Followers

Showing posts with label uncial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label uncial. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 20, 2020

An Uncial of Luke 5-6 at Mount Sinai

          At the Sinai Palimpsests Project website, part of one of the manuscripts included among the New Finds collection – Greek N.F. M 98 – has lower writing that consists of a folio from a Greek uncial, preserving text in four columns (two columns per page, probably 26 lines per column) from Luke 5:33-34, 5:36-37, 5:39-6:1, and 6:3-4.  Dr. Giuglielmo Cavallo – author of the first chapter in the superb little 2008 book, The Shape of the Book – identified and analyzed this text a while ago, and assigned it a production-date around 1000.  It has received an official Nestle-Aland identification number:  0288.  Let’s take a closer look at its text, which is on the first page (front and back) of the manuscript.
          In its four columns of text, compared to the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform, this witness has two variants:  in Luke 5:33, we encounter ποικνα instead of πυκνα, and after ομοιως we meet δε και instead of just και.  Other than these two readings, the text is perfectly Byzantine, agreeing with the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform.  This witness disagrees with the Nestle-Aland compilation at almost every opportunity:

In the lower writing of Greek N.F. M 98: 
● 5:34 – Ις (before ειπεν) is not included
● 5:36 – απο (after επίβλημα is not included
● 5:36 – σχίσας (after καινου) is not included [Not noted in NA27 apparatus]
● 5:36 – σκιζει (instead of σκισει in À B C L)  [Not noted in NA27 apparatus]  
● 5:36 – συμφωνει (instead of συμφωνήσει) [Not noted in NA27 apparatus]
● 5:36 – το επίβλημα before απο is is not included
● 5:39 – και is at the beginning of the verse [bracketed in NA27]
● 5:39 – ευθεως appears after παλαιον
● 5:39 – χρηστότερος instead of χρηστός
● 6:1 – δευτεροπρώτω is present
● 6:1 – των is present before σπορίμων
● 6:3 – οποτε instead of οτε
● 6:3 – οντες appears at the end of the verse [bracketed in NA27]
● 6:4 – ως is at the beginning of the verse [bracketed in NA27]
● 6:4 – ελαβεν και instead of λαβων

Reconstruction of the lower writing in Greek N.F. M 98.
           Here is a reproduction of the text of Luke in Greek N.F. M 98, with the upper writing removed.  Twice, the copyist appears to have used a kai-compendium or dwarf letters, but the writing at both points was obscured by the upper writing.  (This is signified in the reproduction by the light red squares.)          
Before presenting a transcription of the text, here are some thoughts about some textual contests that could be considered if one were defending the Byzantine readings found in Greek N.F. M 98.



● 5:34 – Ις in the Alexandrian Text could be introduced for the sake of clarity, or as a remembrance of 5:31.
● 5:36 – απο and σχίσας could be added for the sake of clarity.
● 5:36 – συμφωνει could be altered to συμφωνήσει as part of an expansion which also involved the addition of το επίβλημα before απο.
● 5:38 – In Greek N.F. M 98, space-considerations seem to favor the inclusion of και αμφότεροι συντηρουνται at the end of the verse.
● 5:39 – A copyist might excise και as an attempt at stylistic improvement.  (The entire verse is absent in Codex D and several Old Latin witnesses.)
● 5:39 – χρηστότερος can account for χρηστός with a simple parableptic error.
● 6:1 – δευτεροπρώτω is certainly the more difficult reading.
● 6:3 – οποτε can account for οτε with a simple parableptic error.
● 6:4 – The support for nothing before εισηλθων at the beginning of the verse is sparse.
● 6:4 – Part of the Alexandrian line seems harmonized to Mark 2:26.






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













Monday, November 4, 2019

A Surprise in Athens


            In 2015-2016, a team of researchers from the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts visited the National Library of Greece and brought to light 21 manuscripts in the collection there in Athens.  One of them – Lectionary 2012 – has not gotten very much attention,  That is unfortunate, considering that of all the manuscripts that CSNTM’s research has brought to the attention of the Institute for New Testament Research, this is one of the oldest.
            This sheet of parchment, glued to the cover of another, later lectionary, is from an uncial Gospels-lectionary that was probably produced in the 900s.  The reverse side cannot presently be viewed, since it is glued down.  On the side that is viewable, portions of two pages (on a single parchment sheet) with text can be seen.  
            If we look at the manuscript and begin to read the third column (to the right of where the sheet was once vertically folded), we encounter text from Matthew 27:6, beginning with εξεστιν at the end of the first tattered line, followed by βαλειν αυτὰ on the next line.  The text of this column continues to the beginning of Matthew 27:9, where διὰ Ιερεμίου is the last line of the column. 
            Shifting our focus to the first column of the manuscript (first, that is, in its present glued-down state), we see text from Matthew 27:53, beginning with –λθον at the end of the tattered upper edge of the parchment.  The text continues to the end of Matthew 27:54, and then – in the same line on which Mt. 27:54 ends – the text switches immediately to the beginning of John 19:31 with οι ουν Ιουδαιοι, continuing to the words τω σαβββάτῳ which constitute the last line of the column.  At the top of the second column, the first extant line is Πιλάτον ινα.  The middle of John 19:31 occupied the non-extant portion of the column (the descender of the ρ in ηρώτησαν has survived).  The text continues to the first part of John 19:34; the last line is αλλ’ εις των στρα–.    
            Thus, in this single-sheet manuscript fragment, we have (1) Matthew’s account of the purchase of the Field of Blood, (2) Matthew’s account of the centurion’s confession, “Truly this was the Son of God,” and (3) John’s report that when the soldiers came to Jesus to break His legs, they found Him already dead.  
            Here is a complete transcript, column by column, along with a more or less line-by-line English translation.  Bracketed letters in the transcription are not visible in the photographs.  Red letters are variations from the text of the passage as found in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform.  Red crosses are features of the manuscript.

Lectionary 2012, in English.
Matthew 27:6-9a:
            [ε]ξεστ[ιν]
  βαλ[ε]ιν αυτα ·
  εις τον κορβαν[αν]
  επει τιμη αί
  ματος εστιν +
συμβούλιον δ[ε]
  λαβόντες η[γό]
  ρασαν εξ αυτ[ων]
  τον αγρον του
  κεραμέως · εις τα
  φην τοις ξένοι[ς]
  διο εκλήθη · ο α
  γρος εκεινος · α
  γρος αιματος ·
  εως της σήμερ[ον]
  τοτε επληρώ
  θη τω ρηθεν
  δια Ϊερεμίου

Matthew 27:53b-54 + John 19:31a:

                    –ηλθον
  εις τὴν αγίαν πό
  λην καὶ ενεφα
  νησθησαν πολλοις +
Ο δε εκατόνταρ
  χος και οι μετ’ αυ
  του · τηρουντες
  τον Ιν · ϊδοντες 
  τον σεισμον και
  τα γενόμενα ·
  εφοβήθησαν σφό
  δρα + λέγοντες ·  
  αληθως Θυ Υς ην
  ουτος + οι ουν Ϊου
  δαιοι · ϊνα μὴ μεί
  νη επι του στρου ·
  τα σώματα εν
  τω σαββάτω ·

John 19:31c-34a:

  Πιλάτον ίνα
  κατεαγωσιν αυ
  των τὰ σκέλει
  και αρθωσιν +
  ηλθον ουν οι στρα
  τιωται + και του
  μεν πρώτου
  κατέαξαν τὰ
  σκέλει καὶ του
  αλλου του συσταυ
  ρωθέν τος αυ
  τω + επι δε τὸν
  Ιν ελθόντες ως
  ειδον αυτον η
  δη τεθνηκότα
  ου κατέαξαν αυ
  του τὰ σκέλη +
  αλλ’ εις των στρα

         
            The extant text of this fragment differs from the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform only in matters of spelling; for all practical purposes, the two are identical.  This leads me to suspect that the writers who are responsible for spreading the claim that “No two New Testament manuscripts have the same text” have not examined very many fragmentary lectionaries.
            It would be interesting to examine this fragment with Multi-Spectral Imaging at the National Library of Greece (where it is kept as Collection-item 2460 ) to see the text on the other side.  It is interesting to see how this lection combined text from Matthew and John; perhaps a closer analysis of this kind of Good Friday lectionary-cycle could explain why the Alexandrian Text (in some of what are often called the “oldest and best” manuscripts) has a reading that resembles John 19:34 after  Matthew 27:49. 



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


Monday, July 9, 2018

News: Ancient Byzantine Gospels at Mount Sinai!

Georgian NF 19, 57v -
reconstructed lower writing.
       Last month, I briefly described many of the manuscripts in a collection of palimpsests (recycled manuscripts) that are being studied by the Sinai Palimpsests Project – including 15 Greek manuscripts of New Testament books.  Today, let’s take a closer look at parts of two specific manuscripts in the collection:  Georgian NF 19 and Georgian 49.  (NF = New Finds.) 
            The upper (i.e., most recent) writing in Georgian NF 19 is a copy of a book of hymns, or chants, in the Georgian language – the Iadgari of Mikael Modrekili.  It was produced in 980.  The parchment on which this copy of the Iadgari was written previously held text from at least 13 other compositions.
            Eight of those compositions are in the Palestinian Aramaic language.  The remaining seven are in Greek – including (1) a leaf from the Gospel of Matthew (containing Matthew 21:32-41), (2) a leaf from the Gospel of John (containing John 9:17-26), and (3) a leaf from the Gospel of Luke (containing Luke 8:12-20).
           These pages are clustered together and probably came from the same manuscript of the four Gospels, which has been assigned to the 500s.  All three are written in uncial script, formatted in two narrow columns per page, with 22 lines per column.  At the Sinai Palimpsests Project website, in the lower writing of Georgian NF 19, the text from Matthew is on fol. 56, the text from Luke is on fol. 57, and the text from John is on fol. 54.
            The text of the Gospels-manuscript that was recycled to provide parchment for the Georgian chant-book was essentially Byzantine.  Taking a close look at the text from Luke, for example, the only deviations from the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform are minor variants such as ακουοντες instead of ακουσαντες and συνπνιγονται instead of συμπνιγονται in verse 14. 
            The same textual character is present in Matthew:  in Matthew 21:35-41, the text of this manuscript is practically identical to the Byzantine Text.  Its text of John 9:17-31 is also very strongly Byzantine.
            Initial letters are enlarged and reverse-indented at the beginnings of verses 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19.  The Eusebian section-number ΠΒ (82) stands in the margin near the beginning of Luke 8:19, showing that these pages were once part of a manuscript that contained all four Gospels.
            Another manuscript in the collection, Georgian 49, contains five leaves that were recycled from a Greek copy of the Gospel of Mark (fol. 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30), and a leaf that was recycled from a Greek copy of the Gospel of John – but not the same Gospels-codex that was recycled to provide writing-material for Georgian NF 19.
            The text of Mark that appears in the lower writing of Georgian 49 was also formatted in two columns per page, but in columns of 25 lines, rather than 22.  A comparison of its text of Mark 10:46-47 and 10:49-51 reveals the following readings:

The Gospels-text in the lower writing
of Georgian NF 19 is unmistakably
Byzantine.
● v. 46:  the non-inclusion of ὁ after ἱκανοῦ.
● v. 46:  the Byzantine word-order and wording in the second half of the verse.
● v. 47:  the non-inclusion of ΙΥ (the customary contraction of Jesus’ name, Ἰησοῦ) after ΔΑΔ (the customary contraction of David’s name).  This might be the earliest Greek manuscript with this reading.  (Notice, however, the dots above ΔΑΔ which may represent a proof-reader’s expression of the detection of a scribal error; a correction may have been in the left margin.)
● v. 50:  αναστας (agreeing with Byz) instead of αναπηδήσας (the reading of B À L D).
● v. 51:  the Alexandrian non-inclusion of λέγει and inclusion of ειπεν.
● v. 51:  the Alexandrian word-order Τί σοι θέλεις ποιήσω.

            It would appear that the manuscript of Mark that was recycled to make Georgian 49 had a much higher amount of Alexandrian readings than the Gospels-manuscript that was used to make Georgian NF 19.  The text of John 11:29b-31a on fol. 54r in Georgian 49, however, contains only one significant variant-unit; it agrees with the Byzantine Text, and disagrees with the Alexandrian Text, via the non-inclusion of ετι in verse 30.

            This is just a sample of the harvest of textual data that is yet to come from the Sinai Palimpsests Project.  A guide to navigating the website is planned; in the meantime, allow me to walk you through it in the course of the next few paragraphs.
Byzantine readings continue
to dominate in the text of John
in Georgian NF 19.
            The manuscripts can be viewed, once one has been admitted entrance to the image-gallery by the stewards of the Sinai Palimpsests Project website.  Viewers should agree to the Terms of Use.  Once in the gallery, visitors will have the ability to browse through a list of the manuscripts, complete with descriptions of the texts in the lower writing and their locations.  You might want to have a pen and paper handy to jot down which compositions are in the lower writing of which pages of which manuscripts.
            When a specific page-view is accessed, some basic imaging-tools are available:  visitors have the ability to zoom in on details (in a no-nonsense, intuitive method), and to adjust the brightness, contrast, and color-saturation of the photograph; there are also options to rotate the page-view, to switch from full-color to grayscale, and to invert colors.  There is also a digital ruler; if you do not feel like measuring any of the letters in the manuscripts you can use the menu in the upper right corner to select “Hide ruler” and it will hide.
            In the same sub-menu in the upper right corner of each page-view, readers are given the option of switching from page view mode (which displays a single page in the main window but allows page-selection via a virtual rolodex below the main image) to gallery view mode (in which all of the manuscript’s pages are displayed in a grid of thumbnail-views).  (In page view mode, you might need to move the whole window north a bit to access the virtual rolodex’s controls.)
            More useful than all of these remarkable features, however, are the multi-spectral images of the pages, which can be accessed by selecting the three horizontal lines which appear in the menu in the upper left corner:  “Toggle the side panel,” a pop-up note will say when you do so.  (A special page is dedicated to explaining the use of different wavelengths and other technological aspects of multi-spectral imaging, including the special book cradle at Saint Catherine’s monastery.)

            After the side-menu appears and gobbles up the far-left fifth of your screen, another menu will appear which gives you the options of “Index” and “Layers.”  “Index” does nothing, as far as I can tell (no doubt something awesome is planned to go there eventually), so select “Layers.”  A series of images – all multi-spectral images of the same page, each one at a different wavelength – will appear.

            Viewers will need to check a little box to select specific wavelengths.  Some experimenting has shown that the most useful wavelengths for reading the lower writing in the palimpsests are toward the top (above the “raking light” setting); the ones toward the bottom are useful for getting an idea of what the page would look like without any writing on it.  Once a wavelength or multiple wavelengths are selected, the enhanced view can be digitally manipulated (by changing the contrast, brightness, etc.) so as to allow – though usually still requiring some effort – a much clearer look at the lower writing than would otherwise be possible.


            To the people of Arcadia, a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin, and to the Early Manuscripts Electronic Library, gratitude and congratulations are offered for making possible these exciting new discoveries about the text of the Bible, patristic compositions, the Byzantine liturgy, and other historically significant writings!

Sinaipalimpsests.org is a publication of St. Catherine’s Monastery of the Sinai in collaboration with EMEL and UCLA.


All images courtesy St. Catherine's Monastery of the Sinai.  
Used with permission. 


Thursday, May 10, 2018

Papyrus 45 vs. Codex K in Luke 12


P45 - the fragment in Austria
It’s time for some text-critical hand-to-hand combat!  Which manuscript has the more accurate text of Luke 12:23-33:  Papyrus 45 or Codex Cyprius? 
Before we find out, let’s consider each manuscript’s background:  Papyrus 45 was produced in the 200s.  Papyrus 45 has undergone extensive damage, but enough has survived to show that when it was in pristine condition, it contained all four Gospels and Acts (if not more).  For much of its text, P45 is the earliest extant manuscript, particularly for the Gospel of Mark and the parts of the book of Acts that it contains.
After the initial publication of P45’s text of Mark, it was classified as “Caesarean” or “Pre-Caesarean” but these categories were shown to be inaccurate in a study undertaken by Larry Hurtado, who contended that P45’s text of Mark does not have strong affinities with any known text-type and is instead related most closely to Codex W’s text of Mark.  Almost the whole manuscript resides at the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland, and can be viewed at the website of CSNTM, except for a fragment in Austria (see picture).       
            Codex Cyprius (K, 017) resides in Paris at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France.  It contains all four Gospels.  It can be viewed (and downloaded) at the Gallica website (search there for “Grec. 63”). Its production-date has been assigned to the 800s.      
           
            In the following comparison, the same ground rules will be applied to the text of both competing manuscripts:  first, deviations from the text of Nestle-Aland (27th edition) are noted, and then filtered.  Transpositions are noted but not counted as variants that cause an adulteration of the text.  Variants involving different formats of nomina sacra are not counted as variants.  Itacisms, cases of movable-nu, and benign consonant-exchanges are counted in the initial total, but the totals are then recalculated without them.  (The three uses of iota-adscript in P45 – τηι, δόξηι, and αγρωι in verses 27-28 – are not counted either.)  

            Let’s look at Papyrus 45 first:

23 – P45 omits γαρ before ψυχη (-3)
24 – P45 adds τα πετεινα του ουρανου και before τους κόρακας (+22)
24 – P45 reads αποθήκαι instead of αποθήκη (+2, -1)
24 – P45 reads αυτα instead of αυτους (+1, -3)
25 – P45 transposes:  προσθειναι επι την ηλικίαν αυτου
25 – P45 does not read ενα after πηχυν (agrees with NA27)
26 – no variants
27 – P45 does not read δε after λέγω (-2)
27 – P45 does not read πάση (-4)
28 – P45 transposes:  σήμερον τον χόρτον οντα
28 – P45 reads αμφιέζει (agrees with NA27)
28 – P45 reads ουν after πόσω (+3)
29 – no variants
30 – P45 reads επιζητει (agreeing with Byz against B and À) instead of επιζητουσιν (+2, -5)
31 – P45 reads του Θυ (agreeing with Byz against B and À) instead of αυτου (+5, -5)
32 – P45 reads ηυδόκησεν instead of ευδόκησεν (+1, -1)
33 – P45 reads ανέκλιπτον instead of ανέκλειπτον (-1)
33 – P45 reads ενγίζει instead of εγγίζει (+1, -1)

Sub-totals:  P45 contains 37 non-original letters, and is missing 26 original letters. 
Total amount of letters’ worth of alterations:  63.

Totals (without orthographic variants in the equation):  P45 contains 33 non-original letters, and is missing 22 original letters.  Total amount of letters’ worth of alterations: 55.

Luke 12:24b-25 in Codex K
(with verse-numbers added)
            Now let’s compare the same passage in Codex K:

23 – K omits γαρ before ψυχη (-3)
23 – K reads εστι instead of εστιν (-1)
24 – K reads τρεφη instead of τρεφει (+1, -2)
24 – [In K, the ι in πετεινων appears to have been added as a correction.]  (-1)
25 – K transposes:  προσθειναι επι την ηλικίαν αυτου
25 – K reads ενα at the end of the verse (+3)
26 – K reads ουτε instead of ουδε  (+1, -1)
27 – no variants
28 – K transposes and adds:  σήμερον εν τω αγρω οντα (+2)
28 – K reads αμφιεννυσι instead of αμφιεζει (+5, -3)
29 – K reads η instead of και (agreeing with P75) (+1, -3)
30 – K reads επιζητει instead of επιζητουσιν (+2, -5)
31 – K reads του Θυ instead of αυτου (+5, -5)
31 – K reads παντα after ταυτα (+5)
32 – no variants
33 – no variants

Sub-totals:  Codex K has 25 non-original letters, and is missing 24 original letters.  Total amount of letters’ worth of alteration:  49.

Without itacisms and benign consonant-exchanges in the equation, K’s text contains 23 non-original letters, and is missing 20 original letters.  Total amount of letters’ worth of alteration: 43.  (The total drops to 42 if we don’t include that correction in verse 24.)

            Codex K wins:  the score is 63 to 49 with all variants considered, and the score is 55 to 43 with accommodation given to orthographic variation.  (Each point is one letter’s worth of deviation from the original text; the lower score wins.)
            This tells us some things about the relative rates of variation in the transmission-lines that produced P45 and Codex Cyprius.  If we put the production-date of the Gospel of Luke in A.D. 62, and the production-date of P45 in 225, then the copyists in P45’s transmission-line introduced .3 letters’ worth of deviation every year, not counting merely orthographic changes.  In comparison, positing the production-date of Codex Cyprius at 850, the copyists in K’s transmission-line introduced .055 letters’ worth of deviation every year, not counting merely orthographic changes.  In other words, the copyists in K’s transmission-line introduced 5.5 times fewer deviations each year, on average, than the copyists in P45’s transmission-line.

            Interesting though it may be to thus see that a manuscript from the 800s has a better text of Luke 12:23-33 than a manuscript from the 200s (using the Nestle-Aland text as the basis of comparison – if the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform were used for the comparison instead, Codex K’s text would be nearly identical to it), some other data may be even more intriguing: 
● P45, K, and Byz (i.e., the Byzantine Text) do not include γὰρ in v. 23.
● P45, K, and Byz all transpose to read προσθειναι ἐπὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτου in v. 25.
● P45, K, and Byz all read ἐπιζητει instead of ἐπιζητουσιν in v. 30. 
● P45, K, and Byz all read του Θεου (or του Θυ) instead of αυτου in v. 31.
Thus, in these eleven verses, the Byzantine Text is allied with an early papyrus in four places against the Alexandrian reading.  In three of these four cases, the Byzantine reading is not in agreement with the Western reading in Codex D either.  This data implies that Hort’s approach, which was based on the theory that non-Alexandrian, non-Western readings did not exist before the late 200s or early 300s, was fundamentally flawed.  As of the publication of the text of Papyrus 45, it was no longer tenable.  Yet virtually the same compilation that Hort made in 1881 (with only about 660 differences) continues to be the standard New Testament base-text for modern versions such as the NIV, ESV, CSB, and NRSV – largely because the implications of the readings of the papyri discovered in the 1900s have not been clearly thought through.      

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


Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Glossary of Textual Criticism: N-Z

Nomina sacra (singular:  nomen sacrum):  sacred names which were usually written in contracted form by copyists.  Usually the contractions consist of two letters – the first letter of the word and the final letter – but in some manuscripts the contractions have a three-letter form.  The terms Κυριος (“Lord”), Θεος (“God”), Ιησους (“Jesus”), and Χριστος (“Christ”) are almost always contracted, with a horizontal line written over them.  References to the three Persons of the Trinity – Πατηρ (“Father”), Υιος (“Son”), and Πνευμα (“Spirit”) – are also contracted in most manuscripts.
            With less uniformity, terms that were associated with titles of Christ are also contracted, such as “Man” (due to the title “Son of Man”), “David” (due to the title “Son of David”), and “Savior.”  Most copyists also contracted the words “Israel,” “Jerusalem,” “Mother,” and “Cross.” 
   
Novum Testamentum Graece:  A compilation of the Greek text of the New Testament equipped with (a) symbols in the text which convey specific kinds of textual variants, and (b) a basic textual apparatus listing the main support for the adopted reading, and for rival readings.  Eberhard Nestle published the first edition of NTG in 1898, drawing on three independent, but similar, compilations by other scholars (specifically, Tischendorf, Westcott & Hort, and Weymouth).  In 1927, Eberhard Nestle’s son, Erwin Nestle, took over the task of editing the thirteenth edition of the compilation, changing the textual apparatus so as to include a more detailed presentation of evidence, listing manuscripts, versions, patristic writers, compilations by earlier editors, and theoretical recensions that had been posited by researcher Hermann von Soden.
            Kurt Aland was given supervision of the compilation in 1952, and its textual apparatus was expanded considerably.  The NTG achieved relative stability in 1979, and was now known as the Nestle-Aland NTG.  The text of the 26th edition was basically retained in the 27th edition, although the textual apparatus was changed (and some Byzantine witnesses were removed from the apparatus) and miscitations were corrected.  In the 28th edition (2012), only about 35 textual changes were introduced, all confined to the General Epistles.
            The 28th edition of NTG, though technically an eclectic compilation, has a very strong Alexandrian character, differing only slightly from the 1881 compilation of Westcott and Hort.       

Nu ephelkustikon:  The Greek letter nu (ν) placed at the end of a word before another word that begins with a vowel, and at the end of sentences.  Also called moveable nu.

Overline:  A horizontal line added above characters to signify that the letters underneath it are to be read as numerals or as a nomen sacrum.   An overline at the end of a line of text represents the letter nu.

Paratext:  Features in a manuscript other than the main text, such as illustrations, notes, canon-tables, chapter-titles, arabesques, and marginalia. 
           
Paleography:  The science of studying ancient handwriting and inscriptions.  Paleography is useful for estimating the production-dates (and in some cases the locale) of manuscripts by making comparisons between the handwriting they display and the handwriting of dated documents.  Paleographers also study inks and paratextual features of manuscripts.  Paleographically assigned production-dates should generally be given a range of 50 years both before and after the assigned date, on the premises that (a) copyists tended to write in basically the same script throughout their careers, (b) a typical copyist’s career lasted 50 years, and (c) we cannot determine if a copyist wrote a specific manuscript at the beginning, or end, of his career. 

Palimpsest:  A manuscript which has been recycled, and contains two (or more) layers of writing.  The parchment of a palimpsest has been scraped once, in its initial preparation, and later scraped again, when someone scraped off, or washed off, the ink, in order to reuse the newly blank parchment to hold a different composition.  (The word is derived from Greek:  palin, again, and psaw, scrape.)  The text that was written first on a palimpsest is called the lower writing; the more recently written text is called the upper writing.   The application of ultraviolet light (and multi-spectral imaging) can in some cases make the lower writing much more visible than it appears to be in normal light. 

Papyrus:  (plural:  papyri)  Writing-material made from tissues derived from the inner layer of papyrus plants.  Papyrus-material tended to rot away in high-humidity climates, which is why practically all surviving New Testament papyri were found in Egypt, where the humidity-level is lower.  Manuscripts made of papyrus (such as Papyrus 5, part of which is shown here) are also called papyri.

Parablepsis:   The phenomenon which occurs when a copyist’s line of sight drifts from one set of letters to an identical or similar set of letters, skipping the intervening text.  This may occur due to homoioarcton, homoeoteleuton, or simple inattentiveness.

Provenance:  The place from which a manuscript came. 

Quire:  A collection of bifolia (usually four) which have been stacked and folded together in the process of codex-production.

Recto:  The side of a leaf in a manuscript that is viewed when the outer margin is to the viewer’s right.

Rubric:  Text written in red, usually found in the margins, mainly serving to label portions of the main text.  Rubrics may include chapter-titles, the lectionary apparatus, and miscellaneous notes.

Ruling:  Horizontal lines and vertical borders added to writing-material as guidelines for the text which was intended to be written upon it.  Hundreds of different ruling-patterns have been identified.  They vary in complexity, depending on how much supplemental material was intended to accompany the main text.       

Scriptorium:  A manuscript-making center, usually located in a monastery.

Stichometry:  A calculation of the number of standard lines (about 15 or 16 syllables), or stichoi, of text in a book or book-portion.  The conclusions of New Testament books are sometimes accompanied by notes mentioning the book’s length, in line-units.   This suggests that such manuscripts were copied by professionals who were paid on a per-stichos basis. 

Singleton:  a single folded bifolium in a manuscript – a quire consisting of a single sheet. 

Staurogram:  A combination of the Greek letters tau and rho, thought by some researchers to be a pictogram of Christ’s crucifixion.
  
Textual Apparatus:  Notes in a compilation, listing variants and the witnesses that support them.  Witnesses are usually listed in the order of uncials, minuscules, versions, and patristic references.  In the textual apparatuses of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece and the UBS Greek New Testament, Byzantine witnesses tend to be presented collectively.

Textus Receptus:  This term is generally used to refer to the base-text of the 1611 King James Version.  It is also used to refer to any of the compilations of the Greek text of the New Testament published in the 1500s and early 1600s, beginning with Erasmus’ first edition in 1514, continuing with the Complutensian Polyglot, several editions by Stephanus, several editions by Beza, and the 1624 and 1633 editions by the Elzevirs, the last of which was declared to be “the text received by all.”  These compilations were not entirely identical but all contained a basically Byzantine text influenced by readings selected from the editors’ materials, which included important witnesses such as minuscule 1, minuscule Codex Bezae (D), Codex Regius (L), and Codex Claromontanus.  
            The 1551 edition issued by Stephanus is notable for the introduction of verse-numbers, essentially the same enumeration still used in most English New Testaments.

UBS Greek New Testament:  A compilation of the Greek text of the New Testament prepared by a team working for the United Bible Societies.  Now in its fifth edition (2014), the UBS Greek New Testament contains the same text presented in the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece.  The textual apparatus of the UBS Greek New Testament covers far fewer variant-units (about 1,400), but in far greater detail.  Bruce Metzger (1914-2007), a member of the UBS compilation-committee, wrote A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, explaining the committee’s text-critical general approach and specific decisions.   

Uncial:  A manuscript in which each letter is written separately and as a capital.  These are also known as majuscules.  Many uncials, are identified by sigla (singular:  siglum) such as the letters of the English alphabet, letters of the Greek alphabet, and, for Codex Sinaiticus (À), the Hebrew alphabet.  All uncials are identified by numbers that begin with a zero. 

Verso:  The side of a leaf in a manuscript that is viewed when the outer margin is to the viewer’s left.

Watermark:  In medieval paper, a design embedded in the fibers of the paper, visible when a page is held up to light.  Watermarks often indicate where the paper was made.

Western Order:  The arrangement of the four Gospels as Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark.  This order is found mainly in representatives of the Western Text, such as the Old Latin Gospels and Codex Bezae.

Western Text:  A text-form, or forms, characterized by expansion, harmonization, and simplification in comparison to other text-types.  Codex Bezae and the Old Latin version are the primary and most extensive witnesses to Western readings, but several early patristic writers frequently utilize Western readings as well. 

Zoomorphic Initial:  An initial which takes the shape of an animal or bird.


            If readers would like to suggest other terms that should be considered for inclusion in this glossary, you are welcome to do so in the comments.

Saturday, April 21, 2018

Meet 0269: A Little-known Uncial Fragment

0269
Right-side up

            Uncial 0269 is a somewhat unusual manuscript:  it is a one-leaf fragment embedded within another manuscript, Codex Blenheimus (0133, a.k.a. Codex ϒ (Upsilon), and known previously – before the discovery of Codex Washingtoniensis – as Wg).  Codex Blenheimus is a palimpsest:   its parchment pages were used in the 1400s as the material out of which a Menaeon was made.  (A Menaeon is a Greek Orthodox service-book – in this case, the services for the month of February).  Before its parchment pages were used for that purpose, they had been part of a Gospel-codex. 
Some time before the pages were recycled, a damaged page was repaired by some who had access to a strip of parchment pages from another Gospels-manuscript – one that had been produced in the 800s.  It is that strip, containing text from Mark 6:14-20, that constitutes 0269.  It was glued to the damaged page of 0133; as a result, 0269 has more text visible on one side than the other.  The lower writing on 0269 is upside-down compared to the upper writing. 
J. Harold Greenlee transcribed the text of 0269 in an article that was published in 1976 in Studies in New Testament Language and Text, a volume prepared to commemorate the 65th birthday of George D. Kilpatrick.  Greenlee had the benefit of ultraviolet light when making his transcription.  Digital images of 0269 are online (as the outer part of fol. 23 of Codex Blenheimus) but without ultraviolet light the lower writing is extremely difficult to read.  The accompanying pseudo-replica may give readers some idea of what it looked like before it was recycled.  
This pseudo-replica reconstructs
the appearance of Mark 6:14b-20
in two columns of text in 0269.
Small blue letters and verse-numbers
are supplied.  (Based on Greenlee's
transcription.)
    
The text of 0269 is distinctly Byzantine.  Its only variations from the text of the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform are orthographic:  ἀπεκεφάλησα instead of ἀπεκεφάλισα in 6:16, and ουτον instead of αυτον; this second variation, however, should not be readily accepted, inasmuch as Greenlee stated that the line containing it was read from the opposite glued-on side of the parchment; in addition, Greenlee did not mention it when listing non-Textus Receptus readings in 0269.  Meanwhile, 0269 disagrees frequently with Codex Vaticanus: 
v. 14 – 0269 reads ελεγεν; B reads ελεγον
v. 14 – 0269 reads εκ νεκρων ηγερθη; B reads εγηγερται εκ νεκρων
v, 15 – 0269 does not read δε after the first αλλοι
v. 15 – 0269 reads εστιν; B does not.
v. 16 – 0269 does not read ὁ before Ἡρωδης
v. 16 – 0269 reads ειπεν; B reads ελεγεν
v. 16 – 0269 reads οτι; B does not
v. 16 – 0269 reads εστιν; B does not
v. 16 – 0269 reads εκ νεκρων after ηγερθη; B does not
v. 17 – 0269 reads τ[ην γυ]ναικ[α]; B initially did not include these two words, but was then corrected to include them.

Nor does 0269’s text agree particularly with the Western flagship manuscript of the Gospels, Codex Bezae, which reads ελεγοσαν in v. 14, βαπτιστης in v. 14, εγηγερται εκ νεκρων in v. 14, omits προφητης ως in v. 15, reads εκ νεκρων after Ιωάνην in v. 16, includes και βαλεν in v. 17, transposes the last two words in v. 17, and reads σε in v. 18. 
Considering this data, it seems quite justifiable to call shenanigans regarding the Alands’ assignment of this fragment to Category III, as if it has a text that is mixed or unusual; its text should be confidently regarded as Byzantine. 


Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Codex Delta: Block-Mixed?

Mark 16:1b-17a
in Codex Sangallensis
.
(verse-numbers added)

            Codex Δ (037, Sangallensis), which we described in the previous post, is possibly the most important Greek-Latin Gospels-manuscripts produced in medieval Europe.  Bruce Metzger, in his handbook The Text of the New Testament, concisely described its text in Matthew, Luke, and John as Byzantine, and its text in Mark as Alexandrian.   This would make it a “block-mixed” manuscript, that is, a manuscript in which at least one portion echoes an ancestry not shared by the rest.
            That is, however, a somewhat oversimplified description of Codex Δ’s text.  The easiest way to show this is to drag you, patient reader, through lists of some of the readings in the manuscript.  First, let’s take a look at some of Δ’s non-Byzantine readings in the first 10 chapters of Matthew, Luke, and John:

Matthew
2:9 – Δ reads αυτοις, agreeing with L. 
3:16 – Δ is missing the first two words of the verse.
4:18 – Δ includes ο Ις near the beginning of the verse.
5:34 – Δ does not have τω before Κω, agreeing with L.
6:10 – Δ reads ελθατω instead of ελθετω agreeing with À, D, and W)
7:29 – Δ includes αυτων at the end of the verse (agreeing with À Β Κ Π).
8:16 – Δ adds ακαθαρτος (so as to emphasize that Jesus cast out the unclean spirits).
9:23 – Δ omits τους before αυλητας.
10:5 – Δ reads εισελθητε instead of απελθητε, and then απελθητε instead of εισελθητε.  
10:9 – Δ reads χαλικον instead of χαλκον.
10:33 – Δ omits (via h.t.) this verse; it is added by a corrector.

Luke
1:17 – Δ reads Κυ instead of αυτου after ενωπιον.
1:28 – Δ moves ο αγγελος to a location between αυτην and ειπεν (agreeing with À 69 579 700).
1:70 – Δ does not include των after αγιων.
2:15 – Δ does not include και οι ανθρωποι (agreeing with À B L W)
2:21 – Δ reads αυτον instead of το παιδίον (agreeing with À B A K L W Π).
2:36 – Δ reads μετα ανδρος ετη επτα (agreeing with À B* L N W).
3:4 – Δ does not include λεγοντος (agreeing with À B D L W)
6:1 – Δ does not include των before σπορίμων (agreeing with À* B A L W).
6:10 – Δ does not include υγιης but includes ως η αλλη (agreeing with A K Π).
7:6 – Δ does not include ο εκατοντάρχος.
8:21 – Δ does not include αυτον after ποιουντες (agreeing with P75 B A D L W).
8:36 – Δ does not include και after αυτοις (agreeing with P75 À B L).
9:20 – Δ reads αυτους instead of αυτοις.
9:33 – Δ reads υπ’ instead of απ’ (agreeing with L).
9:50 – Δ reads υμων instead of ημων after καθ’ (agreeing with P75 B À* D K L).
10:22 – Δ reads επιγινωσκει instead of γινωσκει (agreeing with C 33 700).

John
1:20 – Δ reads Εγω ουκ ειμι instead of Ουκ ειμι εγω (agreeing with P66 P75 B À A L).
1:22 – Δ reads ειπαν instead of ειπον (agreeing with P66 P75 B).
1:34 – Δ reads εωρακα instead of εορακα (agreeing with P66 B À A C L M N).
2:3 – Δ inserts (but a corrector removes) τοις καθημενοις before του Ιυ. 
2:4 – Δ does not include ο Ις.
3:8 – Δ reads αλλα instead of αλλ’ (agreeing with B 579 700).
4:8 – Δ does not include την before πολιν.
4:14 – Δ reads διψει instead of διψήση (or διψήσει)
4:21 – Δ does not have μοι after πιστευσον.
4:31 – Δ does not include αυτον.
4:37 – Δ does not have ο before αληθινος (agreeing with B L N 33).
5:25 – Δ does not have υμιν after λεγω.
5:28 – Δ does not have ωρα after ερχεται.
5:28 – Δ reads ακουσωσιν instead of ακουσουσιν or ακουσονται (agreeing with P66c À L)
6:5 – Δ does not include τον before Φιλιππον (agreeing with P66 B À D L 33)
6:16 – Δ does not include το before πλοιον (agreeing with P75 B À L 33 700)
6:22 – Δ reads ειδον instead of ιδων (agreeing with P75 B A 33)
6:44 – Δ reads με instead of εμε after προς (agreeing with B E M Θ U)
6:55 – Δ does not include μου after αιμα.
8:14 – Δ does not include the last phrase (from after υμεις – via h.t.).
8:24 – Δ reads πιστευσηται instead of πιστευσητε (agreeing with P66 L W)
8:39 – Δ reads εποιειτε αν (agreeing with L K M N Π 33).
9:1 – Δ does not include ο Ις.
9:27 – Δ reads μαθηται αυτου instead of αυτου μαθηται (agreeing with P66 À L D 33 157). 
9:32 – Δc reads ηνεωξεν (agreeing with B N W), corrected from ενεωξεν.
9:39 – Δ reads κρισιν instead of κριμα.
10:26 – Δ reads αλλα instead of αλλ (agreeing with P66 P75 B À A L W 33).
10:30 – Δ reads μου after πατηρ (agreeing with W 700).
10:34 – Δ reads ειπον instead of ειπα (agreeing with A D M S U 33).
10:39 – Δ reads ουν after Εζητουν (agreeing with P66 À A K L W 33).

These samples show that when the text of Δ drifts away from the Byzantine Text in Matthew, Luke, and John, it is often in quirky ways that can be attributed to the copyist – and when this explanation fails, the departure is often toward the Alexandrian Text – but the detour is always brief.  Once itacisms, variations in names, and obvious blunders are filtered out, the real mixture in the text of Δ in Matthew, Luke, and John is minimal.  It would be misleading to describe this manuscript’s Greek text in these three books as anything but Byzantine.
           
Now let’s look at the text of Mark in Δ.  It is quite different!

In Mark, the text of Δ  is much more Alexandrian – it supports “in Isaiah the prophet” in Mark 1:2, for instance – but not as much as some concise descriptions of the manuscript have led readers to believe.  Its text agrees with the Byzantine text at the end of Mark 1:2 (including εμπροσθεν σου), at the end of 1:5, at the beginning of 1:8 (including μεν), at the end of 1:9, 1:10 (επ not εις), at the beginning of 1:13 (Δ includes εκει), at the beginning of 1:14 (Μετα δε, not Και μετα), at the beginning of 1:16 (Περιπατων δε, not Και παραγων), and near the beginning of 1:19 (Δ includes εκειθεν before ολιγον). 
By the time Mark 1:20 is reached, the reader of Codex Δ has also encountered several readings which are neither Alexandrian nor Byzantine.  So should Δ’s text in Mark be considered an poorly transcribed form of the Alexandrian Text, or is it a Mixed Text (combining Alexandrian and Byzantine readings)?  The only sure way to find out is to sift through the text itself.  Let’s investigate some sample-passages and see whether Δ is allied more closely with B (representing the Alexandrian Text – using the readings it displayed when it left the scriptorium) or with A (representing the Byzantine Text), setting aside variant-units where Δ agrees with neither B nor A.

● Mark 2:1-12: 
1 – Δ  reads εισηλθεν (agreeing with A, not with B)
1 – Δ reads Καφαρναουμ (agreeing with B, not with A)
1 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)
1 – Δ reads εις οικον (agreeing with A, not with B)
2 – Δ includes ευθεως (agreeing with A, not with B)
3 – Δ’s word-order agrees with A, not with B)
4 – Δ reads προσεγγίσαι (agreeing with A, not with B)
4 – Δ reads εφ ω (agreeing with A, not with B)
5 – Δ reads Ιδων δε, agreeing with A, not with B)
5 – Δ does not include σου (agreeing with B, not with A)
7 – Δ reads βλασφημιας (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ reads ευθεως (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ includes ουτως αυτοι (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ includes αυτοις (agreeing with A, not with B)
9 – Δ reads αφίωνται (agreeing with A, not with B)
9 – Δ reads σοι (agreeing with A, not with B)
11 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)
12 – Δ reads ευθεως και (agreeing with A, not with B)
12 - Δ reads εναντιον (agreeing with A, not with B)
12 – Δ includes λεγοντας (agreeing with A, not with B)
12 – Δ’s word-order agrees with A, not with B
 That’s a score of 19 agreements with A, and 2 agreements with B.  

● Mark 4:1-12
1 – Δ reads συνάγεται (agreeing with B, not with A)
1 – Δ reads πλειστος (agreeing with B, not with A)
2 – Δ reads ησαν (agreeing with B, not with A)
3 – Δ includes του (agreeing with A, not with B)
5 – Δ reads ευθυς (agreeing with B, not with A)
5 – Δ does not include της (agreeing with A, not with B)
6 – Δ begins the verse with και ότε (agreeing with B, not with A)
6 – Δ reads ο ηλιος (agreeing with B, not with A)
6 – Δ reads εκαυματίσθη (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ reads αλλο (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ reads αυξανόμενον (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ reads εις (before εφερεν) (agreeing with B, not with A)
9 – Δ reads Ος εχει (agreeing with B, not with A)
10 – Δ reads Και οτε (agreeing with B, not with A)
10 – Δ reads τας παραβολας (agreeing with B, not with A)
11 – Δ’s word-order agrees with A, not with B [although Δ has γνωναι]
12 – Δ reads γινεται (agreeing with B, not with A)
12 – Δ reads αφεθη (agreeing with B, not with A)
Codex Δ agrees with B against A twelve times, twice as much as it agrees with A against B.    

● Mark 6:14-29
14 – Δ reads ελεγεν (agreeing with A, not with B)
14 – Δ reads εγηγερται (agreeing with B, not with A)
14 – Δ reads Ιάννης (agreeing with A, not with B)
14 – Δ’s word-order agrees with B, not with A
15 – Δ reads Ηλιας, agreeing with A, not with B
15 – Δ does not include εστιν (agreeing with B, not with A)
16 – Δ reads ειπεν (agreeing with A, not with B)
16 – Δ reads οτι (agreeing with A, not with B)
16 – Δ does not include αυτος (agreeing with B, not with A)
16 – Δ does not include εκ νεκρων (agreeing with B, not with A)
17 – Δ reads γαρ (agreeing with B, not with A)
17 – Δ reads Ιάννης (agreeing with A, not with B)
17 – Δ’s word-order agrees with B, not with A 
18 – Δ reads Ιάννης (agreeing with A, not with B)
19 – Δ reads εδυνατο (agreeing with A, not with B)
20 – Δ reads Ιάννην (agreeing with A, not with B)
20 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)
21 – Δ reads εποίησεν (agreeing with B, not with A)
21 – Δ reads Γαλιλαίας (agreeing with A, not with B)
22 – Δ reads αυτου (agreeing with B, not with A)
22 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)
22 – Δ’s word-order agrees with A, not with B
23 – Δ does not include ο (after ο τι) (agreeing with B, not with A)
23 – Δ does not include με (agreeing with B, not with A)
24 – Δ reads και (agreeing with B, not with A)
24 – Δ reads Ιωάννου (agreeing with A, not with B)
24 – Δ reads βαπτιζοντος (agreeing with B, not with A)
25 – Δ reads ευθυς (agreeing with B, not with A)
25 – Δ’s word-order agrees with B, not with A
25 – Δ reads Ιωάννου (agreeing with A, not with B)
26 – Δ reads ανακειμένους (agreeing with B, not with A)
26 – Δ’s word-order agrees with B, not with A
27 – Δ reads ευθυς (agreeing with B, not with A)
27 – Δ reads ενεγκαι (agreeing with B, not with A)
27 – Δ reads και (agreeing with B, not with A)
29 – Δ reads ηλθον (agreeing with A, not with B)  
Thus in this section there are 16 agreements with A and 20 agreements with B.  Half of those agreements with A, however, involve the orthography of proper names, so if the effects of the unusual spelling employed by B’s copyist are withdrawn from the equation, it is clear that in this passage, Δ favors the Alexandrian Text about two-thirds of the time.  (Also, a reading of Δ in verse 19 that disagrees with B and A resembles the reading in B far more than the reading in A.)   

Mark 8:1-10 
1 – Δ reads παλιν πολλου (agreeing with B, not with A)
2 – Δ reads τρεις (agreeing with A, not with B)
2 – Δ includes μοι (agreeing with A, not with B)
3 – Δ reads και τινες (agreeing with B, not with A)
3 – Δ reads εισιν (agreeing with B, not with A)
4 – Δ includes οτι (agreeing with B, not with A)
4 – Δ reads ερημίας (agreeing with B, not with A)
5 – Δ reads ηρωτα (agreeing with B, not with A)
6 – Δ reads παραγγέλλει (agreeing with B, not with A)
6 – Δ reads παρατιθωσιν (agreeing with B, not with A)
7 – Δ reads ειχαν (agreeing with B, not with A)
7 – Δ reads και ταυτα παρατιθέναι (agreeing with B, not with A)
9 – Δ reads και εφαγον (agreeing with B, not with A)
9 – Δ does not include οι φάγοντες (agreeing with B, not with A)
10 – Δ does not include αυτος (agreeing with A, not with B)
10 – Δ reads Δαλμανουθα (agreeing with A, not with B)
Thus in this section, Δ allies with B against A 12 times, while joining A against B only four times.  In all of those four places, B’s reading is also opposed by À L 33.  So, if we consider an agreement of À and L and 33 to represent the Alexandrian Text better than B at points where B sings a solo (or at least a solo among the uncials), then Codex Δ never agrees with A against the Alexandrian Text in this passage.  Here, Δ is solidly Alexandrian.      

Let’s take one more sample:
Mark 14:1-9.
2 – Δ reads δε (agreeing with A, not with B)
3 – Δ reads ελθεν (agreeing with A, not with B)
3 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)
3 – Δ reads την (agreeing with B, not with A)
3 – Δ does not include κατα (agreeing with B, not with A)
4 – Δ includes και λέγοντες (agreeing with A, not with B)
5 – Δ reads ενεβριμωντο (agreeing with A, not with B)
6 – Δ reads ειργάσατο (agreeing with A, not with B)
7 – Δ reads αυτοις (agreeing with B, not with A)
7 – Δ does not include παντοτε (agreeing with A, not B)
8 – Δ includes αυτη (transposed) (agreeing with A, not with B)
8 – Δ’s word-order (μου το σωμα) agrees with A, not with B
9 – Δ includes δε (agreeing with B, not with A)
9 – Δ includes τουτο (agreeing with A, not with B)
In these nine verses, Δ agrees ten times with A against B, and only four times with B against A.  In verse 9, the Byzantine Text includes δε, thus disagreeing with A.  This passage is much more Byzantine than it is Alexandrian.       

Exactly how the text of Mark in Codex Δ obtained its unique mixture of Alexandrian and Byzantine readings is an unanswered question.  Perhaps the creator of Δ’s exemplar possessed two Greek copies of Mark – an early Byzantine Gospels-manuscript and a manuscript with a strongly Alexandrian text – and created an eclectic Greek text by selecting, from both manuscripts, whatever reading seemed to better confirm the copyist’s native Latin text.    
Adding to the mystery is the occasional appearance of readings with strange allies, such as Δ’s bare ειπεν in 6:25 (allied with family-1), and its non-inclusion of κλασμάτων in 8:8 (allied with W – see also their shared non-inclusion of και Σιδωνος in 7:24).  We do not have to solve this question, however, to notice the implications of the data:  Codex Δ does not simply have an Alexandrian Text in Mark; the text of Mark in Codex Δ is heavily mixed throughout, and at any given point its reading is almost as likely to be Byzantine as it is likely to be Alexandrian.       

Notably, Codex Δ includes Mark 16:9-20 (without any notes or asterisks, and with Eusebian section-number 234 given to the final section, beginning at 16:13) – and there, too, the text is mixed.  There are non-Byzantine readings in verses 11 (υπ’ αυτης εθεαθη, a transposition), 14 (Δ includes εκ νεκρων – cf. Justin Martyr’s First Apology chapter 50), 16 (Δ has ο before βαπτισθεις, agreeing with L), 17 (καιναις is omitted, agreeing with C* L Ψ), 18 (Και εν ταις χερσιν is included in Δ, agreeing with C L Ψ 1 1582 33 579), and 19 (Κς Ις, agreeing with Irenaeus’ quotation of the verse and with C* K L 33 579, rather than just Κς – and εν δεξια rather than εκ δεξιων).  
As one can see by a close examination of the text of Mark 16:17-18 in Codex Δ, the interlinear Latin text is not derived from the Greek text that it accompanies; in Mark 16:17-18, the Greek text lacks καιναις but the Latin text has novis; the Greek text has “And in their hands” (Και εν ταις χερσιν) but this is not reflected in the Latin text.  This might provoke a curious observer to look a little more closely into the Latin text.  Is it all a normal Vulgate text?  We shall look into that question in the next post.
           



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