The British Library 2020: Manuscript Index

            The British Library houses Codex Sinaiticus (most of it, at least) and Codex Alexandrinus.  As reported at the British Library’s website, 905 Greek manuscripts in the British Library’s large collection of Greek manuscripts have been digitized.  This includes not only Codices À (Sinaiticus) and A (Alexandrinus), and assorted works by secular authors, and by patristic writers, but also the following New Testament manuscripts – 115 continuous-text manuscripts, and 62 lectionaries.

            Each link should take you to a page where each manuscript is briefly described, and where access to page-views of each manuscript is provided.

GA 011 (Codex Seidelianus I, Gospels, 800s, damaged)

GA 027 (Codex Nitriensis, 500s, palimpsest)

GA 0121a (900s)

GA 0133, 0269, 0271, 0272, 0273, 0297, Lect 334 (Codex Blenheimius, 700s lower writing, palimpsest)

GA 44 (Gospels, 1100s)

GA 65 (Gospels, 1100s)

GA 72 (Gospels, 1100s, interesting marginalia)

GA 81 (Acts, 1044)

GA 104 (New Testament, 1087)

GA 109 (Gospels, 1300s/1400s)

GA 110 (New Testament, 1100s)

GA 113 (Gospels, 1100s, illustrated)

GA 114 (Gospels, 1000s or later.  quatrefoil Ad Carpianus)

GA 115 (Gospels, 1000s, heavily damaged)

GA 116 (Gospels, 1100s/1200s)

GA 117 and Lect 1357 (Gospels and Acts, early 1500s)

GA 201 (New Testament, 1357)

GA 202 (Gospels, 1100s)

GA 203 (New Testament except for Gospels, 1108)

GA 272 (Gospels, 1000s/1100s)

GA 308 (Acts and Epistles, 1300s)

GA 312 (Vol. 1) (Acts and Epistles, 1000s-1100s)

GA 312 (Vol. 2) (Epistles, 1000s-1100s)

GA 321 (Acts and Epistles, 1100s or later)

GA 322 (Acts and Epistles, 1500s)

GA 384 (Acts and Epistles, 1200s)

GA 385 (Acts, Epistles, Revelation, 1407)

GA 438 Vol. 1 (Mt & Mk, 1100s) (The Askew Gospels)

            Golden Canon Tables (500s or 600s – in situ with 438)

GA 438 Vol. 2 (Lk & Jn, 1100s)
GA 439 (Gospels, 1149)

GA 444 (Matthew-Jude, 1300s)

GA 445 (Gospels, 1506)

GA 446 (Gospels, 1400s)

GA 447 (Gospels, 1500s)

GA 448 (Gospels, 1478)

GA 449 (Mt & Mk), 1300s)

GA 449 (Lk & Jn), 1300s)

GA 476 (Gospels, 1000s)

GA 478 (Gospels, 900s-1000s)

GA 480 (Gospels and part of Hebrews, 1366)

GA 481 (Gospels, 900s-1100s, Evangelists portraits) (Burney Gospels 19)

GA 482 (Gospels, 1285, Evangelists’ portraits)

GA 484 (Gospels, 1291, quatrefoil headpiece)

GA 485 (Gospels, 1100s, semi-quatrefoil Ad Carpianus)

GA 490 (Gospels, 1000s, quatrefoil Ad Carpianus and quatrefoil headpiece)

GA 491 (New Testament except Revelation, 1000s)

GA 492 (Gospels, 1325)

GA 493 (Gospels, 1400s)

GA 494 (Gospels, 1300s)

GA 495 (Gospels, 1100s, Evangelists’ portraits)

GA 496 (New Testament except Revelation, 1200s)

GA 497 (Gospels, 1000s)

GA 498 (New Testament, missing some pages, 1300s)

GA 499 (Gospels, 1100s)

GA 500 (Gospels, 1200s)

GA 501 (Gospels, 1200s, some later supplements)

GA 502 (Gospels, 1200s)
GA 503 (John, 1200s)

GA 504 (Gospels, 1033)

GA 505 (Gospels, 1100s, quatrefoil headpiece)

GA 547 (New Testament except Revelation, 1000s)

GA 548 (Gospels, 1100s)

GA 549 (Gospels, 1000s, commentary)

GA 550 (Gospels, 1100s)

GA 551 (Gospels, 1100s-1400s)

GA 552 (Gospels, 1100s)

GA 553 (Gospels, 1200s)

GA 640 (James, fragment, 1000s-1100s, commentary)

GA 641 (Acts and Epistles, 1000s, commentary)

GA 643 (Vol. 1) (Pauline Epistles, 1300s, Chrysostom commentary)

GA 643 (Vol. 2) (Pauline Epistles w/Chrysostom comm., and General Epistles, 1300s)

GA 644 (Pauline Epistles, incomplete, 1300s)

GA 645 (Gospels, 1304)

GA 686 (Gospels, 1337)

GA 687 (fragments of Matthew, 1000s)

GA 688 (Gospels, 1179)

GA 689 (Gospels, 1200s)

GA 690 (Gospels, 1200s-1300s)

GA 691 (Gospels, 1200s-1300s)

GA 692 (Gospels, 1200s-1300s, quatrefoil headpiece)

GA 693 (Gospels, 1200s-1300s)

GA 694 (Gospels, 1400s)

GA 695 (Gospels, 1200s)

GA 696 (Gospels, 1300s)

GA 697 (Gospels, 1200s) (decorated, fox & snake initial)

GA 698 (Matthew, Mark, Luke, 1300s)

GA 699 / GA 699 (Guest-Coutts NT) (Gospels, Acts, Epistles, 900s)

GA 700 (Gospels, 1000s) (Hoskier’s Codex)

GA 714 (Gospels, 1100s-1200s)

GA 715 (Gospels, 1200s, quatrefoil headpiece)

GA 716 (Gospels, 1300s, quatrefoil headpiece)

GA 892 (Gospels, 800s with later supplements)

GA 910 (Acts and Epistles, 1009)

GA 911 (Acts and Epistles, 1000s)

GA 911(2040) (Revelation, 1000s)

GA 912 (Acts and Epistles, 1200s)

GA 913 (Acts and Epistles, 1300s)

GA 1268 (Gospels, 1200s, commentary)

GA 1274 (Vol. 1) (Palimpsest – parts of Matthew and Mark, 1100s/1400s)

GA 1274 (Vol. 2) – Luke, Matthew, Mark) and GA 2823  and GA 2822 (Palimpsest – part of James and Jude, 1100s/1400s)

GA 1279 (Gospels, 1100s-1200s)

GA 1280 (Gospels, 1100s-1400s)

GA 1765 (Acts and Epistles, 1300s)

GA 1911 (Romans-Jude, 1500s.  This is Harley MS 5552, likely a transcript of Erasmus’ first edition)

GA 1956 (Pauline Epistles, 1200s, catena)

GA 2041 (Revelation, 1300s)

GA 2099 (Gospels, 1200s)

GA 2277 (Gospels, 1000s-1300s)

GA 2278 (Gospels, 1314)

GA 2279 (Acts and Epistles, 1300s)

GA 2280 (Gospels, 1100s)

GA 2290 (Gospels, 900s with supplements from 1600s)

GA 2291 (Vol. 1) (Matthew and Mark, 1200s)

GA 2291 (Vol. 2) (Luke and John, 1200s)

GA 2484 (Acts and Epistles, 1312)

LECTIONARIES

Lect 25a and 25b (partly palimpsest)

Lect 150 (995, uncial)

Lect 151 (1100s, quatrefoil headpiece)

Lect 152 (800s-900s, uncial)

Lect 169 (1200s, Acts and Epistles)

Lect 181 (980-1052.  uncial) (Parham XX – Cappadocian Lectionary)
Lect 182 (800s.  uncial.)

Lect 183 (nice uncial lectionary)

Lect 184 (late 900s)

Lect 187 (1100s-1200s)

Lect 188 (Vol. 1) (1032)

Lect 188 (Vol. 2) (1032)

Lect 189 (1100s)

Lect 190 (1000s, fragment)

Lect 191 (1100s)

Lect 192 (1200s)

Lect 193 (1334)

Lect 233 (1100s, cruciform text)

Lect 237 & Lect 2310 (1100s and 1600s)

Lect 238 (1000s-1100s)

Lect 257 (1306, Acts and Epistles)

Lect 318 (1000s)

Lect 319 (1100s-1200s, quatrefoil headpiece)

Lect 320 (1300s, damaged)

Lect 321 (1100s-1200s)

Lect 322 (1000s)

Lect 323 (1100s-1200s)

Lect 324 (1200s)

Lect 325 (1200s)

Lect 326 (1100s)

Lect 327 (1300s)

Lect 328 (1300s)

Lect 329 (900s-1000s)

Lect 330 & 331 (1272)   

Lect 332 (1300s)

Lect 333 1200s)

Lect 335 (1100s)

Lect 336 (1100s-1300s)

Lect 337 (1200s)

Lect 338 (900s lower writing, palimpsest)

Lect 339 (1100s)
Lect 340 (1200s) 

Lect 344 (1100s-1300s)

Lect 346 (1100s-1300s)

Lect 927 (1200s-1300s)

Lect 930 (1200s)

Lect 932 (1200s)

Lect 939 (1100s)

Lect 940 (1200s)

Lect 941 (1100s)

Lect 1053 (1000s-1100s, fragment)

Lect 1234 (1300s)

Lect 1317 (800s and 1400s, palimpsest)

Lect 1490 (1100s)

Lect 1491 (1008)

Lect 1492 (late 1000s)

Lect 1493 (1000s)

Lect 1494 (1100s-1200s)

Lect 1495 (1200s)

Lect 1496 (1413)

Lect 1742 (late 1300s)

Lect 1743 (1256)

Lect 2376 (1000s, quatrefoil headpiece)

Also of interest:

Collation of Codex A (Harley MS 1837)

Psalter with Odes (Rahlfs 1656) (includes selections from Luke 1-2)

Collation of GA 71 (Codex Ephesinus), made in 1679

Add. MS 34186 – Wax Tablets  (Probably similar to what Zachariah used in Luke 1:63)

In addition, the British Library’s website offers several essays on subjects relevant in one way or another to the field of New Testament textual criticism, including the following:

● Scribes and Scholars in Byzantium (Georgi Parpulov)

● Manuscripts of the Christian Bible (Scot McKendrick)

● Ancient Books (Cillian O’Hogan)

● Ancient Libraries (Matthew Nicholls)

● Book Illumination in Antiquity (Cillian O’Hogan) (featuring Codex N)

● Biblical Illumination (Kathleen Doyle)

● Byzantine Bookbindings (Ann Tomalak)

● Byzantine Book Epigrams (Julie Boeten and Sien De Groot)

● Illuminated Gospel-books (Kathleen Maxwell)

● The Earliest Greek Bibles (David C. Parker) (featuring Papyrus 5)



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

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

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

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

Luke 15:1-10 in Sinaiticus:

1 – no differences

2 – À does not have ουτος (-5)

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

3 – no differences

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

4 – À has ου after εως (+2)

5 – no differences

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

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

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

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

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

8 – À has ζητι instead of ζητει (-1)

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

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

10 – no differences

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

Luke 15:1-10 in GA 490:         

1 – transposition:  εγγίζοντες αυτω

2 – 490 does not have τε (-2)

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

3 – no differences

4 – transposition:  εν εξ αυτων

4 – 490 has ου after εως (+2)

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

6 – no differences

7 – transposition:  εσται εν τω ουνω

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

8 – 490 has οτου instead of ου (+2)

9 – 490 has τας before γείτονας (+3)

10 – transposition:  χαρα γινεται ενώπιον

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

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

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

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

Minuscule 490: Remarkably Unremarkable!

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

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

 

The first headpiece in 490.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The text of Luke begins on 95r. 

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

On 106v, Luke 6:1 includes δευτεροπρώτω.

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

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

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

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

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

On 134r, Luke 17:9 includes ου δοκω.

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

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

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

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

On 147r, Luke 22:17 is included.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 158v, John 4:42 includes ὁ Χς.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Mark’s title:  ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΕΚ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ

            Luke’s title:  ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΕΚ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ

Claudius James Rich

            John’s title:  ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΕΚ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ ΑΓΙΟΥ

           

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

           

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

Review - Scribal Skips

            Readers who keep track of recently made English New Testaments may recognize the name of the author of Scribal Skips: 1300 Words That Fell Out of the Bible:  Wayne A. Mitchell is already known as the main developer of the New Heart English Bible.

            In a three-page introduction, Mitchell summarizes a current problem in modern-day textual criticism:  the continued use of the guideline lectio brevior potior, that is, the shorter reading is stronger.  This principle – the first guideline in Griesbach’s list of guidelines, or canons, as stated back in 1796 (and, earlier, by Bengel) – was very heavily qualified, but since then it has been applied in an oversimplified manner, to the point that all that some commentators have needed to say, when offering a case against a particular reading, is that it is longer than its rival.

            As David J. Miller pointed out back in 2006 in the journal The Bible Translator in an article titled The Long and Short of Lectio Brevior Potior, research in the past 40 years has shown that measuring the length of rival textual variants is not a valid way to decide which is original.  James Royse, for example, in a detailed examination of some early papyri (P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and P75, to be precise), determined that the copyists of those papyri made more omissions (creating shorter readings) than they made additions (creating longer readings), at a rate of 312 omissions and 127 additions – that is, at a ratio of approximately 7:3.   

            Additional research by Juan Hernández on the text of Revelation in three uncial manuscripts, and by Peter Head, in a 1990 article Observations on Early Papyri of the Synoptic Gospels, in the journal Biblica (supplemented and re-confirmed in another article in 2004), supported Royse’s findings; Head concluded his article with a statement that “If early scribes were more likely to omit words and phrases (for whatever reasons) it follows that we should not prefer the shorter reading, but rather prefer the longer reading (other factors being equal).”  Even with full consideration given to the cautionary footnote that Head added to this sentence, to the effect that “Each variant must be assessed on its merits,” at the end of the day, the point seems irresistible that a variant’s brevity is not a merit. 

            And therein lies a problem:  in the creation of the compilation of Westcott & Hort, published in 1881, the editors appear to have routinely thought that the copyists expanded the text; Hort described the tendency of copyists to expand their texts as an “almost universal tendency.”  Similarly, Eberhard Nestle, in his 1901 Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, on page 323, stated, “It is a fundamental principle of textual criticism that the lectio brevio is to be preferred.”  And if one consults the Preface to the First Edition of the UBS Greek New Testament (on page x of the UBS GNT, 4^th ed.), the editors acknowledge that Westcott & Hort’s edition was the initial basis for the UBS Greek New Testament, and Nestle’s work is listed next.  Metzger, in his handbook The Text of the New Testament, stated (4th ed., p. 303), “In general, the shorter reading is to be preferred, except where parablepsis arising from homoeoteleuton may have occurred or where the scribe may have omitted material that he deemed to be superfluous, harsh, or contrary to pious belief, liturgical usage, or ascetical practice.”
            The first exception that Metzger mentioned – cases of possible parablepsis – does not appear to have been given adequate weight.  Many shorter readings that can be explained as results of parableptic error continue to be favored over their longer rivals. This is one reason why the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece continues to confidently diverge from the 1881 text at fewer than 700 points.

            What would the text of the New Testament look like if shorter readings that can be accounted for as omissions caused by parablepsis – that is, simple scribal errors that happened when a copyist’s line of sight drifted from one letter (or letters) at one point to another point further along in the text where the same or similar letter (or letters) recurred – were rejected in favor of rival longer readings?  That question may be answered by a careful reading of the portion of Scribal Slips that focuses on the New Testament – that is, everything after page 77. 

            In the part of Scribal Slips that pertains to the New Testament text, each page features a straightforward presentation of two or three passages where there are (a) a shorter reading, and (b) a longer reading which can be explained as the original reading on the grounds that it was accidentally lost via scribal error.  External evidence is thoroughly listed for each reading.  A series of cases in Matthew helpfully exemplifies the kinds of readings that are covered:

            ● Omission of a word:  Matthew 19:11 – witnesses are listed for the longer reading (τον λογον τουτον) and for the shorter reading (τον λογον).  Then the verse is presented in English, with the omitted word within brackets:  “But he said to them, “Not all men can receive [this] saying, but those to whom it is given.”  The idea is that an early copyist’s line of sight drifted from the letters -ον at the end of λογον to the same letters at the end of τουτον.

            ● Omission of consecutive words:  Matthew 19:29 – witnesses are listed for the longer reading (οικιας η αδελφους η αδελφας η πατερα η μητερα η γυναικα η τεκνα η αγρους) and for the shorter reading found mainly in Codex Vaticanus (οικιας η αδελφους η αδελφας η πατερα η μητερα η τεκνα η αγρους).  Then the verse is presented in English, with the omitted words in brackets:  “Everyone who has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, [or wife,] or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive one hundred times, and will inherit eternal life.”  The idea is that a copyist’s line of sight drifted from η to η, accidentally skipping η γυναικα.

            ● Omission of a phrase:  Matthew 20:16 – witnesses are listed for the longer reading (ουτως εσονται οι εσχατοι πρωτοι και οι πρωτοι εσχατοι πολλοι γαρ εισιν κλητοι ολιγοι δε εκλεκτοι) and for the shorter reading (ουτως εσονται οι εσχατοι πρωτοι και οι πρωτοι εσχατοι).  The idea is that a copyist’s line of sight drifted from the letters at the end of εσχατοι to the same letters at the end of εκλεκτοι.

           

            Similarly in Mark, Mitchell pin-points readings which are shorter in the NIV, ESV, and NLT than in the KJV, NKJV, and MEV, and shows how simple scribal inattentiveness – not some devious Gnostic agenda – caused the loss of some text.  Examples:

            ● Mark 2:16 – Parablepsis accounts for the loss of the words “and drinks”

            ● Mark 10:24 – Parablepsis account for the loss of the words “for those who trust in riches”

            ● Mark 11:26 – Parablepsis accounts for the loss of the entire verse

            Even though this may give readers an illuminating view at the possible impact of scribal errors upon the text, the spotlight is not as bright as it could be.  In just two chapters of Matthew (chapters 19 and 20), readers are not shown how parablepsis may be the cause of . . .
            ► the non-inclusion of οτι in 19:8 in Vaticanus and Bezae

            ► the non-inclusion of αγαθέ in 19:16 in ℵ B L D et al

            ► the non-inclusion of ει μη εις ο Θεος in 19:17 in ℵ B L D et al

            ► the non-inclusion of ου μοιχεύσεις ου κλέψεις in 19:18 in ℵ*

            ► the cause of the non-inclusion of εισελθειν in 19:24 in ℵ L f¹ 157 et al

            ► the non-inclusion of παρα ανθρώποις in 19:26 in ℵ*

            ► the non-inclusion of οτι in 20:12 in ℵ B D et al

            ► the non-inclusion of οι in C* and H in 20:12, and

            ► the non-inclusion of 20:31 (the entire verse) in GA 2* and 157. 

But if all such instances of possible parablepsis and haplography had been included, this would be a much longer book.  The samples that Mitchell has recorded should be sufficient to cause some readers to exclaim, “Leapin’ lizards; why on earth are we relying on the Alexandrian Text; it’s full of holes?!” or similar expressions of dismay.

            There is not a lot of argumentation in this book, just straightforward presentations of evidence which may or may not constitute a genuine case of a haplography-induced scribal skip at any given point.  For instance, regarding Luke 4:5, Mitchell accurately reports that À* B L 1241 et al do not have the words ο διαβολος εις ορος υψηλον, which appear in most manuscripts immediately after the words και αναγαγων αυτον.  The idea is that a copyist’s line of sight drifted from the letters -ον at the end of αυτον to the same letters at the end of υψηλον, but one could also argue that the words have been inserted here as a harmonization to the parallel-scene in Matthew 4:8.

            Some readers might initially suspect, as they observe over and over that the shorter reading is found in the flagship manuscripts of the Alexandrian text, and the longer reading is found in the Textus Receptus, that perhaps Mitchell’s presentation is a surreptitious defense of the base-text of the King James Version.  However, the tendency for the Alexandrian Text to have the shorter reading is only a tendency; the Alexandrian text is not always shorter.  Mitchell points out that the Textus Receptus appears to be missing 39 words, in passages such as John 12:19 (where P66 À B also do not include ολος after κοσμος), James 4:12 (where the Textus Receptus, like most manuscripts, does not include και κριτης (“and Judge”) after νομοθέτης (“Lawgiver”), and Jude verse 25 (where the Textus Receptus, like most manuscripts, does not include the phrase, “through Jesus Christ our Lord”).    

            In a six-page conclusion, Mitchell maximizes the implications of the data he has presented.  The texts of the manuscripts that are routinely referred to as “oldest and best” in some Bible-footnotes are by no means safe from scribal skips; Mitchell indicts P44^vid, P45, P66, P75, and À B D L et al as containing echoes of an early parableptic error in John 10:13 in which ο δε μισθωτος φευγει was accidentally skipped after σκορπίζει at the end of verse 12.  Besides proposing that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament (in the Masoretic Text) has lost 1,279 words due to haplography, he also proposes that the Greek text of the New Testament (in the Nestle-Aland compilation, 28^th edition) has lost 327 words (in addition to which 100 words are bracketed), including four entire verses (Mt. 27:35, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, and Luke 23:17), due to scribal skips.

            Finally, in an interesting appendix, Mitchell comments about some differences between the form of some Old Testament passages and New Testament quotations of them.  These include considerations of Genesis 11:13 (compared to Luke 3:36), Genesis 47:31 (compared to Hebrews 11:21), Exodus 2:14 (compared to Acts 7:28), Psalm 8:2 (compared to Matthew 21:16), Isaiah 28:16 (compared to First Peter 2:6), Hosea 14:2 (compared to Hebrews 13:15), and more.  Often the quotation in the New Testament is identical or similar to the reading in the Septuagint.    

            Almost certainly, Mitchell’s evidence-presentations will not be persuasive in every case.  (For example, it seems to me that the longer form of Luke 11:2-4 is explained much more easily as a harmonization to the Lord’s model prayer in Matthew 6:9-13, than the shorter form is explained as due to a series of remarkable scribal skips.)  But in many cases, Mitchell has supplied a strong basis to reject “prefer the shorter reading,” and to put in its place, “prefer the reading with the simplest explanation.”   Very often a shorter reading is explained by a scribal slip with more simplicity than a longer ending is explained as the result of conscious scribal effort. 

            It is not as Mitchell provides only vague evidence for the textual losses that he proposes have occurred.  He (or his sources) apparently sifted through the contents of 28 papyri, over 80 uncials, over 110 minuscules, at least 18 Old Latin manuscripts, four editions of the Vulgate, seven Syriac (or Aramaic) texts, eight Coptic sources, five additional versions (Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Gothic, Old Church Slavonic), and the works of 62 patristic writers – all of which/whom are listed near the beginning of the book, giving readers the tools to trace the losses.  That’s far more materials than were cited in the apparatus of the Tyndale House Greek New Testament.

            Mitchell acknowledged near the end of his book that it is not exhaustive.   (A future edition could be re-titled with  “1,500” or  “1,600” in place of  “1,300.”)  First Peter 2:2, for example, could be profitably added to the list of passages where a difference among English translations may have its origin in an ancient scribe’s inattentiveness.   But Scribal Skips is already a resource which investigators of the differences among modern English translations, and their base-texts, will find highly informative and useful.

            Scribal Skips: 1,300 Words That Fell Out of the Bible is available to purchase at Amazon as a Kindle e-book for $7.99, or as a paperback for $14.99.  

 

            [Pages 1-77 of Scribal Skips cover Old Testament passages, and are not covered in this review.  But Mitchell’s h.t.-implying comparisons, which he lets speak for themselves, are often very interesting, and merit consideration from investigators of the Old Testament text, whether regarding large readings (at passages such as First Samuel 10:27-11:1 and First Samuel 14:41) or small ones (at passages such as Malachi 1:7 and 3:2).]

[P.S.  Another man named Mitchell, Jonathan Mitchell, has also made an English New Testament, using a super-amplified technique.  Wayne A, Mitchell is not the same person.]

Is Penn Also Among the Prophets?

            Until the release of the Revised Version in 1881 and the American Standard Version in 1901, the King James Version was, with few exceptions, the default English version of the New Testament from the 1600s onward.  But there were exceptions.  One of them was the 1836 Book of the New Covenant, translated by Granville Penn, for which Penn provided a supplemental volume, Annotations to the Book of the New Covenant.

   

            Penn – grandson of William Penn the founder of Pennsylvania – began his Annotations with a 90-page Expository Preface, in which he briefly surveyed past English versions and past text-critical enterprises (up to the 1830 compilation made by Scholz), and explained his text-critical method.  This preface is sharply written and is still definitely worth reading by students of New Testament textual criticism today – not only to see an erudite textual critic at work, but also to see in action the oversimplified assumptions that led to a nearly complete overthrow of the Textus Receptus. 

            After the preface, and a lengthy extract from Johann L. Hug’s 1810 work on Codex Vaticanus, Penn provided a point-by-point textual commentary on the text, focusing mainly on passages where the meaning of his base-text is different from the meaning of the rival reading in the Textus Receptus.  Not only did Penn make many insightful observations regarding textual variants, and the meaning of some obscure terms, but he made doctrinal, apologetic, exegetical, and devotional comments as well, as if writing with a pastoral concern for his readers – occasionally drifting into outright preaching.            

            No doubt it would be edifying to explore Penn’s exhortations in more detail; somehow his study of the same variants that shocked Bart Ehrman 150 years later seems to have left Granville Penn’s faith intact and unshaken.  But today I wish to focus on some remarkable parallels between Penn’s text and the text of the Revised Standard Version (the forerunner of versions such as the ESV, NIV, NLT, and NRSV).  Here are 50 sample passages where Penn’s Book of the New Covenant, in 1836, forecast the contents of the 1946 RSV.  I have added the symbol ♠ to indicate where the RSV and Penn’s compilation agree.  (Penn re-numbered some chapters’ verses; I have resorted to the usual arrangement in this list.)

● 1.  Matthew 1:25 – (♠) does not include firstborn

● 2.  Matthew 5:22 – (♠) does not include without a cause

● 3.  Matthew 5:44 – (♠) does not include bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you

● 4.  Matthew 6:1 – (♠) says righteousness instead of alms (“piety” in RSV, but plainly based on the same reading)

● 5.  Matthew 6:13 – (♠) does not include the doxology to the Lord’s Prayer

● 6.  Matthew 6:33 – says seek ye first His justification and His kingdom

● 7.  Matthew 8:28 – (♠) has Gadarenes

● 8.  Matthew 11:19 – (♠) justified by her works

● 9.  Matthew 14:24 – (♠) has many furlongs from land

● 10. Matthew 16:2-3 – non-inclusion

● 11. Matthew 17:21 – (♠) non-inclusion

● 12.  Matthew 18:11 – (♠) non-inclusion

● 13. Matthew 20:7 – (♠) does not include and whatever is right you shall receive

● 14. Matthew 20:16 – (♠) does not include For many are called, but few are chosen.

● 15. Matthew 27:49-50 – includes Vaticanus’ interpolation which states that someone took a spear and pierced Jesus’ side, and water and blood flowed, before He died.

● 16.  Mark 1:14 – (♠) says gospel of God instead of gospel of the kingdom of God

● 17. Mark 6:36 – (♠) says buy themselves something to eat

● 18. Mark 7:16 – (♠) verse not included

● 19. Mark 9:29 – (♠) does not include and fasting

● 20. Mark 10:24 – (♠) does not include for those who trust in riches

● 21. Mark 11:26 – (♠) verse not included

● 22. Mark 13:14 – (♠) does not include spoken of by Daniel the prophet

● 23. Mark 15:3 – (♠) does not include but He answered nothing

● 24. Mark 15:8 – (♠) has going up, instead of crying aloud

● 25. Mark 16:9-20 – (♠) verses not included

● 26. Luke 1:28 – (♠) does not include blessed are you among women

● 27. Luke 9:55-56 – (♠) says But he turned, and rebuked them; and they went on to another village.

● 28. Luke 15:21 – includes Make me as one of your hired servants

● 29. Luke 22:43-44 – verses not included

● 30. Luke 23:17 – (♠) verse not included

● 31. Luke 23:38 – (♠) does not include written in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew

● 32. Luke 23:34 – does not include Then Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do

● 33. Luke 24:1 – (♠) does not include and certain other women with them

● 34. Luke 24:42 – (♠) does not include and a piece of honeycomb

● 35. John 3:13 – (♠) does not include who is in heaven

● 36. John 5:3-4 – (♠) does not include anything between “blind, lame, and withered” and “And a certain man was there”

● 37. John 7:53-8:11 – (♠) verses not included

● 38. John 13:32 – does not include If God is glorified in him

● 39. Acts 28:16 – (♠) does not include the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard, but

● 40.  Romans 9:28 – (♠) has only for, the Lord will finally, and summarily, settle an account with the land:

● 41. Romans 14:6 – (♠) does not include and he who does not regard the day, to the Lord he does not regard it

● 42. First Cor. 10:28 – (♠) does not include for the earth is the Lord’s and all its fullness

● 43. Galatians 4:26 –  (♠) does not include all

● 44. Galatians 6:15 –  (♠) does not include in Christ Jesus

● 45. Ephesians 3:9 – (♠) has dispensation instead of fellowship (fellowship is an ultra-minority reading in the Textus Receptus), and does not have through Jesus Christ

● 46. Ephesians 6:1 – does not include in the Lord

● 47. Hebrews 1:3 – reads making all things manifest (instead of sustaining all things), and does not include by himself and our (RSV does not include by himself and our)

● 48. Hebrews 2:9 – reads apart from God instead of by the grace of God

● 49. First Peter 4:14 – (♠) does not include the final sentence of the verse

● 50. Jude verse 5 – refers to Joshua (Greek:  Ἰησοῦς) instead of to “the Lord”

            These readings, mere samples, clearly show that while the New Testament base-text of the RSV – a primarily Alexandrian base-text – can be traced back to the 1881 revision by Westcott and Hort, a very similar compilation had already been created by Granville Penn in 1836 – when Westcott was eleven and Hort was eight.  How did he foresee this?  Is Penn also among the prophets?

            What was the method that was used by Penn in 1836, using fewer than 700 manuscripts, and without Sinaiticus, without Washingtonianus, without the Sinaitic Syriac, and without any papyri?  Did Granville Penn develop a coherence-based genealogical method?  No; his method was very simple:  adopt the reading of Codex Vaticanus almost all the time! 

            To Grenfell Penn, “The only text which we can take hold of, palpably and securely, as having really existed in the most ancient time to which our retrospective researches can attain, is undeniably that of the ‘Vatican MS.’” 

            In several respects Penn anticipated the theories and proposals that were later expressed by Hort in his 1881 Introduction – including Hort’s pivotal theory regarding conflations.  Penn’s analysis of Mark 6:33 and Mark 9:38 may sound somewhat familiar to those who have read Hort’s Introduction, §134-141.     

            Penn seems to have sincerely believed that distinct readings in the Textus Receptus “are consequences of the depravation of the copies during the dark ages.”  His belief that Byzantine readings are late accretions provided the platform for its corollary that the oldest manuscripts must contain the oldest readings.

            This belief, however, was not confirmed by subsequent research.  In E. C. Colwell’s view, “the overwhelming majority of readings were created before the year 200.”  George D. Kilpatrick proposed (on page 42 of his article The Bodmer and Mississippi Collection of Biblical and Christian Texts) that if one sets aside accidental readings, “Almost all variants can be presumed to have been created by A.D. 200.”  Aland & Aland (in The Text of the New Testament, page 290) have stated, “Practically all the substantive variants in the text of the New Testament are from the second century.”  This may cause some to wonder why the critical text of 2020 is so little changed from the critical text of 1836.

            In closing, I would like to raise two questions.

            First:  what would happen if compilers of the text of the New Testament, instead of inventing new excuses to adopt the readings in Codex Vaticanus (besides “It’s older!”), acknowledged that the ancient texts displayed in younger manuscripts were transmitted in transmission-lines that were much more stringent than the transmission-lines from which our earliest manuscripts emanated?  That is, what if textual critics stopped favoring a reading on the grounds that it is attested in a manuscript that was stored in a drier climate?  (For this is what one is really doing when one casually adopts whatever reading is attested in the earliest manuscripts because they are earlier:  what was the chief factor that allowed those manuscripts to outlast others, and thus become the oldest, if not dry weather?)  We might then get a truly eclectic text that amounts to something significantly different from what Granville Penn produced in 1836 using the Codex-B’s-God’s-Mouthpiece method.

            Second:  seeing that there’s not much special about Westcott and Hort’s compilation, if one were to remove Hort – and his theory about the Lucianic recension, and his séance, and his liberalism, and his racism, etc., etc. – from the picture, one would still have to grapple with the erudite and well-presented arguments that Granville Penn enunciated 50 years before Hort, adding subsequent discoveries to the picture in the process.  How far from the Byzantine Text might that take us?

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