Do Byzantine MSS Have Less Disagreements? (Part 2)

            Today we continue to look into a question about the rates of disagreements in the two main Alexandrian manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), asking if their rate or disagreement is uniquely high compared to other pairs of manuscripts, particularly manuscripts which attest to the Byzantine Text.  Our sample manuscript-pair to contrast with B and À are Codex Alexandrinus (A) and minuscule 2474 (the Elfleda Bond Goodspeed Gospels). 

            In Part 1, we saw that in Luke 19:1-27, while B and À disagree 20 times (including three transpositions), A and 2474 disagree 14 times.  We also saw that the disagreements in B and À in those verses involve 49 letters’ worth of disagreement – but in A and 2474, the disagreements involve 69 letters’ worth of disagreement. 

            Now let’s see how each pair of manuscripts disagrees in Luke 19:28-48, using the same ground-rules as before.

Luke 19:28-48:  Comparison of Codex A and 2474

28 – no differences

29 – no differences

30 – 2474 reads ω instead of ον before ουδεις (+1, -2)

30 – (2474 transposes so as to read αυτον αγάγετε)

30 – 2474 reads μοι at the end of the verse (+3) [Agreeing with G and N.] 

31 – no differences

32 – no differences

33 – no differences

34 – no differences

35 – (2474 transposes so as to read εαυτων τα)

36 – 2474 reads αυτων instead of εαυτων (-1)

37 – no differences

38 – 2474 does not have βασιλευς (-8)

38 – 2474 transposes so as to read ειρήνη εν ουνω

39 – no differences

40 – (several itacisms here, but no significant variants)

41 – 2474 reads αυτη instead of αυτην (-1)

42 – 2474 reads σου after ημερα (+3)

42 – Codex A does not have νυν δε εκρύβη απο οφθαλμων σου (-25) [h.t. error]

43 – no differences

44 – 2474 reads λιθων instead of λιθον (+1, -1)

45 – no differences

46 – Codex A reads οτι after γεγραπται (+3)

46 – 2474 reads κληθήσεται instead of εστιν (+10, -5)

46 – 2474 transposes so as to read εποιήσατε αυτον

47 – Codex A does not have οι after αρχιερεις και (-2)

48 – no differences

Luke 19:28-48:  Comparison of À and B

28 – no differences

29 – B reads εγετο instεad of εγενετο (-2)

29 – B does not have Ελεων (-5)

30 – À does not have και after εκαθισεν (-3)

31 – no differences

32 – no differences

33 – no differences

34 – no differences

35 – À reads επεβίβασαν instead of επεβίσαν (+2)

36 – À reads αυτων instead of εαυτων (-1)

37 – À reads πασων instead of παντων (+3, -4)

38 – À does not read ὁ ερχόμενος (-10)

38 – À reads εν before ειρήνη (+2)

39 – no differences

40 – B does not read οτι before εαν (-3)

41 – no differences

42 – no differences

43 – À reads περεμβαλουσιν instead of περιβαλουσιν (+2, -1)

43 – À does not read σε before και συνέξουσιν (-2)

43 – À does not read σε before πάντοθεν (-2)

44 – no differences

45 – no differences

46 – À does not read και εσται before ο οικος (-8)

47 – À does not read ιερω.  Οι δε (-8)

48 – no differences

            And now for the totals:  A and 2474 disagree 14 times in Luke 19:28-48, and these differences involve 58 letters’ worth of difference. Meanwhile, B and À disagree 15 times in Luke 18:28-49, and these differences involve 66 letters’ worth of difference. 

            In Luke 19 (combining the results in Parts 1 and 2), A and 2474 disagree 28 times, and their disagreements involve 127 letters’ worth of difference.  B and À disagree 35 times, and their disagreements involve 115 letters’ worth of difference.  All in all, this comparison indicates that the texts of Byzantine manuscripts are capable of as much intramural competition, so to speak, as the texts of Alexandrian manuscripts.

           But the possibility exists that we are looking non-typical samples.  Let’s dig a little further in Part 3 by exploring one of the sub-groups of the Byzantine Text:  manuscripts from family 35, which has a reputation for uniformity.

Hand to Hand Combat: B, Aleph, and 1295 in Luke 2:1-12

            How much more reliable are ancient manuscripts than medieval manuscripts?  Today, as the Christmas season approaches, we will look into that question by comparing Luke 2:1-12 – a passage about the birth of Christ – in the forms in which it appears in Codex Vaticanus (early 300s), Codex Sinaiticus (mid-300s), and minuscule 1295 (800s).   

            Minuscule 1295 is a Gospels-manuscript housed at the National Library of France, accessible online as Supplement grec 1257.  Let’s compare its text of Luke 2:1-12 to the same passage in the Nestle-Aland compilation (27^th ed.).  (The usual ground-rules for hand-to-hand combat are in play:  contractions of sacred named don’t count as variants; transpositions are noticed but not counted (unless a change to the text other than transposition occurs); kai-abbreviations and similar features are not counted as variants; bracketed word in the NA text are considered to be part of the text.  Calculations are made for all variations, and for non-trivial variations.)       

Minuscule 1295 Compared to NA27

1 – no variations

2 – 1295 reads η after αυτη (+1, -0)

3 – 1295 reads ιδιαν instead of εαυτου (+5, -6)

4 – 1295 reads Ναζαρετ instead of Ναζαρεθ (+1, -1) 

4 – 1295 reads πολην instead of πολιν (+1, -1)

5 – 1295 reads μεμνηστευμένη instead of εμνηστευμένη (+1, -0)

5 – 1295 reads γυναικι after αυτω (+7, -0)

6 – 1295 reads επλισθησαν instead of επλησθησαν (+1, -1)

7 – 1295 reads ανεκληνεν instead of ανεκλινεν (+1, -1) 

7 – 1295 reads τη before φάτνη (+2, -0)

8 – no variations

9 – 1295 reads ιδου before αγγελος (+4, -0)

10 – no variations

11 – 1295 reads εστι instead of εστιν (+0, -1)

12 – 1295 does not have και before κειμενον (+0, -3)      

This yields the following raw totals:  24 non-original letters are present and 14 original letters are absent, yielding a total of 38 letters’ worth of deviation from NA. 

When trivial variations are removed from the equation, six variants remain:

            2 – 1295 reads η after αυτη (+1, -0)

            3 – 1295 reads ιδιαν instead of εαυτου (+5, -6)

            5 – 1295 reads γυναικι after αυτω (+7, -0)

            7 – 1295 reads τη before φάτνη (+2, -0)

            9 – 1295 reads ιδου before αγγελος (+4, -0)

12 – 1295 does not have και before κειμενον (+0, -3)          

Thus, if trivial variations are set aside, 1295’s text of Luke 2:1-12 contains 19 non-original letters, and is missing 9 original letters, for a total of 28 letters’ worth of corruption.

Now let’s see how Codex Vaticanus did:

Vaticanus Compared to NA27

1 – B reads εξελθε instead of εξελθεν (+0, -1)

2 – B reads Κυρεινου instead of Κυρηνιου (+2, -2)

3 – no variations

4 – B reads Γαλειλαιας (+1, -0)

[4 – B reads Δαυειδ, twice, but this is not reckoned in the calculations because the word is normally contracted.]

5 – B reads εγγυω instead of εγκυω (+1, -1)

6 – no variations

7 – B reads ετεκε instead of ετεκεν (+0, -1)

7 – B reads ανεκλεινεν instead of ανεκλινεν (+1, -0)

8 – no variations

9 – B reads σφοδρα instead of φοβον μέγαν (+6, -10)

10 – no variations

[11 – B reads Δαυειδ, but this is not reckoned in the calculations because the word is normally contracted.]

12 – B does not have το before σημειον (+0, -2)

This yields the following raw totals:  11 non-original letters are present, and 17 original letters are absent, yielding a total of 28 letters’ worth of deviation from NA.  

When itacisms and similar minor orthographic variants are removed from consideration, only two variants remain:

            9 – B reads σφοδρα instead of φοβον μέγαν (+6, -10)

            12 – B does not have το before σημειον (+0, -2).

Thus, when trivial variations are set aside, Vaticanus’ text of Luke 2:1-12 has 6 non-original letters, and is missing 12 original letters, for a total of 18 letters’ worth of corruption. 

And now for the examination of the text of Codex Sinaiticus in Luke 2:1-12:

Sinaiticus Compared to NA27

1 – À reads εκιναις instead of εκειναις (+0, -1)

1 - À reads Αγουστου instead of Αυγουστου (+0, -1)

1 - À reads απογραφεσθε instead of απογραφεσθαι (+1, -2)

2 – À reads αυτην instead of αυτη (+1, -0)

2 - À reads απογραφην instead of απογραφη (+1, -0)

2 - À transposes so as to read εγενετο πρωτη

3 – À does not have παντες (+0, -5+)

3 - À transposes so as to read εκαστος απογραφεσθε (+1, -2)

3 - À reads εαυτων instead of εαυτου (+2, -2)

4 – À reads την before πολιν (+3, -0) 

5 – À reads απογραφεσθαι instead of απογραψασθαι (+2, -2)

6 – À reads τεκιν instead of τεκειν (+0, -1)

7 – À reads επι instead of εν (+2, -1)

8 – À reads ποιμαινες instead of ποιμενες (+2, -1)

[9 – À reads Θυ instead of Κυ, but the correction may have been made while the codex was still in production.]

9 - À reads επελαμψεν instead of περιελαμψεν (+2, -4)

10 – À reads αυτοις instead of αυτους (+1, -1)

10 – À reads φοβισθε instead of φοβεισθε (+0, -1)

11 – À reads εστιν instead of εσται (+2, -2)

11 - À reads πολι instead of πολει (+0, -1)

12 – À reads ημιν instead of υμιν (+1, -1)

12 – À reads σημιον instead of σημειον (+0, -1)

12 – À reads ευρησεται instead of ευρησετε (+2, -1)

12 – À reads εσσπαργανωμενον instead of εσπαργανωμενον (+1, -0)

12 – À does not include και κειμενον (+0, -11)

12 – À reads επι instead of εν (+2, -1)

This yields the following raw totals:  25 non-original letters are present, and 42 original letters are absent, yielding a total of 67 letters’ worth of deviation from NA.

When itacisms, transpositions, and minor orthographic variants are removed from consideration, eleven variant-readings remain:

            ● 2 – À reads αυτην instead of αυτη (+1, -0)

            ● 3 – À does not have παντες (+0, -5)

            ● 3 - À reads εαυτων instead of εαυτου (+2, -2)

            ● 4 – À reads την before πολιν (+3, -0) 

            ● 7 – À reads επι instead of εν (+2, -1)

            ● 9 - À reads επελαμψεν instead of περιελαμψεν (+2, -4)

            ● 10 – À reads αυτοις instead of αυτους (+1, -1)

            ● 11 – À reads εστιν instead of εσται (+2, -2)

            ● 12 – À reads ημιν instead of υμιν (+1, -1)

            ● 12 – À does not include και κειμενον (+0, -11)

            ● 12 – À reads επι instead of εν (+2, -1)

Thus, when trivial variations are eliminated, Sinaiticus’ text of Luke 2:1-12 has 16 non-original letters, and is missing 28 original letters, for a total of 44 letters’ worth of corruption. 

And now, let’s go to the podium!

Vaticanus took the gold in this contest – which is not surprising, considering how highly it was esteemed when the Westcott-Hort compilation of 1881 – the grandmother of the modern Nestle-Aland compilation – was assembled.  Vaticanus’ text has 28 letters’ worth of deviations from NA, and the only significant variants – in v. 9 and v. 12 – constitute only 18 letters’ worth of corruption.

1295 goes home with the silver:  its text of Luke 2:1-12 has 38 letters’ worth of deviations from NA, and its six non-trivial variants constitute 28 letters’ worth of corruption (four added words, one word-substitution, and one omitted word). 

Sinaiticus takes the bronze:  À has 67 letters’ worth of deviation from NA in the text of Luke 2:1-12; its eleven significant variants constitute 44 letters’ worth of corruption.  This does not say much for the reliability of the copyists who worked in Sinaiticus’ transmission-stream:  compared to the copyists in 1295’s transmission-stream, the copyists in Sinaiticus’ transmission-stream managed to produce a text of Luke 2:1-12 that had almost twice as much corruption, in less than half the time.  We may safely conclude – if the Nestle-Aland compilation is considered a very close approximation of the original text – that the age of a manuscript is no guarantee of accuracy, at least as far as this passage is concerned.

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●   

Post-script:  A Brief Textual Commentary on Luke 2:1-12

Luke 2:1-12 - the text of the
Complutensian Polyglot (1514)
with a few alterations.

1295’s text of Luke 2:1-12 differs from the passage in the Byzantine Textform only in regard to itacisms and the spelling of the word “Nazareth.”  We have used the Nestle-Aland compilation in the preceding comparison, for the sake of convenience – but its accuracy is not granted automatically.  Let’s briefly investigate the six significant differences in Luke 2:1-12 between 1295 and Vaticanus – which happen to also be the six significant differences between the Byzantine Textform and the Nestle-Aland compilation in this passage. 

● Luke 2:2 –η should be read after αυτη.  The reading in the Alexandrian Text is a simple case of haplography.

● Luke 2:3 – Between ιδιαν πολιν and εαυτου πολιν, the former has a parallel, though distant, in Matthew 9:1; no evident impetus exists to change from ιδιαν to εαυτου.         

● Luke 2:5 – The inclusion of γυναικι has a clarifying effect.  The Peshitta does not support the inclusion of this word.    

● Luke 2:7 – The word τη before φάτνη was removed because some early scribes considered it question-raising, inasmuch as Luke’s narrative has not mentioned a stable or animals; nor is a reason given to expect just one manger to be in the place where Mary gave birth.  Observe how the KJV and NKJV do not translate the word, although the Textus Receptus includes it.  

● Luke 2:9 – The recurrence of the word ιδου (here, and in 2:10) seemed too repetitive to an early copyist.  There is no impetus to add the word, especially so close to its appearance in 2:10.  Inclusion is supported not only by A D K Δ but also by the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Peshitta. 

● Luke 2:12 – Byz, A, K, et al do not have και before κειμενον.  The word is a natural expansion in the Alexandrian text.   

(A text identical to the Byzantine Textform, except for the readings recommended in verses 2, 3, and 5, would be closer to the Nestle-Aland compilation than the text in any of the three manuscripts considered today.)

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

Fourth-century Philemon: P139

           This past May, along with the release of the small fragment formerly known as “First Century Mark,” (P137) two other New Testament papyri were released:  a fragment with text from the Gospel of Luke (P138), and a fragment with text from Paul’s Epistle to Philemon (P139).  The Egypt Exploration Society kindly provided interested persons with access to images of the fragment of Mark, and a picture of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 5347 – the fragment from Philemon – is on the same page.  The images show text from verses 6-8 and 18-20.

             Without consulting the transcription offered by the editor of P139 (Notre Dame professor Dr. David Lincicum), I have attempted a transcription of it.   For the official transcription, made by someone who could study the papyrus directly, you will need to consult Volume 83 of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri – Graeco-Roman Memoirs, a publication of the Egypt Exploration Society.  The script is consistent with a production-date in the 300s, which means that this papyrus is one of our three earliest Greek manuscripts of Philemon (ranking behind P87 and more or less tied with Codex Sinaiticus).

Here are some thoughts and observations about the text of this newly published witness to the text of Philemon that was read in Egypt in the 300s:
    

● v. 6 – υμειν confirms the reading εν υμιν (with an inconsequential spelling-difference), and this might tilt the balance of evidence away from εν ημιν, the reading that is presently read in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece.

● v. 6-7 – My reconstruction of the second line is very tentative.  Somewhere in the non-extant text,  space-considerations seem to support the non-inclusion of Ἰησουν (even contracted as a sacred name). 

● v. 7 – P139 definitely supports πολλην εσχον, not εχομεν πολλην. 

● v. 7 – There may be a raised dot between σου and οτι. 

● v. 8 – Where there should be an ο in πολλην, P139 appears to have an ε.

● v. 18 – τουτο appears to have been written as τοουτο.

● v. 19 – The last visible letter in the fourth line could be an ε or a smudged ι.

● v. 19 – Instead of the usual reading σεαυτόν, P139 reads αυτον, and ε has been added above the α, so as to support εαυτόν. 

● v. 19 – A slight orthographic variant, ι instead of ει in προσοφείλεις, is supported by P139.  This spelling (without the ε) is also supported by Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and by Codex Claromontanus (which doesn’t have the ε after the λ, either; a corrector has inserted it).

● v. 20 – A new reading appears to be attested by P139:  after ἐγώ σου, one would expect ὀναίμην ἐν Κω (i.e., Κυρίω) – part of the phrase, “Let me have from you joy in the Lord.”  Instead, only a smidgen of ink has survived where ὀναίμην ἐν would be, and at the beginning of the next, last line, instead of Κω or Κυρίω, we see the letters χρ.  Over these two letters χρ and extending into the left margin there is a paragraphos, a horizontal line that was used by copyists to separate paragraphs.  The letters χρ appear to be followed by the remains of a sloping ω, in which case we have here a three-letter form of a sacred-name contraction (with the paragraphos to be construed as serving a dual purpose); however the last letter could also be a ε, which would imply that the copyist wrote the word χρειστω in full (which would be highly unusual); either way, P139 thus supports a form of the text of the middle of verse 20 which reads “in Christ” rather than “in the Lord.” 

            This is of course only a preliminary reading based on a black-and-white photograph.  After completing my own transcription, I checked it against the transcription in Oxyrhynchus Papyri Volume 83, and although there are some disagreements between my work and that of Dr. Lincicum, I was satisfied with how my transcription turned out.  Readers are encouraged of course to consult the official transcription.

    

Hand-to-Hand Combat! Sinaiticus vs. Minuscule 2474

           

The first page of the Gospel of John
in the Elfleda Bond Goodspeed Gospels.

            It’s time for some hand-to-hand combat!  Today’s contest takes place in Matthew 24:23-30, a passage which contains some of Jesus’ instructions to His disciples regarding false prophets and signs of the end of the world.  The combatants:  Codex Sinaiticus – which is universally acknowledged as a very important manuscript, having been produced c. 350 – and minuscule 2474, known as the Elfleda Bond Goodspeed Gospels.

            Among New Testament manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus is among the most famous.  As for minuscule 2474, few people knew of its existence until early in 1952, when it was purchased in Istanbul (Constantinople) by the American collector Harry Kurdian of Wichita, Kansas; it was acquired by Edgar J. Goodspeed later the same year.  He added it to the manuscript-collection at the University of Chicago in honor of his wife, who had died in 1949. 

            Let’s take a minute to learn something about Elfleda Bond Goodspeed.  Her unusual first name is the same as that of a British saint (and friend of Saint Cuthbert) of the 600’s.  Mrs. Goodspeed was born in 1880, at about the same time when her father, Joseph Bond, after being diagnosed with a debilitating condition, prayed to receive 20 years of life.  His prayer was answered; though still far from a state of strong physical health, he used that time to develop a highly profitable home-radiator business, and in 1901, one year before his death, his daughter Elfleda married Edgar Goodspeed.  Elfleda Bond Goodspeed was considered worthy not only of the honor of having a Greek Gospels-manuscript named in her honor, but in addition, on the campus of the University of Chicago, if one visits the Joseph Bond Chapel, one can see the exquisite stained-glass windows which her husband donated in her memory. 

            And now, on to the combat! 

            I will examine each manuscript’s text of these eight verses using the same standard of comparison:  each will be compared to the text in the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation; each non-original letter will be noted, each lack of an original letter will be noted; transpositions will be mentioned but not considered a loss or gain; contractions of sacred names and of the word και (“and”) will not be counted as omissions.  After the exhaustive comparison, another comparison will be made in which itacisms (minor interchanges of vowels) are removed from consideration.

Let’s see how the copyist of Codex Sinaiticus did.

23 – no variation.

24 – ﬡ has ψευδοπροφητε instead of ψευδοπροφηται (+1, -2)

24 – ﬡ has σημια instead of σημεια (-1)

24 – ﬡ does not have μεγαλα (-6)

24 – ﬡ has πλανηθηναι instead of πλανησαι (+3, -1)

25 – no variation.

26 – ﬡ does not have ουν (-3)

26 – ﬡ has ταμιοις instead of ταμειοις (-1)

27 – ﬡ has εξερχετε instead of εξερχεται (+1, -2)

27 – ﬡ has φαινετε instead of φαινεται (+1, -2)

27 – ﬡ has εστε instead of εσται (+1, -2)

[28 – ﬡ does not have the letter ο at the beginning of the verse (at the start of οπου); however a correction has been made, possibly by the proofreader of the manuscript, so this will not be included in the total.]

28 – ﬡ has σωμα instead of πτωμα (+1, -2); a correction has been made, but it is post-production, so this will be included in the total.

28 – ﬡ has εκι instead of εκει (-1)

28 – ﬡ has συναχθησοντε instead of συναχθησονται (+1, -2)

29 – ﬡ has εκινων instead of εκεινων (-1)

29 – ﬡ has σκοτισθησετε instead of σκοτισθησεται (+1, -2)

29 – ﬡ has δωσι instead of δωσει (-1)

29 – ﬡ has εκ instead of απο (+2, -3)

29 – ﬡ has δυναμις instead of δυναμεις (-1)

30 – ﬡ has φανησετε instead of φανησεται (+1, -2)

30 – ﬡ has σημιον instead of σημειον (-1)

30 – ﬡ does not have the second τοτε (-4); the word is added above the line but this appears to be post-production.

30 – ﬡ has κοψοντε instead of κοψονται (+1, -2)

[30 – ﬡ has πασε instead of πασαι.  A correction was made above the line; this correction looks like it was made by the proofreader, so this will not be included in the total.]

[30 – ﬡ has ε instead of αι.  A correction was made above the line; this correction looks like it was made by the proofreader, so this will not be included in the total.]

30 – ﬡ has οψοντε instead of οψονται (+1, -2)

            Thus, in the course of Matthew 24:23-30, Sinaiticus’ text displays 59 letters’ worth of corruption, consisting of the addition of 15 non-original letters, and the loss of 44 original letters.  This does not reflect well on the copyist.  However, many of the alterations in the text consist of small orthographic variations, within a word, he often wrote ι instead of ει, and at the end of a word he often wrote ε instead of αι.  If these orthographic quirks are removed from the equation, then the variations in ﬡ look more like this – 

            ● 24 – ﬡ does not have μεγαλα (-6)

            ● 24 – ﬡ has πλανηθηναι instead of πλανησαι (+3, -1)

            ● 26 – ﬡ does not have ουν (-3)

            ● 28 – ﬡ has σωμα instead of πτωμα (+1, -2)

            ● 29 – ﬡ has εκ instead of απο (+2, -3)

            ● 30 – ﬡ does not have the second τοτε (-4) –

which yields more respectable results:  if we ignore itacisms, Sinaiticus’ text in Matthew 24:23-30 has 25 letters’ worth of corruption, consisting of the introduction of six non-original letters and the loss of 19 original letters.

Now let’s see how the scribe of minuscule 2474 did.

23 – 2474 has πιστεύσηται instead of πιστεύσητε (+2, -1) 

24 – 2474 has has ψευδοπροφητε instead of ψευδοπροφηται (+1, -2)

25 – no variation.

26 – no variation.

27 – no variation.

28 – 2474 has γαρ after οπου (+3)

29 – no variation.

30 – 2474 has τω before ουρανω (+2)

30 – 2474 has οψοντε instead of οψονται (+1, -2)

            Thus, in the course of Matthew 24:23-30, 2474’s text contains 14 letters’ worth of corruption, consisting of the inclusion of nine non-original letters and the non-inclusion of five original letters.  If we remove itacisms from the equation, as was done with the text in Sinaiticus, then the corruptions in 2474 in Matthew 24:23-30 consist of:

            ● the inclusion of γαρ after οπου in verse 28, and

            ● the inclusion of τω before ουρανω in verse 30. 

            From this comparison, it may be concluded that in the transmission-stream of Codex Sinaiticus, 59 letters’ worth of corruption were introduced in the course of 280 years (positing the composition of the Gospel of Matthew in A.D. 70, and the production of Codex Sinaiticus in A.D. 350), which yields an ACR (Annual Corruption Rate) of .21 – that is, it implies that copyists in the Alexandrian transmission-stream were producing, on average, .21 letters’ worth of corruption each year.

            When itacisms are removed from the equation, over half of the corruptions in Matthew 24:23-30 in Sinaiticus are also removed; it then has only 25 letters’ worth of corruption and its transmission-stream’s ACR drops to .09.  

            Meanwhile, granting a production-date for 2474 around A.D. 950, the 14 letters’ worth of corruption in minuscule 2474’s text of Matthew 24:23-30 imply that as far as the text of Matthew 24:23-30 is concerned, its transmission-stream’s ACR is only .016.  When itacisms are removed from the equation, the ACR of the transmission-stream of 2474 drops to .0057.

To review:

            Sinaiticus’ text of Matthew 24:23-30 has 59 letters’ worth of corruption.  Removing itacisms from consideration, it has 25 letters’ worth of corruption.  This implies that, on average, copyists in the transmission-stream that produced this text added .09 letters’ worth of corruption each year, besides itacistic readings.

            Minuscule 2474’s text of Matthew 24:23-30 has 14 letters’ worth of corruption.  Removing itacisms from consideration, it has 5 letters’ worth of corruption.  This implies that, on average, copyists in the transmission-stream that produced this text added .016 letters’ worth of corruption each year, besides itacistic readings. 

            No matter which set of figures one uses (with, or without, itacisms), this analysis shows that in this contest, the much younger manuscript has a much better text, and that the Byzantine copyists in its transmission-line worked far more carefully than the Alexandrian copyists in the transmission-line of Codex Sinaiticus.  The copyists in the Byzantine transmission-stream that produced the text of 2474 were at least five times better at avoiding corruption than the copyists in the Alexandrian transmission-stream that produced the text of Codex Sinaiticus.  (When itacisms are removed from consideration, and the standard of comparison is the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform, rather than the Nestle-Aland compilation, the amount of corruption in the Elfleda Bond Goodspeed Gospels in Matthew 24:23-30 drops to zero.)

Hand-to-Hand Combat: Codex W vs. Minuscule 545

The first page of Mark
in Codex W.

          In two hand-to-hand contests earlier this month, Codex Cyprius defeated Codex Sinaiticus in Matthew 5:1-20, and the Georgius Gospels (2266) crushed Codex Bezae in Luke 2:1-21.  Today, Codex Washingtoniensis (W, 032) – the oldest manuscript of the four Gospels in North America – faces a relatively young manuscript:  minuscule 545, which was produced in 1430.  

          In 1430, Lorenzo Valla was already alive, and it would be less than a century before the production of the first printed Greek text of the New Testament.  Can there really be any doubt, when comparing a manuscript from the fifth century to a manuscript from the fifteenth century, which will be shown to have the more accurate text? 

          Let’s briefly take a closer look at Codex W.  It has been called “The World’s Third Oldest Bible” by National Geographic, although that is rather imprecise inasmuch as many papyri are older than Codex W.  It is more precise to say that Codex W is possibly the world’s third oldest manuscript of the four Gospels that is essentially complete, substantially containing (despite some damage) the text of Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark.  According to Rachel Nuwer of the Smithsonian Institution (where Codex W is part of the collection of the Freer-Sackler Gallery), this manuscript was made in “the late fourth or early fifth century,” that is, around the year 400.

          Surely, inasmuch as the New Testament text gradually grew as each generation of copyists added embellishments and harmonizations, one might expect that in a well-known passage of the Gospel of Mark such as the Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:1-9), which is paralleled in Matthew and Luke, one may confidently suspect that the text of Mark in a fifteenth-century minuscule contains more corruptions than the text in a fifth-century uncial.  However, as logical as that may seem, it might not be entirely a waste of effort to make a direct comparison of Mark 4:1-9 in 545 and in Codex W. 

          One of the most notable features of Codex W is its block-mixture.  In the Gospel of Matthew, the text of Codex W is essentially Byzantine, but in Mark 1-4, its text aligns more closely with Codex Bezae.  In Mark 5-16, its closest textual relative, so to speak, is Papyrus 45.  In Luke 1:1-8:12, the text is Alexandrian, and in the rest of Luke it is essentially Byzantine again.  John 1:1-5:12 is written on replacement-pages and the text of this portion is essentially Alexandrian (albeit with some Western readings).  The remainder of the text of John is also mainly Alexandrian.

          When Henry Sanders published the text of Codex W in 1912, he proposed that its unique block-mixture may be the effect of a situation in which Roman persecutors, perhaps during the Diocletian persecution of the very early 300’s, destroyed a Christian library but did so lazily, allowing assorted pages and book-chunks to survive, and subsequently someone copied out the contents of the surviving materials, using one survivor, and then a different one, as his exemplar, and thus created the exemplar or ancestor-manuscript of Codex W.

          Another feature of Codex W is that unlike some other major uncials, its provenance is known:  it is from Upper Egypt.  Charles L. Freer purchased the manuscript in Egypt along with some other manuscripts, and at least three of them seem to have come from the same source:  a monastery in the region of Achmim, or Panopolis.  Codex W thus provides evidence of four different forms of the text of the Gospels – Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, and a local variation – all circulating in the same area in Egypt around the year 400 (or earlier). 

             

            Now let us compare the text of Mark 4:1-9 in Codex W (extracted from the “Western” portion) with Mark 4:1-9 in minuscule 545, by comparing each to the text of Nestle-Aland 27.  In the list of readings from 545, variants that agree with the Robinson-Pierpont 2005 Byzantine Textform are accompanied by a black triangle.  Readings that agree with the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text (but disagree with RP2005) are accompanied by a black square.   

Minuscule 545 differs from NA27 in the following ways:

1 – 545 has συνηχθη instead of συνάγεται.  (+4, -6)  ▲

1 – 545 has πολυς instead of πλειστος.  (+4, -6)  ▲

1 – 545 transposes εμβαντα to precede εις.  ▲

1 – 545 adds το before πλοιον. (+2)  ▲

1 – 545 has ην instead of ησαν.  (+2)  ▲

3 – 545 adds του before before σπειρει.  (+3)  ▲

3 – 545 adds τον σπόρον αυτου after σπειρει. [cf. Lk. 8:5]  (+14) 

4 – 545 has επεσε instead of επεσεν. (-1)  ■

4 – 545 has ηλθε instead of ηλθεν. (-1)  ■

5 – 545 does not have και.  (-3)  ▲

5 – 545 has δε. (+2)  ▲

5 – 545 has ειχε instead of ειχεν.  (-1)  ■

5 – 545 has ευθεως instead of ευθυς.  (+2, -1)  ▲

5 – 545 has εξανετειλε instead of εξανετειλεν.  (-1)  ■

5 – 545 does not have και οτε.  (-6)  ▲

6 – 545 has ηλιου δε ανατειλαντος instead of ανετειλεν ο ηλιος.  (+7, -5)  ▲

7 – 545 has ανευησαν instead of ανεβησαν.  [?] (+1, -1) 

7 – 545 has εδωκε instead of εδωκεν.  (-1)  ■

8 – 545 has αλλο instead of αλλα.  (+1, -1)  ▲

8 – 545 has αυξανοντα instead of αυξανομενα.  (+3, -4)  ▲

9 – 545 has ο εχων instead of ος εχει.  (+2, -3)  ▲

          Calculated by single letters, the text of 545 has thus gained 47 non-original letters, and has lost 41 original letters, for a total of 88 letters’ worth of corruption.  If, instead of NA27, we were to use the RP2005 Byzantine Textform as the basis of comparison, the corruption in 545 would amount to a total of 20 letters – five of which are cases of movable-nu, one of which is orthographic (and which is probably merely a side-effect of unclear script), and 14 of which constitute a single reading, the harmonistic inclusion of τον σπορον αυτου in verse 3.

Now let’s examine the text of Codex W.  Compared to the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation, Codex W has the following variants: 

1 – W has a transposition, reading ηρξατο παλιν instead of παλιν ηρξατο.

1 – W has προς instead of παρα.  (+3, -3)

1 – W has συνηχθη instead of συνάγεται.  (+4, -6)

1 – W adds το before πλοιον.  (+2)

1 – W has ενβαντα instead of εμβαντα.  (+1, -1)

1 – W has παρα τον αιγιαλον instead of εν τη θαλασση.  (+15, - 11)

1 – W has εν τω αιγιαλω instead of προς την θαλασσαν.  (+11, -15)

1 – W does not have επι της γης.  (-9)

1 – W has ην instead of ησαν. (-2)

2 – W has λεγων instead of πολλα και ελεγεν αυτοις εν τη διδαχη αυτου.  (+5, -35)

3 – W has Ακουεται instead of Ακουετε.  (+2, -1)

4 – W does not have εγενετο εν τω σπειρειν.  (-19)

4 – W has τ before ο μεν. (+1)      

4 – W has ορνεα instead of πετεινα.  (+4, -6)

5 – W does not have και. (-3)

5 – W has αλλα instead of αλλο.  (+1, -1)

5 – W has δε.  (+2)

5 – W has τα instead of το.  (+1, -1)

5 – W has πετρωδη instead of πετρωδες. (+1, -2)

5 – W has και οτι instead of οπου.  (+6, -4)

5 – W has ειχε instead of ειχεν. (-1)

5 – W does not have και after πολλην. (-3)

5 – W has ευθεως instead of ευθυς. (+2, -1)

5 – W has ανετειλε instead of εξανετειλεν. (+2, -3)

5-6 – W does not have δια το μη εχειν βάθος γης και οτε.  (-26)

6 – W has ηλιου δε ανατιλαντος instead of ανετειλεν ο ηλιος. (+7, -5)

7 – W has αλλα instead of αλλο.  (+1, -1)

7 – W has επι instead of εις. (+2, -2)

7 – W has αυτα instead of αυτο. (+1, -1)

7 – W has εδωκαν instead of εδωκεν. (+1, -1)

8 – W has επεσαν instead of επεσεν. (+1, -1)

8 – W has εδιδει instead of εδιδου. (+2, -2)

8 – W has αυξανομενον instead of αυξανομενα.  (+2, -1)

8 – W has φερει instead of εφερεν. (+1, -2)

8 – W has το εν and το εν and το εν instead of εν and εν and εν. (+2, +2, +2)

9 – W has ο εχων instead of ος εχει. (+2, -3)

          Calculated by single letters, the text of Codex W has gained 88 non-original letters and has lost 170 original letters, for a total of 258 letters’ worth of corruption.  Particularly remarkable are the substitutions in verse 1 and the omissions in verses 2, 4, and 5.  

          Thus, if we estimate that the Gospel of Mark was composed in the 60’s of the first century, then the text of Mark 4:1-9 in 545 took a 1,360-year journey and ended up with 88 letters’ worth of corruption.  Meanwhile, the text of Mark 4:1-9 in Codex W took a 340-year journey and ended up with 258 letters’ worth of corruption – almost three times as much corruption in one-fourth as much time.      

  

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

Matthew 1:18 - Two Doctrinally Significant Variants in One Verse

          It is sometimes claimed by apologists who dabble in New Testament textual criticism that textual variants do not have an impact on Christian doctrine.  They should abandon that claim, and instead state that no basic Christian doctrine depends on any single text-critical contest, with the exception of the doctrine of inerrancy.  In just the first chapter of the first book of the New Testament, there are five variant-units that have a potential impact on Christian doctrine, depending on which variant is selected. 

          I have already addressed the textual contests of “Asa-versus-Asaph” and “Amon-versus-Amos” in Matthew 1:7-8 and 1:10.  I set aside, for the time being, the textual variant in the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript in Matthew 1:16 which says, “Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, begot Jesus who is called the Christ.”  We focus today on Matthew 1:18, a famous verse which is often read at Christmastime:  “Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ happened.  After his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.”   

          There are two important textual contests in this verse.  The first one involves the Greek word that is translated as “birth” in most English versions:  did Matthew write γενεσις or γεννησις? 

          The external evidence in the γενεσις-verses-γεννησις contest is essentially divided between the texts found in Egypt (and attested by Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Papyrus 1, and other Alexandrian witnesses) and Caesarea, and the text found almost everywhere else.  The first term, γενεσις, allows the meaning “origin,” while the second term, γεννησις, specifically refers to conception and birth.  The theological significance of this is that a reference to the γενεσις of Jesus Christ can be employed in a case that Matthew taught that the Savior’s whole existence began, or originated, in Mary’s womb, while γεννησις refers instead to His physical incarnation and birth.  Such an interpretation is not built into the adoption of the variant γενεσις – the term is fully capable of referring to birth – but that reading opens the door, so to speak, to that interpretation, while γεννησις does not.       

          The surrounding context clearly favors γεννησις:  Matthew anticipates the birth (εγεννήθη) of Jesus in 1:16, narrates the angel’s reference to Jesus’ conception (γεννήθη) in 1:18, and refers back to the birth (γεννηθέντος) of Jesus in 2:1.  Although a clever defender of the Alexandrian reading could reshape this point to argue that γεννησις is the result of scribal conformation of γενεσις to nearby similar words, such an approach says that context means nothing when Vaticanus and Sinaiticus agree.

Matthew 1:18 in Lectionary 150.

          According to the apparatus of the Nestle-Aland27/UBS4 compilation, both Irenaeus (writing in southern France, c. 180) and Origen (writing in Caesarea, from about 230-250) support the reading γεννησις.  Origen even emphasizes the difference between the word that is used in Matthew 1:1 and the word that is used in 1:18, asking, as the introduction to his exegesis, “Why does the evangelist make mention here of ‘birth’ whereas at the start of the Gospel he had said ‘generation’?”.  (The genuineness of the fragment from which this statement is taken has been challenged, but apparently not very convincingly.) 

          This impressive early testimony is reinforced by John Chrysostom (writing in Constantinople, c. 400), by Epiphanius (writing in Cyprus in the late 300’s), and by the author of the composition De Trinitate.  (This was probably Didymus of Alexandria, who wrote in Egypt in the late 300’s, but if not him, them someone in the same locale, and at about the same time.)  In addition, according to Solomon C. Malan, the Peshitta makes a distinction between the terms in 1:1 and 1:18.    

          Inasmuch as the testimony of a very large majority of Greek manuscripts in favor of γεννησις is allied with widespread early patristic testimony, nothing stands in the way of the adoption of γεννησις except a bias toward the Alexandrian Text, and, perhaps, a concern that the Egyptian text might be suspected of having been produced by heretics if its reading here is rejected.  However, the innocence of the early transcribers of the Alexandrian text of Matthew 1:18 can be maintained, simply by reckoning that Alexandrian scribes sometimes worked by dictation – that is, one person read the text out loud, while the copyists wrote down he said – and scribes hearing “γεννησις” thought that they heard “γενεσις” and (without any malice or mischief involved) thus originated the Alexandrian reading. 

          A second, more complex possibility – if an alternative explanation is necessary – is that the Alexandrian reading is the result of two scribal phenomena:  one scribe committed itacism, the substitution of similar-sounding vowels (turning γεννησις into γεννεσις), and another scribe committed haplography, failing to repeat the repeated letter (in this case, ν).  This explanation seems entirely plausible in light of the incredibly inconsistent spelling-practices of Alexandrian scribes.      

          We now turn to the second textual contest in Matthew 1:18:  did Matthew write “Jesus,” or “Christ,” or “Christ Jesus,” or “Jesus Christ”?    The reading of Vaticanus, “Christ Jesus,” is rejected even by Hort, in consideration of Vaticanus’ tendency to transpose the words “Jesus Christ” into “Christ Jesus” in the Pauline Epistles.  The NA/UBS compilers and the Byzantine Text agree here; they read Ιησου Χριστου.  This reading is supported by a wide variety of patristic and versional witnesses.

The ornate Lindisfarne Gospels (digitally altered here, 
without the interlinear Old English) supports the usual
Vulgate reading of Matt. 1:18, "Christ."

           The Old Latin evidence and the Vulgate, however, support Χριστου.  In addition, Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, uses this reading in the following excerpt from Book 3, chapter 16:  “Matthew might certainly have said, ‘Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise; but the Holy Ghost, foreseeing the corrupters [of the truth], and guarding by anticipation against their deceit, says by Matthew, ‘But the birth of Christ was on this wise;’ and that He is ‘Emmanuel,’ lest perchance we might consider Him as a mere man.”  Irenaeus thus emphasizes the shorter reading Χριστου and uses it as a platform from which to promote the doctrine of Christ’s deity.  (In chapter 11 of the same book, Irenaeus quotes Matthew 1:18 with “Jesus Christ” but this may be an expansion made by copyists of Irenaeus’ works.)

          Meanwhile Codex W, along with the composition The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (from the 500’s), support the reading Ιησου.  One could propose (using the method by which Hort identified conflations in the Byzantine Text) that practically all Greek manuscripts (including Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) display a conflation here in Matthew 1:18, echoing the decision of an early copyist who found Ιησου in one exemplar, and Χριστου in another, and combined them – in which case, the question would arise, between the readings Ιησου and Χριστου, which one is authentic, and how did the other one originate? 

          However, considering the extent of the evidence in favor of Ιησου Χριστου in multiple transmission-streams, it is much more probable that both of the shorter readings began in the second century when copyists began abbreviating the nomina sacra (especially the Greek words for “God,” “Lord,” “Jesus,” and “Christ”), and accidentally left out one of the two abbreviated words.  I suspect (as I explained in an earlier post) that some early copyists inherited a Hebrew custom in which the main copyist left a blank space where the name of God occurred (to be inserted by the proof-reader).  When this was done in manuscripts of the New Testament, in which there was not just one, but four (or more!) sacred names, the proof-reader sometimes inserted the wrong sacred name, or inserted one sacred name where there should have been two – and sometimes even failed to notice the blank space (as seems to have happened in James 5:14 in Codex B.)  But one does not have to adhere to this theory to acknowledge the immense weight of the support for Ιησου Χριστου.   

Matthew 1:18 in minuscule 2396
(The Exoteicho Gospels).

          In passing, I note that even though the Latin evidence squarely favors Χριστου, and the Greek evidence squarely favors Ιησου Χριστου, the hyper-paraphrase known as The Message begins Matthew 1:18 with the sentence, “The birth of Jesus took place like this.”  Surely Irenaeus would consider such a text to be vandalized.  I wonder why others do not.