s, deserves attention. Although some commentators have claimed that none of the early writers used the story of the adulteress, Ambrose made several extensive quotations of the story of the adulteress. Ambrose is widely regarded as the author of Apologia David, in which, in the course of commenting on sub-title of Psalm 51, the author says, “Perhaps most people are taken aback by the title of the Psalm, which you have heard read, that Nathan the prophet came to him after he had gone in to Bathsheba. Likewise those with weak faith could be disturbed by the Gospel-reading, which has been covered, in which we see an adulteress presented to Christ and sent away without condemnation.” If the author was indeed Ambrose, this reference shows that the story of the adulteress was routinely read in Milan. If not, it shows that the passage was routinely read somewhere else.
    In his Epistle 25, To Studius, Ambrose addresses the question of whether a Christian official may pronounce a death-sentence. In the course of his comments on this question, he refers to how Jesus dealt with the adulteress. Ambrose quotes the words, “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone at her. And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.” He continues: “When they heard this they began to go out one by one, beginning at the eldest.” And then he quotes, “So when they departed, Jesus was left alone, and lifting up His head, He said to the woman, Woman, where are those your accusers? Has no man condemned you? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more.”
        In his next letter, Epistle 26, To Studius, Ambrose goes into even more detail, introducing the passage about the adulteress by saying that it is “very famous,” and once again he quotes extensively from the passage.
    Earlier than Ambrose is the writer Pacian of Barcelona, who became a bishop in 365. In his Third Epistle to Sympronian – Against the Treatise of the Novatians, in paragraph 39, Pacian writes with heavy sarcasm: “O Novatians, why do you delay to ask an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and to demand life for life? Why do you wait to renew once more the practice of circumcision and the sabbath? Kill the thief. Stone the petulant. Choose not to read in the Gospel that the Lord spared even the adulteress who confessed, when none had condemned her.”
        So it is not as if the early evidence all points one way: there is very strong evidence from the East, especially from Egypt, against the passage. And there is evidence from the West, in the Old Latin capitula, and in the quotations from Pacian and Ambrose, and in the “many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin,” mentioned by Jerome, in favor of the passage.
        Before considering what caused the difference between these two forms of the text, there are other forms of the text to consider: forms in which the story of the adulteress appears at different places. As a footnote in the Christian Standard Bible states, “Other manuscripts include all or some of the passage after John 7:36, John 7:44, John 7:52, John 21:25, or Luke 21:38.”
        This is sometimes presented as definitive proof that the passage is secondary. For example, apologist James White has commented, “Such moving about by a body of text is plain evidence of its later origin,” and these different locations of the story constitute “absolute evidence” that it is not genuine.
        In 2008, Dan Wallace similarly stated that this account “has all the earmarks of a pericope that was looking for a home. It took up permanent residence, in the ninth century, in the middle of the fourth gospel.”
        This sort of comment suggests that some researchers need to get better acquainted with the influence of early lection-cycles. What is a lection-cycle? A lection-cycle is the arrangement of specific passages of Scripture assigned to be read in church-services on specific days of the year. Eventually lectionaries were developed, in which the daily readings were arranged in the chronological order in which they were to be read, but until then, there were simply local customs about which passage was assigned to each day. Important celebrations were among the first days for which specific readings were assigned. Easter-week was a very prominent annual observance on the Christian calendar. The Quartodeciman Controversy was a serious dispute in the late 100s, about precisely when the annual celebration of the Resurrection of Christ should be observed.
        Another important annual feast-day was Pentecost, a festival inherited by the church from its earlier observance in the old covenant. The Christian church has been celebrating Pentecost ever since Acts chapter 2.
        In the Byzantine lection-cycle, the Gospels-reading assigned to Pentecost consists of John 7:37-52, plus John 8:12. Thematically, it is a natural choice: Pentecost was known as the day when the Holy Spirit came to the church, and in John 7:37-39, Jesus speaks about the coming of the Holy Spirit. The inclusion of John 8:12 forms a positive closing flourish for the lection.
When the realization is made that one of the most important annual celebrations in the early church involved reading a passage of John beginning at John 7:37, continuing to the end of 7:52, and concluding with John 8:12, several things are resolved regarding manuscripts in which John 7:53-8:11 is moved around:
        The movement of the passage to precede John 7:37, in minuscule 225, was done so that the lector (the person who read the text in the church-services) would have the Pentecost-lection all in one piece, without having to stop at the end of verse 52 to find the final verse. This kind of conformation to lectionary usage is also shown in minuscule 225 where it has John 13:3-17 in the text of Matthew, after Matthew 26:20.
        So much for the claim that the movement to John 7:37 shows that the story of the adulteress was a “floating anecdote” in the early church. But what about the manuscripts in which it appears at the end of John, after John 21:25?
        These are not a random assortment of manuscripts; they consist mainly of members of the family-1 group. In the best representatives of this group, minuscules 1 and 1582, there is a note after John 21:25 that introduces the story of the adulteress there. The note goes like this:
    “The chapter about the adulteress: in the Gospel according to John, this does not appear in the majority of copies; nor is it commented upon by the divine fathers whose interpretations have been preserved – specifically, by John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria. Nor is it taken up by Theodore of Mopsuestia and the others. Therefore, it was not kept in the place where it is found in a few copies, at the beginning of the 86th chapter, following, ‘Search and see that a prophet does not arise out of Galilee.’” 

        This note states that prior to being moved to the end of John, the story of the adulteress was found in a few copies immediately following John 7:52. And although the minuscules that display this note are medieval, their common ancestor probably originated no later than the 400s. Many Armenian copies also have the story of the adulteress at the end of John; if this echoes the initial form of the Armenian text then this format goes back at least to the early 400s.
        In the Palestinian Aramaic Lectionary, only part of the story of the adulteress was transferred to the end of John. In the lection that includes John 8:2, the Palestinian Aramaic text in two manuscripts says, “The Gospel of John was completed in Greek in Ephesus,” and in one manuscript, after John 8:2, it says, “The Gospel of John was completed by the help of Christ.”
        As J. Rendel Harris deduced back in the late 1800s, this implies that the Palestinian Aramaic lectionary was initial made by individuals using a text of John in which John 8:3-11 had been transferred to the end of John. The individuals who made the Palestinian Aramaic lectionary included in the lection the subscription-note to the Gospel of John, as well as John 8:3-11. Considering that John 7:53-8:2 is in the Palestinian Aramaic text of John, this shows that the story of the adulteress was in the text of John 7 and 8 before John 8:3-11 was transferred to the end of the Gospel.
        John 8:3-11 constituted the lection for October 8, which in the Byzantine Menologion is the feast-day honoring Saint Pelagia. This bring us to the testimony of minuscule 1333, which has been very poorly described by some commentators as if it has John 7:53-8:11 after the end of Luke.
        Minuscule 1333 would be listed among the manuscripts that do not include the passage, if someone had not written John 8:3-11 on what had been a blank page between the end of Luke and the chapter-list for John. All that has happened in minuscule 1333 is that someone who wanted to read lections from this manuscript added the lection for Saint Pelagia’s Day on the blank page. Contrary to Dan Wallace’s claim that the story of the adulteress stands as “an independent pericope between Luke and John,” in minuscule 1333 the lection’s title is explicitly provided: “For Saint Pelagia, on October 8, from the Gospel of John.”
        But what about the manuscripts related to the cluster known as family-13, in which the story of the adulteress appears at the end of Luke 21? This is a later adaptation to the series of lections that honor saints in the Menologion. After John 7:53-8:11 was moved out of the text of John, the passage was transferred to a location where it would conveniently follow the previous day’s lection in the Menologion.
        Earlier in Luke 21, verses 12-19 serve as the lection for October 7, the feast-day of Saints Sergius and Bacchus. At the end of the chapter, where verse 38 refers to Jesus teaching in the temple, the text is thematically similar to John 8:1-2. So, in the family-13 manuscripts, when the Pentecost lection was turned into one block of text via the removal of the story of the adulteress, the story of the adulteress was moved to this location, so that the lection for October 8 would be near the lection for October 7. In the main members of family 13, when you look at the transplanted text of John 8:2-3, you can see that the text has been shortened to create a smoother fit with Luke 21:37-38. After “And early in the morning He came into the temple,” the text in family 13 then says, “and the scribes presented to Him.”
So with just a few minutes spent looking at the details of the case, we can see why copyists moved the story of the adulteress, from where it had previously been found after John 7:52, to a location after John 7:36, a location after John 21:25, and a location after Luke 21:38.
        But one other location has not yet been explained: the Christian Standard Bible’s footnote says that “Other manuscripts include all or some of the passage after John 7:44.”
        There are no Greek manuscripts in which the story of the adulteress appears after John 7:44. What the CSB’s footnote refers to here is a small number of Georgian copies, including Sinai Georgian MS 16. These Gospels-manuscripts generally support the Caesarean Gospels-text, like the early Armenian manuscripts and the main members of family-1.
        What has happened is that when the Georgian version was revised, the revisor was guided by the same kind of note that appears in minuscules 1 and 1582, stating that the passage had been found in the text “at the beginning of the 86th chapter. This is a reference to the 86th Eusebian Section, which begins at the beginning of John 7:45. The note that guided the Georgian revisor apparently did not get more specific than that. And so, guided by a note that stated that the story had been found at the beginning of the 86th Eusebian Section, that is where he put it.
        Thus, instead of showing that John 7:53-8:11 was floating around like a butterfly, the transmission-streams that transfer the passage also contain earlier evidence of the passage in its usual location position between John 7:52 and John 8:12.
        What about the 270 manuscripts in which the story of the adulteress is simply absent? Before addressing that question, there is another aspect of some of the early manuscripts that should be pointed out. The Caesarean form of the text had the story of the adulteress at the end of John, introduced by a note that stated that it had been found in a few copies after John 7:52. If this was where it was in some of those early manuscripts, there would be no way to tell. 

        ● Papyrus 66 is not extant after John 21:17.
        ● Papyrus 75 is not extant after John 15:10.
        ● The Lycopolitan manuscript of John is not extant after 20:27.
        ● Codex T is not extant after John chapter 8.
        ● And, in Codex Vaticanus, marks called distigmai, resembling umlauts, appear frequently in the margin alongside a line of text that has a textual variant. One such mark appears alongside the blank space after the end of John.
        I don’t think these dots are contemporary with the main scribes of Codex Vaticanus. But others disagree, and if they are correct, then this leaves an open question about whether the transfer of the story of the adulteress was known to copyists in the early 300s.
        Considering how the Pentecost lection plays a large part in the displacement of the passage, I submit this hypothesis as an explanation for the initial omission of the passage:
        I first propose that John 7:53-8:11 was in the text of John in an exemplar used by a copyist in Egypt in the mid-100’s. By the mid-100s, the churches in Egypt already had a basic lection-cycle for their major annual festivals, including Eastertime and Pentecost.
        This doesn’t mean that each congregation, or each locale, observed exactly the same series of readings on the same feast-days, or that gradual expansion and adjustments did not happen. My first point here is simply that the celebration of Pentecost was an extremely ancient practice, included among the annual feast-days mentioned in the late 300s by the pilgrim Etheria, also known as Egeria.
In order to make it clear to the lector – the individual responsible for the reading of Scripture in the church-services – what the contours of the Pentecost-reading were, a copyist in the 100s marked his copy of the Gospel of John with simple notes signifying that when he reached the end of John 7:52, he was to jump ahead and resume at chapter 8, verse 12.
        Now picture the puzzle that presented itself to a professional copyist who used that exemplar: as he copies down the text of John chapter seven, after the end of verse 52 the copyist sees in the margin the instructions, “Skip ahead.” Unaware that these instructions were meant for the lector, he interprets them as if they were meant for him, the copyist. And so he skips ahead until he finds instructions in the margin which say, Restart here.
        The copyist follows these instructions, and accordingly he does not copy John 7:53-8:11, thinking that he is faithfully following instructions.
        And the manuscript – or manuscripts, if the same copyist made several copies – which contained this mistake proceeded to affect both the main Alexandrian transmission-stream and whatever transmission-streams to which it was exported.
        This simple theory explains why the text in the East, especially the text in Egypt, tends to not have the story about the adulteress, and the text in the West does.

Are You My Mother? Minuscules 1210 and 22

            It is very rare to find a manuscript and the manuscript from which its text was copied.  That makes minuscule 1210 (housed at St. Catherine’s monastery, where it is cataloged as Greek MS 173) special.  It is one of a smattering of extant Greek manuscripts that have been shown to be copies of another extant Greek manuscript.  Here’s the smattering: 

[■ indicates that a copy is younger than the first printed Greek New Testament.] 

056 is a copy of 0142.  (Or the other way around.)

0319 is a copy of 06.

0320 is also a copy of 06.

0151 is a copy of 018.

205 is a copy of 2886. (It used to be thought that 2886 was a copy of 205; for this reason, the manuscript that is now known as 2886 used to be called 205abs – “abs” as in Abschrift, i.e., copy.)

322 is a copy of 323.

423 is a copy of 333. ■

821 is a copy of 0141. ■

872 is a copy of 2193.

1065 is a copy of 1068. ■

1089 is a copy of 1218.

1210 is (mostly) a copy of 22.

1884 is a copy of 08. ■

2110 is a copy of 0150.

2579 is a copy of 138. ■

2883 is a copy of 9. ■

2884 is a copy of 30.

2885 is a copy of 96. ■

2887 is a copy of 1160.  ■ (2887 was made in 1888!)

2888 is a copy of 1909. ■

2890 is a copy of 1983.

2889 is a copy of 1929.

2891 is a copy of 2036. ■

 

            Only eight extant manuscripts produced before the 1500s – 056, 205, 872, 1089, 1210, 2884, 2890, and 2889 – are thought to have an extant master-copy (although in a few cases there is some question as to which manuscript is the copy, and which is the master-copy). 

            Out of eight non-orphan manuscripts produced before the 1500s, five include the four Gospels (205, 872, 1089, 1210, and 2883).  This implies that except for the members of family-1 and family-13 (which are something like groups of siblings with a non-extant shared ancestor), the rest of the extant Gospels-manuscripts – something around 2,000 – fit the description that Kirsopp Lake gave them:  “the manuscripts which we have are almost all orphan children without brothers or sisters.”  (Lake also claimed that the Gospels-text in 205 was copied from 209, but nowadays they are regarded as merely close relatives; Alan Taylor Farnes suspected that they are siblings.)    

           

            Several recent investigations overlap the subject of the relationship between GA 22 and GA 1210: 

            ● Amy S. Anderson’s The Textual Tradition of the Gospels:  Family 1 in Matthew. (2004 New Testament Tools & Studies, Vol. XXXII.)

            ● Alison Welsby’s A Textual Study of Family in the Gospel of John (2011).

            ● Alan T. Farnes’ Scribal Habits in Selected New Testament Manuscripts, Including Those With Surviving Exemplars (2017).

            The information presented by Anderson (focused on the Gospel of Matthew) and Welsby (focused on the Gospel of John) shows that 22 (housed at the Bibliotheque Nationale de France as Greek MS 72) and 1210 share a very close relationship, and that they are both part of a sub-group of family 1 that consists of 22, 1192, 1210, 1278, and 2372.  Welsby’s data indicates that 1210 is a copy of 22 in John, and my comparison of their text in Mark indicates that this is also the case in Mark 2:17-16:20. 

            The text of Mark in 1210 – Sinai MS 173, included in the Library of Congress’ microfilm collection – resembles the text of Mark in 22 very closely.  According to Sanders, in his prefatory remarks in the article A New Collation of MS 22 of the Gospels in the 1914 Journal of Biblical Literature, 22 “has only 168 probable fam. 1 readings” in Mark, which Sanders correctly understood to mean that “The text of our MS has been very decidedly accommodated to the Antioch type and this agreement is evenly distributed throughout the gospel.”  To say this a different way:  GA 22’s text is mainly Byzantine, but it must have had a family-1 member in its genealogy somewhere along the way, to account for unusual readings like the following – many of which are shared by family-1.

           

Some (Not All!) Unusual Readings in GA 22 in Mark

(The variants in bold print are supported by 22 but not by 1210.)

(1) 1:2 – καθως [1210:  ως]

(2) 1:2 – Ησαιαι τωι προφητηι [1210:  τοις προφηταις]

(3) 1:10 – ως [1210: ωσει]

(4) 1:34 – Χν ειναι after αυτον  [1210:  non-inclusion]

(5) 1:35 – ο Ις after απηλθεν [1210:  non-inclusion]

(6) 2:17 – does not have εις μετάνοιαν

(7) 2:22 – does not have νέον after the first οινον

(8) 2:25 – instead of επείνασεν αυτος και οι μετ αυτου, 22 reads επείνασε και αυτος και οι μετ αυτου.  (The copyist apparent mistook the letter ν as a kai-compendium, ϗ.  This mistake would be easier to make using an uncial exemplar than with a minuscule exemplar.)

(9) 3:5 – does not have υγιης ώς ή αλλη (but there is a note in the margin)

(10) 3:24-25 – skips from σταθηναι in verse 24 to η οικια κεινη at the end of verse 25.

(10) 3:29 – does not have εις τον αιωνα after αφεσιν.

(11) 4:12 – does not have τα άμαρτήματα

(12) 4:34 – does not have ιδίοις and does not have αυτου (like 700)

(13) 5:1 – Γεργεσηνων

(14) 5:27 – does not have εν τω οχλω (like f1) but does not have του κρασπέδου (unlike f1)

(15) 5:40 – κατακείμενον after παιδίον

(16) 6:22 – does not have αυτης after θυγατρος

(17) 6:27 – αποστειλας instead of απολύσας, and does not have ο βασιλευς

(18) 6:36 – καταλύσωσι instead of αγοράσωσιν εαυτοις and does not have αρτους [1210:  αγοράσωσιν εαυτοις and has αρτους]

(19) 6:47 – πάλαι after ην (agreeing with P45)

(20) 7:8 – does not have βαπτισμους ζεστων και ποτηρίων και αλλα παρόμοια τοιαυτα πολλα ποιετε anywhere in the verse

(21) 8:4 – δυναται instead of δυνήσεται

(22) 8:15 – at the end of the verse, after και:  της ζύμης των Ηρωδιανων

(23) 8:38 – αν instead of εαν

(24) 8:38 – at the end of the verse:  does not have των αγιων [1210:  includes των αγιων]

(25) 9:13 – ηδη after Ηλιας

(26) 9:22 – δυνηι instead of δύασαι

(27) 9:23 – δυνηι instead of δύασαι without πιστευσαι

(28) 9:44 – does not have this verse

(29) 9:45 – does not have εις το πυρ το ασβεστον at the end of the verse

(30) 9:46 – does not have this verse

(31) 9:49 – does not have και πασα θυσία αλι αλισθήσεται

(32) 10:1 – does not have και or δια του after Ιουδαίας

(33) 10:32 – does not have και εθαμβουντο (h.t.)

(34) 10:40 – παρα του πρς μου at the end of the verse

(35) 11:1 – Βησφαγε

(36) 11:10 – instead of Ωσαννα, the text reads ειρήνη ουρανω και δόξα.  Then ⁒ appears in the text and also in the margin, where it is accompanied by Ωσαννα. [1210:  similar:  ειρήνη εν ουρανω και δόξα Ωσαννα]

(37) 11:21 – εξηραται [1210 appears to read εξηρανθη (agreeing with D L N Θ f1)]

(38) 11:32 – does not have οντως after Ιωάννην

(39) 12:14 – ηρξαντο ερωταν εν δόλωι instead of λεγουσιν αυτω [1210: ηρξαντο ερωταν αυτον εν δόλωι, agreeing partly with f1)]

(40) 12:35 – υιος εστι του Δαδ

(41) 13:1 – ποδαποι instead of ποταποι [1210:  ποιλιθοι]

(42) 13:1 – ποδαπαι instead of ποταπαι

(43) 14:3 – does not have κατα before της κεφαλης

(44) 14:5 – πολλα at the end of the verse

(45) 14:8 – προς instead of εις after σωμα

(46) 14:14 – μου after κατάλυμα

(47) 14:35 – επι προσωπον after επεσεν

(48) 14:42 – αγομεν instead of αγωμεν

(49) 14:43 – απεσταλμενοι after ξύλων

(50) 14:53 – αυτου instead of αυτω (before παντες)

(51) 15:4 – κατηγορουσιν instead of καταμαρτυρουσιν

(52) 15:16 – εις την αυλην instead of της αυλην

(53) 15:20 – χλαμυδα instead of πορφύραν

(54) 15:39 – αυτωι instead of εξ εναντίας αυτου

(55) 16:7 – ηγέρθη απο των νεκρων και ιδου before προάγει

(56) 16:8/16:9 Note – ⁜ εν τισι των αντιγραφων εως ωδε πληρουται ο ευαγγελιστης : εν πολλοις δε και ταυτα φερεται

(57) 16:9 – σαββατων instead of σαββατου

(58) 16:14 – εκ νεκρων after εγηγερμενον

(59) 16:18 – και εν ταις χερσιν

(60) 16:19 –  Ις after Κς

            It looks like the copyist of 1210 initially used a different exemplar of Mark – one with a strongly Byzantine text – but then began to resume using 22 as his exemplar instead, beginning around Mark 2:14-17.  To explore this idea further, let’s look at the readings in 1210 in Mark 1:1-2:17 that differ from the readings in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform, asking, “Could this reading come from 22?”

Here are 1210’s deviations from the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform in Mark 1:1-2:17.  Out of 35 variant-units (most of which are very trivial), 1210 and 22 agree with each other 17 times, and disagree 18 times.  

(1) 1:5 – εξεπορεύετο instead of εξεπορεύοντο [22:  εξεπορεύοντο]

(2) 1:5 – Ιροσολυμιται [22:  Ιεροσολυμιται]

(3) 1:9 – ὁ before Ις [22:  no ὁ]

(4) 1:9 – Ναζαρετ [=22]

(5) 1:10 – ειδε [22:  ειδεν]

(6) 1:14 – does not have ὁ Ις [22: Ις]

(7) 1:16 – ειδε [22:  ειδεν]

(8) 1:20 – after πρα:  αυτον instead of αυτων [22:  αυτων]

(9) 1:21 – εδιδασκε [22:  εδιδασκεν]

(10) 1:23 – ανέκραξε [=22] 

(11) 1:27 – εστι [=22] 

(12) 1:27 – πνευμασι [=22] 

(13) 1:34 – εθεράπευσε [=22] 

(14) 1:34 – εξέβαλε [22:  εξέβαλεν]

(15) 1:34 – ηφιε [= 22] 

(16) 1:35 – εξελθε [22:  εξελθεν]

(17) 1:37 – ζητουσι [= 22] 

(18) 1:38 – αγομεν (agrees with À) [22:  αγωμεν]

(19) 1:38 – κομοπολεις [22:  κωμοπολεις]

(20) 1:40 – after γονυπετων:  αυτωι instead of αυτον [22:  αυτον] 

(21) 1:44 – αλλα instead of αλλ’ [=22] 

(22) 1:44 – προσέταξε [=22] 

(23) 2:1 – εισηλθε [=22] 

(24) 2:1 – εστι [=22] 

(25) 2:3 – ερχον [the –ται is missing] [22: ερχονται]

(26) 2:4 – χαλωσι [=22] 

(27) 2:4 – κραβατον [22:  κραβαττον]

(28) 2:9 – κραβαττον [=22] 

(29) 2:10 – ειδειτε [22:  ειδητε]

(30) 2:11 – κραβαττον [= 22] 

(31) 2:12 – κραβαττον [= 22] 

(32) 2:12 – εναντιων [22:  εναντιον]

(33) 2:13 – εξελθε [22:  εξελθεν]

(34) 2:14 – Λευιν [=22]    

(35) 2:17 – does not have εις μετανοιαν but it is present as a secondary correction [=22, i.e., 22 does not have εις μετανοιαν but it is present as a secondary correction]

 

In GA 1210, an f1 reading appears
in Mk 16:7, and the short form of f1's
note is between Mk 16:8  and 16:9.
A lection-label for Mark 16:9-20
appears at the top of the page
(Heoth. #3) with the incipit-phrase.

            When we consider the 18 disagreements in this list, and set aside differences that can be attributed to scribal preferences regarding spelling and movable-nu, ten significant differences remain which weigh in against the idea that one of these manuscripts is a direct copy of the other one in Mark 1:1-2:17:

1:2 – 1210:  ως [22:  καθως]

1:2 – 1210:  τοις προφηταις [22:  Ησαιαι τωι προφητηι] 

1:5 – 1210:  εξεπορεύετο [22:  εξεπορεύοντο]

1:9 – 1210:  ὁ before Ις [22:  no ὁ]

1:10 – 1210:  ωσει [22: ως] 

1:14 – 1210:  does not have ὁ Ις [22: Ις]

1:20 – 1210:  after πρα:  αυτον [22:  αυτων]

1:34 – 1210 does not have Χν ειναι after αυτον [22:  has Χν ειναι after αυτον]   

1:35 – 1210 does not have ο Ις after απηλθεν [22:  has ο Ις after απηλθεν]

1:40 – 1210:  after γονυπετων:  αυτωι instead of αυτον [22:  αυτον] 

It looks rather difficult for 22’s text of Mark 1:1-2:13 to be copied from 1210, and equally difficult for 1210’s text of Mark 1:1-2:13 to be copied from 22.  But let’s extend the comparison of 22 and 1210 to the rest of Mark chapter 2.

22’s Disagreements with RP-Byz in Mark 2:18-28:
19 – εστι [=1210]

In GA 22, the same variant appears
in Mk 16:7, and the same note appears
between Mk. 16:8 and 16:9.

19 – εχουσι [=1210]

22 – does not have νέον after the first οινον [=1210; in 1210 οινον is the last word in a line]

25 – εποίησε [=1210]

25 – εσχε [=1210]

25 – επείνασε και αυτος και οι μετ αυτου [= 1210]

26 – του after Αβιαθαρ [= 1210]

26 – ιερευσι [=1210]

26 – εδωκε [=1210]

28 – κυριος is not contracted [=1210]

Whereas before Mark 2:17, the orthographic agreements were hit-and-miss, after Mark 2:17 they are perfectly aligned.  In addition, the agreements of 22 and 1210 in super-rare readings in verses 22 and 25 indicate that whatever factor elicited 1210’s disagreements with 22 prior to 2:17 has been removed, and in 1210, from this point on, we are looking at a close copy of 22’s text.

            Awareness that 1210’s text of Mark is – after 2:17 – a copy of 22 has a small impact on the analysis of the two largest major textual variants in the New Testament:  Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. 

In 1582, the long form of f1's note appears
between Mark 16:8 and 16:9.

            Between Mark 16:8 and 16:9, 22 and 1210 both feature a note which says εν τισι των αντιγραφων εως ωδε πληρουται ο ευαγγελιστης : εν πολλοις δε και ταυτα φερεται, that is, “In some copies the Gospel is finished here; in many, there is also this.”  This is a shortened form of the note that appears at this location in MSS 1 and 1582, Εν τισι μεν των αντιγράφων εως ωδε πληρουται ο ευαγγελιστης, εως ου και Ευσεβιος ο Παμφίλου εκανόνισεν· εν πολλοις δε ταυτα φεέρεται·.  The part about the Eusebian Canons was probably intentionally omitted at a time and place where the Eusebian Canons had been adjusted so as to include Mark 16:9-20.  By preserving this note, 1210 echoes 22, and 22 echoes f1.  Their weight should be boiled down accordingly.     

 In 22 and 1210, John 7:53-8:11 does not appear; John 7:52 is followed immediately in both manuscripts by 8:12.  What is intriguing about this is that 22 and 1210 are secondary members of f1; members such as 1 and 1582 represent the core of the group.  In 1 and 1582, the pericope adulterae appears after the end of John 21, prefaced by a note (also attested in GA 565) stating:
            “The chapter about the adulteress:  in the Gospel according to John, this does not appear in the majority of copies; nor is it commented upon by the divine fathers whose interpretations have been preserved – specifically, by John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria; nor is it taken up by Theodore of Mopsuestia and the others.  For this reason, it was not kept in the place where it is found in a few copies, at the beginning of the 86^th chapter [that is, the 86^th Eusebian section], following, ‘Search and see that a prophet does not arise out of Galilee.’”

            The thing to see is that the details about members of f1 (provided by Welsby) constitute a guardrail which rules out the idea that John 7:53-8:11 is a barnacle that attached itself to later members of the group.   What we see is the opposite:  1 and 1582 represent the earliest stratum of the group, and their note conveys the note’s author’s knowledge of the pericope adulterae and of its presence in the text after John 7:52 in some manuscripts.  Its transplantation from a location after John 7:52, to the end of the Gospel, is reported in the note.  By the time 22 and 1210 were made, the prefatory note and the pericope adulterae were dropped from the f1 transmission-stream, although in more central members of the group, the prefatory note and the pericope adulterae had been present after John 21. 

             

                       

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

The Role of Tradition in New Testament Textual Criticism

            Yesterday, Joshua Gibbs of the Talking Christianity podcast hosted a round-table discussion on the subject of the role of tradition in New Testament textual criticism, with guests Jeff Riddle (representing a Confessional Bibliologist approach), Peter Gurry (representing a Reasoned Eclectic app, and myself (representing an Equitable Eclectic approach).  A looong discussion commenced.  Here it is in two parts.  (At one point my internet connection died, but then it got better.)

Part One:

And Part Two: 

Sit back, grab some popcorn, and enjoy!

Here is the text of my closing statement:

          In closing, I’d like to briefly consider three different approaches to the role of tradition in the compilation of the text of the New Testament. 

          One view is to look at how much agreement there is, along all transmission-lines, and conclude, “Textual variants do not matter.  Everyone agrees that you’ve got the basics of the gospel if you use the Textus Receptus.  So let’s use that, for the sake of stability.” 

          Another approach is to focus on the disagreements.  A person might say, “This is very complicated, and we just can’t tell what the original readings are.  The safest course of action is to just go on using what the church has traditionally used.” 

          If one defines “the church” in terms of what emerged from the Reformation, that approach will provoke the adoption of the Textus Receptus.  If one defines “the church” in a wider sense, the traditional Greek text is the Byzantine Text.  Ecclesiastical approval is on its side.

          But both of those approaches are basically appeals to authority:  authority in the form of tradition.  And an appeal to authority is not the same as an appeal to evidence.  A reading is authoritative because it is original – not simply because it is thought to be original.  Except for scribal blunders, practically all major readings were thought to be original by somebody; that is why they are in the manuscripts.  It takes more than being accepted by someone to vindicate a reading.

          When dogmatic statements are used instead of arguments from evidence, it’s like saying, “We have been using mumpsimus, so mumpsimus is what should be said.”  But readings do not become authoritative by being used.  An original reading is authoritative at the point of its inspired creation.   And scribal corruptions are never authoritative, because they are not inspired – no matter how many people like them.       

          There is also a third view, in which someone says, “If ecclesiastical usage is what endows a reading with authority, then all readings are valid, because they all have at least a little bit of ecclesiastical usage in their favor,” and this provokes a temptation to clutter the margins with a multitude of textual variants.  Not only does this render the text more unstable than ever, inviting readers to pick and choose, but it is the exact opposite of what textual critics are supposed to do, which is, make decisions about textual contests. 

          I suggest that tradition does have a valid role, though, in certain cases:

          ● if two competing textual variants both have strong external support, and

          ● they convey two different messages, and

          ● neither is shown by internal considerations to be non-original, and

          ● one or both readings says something that is not confirmed in other passages,

that is a situation that merits a footnote. 

          But which reading goes into the text, and which one goes into the margin?  After those qualifications are met, there is something to be said for the principle that possession is nine-tenth of the law.   If one reading consistently dominates the other, in terms of widespread and longstanding use, then, instead of having a relatively brief Council of Bishops to break the tie, we have a very long Council of Use.  This approach might not resolve every case, but it will help keep textual instability to a minimum, without giving tradition the right to veto the original text.

Minuscule 490: Remarkably Unremarkable!

            One of the most ordinary Gospels-manuscripts you will ever see is minuscule 490, housed at the British Library (catalogued as B.L. Additional MS 7141 – formerly listed as minuscule 574).  It has some decoration – all in red pigment – and headpieces before the beginning of each Gospel, but there are no Evangelists’ portraits; no multi-color initials – nothing particularly eye-catching.  Let’s take a closer look, though, to see if there is GA 490 has anything interesting textually.

            Like a lot of other medieval Gospels manuscripts, 490 does not begin immediately with the Gospels’ text:  first there is Eusebius’ letter Ad Carpianus, explaining how to make use of the Eusebian Canon-tables and Sections.  (in 490, the letter is framed within a quatrefoil frame, on four pages, sort of like the format in GA 114.  The quatrefoil is barbed on the first and last page of Ad Carpianus (written in red).  On the second and third pages of Ad Carpianus, the quatrefoil is accompanied by drawings of four birds.  The next eight pages contain the Canon-tables themselves.  Next comes the list of 68 kephalaia (chapters) for the Gospel of Matthew. 

 

The first headpiece in 490.

On fol. 8, the text of Matthew begins, written in two columns (27 lines per column), below a leafy headpiece that fills about half the page.  There is a sketch of an antelope in the margin alongside the headpiece.  Except for the initial “B,” which is drawn in red, resembling a stylized vine, the changed when the Scriptural text begins; everything up to this point is red; the text after this point (except initials) is brown.  (Section-numbers and Canon-numbers, titloi, chapter-numbers, and the lectionary apparatus (dividing the text into lections for the Synaxarion) are in the margins in red.) 

On 10r, Matthew 2:11 reads εἰδον (“saw”), like most manuscripts, disagreeing with Stephanus’ ευρον (“found”). 

On 10v we see that sacred names are not contracted with 100% consistency; in Matthew 3:2, ουρανων (“of heaven”) is spelled in full.  On 58r, κυριε (“Lord”) is written in full in Matthew 27:63, where the Pharisees address Pilate.

On 11r, “and fire” is not included at the end of Matthew 3:11.  

On 14r, an incipit-phrase, ειπεν ο Κς (“The Lord said”) is written in the margin alongside the beginning of Matthew 5:31.

On 15v, Matthew 6:13 includes the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer.

On 21v, a small cross has been drawn in the margin alongside Matthew 9:36.
On 26r and 26v, the copyist worked around a hole in the parchment.  (Similarly, the copyist avoided writing on a small tear in the parchment later in Matthew 12:45 and 12:50, and on folio 36.)  More small holes and tears appear further along in the manuscript.

On 40v, Matthew 20:16b is included in the text, at the end of a lection.

On 47v, alongside Matthew 24:1, the small cross (with dots, arranged ⁜) appears again.

On 53v, the lectionary apparatus (written in this instance in different ink) includes, after Matthew 27:39, instructions for the lector to jump to Luke.

On 57r, Matthew 27:35b is not in the text.

On 59v, the text of Matthew ends in the first column; the closing title is written in red.

After Mark’s kephalaia-list, the text of Mark begins on 61r; a red headpiece fills part of the first column.  Mark 1:2 reads “in the prophets.”
On 61v, Mark 1:16 reads αμφίβληστρα 

On 64r, Mark 2:17 ends with “to repentance,” at the end of a lection.

On 73v, Mark 7:16 is in the text, at the end of a lection.

On 78r, Mark 9:29 includes “and fasting.”

On 83r, a cross is sketched in the margin alongside Mark 11:27.

On 92r, Mark 15:28 is not included.  On 92v, a note in the lower margin introduces the tenth of the 12 Passion-lections.

On 93v, Mark 16:9 includes ο Ις (“Jesus”) after Αναστας (“Rising”).

The text of Mark ends on 94r; the kephalaia-list for Luke begins in the second column of the page.

The text of Luke begins on 95r. 

On 106r, a cross is sketched in the margin alongside Luke 5:27. 

On 106v, Luke 6:1 includes δευτεροπρώτω.

On 111r, Luke 7:31 does not include “And the Lord said.”

On 116v, Luke 9:23 includes “daily” (καθ’ ἡμέραν)

On 118v, ως καὶ Ἡλίας ἐποίησε (“as Elijah also did”) is included in Luke 9:54, filling exactly one line.  In Luke 9:55-56, the last part of verse 55 and all of verse 56 are present.

On 124r, Luke 11:54 includes ζητουντες and ινα κατηγορήσωσιν αυτου.

On 128r, Luke 13:19 includes μέγα (agreeing with P45 Byz A W Pesh).

On 134r, Luke 17:9 includes ου δοκω.

On 136v, in Luke 18:24, περίλυπον γενόμενον is included.

On 140v, in Luke 20:23, τί με πειράζετε is included.

On 144v, in Luke 22:31, ειπε δε ο Κς is included.

On 145r, Luke 22:43-44 is included.  A lectionary note in 22:45, after μαθητας, in different writing, mentions the jump to Matthew (cf. 53v).

On 147r, Luke 22:17 is included.

On 147v, Luke 23:34b is included.  In the lower margin, there is a note to introduce the eighth Passion-lection (Lk. 23:32-49).  

On 148v, in Luke 24:1, καί τινες συν αυταις is included.

On 150r, before Luke 24:36, ⁜ appears in the text.

The text of Luke concludes on 151r in the first column.  The chapter-list for John, in red, occupies the second column.

The text of John begins on 152r.  A three-sided frame surrounds the book’s title in the headpiece in the first column.

On 153r, John 1:29 has ὁ Ιωάννης after βλεπει.

On 158v, John 4:42 includes ὁ Χς.

On 159v, John 5:3b-4 is included.  Verse 4 begins αγγελος γαρ κυ, agreeing with A K L Δ.

On 162v, in John 6:22, εκεινο εις ὁ ενέβησαν οι μαθηται αυτου is included.

On 166v, in John 7:46, ως ουτος ὁ ανος is included, occupying a single line.

On 167r, John 8:12 follows 7:52 without interruption on the same line.  The pericope adulterae is completely absent.

On 169r, in John 8:59, διελθων δια μέσου αυτων και παρηγεν ουτως is included.

On 175r, John 12:1 includes ὁ τεθνηκώς.

On 182v, in John 16:16, οτι υπάγω προς τον πρα is included.

On 188v, before John 19:25, ⁜ appears in the text. 

On 192v, the text of John ends in the first column.  In John 21:23, τι πρός σε is included. The line-length slightly decreases, vortex-style, for 12 lines.  There is a simple decoration to indicate the end of the book but there is no closing book-title or subscription. 

            The text of GA 490 is an exceptionally pure – that is, unmixed – Byzantine Text.  It was skillfully written.  (Perhaps it was made “in house” at a monastery; there are no stichoi-notes.)  Except for the non-inclusion of the pericope adulterae, it is very similar to the Gospels-text in the 1982 Hodges-Farstad Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text.  Movable-nu is very often dropped.  At random, I picked page 270 of the Hodges-Farstad text (containing Luke 21:7-18) to compare to 490.  In Luke 21:7-18, I found exactly one difference between Hodges-Farstad and 490:  in verse 7, 490 has μέλλει instead of μέλλη. 
            Incipit-phrases are not present in the main lectionary apparatus, but some have been added in secondary, scrawled margin-notes for the 12 Passion-time lections.

            Because 490’s text is so similar to the standard Byzantine text, the most unusual thing about it may be the titles of the four Gospels:  the headpiece to Matthew introduces all four Gospels in its central quatrefoil:  ΣΥΝ ΘΩ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΤΩΝ ΤΕΣΣΑΡΩΝ  ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΣΤΩΝ.  Four circles, within the four corners of the headpiece, contain four segments of the title for the Gospel of Matthew:  ΕΚ ΤΟΥ + ΚΑΤΑ + ΜΑΤ + ΘΑΙΟΝ.

            Mark’s title:  ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΕΚ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ

            Luke’s title:  ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΕΚ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ

Claudius James Rich

            John’s title:  ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΕΚ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ ΑΓΙΟΥ

           

            It is unusual to see ΕΚ ΤΟΥ in the titles in a continuous-text manuscript.  It is not unique – Codex L also has “ΕΚ ΤΟΥ” in its title for Matthew, and 1241’s title for Matthew includes ΣΥΝ ΘΕΩ.  Chief members of family 13 (and 1071) also have εκ του in at least one Gospel-title.  It is not easy to intuit the reason for these unusual titles.  Perhaps the person who added the titles in the headpieces was used to putting titles in lectionaries.

           

            Another thing about 490 worth noticing is that it came to light back in the 1820’s as part of the collection of antiquities left by Claudius James Rich (1787-1821), a notable British scholar who traveled widely in the Middle East.