Note: In the catalog which follows, bold type indicates a fullentry. Plain type indicates a short entry, which may occur under anothermanuscript.
Moscow. Catalog number: University 2.
2138 contains the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse. It has a few slight lacunae(e.g. 1 John 2:7-17). 2138 is written on parchment, with one column per page.
Dated by its colophon to the year 1072.
Note: Family 2138 is the name that Amphoux offers for a large group of manuscripts having a very distinct text of the Acts and Catholic Epistles. The name is slightly deceptive -- Family 2138 is actually a separate text-type (at least in the Catholic Epistles), not merely a family, and 2138 is not the earliest representative of the type (the Harklean Syriac is). Nor does 2138 always have the family text (in Paul, 2138 is mostly Byzantine). But I have adopted the name for consistency with Amphoux.
Now for the details on 2138:
Aland and Aland list 2138 as Category III in the Acts and Epistles andV in the Apocalypse. Von Soden describes it as Ic1 in the Acts and Epistlesand K in the Apocalypse. In the Johannine Epistles, Richards lists it as thebest representative of his A1 group (which Richards describes as havingan Alexandrian text, but in fact his A1 is Family 2138). Amphoux places it at thehead of Family 2138 in the Catholics. Wachtel puts it in the Hkgr family,another name for Family 2138.
The analysis of Amphoux, Richards, and Wachtel are clearly correct as far as theCatholic Epistles is concerned. 2138 is the oldest Greek witness,and one of the best representatives of the type, which bears its name. It shouldnot, however, be considered the ancestor of the type. Family 2138 is fairly large(Amphoux lists as primary witnesses 206, 429, 522, 614, 1108, 1292, 1448, 1505,1518, 1611, 1758, 1799, 1831, 1890, 2138, and 2495; Wachtel offers206, 429, 522, 614, 630, 1292, 1490, 1505, 1611, 1799, 1831, 1890, 2138, 2200, 2412,and 2495. Richards confirms the results for 206, 614, 1611, 1799, 2138, and 2412;I have verified them for 206, 429, 522, 614, 630, 1505, 1518, 1611, 1799, 2138,2412, and 2495). The Harklean Syriac also goes with this type. It can be shown thatthe family falls into various subgroups (tentatively, 2138+1611, 614+2412, 630+1799+2200,1505+2495). Since the other groups preserve certain family readings not found in2138 and 1611, it follows that the group is earlier (and less Byzantine) than2138. It is, in fact, older than the Harklean Syriac, since the Harklean alsolacks many characteristic readings of the family. It thus appears that Family 2138is an early text-type. Amphoux equates it with the "Western" text, butthis is rather doubtful based on the results in Paul, where the manuscripts show no relationship to D F G.
It appears that Family 2138 also exists in the Acts, and includes many of the same witnesses as in the Catholics. In Acts, however, the family is somewhat less striking. Its best-known representative, 614, has often been labelled "Western" -- but here, again, the evidence is somewhat weak. (See also the entry on 614.)
A distinct group of Family 2138 witnesses also exists in Paul, but herethe name is deceptive, since 2138 -- which in these books is largely Byzantine -- appears to abandon it. The remaining texts are 1505, 1611, 2495, probably 2005, and a portion of 1022 (Pastorals, Hebrews), plus of course the Harklean Syriac. The family is much more Byzantine than in the Acts and Epistles. It is worth repeating that this family does not show any demonstrable affiliation with the D-F-G text. Thus there is no evidence that Family 2138 is "Western" in any part of the New Testament.
The following offers a brief summary of information about the various membersof Family 2138 in Paul. Note: Von Soden also classifies 1518, 1108, 2138,and 1245 with the Ic1 group -- but 1518 is lost, 1108 and 1245 seem to be mixed, and 2138 has at best a weak family text in Paul; they are therefore omitted from the table pending better information.
|1022||XIV||Baltimore||Walters Art Gallery MS. 533||Kx||Contains the Acts and Epistles with minor lacunae. Contains a Family 2138 text only in the Pastorals and Hebrews; elsewhere it is Byzantine (the Alands do not classify 1022, but Richards places it in his group B4 in the Catholics). A collation was published by K. W. Clark.|
|1505||XII||Athos||Lavra B' 26||(Kx)||Colophon claims a date of 1084, but Colwell has shown this is false. Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. The Alands list it as Category III in the Acts and Epistles, V in the Gospels. Wisse confirms that it is Byzantine in the Gospels (Kx and Kx Cluster 281; paired with 2495, which pairs with 1505 in the Acts and Epistles as well).|
|1611||X (earlier dated XII)||Athens||National Library 94||Ic1||Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse with lacunae. Earliest and best Greek manuscript of the family in Paul. Rated Category III by the Alands (but II in the Apocalypse, where von Soden groups it with Andreas!).|
|2005||XIV||Escorial||Psi III 2||Ic1||Contains the Acts and portions of Paul (2 Corinthians-Hebrews). Rated Category III for Paul by the Alands. Not properly studied, and may not be a member of Family 2138, but scattered readings in von Soden imply that it probably goes with this text at least in part.|
|2495||XIV/XV||Sinai||St. Catherine's Monastery Gr. 1992||Contains the entire New Testament with minor lacunae. Very close to 1505 but slightly more Byzantine; it may possibly be a descendent of 1505. Wisse reports that it also goes with 1505 in the Gospels (Kx and Kx Cluster 281; paired with 1505). The Alands rate it "Category III with reservations" in Paul.|
In Acts, many manuscripts have been assigned to Family 2138, although sometimes the evidence is imperfect. But 614 1505 1611 2138 2412 2495 certainly belong there, and there is every reason to think that we could add other manuscripts to the list. The Alands show the following as 2138's closest relatives in that book (examining only manuscripts which exist for at least fifty readings): 1890 (91%), 1611 (87%), 1505 (79%), 1526 (76%), 2495 (76%), 1610 (74%), 614 (74%), 913 (73%), 1292 (72%), 1853 (71%), 2412 (71%), 436 (69%), Ψ (69%), 1830 (68%), 2652 (68%). Thus it would appear that there are several Family 2138 witnesses which have not in the past been classified with the family.
The following offers a brief summary of information about the various membersof Family 2138 in the Catholics. The column "Identified by" liststhe scholar(s) who have associated the manuscript with Family 2138.
|206||XIII||London||Lambeth 1182||Ib1||Amphoux, Richards, Wachtel||Contains the Acts and Epistles with lacunae. 2 and 3 John and Jude are not Family 2138; they come from another hand (dated XIV) which also supplied Acts 1:1-12:3, 13:5-15. 206 is listed as Category III by the Alands in the Catholics; V elsewhere. Originally from "a Greek island" (Scrivener). Like 429, 522, 630, and 2200, it belongs to Family 1739 in Acts.|
|429||XIV||Wolfenbüttel||Herzog August Libr. 16.7 Aug. Ao||Ib1||Amphoux, Wachtel||Contains the Acts and Epistes in the hand of one George; the Apocalypse was added by a later (XV) hand. The Alands list it as Category III in the Acts and Catholics; V in Paul and the Apocalypse. Von Soden lists it as K(1) in the Apocalypse. Like 206, 522, 630, and 2200, it belongs to Family 1739 in Acts.|
|522||1515||Oxford||Bodleian Library, Canon. Gr. 34||Ib1||Amphoux, Wachtel||Complete New Testament, "written by Michael Damascenus the Cretin for John Francis Picus of Mirandola" (Scrivener). Rev. 2:11-23 are lost. The Alands list 522 as Category III in the Acts and Catholics; V in the Gospels, Paul, and Apocalypse. Von Soden lists it as Kx in the Gospels and Ib in the Apocalypse. It has the Euthalian prologues but evidently not the text. Like 206, 429, 630, and 2200, it belongs to Family 1739 in Acts.|
|614||XIII||Milan||Ambrosian Libr. E 97 Sup||Ic2||Amphoux, Richards, Wachtel||Contains the Acts and Epistles (missing Jude 3-end). Pairs with 2412 (the Alands, who rate 614 as Category III, consider them sisters; Clark thought 2412 might be 614's exemplar; it is perhaps most likely that 614 is a niece or grand-niece of 2412). Commonly linked to the "Western" text in Acts -- although this cannot be considered conclusively proved.|
|630||XIV||Rome||Vatican Libr. Ottob. Gr. 325||Ib||Wachtel||Contains the Acts and Epistles (lacking Acts 4:9-5:1). Pairs with 2200 throughout and probably with 1799 (in the Catholics only); also (at a greater distance) with 206, 429, 522. The Alands list as Category III, but the text in fact varies widely. In Acts it, like 206, 429, 522, and 2200, belongs to Family 1739 (with significant Byzantine mixture). The early epistles of Paul are also mixed Family 1739; in the later epistles it is entirely Byzantine. In the Catholics it is one of the best Family 2138 groups.|
|1108||XIII||Athos||Esphigmenu 64||Ic1||Amphoux||Contains the Acts and Epistles with lacunae. Identified by Von Soden as Family 2138 in Paul as in the Catholics, but evidence for this is weak. Not classified by the Alands, which probably indicates that it has, at best, a weak family text.|
|1292||XIII||Paris||National Libr. Suppl. Gr. 1224||Amphoux, Wachtel||Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. The Alands list 1292 as Category II in the Catholics and V elsewhere. Listed by the von Soden as Ik in the Gospels and Kx in Paul. Wisse describes it as weak Πb in Luke 1 and Kx in Luke 20.|
|1448||XI||Athos||Lavra A' 13||Amphoux||Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. The Alands list 1448 as Category III in the Catholics and V elsewhere. Listed by Von Soden as Kx (?) in the Gospels; Wisse describes it as Cluster 127. Wachtel does not consider it to be a true member of Family 2138, but lists it (along with 1852) as being in the "Umfeld" of the family, implying that it is somewhat akin.|
|1490||XII||Athos||Lavra A' 65||Kr||Wachtel||Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. Not classified by the Alands or Wisse.|
|1505||XII||Athos||Lavra B' 26||(Kx)||Amphoux, Wachtel||Colophon claims a date of 1084, but Colwell has shown this is false. Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. Pairs with 2495. The Alands list it as Category III in the Acts and Epistles, V in the Gospels. Wisse confirms that it is Byzantine in the Gospels (Kx and Kx Cluster 281; paired with 2495).|
|1518||XIV||Ic1||Amphoux||Lost (formerly at Lambeth Palace in London; may be the same as 1896). Contained the Acts and Epistles (missing Acts 7:52-8:25).|
|1611||X (earlier dated XII)||Athens||National Library 94||Ic1||Amphoux, Richards, Wachtel||Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse with lacunae. Pairs with 2138, although it seems to be later and inferior. Rated Category III by the Alands (but II in the Apocalypse, where von Soden groups it with Andreas!).|
|1758||XIII||Lesbos||Limonos 132.||Ib1||Amphoux||Contains the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalyse with lacunae. Not classified by the Alands.|
|1799||XII/XIII||Princeton (N.J.)||Univ. Libr. Med. a. Ren. Ms. Garrett 8||Amphoux, Richards, Wachtel||Acts and Epistles with lacunae. Seems to go with 630 and 2200 in the Catholics. In Paul it has a mostly Byzantine text, with a very few readings of other sorts, plus lectionary incipits. Not classfied by the Alands; von Soden lists it as a gospels manuscript!|
|1831||XIV||Athens||National Libr. 131||Ib1||Amphoux, Wachtel||Contains the Acts and Epistles with lacunae. Not classified by the Alands.|
|1890||XIV||Jerusalem||Taphu 462||Amphoux||Contains the Acts and Epistles. Not classified by the Alands. Wachtel notes that it belongs to Hkgr (family 2138) in James and 1 Peter, but is largely Byzantine in the other epistles.|
|2138||1072||Moscow||Univ. 2||Ica||Amphoux, Richards, Wachtel||Contains the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse. Von Soden classified the Apocalypse as K. The Alands list it as Category III in the Acts and Epistles and V in the Apocalypse. 2138 pairs with 1611 (though 2138 is the better of the two). It is the best and (except for the Harklean Syriac) earliest manuscript of Family 2138, but is not the ancestor of the others; the 2138+1611 group has some Byzantine corruptions not found in the 614+2412, 630+1799+2200, and 1505+2495 groups.|
|2200||XIV||Elasson||Olympiotisses 79||Ib||Wachtel||Contains the entire New Testament. Pairs with 630 in the Acts and Epistles; also with 1799 in the Catholics. Von Soden classifies it as Kx in the Gospels; Wisse lists it as Kx/Kmix/Kx. Geer classifies it (like 630, and also 206, 429, and 522) with Family 1739 in Acts. The Alands classify it as Category III in the Acts and Epistles, V in the Gospels and Apocalypse.|
|2412||XII||Chicago||University of Chicago Libr. MS. 922||Richards, Wachtel||Contains the Acts and Epistles, missing Rom. 13:4-15:26, Hebrews 13:7-16. Heb. 12:28-13:6 was written by a later hand over an erasure. Pairs with 614 (the Alands list them as sisters, both belonging to Category III; Clark offers the possibility that 2412 is the exemplar of 614). K. W. Clark, who published a collation, describes it as "neat and plain, and fairly well preserved." |
For the collation, see: Kenneth W. Clark, Eight American Praxapostoloi (1941); also Kenneth W. Clark, Greek New Testament Manuscripts in America, p. 269
|2495||XIV/XV||Sinai||St. Catherine's Monastery Gr. 1992||Amphoux, Wachtel||Contains the entire New Testament with minor lacunae. Very close to 1505 but slightly more Byzantine; it may possibly be a descendent of 1505. Wisse reports that it also goes with 1505 in the Gospels (Kx and Kx Cluster 281; paired with 1505). The Alands rate it "Category III with reservations" in Paul and "higher" for the Catholics.|
Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript
von Soden: α116
Barbara Aland with Andreas Juckel, Das Neue Testament in SyrischerÜberliefung I collates 2138 (along with 1505, 1611, and 2495)against the Harklean Syriac in James, 1 Peter, and 1 John.
Editions which cite:
Cited in UBS4 for the Catholic Epistles.
Cited by Von Soden, Merk, and Bover for the Acts and Epistles, butthe citations are not overly accurate.
C.-B. Amphoux, "La Parenté textuelle de syh etdu gr. 2138 dans Jacques," Biblica 62.
C.-B. Amphoux, "Quelques témoins grecs des formes textuellesles plus anciennes de l'Epître de Jacques: le groupe 2138 (ou 614)"New Testament Studies 28.
Saint Petersburg, Russian National Library Greek 222. Soden'sε1222.Contains the Gospels; Matthew 1:1-9:28 being lost.Dated by its colophon to 1144/1145, and written by a scribe named John.Textually the manuscriptcontains several interesting features; the first hand lacksthe story of the Adulteress, which was added by a later hand. Inaddition, the title page of Mark contains a sort of summary ofMark 16:9-20. Von Soden classified 2145 as Io(other manuscripts of this type beingU X 213 443 1071 1321(part) 1574). Wisse describes it as M1195in Luke 1 and 10 and Kx in Luke 20. Other members of M1195include 293 1195 1589 2200(part) 2549(part). The Alands do notassign 2145 to a Category; this seemsto imply that 2145 is not purely Byzantine, but is much moreByzantine than anything else.
Elasson. Catalog number: Olympiotisses, 79.
Contains the entire New Testament. 2200 is written on paper, one column per page.
Dated paleographically to the fourteenth century.
In the Gospels, von Soden grouped 2200 with Kx. This concurs with Aland and Aland (who place it in Category V) and for the most part with Wisse, who places it in Kx in Luke 10 and 20, although he classifies it as M1195 in Luke 1.
In the Apocalypse, the Alands place it in Category V. It belongs to the main K group (headed by 046).
2200 is much more interesting in the Acts and Epistles, where the Alands promote it to Category III and von Soden places it in Ib. We can, however, be more detailed. Wachtel places it in the Hkgr (family 2138) group in the Catholic Epistles. Geer places it among the members of Family 1739 in the Acts. Within family 1739, 2200 is closest to 630 (a fact confirmed by both the Alands and Geer). In Acts, based on the Aland samples, 630 and 2200 agree in 93% of their readings; 630's next-closest substantial relative, 1891, agrees in only 81% of cases. 1891 is also the closest substantial relative to 2200 (other than 630, of course), agreeing 85% of the time. The fact that 630 and 2200 disagree seven times in 95 readings where both exist, only one reading of which is a clear error (630 has a singular reading in Acts 3:11), is a strong argument against actual sister-hood, but they clearly go together.
This kinship continues in Paul. The apparatus of UBS4 lists 396 readings for 2200. 630 exists for 392 of these. And the two manuscripts agree in 378 of these 392 readings (96%; by comparison, 2200 agrees with L -- a typical Byzantine manuscript -- 80% of the time, and with 1739 61% of the time). Even more amazingly, 630 and 2200 agree in all 54 of their mutual non-Byzantine readings. The following table lists their disagreements, with occasional comments:
|Verse||2200 reads||630 reads||Comment|
|Rom. 10:1||του Ισραελ εστιν||αυτων||2200 Byzantine; 630 with 1739|
|Rom. 14:19||2200*vid διωκομεν||διωκωμεν||630 2200** Byzantine|
|Rom. 15:24||Σπανιαν||Σπανιαν ελευσομαι προς υμας||630 Byzantine; 2200 with 1739|
|1Co 4:17||Χριστω||Χριστω Ιησου||2200 Byzantine; 630 with 1739|
|1Co 11:15||δεδοται||αυτη δεδοται||2200 Byzantine; 630 with 1739|
|1Co 15:49||φορεσωμεν||φορεσομεν||2200 Byzantine (with 1739); 630 with 6 1881|
|1Co 15:54||οταν δε το θνητον... αθανασιαν||οταν δε το φθαρτον... αθανασιαν||630 Byzantine; 2200 with 1739*|
|1Co 15:55||νικος που σου αδη το νικος||κεντρον που σου αδη το νικος||630 Byzantine; 2200 subsingular|
|2Co 1:10||οτι και ετι||οτι και||2200 Byzantine|
|2Co 1:11||ημων||υμων||2200 Byzantine|
|2Co 12:1||καυχασθαι δη||καυχασθαι δει|
|Gal 4:7||θεου δια Χριστου||δια Χριστου||2200 Byzantine; 630 subsingular|
Thus it will be seen that 2200 and 630 are extremely close in both Acts and Epistles.(It is interesting that they are also of the same century.) Based on the above, it wouldappear that neither is the ancestor of the other. The two are probably cousins, descendedfrom the same ancestor with one or two intermediate stages. This means that 2200's textis closely comparable to 630's: Weak Family 1739 in the Acts; weak family 1739 inRomans-Galatians; purely Byzantine in Ephesians-Hebrews; Family 2138 in the CatholicEpistles.
Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript
von Soden: δ414
Editions which cite:
Cited in the Münster Editio Critica Maior for the Catholics.Cited in UBS4 for Paul.
Thomas C. Geer, Jr., Family 1739 in Acts (Society of BiblicalLiterature Monograph Series, 1994). Consists mostly of tables comparingmanuscripts 206, 322, 323, 429, 453, 522, 630, 945, 1704, 1739, 1891, 2200.The analysis is flawed, but the results are generally valid.
Chicago, University Library MS. 965. The Rockefeller McCormick New Testament,containing the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. The contents are in the order Gospels, Acts, Catholics, Paul, with Hebrews following Philemon. It is suspected that the volume once contained the psalter as well. Clark says it is by the same scribe as 38 and 1505, and dates it c. 1270. The Alands also place it in the thirteenth century (the same date they use for 38; the dating of 1505 is suspect because of its probably-forged colophon). Gary S. Dykes agrees that 1505 and 2400 are by the same scribe but would date both to the twelfth century. A colophon signed by Ιερεμιας, thought to be from the sixteenth or seventeenth century, says that it belonged to Alexander (spelled Αλεξαντρου not Αλεξανδρου) the voivode, but since several voivodes in the relevant period were named Alexander, this doesn't really help us to locate the manuscript. The last known colophon is from 1891, but it doesn't give much useful information. The known history of the manuscript stretches back only to 1910, when it was acquired by dealers in Paris. In 1927, Goodspeed saw it there and arranged for photos to be sent to Chicago. Edith Rockefeller McCormick saw the results and purchased the manuscript in 1928.
The format changes between the gospels and the rest; it typically has 42 lines per page in the gospels, but from 35 to 38 elsewhere. As originally written, it appears to have had at least 221 folios (including flyleaves). As it stands now, it has 207 -- but six of these are replacements for five lost folios; a total of twenty of the original folios are gone. The replacement pages (XIV-XV century) are inferior both in parchment and quality of writing. That still leaves nine gaps which have not been filled in. The missing sections are Matt. 9:20-38, 20:20-15, Luke 4:42-5:33, 23:39-24:21; John 2:3-4:10; Acts 1:1-10, 7:58-9:3, 16:39-17:22, 19:25-20:7; Acts 1:1-25, Luke 2:27-3:9 are from the first batch of additions and Luke 9:36-10:6, Rom. 1:1-26, 2 Peter 3:11-18, 1 John 1:1-9, Jude 14-25 are from a still later hand. It also lacks John 8:21-59, but this was simply omitted by the original scribe, who passed directly from one verse to the next. The most likely explanation is that a leaf was missing from his exemplar, although it strikes me as just barely possible that the scribe somehow misunderstood some sort of marginal note on John 7:53f. and as a result omitted a different set of verses. There is a cross mark by John 7:53, perhaps a hint that these verses were doubted.
It appears that many of the missing leaves were cut out, perhaps because of their illustrations. Willoughby thinks that the earliest pages excised were replaced (hence the various additions listed above), but the later losses not repaired -- but offers no supporting evidence.
It appears that the Gospels and Acts have been heavily used, the Epistles less so (a rather rare situation; usually Acts gets about the same amount of attention as Paul, but Willoughby thinks Acts was given more than the usual attention because of its illustrations).
The manuscript has suffered significantly from water. Willoughby does not think this is the result of damp; rather, he thinks that -- like the Latin Book of Durrow, even though that is an entirely different culture -- water was poured over it to be used in curing diseases. That water was spilled on it seems likely, although I think more evidence is needed that it was used as an holy object (if it was regarded as a relic of some sort, with what saint was it associated? Willoughby's authority was the dealer who had the book, but I'm less willing to trust such a source -- saying that the book was used as a holy object would surely give the book more of a mystique than saying, "some dimwit spilled water on it"). Fortunately, although parts of the text have become smudged, they generally remain legible.
There are interesting and unusual decorative touches -- for instance, the bottom half of the page containing Luke 7:21-36 is cruciform. Similar ornamental design is found in 38. The frontispiece is on purple parchment, and one other such leaf has been cut out, perhaps because it contained a desirable piece of art. The Ammonian Sections and τιτλοι, both later additions, are in gold.
Fourteen different scribes have been identified in the codex, but the main run of text is all in one hand; the others filled in the lost leaves. There was no systematic correction. It has the Eusebian canon tables, but, strangely, not the table numbers in the text (it does have the Ammonian sections, as we saw, although with some striking errors). It appears that the quires have been heavily reorganized; the original format was mostly quaternions, with a few ternions at the ends of books, but now the quires are highly irregular.
Textually 2400 has very little value for most of its contents. Willoughby and Riddle, who looked at the text, thought they found interesting readings in the gospels, possibly "Cæsarean" -- but this was based on comparisons with the Textus Receptus, which makes everything "Cæsarean." Wisse finds it to be simply a weak member of Πa -- which would be enough to make it look slightly non-Byzantine based on comparison with the Textus Receptus. It does have that strange mark by John 7:53, but that's about it. In Acts, Willoughby agrees that it isn't worth much, although he claims that in Acts 3:20-5:29, it shifts to another type of text, perhaps of the 206/429/522 group, although Willoughby's list of relatives is not reminiscent of any family of manuscripts I've ever seen -- in any case, it is a large enough family that we don't really need more members. Willoughby claims that 2400 is of the greatest interest in Paul, comparing it to 69 and 330 (and if it were truly related to the latter, it would be quite interesting -- and Gary S. Dykes thinks the relationship with 330 is indeed real. My own spot checks in Romans show no kinship, however). Clark seems to agree, since he calls it "Neutral" -- but the Alands label it "obviously" CategoryV throughout. The interest of 2400 lies not in its text but in its illustrations -- although, sadly, very many of these are badly chipped and abraded; the text has survived much better than the drawings. (This is apparently typical of Byzantine miniatures; they must not have used a good substrate. The flaking does reveal the curious fact that the original sketches were done with a red ink rather than the usual black or brown.)
An amazing fact about these illustrations is that, instead of using blank parchment or white paint for backdrops, they use gold (laid on as gold powder, not gold leaf, which was probably easier to apply but which requires even more gold than leaf would have). So the book must have been extremely expensive.
Clark counts ninety surviving miniatures, and suspects about 25 others have been lost (Riddle estimated 21, Goodspeed 26). Most are genuinely Biblical, although one that is found in John, chapter 1, is thought by Willoughby to show the Descent into Hell. (I'd be cautious about that; it's too damaged for me to make any guess as to what it shows!) Willoughby thinks most are connected with the church liturgical cycle rather than being intended primarily to illustrate the text; the miniature of the Descent into Hell is his main proof of that (since the calendar links that with the reading of John 1). It also has a tendency to show miracles, especially healings and exorcisms; there are also quite a few illustrations of Jesus as teacher (a rare motif; miracles are a much more common subject of illustrations). The style of the paintings is similar to those in 38 -- they are probably from the same school although no one seems to have suggested that the artist is the same; in any case, 2400 has far more illustrations than 38 -- according to Willoughby, only two other manuscripts (187 and 269, both of the Gospels only) contain more. But the similarity of style strongly hints that 2400, like 38, was copied in the scriptorium of Michael Paleologus. Its iconography is also very close to 574, the famous Four Gospels of Karahissar -- so close that they have been called "twin brothers" (although there does not seem to be any textual relationship). Willoughby has a full list of the illustrations on pp. 39-41, and Clark Descriptive Catalog, also has a list. Willoughby considers the style to be Cappadocian.
The cover plates of the manuscript are extremely expensive, biblical scenes created in silver covered with gold, and show both Greek and Latin elements, implying an origin in an area where both forms of Christianity had influence. But they are not believed to be a pair, and they are newer than the manuscript (Clark says sixteenth century, De Ricci fifteenth), so they probably don't tell us much about the manuscript's own history.
There is an interesting inscription on the Letter of James. It reads ο αγιος Ιακωβος αδελφος ΘΕ; Willoughby thinks that the last word should be read ΘΕΟΥ -- i.e. that James was not simply the brother of Jesus but the brother of God. Make of that what you will... the formula does not seem to be attested anywhere else.
After it was brought to Chicago, four volumes were devoted to 2400, its text, and its illustrations -- one by Goodspeed, one by Riddle, and two by Willoughby. Possibly the volumes on the illustrations were justified (although I do not think Willoughby was competent to do them), but it is truly tragic that all that effort was devoted to a manuscript with so little textual value when vital manuscripts like 33, 892, 1175, 1506, 1611, and 1739 have been published only in poor-quality collations if at all.
Chicago, University Library MS. 130. The Elizabeth Day McCormick Apocalypse,so-called because McCormick found it in a French bookshop, bought it, andeventually donated it to the University of Chicago.A curiosity (to put it mildly):although listed among the New Testament manuscripts, it is not in facta copy of the Greek New Testament! It is a copy of the Apocalypse, witha modified form of the Andreas commentary --but not in koine Greek; it has been translatedinto the Greek of the sixteenth century. This translation was apparentlydone by Maximos the Pelponnesian (who, interesting, is associated with CyrilLucar, the Orthodox Patriarch who donated Codex Alexandrinus to the Britishcrown); it is a reasonably clear translation butone not noteworthy for consistency of rendering (E. C. Colwell observesthe case of Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22, all of which contain thesame phrase ο εχων ους... εκκλησιαις, no two instances of which are renderedthe same way in 2402). Josef Schmid was consulted about the text, andconcluded that the primary source was the group of Andreas manuscripts sometimesknown as Family 2067 (743 2051 2055 2064 2067). Family 2067 is not a particularlynoteworthy type even among Andreas manuscripts, and 2402 has a fair numberof divergences from it anyway -- although it isn't really clear how muchof this was found in the exemplar of the translation and how much was Maximosadjusting the text, perhaps based on his memory of other manuscripts.
2402 was probably copied in the late sixteenth or perhaps early seventeenthcentury (the watermarks of the paper are typical of the late sixteenthcentury, as is the writing).It is not the original of the translation -- indeed, three other copies are known,one of them reportedly being 2114.But 2402 is unique for its illustrations: It is the only fully-illuminated Greekcopy of the Apocalypse known to exist, and the illustrations are arguablymore interesting than the text. All of these are reproduced (in black and white,sadly) in the first volume (by Harold R. Willoughby) of the multi-volumeset The Elizabeth Day McCormick Apocalypse, which is the source ofall the information given here. The text can be found in the second volume.This is probably all that textual students need to know; students of Byzantineart, on the other hand, have real reason to look up the publication to seewhat a sixteenth century illuminated manuscript looks like.
Chicago. Catalog number: University of Chicago Library, MS. 972.
2427 contains the Gospel of Mark (only). Given that the first and last pages are blank, and that it consists of six quires, and that the first five are regular but the sixth is not, it seems clear that it was never intended to contain anything else. It also contains seventeen miniatures -- one of Mark the evangelist and sixteen of events in the gospel.
2427 is written on parchment, one column per page. Paleographers lookingat the writing have dated the manuscript to the fourteenth century (but seebelow).
Because 2427 came to light relatively recently (it was bought in 1937 from a private collection in Athens), and because it contains only Mark, few attempts have been made to classify it. The only comprehensive classification to include it is that of the Alands, who rate it Category I.
Despite the limitations of the Alands' methods, this seems to be formally acorrect evaluation. 2427 is unquestionably the least Byzantine and moststrongly Alexandrian of the minuscules of Mark. It is, in fact, the strongestally of Vaticanus in that book; it seems to stand in almost the same relationshipwith B as B has with P75 -- i.e. the same sort of text, with a slightmixture of other readings which have arisen over time. Samples indicate aboutan 80% rate of agreement with B; the only substantial difference is that2427 includes 16:9-20. 2427 is not nearly as close to the otherAlexandrian witnesses.
The above circumstances have left 2427 under something of a cloud. It iscertainly reasonable to ask how a fourteenth century minuscule could havefewer Byzantine readings than any other manuscript more recent than thefourth century! So there were many who have doubted its authenticity. Thisled to further examinations, of various types. Mary Virginia Orna, Patricia L. Lang,J. E. Katon, Thomas F. Mathews, and Robert S. Nelson, in "Applicationsof Infrared Microspectroscopy to Art Historical Questions about MedievalManuscripts" (Archaeological Chemistry, 4 (1988), pp. 270-288)found that one of the illustrations contained a chemical with a cyanide (-CN) group.The earliest known pigment containing a cyanide group is Prussian Blue(KFe[Fe(CN)6]) -- first commercially produced by Diebach inaround 1704. The chemical is complex, and rather dangerous to create, sochances are strong (though it's not quite certain) that a painting containingit dates from the eighteenth century or later. (Thanks to Wieland Willker forbringing this to my attention.)
On the other hand, the parchment appears old (though it has not, to myknowledge, been examined in detail with modern methods), andthe writing is also somewhat weathered. It's hard to know what to make ofthis. If genuine, 2427 should be considered among theleading Alexandrian witnesses. If a forgery (and the chemical evidence doespoint in that direction), what was the purpose? Is it possible that theillustrations are later than the manuscript itself? Or could they havebeen retouched?
And chemical arguments have certain dangers. For example, it has beenmaintained that the presence of titanium dioxide in ink implies recentcreation. But it has now been shown that titanium dioxide doesoccur in older inks.
It appears that the answer has finally been found. Stephen C. Carlsoninforms me (private communication) that 2427appears to have been copied from the New Testament edition of Philipp Buttmann,published 1860. This in turn was largely based on Cardinal Mai's edition ofVaticanus. It is widely and correctly stated that Mai's edition of B is verybad -- but it is genuinely an edition of B, just an error-filled one. This,note, explains both the similarity of 2427 to B and its significant divergences.
Carlson's results were published in 2006, and since then, Dr. Willker hasundertaken to verify these results. He concurs with Carlson. It would appear thatthe mystery of 2427 has been solved. And that it should be removed from thecritical apparatus.
That of course leaves the task of figuring out the history of the manuscript since the forgery was created. But if the manuscript was made in the nineteenth century -- perhaps, if we wish to be generous, by someone who wanted a manuscript with a very old text -- this could also explain the manuscript's weathered look.
Aland & Aland (1 page)
Editions which cite:
Cited in NA27 (but removed from the apparatus of NA28, for obvious reasons!)
Cited in UBS4.
Cited in SQE13.
See Dr. Willker's web site for his detailed analysis. Carlson's work waspublished by SBL.
See also Kenneth W. Clark, Greek New Testament Manuscripts in America, p. 271.
Patmos. Catalog number: Joannu 742.
Originally contained the Acts and Epistles. The largest part of Actshas been lost; the manuscript begins in chapter 19. In Paul, 2464 lacksRom. 11:29-16:10, the Pastorals, Philemon,and Hebrews 7:2-14, 9:20-10:4,10:19-end. In the Catholics, the manuscript ends in 3 John; Jude has beenlost. 2464 is written on parchment, with one column per page in the Gospelsand two columns per page elsewhere.
Originally dated to the tenth century, NA27 lowers this tothe ninth century (probably based on the claim by F. J. Leroy that 2464is from the same pen -- that of Nikolaos Studites -- as the dated ninthcentury minuscule 461. Aland and Wachtel do not concede this claim, butallow that "2464... comes from the same time and probably even thesame scriptorium as the Uspenski Gospels [=461]").
The basic run of the text is late Alexandrian, but heavily mixed. Romansis almost purely Byzantine. Even in the remaining books it appears thatabout half the original Alexandrian readings have been replaced by Byzantine.2464 has few striking readings; its readings are usually supported by alarge number of Alexandrian witnesses.
Aland and Aland list 2464 as Category II. It is the author's opinion that, for Paul (the only corpus where it was included in the Nestle-Aland apparatus) this is clearly too high a ranking. Even if one ignores the block mixture in Romans, the rest of the text has enough Byzantine readings that it belongs in Category III.
In Acts, it's much harder to judge the text, because there is so little of it. The Alands have only 35 sample readings -- not enough for a real assessment. But the statistics, such as they are, are striking: 18 Byzantine readings, 13 which agree with UBS (four of these are readings which agree with both the majority and UBS) -- and fully eight readings which agree with neither. Three of these are singular (although all are close to better-attested readings). Its closest relative among manuscripts for which both exist for at least 30 readings is E -- but they agree only 61% of the time. Ψ and 623 agree with it 60% of the time; all other manuscripts agree less than that. So there is reason to think that the text of Acts is worth more detailed investigation.
Editions which cite:
Cited in NA26 for Paul.
Cited in NA27 for Paul.
Cited in UBS4 for the Acts and Epistles.
Cited in the Münster Editio Critica Maior for the Catholics.
F. J. Leroy, "Le Patmos St. Jean 742 [Gregory 2464]," published inTh. Lefèvre, Zetesis, Bijdragen... aan Prof. Dr. E. de Stijcker, 1973.
Barbara Aland and Klaus Wachtel, "The Greek Minuscule Manuscriptsof the New Testament" (translated by Bart D. Ehrman, and appearing inEhrman & Michael W. Holmes, Eds., The Text of the New Testament inContemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, Eerdmans, 1995)very briefly discusses, with references, the history of 2464 (p. 45).
Sinai. Catalog number: Kathar.-Kloster Gr. 1992.
Originally contained the entire New Testament. A few odd phrases havebeen lost due to damage over the years. It is written on paper, one columnper page.
Dated paleographically to the fourtheenth/fifteenth century.
In the Acts and Epistles, 2495 belongs with the family 2138text-type (also called family 1611, family 614, Hkgr, etc.; a Greek textrelated to that also found in the Harklean Syriac; see the entry on2138). It is particularlyclose to 1505;if 2495 is not a descendent of 1505, they certainly havea close common ancestor. 2495, however, has noticeably more Byzantine readingsthan 1505. It preserves few if any family readings not found in 1505 (and, asa result, was replaced by 1505 in the critical apparatus of the recent Nestle-Aland editions). The Aland samples for Acts show 1505 as 2495's closest relative by far; they agree in 88% of the test readings. Among substantial manuscripts, 2495's next-closest relative is 1890 (79%), followed by 2138 (76%), 1526 (70%), 913 (70%), and 1611 (70%); all others are below 70%. Thus we see that 2495 is clearly a member of Family 2138, but that it is much closer to 1505 than to the others.
In the Catholics, 1505 and 2495 again form a distinctive subtype within family 2138 (other subgroups being 2138+1611, 614+2412, 630+1799+2200, etc). Some, e.g. Amphoux, have considered this type to be residue of the "Western" text. This, however, can be disputed; see the entry on 614.
In Paul, the text of this family is much weaker, and clear representatives are fewer (to my knowledge, only 1505, 1611, 2495, the Harklean Syriac, probably 2005, and parts of 1022).
1505 and 2495 also go together in the Gospels, although there they are Byzantine. Wisse describes 2495 as Kmix/Kx/Kx, and adds "Kx Cluster 261 in 1 and 10; pair with 1505." Aland and Aland list it as "Category III with reservations, but higher in the Catholic Epistles."
To date, 2495 has not been studied in the Apocalypse. (1505 does not contain that book.)
See also the entry on 1505.
Editions which cite:
Cited in NA26 for the Acts and Epistles; in NA27 it has been quite reasonably been replaced by 1505, which has an earlier and better text of the same type.
Cited in UBS3 for the Acts and Epistles.
Cited in the Münster Editio Critica Maior for parts of the Catholics.
Saint Petersburg. Catalog number: Public Library Gr. 694
2542 contains Matthew with slight lacunae, Mark, and Luke (missing 24:20-end).
Dated paleographically to the twelfth (so SQE13) or thirteenthcentury (so NA27, Wisse, etc.). 2542 is written on parchment, one columnper page.
2542 has only recently come to scholarly attention, and relatively little is known of its text. The Alands classify it as Category III. Wisse lists it as Mixed in Luke 1 and a weak member of Family 1 in Luke 10 and 20.
Both assessments seem to be correct. Spot checks of the Nestle apparatus show 2542 to be much more Byzantine than anything else. In some places (e.g Mark 8) it does appear to have affinities with family 1 (although even here it is more Byzantine than most members of the family); in others (e.g. Mark 1) it seems to be simply a witness with many Byzantine readings and a handful of non-Byzantine variants of no particular type.
Since 2542 lacks the Gospel of John, we cannot tell where it places John 7:53-8:11 (which Family 1, of course, places after John 21:25). Other than that, it generally has the more Byzantine reading at noteworthy points of variation (e.g. it includes Mark 16:9-20 without variant or question; although Family 1 has a note here; 2542 also includes Luke 22:43-44, 23:34, although of course both of these are found in Family 1).
Quite frankly, I do not understand 2542 was included in the NA27 apparatus when manuscripts such as 157, 1071, and 1241 were omitted. It is a useful but not exceptional manuscript.
Editions which cite:
Cited in NA27 for Mark and Luke.
Cited in SQE13 (with no notation in the list of witnesses of anylacunae, indicating that it is cited for all four gospels. Obviously, however,it cannot be cited for John, and a cursory examination of the apparatus toMatthew makes me wonder if it is fully cited for that gospel).