Note: In the catalog which follows, bold type indicates a fullentry. Plain type indicates a short entry, which may occur under anothermanuscript.
Additional note regarding the Great Uncials (especiallyℵ A B C D):These manuscripts have simply beenstudied too fully for there to be any hope of a complete examination here,let alone complete bibliographies.The sections below attempt no more than brief summaries.
Contents:* ℵ (01)* A (02)* B (03)* C (04)* Dea (05)* Dp (06)* Dabs* Ee (07)* Ea (08)* Ep: see Dabs* Fe (09)* Fa* Fp (010)* Ge (011)* Ga: see 095* Gb: see 0120* Gp (012)* He (013)* Ha (014)* Hp (015)* I (016)* Ke (017)* Kap (018)* Le (019)* Lap (020)* Me (021)* Mp: see 0121 and 0243* N (022)* O (023)* Pe (024)* Papr (025)* Q (026)* R (027)* S (028)* T (029)* Tg (Scrivener Tp): see 061* Tk (Scrivener Tg): see 085* U (030)* V (031)* W (032)* X (033)* Y (034)* Z (035)* Γ (Gamma, 036)* Δ (Delta, 037)* Θ (Theta, 038)* Λ (Lambda, 039)* Ξ (Xi, 040)* Π (Pi, 041)* Φ (Phi, 043)* Ψ (Psi, 044)* Ω (Omega, 045)* 046* 047* 048* 049* 050* 053* 054* 055* 056* 061* 065* 066* 067* 068* 069* 071* 076* 085* 095 and 0123* 098* 0120* 0121 and 0243* 0122* 0123: see 095 and 0123* 0142: see article on 056* 0130* 0145* 0206* 0212* 0219* 0243: see 0121 and 0243* 0253* 0254* 0259* 0260* 0261* 0262* 0263* 0264* 0265* 0266* 0268*
The entire New Testament portion, plus part of the Old and the non-Biblical books,are in London, British Library Add. 43725. (A singularly obscure number for what isone of the most important manuscripts in the world!)A handful of Old Testament leaves are atLeipzig. Originally found at Saint Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai, hencethe name "Codex Sinaiticus." A few stray leaves of the codex apparently remain at Sinai.ℵ is the famousCodex Sinaiticus, the great discovery of Constantine von Tischendorf, the only surviving completecopy of the New Testament written prior to the ninth century, and the only completeNew Testament in uncial script.
ℵ presumably originally contained the complete Greek Bible plus at least twoNew Testament works now regarded as non-canonical: Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.As it stands now, we have the New Testament complete (all in London; 148 leavesor 296 pages total), plusBarnabas and Hermas (to Mandate iv.3.6). Of the Old Testament, we have about 250leaves out of an original total of some 550. Apart from the portions still at Sinai(which are too newly-found to have been included in most scholarly works), the OldTestament portion consists of portions of Gen. 23, 24, Numbers 5-7 (these first portionsbeing cut-up fragments found in the bindings of other books), plus, moreor less complete, 1 Ch. 9:27-19:17, 2 Esdras (=Ezra+Nehemiah) 9:9-end, Esther,Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees (it appears that 2 and 3 Maccabees never formedpart of the text), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lament. 1:1-2:20, Joel,Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Psalms,Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Job.
Dated paleographically to the fourth century. It can hardly be earlier, as themanuscript contains the Eusebian Canons from thefirst hand. But the simplicity of the writing style makes a later dating effectivelyimpossible.
Tischendorf was of the opinion that four scribes wrote the manuscript; he labelledthem A, B, C, and D. It is now agreed that Tischendorf was wrong. The astonishing thingabout these scribes is how similar their writing styles were (they almost certainlywere trained in the same school), making it difficult to distinguish them. Tischendorf'smistake is based on the format of the book: The poeticbooks of the Old Testament are written in a different format (in two columns ratherthan four), so he thought that they were written by scribe C. But in fact the differenceis simply one of page layout; scribe C never existed. For consistency, though,the three remaining scribes are still identified by their Tischendorf letters, A, B, andD.
An interesting aspect of Sinaiticus is its severe plain-ness. Even Codex Vaticanus hasoccasional graphics (though a lot of them are pretty ugly) and a few instances of red ink.Sinaiticus has almost none. (This may not have been all bad. Sinaiticus is thought to havebeen in Palestine in the early Islamic era, and a manuscript which did not violate theIslamic ban of representations of living things perhaps had a better chance of surviving.)
Of the three, scribe D was clearly the best, having almost faultless spelling. A, despitehaving a hand similar to D's, was a very poor scribe; the only good thing to be saidabout him was that he was better than B, whose incompetence is a source of almost continualastonishment to those who examine his work.
The New Testament is almost entirely the work of scribe A; B did not contribute atall, and D supplied only a very few leaves, scattered about. It is speculated (thoughit is no more than speculation) that the few leaves written by Dwere "cancels" -- placeswhere the original copies were so bad that it was easier to replace than correct them.(One of these cancels, interestingly, is the ending of Mark.)
It has been speculated that Sinaiticuswas copied from dictation. This is because a number of its errors seem to be errors ofhearing rather than of sight (including an amusing case in 1 Macc. 5:20, where thereader seems to have stumbled over the text and the copyist took it all down mechanically).Of course, the possibility cannot be absolutely ruled out that it was notSinaiticus itself, but one of its ancestors, which was taken down from dictation.In the case of the New Testament, at least, it seems likely that it was not taken fromdictation but actually copied from another manuscript.
Sinaiticus is one of the most-corrected manuscripts of all time. Tischendorf counted14,800 corrections in what was then the Saint Petersburg portion alone!
The correctors were numerous and varied. Tischendorf groups them into five sets,denoted a, b, c, d, e, but there were actually more than this. Milne and Skeatbelieve "a" and "b" to have been the original scribes (thoughothers have dated them as late as the sixth century); their corrections wererelatively few, but those of "a" in particular are considered to havenearly as much value as the original text.
The busiest correctors are those collectively described as "c," though infact there were at least three of them, seemingly active in the seventh century. Whenthey are distinguished, it is as "c.a," "c.b," and "c.pamph."Corrector c.a was the busiest of all, making thousands of changes throughout the volume. Manyof these -- though by no means all -- were in the direction of the Byzantine text. Theother two correctors did rather less; c.pamph seems to have worked on only two books(2 Esdras and Esther) -- but his corrections were against a copy said to have beencorrected by Pamphilius working from the Hexapla. This, if true, is very interesting --but colophons can be faked, or transmitted from copy to copy. And in any case, thecorrections apply only to two books, neither in the New Testament. There may havebeen as many as two others among the "c" correctors; all told,Tischendorf at one time or another refers to correctors c, ca, cb, cc, and cc*.
Correctors d and e were much later (e is dated to the twelfth century), and neitheradded particularly many changes. Indeed, no work of d's is known in the New Testament.
It is unfortunate that the Nestle-Aland edition has completely befuddled this systemof corrections. In Nestle-Aland 26 and beyond,ℵa andℵb arecombined as ℵ1;the correctorsℵc areconflated as ℵ2,and (most confusing of all)ℵebecomes ℵc.
(For more information about the correctors ofℵ,see the article on Correctors.)
The history of Tischendorf's discovery of Codex Sinaiticus is told in nearly everyintroduction to New Testament criticism; I will not repeat it in any detail here (especiallysince there is a great deal of controversy about what he did). The essential elementsare these: In 1844, Tischendorf visited Saint Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai. (Sadly,he did not do much to investigate the many fine minuscules at Mount Sinai, such as 1241 and1881). At one point, he noted 43 sheets of very old parchment in a waste bin, destined tobe burned. Tischendorf rescued these leaves (the Leipzig portion of Sinaiticus, all fromthe Old Testament), and learned that many more existed. He was not able to obtain theseleaves, and saw no sign of the manuscript on a second visit in 1853.
It was not until 1859, near the end of a third visit, that Tischendorf was allowedto see the rest of the old manuscript (learning then for the first time that it containedthe New Testament -- complete! -- as well as the Old). Under a complicated arrangement,Tischendorf was allowed to transcribe the manuscript, but did not have the time toexamine it in full detail. Tischendorf wanted to take the manuscript to the west, whereit could be examined more carefully.
It is at this point that the record becomes unclear. The monks, understandably,had no great desire to give up the greatest treasure of their monastery. Tischendorf,understandably, wanted to make the manuscript more accessible (though not necessarilysafer; unlike Saint Petersburg and London, Mount Sinai has not suffered a revolutionor been bombed since the discovery ofℵ).In hindsight, it seems quite clear that the monks were promised better terms thanthey actually received (though this may be the fault of the Tsarist government ratherthan Tischendorf). Still, by whatever means, the manuscript wound up in SaintPetersburg, and later was sold to the British Museum.
There is at least one interesting sidelight on this, in that Tischendorf's storyof his discovery has a clear historical precedent in the discovery of the PercyManuscript. In around 1753, Thomas Percy was visiting his friend Humphrey Pitt whenhe discovered the maids burning a paper folio. (A much more reasonable thing toburn than a pile of parchments, which do not burn well!) Percy was able to rescuethe century-old poetic miscellany, which eventually inspired him to publish hisReliques in 1765. [Source: Nick Groom, The Making of Percy's Reliques,Oxford, 1999, p. 6.] Happily, the parallels did not extend beyond that point:Percy edited, rewrote, and generally misrepresented his manuscript; Tischendorf publishedSinaiticus with great precision.
However unfair these proceedings, they did make the Sinaiticus available to theworld. Tischendorf published elaborate editions in the 1860s, Kirsopp Lake publisheda photographic edition before World War I, and once the manuscript arrived in theBritish Museum, it was subjected to detailed examination under ordinary andultraviolet light.
The fact that ℵ isboth early and complete has made it the subject of intense textual scrutiny.Tischendorf, who did not pay much attention to text-types, did not really analyse its text,but gave it more weight than any other manuscript when preparing his eighth andfinal critical edition. Westcott and Hort regarded it as, after B, the best andmost important manuscript in existence; the two made up the core of their"neutral" text. Since then, nearly everyone has listed it as a primaryAlexandrian witness: Von Soden listed it as a member of the H type; the Alandslist it as Category I (which, in practice, meanspurely Alexandrian); Wisse lists it as Group B in Luke; Richards classifies it asA2 (i.e. a member of the main Alexandrian group) in the Johannine Epistles,etc. The consensus was that there were only two places where the manuscript is notAlexandrian: the first part of John, where it is concededthat it belongs to some other text-type, probably "Western," (Gordon D. Fee,in a study whose methodologyI consider dubious -- one can hardly divide things as closely as a single verse! -- putsthe dividing point at 8:38), and in theApocalypse, where Schmid classifies it in its own, non-Alexandrian, type with P47.
The truth appears somewhat more complicated. Zuntz, analysing 1 Corinthiansand Hebrews, came to the conclusion that ℵand B do not belong to the same text-type. (Zuntz's terminology is confusing,as he refers to the P46/B type as "proto-Alexandrian,"even though his analysis makes it clear that this is not the same typeas the mainstream Alexandrian text.) The true Alexandrian text of Paul, therefore,is headed by ℵ, withallies including A C I 33 81 1175. It also appears that the Bohairic Coptic tends towardthis group, although Zuntz classified it with P46/B (the Sahidic Copticclearly goes with P46/B), while 1739, which Zuntz places with P46/B,appears to me to be separate from either.
This leads to the logical question of whether ℵand B actually belong together in the other parts of the Bible. They are everywherecloser to each other than to the Byzantine text -- but that does not mean that theybelong to the same type, merely similar types. There are hints that, in the Gospelsas in Paul, they should be separated.B belongs to a group with P75, and thisgroup seems to be ancestral to L. Other witnesses, notably Z, cluster aroundℵ. While no one isyet prepared to say that B and ℵbelong to separate text-types in the gospels, the possibility must at least be admittedthat they belong to separate sub-text-types.
In Acts, I know of no studies which would incline to separateℵ and B, even withinthe same text-type. On the other hand, I know of no studies which have examined thequestion. It is likely that the two do both belong to the Alexandrian type, but whetherthey belong to the same sub-type must be left unsettled.
In Paul, Zuntz's work seems unassailable. There is no question that B andℵ belong to differenttypes. The only questions are, what are those types, and what is their extent?Zuntz's work is little help, but it would appear that theℵ-typeis the "true" Alexandrian text. P46 and B have only onecertain ally (the Sahidic Coptic) and two doubtful ones (the Bohairic Coptic, whichI believe against Zuntz to belong with ℵ,and the 1739 group, which I believe to be a separate text-type).ℵ, however, has manyallies -- A, C, 33 (ℵ'sclosest relative except in Romans), and the fragmentary I are all almost pure examplesof this type. Very many minuscules support it with some degree of mixture; 81, 1175, and1506 are perhaps the best, but most of the manuscripts that the Alands classify asCategory II or Category IIIin Paul probably belong here (the possible exceptions are the members ofFamilies 365/2127,330, and2138). It is interesting to note that theAlexandrian is the only non-Byzantine type with a long history -- there are noP46/B manuscripts after the fourth century, and the "Western"text has only three Greek witnesses, with the last dating from the ninth century,but we have Alexandrian witnesses from the fourth century to the end of the manuscriptera. Apart from certain fragmentary papyri, ℵis the earliest and best of these.
The situation in the Catholic Epistles is complicated. The work of Richards on theJohannine Epistles, and the studies of scholars such as Amphoux, have clearly revealedthat there are (at least) three distinct non-Byzantine groups here: Family 2138,Family 1739 (which here seems to include C), and the large group headed byP72, ℵ,A, B, 33, etc. Richards calls all three of these Alexandrian, but he has nodefinition of text-types; it seems evident that Amphoux is right: These arethree text-types, not three groups within a single type.
Even within the Alexandrian group, we find distinctions. P72 and Bstand together. Almost all other Alexandrian witnesses fall into a group headedby A and 33 (other members of this group includeΨ, 81, 436).ℵ stands alone;it does not seem to have any close allies. It remains to be determined whetherthis is textually significant or just a matter of defective copying (such thingsare harder to test in a short corpus like the Catholic Epistles).
As already mentioned, Schmid analysed the manuscripts of the Apocalypse andfound that ℵstood almost alone; its only ally is P47. The other non-Byzantinewitnesses tend to cluster around A and C rather thanℵ. Thegeneral sense is that the A/C type is the Alexandrian text (if nothing else,it is the largest of the non-Byzantine types, which is consistently true of theAlexandrian text). Certainly the A/C type is regarded as the best; theP47/ℵtype is regarded as having many peculiar readings.
von Soden: δ2
Many critical apparatus (including those of Merk and Bover, as well as Rahlfs in the LXX)refer to ℵ using the siglum "S."
Note: As with all the major uncials, no attempt is made to compile a completebibliography.
A full edition, with special type and intended to show the exact nature of the corrections, etc. was published by Tischendorf in 1861. This is now superseded by the photographic edition published by Kirsopp Lake (1911). And that in turn has been updated by the detailed scans at www.codexsinaiticus.org. The British Library has also released high-resolution scans, at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_43725&index=3.
Images are found in nearly every book on NT criticism which contains pictures.
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since Tischendorf.
See especially H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors ofCodex Sinaiticus (1938)
British Library, Royal 1 D.v-viii. Volumes v, vi, and vii (as presentlybound) contain the Old Testament, volume viii the New Testament. Originallygiven to the English by Cyril Lucar, at various times patriarch of Alexandriaand Constantinople. He had it from Alexandria, and so the manuscript cameto be called "Codex Alexandrinus," but it is by no means surethat it had always been there.
A originally contained the entire Old and New Testaments, plus I and II Clementand (if the table of contents is to be believed) the Psalms of Solomon. As themanuscript stands, small portions of the Old Testament have been lost, as haveMatthew 1:1-25:6, John 6:50-8:52 (though the size and number of missing leavesimplies that John 7:53-8:11 were not part of the manuscript), 2 Cor. 4:13-14:6.The final leaves of the manuscript have been lost, meaning that 2 Clement ends at 12:4.Like the New Testament, the Old contains some non-canonical or marginally canonicalmaterial: 3 and 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, Odes.
There is some slight disagreement about the date of A. A colophonattributes it to Thecla, working in the time of Saint Paul (!), but this is clearlya later forgery; it may have been written by a Thecla, but not that Thecla.Although most experts believethe manuscript is of the fifth century, a few have held out for the late fourth.A very few have held out for later dates: Semler said seventh, and someone by thename of Oudin apparently placed it in the tenth century! (This was based on theinclusion of an alleged letter of Athanasius, which, it was claimed, must have been written in thetenth century because there were lots of forgeries written around that time.)No scholar since the earlynineteenth century has taken either of these claims seriously, however, and ourknowledge of ancient manuscripts and their dating is vastly greater now.
The numberof scribes has also been disputed; Kenyon thought there were five, but Milne and Skeat(who had better tools for comparison) suggest that there are only two, possibly three.(The uncertainty lies in the fact that part of the New Testament, beginning with Lukeand ending with 1 Cor. 10:8, present a rather different appearance from the rest of theNew Testament -- but when compared in detail, the hand appears extremely similar tothe scribe who did the rest of the New Testament.) Occasional letterforms are saidto resemble Coptic letters, perhaps hinting at Egyptian origin, but this is notuniversally conceded.
A contains a significant number of corrections, both from the original scribeand by later hands, but it has not undergone the sort of major overhaul we see inℵ or D oreven B (which was retraced by a later hand). Nor do the corrections appear tobelong to a particular type of text.
The colophons at the ends of books are decorated (sometimes simply withborders, sometimes with very simply pen-and-ink illustrations); the bordersare not very attractive and the illustrations, to my eye, worse; they don'tshow much evidence of real artistic skill, and certainly don't addmuch to the manuscript.
The story of how A reached its present location is much less involved thanthat of its present neighbour ℵ.A has been in England since 1627. It is first encountered in Constantinoplein 1624, though it is likely that Cyril Lucar (recently translated fromthe Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria to that of Constantinople) brought itwith him from Egypt. Lucar was involved in a complex struggle with the Turkishgovernment, the Catholic church, and his own subordinates, and presented thecodex to the English in gratitude for their help. The Church of Constantinoplewas disorderly enough that Lucar seems to have had some trouble keeping his handson the codex, but it eventually was handed over to the English.
After arriving in Britain, it did have one brief adventure: During the EnglishCivil War, there was threat of dispersal of the Royal Library (the core of whatbecame first the British Museum then the British Library). When Librarian PatrickYoung was allowed to retire, he took the Alexandrinus with him; it was finallyreturned to the Library in 1664. Given how erratic was the behavior of Cromwell'sfollowers, that may have been just as well.
A is somewhat confounding to both the friends and enemies of the Byzantinetext, as it gives some evidence to the arguments of both sides.
A is Byzantine in the gospels; there can be no question of this. It is, infact, the oldest Byzantine manuscript in Greek. (The Peshitta Syriac is older,and is Byzantine, but it obviously is not Greek.) But it is not a "normal"Byzantine witness -- that is, it is not directly related to the Kx typewhich eventually became dominant. The text of A in the Gospels is, in fact,related to FamilyΠ (Von Soden'sIκ). Yet even thosewho documented this connection (Silva Lake and others) note that A is nota particularly pure member of FamilyΠ. Nor, in their opinions,was it an ancestor of Family Π;rather, it was a slightly mixed descendent. The additional elements seem to have beenAlexandrian -- the obvious example being the omission of John 7:53-8:11, butA also omits, e.g., Luke 22:43-44 and (in the first hand) John 5:3. Westcott andHort felt the combination of B and A to be strong and significant. We arenonetheless left with the question of the relationship between A and the rest ofthe Byzantine text. The best explanation appears to me to be that A is derivedfrom a Byzantine text very poorly and sporadically corrected against an Alexandriandocument (most likely not systematically corrected, but with occasional Byzantinereadings eliminated as they were noticed in an environment where the Alexandriantext dominated). But other explanations are certainly possible.
The situation in the rest of the New Testament is simpler: A is Alexandrianthroughout. It is not quite as pure as ℵor B or the majority of the papyri; it has a few Byzantine readings. But thebasic text is as clearly Alexandrian as the gospels are Byzantine. The Alands,for instance, list A as Category I in theentire New Testament except for the Gospels (where they list it asCategory III for historical reasons). VonSoden calls it H (but Iκain the Gospels).
In Acts, there seems to be no reason to think A is to be associated particularlywith ℵ orB. It seems to be somewhat closer to P74.
In Paul, the situation changes. A clearly belongs withℵ (and C 33etc.) against P46 and B. This was first observed by Zuntz, andhas been confirmed by others since then.
The case in the Catholic Epistles is complicated. The vast majorityof the so-called Alexandrian witnesses seem to be weaker texts of a typeassociated with A and 33. (Manuscripts such asΨ, 81, and 436 seem tofollow these two, with Byzantine mixture.) The complication is that neitherB nor ℵseems to be part of this type. The simplest explanation is that theAlexandrian text breaks down into subtypes, but this has not beenproved.
In the Apocalypse, A and ℵonce again part company. According to Schmid,ℵ forms a smallgroup with P47, while A is the earliest and generally best of a much largergroup of witnesses including C, the vulgate, and most of the non-Byzantine minuscules.In this book, the A/C text is considered much the best witness. Based on its numberof supporters relative to theP47/ℵtext, one must suspect the A/C text of being the mainstream Alexandrian text, butthis cannot really be considered proved -- there simply aren't enough earlypatristic writings to classify the witnesses with certainty.
von Soden: δ4
Note: As with all the major uncials, no attempt is made to compile a completebibliography.
The first publication of the manuscript was as footnotes to the LondonPolyglot. The symbol "A" comes from Wettstein. A photographic edition(at reduced size) was published by Kenyon starting in 1909.
The British Library has now published high-quality scans of the entire New Testament volume; available at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Royal_MS_1_D_VIII&index=10
Images are found in nearly every book on NT criticism which contains pictures.
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since Tischendorf (plus Wettstein, etc.)
Vatican Library, Greek 1209. The manuscript has been there for its entire knownhistory; hence the title "Codex Vaticanus."
B originally contained the entire Old and New Testaments, except that itnever included the books of Maccabees or the Prayer of Manasseh. The manuscript nowhas slight defects; in the Old Testament, it omits most of Genesis (to 46:28) andportions of Psalms (lacking Psalms 105-137). In the New Testament, it is defective fromHebrews 9:14 onward (ending ΚΑΤΑ), omittingthe end of Hebrews, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and the Apocalypse. It ispossible that additional books might have been included at the end -- although itis also possible that the Apocalypse was not included. Indeed, it is barely possible(though this is rarely mentioned) that B originally omitted the Pastorals; this wouldaccord with the contents of its relative P46.
Early estimates of the date of this manuscript, at a time when knowledge ofpaleography was limited, varied significantly -- e.g. Montfaucon suggested the fifthor sixth century, and Dupin the seventh. But Hug (who was the first to really stressthe importance of this manuscript) suggested the fourth century, and this is nolonger questioned; B is now universally conceded to belong to the fourth century,probably to theearly part of the century. It is in many ways very primitive, having very shortbook titles and lacking the Eusebian apparatus. It has its own unique system ofchapter identifications; that in the gospels is found elsewhere only inΞ. It uses a continuous system ofnumbers in Paul, showing that (in one or another of its ancestors), Hebrewsstood between Galatians and Ephesians, even though Hebrews stands afterThessalonians in B itself. There is a second system in Paul as well; we alsofind two sets of chapter numbers in Acts and the Catholic Epistles,save that 2 Peter is not numbered (perhaps because it was not considered canonicalby the unknown person who created this chapter system).
A single scribe seems to have been responsible for the New Testament, thoughtwo scribes worked on the Old. There were two primary correctors, though thedates of both are rather uncertain. The first is tentatively dated to the sixthcentury; the second comes from the tenth or eleventh. The second of these ismuch the more important, though more for damage done than for the actual readingssupplied. This scribe, finding the manuscript somewhat faded, proceeded tore-ink the entire text (except for a few passages which he considered inauthentic).This scribe also added accents and breathings. This re-inking had several sideeffects, all of them (from our standpoint) bad. First, it defaced the appearanceof the letters, making it much harder to do paleographic work. Second, it renderedsome of the readings of the original text impossible to reconstruct. And third(though related to the preceding), it makes it very difficult to tell if there areany original accents, breathings, punctuation, etc. Such marks will generallydisappear under the re-inking. Only when such a mark has not been re-inkedcan we be sure it came from the original hand. Modern techniques could perhaps seethrough the work of this defacer, but as far as I know, no one has been willing toput up the money for this, and I doubt the Vatican would allow the manuscript toleave their library for as long as the project would need.
It is not absolutely certain when B was damaged, but it certainly happenedin the manuscript era, because a supplement with the missing material was lateradded to the volume. This supplement is late, in a minuscule hand (manuscript1957, dated paleographically to the fifteenth century; it is believed that the Apocalypsewas copied from a manuscript belonging to Cardinal Bessarion. It has been conjecturedthat Bessarion contributed B to the Vatican library, but this is pure conjecture;all that is known is that the manuscript has been in the library since the compilingof the first catalog in 1475.)
This is the manuscript. The big one. The key. It is believed that everynon-Byzantine edition since Westcott and Hort has been closer to B than to anyother manuscript. There is general consensus about the nature of its text: Westcottand Hort called it "Neutral" (i.e. Alexandrian); Von Soden listed it asH (Alexandrian), Wisse calls it Group B (Alexandrian), the Alands place it inCategory I (which in practice also meansAlexandrian). No other substantial witness is as clearly a member of thistext-type; B very nearly defines the Alexandrian text.
Despite the unanimity of scholars, the situation is somewhat more complicatedthan is implied by the statement "B is Alexandrian." The facts changefrom corpus to corpus.
In the Gospels, Westcott and Hort centered the "Neutral"/Alexandriantext around B and ℵ (01).At that time, they agreed more closely with each other than with anything else(except that Z had a special kinship withℵ). Since thattime, things have grown more complex. B has been shown to have a special affinitywith P75 -- an affinity much greater than its affinity withℵ, and ofa different kind. The scribal problems of P66 make it harder toanalyse (particularly since ℵdeparts the Alexandrian text in the early chapters of John), but it alsoappears closer to B than ℵ.Among later manuscripts, L has sufferedmuch Byzantine mixture, but its non-Byzantine readings stand closer to Bthan to ℵ.Thus it appears that we must split the Alexandrian text of the Gospels into,at the very least, two subfamilies, a B family(P66, P75, B, L, probably the Sahidic Coptic) and anℵfamily (ℵ,Z, at least some of the semi-Alexandrian minuscules). This is a matterwhich probably deserves greater attention.
There is little to be said regarding Acts. B seems once again to be the purestAlexandrian manuscript, but I know of no study yet published which fully detailsthe relations between the Alexandrian witnesses. It is likely that B, A, andℵ all belongto the same text-type. We have not the data to say whether there aresub-text-types of this text.
In Paul, the matter is certainly much more complex. Hort described B, in thatcorpus, as being primarily Alexandrian but with "Western" elements.This was accepted for a long time, but has two fundamental flaws. First, B hasmany significant readings not found in either the Alexandrian(ℵ A C 33 etc.)or the "Western" (D F G latt) witnesses. Several good examples of this come fromColossians: In 2:2, B (alone of Greek witnesses known to Hort; now supported by P46and implicitly by the members of Family 1739) hasτου θεουΧριστου; in 3:6, B (now supportedby P46) omitsεπι τουςυιους τηςαπειθειαςAlso, B was the earliest witness known to Hort; was it proper to define its textin terms of two text-types (Western and Alexandrian) which existed only in latermanuscripts?
It was not until 1946 that G. Zuntz examined this question directly; the results werepublished in 1953 as The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition Upon the Corpus Paulinum.Zuntz's methods were excessively laborious, and cannot possibly be generalized tothe entire tradition -- but he showed unquestionably that, first, B and P46had a special kinship, and second, that these manuscripts were not part of themainstream Alexandrian text. This was a major breakthrough in two respects: It markedthe first attempt to distinguish the textual history of the Epistles from the textualhistory of the Gospels (even though there is no genuine reason to think they aresimilar), and it also marked the first attempt, in Paul, to break out of Griesbach'sAlexandrian/Byzantine/Western model.
Zuntz called his proposed fourth text-type "proto-Alexandrian" (p. 156),and lists as its members P46 B 1739 (plus the relatives of the latter;Zuntz was aware of 6 424** M/0121 1908; to this now add 0243 1881 630 2200)sa bo Clement Origen.
It appears to me that even this classification is too simple; there are fivetext-types in Paul -- not just the traditional Alexandrian, Byzantine, and "Western"texts, but two others which Zuntz combined as the "Proto-Alexandrian" text.(This confusion is largely the result of Zuntz's method; since he worked basically fromP46, he observed the similarities of these manuscripts to P46 butdid not really analyse the places where they differ.) The Alexandrian, "Western,"and Byzantine texts remain as he found them. From the "Proto-Alexandrian" witnesses,however, we must deduct Family 1739, which appears to be its own type. Family 1739does share a number of readings with P46and B, but it also shares special readings with the Alexandrian and "Western"texts and has a handful of readings of its own. It also appearsto me that the Bohairic Coptic, which Zuntz called Alexandrian, is actually closer to thetrue Alexandrian text.
This leaves B with only two full-fledged allies in Paul: P46 and the SahidicCoptic. I also think that Zuntz's title "Proto-Alexandrian" is deceptive, sincethe P46/B type and the Alexandrian text clearly split before the timeof P46. As a result, I prefer the neutral title P46/B type (if weever find additional substantial witnesses, we may be able to come up with a better name).
When we turn to the Catholics, the situation seems once again to be simple. Mostobservers have regarded B as, once again, the best of the Alexandrian witnesses --so, e.g., Richards, who in the Johannine Epistles places it in the A2group, which consists mostly of the Old Uncials:ℵ A B C Ψ 6.
There are several peculiar points about these results, though. First, Richardslumps together three groups as the "Alexandrian text." Broadly speaking,these groups may be described as Family 2138 (A1), the Old Uncials(A2), and Family 1739 (A3). And, no matter what one's opinionabout Family 1739, no reasonable argument can make Family 2138 an Alexandrian group.What does this say about Richards's other groups?
Another oddity is the percentages of agreement. For the A2group, Richards gives these figures forrates of agreement with the group profile (W. L. Richards, The Classification of theGreek Manuscripts of the Johannine Epistles, SBL Dissertation Series, 1977, p. 141):
This is disturbing in a number of ways. First, what is 6 doing in the group?It's far weaker than the rest of the manuscripts. Merely having a 70% agreementis not enough -- not when the group profiles are in doubt!Second, can Ψ, which hasclearly suffered Byzantine mixture, really be considered the leading witnessof the type? Third, can C (which was found by Amphoux to be associated withFamily 1739 in the Catholics) really be the leading Old Uncial of this type?Fourth, it can be shown that most of the important Alexandrian minuscules (e.g.33, 81, 436, none of which were examined by Richards) are closer to A thanto B or ℵ.Ought not A be the defining manuscript of the type? Yet it agrees with theprofile only 81% of the time!
A much more reasonable approach is to take more of the Alexandrian minusculesinto account, and a rather different picture emerges. Rather than being theweakest Alexandrian uncial, A becomes (in my researches) the earliest and keywitness of the true Alexandrian type, heading the group AΨ 33 81 436 al.The clear majority of the Alexandrian witnesses in the Catholics go here, eitherpurely (as in the case, e.g., of 33) or with Byzantine mixture (as, e.g., in 436and its near relative 1067). In this system, both B andℵ stand ratheroff to the side -- perhaps part of the same type, but not direct ancestors ofanything. We might also note that B has a special kinship, at least in the Petrineepistles, with P72, the one substantial papyrus of the Catholic Epistles.Despite Richards, it appears that B and P72 form at least a sub-type ofthe Alexandrian text.
von Soden: δ1
Note: As with all the major uncials, no attempt is made to compile a completebibliography.
B has been published several times, including several recent photographiceditions (the earliest from 1904-1907; full colour editions were published startingin 1968). It is important to note that the early non-photographic editionsare not reliable. Tischendorf, of course, listed the readings of themanuscript, but this was based on a most cursory examination; the Vaticanauthorities went to extraordinary lengths to keep him from examiningVaticanus. Others who wished to study it, such as Tregelles, were deniedeven the right to see it. The first edition to be based on actual completeexamination of the manuscript was done by Cardinal Mai (4 volumes; a 1 volumeedition came later) -- but this was one of the most incompetently executededitions of all time. Not only is the number of errors extraordinarily high,but no attention is paid to readings of the first hand versus correctors,and there is no detailed examination of the manuscript's characteristics.Despite its advantages, it is actually less reliable than Tischendorf,and of course far inferior to recent editions. Philipp Buttmann produced a NewTestament edition based largely on B, but he had B's text via Mai, which heseemingly didn't trust very much, so the resulting edition isn't much likeB or anything else (except 2427, which apparently was copied from Buttmann).
Images are found in nearly every book on NT criticism which contains pictures.
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since Tischendorf
The bibliography for B is too large and varied to be covered here. The readeris particularly referred to a work already mentioned:
G Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition Upon the Corpus Paulinum.
See also, e.g., S. Kubo, P72 and the Codex Vaticanus.
Paris, National Library Greek 9.
C originally contained the entire Old and New Testaments, but was erased in thetwelfth century and overwritten with Syriac works of Ephraem. The first to more or less completelyread the manuscript was Tischendorf, but it is likely that it will never be fullydeciphered (for example, the first lines of every book were written in red or some othercolour of ink, and have completely vanished). In addition, very many leaves werelost when the book was rewritten; while it is barely possible that some may yet berediscovered, there is no serious hope of recovering the whole book.
As it now stands, C lacks the following New Testament verses in their entirety:
(and, of course, C may be illegible even on the pages which survive). We mightnote that we are fortunate to have even this much of the New Testament; we have significantlymore than half of the NT, but much less than half of the Old Testament.
The original writing of C is dated paleographically to the fifth century, andis quite fine and clear (fortunately, given what has happened to the manuscriptsince). Beforebeing erased, it was worked over by two significant correctors, C2(Cb) and C3 (Cc).(The corrector C1 was the original corrector, but madevery few changes. C1 is not once cited in NA27.) CorrectorC2 is thought to have worked in the sixth century or thereabouts;C3 performed his task around the ninth century. (For more informationabout the correctors of C, see the article on Correctors.)
It was probably in the twelfth century that the manuscript was erased andoverwritten; the upper writing is a Greek translation of 38 Syriac sermons byEphraem.
It is usually stated that C is a mixed manuscript, or an Alexandrian manuscriptwith much Byzantine mixture. The Alands, for instance, list it asCategory II; given their classification scheme, thatamounts to a statement that it is Alexandrian with Byzantine influence. VonSoden lists it among the H (Alexandrian) witnesses, but not as a leading witnessof the type.
The actual situation is much more complex than that, as even the Alands' ownfigures reveal (they show a manuscript with a far higher percentage of Byzantinereadings in the gospels than elsewhere). The above descriptionis broadly accurate in the Gospels; it is not true at all elsewhere.
In the Gospels, the Alands' figures show a manuscript which is slightly moreByzantine than not, while Wisse lists C as mixed in his three chapters of Luke.But these are overall assessments; a detailed examination shows C to waversignificantly in its adherence to the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts. While atno point entirely pure, it will in some sections be primarily Alexandrian, inothers mostly Byzantine.
Gerben Kollenstaart brings to my attention the work of Mark R. Dunn inAn Examination of the Textual Character of Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C, 04)in the Four Gospels (unpublished Dissertation, Southwestern Baptist TheologicalSeminary 1990). Neither of us has seen this document, but we find the summary,"C is a weak Byzantine witness in Matthew, a weak Alexandrian in Mark,and a strong Alexandrian in John. In Luke C's textual relationships are unclear"(Summarized in Brooks, The New Testament Text of Gregory of Nyssa, p. 60,footnote 1). I dislike the terminology used, as it looks much too formulaic andappears to assume that C's textual affinities change precisely at the boundariesbetween books. (Given C's fragmentary state, this is even more unprovable thanusual.) But the general conclusion seems fair enough: Matthew is the mostByzantine, John the least. In all cases, however, one suspects Byzantineand Alexandrian mixture -- probably of Byzantine readings atop an Alexandrianbase. This would explain the larger number of Byzantine readings in Matthew:As is often the case, the corrector was most diligent at the beginning.
Outside the Gospels, C seems to show the same sort of shift shown by itsnear-contemporary, A -- though, because C possessed Alexandrian elements inthe gospels, the shift is less noticeable. But it is not unfair to say that Cis mixed in the Gospels and almost purely non-Byzantine elsewhere.
In short works such as Acts and the Catholic Epistles, the limited amountof text available makes precise determinations difficult. In the Acts, we canat least state definitively that C is less Byzantine than it is in the Gospels,but any conclusion beyondthat is somewhat tentative. The usual statement is that C is Alexandrian, andI know of no counter-evidence. Nonetheless, given the situation in the CatholicEpistles, I believe this statement must be taken with caution.
The situation in the Catholic Epistles is purely and simply confused.The published evaluations do not agree. W. L. Richards, in his dissertationon the Johannine Epistles using the Claremont Profile Method,does a fine job of muddling the issue. He lists C as a member of the A2text, which appears to be the mainstream Alexandrian text (it also containsℵ, A, and B).But something funny happens when one examines C's affinities. C has a 74% agreementwith A, and a 77% agreement with B, but also a 73% agreement with 1739, and a 72%agreement with 1243. This is hardly a large enough difference to classify Cwith the Alexandrians as against the members of Family 1739. And, indeed, Amphouxand Outtier link C with Family 1739, considering their common materialpossibly "Cæsarean."
My personal results seem to split the difference. If one assumes C isAlexandrian, it can be made to look Alexandrian. But if one starts with nosuch assumptions, then it appears that C does incline toward Family 1739.It is not a pure member of the family, in the sense that (say) 323 is;323, after all, may be suspected of being descended (with mixture) from1739 itself. But C must be suspected of belonging to the type from whichthe later Family 1739 descended. (Presumably the surviving witnesses ofFamily 1739 are descended from a common ancestor more recent than C, i.e.Family 1739 is a sub-text-type of the broader C/1241/1739 type.) It ispossible (perhaps even likely) that C has some Alexandrian mixture, butproving this (given the very limited amount of text available) will requirea very detailed examination of C.
Westcott, in his commentary on the Johannine Epistles, lists the peculiarreadings of C (that is, those not shared by ℵ A B), adding that they"have no appearance of genuiness":
Westcott's statement seems to be generally true -- all the items hereappear to be either singular, simple errors of omission, or minor paraphrases.But C still appears highly valuable when in company with good witnesses.
In Paul, the situation is simpler: C is a very good witness, of theAlexandrian type as found inℵA 33 81 1175 etc. (This as opposed to the type(s) found in P46or B or 1739). So far as I know, this has never been disputed.
In the Apocalypse, C is linked with A in what is usually called theAlexandrian text. No matter what it is called, this type (which alsoincludes the Vulgate and most of the better minuscules) is consideredthe best type. Note that this is not the sort of text foundin P47 and ℵ.
von Soden: δ3
Note: As with all the major uncials, no attempt is made to compile a completebibliography.
Various editors extracted occasional readings from the manuscript, butTischendorf was the first to read C completely. Tischendorf is often reportedto have used chemicals,but in fact it is believed that they were applied beforehis time -- and they have hastened the decay of the manuscript. Tischendorf,working by eye alone, naturally did a less than perfect job. Robert W. Lyon, in1958-1959, published a series of corrections in New Testament Studies(v). But this, too, is reported to be imperfect. The best current source isthe information published in the Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus series.But there is no single source which fully describes C.
Sir Frederick Kenyon & A. W. Adams, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since Tischendorf
Mark R. Dunn, An Examination of the Textual Character of Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C, 04)in the Four Gospels (unpublished Dissertation, Southwestern Baptist TheologicalSeminary 1990)
Cambridge, University Library Nn. 2. 41. The well-known Codex Bezae,so-called because it was once the possession of Theodore Beza.
Greek/Latin diglot, with the Greek on the left page. The Greekcurrently contains the Gospels and Acts with lacunae; the manuscriptlacks Matt. 1:1-20, 6:20-9:20, 27:2-12, John 1:16-3:26,Acts 8:29-10:14, 21:2-10, 16-18, 22:10-20, 29-end. In addition,Matt. 3:7-16, Mark 16:15-end, John 18:14-20:13 (a total often leaves) are supplements froma later hand (estimated to date from the tenth to twelfthcentury). The Gospels are in the "Western" orderMatthew, John, Luke, Mark, though Chapman offered evidence thatan ancestor had the books in the order Matthew, Mark, John, Luke.
Since the Greek and Latin are on facing pages, the losses to theLatin side are not precisely parallel; d (the symbol for the Latin ofD; Beuron #5) lacks Matt. 1:1-11, 2:20-3:7, 6:8-8:27, 26:65-27:2, Mark 16:6-20,John 1:1-3:16, 18:2-20:1, Acts 8:21-10:3, 20:32-21:1, 21:8-9,22:3-9, 22:21-end. In addition, the Latin includes 3 John 11-15.
The original contents of D are somewhat controversial. Obviouslyit must have contained the Gospels, Acts, and 3 John. This wouldseem to imply that the manuscript originally contained the Gospels,Catholic Epistles, and Acts (in that order). This, however, does notfit well with the pagination of the manuscript; Chapman theorizedthat the manuscript actually originally contained the Gospels,Apocalypse, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Acts (in that order). This makessense, but cannot be considered certain -- particularly since it is atleast possible that some works would have been included in only one language(e.g. the Catholic Epistles in Latin only, plus some other work, also in Latinonly).
The manuscript has been variously dated, generally from the fourthto the sixth centuries (very early examiners gave even more extremedates: Kipling, who published a facsimile in 1793, claimed a secondcentury date, and Michaelis also considered it the earliest manuscriptknown, but a few guessed dates as late as the seventh century.)In the middle of the twentieth century, thetendency seemed to be to date it to the sixth century; currently theconsensus seems to be swinging back toward the fifth. It is verydifficult to achieve certainty, however, as the handwriting isquite unusual. The Greek and Latin are written in parallel sense lines,and the scribe uses a very similar hand for both languages -- so muchso that a casual glance cannot tell the one language from the other;one must look at the actual letters and what they spell.
The unusual writing style is only one of the curiosities surroundingthe scribe of D. It is not clear whether his native language was Greekor Latin; both sides of the manuscript contain many improbable errors.(Perhaps the easiest explanation is that the scribe's native language wassomething other than Greek or Latin.)
D's text, as will be discussed below, was far removed from the Byzantinestandard (or, perhaps, from any other standard). As a result, it wascorrected many times by many different scribes. Scrivener believed thatno fewer than nine correctors worked on the manuscript, the first beingnearly contemporary with the original scribe and the last working inthe eleventh or twelfth century. In general, these correctors broughtthe manuscript closer to the Byzantine text (as well as adding occasionalmarginal comments and even what appear to be magical formulae at thebottom of the pages of Mark). For more recent views on these correctors,see D. C. Parker's work on Codex Bezae; Parker redates some of thecorrectors (moving them back some centuries), and believes that onehad an Alexandrian text.
The text of D can only be described as mysterious. We don't have answersabout it; we have questions. There is nothinglike it in the rest of the New Testament tradition. It is, by far theearliest Greek manuscript to contain John 7:53-8:11 (though it has a formof the text quite different from that found in most Byzantine witnesses).It is the only Greek manuscript to contain (or rather, to omit) the so-calledWestern Non-Interpolations. In Luke 3,rather than the Lucan genealogy of Jesus, it has an inverted form ofMatthew's genealogy (this is unique among Greek manuscripts). In Luke6:5 it has a unique reading about a man working on the Sabbath. Dand Φ are the onlyGreek manuscripts to insert a loose paraphrase of Luke 14:8-10 afterMatt. 20:28. And the list could easily be multiplied; while these areamong the most noteworthy of the manuscript's readings, it has a richsupply of other singular variants.
In the Acts, if anything, the manuscript is even more extreme thanin the Gospels. F. G. Kenyon, in The Western Text of the Gospels andActs, describes a comparison of the text of Westcott & Hortwith that of A. C. Clark. The former is essentially the text of B,the latter approximates the text of D so far as it is extant. Kenyonlists the WH text of Acts at 18,401 words, that of Clark at 19,983 words;this makes Clark's text 8.6 percent longer -- and implies that, if Dwere complete, the Bezan text of Acts might well be 10% longer thanthe Alexandrian, and 7% to 8% longer than the Byzantine text.
This leaves us with two initial questions: What is this text,and how much authority does it have?
Matthaei referred to it as editio scurrilis, butnineteenth century scholars inclined to give the text great weight.Yes, D was unique, but in that era, with the number of known manuscriptsrelatively small, that objection must have seemed less important. D wasmade the core witness -- indeed, the key and only Greek witness -- ofwhat was called the "Western" text.
More recently, Von Soden listed D as the first and chief witnessof his Iα text;the other witnesses he includes in the type are generally thoseidentified by Streeter as "Cæsarean"(Θ 28 565 700etc.) The Alands list it as CategoryIV -- a fascinating classification, as D is the only substantialwitness of the type. Wisse listed it as a divergent manuscriptof Group B -- but this says more about the Claremont Profile Methodthan about D; the CPM is designed to split Byzantine strands, andgiven a sufficiently non-Byzantine manuscript, it is helpless. (Biologists havea term for this phenomenon: It's known as "long branch assimiliation."If you have a large mass of closely related entities, and two entities not relatedto the large mass, the two distant entities may look related just because theyare way out in the middle of nowhere.)
The problem is, Bezae remains unique among Greek witnesses. Yes,there is a clear "Western" family in Paul (D F G 629 andthe Latin versions.) But this cannot be identified with certainty withthe Bezan text; there is no "missing link" to prove theidentity. Not one manuscript contains a "Western" text of boththe Gospels and Paul! There are Greek witnesses which have some kinship withBezae -- ℵin the early chapters of John; the fragmentary papyriP29 and P38 and P48 in Acts.But none of these witnesses is complete, and none is as extremeas Bezae.
D's closest kinship is with the Latin versions, but none of them areas extreme as it is. D is, for instance, the only manuscript to substituteMatthew's genealogy of Jesus for Luke's. On the face of it, this is nota "Western" reading; it is simply a Bezan reading.
Then there is the problem of D and d. The one witness to consistentlyagree with Dgreek is its Latin side, d. Like D, it usesMatthew's genealogy in Luke. It has all the "Western Non-Interpolations."And, perhaps most notably, it has a number of readings which appear tobe assimilations to the Greek.
Yet so, too, does D seem to have assimilations to the Latin.
We are almost forced to the conclusion that D and d have, to someextent, been conformed to each other. The great question is, to whatextent, and what did the respective Greek and Latin texts look likebefore this work was done?
On this point there can be no clear conclusion. Wettstein theorized thatthe Greek text was conformed to the Latin. Matthaei had a modified versionof this in which the marginal readings of a commentary manuscript mightalso have been involved, and considered it deliberately edited. Hort thought thatD arose more or less naturally; while he considered its text bad, hewas willing to allow it special value at some points where its textis shorter than the Alexandrian. (This is the whole point of the"Western Non-Interpolations.")More recently, however, Alandhas argued that D is the result of deliberate editorial work. Thisis unquestionably true in at least one place: The Lukan genealogy of Jesus.Is it true elsewhere? This is the great question, and one for which thereis still no answer.
As noted, Bezae's closest relatives are Latin witnesses. And theseexist in abundance. If we assume that these correspond to an actualGreek text-type, then Bezae is clearly a witness to this type. And wedo have evidence of a Greek type corresponding to the Latins, in Paul.The witnesses D F G indicate the existence of a "Western" type.So Bezae does seem to be a witness of an actual type, both in theGospels (where its text is relatively conservative) and in the Acts(where it is far more extravagant). (This is in opposition to the Alands,who have tended to deny the existence of the "Western" text.)
So the final question is, is Bezae a proper witness to this text whichunderlies the Latin versions? Hereit seems to me the correct answer is probably no. To this extent,the Alands are right. Bezae has too many singular readings, too many variantswhich are not found in a plurality of the Latin witnesses. It probably has beenedited (at least in Luke and Acts; this is where the most extreme readingsoccur). If this is true (and it must be admitted that the question isstill open), then it has important logical consequences: It means thatthe Greek text of Bezae (with all its assimilations to the Latin) isnot reliable as a source of readings. If D has a reading notsupported by another Greek witness, the possibility cannot be excludedthat it is an assimilation to the Latin, or the result of editorial work.
von Soden: δ5
Note: As with all the major uncials, no attempt is made to compile a completebibliography.
The standard reference is probably still F. H. A. Scrivener, Bezae CodexCanatabrigiensis, simply because of Scrivener's detailed and carefulanalysis. J. Rendel Harris published a photographic reproduction in 1899. Seealso J. H. Ropes, The Text of Acts and A. C. Clark, The Acts of theApostles, both of which devote considerable attention to the text of Bezaein Acts.
(Sample plates in almost all manuals of NT criticism)
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since Tischendorf, and most prior to that.
The most useful work is probably James D. Yoder's Concordance to theDistinctive Greek Text of Codex Bezae. There are dozens of specializedstudies of one or another aspect of the codex, though few firm conclusionscan be reached (perhaps the most significant is the conclusion of Holmesand others that Bezae has been more thoroughly reworked in Luke than inMatthew or Mark). See also the recent work by D. C. Parker, CodexBezae.
Paris, National Library Greek 107, 107 AB. The famous Codex Claromontanus -- so-called because Beza reported that it had been found at Clermont. It should not be confused with the even more famous, or infamous, Codex Bezae, also designated D.
Greek/Latin diglot, with the Greek and Latin in stichometric lines on facing pages. Contains the Pauline Epistles with the slightest of lacunae: It lacks Romans 1:1-7 (though we can gain some information about the readings of D in these verses from Dabs). In addition, Romans 1:27-30 and 1 Corinthians 14:13-22 are supplements from a later hand. (Scrivener, however, notes that this hand is still "very old.") Hebrews is placed after Philemon.
The Latin side, known as d (Beuron 75) has not been supplemented in the same way as the Greek; it lacks 1 Corinthians 14:9-17, Hebrews 13:22-end. Romans 1:24-27 does come from a supplement.
Scrivener observes that the very fine vellum actually renders the manuscript rather difficult to read, as the writing on the other side often shows through. The extent of this problem varies from page to page, but often the ink from the reverse side is almost as visible as that on the side being read. This is a problem even with the photographs on the Paris Library web site. Also, the scribe apparently had rather poor pen technique; the darkness of the ink varies from letter to letter. The problem is made worse by the fact that, on many pages, the ink has flaked off. It is not a very easy manuscript to read; the online scans are often barely legible.
The first three lines of each book is written in red ink. The original ink is brown, sometimes dark, sometimes light; some of the correctors used much blacker ink. Greek and Latin hands are similar looking and elegant in a simple way.
Almost all scholars have dated D to the sixth century (some specifying the second half of that century); a few very early examiners would argued for the seventh century. The writing is simple, without accents or breathings; some of the uncial forms seem to be archaic. The Greek is more accurately written than the Latin; the scribe's first language was probably Greek. We should note certain broad classes of errors, however. The scribe very frequently confuses the verb ending -θε with -θαι; this occurs so regularly that we can only say that D is not a witness at variants of this sort.
A total of nine correctors have been detected, though not all of these are important. The first important corrector (D** or, in NA26, D1) dates probably from the seventh century; the single most active corrector (D*** or D2, who added accents and breathings and made roughly 2000 changes in the text) worked in the ninth or tenth century; the final significant corrector (D*** or Dc) probably dates from the twelfth century or later.
The corrections to the Greek side are much more numerous than those on the Latin side, which has only minimal corrections.
There is an inherent tendency, because D is a Greek/Latin diglot and because it is called "D," to equate its text with the text of Codex Bezae, making them both "Western." This is, however, an unwarranted assumption; it must be proved rather than simply asserted.
There is at least one clear and fundamental difference between Bezae and Claromontanus: They have very different relationships to their parallel Latin texts. The Greek and Latin of Bezae have been harmonized; they are very nearly the same text. The same is not true of Claromontanus. It is true that D and d have similar sorts of text -- but they have not been entirely conformed to each other. The most likely explanation is that dp was translated from a Greek text similar to Dp, and the two simply placed side by side.
Claromontanus also differs from Bezae in that there are Greek manuscripts similar to the former: The close relatives Fp and Gp are also akin, more distantly, to Claromontanus. All three of these manuscripts, it should be noted, have parallel Latin versions (in the case of F, on a facing page; the Latin of G is an interlinear). All three, we might add, are related to the other Old Latin codices (a, b, m; they are rather more distant from r) which do not have Greek parallels.
Thus it seems clear that there is a text-type centred about Dp F G and the Latins. Traditionally this type has been called "Western," and there is no particular reason to change this name.
We should make several points about this Western text of Paul, though. First, it is nowhere near as wild as the text of Codex Bezae, or even the more radical Old Latin witnesses to the Gospels and Acts. Second, it cannot be demonstrated that this is the same type as is found in Bezae. Oh, it is likely enough that Bezae's text is edited from raw materials of the same type as the ancestors of D F G of Paul. But we cannot prove this! Astonishingly enough, there is not one Old Latin witness containing both the Gospels and Paul. There are a few scraps (primarily t) linking the Acts and Paul, but even these are quite minimal. Thus, even if we assume that Bezae and Claromontanus represent the same type, we cannot really describe their relative fidelity to the type (though we can make a very good assumption that Claromontanus is the purer).
We should also examine the relations between the "Western" witnesses in Paul. It is sometimes stated that F and G are descendents of D. This almost certainly not true -- certainly it is functionally untrue; if F and G derive from D, there has been so much intervening mixture that they should be regarded as independent witnesses.
Interestingly, there is a sort of a stylistic difference between D and F/G. F and G appear to have, overall, more differences from the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts, but most of these are small, idiosyncratic readings which are probably the result of minor errors in their immediate exemplars. D has far fewer of these minor variants, but has an equal proportion (perhaps even a higher proportion) of more substantial variants.
So far we have mentioned only these two uncials as relatives of D. We should note that these manuscripts were merely the leading witnesses of Von Soden's Ia1 type; with them he classified a number of minuscules: 88 181 915 917 1836 1898 1912. Several of these minuscules (e.g. 88 and 181) do appear to be somewhat related to each other, but there is no real evidence that they are akin to the key "Western" witnesses. (88*, it is true, joins the Western uncials in placing 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 after 14:40, but this is almost its only special agreement). The only minuscule to show real kinship with the Western uncials is 629. It is likely, however, that this kinship is not properly genetic; rather, 629 is a Greek/Vulgate diglot, and there are instances where the Greek seems to have been conformed to the Latin. Since the Vulgate, in Paul, has many "Western" readings, this has given 629 something of a "Western" tinge.
The case is rather different for the Latin witnesses. These clearly are related to D F G. Of the Latins, d is the closest to D, though by no means identical; b is also closely related. D, d, and b are rather more distant from a and m, and still more distant from r (the latter fragments sometimes seem to approach the Alexandrian text). The other Old Latin fragments of Paul are too short to assess properly.
The classification used by the Alands for the diglot uncials of Paul is fascinating. None of them is classified as Category IV -- in other words, the Alands do not regard them a belonging to the same type as Codex Bezae. (Of course, it should be noted have not published definitions of their categories, but that it is clear that Category IV has no definition at all; they simply placed witnesses there because they felt like it.) But the situation is curious even if we ignore Category IV. In the second edition of their Introduction, they list D, the oldest manuscript of the type, as Category III; the same description is applied to G -- but F, which is universally agreed to be a close relative of G, but inferior on the whole, is listed as Category II! The most charitable word I can think of for this is "inexplicable."
von Soden: α1026
Note: As with all the major uncials, no attempt is made to compile a complete bibliography.
Tischendorf's 1852 edition remains the standard (if it can be found); beyondthat, one must turn to K. Junack, Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus, Vol. 2:Die paulinischen Briefe
Aland & Aland (1 plate); also a facsimile in Scrivener
The full manuscript can now be viewed at the Paris National Library web site, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84683111.
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since Tischendorf, and most prior to that.
There are actually two manuscripts which circulate under the symbolDabs, correctly designated Dabs1 and Dabs2. Both are Greek/Latin diglots.It is one of the curiosities of textual criticism that almost no manuscriptsare known which are copies of other manuscripts. Only two uncials areknown to be copies of other uncials -- and both are copies of the PaulineCodex D/06 (Claromontanus). Their descriptions are as follows:
Basel, University Library A.N. III. 12.Von Soden's ε55. Contains the Gospels almost complete;lacks Luke 3:4-15, 24:47-end. Luke 1:69-2:4, 12:58-13:12, 15:8-20 aresupplements in a later, cursive hand.Dated paleographically to the eighth century (so all recent authorities;Burgon argued for the seventh; the letterforms look old, but the accents, breathings,and punctuation argue that it is relatively recent). This makes it the very firstpurely Byzantine uncial in any part of the Bible; it is the firstByzantine manuscript to contain not merely the small, more ordinaryByzantine readings but also the story of the Adulteress (found earlier inD, but no one will claim Bezae is Byzantine!). (In the gospels,there are earlier almost-pure Byzantine uncials: A and the Purple Uncials;elsewhere, all Greek witnesses to the Byzantine text are even later than E.Obviously the Byzantine type is much older thanE. E is simply the earliest pure representative of what became the dominanttype in the Middle Ages.) All examiners have agreed on E's Byzantine nature;the Alands list it as Category V; von Sodenlists it as Ki; Wisse calls it Kx Cluster Ω (We might add thatKx Cluster Ωis Ki; Wisse's three chapters did not provide enough textto distinguish the two groups, but historical evidence seems to imply thatKx proper and Kx Cluster Ωare distinct although very closely related.) Certain disputed passagesare marked with asterisks (Matt. 16:2-3, Luke 22:43-44, 23:34, John 8:2-11).E is well and carefully written, and probably deserves inclusion in criticalapparati as the leading witness of the later Byzantine type.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud. Greek 35. Called "Codex Laudianus"because it was donated to the Bodleian Library by William Laud(1573-1645),the anti-Calvinist Archbishop of Canterbury under the British King Charles I.
Contains the Acts almost complete; lacks 26:29(from παυλος)to 28:26 (resuming after λεγον).The parchment is very thin, and there is some burn-through of ink, which,combined with the light colour of some letters, occasionally makes it difficultto read. Greek/Latin diglot,with the languages in parallel columns on the same page. The Latin, which is citedas e, is onthe left. The manuscript is divided into sense lines of sorts, for purposesof parallelism, but as the lines are generally no more than fifteen letterslong (often consisting of a single word!), they rarely form any real sort ofsyntactic unit.
Dated paleographically to the sixth or seventh century, with most scholarsinclining toward the sixth (a few early examiners gave fifth or eighth centurydates). Early in its career, it was in Sardinia; anentry (not by the original hand) refers to an edict of a Byzantine governorof that island (which was under Byzantine rule from 534).
A very noteworthy fact is the high degree of agreement between the Latintext and that used by the VenerableBede for his commentary Expositio Retractata.(If we assume the continued identity after the end of the surviving portion ofe, Bede gives us two Latin readings now lost: 27:5, 28:2). It is generallyassumed that Bede used this very manuscript for his commentary, which wouldguarantee that it was in existence in 716, and located at that time in what is now northernEngland. It has been specutated that the manuscript may have been brought to Britainby Theodore or Hadrian, respectively archbishop and abbot of Canterbury, who arrivedin the country in 668; both of them were familiar with Greek as well as Latin andreportedly arrived with a significant library.
I have seem some state that Bede cannot in fact have used this manuscript,despite the similarity, but I have not seen any reasons advanced. (The flip side is,of course, that E must have had an exemplar, and perhaps had offspring, and possiblyBede used one of those.)
It is hard to know what to make of the scribe. Although Metzger callsthe uncials "clumsy," in fact both Greek and Latin letterformsare clearly written if large. On the other hand, the scribe had a greatdeal of difficulty with his pen, which ran dry every few letters. Based onthis fact, it appears to me that he wrote the Latin column first, thenthe Greek, rather than writing across the page.
Perhaps the best explanation for his difficulties is that he was having tocreate his text as he went along. According to Margaret T. Gibson, TheBible in the Latin West, being volume 1 of "The Medieval Book,"University of Notre Dame Press, 1993, the scribe shows clear signs ofcombining a Greek and a Latin text (often resulting in lines too long forthe allotted space where he mis-estimated line lengths). This would implythat many of the errors are the result of trying to edit his text even whilewriting it.
Lowe suggests that the scribe's first language was Greek, on the basisthat many of the Latin letter forms appear to be adjustments of the waythe letters are written in Greek.
The Greek of E, it is generally conceded, is more Byzantine than anythingelse. The manuscript is mixed, however, there are many "Western"and some Alexandrian readings. (In fact, the manuscript seems somewhatblock-mixed; "Western" readings are much more common in somesections than in others.) The Latin is not the vulgate, but rather a uniqueversion of the Old Latin.
This raises the question of whether the Greek has been conformed to theLatin or vice versa. Different scholars have answered this differently.Scrivener, for instance, reports that "the Latin... is made to correspondclosely with the Greek, even in its interpolations and rarest various readings.The contrary supposition that the Greek portion of this codex Latinised,or has been altered to coincide with the Latin, is inconsistent with the factsof the case." More recent scholars such as Ropes and Clark, however,maintain that the Greek has in fact been conformed to the Latin. In this context,it is worth noting that the Latin is in the left-hand column, usually regardedas the place of honour.
It should be added, however, that the Latin of e seems somewhat unusual.And the arrangement of the two parts, with such short sense lines, arguesthat both texts may have undergone some adjustment. This is, however, onlylogic.... The most important point is that E has a mixed text, heavily butnot purely Byzantine. It also has a number of interesting long readings, themost famous being Acts 8:37 (the Ethiopian Eunuch's acceptance of faith).By its nature, any reading in E must be taken with some hesitation and examinationof its sources. This is reflected in earlier classifications of the manuscript:Von Soden listed it as Ia1 (i.e. as part of the core "Western"text), but the Alands list it as only Category II.
von Soden: α1001
Note: As with all the major uncials, no attempt is made to compile a completebibliography.
In 2015, the Bodleian made high-resolution scans of the entire manuscript available. As of this writing, these scans are at https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/inquire/p/55b2e494-4845-403e-9ba6-d812bda79329; curiously, there is also a scan of just four leaves at https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/inquire/p/e3d0426d-bfe5-4456-95e8-3f53480ca3e1.
First published, with many inaccuracies, by Hearne in 1715 (Sabatier used thistranscription in his Old Latin edition). Also collated by Tischendorf. Ropes andClark also studied the manuscript in detail. Finally, if it can be found, thereis a Ph.D. dissertation by O. Kenneth Walther, Codex Laudianus G 35: ARe-Examination of the Manuscript, Including a Reproduction of the Text and anAccompanying Commentary. The manuscript will also be published in the Actsvolume of Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus.
Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (1 page)
Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (1 page -- a smaller version of the above)
Sir Frederick Kenyon & A. W. Adams, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (that same page again)
Margaret T. Gibson, The Bible in the Latin West (1 page, a different one)
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since Tischendorf
Utrecht, University Library MS. 1. Contains the Gospels with significantlacunae, especially in Luke; the damage has been progressive, and some leaveshave been lost since Wettstein saw it in 1730. (Between 1730 and 1830 itwas in private hands, and was unbound, with the leaves becoming disorderedand torn.) As it stands now, it begins with Matt. 9:1 (though in Wettstein'stime it apparently started at 7:6); it also lacks Matt. 12:1-44, 13:55-14:9,15:20-31, 20:18-21:5. In addition, SQE lists a lacuna at 24:13-15, but Scrivenersays these verses are extant, and Bob Relyea points out that they can be foundin the online transcription athttp://digbijzcoll.library.uu.nl/metadata.php?lang=en&W=On&BoekID=1553&style=fmw.Mark lacks1:43-2:8, 2:23-3:5, 11:6-26, 14:54-15:5, 15:39-16:19, John 3:5-14, 4:23-38,5:18-38, 6:39-63, 7:28-8:10, 10:32-11:3, 12:14-25, 13:34-end. Luke is in evenworse shape; Scrivener reports that there are 24 different lacunae, and SQEdoes not even bother collating the manuscript in that book.Dated paleographically to about the ninth century (so Tischendorf, von Soden,Aland; Tregelles preferred the tenth century). It has the Ammonian sectionsbut not the Eusebian references; otherwise it has all the features of lateuncials, including accents and breathings. The text is definitely Byzantine;the Alands list it as Category V; von Sodenlists it as Ki. Wisse's classification doesn't mean much in thiscase; he lists F as Kmix in Luke 1, but it is defective for the other two chapters.In all likelihood it is actually either Kx or Ki(what Wisse would call Kx ClusterΩ). The date of the manuscriptmakes it potentially important for the history of the Byzantine text, but thelarge number of lacunae significantly reduce its value; it would have beenmuch better had another Byzantine manuscript (preferably one of a type otherthan Kx) been used in the apparatus of SQE and UBS4.
This Symbol No Longer Used. This symbol was given by Wettsteinto a manuscript of the Septuagint (M of sixth or seventh century) in whichhe found, in the original hand, a marginal text containing Acts 9:24-25.Uncials of the Acts were few enough that Wettstein included this as anuncial witness to Acts. Detailed examination later showed it to includeseveral other New Testament passages. The complete list is: Matt. 5:48, 12:48,27:25, Luke 1:42, 2:24, 23:21, John 5:35, 6:53, 55, Acts 4:33, 34, 9:24, 25,10:13, 15, 22:22, 1 Cor. 7:39, 11:29, 2 Cor. 3:13, 9:7, 11:33, Gal. 4:21, 22,Col. 2:16, 17, Heb. 10:26. When Gregory regularized the catalog of uncials,however, he eliminated Fa on the grounds that it was nota continuous-text manuscript; it has not been cited since.
Cambridge, Trinity College B.17.1. (Most Biblical catalogs seem to call itB.XVII.1, but the Cambridge catalog compiled by M. R. James uses arabic numerals.) Codex Augiensis, so-called because it comes from the monastery of Augia Dives in Lake Constance. The catalog prefix B indicates that it is a theological manuscript, and the number 17 indicates that it came to the library from the Bentley collection. Most of the items in the B.17 group are printed books; this is the most important exception.
Greek/Latin diglot. The Greek lacks Romans 1:1-3:19, 1 Cor. 3:8-16, 6:7-14,Col. 2:1-8, Philem. 21-25, Hebrews. Save for the lacuna in Romans, all of thesedefects are supplied in the Latin. All the omissions save that in Romans arealso paralleled in the sister manuscriptGp. The clear conclusion (also supported,e.g., by the pagination) is that both F and G were copied from a manuscriptwhich omitted the passages in 1 Corinthians through Hebrews, but that the Romanspassage (or most of it) was originally present in the source manuscript and has now been lost. (Note: The general run of the Latin is not the Vulgate, but Hebrews does have a Vulgate text; in addition; NA26 lists the Latin sections not paralleled in the Greek as being supplements, but this seems to be based not on the nature of the writing but on its relationship with the Greek.)
The Greek and Latin are in parallel columns on the page, with the Greek in the inner column (closer to the spine of the book) and the Latin in the outer. Where the Greek fails, the Latin occupies the full width of the page -- a curious fact which shows that the scribe knew there were defects in the Greek text. It is not obvious why these were allowed to stand.
Dated paleographically to the ninth century. Greek and Latin are both beautifully written, but the Greek quite incompetently; it is clear that the scribe was more comfortable in Latin (the most obvious example of this is word division: the exemplar clearly did not have word divisions, and while the scribe put in points to show divisions, they are very often in error. Another example is his handling of Ο and Ω; these vowels are often confused -- a trait I notice that I share as a user of the Roman alphabet). The scribe was almost certainly a native speaker of German or a related language (I have seen the Latin letterforms called "Anglo-Saxon") -- or perhaps Irish, since there were many Irish monks at St. Gall, which was possibly the original home of the manuscript. It is often said that this manuscript was written by the same scribe as Δ, and it is also claimed that this scribe wrote the Basel Psalter and a copy of Horace at Bern.
The first and most obvious point about F is that it is an immediate relativeof Gp, Codex Boernianus -- a fact noticed very earlyon by Bentley, who acquired themanuscript in 1718 (from L. C. Meig of Heidelberg).The resemblances are both textual (they agree almostabsolutely) and physical (they have many of the same lacunae).
It is generally conceded that G, although less attractive, has the better text.For this reason, many editions cite G and not F. This fact has also led to somerather absurd speculation -- notably that F is a copy of G. This is not thecase. The two manuscripts are not direct descendents of one another; rather, theyhave a recent common ancestor. It is not impossible that they are sisters, bothderived from a somewhat defective Greek/Latin diglot. Even this is by no meanscertain, however. It is worth noting that F and G, while they have nearly identicalGreek texts, do not have identical Latin texts. The Latin of G (knownas g) is a strict interlinear translation of the Greek. F, however, has a parallelLatin version, and this version is not the same as the Latin of G. Rather,the Latin of F (known as f) is a modified Vulgate. As the Latin version does notexactly match the Greek, it seems likely that it has been conformed to an Old Latinversion.
It is worth noting that both G and F are written without heavy correction bythe scribes. This strongly implies that both were copying texts that lay beforethem, rather than editing their Latin sides to match the Greek. In other words,there was probably (note the word probably; this is simply logic, and notassured!) an ancestor before the scribe of G with an interlinear Latin, and anancestor before the scribe of F with a parallel Latin, including the lacunaein the Greek. Since the ancestor of F/G probably did not contain both an interlinearand a parallel Latin, there is presumably an intermediate manuscript in one or theother case. Continuing the logic, it appears more likely that G is copied directlyfrom the common exemplar than that F is -- had the exemplar resembled F, it islikely that G's interlinear Latin would more nearly resembled f. Thus thehighest likelihood is not that F and G are sisters, but that they are no closerthan aunt and niece, and it is possible that they are merely cousins of somedegree. (Thus the tendency to cite only G in the critical apparatus, ignoringF, is to be deplored; there may well be readings where F preserves the familytext better than G, though it seems clear that G is overall the better andmore complete witness. The only significant scholars to disagree with thisassessment seem to be the Alands, who -- in what can only be labelled aninexplicable classification -- list F as Category II,but G, and D for that matter, as Category III.)
The relationship with Codex Claromontanus (D) has also beena matter of discussion. I have seen stemma implying that F and G are descended fromD, and others implying a common ancestor which was the parent of D. This too isabsurd; there are simply too many major differences between the three (perhaps thebest single example of this is the ending of Romans: D includes 16:25-27 at theend of that book, but F and G omit altogether). No one will deny that these threemanuscripts form a text-type, but they are by no means immediate kin.
For the relationship between the "Western" text of Paul (theusual name given to the text of D F G and the Latin versions) to the"Western" text of Codex Bezae, see the entryon that manuscript and the entry on Codex Claromontanus.
von Soden: α1029
Note: As with all the major uncials, no attempt is made to compile a completebibliography.
The basic work remains F. H. A. Scrivener, An Exact Transcript ofCodex Augiensis. This is now available on Google Books.One may check this against the Pauline portion ofDas Neue Testament auf Papyrus.
Editions which cite:
Because of its close similarity to G, most editions cite F only intermittently.The primary exceptions are Tischendorf and NA26-NA28.
London, British Museum Harley 5684 (a single leaf, taken from the codex by J. C. Wolff and given to Bentley, is in Cambridge, Trinity College B.17.20; it contains Matt. 5:29-31, 39-43). This manuscript number also refers to a portion of He (013)).Called codex Wolfii A after the first important owner (though the manuscriptin fact originated in the east, and was brought to the west by Andrew Erasmus Seidel),or alternately Codex Harleianus after its present location. Contains the Gospelswith lacunae; lacks Matt. 1:1-6:6 (a small part of this, be it noted, being includedon the Cambridge leaf), 7:25-8:9, 8:23-9:2, 28:18-Mark 1:13,Mark 14:19-25, Luke 1:1-13, 5:4-7:3, 8:46-9:5, 12:27-41, 24:41-end, John 18:5-19,19:4-27. Portions of this damage were rectified by later hands: One scribe suppliedMatt. 28:18-Mark 1:8 and John 18:5-19, another Luke 12:27-41.Earlier editors, such as Scrivener, dated the manuscript to the tenth century,but the Alands have lowered this to the ninth century. (Part of the problemmay be the scribe's coarse writing, small uncials drawn with a pen much too largefor the chosen size; Scrivener gives a facsimile showing irregular accentsand breathings and demonstrating the ugly writing style.)There is more agreement about the text; all would agree that it is Byzantine.Von Soden classified it as Ki, and the Alands list it asCategory V;Wisse describes it as Kx. There are hints of something more, though;even the Alands' figures show G as having a relatively high number ofnon-Byzantine, non-UBS readings (a total of 21, out of 288 readings tested;by way of comparison, E has 9 such "s" readings out of 326 readingsexamined, H has 7 in 265 test readings; M has 12 in 327; S has 12 in 327). Itmay be simply that the manuscript is carelessly written, but in working throughthe apparatus of SQE, I was struck by how many of the non-Byzantine readings seemedto be "Cæsarean." Great care, of course, must be taken in dealingwith the "Cæsarean" text, as its very existence is questionableand the text has never been properly defined -- but this pattern of readings mayimply that the handful of non-Byzantine readings, few though they are, are noterrors and may have some slightvalue. (I repeat, however, that this is based solely on my subjective examinationof the SQE critical apparatus; the matter needs to be examined in detail before thisis taken as fact.)
The British Library has now released high-resolution scans, at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Harley_MS_5684&index=0
Dresden, Sächsiche Landesbibliothek A 145b. Codex Boernerianus, so-called because it was formerly owned by C. F. Börner of Leipzig.
Greek/Latin interlinear diglot, lacking Romans 1:1-4, 2:17-24, 1 Cor. 3:8-16, 6:7-14, Col. 2:1-8, Philem. 21-25, Hebrews. These defects were clearly present in the exemplar as well, as all are shared by Fp, which is universally believed to share a recent common source with G. The manuscript was damaged in World War II; the above list describes its contents before this damage, since it had been fully examined and photographed by then.
It has been argued that G and the gospel manuscript Δ were originally part of the same volume; they are are similarly written, both are interlinear diglots, and the pages are exactly the same size. We should note, though, that not all commentators are convinced by these arguments. There is at least one counter-argument, though it is textual rather than physical or paleographic: The text of Δ is Byzantine, withAlexandrian elements in Mark; the text of G is purely and simply "Western." And while there are genuine physical similarities between the manuscripts (probably because they both derive from Saint Gall), Δ appears rather finer and fancier (though this may simply be because the Gospels are usually given finer treatment).
Dated paleographically to the ninth century by all authorities. The manuscript is written without accents or breathings, but with spaces between words (sometimes misplaced), in a stiff, awkward hand; the letterforms do not much resemble other manuscripts of the period (save Δ; while the two may not be part of the same volume, they are almost certainly from the same school as they resemble each other even in small details of preparation). The Latin interlinear is written above the Greek, with the Greek lettering fairly large and the Latin extremely small. There is some slight decoration in colour, though not nearly as much as in Δ. A dot and an enlarged letter marks the beginning of phrases. It has been theorized (probably correctly) that the exemplar of G was written in some sort of sense lines, as the separate phrases and enlarged letters are almost evenly spaced.
A peculiar fact about the manuscript is that it contains (on folio 23) some verses in (archaic) Irish Gaelic referring to a pilgrimage to Rome. The writing in these verses appears similar to that of the Latin; the original scribe may have been Irish (many Irish monks settled in Saint Gall). But this point has not, as far as I know, been proved. A similar hand added six sundry notes condemning the Greek.
Another fact is that the scribe doesn't seem to have been accustomed to the type of text he copied. G (along with F and 629) omits Romans 16:25-27 -- but the scribe of G left room for the verses after 14:23. There is no sign of this in F; the simplest explanation (though by no means sure!) is that the scribe of G was more accustomed to a text containing those verses there.
In the entry on Fp, we noted the similaritiesbetween F and G. Not only are they both Greek/Latin diglots, but they have thesame lacunae (with the exception of the first part of Romans, where F isdefective). The similarity is further confirmed by their texts. Scrivener, whocollated both, lists 1,982 differences -- but breaks them down as 578 blundersof the scribe, 967 vowel changes (including itacisms), 166 instances of interchangedconsonants, and 71 grammatical or orthographic differences, 32 instances ofaddition or omission of the article, and 168 instances of clear variants.
Like F, the word division is sometimes peculiar, implying that the two werecopied from an exemplar without word divisions. The two do not use identicalword divisions, however, meaning that they can hardly have been copied from oneanother. That neither is a copy of the other is confirmed by much additionalevidence. The key fact, perhaps, is that the two are in completely differentstyles: F has a facing Latin text, G an interlinear, but both are copied withoutmajor corrections by the scribes, implying that both Greek and Latin texts werepresent in their current forms in the exemplars. Nor do the Latin versionsmatch closely.
Of the two, G seems to be the more accurate overall (despite the much uglierwriting). One often finds G cited to the exclusion of F. This is unfortunate,since both are needed to reconstruct the exemplar, but certainly G is the oneto choose if only one is to be cited.
That F and G belong to the same text-type as Dpand the Old Latin versions need not be doubted. This type is generally called"Western," though no absolutely convincing proof has been offered thatthis is truly the same type as found in Codex Bezae in the gospels. The relationshipbetween D, F, and G is somewhat involved; while F and G are cousins or closer(see the discussion in the entry on F), D is much more distant -- not really kinat all, except at the text-type level. (Some manuals show D as an uncle, oreven a direct ancestor, of F and G, but this is extremely unlikely -- there aretoo many differences; consider, for instance, their various forms of the endingof Romans.) Examination seems to show that F and G have more minor divergencesfrom the common Alexandrian and Byzantine text than D(indeed, F and G may be the most idiosyncratic ofall manuscripts in this regard, adding, changing, and omitting articles, pronouns,and other secondary words almost at random). They may actually have fewer largevariants than D, however (this position was first stated by Corssen in 1889; Icame to the conclusion independently). Casual inspection also seems to imply that F and Gfall slightly closer to P46 and B than does D.
The Latin side of G, known as g (Beuron 77), is less interesting than theGreek. As an interlinear, it has been heavily conformed to the Greek, thoughthere probably was an independent Latin version behind it (and used as acrib). An interesting feature of g is that it sometimes has alternaterendering. Metzger cites an example from 1 Corinthians 3:2; the Greek textreadsγαλα υμαςεποτεισα(NA26γαλα υμαςεποτισα).The alternate readings are forυμας, where greads vos vel vobis. It is at least possible that some of thesealternate readings are places where the Latin reference edition usedto compile g disagreed with the Greek text of G (particularly as thereare instances where g does not match G at all).
Most classifications of G, of course, have closely followed the classificationof F -- Von Soden, e.g., lists both as Ia1, in the same group as D(and, we must note, some unrelated minuscules). The one curiosity is the Alands,who place G in Category III but F inCategory II. (For further discussion,see the entry on Fp).
von Soden: α1028
Note: As with all the major uncials, no attempt is made to compile a completebibliography.
First published by Matthei, in an edition said to be highly accurate but,of course, now nearly inaccessible. Scrivener published a detailed collationagainst F in F. H. A. Scrivener, An Exact Transcript ofCodex Augiensis. One may check this against the Pauline portion ofDas Neue Testament auf Papyrus.
Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (1 plate)
Aland & Aland, The Text of the New Testament (1 plate)
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since Tischendorf, and some before.
Primarily at Hamburg, University Library, Cod. 91 in scrin.; one folio(formerly in the possession of Bentley, who never returned it to itsrightful owner) is in Cambridge, Trinity College Library B.17.20; alsoB.17.21. (The catalog prefix B indicatesthat it is a theological manuscript, and the number 17 indicates that it came to thelibrary from the Bentley collection. Most of the items in the B.17 group are printedbooks, but there are some manuscripts as well. Most catalogs seem to refer to themanuscripts of the Trinity B collection by Roman numerals, e.g. B.XVII.21, but thecatalog of M. R. James uses arabic numerals.)
Called Codex Seidelianus II (after the man who brought it from the east)or Wolfii B after the first important owner. Contains the Gospelswith major lacunae; lacks Matt. 1:1-15:30, 25:33-26:3, Mark 1:32-2:4, 15:44-16:14,Luke 5:18-32, 6:8-22, 10:2-19, John 9:30-10:25, 18:2-18, 20:12-25. It maynever have been fully finished; it contains the Ammonian sections but notthe Eusebian canons. Dated by all authorities to the ninth century.The text is definitely Byzantine -- though Scrivener reports that someesteemed H as having somewhat greater value than G, meaning probablythat it was a little less Byzanine. This does not seem to be born outby the evidence; the Alands, naturally, list H as Category V,but also show it with a very low number of non-Byzantine readings (only 9readings in either Category 2 or Category S; G, by contrast, has 25).My own informal experience bears this out; H has very few non-Byzantinereadings.Wisse describes H as Kx. Von Soden (who designated it asε88) listed itas Ki, a group which Wisse considers part of Kx.
Modena, Biblioteca Estense, G.196 (II.G.3), folios 9-51 (the remainingfolios, which contain the Catholic and Pauline Epistles, are nowdesignated 2125). Codex Mutinensis. The uncial portion containsActs only, and is defective for Acts 1:1-5:28, 9:39-10:19, 13:36-14:3, 27:4-28:31.The first three lacunae have been supplied in a minsucule hand (formerlydesignated h), the last by an uncial hand. Overall, the manuscript isdated to the ninth century, and Burgon thought the minuscule supplementsto be "scarcely later," while the uncial supplement containing27:4-28:31 has been dated to the eleventh century. The additional materialfound in 2125 was dated to the twelfth century by Scrivener, but theAlands give a tenth century date. There is little to be said aboutthe text, save that it is Byzantine; the Alands list H asCategory V, while Von Soden (whogave the manuscript the symbolα6) lists itas K with some I influence.
41 folios distributed among eight numbers in seven libraries in six cities:8 leaves at the Great Lavra on Mount Athos; 3 leaves in Kiev (Nat.-Bibl.Petrov 26); 3 leaves in St. Petersburg (Bibl. Gr. 14); 3 leaves in Moscow(Hist. Mus. 563 and Ross. Gosud. Bibl. Gr. 166,1); 22 leaves in Paris (Bibl.Nat. Suppl. Gr. 1074 and Bibl. Nat. Coislin 202; the latter number alsodescribing 94); 2 leaves atTurin (Bibl. Naz. A.1). Collectively known as Codex Coislinianus. Many of the surviving leaves are from bindings and are badly damaged or rubbed.
H presumably originally contained the entire Pauline corpus. At somepoint it was disassembled and the leaves used to bind other books(the Athos leaves were placed in the binding of a book dated 1218by a monk named Makarius, although we cannot prove either that this was the datewhen H was disassembled or that the binding dates from 1218). Thesurviving leaves contain 1 Cor. 10:22-29, 11:9-16; 2 Cor. 4:2-7, 10:5-11:8,11:12-12:4; Gal. 1:1-10, 2:9-17, 4:30-5:5; Col. 1:26-2:8, 2:20-3:11;1 Thes. 2:9-13, 4:5-11; 1 Tim. 1:7-2:13, 3:7-13, 6:9-13;2 Tim. 2:1-9; Titus 1:1-3, 1:15-2:5, 3:13-15; Hebrews 1:3-8,2:11-16, 3:13-18, 4:12-15, 10:1-7, 10:32-38, 12:10-15, 13:24-25.
Dated paleographically to the sixth century. H is written on parchmentin extremely large uncials (over 1.5 cm in height), one column per page.The text is written stichometrically. A later hand added accents and breathingsto the text although not to the subscriptions of the books.
Aland and Aland list H as Category III; von Sodenclassifies it among the Alexandrian witnesses. From the stichometric arrangement of thelines, as well as the subscriptions to the various books (written in vermillion), H wouldappear to be based on the Euthalian edition of Paul --probably the earliest example of this type.
A footnote to Titus claims that the text was corrected based on amanuscript written by Pamphilius. This is either an error or refersto the exemplar used for H; such corrections as we find in the textare almost always Byzantine (see the entry on correctors).
Overall, the text of H does appear to be Alexandrian, but withmuch Byzantine mixture. It is probably of more note for the history of theEuthalian text than the biblical text as a whole.
von Soden: α1022
Complete color scans of the Paris portion are now available at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8577515k
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since Tischendorf.
M. H. Omont, Notice sur un très ancien manuscrit grecen onciales des Epîtres de Paul, conservé à laBibliothèque Nationale, 1889 (a partial edition, based onmaterials available at the time).
Washington, Freer Gallery of Art, 06.275. Called Codex Freerianus or Codex Washingtonensis. Contains fragments of the Pauline Epistles. The extant fragments consists of (portions of) 1 Cor. 10:29, 11:9-10, 18-19, 26-27, 12:3-4, 27-28, 14:12-13, 22, 32-33, 15:3, 15, 27-28, 38-39, 59-50, 16:1-2, 12-13; 2 Cor. 1:1, 9, 16-17, 2:3-4, 14, 3:6-7, 16-17, 4:6-7, 16-17, 5:8-10, 17-18, 6:6-8, 16-18, 7:7-8, 13-14, 8:6-7, 14-17, 8:24-9:1, 9:7-8, 9:15-10:1, 10:8-10, 10:17-11:2, 11:9-10, 20-21, 28-29, 12:6-7, 14-15, 13:1-2, 10-11; Gal. 1:1-3, 11-13, 1:22-2:1, 2:8-9, 16-17, 3:6-8, 16-17, 24-28, 4:8-10, 20-23; Eph. 2:15-18, 3:6-8, 18-20, 4:9-11, 17-19, 28-30, 5:6-11, 20-24, 5:32-6:1, 6:10-12, 19-21; Phil. 1:1-4, 11-13, 20-23, 2:1-3, 12-14, 25-27, 3:4-6, 14-17, 4:3-6, 13-15; Col. 1:1-4, 10-12, 20-22, 27-29, 2:7-9, 16-19, 3:5-8, 15-17, 3:25-4:2, 4:11-13; 1 Thes. 1:1-2, 9-10, 2:7-9, 14-16, 3:2-5, 11-13, 4:7-10, 4:16-5:1, 5:9-12, 23-27; 2 Thes. 1:1-3, 10-11, 2:5-8, 14-17, 3:8-10; 1 Tim. 1:1-3, 10-13, 1:19-2:1, 2:9-13, 3:7-9, 4:1-3, 10-13, 5:5-9, 16-19, 6:1-2, 9-11, 17-19; 2 Tim. 1:1-3, 10-12, 2:2-5, 14-16, 22-24, 3:6-8, 3:16-4:1, 4:8-10, 18-20; Tit. 1:1-3, 10-11, 2:4-6, 14-15, 3:8-9; Philem. 1-3, 14-16; Heb. 1:1-3, 9-12, 2:4-7, 12-14, 3:4-6, 14-16, 4:3-6, 12-14, 5:5-7, 6:1-3, 10-13, 6:20-7:2, 7:7-11, 18-20, 7:27-8:1, 8:7-9, 9:1-4, 9-11, 16-19, 25-27, 10:5-8, 16-18, 26-29, 35-38, 11:6-7, 12-15, 22-24, 31-33, 11:38-12:1, 12:7-9, 16-18, 25-27, 13:7-9, 16-18, 23-25. In other words, it has at least part of every Pauline book from 1 Corinthians on.The surviving pages represent 84 leaves -- many fragmentary; often only a few lines can be read due to damage to the surviving pages. Only portions of the pages have survived, and even these were stuck together badly, adding to the damage.
Based on the numbering of the quires, it is thought that the original had either 208 or 212 leaves. Hebrews followed 2 Thessalonians. Since 210 or so leaves would have been more than sufficient for Paul, it is likely that the manuscript originally contained the Acts and Catholic Epistles also. The manuscript is generally dated to the fifth century, though a few have suggested the sixth century instead, and Kenyon suggested the seventh. There is little doubt about the text; it is clearly Alexandrian. Von Soden (who designated it asα1041) lists it as type H, while the Alands place it in Category II, ascribing it to the Egyptian text. The Alands' own numbers, however, make this dubious; of the 34 readings of I, only one is purely Byzantine, while 22 agree with UBS against the Byzantine text; six agree with neither. While this is too small a sample to allow for absolute certainty, on its face it implies that I is not Category II but Category I, and Alexandrian, not a member of the later Egyptian text. Indeed, by the numbers, I is the most Alexandrian manuscript of Paul! And my own checking indicates that I is the closest relative of ℵ in existence (and much closer to A C 33 than it is to P46 or B or 1739). This confirms the original assessment of Henry A. Sanders, who repaired it, collated it and placed it closer to ℵ A 33 than to B. Kenyon also agrees with this assessment. Its fragmentary nature limits its usefulness, but where it exists, I deserves to be treated with all the respect accorded to ℵ or A -- indeed, possibly more than the latter. It is truly unfortunate that it is so badly damaged.
According to Kenneth W. Clark, it was "Found in the hands of a Gizeh dealer, Sheikh Ali Abdel Hai el Arabi, in the autumn of 1906 by Grenfell and Hunt, purchased Dec. 19, 1906, along with MS 3 [i.e. W] by the late Charles Lang Freer, of Detroit."
A sample image showing just how much damage it has sustained can be found on the Freer|Sackler web site at https://www.freersackler.si.edu/object/F1906.275/.
Paris -- Bibliothèque Nationale Gr. 63. It was taken to Paris from Cyprus in 1673, and is called Codex Cyprius.
Contains the Gospels complete, although there are many instances of water damage at the top of the page that make the text hard to read. (Some of these have been overwritten in the manuscript, most have not.) The opening and closing leaves of the codex are in very bad shape, making it possible that something has been lost.
Dated paleographically to the ninth century (though scholars up to the time of Scholz sometimes suggested the eighth, and Mill thought it tenth century or later). K is written on parchment, one column per page. The scribe was named Basil, and the manuscript was bound by one Theodulos. Wettstein thought it had latinizing tendencies, but it seems clear that this is merely because it is part of Family rather than the main run of the Byzantine text. Scrivener says of the writing, "[It has] one column of about twenty-one lines per page, but the handwriting is irregular and varies much in size. A single point being often found where sense does not require it, this codex has been thought to have been copied from an older one arranged in στιχοι.... The subscriptions, τιτλλοι,the sections, and indices of the κεφαλια of the last three gospels are believed to be the work of a later hand: the Eusebian canons are absent. The breathings and accents are primâ manu, but are often omitted or incorrectly placed. Itacisms and permutations of consonants are very frequent...." Scholz's opinion was that, although it had most of the accents expected of its date, many are incorrectly placed, and the breathings are confused (Scholz suspected it derived from an ancestor without these symbols); we also see some shuffling of vowels and consonants in words.
Recognized from a very early date as Byzantine, and still so listed today (so, e.g., Aland and Aland, who include it in Category V). Von Soden classified it as Ika, i.e. Family Π. This has been confirmed by all who have investigated the matter, most recently by Wisse (who places K in the Πa group in all three tested chapters of Luke, and calls it a core member of the group).
Wisse distinguishes two groups within Family Π -- Πa and Πb. Of these, Πa is more distinct and has more differences from the Byzantine bulk Kx. Among the more important members of this group are K itself, Π, 1079, and 1546. A (which is, of course, the earliest substantial Byzantine witness) is a diverging member of this group. The case can thus be made that K belongs to the oldest family of the Byzantine text -- and it is the oldest complete witness to this text.
von Soden: ε71
Editions which cite:
Cited by Tischendorf (who also collated it).
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover.
Cited as a secondary witness in NA26 and NA27,but not in SQE13
Cited in UBS3 but not UBS4
All of the following pertain to Family Π, and so include information on K as well (although the works of Geerlings are sometimes guilty of dubious methodology):
Jacob Geerlings, Family Π in John, Studies & Documents 23, 1963
Jacob Geerlings, Family Π in Luke, Studies & Documents 22, 1962
Jacob Geerlings, Family Π in Matthew, Studies & Documents 24, 1964
Silva Lake, Family Π and the Codex Alexandrinus: The Text According to Mark, Studies & Documents 5, 1937
Moscow -- Historical Museum V.93, S.97. Originally from Mount Athos.
Contains the Catholic Epistles complete and Paul almost complete (lacks Romans10:18-1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 8:8-11). Includes a marginal commentary.
Dated paleographically to the ninth century. K is written on parchment,two columns per page.
Von Soden classifies K as I1 in Paul andAπρ1 inthe Catholics. This is based, however, on the commentary (being that of Johnof Damascus in Paul and, according to von Soden, that of Andreas in the Catholics).The text is correctly described by Aland and Aland as Category V(i.e. purely Byzantine).
Within the Byzantine tradition, K forms a pair with 0151. The two may besisters; certainly they are very closely related. Taking the book of Galatiansas an example, we find 279 variants which can count at least two papyri oruncials on each side. K and 0151 agree on 263 of these. (In addition, K hasseven singular readings and 0151 has ten.) Of these 263 agreements, sevenare found only in these two manuscripts (a very high rate of subsingularagreement for Byzantine manuscripts).
Even their sixteen disagreements are suggestive:
|Verse||K reads||0151 reads|
|4:4||γεννομενον εκ||γενομενον εκ vid|
Thus every difference between the two is trivial, usually revolvingaround vowel sounds. In this list there is not one instance of areading that is clearly of genetic significance. In all likelihoodthese two commentary manuscripts descend from a common ancestor at adistance of no more than a handful of generations. It is unlikely, however,that one is copied from the other, since both have singularreadings.
von Soden: I1 (Paul);Aπρ1 (Cath)
Scholz's 102a, 117p
Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (1 page)
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since Tischendorf (though Nestle cites it onlysilently).
Paris, National Library Greek 62. Codex Regius.
Contains the four Gospels with small lacunae: Now lacks Matt. 4:22-5:14, 28:17-end,Mark 10:16-30, 15:2-20, John 21:15-end. Portions of the remainder have been rendereddifficult to read by damp.
Dated paleographically to the eighth century (though some early critics placedit in the ninth century); it is, by general consent, themost important manuscript of that period. The manuscript is written in a fairlyfirm, if clearly late, hand, but the scribe was not especially competent.Errors in the text are common; errors in externals perhaps even more common.Scrivener notes that "The breathings and accents are often deficient, oftenadded wrongly, and placed throughout without rule or propriety. The apostrophusis common, and frequently out of place; the points for stops are quiteirregular...." Spaces between words are infrequent, and iota subscriptum andpostscriptum are said to be "entirely wanting."The manuscript contains many ornamentations, but they arenot regarded as attractive (Scrivener calls them "in questionable taste").In addition, the lectionary apparatus and Eusebian material is included, but thenumber of errors in the latter may indicate that the scribe did not understandtheir purpose. There are also occasional marginal comments on the text (someeven stand in the text, such as that on the variant endings of Mark).
It seems likely that the scribe was an Egyptian, more used to writing Copticthan Greek.
When Hort defined his text-types, hedescribed an "Alexandrian" text which was basically the "neutral"text with some grammatical corrections. Hort could not point to a single purewitness, but the closest he came was L.
L is fascinating because, among the late uncials of the Gospels, it is far and away theleast Byzantine. If having an Alexandrian text is taken as a measure of quality,L is probably the fourth-best substantial manuscript of the Gospels, trailing onlyP75, B, and ℵ.
L is not without a Byzantine element; the first half ofMatthew agrees almost entirely with the Majority Text. But this elementfades toward the end of Matthew, and the rest is quite different. (The logicalconclusion is that the ancestor of L was corrected toward the Byzantine standard,but that the corrector gave up somewhere in Matthew. This phenomenon -- revisor fatigue -- is not unusual; we see something similar in manuscripts such as 579 and 1241). From that point on,L has mostly Alexandrian readings, although there are some readings ofother sorts. Some are Byzantine; others seem to be simply the sorts ofreadings that crept into the tradition with time. (Hort would call thesereadings Alexandrian, and the Alands have labelled this late phase of theAlexandrian text "Egyptian," but there is no real reason to thinkthat this is in any sense a separate text-type. It's simply a text-typewhich has undergone continuous mixture and corruption. L may fairly be calleda Late Alexandrian manuscript, but to call it a member of a "LateAlexandrian" or "Egyptian" text-type goes far beyond theavailable evidence.) As between B andℵ, L isclearly closer to the former; L is obviously descended from a manuscriptin the P75/B phase of the Alexandrian text.
The exact point at which L shifts from primarily Byzantine to primarilyAlexandrian has been disputed. Some have said that all of Matthew isByzantine; this is clearly false. My data put the change around chapter 20,but that was based on checking blocks of readings; it wasn't designed tofind an exact point of change.The most detailed examination is probably Vincent Broman's; he compared L'stext to the Byzantine and Alexandrian types (usingPierpont/Robinson as the standard for the former and the UBS text as a standardfor the latter, while admitting the inadequacy of the latter). It is hisbelief that the change comes at Matthew 17:26, and is abrupt: He finds 14straight Byzantine readings before the break, and eight straight Alexandrianreadings after.
The single most significant reading in L is certainly the ending of Mark.L is the first important Greek manuscript to include both the longer ending (Mark 16:9-20)and the so-called "shorter ending." Both, of course, clearly predateL (the shorter ending is found in k, some Coptic manuscripts, and the marginof the Harklean Syriac, as well as in the uncial fragments 083 and 099; the longerending is obviously ancient), but L is the earliest Greek witness to the shorter endingwhose text-type we can exactly fix. The existence of alternate endings in this manuscriptclearly indicates that the reading is not an original part of the Alexandriantext -- in other words, its omission in B andℵ is not casual.
L has many other readings which indicate its non-Byzantine nature. It omits,for instance, Mark 7:16, Luke 11:2b, c, John 5:3b (although it includes 5:4), 7:53-8:11.These facts all combine to confirm the various classifications of the manuscript:Von Soden listed it as H (and listing it as the seventh H witness, implying thathe regarded it as one of the better manuscripts of the type); Wisse lists it asa core member of Group B; the Alands list it as Category II(meaning, in effect, Alexandrian with some Byzantine mixture).
von Soden: ε56
Note: As with all the major uncials, no attempt is made to compile a completebibliography.
Published by Tischendorf in Monumenta sacra inedita (1846). Thereis a strong need for a modern edition using all the current tools of scholarship.
Aland & Aland, The Text of the New Testament (1 plate)
Editions which cite:
First cited, imperfectly, by Stephanus (as η), andcited in almost every edition since.
Rome, Biblioteca Angelica 39. CalledCodex Angelicus after the library. Von Soden'sα5.Contains the Acts, Paul, and the Catholics. Acts lacks 1:1-8:10; the Catholicsare complete; Paul lacks Hebrews 13:10-end. Scrivener says that is is "of adate not earlier than the middle of the ninth century," although most modernsaccept a ninth century date for it.Textually, about the only thing it appears noteworthy for is its complete lack ofnoteworthiness. The Alands assign it to Category V(Byzantine), and I have no quarrel with that whatsoever; it appears to be amongthe most Byzantine of manuscripts. Von Soden also classified it as K (Byzantine),though with a few I readings. If the manuscript has any real significance, it issimply because it is among the very earliest purely Byzantine manuscripts of thebooks it contains.
Paris, National Library Greek 48.Called Codex Campianus after Abbé François de Camps, who gave it to Louis XIV in 1707. Contains the Gospels complete; it also has the Eusebian prefatory matter and Hippolytus's chronology of the gospels. Dated paleographically to the ninth century by all authorities. Both the manuscript and the writing are small and neat (though the writing would have been more legible had a finer pen been used); some of the outer pages are badly scuffed, but the Gospels themselves are usually easy to read except for the final pages of John. The margins, however, are crowded, with lectionary, notes, Eusebian materials, and more; it appears that the edges have been significantly trimmed, since some of the marginal materials bleed into the edge. There are also many mold marks and stains. It is interesting to note the number of languages used in the margins; there are said to be Greek, Arabic, and Slavonic comments. The text, in addition to accents and breathings, has neumes for singing written in red. Some of the introductory illustrations are in a (corrosive) green, but most interior illustrations are restricted to red and blue (plus perhaps a third color that is now very hard to tell from the color of the parchment); they are not especially attractive or well-drawn.
The text of M is Byzantine but interesting; it is definitely not part of Kx. The Alands classify it (correctly, by their standards) as Category V, but the situation is more complicated than that. It was Von Soden who first tried to classify M (though earlier scholars, such as Scrivener, thought its text interesting and valuable). Soden categorized M as part of his Iφr group; other members of this group include but are not limited to 27 71 692 1194 (several of these only in certain books; these are the witnesses von Soden cited regularly; in addition, von Soden recognized subgroups within this type but did not really distinguish them in his apparatus). The Iφ groups as a whole are an interesting lot; Iφa is what Streeter calls Family 1424; Iφ;bhas never received much attention; Iφc includes suchnoteworthy manuscripts as 945 and 1010.
This classification has, however, been heavily modified by Wisse. Wisse concedes the existence of a Byzantine sub-type including M and related manuscripts, but completely redoes the grouping. Although calling them the "M groups," M itself is listed as a diverging member of Group M27; the other M groups include M10, M106, M350, M609, and M1386, along with a variety of clusters and pairs. Wisse believes the M groups have kinship with the Π groups.
Color scans of the manuscript are now available at the Paris Library web site at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10507213z.
Codex Purpureus.Various libraries: Saint Petersburg, Russian National Library Gr. 537 (182 folios);Patmos, Ioannou 67 (33 folios); London, British Library Cotton Titus C. XV (4 folios);Vienna, National Library Gr. 31 (2 folios); Athens, Byz. Museum Frg. 21 (1 folio);Lerma (Spinola Collection) (1 folio); Rome, Bibl. Vat. Gr. 2305 (6 folios)New York, Pierpont Morgan Lib. 874 (1 folio); Salonika, Byz. Museum Ms. 1 (1 folio).(Total of 231 folios, representing roughly half of the original manuscript.)
Contains the Gospels with very many lacunae: Matt. 1:1-24, 2:7-20, 3:4-6:24, 7:15-8:1,8:24-31, 10:28-11:3, 12:40-13:4, 13:33-41, 14:6-22, 15:14-31, 16:7-18:5,18:26-19:6, 19:13-20:6, 21:19-26:57, 26:65-27:26, 26:34-end;Mark 1:1-5:20. 7:4-20, 8:32-9:1, 10:43-11:7, 12:19-24:25, 15:23-33, 15:42-16:20;Luke 1:1-2:23, 4:3-19, 4:26-35, 4:42-5:12,5:33-9:7, 9:21-28, 9:36-58, 10:4-12, 10:35-11:14, 11:23-12:12, 12:21-29,18:32-19:17, 20:30-21:22, 22:49-57, 23:41-24:13, 24:21-39, 24:49-end;John 1:1-21, 1:39-2:6, 3:30-4:5, 5:3-10, 5:19-26, 6:49-57, 9:33-14:2,14:11-15:14, 15:22-16:15, 20:23-25, 20:28-30, 21:20-end. It has beenthought that it was originally broken up by Crusaders (so Metzger; Scrivenersays this of Φ);certainly itscareer was exciting (Gregory reports how the Saint Petersburg portion,when it was still in Asia Minor, was stolen -- and recovered by a crowdof angry villagers).
Although in the seventeenth century some scholars claimed that the Britishportion was the oldest extant Greek manuscript, that distinction can no longerbe maintained. Moderns date N paleographically to the sixth century. It is written on purpleparchment in (now badly faded) silver ink, with certain of the nomina sacrain gold. The letters are very large (see the reduced sample in thesection on uncial script), and are veryregular in form; they seem to have been stamped on the page (though thereare multiple stamps for the letters, and they are not uniform in size).There are two columns per page, with the columns containing only a dozenor so letters due to the large size of the print; there are typicallysixteen lines per column. Scrivener/Miller sayof the manuscript, "[T]he punctuation [is] quite as simple [as inA of the fifth century], being a single point (and that usually neglected)level with the top of the letter... and there is no space betweenwords even after stops.... It exhibits strong Alexandrian forms...and not a few such itacisms as the change of ι and ει,αι and ε."
There is general agreement that N forms a group with the othersixth century purple uncials (O Σ Φ). Croninbelieved that N O Σare in fact sisters, copied from a single exemplar(Φ he believed to have some "Western" mixture). Thereis less agreement about the nature of this group. Von Soden classifiesit as Iπ,but this really begs the question as it is simply another of thosemixed I-K groups, and has no witnesses except the purple uncials.Streeter laid claim to the group as a weak witnessto the "Cæsarean" text -- but of course Streeter insisted thateverything not otherwise classified was "Cæsarean." In any case, studiesof the group have been hindered by the fact that O contains onlyMatthew, while Σ Φcontain only Matthew and Mark. Thus only N represents the type inLuke and John, and passages where all four purple uncials existare relatively few.
In recent times, Aland and Aland have described N as Category V(Byzantine). Wisse reports that it is mixed in Luke 20; there is, ofcourse, no text of chapter 1 and very little of chapter 10.
All of these claims are slightly imprecise. N is much more Byzantinethan anything else (about 80% of its readings seem to belong to thattype), but by no means purely. It omits John 7:53-8:11, for instance,as well as Luke 22:43-44. There seems to be no pattern to thenon-Byzantine readings, though; certainly they are not"Cæsarean" (N agrees with the Koridethi codex inonly 31 of 44 non-Byzantine readings tested, with Family 1 in 26 of 34,and with Family 13 in 23 of 36; by contrast, it agrees with A in20 of 24, with K in 16 of 21, and withΨ in 29 of 32). The simplestconclusion is that N is mostly Byzantine with occasional survivingreadings of all types.
von Soden: ε19
Since N came to light in so many pieces, there is no complete collation.H. S. Cronin published the text as it was known in 1899 (Texts and Studiesvolume 4). A few additionalleaves have been published in the Journal of Biblical Literature byStanley Rypins (lxxv, 1956).
Editions which cite:
Cited in NA26 and NA27 for the Gospels.
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover for the Gospels.
The work of Cronin cited above (and its follow-up in JTS,July 1901) discusses the relationship between the purple uncials.
B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, 1924,discusses on pp. 575-577 his perceived relationship between the purpleuncials and the "Cæsarean" text. This discussion showsat once the strengths and weaknesses of Streeter's method; since he equatesthe Textus Receptus entirely with the Byzantine text,almost any manuscript -- even one purely Byzantine! -- will show"Cæsarean" readings by this method.
Paris, National Library MS. suppl Gr. 1286. Known asCodex Sinoponensis. Von Soden'sε21. Matthew, with some lacunae. Dated paleographicallyto the sixth century. Written on purple parchment with silver (often gold) ink(now quite hard to read, especially in photographs, due to thediscoloration of the purple). With elaborate paintings featuringexcellent handling of light and dark contrasts.The text is generally thought to go with the otherpurple uncials (N Σ Φ); Cronin in fact thought N OΣ to be sisters. Von Soden classified this group asIπ, although there is little question but thatthe type is mostly Byzantine; the Alands place it in Category V.Streeter naturally regarded it as Cæsarean, but very weaklyso; even if the Cæsarean type exists, O is so mixed as to beof little use as a witness.The least complete of the purple uncials, it is rarely cited. Given itsextremely large size, it has been suggested that it contained onlyMatthew. This makes it almost the last, if not the last, manuscript tocontain only a single gospel. However, the possibility must be admittedthat it was part of a multi-volume deluxe set.
Codex Guelpherbytanus A. Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, (portions of) Weissenburg 66 (loose folios). Von Soden'sε33.Palimpsest, containing small portions ofall four gospels(Matthew 1:11-21, 3:13-4:19, 10-7-19, 10:42-11:1, 13:40-50, 14:15-15:3, 15:29-39;Mark 1:2-11, 3:5-17, 14:13-24, 48-61, 15:12-27;Luke 1:1-13, 2:9-20, 6:21-42, 7:32-8:2, 8:31-50, 9:26-36, 10:36-11:4, 12:34-45, 14:14-25,15:13-16:22, 18:13-39, 20:21-21:3, 22:3-16, 23:20-33, 23:45-24:1, 24:14-37;John 1:29-40, 2:13-25, 21:1-11). Like Q (026), it is part of theunder-writing of a manuscript of Isidore of Seville. It is written in two columnsper page, in large uncials. Tischendorf dated it to the sixth century, and in thisthe Alands agree. Von Soden assigns it to the I' group.Wisse can't do much with it, since it is entirely defective for two of his three chapters;he says it is mixed in Luke 20. The Alands call itCategory V, i.e. Byzantine, although with only 43readings, their sample is too small to be confident. But I know of no particularlynoteworthy readings found in it.
Saint Petersburg, Russian National Library Gr. 225. Called Codex Porphyrianusafter its former possessor, Bishop Porphyry.
Palimpsest,originally containing the Acts, Catholic Epistles, Paul, andthe Apocalypse complete. Apart from the occasional letters obliterated bythe upper writing (works of Euthalius), a number of leaves have been lost,including those containing Acts 1:1-2:13, Romans 2:16-3:4, 8:32-9:10, 11:23-12:1,1 Cor. 7:15-17, 12:23-13:5, 14:23-39, 2 Cor. 2:13-16, Col. 3:16-4:8,1 Thes. 3:5-4:17, 1 John 3:20-5:1, Jude 4-15, Rev. 16:12-17:1, 19:21-20:9,22:6-end. Scrivener states that, in addition, James 2:12-21, 2 Pet. 1:20-2:5 are"barely legible." Presumably modern methods have made it more possibleto read these sections, but they will be poorly cited in older editions. (Scrivenernotes that it also contains "a few fragments of 4 Maccabees," but giventhat it is palimpsest, one may wonder if these are truly part of the samevolume.)
Dated paleographically to the ninth century. Considering its date, it hasa rather primitive appearance; accents and breathings are fairly rare. But itdoes have lectionary indications in the margin. The over-writing has been dated to1301, though the writing itself appears more typical of the thirteenth century.
The text of P varies significantly from section to section. It is quitethoroughly Byzantine in Acts; this was recognized by Hort, supported byVon Soden (who lists it as with some I influence in that book), and confirmedby the Alands (who list it as Category V inActs). Even a fairly casual examination will confirm this point.
The Apocalypse may also be regarded as Byzantine; the Alands again listP as a member of Category V. (Von Sodenlists P as H with I influence, but his classifications in the Apocalypseare now all but completely ignored.) A number of older commentators followedVon Soden as viewing P as valuable -- but this is probably due to methodologicaldifficulties. P is a witness to the Andreas type (according to Schmid), but itlacks the Andreas commentary and differs just enough from theAndreas type of the Textus Receptus as to cause aByzantine manuscript to appear non-Byzantine. (This just reinforces the factthat we cannot use differences from the TR as a measure of quality.) Observerswere probably further biased by the fact that P is an uncial, and with onlya handful of substantial uncials of the Apocalypse(ℵ A C P 046),it is natural that its importance would be exaggerated.
The matter is more complex in Paul and the Catholic Epistles. Here P is clearlya mixed manuscript. The Alands make P more Alexandrian than Byzantine in Paul;by their tables, P has 87 readings which agree with UBS against the Byzantine text,plus 31 readings which agree with neither, while it has only 82 readingswhich agree with the Byzantine text against UBS. Myexperience in working over the readings in NA26, however, made itappear that P agrees with the Byzantine text at at least two-thirds of the pointsof variation. Both my numbers and the Alands' agree that P is moreByzantine than anything else in the Catholics -- according to Hort, it isentirely Byzantine in 1 Peter.
In Paul and the Catholics, the Alands list P asCategory III, while VonSoden assesses it as H (Alexandrian). He also places it next to Ψin his list of manuscripts cited, implying some degree of kinship. Speakinginformally, there does appear to be some truth to this; whileΨ in Paul is much moreByzantine than P, it has a significant number of non-Byzantine readings in thelast few books (particularly Hebrews), and in examining the readings, I seemedto see kinship between P and Ψ.This is only an opinion, however; I have not verified this statistically.
von Soden: α3
Published by Tischendorf in volumes v and vi of Monumenta sacra inedita;the only publication based on modern methods of decipherment is in theDas Neue Testament auf Papyrus series.
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since Tischendorf (though some do not cite itfor Acts).
Codex Guelpherbytanus B. Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, (portions of) Weissenburg 64 (folios 194-201,299, 302, 303, 304, 311). Von Soden'sε4.Palimpsest, containing small portions of Luke and John (Luke4:34-5:4, 6:10-26, 12:6-43, 15:14-31, 17:34-18:15, 18:34-19:11,19:47-20:17, 20:34-21:8, 22:27-46, 23:30-49; John 12:3-20, 14:3-22,with large parts even of these verses illegible). Dated paleographicallyto the fifth century. Assessments of the text of Q have varied widely.Von Soden listed it as H (Alexandrian) in John and I' in Luke (I' beinga large and disjoint group containing many uncial fragments -- P Q R074 090 0116 0130 0131 -- plus the Byzantine uncialsΓ 047 and a numberof minuscules which generally have not been regarded as noteworthy).The Alands list Q as Category V, andregard it as the first truly Byzantine text (it should be noted,however, that Q exists for only twelve of their sample readings --too small a number for classification). Wisse reports it as Mixed,though due to lack of text he was only able to examine chapter 20.The real truth seems to fall somewhere between these assessments.Q is much more Byzantine than anything else -- but it is no more apurely Byzantine text than is A orR. It furnishes evidence thatthe Byzantine type was in existence in the fifth century, but not thatit had reached its final form or that it was in any way dominant.Consider the Nestle apparatus: Listing only a limited number ofvariants, NA27 shows Q departing from the Byzantine text54 times (in the space of 209 verses, many of them fragmentary) inLuke, and 16 times (in 38 verses) in John. Thus Q is perhaps 80%Byzantine (though even this may be exaggerated; Q seems to beheavily given to harmonization, and some of its agreements withthe Byzantine text may be coincidental). The remaining text seemsto agree with the later Alexandrian witnesses (L, 33, 579) morethan anything else. Physically, Q is part of a large palimpsestcontaining also the fragments of Pe (024) and theGothic version; the upper writing consists of Latin treatises ofIsodore of Seville. It has the Ammonian Sections, but if theEusebian Canons were supplied, they must have been written ina coloured ink which has not survived. (This is not impossible;the manuscript seems to have had some writings in vermillion whichare now illegible and barely detectable, and the Eusebian numberswere intended to be written in color.) It has a handful of breathings,though they are not applied in any systematic way.
Codex Nitriensis.London. Catalog Number: British Museum Add. 17211. Originally fromEgypt; brought to England in the 1840s from the convent of S. Mary Deipara inthe Nitrian Desert.
Contains palismpsest fragments of Luke: Luke 1:1-13,1:69-2:4, 2:16-27, 4:38-5:5,5:25-6:8, 6:18-36, 6:39,6:49-7:22, 7:44, 7:46,7:47, 7:50, 8:1-3, 8:5-15,8:25-9:1, 9:12-43, 10:3-16,11:5-27, 12:4-15, 12:40-52,13:26-14:1, 14:12-15:1,15:13-16:16, 17:21-18:10,18:22-20:20, 20:33-47, 21:12-22:6,22:8-15, 22:42-56, 22:71-23:11,23:38-51 (the above list is approximate; in some cases the manuscript is so hardto read that we cannot tell exactly where each portion ends). A second hand adds15:19-21, but these verses are not generally cited. The Lukan text is preceded by chapter headings. Together these occupy the first 48 folios of the manuscript; the last five folios contain a fragment of Euclid's Elements. Many of the pages are intact, but some have lost their margins, resulting in some loss of text even in the verses which nominally survive.
The British Library photographs are curiously inconsistent; in some, the under-writing is clear and easy to read, in others, almost entirely obliterated. I wonder if the different pages were not subjected to different handling when the manuscript was being prepared for re-use. Given the dramatic differences in ink colour, I suspect a multi-spectrum analysis of the manuscripts could reveal additional readings which have not so far been read.
Dated paleographically to the sixth century. R is written on parchment, twocolumns per page. The hand is very large and clear, though Scrivener calls theletters "somewhat irregular and straggling," and notes that "thepunctuation is effected by a single point almost level with the tops of theletters, as in Cod. N. The pseudo-Ammonian sections are there without theEusebian canons." In the eighth or ninth century the manuscript wasoverwritten with a Syriac text of Severus of Antioch against Johannes Grammaticus.(R was not the only manuscript demolished to hold Severus's text; a manuscriptof the Iliad was used as well as the fragment of Euclid mentioned above.) The upper writing was copied by Simeon, a recluse the monastery of Mar Simeon of Kartamin.
The Euclid is not in the same hand as Luke; the writing is smaller, and has a distinct slope to the right, as opposed to the almost entirely vertical writing of Luke. Looking at it, I was immediately reminded of W, although I have not done a comparison of the letterforms.
Assessments of R over the years have varied. Hort says of it (§209,p. 153) that it is mixed, but has "a large proportion of Pre-Syrian[i.e. non-Byzantine] readings." Von Soden assigns it to I' (which tellsus very little, since this is one of the catchall groups, containing bothmixed and purely Byzantine manuscripts). Wisse, based on the fragmentsavailable to him, lists it as Kx in Luke 1, Kx inLuke 10, and mixed in Luke 20. The Alands list it asCategory V (Byzantine).
Of all these assessments, the most accurate appears to be Hort's. The Alands,in particular, base their opinion on a mere nineteen readings -- too small asample to tell us anything.
A much more detailed assessment can be made by examining the apparatus ofNA26. The table below classifies readings in the Nestle apparatusinto six categories: Those where R agrees with the Majority text againstB, those where R agrees with B against the Majority Text, those where Ragrees with both 𝔐and B but where at least two important witnesses have a different reading, readings whereR disagrees with both 𝔐and B, and those where the majority text is split but R either agrees ordisagrees with B. The numbers given below are slightly approximate (due mostlyto the readings where the apparatus only cites evidence for one reading),but these generally affect the third category, which is the least significantfor our purposes.
|R with 𝔐|
|R with B|
|R with 𝔐|
|R against 𝔐|
|R with B|
|R with pm|
Thus we see that, no matter where we look, about 20-25% of R's readings arenon-Byzantine, and that the manuscript is not Byzantine at all in aboutchapters 13-16. Although it is by no means a primary witness, R shouldnot be completely ignored.
von Soden: ε22
Editions which cite:
Cited by Tischendorf, who also collated it.
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover.
Cited in NA26 but deleted in NA27
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_17211&index=0.
Codex Guelpherbytanus B. Rome, Vatican Library Gr. 354. Von Soden'sε1027.Contains the four gospels complete. Dated by its colophon to 949.This makes S the only dated uncial (other thanΓ, whichhas a partial date which we cannot interpret with certainty).It is also one of the four oldest dated New Testament manuscripts(the oldest being the minuscule 461, from the year 835; thisis followed by 2500, from 891, then by S and the minuscule 1582, both from the year949). Textually, it is entirely Byzantine. Von Soden classifiedit as K1 (along with such other Byzantine uncials asV and Ω);Wisse has made the minor correction of listing S as KxCluster Ω.(The other members of this group include E VΩ and somethirty-three minuscules.) The Alands corroborate this by listingS as Category V. The writingis large and compressed (see the sample in theTable of Scripts Used in Various Uncials),and appears Slavic. Scrivener notes that it "containsmany later corrections... and marginal notes" (bothpatristic and textual, e.g. one of them obelizes John 5:4) as well asthe Eusebian apparatus. It also includes neumes.The scribe was a monk named Michael. Note:The symbol S is also used in some apparatus forℵ.(These apparatus will usually use 028 as a symbol for the real S.)One should always be aware of which symbol is used for whichmanuscript.
Sample plates in Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible; EdwardMaunde Thompson, An Introduction to Greek and Latin Paleography(plate 50).
Codex Borgianis. Catalog Number: Rome, Vatican Library Borg. Copt. 109,Borg Copt. 109; New York, Pierpont Morgan Library M. 664A; Paris,National Library Copt. 129.7, 129.8, 129.9, 129.10. The various fragments,when discovered, were designated T (029), 0113, 0125, 0139.
Contains fragments of the gospels of Luke and John, in Greek and Sahidic(Sahidic on the verso), with the Greek containing Luke 6:18-26,18:2-9, 10-16, 18:32-19:8,21:33-22:3, 22:20-23:20,24:25-27, 29-31; John 1:24-32,3:10-17, 4:52-5:7, 6:28-67,7:6-8:31 (with some of these leaves beingfragmentary; also, there is damage to some of the upper outside corners). The following list shows how the various portions are designated:
The Pierpont Morgan portion, at least, came from Deir Amba Shenoudah, the White Monastery in Upper Egypt, and was purchased for the Pierpont Morgan library in 1912.
Usually dated paleographically to the fifth century, though Giorgi, who first published portions of it, prefers the fourth, and Clark suggested sixth or seventh. T is written on parchment, two columns per page -- but, curiously, the Greek and Sahidic are not in facing columns but on facing pages. Tischendorf thought the scribe was a Copt, as the letters often show Coptic forms. Clark sees confirmation in the errors in teh Greek text. It has a handful of breathings, but they are not supplied consistently. As far as the punctuation goes, Scrivener notes that "a single point indicates a break in the sense, but there are no other divisions."
That T stands close to B has been widely observed -- e.g. by Hort; von Sodenclassified all four parts as H, and the Alands place it in Category II.(Wisse was unable to classify it, as no text exists in his sample chapters.) Butfew seem to have realized how close the two are. The following tables showthe relations between T and thirteen other witnesses in Luke and John. The readingsare the variants in NA27 which are supported by at least two of thewitnesses cited.
Affinities of T -- Luke
Affinities of T -- John
Examining these numbers tells us that T is not simply close to B in Luke; it isimmediate kin -- as close to B as is P75. Indeed, T agrees with these twomore than they agree with each other. The difference is not statistically significantgiven the size of the sample, but if this is in fact the case,it would imply that T is actuallycloser to the group archetype than either P75 or B. In any case, it deservesto be on a footing equal to theirs.
The matter is not quite as clear in John. T is still very close to P75 B,but not as close as in Luke. In first examining the data, it appeared to me thatT had acquired some Byzantine mixture. Full examination of the data, however, makesit appear that instead it had been infected with late Alexandrian readings -- ofthe sort we find, e.g., in L. Thus in Luke T is a manuscript of the first magnitude,though in John its value is slightly less.
von Soden: ε5 (=T), ε50 (=0113), ε99 (=0125), ε1002 (=0139)
As this manuscript was recovered in sections, there has been no comprehensivepublication. The first edition, by Giorgi in 1789, includes only the portionsof John then known.
Editions which cite:
Cited by Tischendorf as far as known.
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover as far as known.
Cited in NA26 and UBS3 (under four sigla)and in NA27 and UBS4 under the combined symbol T.
Kenneth W. Clark, Greek New Testament Manuscripts in America, pp. 161-162, discussed the Pierpont Morgan portion and gives a bibliography.
Note: The symbol T was used by Tischendorf and Scrivenerfor certain other manuscripts: Tb = 083; Tc = 084;Tg = 061; Tk = 085; Twoi = 070.
Venice, Biblioteca San Marco 1397 (I.8). CalledCodex Nanianus after a former owner. Von Soden'sε90.Contains the four gospels complete. Dated by modern sources to the ninthcentury, though Scrivener, based on Tregelles, writes that it dates"scarcely before the tenth century, although the 'letters are ingeneral an imitation of those used before the introduction of compresseduncials; but they do not belong to the age when full and round writing wascustomary or natural, so that the stiffness and want of ease is manifest.'"It is an ornate codex, with full marginalia, as well as pictures and goldenornaments.Textually, it appears Byzantine; the Alands place it inCategory V (though their statistics forthe manuscript are manifestly wrong; a complete copy of the Gospels willhave many more than the 155 readings they list!). Wisse calls itKmix/Kx/Kmix, with some similarity to 974 and 1006.This not-quite-pure Byzantine-ness may explain why Von Soden liststhe manuscript as Io; Io contains a number ofmanuscripts strongly but not entirely Byzantine (e.g. X and 1071), thoughthere is no real reason to think they are related.
Moscow, Historical Museum V.9, S.399. CalledCodex Mosquensis. Von Soden'sε75.Contains the four gospels almost complete; Mark and Luke areintact; Matthew lacks 5:44-6:12,9:18-10:1, 22:44-23:35; John is lacking from 12:10-25.The latter two lacunae are recent; they apparently developedbetween 1779, when it was first collated, and 1783, when nextexamined.
Although we say the manuscript runs through John 12:10, theuncial portion breaks off with John 7:39, the rest being inminuscules, dated to the thirteenth century.Matthei, who first examined V, dated the uncial portionto the eighth century, but moderns tend to prefer the ninth. Itis written on parchment, one column per page.Textually, it is universally agreed that it is Byzantine; vonSoden classified it as K1; the Alands place it inCategory V; Wisse calls itKx Cluster Ω.Thus it is a very typical Byzantine manuscript; it has been suggestedthat it would be a good manuscript to use as a standard for theKx type.
Washington, D.C., Freer Gallery of Art 06.274 (Smithsonian Institution). CalledCodex Washingtonensis for its location, or the Freer Gospels for its purchaser.
Originally contained the four gospels complete; now lacks Mark 15:13-38, John 14:27-16:7.In addition, John 1:1-5:11 are a supplement from a later hand, probably to replace aquire that was lost. Gospels are in the "Western" order: Matthew, John,Luke, Mark.
Generally dated to the fifth century, though some have preferred a date in the latefourth century.The supplemental leaves are usually dated from about the seventh century. Thecover may also date from this time; it is wax painting on wooden boards, showing thefour Evangelists, and survives fairly well. On the other hand, the chains that wereadded with the covers kept the book from being properly opened for reading! This verylikely protected the volume -- but rendered it largely useless.
Although the date above is that usually accepted, Ulrich Schmidt has now suggested thatW should be dated to the sixth century. Which, as James Dowden points out to me, meansthat the original text and the supplement are of almost the same age, which, in turn,means that the supplement may not be a replacement for lost leaves but rather (justpossibly) a cancel.This would explain why its text seems to be quite similar to the text of the rest ofJohn in the original hand.
It might perhaps be added that, although we think of the Chester Beatty Papyri asbeing the first great find coming from Egypt, in fact the Freer collection probablydeserves that title. In addition to W, which is substantially intact, it includedI (016), a badly damaged but very good copy of Paul, plus twoimportant LXX manuscripts, the Freer Psalms and the Freer copy of Deuteronomy andJoshua, both of which were edited by Henry A. Sanders.
W is textually a curiosity, as the nature of the text varies wildly. The usualstatement (found, e.g., in Kenyon/Adams, p. 215) is thatMatthew is Byzantine,Mark chapters 1-5 (possibly 1:1-5:30) are "Western,"Mark chapters 6-16 are "Cæsarean,"Luke 1:1-8:12 are Alexandrian,Luke 8:13-end are Byzantine,John 5:13-end are Alexandrian. (The supplement in John 1:1-5:12 is variously assessed;in my experience, it is Alexandrian, though perhaps not quite as pure as the originaltext. Based simply on the text, it is not impossible that the replacement quire wasactually copied, at least in part, from the quire that it replaced.) These boundariesare, of course, impossibly precise; one cannot determine a text-type boundary tothe nearest sentence. But that there are shifts at about these points seems true enough.
The nature of the text-types is, however, open to question. So far as I know, no onehas questioned the Byzantine designation in Matthew or the Alexandrian designation inJohn. My own experience, moreover, indicates that both assessments are correct.
Things are a not quite as clear in Luke. Here, Wisse assesses W as Group B(Alexandrian) in Luke 1, as expected. In Luke 10, he lists it as Kx,while in Luke 20 it is mixed. The classification in Luke 10 is, in a sense, whatwe expect, since it was generally felt that W is Byzantine in that part of Luke.But the finding that it is Kx is extraordinary;this makes W the earliest Kx manuscript by at least three centuries. The"Mixed" assessment in chapter 20is also somewhat surprising, as it indicates that W isless Byzantine than expected in that chapter. It's worth noting, though,that all these assessments are based on single chapters; assessments of larger sectionsof text might produce a slightly different view. The assessment that W's text of Luke isAlexandrian in the early chapters and Byzantine in the final two-thirds is probablyessentially accurate.
The question of Mark is much more complicated. Sanders, who first edited themanuscript, linked 1:1 to 5:30 to the Old Latin (claiming even to see Latininfluence in the text). The rest of Mark he recognized as non-Byzantine andnon-Alexandrian, but he thought it was not "Western" either; he linkedit to manuscripts such as 1 and 28.
At this point Streeter entered the picture. Streeter claimed the last tenchapters of Mark as "Cæsarean," basing this mostly on a comparisonagainst the Textus Receptus. Unfortunately for Streeter's case, this methodis now known to be completely faulty (as he should have known himself). Streeter's"proof" in fact proved nothing -- although we must remember that hismethod was merely faulty, not necessarily that it produced inaccurate results.His contention may be true; he simply didn't prove it.
There things sat for half a century, while the "Cæsarean" textwas sliced, diced, added to, subdivided, and finallyslowly dissolved under scrutiny. Finally Larry W. Hurtado publishedText-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W in the Gospelof Mark (1981). This study compared W, chapter by chapter, against someof the leading witnesses of the various text-types.
Unfortunately, Hurtado's study has its own defects. The analysis is ratherrigidly defined by chapters, and several vital witnesses are ignored. The keydefect, however, is the fact that it simply counts readings without weighingthem. This is fine for detecting immediate kinship, but less effective fordealing with mixed manuscripts -- and even Streeter admitted that all"Cæsarean" witnesses, except W itself, are mixed.
Hurtado found about what one would expect: W, in Mark 1-4, is indeed"Western" (note that he moved the dividing line toward the beginningof the book somewhat). Starting with chapter 5, it is something else, and thatsomething does not match any of the other witnesses precisely. It is assuredlynot Byzantine or Alexandrian. But neither does it agree particularly closelywith the so-called "Cæsarean" witnesses.
Hurtado's study has been viewed, quite inaccurately, as dissolving the"Cæsarean" text. In fact it does no such thing, in thatHurtado nowhere so much as addresses Streeter's definition (which findsthe "Cæsarean" text in the non-Byzantine readings ofthe "Cæsarean" witnesses. Since Hurtado did not classifyreadings, he could not study the type as defined by Streeter). Nonetheless,Hurtado did a reasonable job of demolishing Streeter's claim that W isa pure "Cæsarean" witness in the latter portions of Mark. The fact thatthe "Cæsarean" witnesses do not agree with each other isnot relevant (the effect of random mixture is to make the mixed witnessesdiverge very rapidly). The fact that they do not agree with W, however,is significant. W can hardly be part of the type from which thesurviving "Cæsarean" witnesses descended. This still does not,however, prove that it is not "Cæsarean" -- merely that itdoes not spring from the sources which gave rise toΘ, 565,and Family 13. Further conclusions must be left for a study which addressesStreeter's text-type according to Streeter's definitions. (For what it isworth, my statistical analysis does seem to imply that the"Cæsarean" type exists -- but the sample size is notenough to allow certainty about W's relationship to it.) Hurtado foundthat W had a special relationship with P45, and this is byno means improbable. Hurtado also hypothesized that W in the final chaptersof Mark was still "Western," but with mixture. This too ispossible, and given Streeter's sloppy methods, it might explain why Streeterassociated W with the "Cæsarean" type. But Hurtado's methodcannot prove the matter.
There has been much discussion of why W is so strongly block mixed.Sanders thought that it was compiled from bits and pieces of other manuscripts.Streeter counter-argued that an exemplar was heavily corrected from severaldifferent manuscripts, each manuscript being used to correct only part ofthe exemplar. Neither theory can be proved; they have different strengthsand weaknesses (Sanders's theory explains the abrupt textual shifts, but isit really probable that any church would have so many fragments and nocomplete books? Streeter's theory eliminates this objection, but does verylittle to explain why the text does not show more mixture. W is block mixed,but the text is generally pure in each part.)
The most noteworthy reading of W is the so-called "Freer Logion"(so-called because it occurs only in W; Jerome quotes a portion of it). Thispassage, inserted after Mark 16:14, is quoted in most textual criticism manualsand will not be repeated here.
There is little else to say about the text of W. The Alands list it asCategory III, but of course this is anoverall assessment; they do not assess it part by part (if they did,the assessment would probably range from Category II in the Alexandrianportions to Category V in the Byzantine). Von Soden's classification ismore complex (Iα-- i.e. mainstream "Western"/"Cæsarean" --in Mark, H in Luke and John), but this tells us little that we did notalready know.
von Soden: ε014
Note: As with all the major uncials, no attempt is made to compile a completebibliography.
The basic edition is still Henry A. Sanders,Facsimile of the Washington Manuscript of the Four Gospels in the Freer Collection,plus (again by Sanders) The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection,Part I: The Washington Manuscript of the Four Gospels
Almost every handbook has a photo, but it's always the same page (the FreerLogion in Mark 16). The book In the Beginning: Bibles Before the Year 1000has a large color version of that page and the facing page (pp. 152-153); onpp. 151-152 it shows the cover artwork of the four evangelists.Finegan has a plate of the supplement in John 1.
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since Von Soden
See most recently and most notably Larry W. Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodologyand the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W in the Gospel of Mark. This is largely areaction to Streeter; for Streeter's opinions concerning W, see Appendix V toThe Four Gospels: A Study of Origins.
Codex Monacensis. Munich. Catalog Number: University Library fol. 30.It arrived in Munich in 1827; prior to that it had been in Landshut (from1803), still earlier in Ingoldstadt; its earliest known home was Rome.
Contains the Gospels in the "Western" order Matthew, John, Luke,Mark (as presently bound, there are actually leaves of Matthew at both beginningand end of the codex, and Scrivener implies that the original order wasJohn, Luke, Mark, Matthew, but this is probably a binding error).It has suffered some damage, and now contains Matt. (5:45 in commentary only),6:6, 10, 11, 7:1-9:20,9:34-11:24, 12:9-16:28,17:14-18:25, 19:22-21:13,21:28-22:22, 23:27-24:2,24:23-35, 25:1-30, 26:69-27:12,John 1:1-13:5(2:23-6:71 lost but added in a later hand),13:20-15:25, 16:23-end, Luke 1:1-37,2:19-3:38, 4:21-10:37,11:1-18:43, 20:46-end, Mark 6:46-end (with portionsof chapters 14-16 illegible and 16:6-8 completely lost). Text with commentary;most of the marginal material is from Chrysostom. The commentary is veryfull in Matthew and in John; that in Luke contains references to theprevious sections as well as new material; Mark has no commentary atall. The commentary is written in minuscules and is contemporary with theuncial text.
Dated paleographically to the tenth or possibly ninth century. X is writtenon parchment, two columns per page. The hand is described as "veryelegant"; Scrivener quotes Tregelles's work to the effect that theletters are "small and upright; though some of them are compressed,they seem as if they were partial imitations of those used in thevery earliest copies." The text has, apart from the commentary, relativelyfew guides for the user; there are no lectionary notes orκεφαλαια.
The most recent assessment of this manuscript, that of the Alands,is stark: they place is in Category Vas purely Byzantine. This is, however, much too simple. While it iscertainly true that the manuscript is more Byzantine than anythingelse, it has a number of noteworthy readings not of that type. Wisse,for instance, finds it to be mixed insofar as it exists, with"some relationship to Group B."
Von Soden isn't much help in this matter; he classified X as Io. However,the members of this group, according to Wisse, are a very mixed lot:U (Kmix/Kx; close to 977 1006), 213 (Mix), 443 (M159),1071 (Mix; "some relationship to Group B"), 1321(part)1574 (Mix) 2145 (M1195/Kx). Still, a handful of strikingreadings will show that X is at least occasionally linked with theAlexandrian text, especially with the B branch:
It appears that the largest fraction of X's Alexandrian readings is in John; thismay explain why the Alands (who did not examine John) classified it as Byzantine.
James Dowden informs me that Wieland Willker and Bruce Morrill independently found a significant link between X and 865, a commentary manuscript on John which is dated to the fifteenth century. 865 is in Rome, which was where X was first found; this hints that there was a commentary text that was used by both. Von Soden classified both X and 865 as having the Antiochene Commentary (X is his A3 and 865 his A502); it might be worth looking at how X relates to the text of Chrysostom (who is said to have produced the commentaries on Matthew and John). Checking the six special readings listed above, there is no obvious link to Chrysostom; according to the readings of Chrysostom cited in the UBS4 apparatus, Chrysostom and X disagree at Matt. 16:2-3, John 14:4; they agree at John 7:53-8:11, 12:1; Chrysostom is not cited for Luke 15:21, John 13:32.
von Soden: A3
Editions which cite:
Cited by Tischendorf, who also collated it.
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover.
Cited in UBS3 but deleted in UBS4
Cambridge, University Library Additional MS. 6594. CalledCodex Macedonensis. Von Soden'sε073.Contains the four gospels fairly complete. Matthew 1-8 arelacking and 9-11 are somewhat mutilated. Mark is intact.There are small lacunae in chapters 15-16 and 23 of Luke andthe last two chapters of John.
There is one column per page. Most authorities agree thatit dates to the ninth century.Textually, it is universally agreed that it is Byzantine; vonSoden classified it as Iκ. which is Family Π, andWisse concurs, placing it in group Π171.The Alands place it inCategory V, which is their usualclassification for the uncial (although not the minuscule) membersof Family Π.
Codex Dublinensis Rescriptus. Dublin, Trinity College K.3.4. Von Soden'sε26.Palimpsest, containing portions of Matthew (Matt. 1:17-2:6,2:13-20, 4:4-13, 5:45-6:15,7:16-8:6, 10:40-11:18,12:43-13:11, 13:57-14:19,15:13-23, 17:9-17, 17:26-18:6,19:4-12, 21-28, 20:7-21:8,21:23-30, 22:16-25, 22:37-23:3,23:15-23, 24:15-25, 25:1-11,26:21-29, 62-71).The upper writing is a cursive, no earlier than the tenth century,consisting of works of various church fathers, Chrysostom contributing thelargest share.
Of the original 120 orso leaves, fourteen double leaves and four half-leaves survive -- in otherwords, a bit less than 15% of the original text of Matthew.
Dated paleographically to the sixth or possibly fifth century. Writtenin a large, attractive, and very precise uncial, with the AmmonianSections but seemingly no Eusebian canons. It has spaces at key points,but very little punctuation, and no breathings or accents. Quotationsare indicated with the > symbol. Scrivener notes that it displays unusualforms of many letters, and gives evidence from Abbott that it is relatively free ofscribal errors.
Assessments of its text have universally rated it highly; Von Sodenlists it as H (Alexandrian) and the Alands show it asCategory III. The text isin fact very close to ℵ,and may be regarded as that manuscript's closest ally. On the Aland scale,it probably ought in fact to be Category II, except that there is too littletext to be useful for much.
The illustration at right was taken from a very bad photograph, and has beenheavily manipulated to try to bring out as much as possible. The colours are false.Note that this is the correct orientation to read the Greek text; the over-writingis at right angles to the lower text.
The manuscript, which by then was already "miserably discoloured"(so Scrivener), was exposed to chemicalsby Tregelles in 1853, which yielded littlenew text but has of course not helped its legibility.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. T. infr. 2.2 and Saint Petersburg, Russian National Library Greek 33. Codex Tischendorfianus IV. Von Soden's ε70. The date of this manuscript is a mystery: It gives a date by indiction, and also mentions that (in modern terms) November 27 was a Thursday. Tischendorf calculated that the only date between 800 and 950 which fits this description is 844, but Gardthausen calculated that 979 also meets the conditions. Paleographers tend to date the manuscript to the tenth century. It is rather sloppily written, with lines ruled badly and irregularly. A later corrector added additional accents and breathings to those supplied by the original scribe; Scrivener calls these additions "very careless" and describes the later scribe as a "scrawler." It also has neumes; I do not think these are by the original scribe, but they may be contemporary. Γ is a copy of the gospels, with many lacunae in Matthew (lacks Matt. 5:31-6:16, 6:30-7:26, 8:27-9:6, 21:19-22:25) and one in Mark (lacks Mark 3:34-6:21); Luke and John are complete (there is some damage from damp to the end of Luke, but this does not render the manuscript illegible). Γ was found by Tischendorf in "an eastern monastery" and divided into rather odd portions: England has part of Matthew, all that survives of Mark, all of Luke, and a few leaves of John; Russia has the rest of Matthew and the larger portion of John.
Assessments of the text of Γ have varied a great deal. Scrivener, without being able to examine it fully, remarked that "Some of its peculiar readings are very notable, and few uncials of its date deserve more careful study." Von Soden also saw some value in it, as he classified it as I' (in other words, among the miscellaneous members of the I group. Most I' members seem in fact to be mostly Byzantine). But one has to suspect that this classification is actually based on only a single reading: Γ is one of theseveral manuscripts to exclude Matthew 16:2-3 (others which do so include ℵ B X f13 157 579 and many of the early versions). Recent assessments of Γ have been much less kind. The Alands classify it as Category V (with only one non-Byzantine reading in 286 test passages, though it also has 12 readings which agree neither with the Byzantine nor the UBS text). Wisse lists it as Kx in all his test chapters. On the face of it, it would appear Γ, rather than being an unusually distinguished manuscript for its date, is in fact a perfectly typical Byzantine manuscript with more than its share of singular errors, the work of a somewhat inept scribe. Scans of three of the leaves at the Bodleian can be found at the Bodleian Library web site, https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/inquire/p/8b5d46f6-ba06-4f4f-96c9-ed85bad1f98c.
Saint Gall, where it has been as long as it has been known (hence the titleCodex Sangallensis). Catalog number: Stiftsbibliothek 48.
Contains the gospels almost complete; it lacks John 19:17-35. The Greek is accompanied by an interlinear Latin translation (designated δ). It has been argued that Δ was originally part of the same volume as Gp; for the arguments for and against this (e.g. their similar appearance and identical size, as well as the fact that both are from St. Gall), see the entry on that manuscript.
Curiously, after the end of Matthew (p. 129), there is an inventory of illustrations, partly in Greek and partly in Latin -- but no such illustrations appear in the text! (It has been suggested that this might be a guide for someone who would copy Δ and illuminate it -- by why, then, put it after Matthew rather than at the beginning or end of the volume?) An illustration of this page can be seen on p. 81 of Bernice M. Kaczynski, Greek in the Carolingian Age: The St. Gall Manuscripts (Medieval Academy of America, 1988).
Usually dated paleographically to the ninth century. (It can hardly be earlier, as reference is made to the (heretical) opinions of Godeschalk at Luke 13:24, John 12:40. These references appear to be in the original hand, and Godeschalk died in 866.) A few sources prefer a tenth century date.
The hand is quite awkward and stiff, resembling Gp in this as inmany other ways. The Latin is written above the Greek, and the scribe seems to have been more comfortable with that than with Greek. (There are many reasons for believing this; one of the more noteworthy is his regular confusion of certain Greek letters. Also, the Greek letterforms are not consistently drawn). It has been widely suggested that his native language was (Irish)Gaelic -- Ireland had a strong link with St. Gall. Harris declares, "Our St Gall scribe is an ignorant person, as mechanical as most of his tribe in his own day;" he was not competent to decide word breaks in Greek.
The form of the manuscript again reminds us of G: It is written in continuouslines, but appears to have been made from a manuscript written in sense lines ofsome sort; there are enlarged, decorated letters in almost every line. (Thoughthe decorations are very inartistic; Gregory suggests that "[t]he largerletters are rather smeared over than painted with different colours.") Theenlarged letters donot really correspond with sentences, but rather are quite evenly spaced.Spaces are supplied between words, but these are very inaccurate (more evidenceof the scribe's weakness in Greek). There are only a few accents and breathings,not always accurate. Gregory notes that "[t]he titles for the chapters oftenstand in the middle of the text."
Rettig believed that several scribes worked on the manuscript. This is a difficult question to say the least. The style of the manuscript is very similar throughout. At first glance -- indeed, at any number of glances -- it appears that the scribe is the same throughout. But this is because the hand is so peculiar. The evidence of G indicates that this was more or less the normal style at Saint Gall. So it is possible that there were several scribes -- but the matter really needs to be investigated with modern resources. It has been claimed that one of the scribes of Δ, as well as writing G, also wrote the Basel Psalter and a copy of Horace at Bern.
For once there is almost universal agreement:Δ is block-mixed. Theusual assessment is that Matthew, Luke, and John are Byzantine, while Markis Alexandrian. (Indeed, Δwas the single most important prop in Streeter's argument that manuscriptsshould be examined first in Mark.) Interestingly, most formal investigationshave not precisely confirmed this division into parts; von Soden listedΔ as H, and the Alandslist it as Category III. Even Wisse doesnot find it to be purely Byzantine in Luke 1; his assessment is that it isMixed in Luke 1 and Kx in Luke 10 and 20.
It should be noted, however, that both the Aland and von Soden were listing text-types for the gospels as a whole; they are not book-by-book assessments. (The Alands, at least, did not so much as examine John.) An examination of the actual readings of the manuscript shows that conventional wisdom is correct at least in general: Δ is Byzantine in Matthew, Luke, and John, and is Alexandrian in Mark. We should however add that it is not purely Alexandrian even in Mark; nowhere does it approach the quality of B, or even of L. It is a late Alexandrian/Byzantine mix. It is also my personal impression that Δ has rather more Alexandrian readings in the early part of Mark, and that the Byzantine component increases somewhat in the final chapters -- but I have not formally verified this.
NA28 says that Δ*vid had John 7:53-8:11, which the corrector omitted, but the actual situation is that Δ has a gap there, as if the scribe expected the pericope but did not find it in his exemplar.
The interlinear Latin version is sometimes listed as an Old Latin version; hence the designation δ. This is probably at least technically a misnomer; the Latin version was probably prepared after the translation of the Vulgate. But since it has been made to correspond to the text of Δ, it is not a pure vulgate text. Still, it has no real critical value.
von Soden: ε76
H. Ch. M. Rettig's edition of 1836 remains the only full-fledged edition.Fortunately, this edition is said to be highly accurate (Gregory calls it thebest edition of a manuscript prior to Tischendorf).
Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (1 page)
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since Tischendorf
J. Rendel Harris: The Codex Sangallensis: A Study in the Text of the OldLatin Gospels, 1891 (reprinted 2015 by Wipf & Stock) offers a detailedexamination of the Latin text δ.
Tbilisi, Georgia (the former Soviet republic), Inst. rukop. Gr. 28 Knownas the Koridethi Codex or Codex Koridethianus (after its earliest knownlocation).
Contains the four gospels almost complete; lacks Matthew 1:1-9,1:21-4:4, 4:17-5:4.
The writing of Θ is unique -- see the sample letterforms in the article onuncial script; note in particular the delta(well on its way to becoming a Cyrillic letterform), kappa, lambda, mu, and thehorizontal shape of chi. The odd letterforms make the manuscript impossible todate; extreme estimates range from the seventh to the tenth century. A late dateis all but assured, however, by the generally narrow letterforms and thestrong serifs. The most common estimate is the ninth century, and later seemsmore likely than much earlier.
The scribe of Θ was,to put it mildly, not comfortable in Greek; there are strange errors ofspelling and grammar on every page. In addition, the scribe does not seem tohave been trained to write Greek; he has been accused of drawing rather thanwriting his letters. Certainly they vary significantly in size and in theirrelationship to the line. If the scribe knew Greek at all, it was probably asa spoken language.
Gregory and Beermann gave this information about the codex (thanks toWieland Willker for makingthis available to me): "In the year 1853 a certain Bartholomeévisited a long abandoned monastery inKala, a little village in the Caucasian mountains near the Georgian/Russianborder... he discovered the MS. The MS restedthere probably for several hundred years (Beermann: ca. 1300 - 1869)....Before this time the MS was in a town called Koridethi. This was a villagenear the Black Sea, near today's Bat'umi in Georgia. There should still besome ruins of a monastery. Notes in the Gospel indicate dates from ca. 965CE on. At around this time, according to a note, the book has been rebound.The book was there until around 1300 CE."
The most likely explanation is that the scribe was a Georgian, or possibly(as Beermann argued) an Armenian. Not onlyis the manuscript from the Caucasus, but it has a Georgian inscription on theback cover. In addition, the text appears to have affinity with the Georgianand Armenian versions.
Other than Codex Bezae, perhaps no other manuscript has been so enshroudedin scholarly controversy as the Koridethi Codex. The common statement in themanuals (e.g. Metzger, Kenyon) that it is Byzantine in Matthew, Luke, and John,while having a different text in Mark is simply false; it is based on a misreading(I am tempted to say a perverse misreading) of Streeter. WhateverΘ is (and we must defer thisquestion a bit), it is the same throughout the Gospels: It is a mixture of readingsof the Byzantine type and something else.
The key question, though, is What is the something else? That the manuscriptwas interesting was obvious from the very start. When it was first published, itwas obvious that some of the non-Byzantine readings were typical of the Alexandriantext, others of the "Western" type.
It was Kirsopp Lake who first looked at those other readings, and perceived akinship. It appeared to him that these readings were similar to the non-Byzantinereadings of manuscripts such as 1, 13, and 565.
At this point, B. H. Streeter entered the picture. He found, in these readings,a kinship to the text which Origen used while in Cæsarea. He therefore declaredthis type to be the "Cæsarean" text. Within this type, he includedthe non-Byzantine readings of a large number of manuscripts, notably (family) 1,(family) 13, 28, 565, and 700 -- but also such things as the purple uncials(N etc.) and family 1424.
But note the key phrase: the non-Byzantine readings of these manuscripts.This proved to be a real sticking point. It has two problems. One is methodological:Streeter assumed that the Textus Receptus is identicallyequal to the Byzantine text. This is simply not the case; while the TR is Byzantine,it is not a normal Byzantine text. To make matters worse, the chief non-Byzantineinfluence on the TR is none other than 1. This means that the TR itself has"Cæsarean" readings -- and that, in turn, means that a reading whichis purely Byzantine might be classified as "Cæsarean" under Streeter'ssystem.
So does the "Cæsarean" text exist? This is an extremely vexedissue. Streeter described the text as having a mixture of Alexandrian and"Western" readings. Here, again, the description muddies the picture.If the "Cæsarean" type is real, it has only "Cæsarean"readings; it's just that it shares some with the Alexandrian text, and it sharesa different set with the "Western" text. (This is to be expected; themajority of variants are binary -- that is, have two and only two readings -- soit follows, if the Alexandrian and "Western" texts disagree, that the"Cæsarean" text will agree with one of them.) But this leadsto a problem: If all "Cæsarean" readings are shared with eitherthe Alexandrian or Byzantine or "Western" texts, how do we tell a"Cæsarean" witness from an Alexandrian/Western mixed text?(To add to the uncertainty, we have to decide what is the "Western"text; the fact that Codex Bezae is our only Greek witness, and it in many wayspeculiar, makes this a very difficult question.)
There are two partial answers to the question of how to tell a"Cæsarean" from a mixed manuscript: One is that the "Cæsarean"text does have some unique readings. A famous example is Matt. 27:16-17,where Θ f1 700*arm geo2 call the criminal released instead of Jesus "JesusBarabbas," while all other Greek witnesses read simply "Barabbas."
The other is the pattern of agreements. If you create two manuscriptswhich arbitrarily mix Alexandrian and "Western" readings, they willonly agree on half the readings where the two types separate. If two manuscriptshave a percentage of agreements which is significantly higher than this, then theyare kin.
This was more or less Streeter's argument. But Streeter had a problem: All his"Cæsarean" witnesses were mixed -- they had definite Byzantineoverlays. That meant that he could only assess the nature of the underlyingtext where the manuscripts were non-Byzantine. This was a real difficulty,and made worse by the fact that Streeter (because he used the Textus Receptusto represent the Byzantine text) did not know what the Byzantine text actuallyread!
Streeter, in examining the non-Byzantine readings of his sundry witnesses,found agreement rates usually in the 70% to 90% range. This is a weak point.Allowing for a 50% inherent agreement rate, and 10% readings where the TR is notByzantine (making agreements against the TR actually Byzantine), and10% for coincidental agreement (e.g. harmonizations which could occur independently),and the expected rate of agreement in non-Byzantine readings is onthe order of 70%. (I have verified this in testing a number of manuscripts.Unrelated manuscripts usually agree in 60% to 70% of non-Byzantine readings.)Certainly 70% agreement in non-Byzantine readings doesn'tprove much.
The result was some decades of confusion. Streeter, by his faulty method,managed to make nearly everything a "Cæsarean" witness, andmany scholars followed him. For some decades, there was a hunt for"Cæsarean" witnesses. This more or less culminated in thedeclaration that P45 was "Cæsarean."
At this point, the whole edifice started to crumble of its own weight.Everything not nailed down had been declared "Cæsarean,"often on no stronger basis than the fact that it wasn't in pure agreement withthe Textus Receptus. People started wondering about the "Cæsarean"text.
These doubts began to surface as early as the 1940s, but the single strongestblow was not struck until the 1980s, when Larry W. Hurtado publishedText-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W in theGospel of Mark. This dissertation attempted to re-examine the entire"Cæsarean" question.
Great claims have been made about the results of this study (not leastby its author), but in fact it was a limited work. Still, it accomplishedtwo things: First, it demonstrated (as was already known) that the membersof the "Cæsarean" text were not immediate kin, and second,it showed that P45 and W, often treated as the earliest andkey "Cæsarean" witnesses, were not "Cæsarean"at all. (That P45 was simply a mixed witness had already beenshown by Colwell, who found it to be a freely edited manuscript, butHurtado generally confirmed Colwell's findings.)
But Hurtado's study had severe flaws of its own. One Hurtado has admittedin internet correspondence: The study did not examine all of the leading"Cæsarean" witnesses. The other is more fundamental:He refuses to acknowledge Streeter's definition of the "Cæsarean"type. Streeter defined the type in terms of non-Byzantine readings.Hurtado dealt with all readings. While he did some classification, itwas not Streeter's method of classification. The two are talkingpast each other. Thus the final word on the "Cæsarean" textremains to be spoken. (As is shown by the fact that many modern scholarsfirmly believe in the "Cæsarean" text, while others areequally vehement in denying its existence.)
We, unfortunately, cannot prove the matter. The nature of the case, however,is that we must look at the matter using multiple statistical measures -- becauseonly by this means can we reconcile the contradictory results of the single-statisticstudies. Those who dismiss the"Cæsarean" text use Hurtado's method of overall agreements.Streeter defined it in terms of non-Byzantine agreements. And those whobelieve in the type today tend to point to the unique readings ofthe type, such as the "Jesus Barabbas" reading noted above.
There is, in fact, no fundamental reason why all three methodscannot be used. I have attempted this myself (see the article onText-Types). The results are interesting:Θ and the other"Cæsarean" witnesses do not show unusually highdegrees of overall kinship (except that Θand 565 are quite close in Mark). They show high degrees of agreement innon-Byzantine readings -- but not so close a degree of kinship that wecan automatically say it is statistically significant. In near-singularreadings, however, there does appear to be kinship.
Does this settle the matter? No. Since we don't have a mathematicaldefinition of a text-type, we can't just state that the numbers tell usthis or that. It appears to me that Streeter's definition is sound,and that Θ isthe best surviving witness of a small group(Θ family 1 family13 565 700; I am less certain of 28, and I find no others) which havea text-type kinship but have been heavily mixed. Streeter's claimthat these are a family (i.e. a group of closely related manuscripts,close than a text-type) is, however, thoroughly untrue. A final answer,however, must await better definitions of our terms.
This has not, of course, kept people from classifyingΘ. Von Soden, whowas the first to really examine the manuscript (and who worked beforeStreeter) listed it as Iα,i.e. as a member of the main "Western" group. (We should note thatStreeter took all the Iαwitnesses, save D, and declared them"Cæsarean.") Wisse classified the manuscript as "mixed"in Luke (a result which should have told him something about his method, butdidn't. Certainly Θ ismixed -- but we don't want to know if it's mixed; we want to know what elementscompose the mixture! Wisse could detect a weak Group B manuscript, becausemanuscripts like B and ℵgave him a clear Group B profile -- a profile so clear, in fact, that hecould include D in the type! But there is no pure witness to the"Cæsarean" text; meaning that Wisse could nothave hoped to identify a "Cæsarean"type if one exists). The Alands, who do not classify by text-types, simplylist Θ asCategory II.
von Soden: ε050
(and note that the symbol Θwas used for assorted small uncial fragments until Gregory reorganized themanuscript list)
Note: A true bibliography about Θis impossible, since every work about the "Cæsarean" text is largelyabout Θ. The following listincludes only a selection of key works.
A Russian facsimile edition of Mark is extremely hard to find. Gustav Beerman andCaspar René Gregory published the complete text in Die KoridethiEvangelien Θ 038 (1913).Streeter, however, warns that the secondary collations in this book (comparingΘ against other manuscripts)are highly inaccurate, at least for the minuscules.
Aland & Aland, The Text of the New Testament (1 plate)
Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (1 plate)
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since Von Soden
Kirsopp Lake and Robert P. Blake, "The Text of the Gospels and theKoridethi Codex" (Harvard Theological Review, xvi, 1923) is the firstmajor work on what came to be called the "Cæsarean" text.
B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, (1924) is thebasic definition of the "Cæsarean" text.
Larry W. Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text:Codex W in the Gospel of Mark is the most recent major study of the"Cæsarean" text.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. T. infr. 1.1. Codex Tischendorfianus III.Von Soden's ε77. Dated paleographically to the ninth century by most authorities, although Scrivener allows the bare possibility of the eighth century and the Bodleian Library suggests mid-tenth. It is a curious manuscript, containing only Luke and John in uncials. The gospels of Matthew and Mark were written in minuscules; this half of the manuscript is numbered 566 (von Soden still calls it ε77) and located in Saint Petersburg. It has the Eusebian apparatus and a few comments in the margins. It is also noteworthy for having the "Jerusalem Colophon" after all four gospels. Textually, Von Soden listed it as Ir; other members of this group include 262 (which also has the colophon) 545(part) 1187 1555 1573. Wisse lists it as a member of his Group Λ (though with some "surplus"); this is his equivalent of Soden's Ir. Other members of the group, according to Wisse, include 161 164 166 173(part) 174 199 211 230 262 709 710(part) 899 1187 1205 1301(part) 1502(part) 1555 1573(part) 2465 2585(part) 2586 2725(part). Wisse notes that the group is fairly close to Kx, falling between Group 1216 and Kx. That it is close to the majority text is confirmed by the Alands, who place Λ in Category V (Byzantine). There are scans of the first and last pages of Luke and John at the Bodleian web site, https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/inquire/p/22e893f5-c2ce-4fc1-bfbb-5a121c3b1df2.
Cambridge, University Library, British and Foreign Bible Society MS. 24.Codex Zacynthius. Von Soden's A1.Palimpsest, with the upper writing being the lectionary299 (thirteenthcentury). Presumably originally contained the entire Gospel of Luke witha catena (probably the oldest catena left to us, and the only one withboth text and commentary in uncial script; nine Fathers are thought to havebeen quoted.), but the surviving leavescontain only Luke 1:1-9, 19-23, 27-28, 30-32, 36-60,1:77-2:19,2:21-22, 2:33-3,3:5-8, 11-20, 4:1-2, 6-20, 32-43,5:17-36, 6:21-7:6,7:11-37, 39-47, 8:4-21, 25-35, 43-50,9:1-28, 32-33, 35,9:41-10:18, 10:21-40,11:1-4, 24-33 (86 full leaves and threepartial leaves, originally quite large in size). Dated by W. P. Hatch and the Alands to thesixth century, but Scrivener argues that the writing in the catena (whichis interwoven with the text, and clearly contemporary, in a hand so smallas to be all but illegible since its erasure) belongsto the eight century, and other authorities such as Greenlee have tended toward the laterrather than the earlier date (though the absence of accents and breathingsinclines us against too late a date). Textually, Ξclearly has Alexandrian influence, probably of a late sort (indeed, it appearsto be closer to L than any other manuscript). Wisse lists it as being Kxin Luke 1 and Group B (Alexandrian) in Luke 10, but this probably does not indicateblock mixture so much as sporadic Byzantine correction. Since it is a catenamanuscript, Von Sodendoes not really indicate a text-type (listing it simply as one of the witnesses toTitus of Bostra's commentary), but the Alands assign it toCategory III. Perhaps even more interestingthan the text, however, is the system of chapter division, forΞ uses the unusual scheme of divisionsfound in Codex Vaticanus (B), though it also has the usualsystem of τιτλοι.This serves as additional reason to believe that the text is basically Alexandrian.First edited by Tregelles in 1861, the text has been re-edited as recently as 1957(by Greenlee), but probably is due for another examination with the most modern technology.
Saint Petersburg, Russian National Library Greek 34. Codex Petropolitanus.Formerly owned by Parodus of Smyrna, who was persuaded by Tischendorf to give itto the Tsar of Russia.Von Soden's ε73.Dated paleographically to ninth century.Contains the four gospels with minor lacunae: Matt 3:12-4:18,19:12-20:3, John 8:6-39.In addition, Scrivener reports that John 21:22-25 are froma later hand.
When Πwas first discovered, it was observed that it generally agreedwith the Byzantine text, but with certain unusual readings, most ofwhich agreed with Ke. This kinship was laterformalized by Von Soden, who declaredΠ (along with K Yand a number of minuscules such as 265 489 1219 1346) to be members ofhis Ikagroup. Von Soden felt this group to be a mix of I and K (Byzantine)texts, with K heavily predominating.
Speedy confirmation of Von Soden's results followed, though thestudies (primarily by Lake, New, and Geerlings) were subject to severemethodological flaws. It should be noted, however, that the type was firstdiscovered long before their time; Scholz called K and its relativesa text-type, the Cyprianic. This is exaggerated, since it's much moreByzantine than anything else, but it stands well apart from the Byzantinemass and can be seen even using relatively small samples.Ik, nowgenerally known as Family Π,is a genuine and highly recognizable Byzantine subgroup. The most recent work,that of Wisse, finds Family Πto involve in excess of 100 manuscripts, and breaks it down into two basicgroups (Πaand Πb) plusten sundry clusters. Of these,Πa is thelargest (65 members) and most significant, containing the two uncials Kand Π (both of whichWisse calls core members of the group) and many minuscules. (The otherFamily Πauncial, Y, Wisse places in the groupΠa171.) Wissealso places A in the Πagroup (an opinion first stated by the Lake/Geerlings studies), but admits itis a diverging member.
The Πagroup is clearly distinct from the "mainstream" Byzantine text ofKx; in his three chapters of Luke, Wisse notes some three dozenplaces where Πaand Kx diverge (apart from passages where neither group formed a fixedreading), out of 196 passages tested. If one takes the readings noted inthe footnotes of UBS/GNT, the number is somewhat smaller (on the orderof 10-12% of the readings), but still large enough to allow easy recognitionof Famiy Πareadings. The type is Byzantine, but few Byzantine groups differ so sharplyfrom the Byzantine norm.
The other interesting point is that it is old. A is not a perfectmember of this group, but it isn't a perfect member of the Byzantine text,either. Still, A attests to the existence of the Byzantine text in the fifthcentury -- and to the existence of FamilyΠ in the same century.The earliest witnesses to the Kx/Ki/K1group, by contrast, is E of the eighth century. Although FamilyΠ did not prove tobe the dominant Byzantine group (Kx certainly provides moremanuscripts, and Kr probably does as well), the possibility mustbe considered that this is the earliest form of the Byzantine text.
About Π itselfthere is relatively little to add. The Alands, naturally, list it asCategory V. Interestingly, however, ithas obeli by John 5:4 and 8:3-6 (omitting the earlier portion of thepericope); we also note that Mark 16:8-20, while present and not marked doubtful,are not as fully annotated as the rest of the manuscript.
Tirana, Staatsarchiv Nr. 1. Formerly at Berat, hence the name Codex Beratinus.Von Soden's ε17.Dated paleographically to fifth (Scrivener) or sixth (Aland) century (Scrivener reportsthat it "may probably be placed at the end of the fifth century, a little before theDioscorides (506 A.D.), and before the Codex Rossanensis."No supporting evidence is offered for this.) Purple parchment.Contains portions of the gospels of Matthew and Mark (the loss of Luke and Johnmay be traced to "the Franks of Champagne."). Matt. 1:1-6:3,7:26-8:7, 18:23-19:3,and Mark 14:62-end are lacking.Textually, Von Soden classifiedΦ as Iπ, that is,as part of the group which also contains N OΣ This assessment hasbeen all but universally accepted, though assessments of the text of thegroup itself have varied. The Alands place all four manuscripts of thegroup (the Purple Uncials) in Category V, andit is certain that they are more Byzantine than anything else. Streeter,however, felt that the group had a "Cæsarean" element(for discussion, see the entry on N), which accordswith Von Soden's view that they were members of the I text. Samples donot indicate a clear affiliation with any text other than the Byzantine(it should be noted, however, that their defects have kept the profile methodfrom being applied to any of these manuscripts). Of the four,Φ is generallyregarded as being the most unusual -- though this may be based primarilyon a single reading, the "Western" addition in Matthew 20:28about seeking what is greater (shared by D a b c d e ff1 ff2hubmarg ox theo cur harkmarg?). Scrivener describesthe writing as follows: " The pages have theκεφαλαια marked atthe top, and the sections and canons in writing of the eighth century atthe side. The letters are in silver, very regular, and clearly written.None are in gold, except the title and the first line in St. Mark,and the wordsΠατηρ, Ιησους,and some others in the first six folios. There is no ornamentation, but the firstletters of the paragraphs are twice as large as the other letters. The lettershave no decoration, except a cross in the middle of the initials O's.The writing is continuous in full line without stichometry. Quotationsfrom the Old Testament are marked with a kind of inverted comma. Thereare no breathings.... Punctuation is made only with the single comma ordouble comma... or else with a vacant space, or by passing to the next line....Abbreviations are of the most ancient kind." Edited by P. Batiffolin 1887.
Mount Athos, where it has been as long as it has been known.Catalog number: Athos Laura B' 52
Ψ originally contained the entire New Testament except the Apocalypse.All of Matthew, as well as Mark 1:1-9:5,have been lost; in addition, the leaf containing Hebrews 8:11-9:19is lost. The Catholic Epistles have 1 and 2 Peterbefore James. Ψ is written on parchment,1 column per page. It has been furnishedwith neumes -- one of the oldest manuscripts to have musical markings.
Usually dated paleographically to the eighth/ninth centuries; the latesteditions (e.g. NA27) date it to the ninth/tenth centuries.
Ψ has an unusually mixed text.Aland and Aland list it as Category IIIin the Gospels, Acts, and Paul, and Category II in theCatholic Epistles. Von Soden lists it as generally Alexandrian.
In fact the situation is even more complicated than this. In Markthe manuscript is distinctly Alexandrian, of the sort of late, mixedcast we see, e.g., in L; like L, it has the double Markan ending. In Lukethe manuscript loses almost all traces of Alexandrian influence and becomespredominantly Byzantine. In John the manuscript is mixed -- more Byzantinethan anything else, but with significant numbers of Alexandrian readings.
In Acts Ψ is largely Byzantine.
In Paul Ψ is more Byzantine than anything else (it is perhaps theearliest substantial witness to that type), although there are certainAlexandrian readings (which seem to bear a certain similarity to thoseof P). The Alexandrian element seems to be slightly greater in the laterbooks.
In the Catholics Ψ is again mostly Alexandrian, though with Byzantine influence.The text seems to be of the type found in A 33 81 436.
The distinction between the text of Mark and the other gospels has beenknown since the time of Lake, who published his collation in 1903. Lake comparedthe text of Mark against Westcott and Hort's text, and found that, in 480 or soplaces where the Textus Receptus disagrees with the WH text, Ψ agrees with theTextus Receptus in only 42 -- in other words, it has very few Byzantine readings.I count 17 readings which Lake lists as going with D and the Old Latins but not with WH,the TR, or the Old Syriac. He has seven which go with the Old Syriac against theWH, TR, and D; eight with agree with D, OL, and the Old Syriac against TR and WH;16 or 17 which we would probably call "late Alexandrian" (agreeing with Lor a similar manuscript without agreeing with B); 18 with B and no more than twoother uncials; 25 singular or subsingular readings that do not appear to be errors,plus four pretty clear errors (several of which led Lake to conclude that, forMark at least, Ψ's exemplar had roughly 19 to 22 letters per line. Which makes itrather likely, although by no means certain, that it had two columns per page).
Lake's collations of the other books show the shifting nature of Ψ's text.In Colossians, there are only 39 differences from the TR, some of which areprobably readings where Ψ agrees with at least part of the Byzantine text andthe TR doesn't. The collation of Luke is a little more than four pages long --short, considering the length of the book. The collation of John is a bit lessthan four pages -- meaning that it has slightly more variations per unit of text.
von Soden: δ6
Kirsopp Lake, "Texts from Mount Athos," Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica V(Oxford, 1903; there are now several low-quality print-on-demand reprints), pp. 105-122prints the text of Mark in full; pp. 123-131 give collations of Luke, John, andColossians
Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (1 page)
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since von Soden.
Kirsopp Lake, "Texts from Mount Athos," Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica V(Oxford, 1903; there are now several low-quality print-on-demand reprints), pp. 95-104 discusses this manuscript in some depth
Athos, Dionysiou (10) 55. Von Soden's ε61.Dated paleographically to the ninth century (Scrivener says eighthor ninth). Contains the four gospels complete almost complete; part of Luke 1is missing. Textually, Von Soden classifiedΩ as K1, which Wisse modifies to KxCluster Ω (which is, however, just another name for the same thing).It has in fact been suggested that Ω is a good standard for Kx.The Alands generally confirm this assessment by placing Ω in Category V.
Rome, Vatican Library Greek 2066. Soden'sα1070; Tischendorf/Scrivener B(r).Contains the Apocalypse complete, along with much other non-Biblical matter(the Biblical text occupies folios 259-278) including homilies of Basil theGreat and Gregory of Nyssa. It has been variously dated; Scrivener favours theeighth century, Aland the tenth. The text is of the Byzantine type (so vonSoden, who listed it as K, and all experts since); 046 isthe earliest manuscript of the main Byzantine group ("a"). The Alandstherefore classify it as Category V, thoughearly manuscripts of the Apocalypse are so rare that even a Byzantine uncialdeserves special attention. Scrivener describes the writing thus: "theuncials being of a peculiar kind, leaning a little to the right; they holda sort of middle place between square and oblong characters.... The breathingsand accents are primâ manu, and pretty correct..." whilethe punctuation is fairly well evolved.
Princeton, New Jersey, University Library Med. and Ren. Mss. Garrett 1. Soden'sε95; original Gregory ב.Contains the Gospels with some mutilations (in Matt. 2-3, 28, Mark 5-6, 8-9, John 12, 14,and breaking off in John 17). Dated paleographically to the around the ninth century (Clark says eighth; von Soden and Lake the ninth, Gregory and Scrivener the ninth or tenth. Apparently originally from Mount Athos (Gregory and Lake both saw it there); what seems to be the earliest library stamp reads, in Russian, "Russian Athos Library of the Monastery of Saint Andrew." It was brought to the United States in 1925. Textually of no great interest; von Soden places it in I' (with such diverse manuscripts as P Q R Γ 064 074 079 090 0106 0116 0130 0131 4 162 251 273 440 472 485 495 660 998 1047 1093 1295 1355 1396 1604 2430),but the Alands simply list it as Category V (Byzantine), and Wisse corroborates this by placing it in Kx throughout. Legg cited it, but the newer editions generally do not.What interest 047 has is, therefore, derived from its format, for the manuscriptis written in the form of a cross (photo in Aland & Aland and in Metzger,Manuscripts of the Greek Bible). It is believed that this is the onlycontinuous-text cruciform manuscript (the lectionaries233 and1635 arealso cruciform, and2135has some cruciform pages. So too the Latin codex Cavensis among others).This format has many drawbacks; it is very wasteful ofwriting materials (047 has about 37-38 lines per page; of these typically tenreach the full width of the page, with about twelve lines above and fifteen belowbeing slightly less than half the available width. Thus about three-eights ofthe usable area of the page is blank), and the format makes it harder to usethe marginalia. These are no doubt among the reason the format is so rarely encountered.The manuscript has some marginal corrections (including, e.g., one obelizingJohn 5:4).
Rome, Vatican Library Greek 2061. Soden'sα1; Tischendorf/Scrivenerב(ap).Double palimpsest(i.e. the biblical text has been overwritten twice), resultingin a manuscript very difficult to read even on the leaves which survive (andthe leaves which survive are few -- only 21 of what are believed to have beenoriginally 316 folios. The leaves that make up 048constitute folios 198-199, 221-222, 229-230,293-303, 305-308 of Vatican Gr. 2061). These surviving leaves contain(according to NA27; other sources give slightly differentcontents, no doubt based partly on the illegibility of the manuscript)Acts 26:6-27:4, 28:3-31; James4:14-5:20; 1 Pet. 1:1-12; 2 Pet.2:4-8, 2:13-3:15; 1 John4:6-5:13, 5:17-18,5:21; 2 John; 3 John; Romans13:4-15:9; 1 Cor.2:1-3:11, 3:22, 4:4-6,5:5-11, 6:3-11,12:23-15:17, 15:20-27; 2 Cor.4:7-6:8, 8:9-18,8:21-10:6; Eph. 5:8-end; Phil.1:8-23, 2:1-4, 2:6-8; Col.1:2-2:8, 2:11-14, 22-23,3:7-8, 3:12-4:18; 1 Th.1:1, 5-6, 1 Tim.5:6-6:17, 6:20-21, 2 Tim.1:4-6, 1:8, 2:2-25; Titus3:13-end; Philemon; Heb. 11:32-13:4.The hand is dated paleographically to the fifth century. The manuscript is oneof the very few to be written with three columns per page. Due to the small amountof text, the manuscript's type has not been clearly identified. The Alandsclassify it as Category II, which is probablyabout right, but this is on the basis of a mere 44 readings in Paul. Von Sodendid not classify it at all. Observation shows that it is clearly not Byzantine;the strongest element is probably Alexandrian, though some of the readingsmay be "Western."
Athos, Codex Lavra A' 88. Tischendorf Sap. Von Soden'sα2.Contains the Acts and Catholic Epistles complete,and Paul with some lacunae (lacking 1 Corinthians 5:9-13:7;parts of Ephesians 1-2;parts of Philippians 2-3;and breaks off in 1 Thessalonians 4, lacking all of 2 Thessalonians,1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews. So theAlands, anyway; Scrivener has a somewhat different list of lacunae).Dated by modern sources to the ninth century; Scrivener says eighth orninth.The text, based on the Aland statistics, appears extraordinarily dull;they count only 13 non-Byzantine readings in the whole manuscript, and placeit in Category V. Von Soden too called itprimarily Byzantine, although he would allow a little I ("Western")influence in Acts.
In four parts: Athens, National Library 1371 (2 folios);Athos, Dionysiu (71) 2 (7 folios);Moscow, Historical Museum V. 29, S. 119 (7 folios);Oxford, Christ Church College Wake 2 (3 folios).Tischendorf Oe (the Moscow portion),We (the Oxford portion, John 4:7-14).Von Soden's Cι1.Contains John 1:1-4, 2:17-3:8, 3:12-13, 3:20-22, 4:7-14, 20:10-13, 20:15-17.With commentary. Dated to the ninth century by the Alands.With so little text, it is hard to say much about its contents, but the Alandsplaceit in Category III. Von Soden merely lumpedit with the manuscripts containing the "anonymous catena."
Munich, Bavarian state library Greek 208, folios 235-248.Tischendorf Xb.Von Soden's A4.Contains Luke 1:1-2:40, with a commentary, the text and scholia reported bythe Alands to alternate. Von Soden lists it among the manuscripts withTitus of Bostra's commentary. Dated to the ninth century by the Alands.With so little text, it is hard to say much about its contents; the Alandsplace it in Category V (Byzantine) but witha question mark. Wisse classifies it as Kx, which supports this belief.NA27 does not bother to cite it fully.
Rome, Vatican Library Barberini Gr. 521 (Scrivener says Barberini 225).Tischendorf Ye; Von Soden's ε54.Contains John 16:3-19:41. The original hand is believed to be from about theeighth century. According to Scrivener, it has been retraced "coarsely."The accents and breathings are relatively few and often incorrect; it has a peculiarsystem of punctuation with up to four points. It has the Ammonian sections but noEusebian numbers.The Alands put it in Category V (Byzantine)with a question mark, but Von Soden wasn't sure whether it belonged with K or I(although he inclined toward the former), and Scrivener says the text is"midway" between that of A and B, which would imply a manuscript thatbelongs to about Category III.
Paris, National Library Gr. 201. Tischendorf/Scrivener 309e.Dated paleographically to the very end of the uncial period (e.g. Aland listsXI; Scrivener says X-XII). Despite being numbered among the uncials, it isnot a true New Testament manuscript, containing rather a commentary with partial text (Chrysostomon Matthew and John, Victor on Mark, Titus of Bostra on Luke). Thus it hasnot been subjected to textual analysis; Von Soden did not even include itin his catalog (despite listing manuscripts of his A type with even less text),the Alands did not place it in a Category,and Wisse did not profile it. Such minimal evidence as is available indicates,however, that the text is Byzantine. The writing itself, as might be expectedof a semi-uncial manuscript variously listed as an uncial and a minuscule, isreported as "very peculiar in its style and beautifully written."
Paris, National Library Coislin Gr. 26. Soden's O7;Tischendorf/Scrivener 16a, 19p. Contains the Acts andEpistles complete, although it appears some pages of prefatory material is lost. Hebrews follows Philemon. Dated paleographically to the tenth century or even after (Scrivener lists the eleventh century). There are some later verses added at the end. Commentary manuscript; the main text is in small red uncial, the commentary in minuscule. The commentary is described by Scrivener as "like" that of (the pseudo-)Oecumenius, and of course Soden lists 056 among the Oecumenius manuscripts. The Paris Library web site also lists the commentary as by Oecumenius, but that it has been expanded. Formerly from the Great Lavra on Athos. The manuscript also includes, according to Scrivener, "a catena of various fathers [and] a life of St. Longinus on two leaves [ix]." Textually, 056 has been little studied; Soden simply listed it as having the Oecumenius text. The Alands correctly place it in Category V (Byzantine). This is elaborated somewhat by Wachtel, who lists it among the manuscripts which are 10-20% non-Byzantine in the Catholic Epistles, pairing it with 0142 (also an Oecumenius manuscript, Soden's O6) and 1066 (another Oecumenius text, though this one exists only in the Acts and Catholic Epistles; Soden's Oπρ21). That 056 also goes with 0142 in Paul and the Acts is easily demonstrated; indeed, they seem to be closer than we would expect even of Oecumenius texts, and probably go back to a recent common exemplar. In Acts, for instance, the two agree in 184 of 189 test readings (the test readings being of UBS3 for which both exist, including a subsingular reading in Acts 28:14, επι, found in 056 0142 pesh). For comparison, 056 agrees with other Byzantine witnesses as follows: L, 127 of 141; P, 172 of 183; 049, 174 of 190, 1241, 170 of 187. The five differences between 056 and 0142 in the test readings in Acts are as follows:
|Reading||Text and Supporters of 056||Text and Supporters of 0142|
|Acts 5:16||εις Ιερουσαλημ D E P Byz||Ιερουσαλημ P74 ℵ A B 0189 a gig vg|
|Acts 10:5||ος; ℵ E P 33 Byz||τινα ος A B C 81 1739 a vg|
|Acts 11:9||απεκριθη δε φωνη εκ δευτερου εκ του ουρονου P45 P74 ℵ A 049 81 1739 gig vg||απεκριθη δε μοι φωνη εκ του ουρονου (singular reading, probably a parablepsis for the reading απεκριθη δε μοι φωνη εκ δευτερου εκ του ουρονου of P Byz)|
|Acts 13:42||παρκαλουν τα εθνη εις το P Byz||παρκαλουν εις το P74 ℵ A C (D) 33 81 1739 al|
|Acts 27:5||καθηλθομεν P74 ℵ A B P 33 81 1739 Byz gig||καθηλθομεν δι εμερων δεκαπεντε (singular reading, probably derived from the καθηλθομεν δι δεκαπεντε εμερων 614 1518 2138 2147 2412 a h hark**)|
Thus it would appear that, if anything, 0142 is the ancestor of 056, but examination of the data in Hebrews makes it appear more likely they are derived from a common exemplar, with 0142 perhaps copied slightly earlier. A notable peculiarity of both manuscripts is the use of extra iotas at the end of words. Most of these (perhaps all of them) are instances where an iota would normally be found subscripted, but neither manuscript is consistent in this usage.
Black-and-white scans of 056 (from a microfilm, and not always easy to read) are at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b110001885.r=coislin%2026?rk=21459;2.
Paris, Louvre MS. E 7332.Tischendorf's Tg; Scrivener's T or Tp; Von Soden'sα1035.Contains a small fragment of 1 Timothy, 3:15-16,4:1-3, 6:2-4, 5-8, on two leaves,both damaged. Dated paleographically to the fifth century by most authorities;Scrivener says IV or V. Based on this date, it is very surprising to findthe Alands classifying it as Category V -- andeven more surprising to find them calling it Category V with singular readings(!). They do not make it easy to check the point, however, as 061 is not citedin the Nestle-Aland edition. Nor did Von Soden classify the manuscript. It must beregarded as a small question mark in the manuscript lists.
St. Petersburg, Russian National Library Gr. 6 I, folios 1-3.Tischendorf's I(1); Von Soden's ε1.Contains John 11:50-12:9, 15:12-16:2, 19:11-24 on three leaves.Palimpsest; the upper text is a Georgian calendar. This 28-leaf documentcontains palimpsest fragments of seven different Biblical manuscripts.Dated paleographically to the sixth century by the Alands; Scrivener seemsto argue for the fifth.Tischendorf found it in 1853 in St. Saba. It is said to be very hard to read,which perhaps helps to explain why the Nestle-Aland edition does not cite it.Scrivener's data seems to imply a Byzantine text, but Von Soden classified it asH. The Alands, however, relegate it to Category V.
St. Petersburg, Russian National Library Gr. 6 II, folio 4.Tischendorf's I(2); Von Soden's α1000.Contains Acts 28:8-17.Palimpsest; the upper text is a Georgian calendar. This 28-leaf documentcontains palimpsest fragments of seven different Biblical manuscripts.Dated paleographically to the sixth century by the Alands.Von Soden classified it as Ib;the Alands place it in Category III.The Nestle-Aland edition does not often cite it, but in five of the sixinstances where it is cited, it goes against the Byzantine text.
St. Petersburg, Russian National Library Gr. 6 III, folios 7-12.Tischendorf's I(3); Von Soden's ε2.Contains Matthew 14:13-16, 19-23, 24:37-25:1, 25:32-45, 26:31-45,Mark 9:14-22, 14:58-70 (with some defects in the Markan leaves).Palimpsest; the upper text is a Georgian calendar. This 28-leaf documentcontains palimpsest fragments of seven different Biblical manuscripts.Dated paleographically to the sixth century by the Alands.Von Soden classified it as I' in Matthew, Iα in Mark;the Alands place it in Category III"influenced by V" (whatever that means).
London, British Library MS. Additional 17136, folios 117 and 126.Tischendorf's Ib, Scrivener's Nb; Von Soden's ε3.Contains John 13:16-17, 19-20, 23-24, 26-27,16:7-9, 12-13, 15-16, 18-19.Double palimpsest; the upper texts are Syriac, with the toptext being hymns of Severus.Dated paleographically to the fifth century by the Alands; Tischendorfcould not decide whether it was fourth or fifth century.Von Soden classified it as H;the Alands place it in Category III.This seems about right; based on the Nestle apparatus, it has someAlexandrian readings, but seems a little more Byzantine than anything else.Its most noteworthy reading may be in John 13:24, where it agrees withB C L 33 892 in reading και λεγει αυτω ειπε τις εστινagainst P66 ℵ A (D) W Byz UBS3.
University of Chicago, Oriental Institute 2057. Formerly Haskell Oriental Museum, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 3. Recovered by Grenfell and Hunt and granted to the University of Chicago in 1904. Originally designated Tg; von Soden's ε12. Dated paleographically to the fifth (so the KListe) or sixth century. A single folio, mutilated, with seven lines remaining out of probably about 25 per page as originally written. Contains portions of Mark 10:50, 51, 11:11, 12. Von Soden classified it as K; the Alands, somewhat surprisingly, make it Category III. This even though Clark reports "No variant from ς," which would imply a purely Byzantine text -- and Clark's assessment appears correct. The only reading for which it is cited in NA26 and later editions is Mark 11:11, where it reads οψιας along with A B D K N W Γ Δ Θ Ψ Byz. UBS4 lists it as a witness but does not list any variants in the part of Mark for which it is extant. Legg lists it as reading αναστας in Mark 10:50 with A C W Byz against αναπηδησας of the modern editions, omitting λεγει αυτω ο Ιησους with A W Byz in 10:51, and omitting θελεις ποιησω σοι with A D W Byz in 10:51.
Harvard University, Semitic Museum Papyrus 3735. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 401. Recovered by Grenfell and Hunt and granted to Harvard in 1904. Von Soden's ε015. Dated paleographically to the fifth or sixth century. A single folio, one column, 13 lines per column. Contains portions of Matthew 1:21-24 and 1:25-2:2. Von Soden classified it as H; Clark says it goes with ℵ. the Alands assign it to Category II, although it doesn't have any of their sample readings. It is cited only three times in the Nestle apparatus, agreeing with ℵ B Z in all three readings.
Pierpont Morgan Library (New York), Pap. G. 8 (Amherst VIII). It had a complex history before it reached its present home. Recovered by Grenfell and Hunt, it went into the collection of Lord Amherst of Norfolk; after his death in 1909, Morgan acquired it in 1913. Von Soden's α1008; also briefly designated יa. Dated paleographically to the fifth or sixth century. A single folio, of medium size, two columns, 23 lines per column. Contains portions of Acts 2:11-22. It reportedly has suffered more damage since being found. Von Soden classified it as H. the Alands assign it to Category II. The Nestle apparatus cites it only twice (Acts 2:12, 17). In the first reading, it agrees with ℵ A B; in the latter, only with B. Grenfell and Hunt, however, thought they read a reading that agreed with D against B, so perhaps it should be given a more detailed examination.
Currenty Saint Petersburg, Russian National Library Greek 714 (formerly at Cairo).Tischendorf's Tk; Scrivener's Tg; Von Soden'sε23.Contains a small fragment of Matthew, 20:3-32, 22:3-16.Dated paleographically tothe sixth century by most authorities, though Scrivener allows the possibility ofa seventh century date. He notes that the letters resemble Coptic.Textually, it is regarded as Alexandrian; Von Soden lists it as H, whilethe Alands place it in Category II. A spotcheck seems to show a mixed manuscript; looking at the places in Matthew 22 whereNA27 cites 085 explicitly, we find 32 cited readings of 085, of which16 agree with ℵ,16 with B, 19 with D, 22 with L, 17 with Θ,and 12 with the majority text; a couple of readings are subsingular.
Saint Petersburg, Russian National Library. 095 is MS. Greek 17;0123 is the first folios of MS. Greek 49.095 is Von Soden's α1002 andTischendorf/Scrivener Ga; 0123 is Von Soden'sα1014 (Gregory 70apl,possibly Scrivener 72apl, though Scrivener's list gives a ninth centurydate and gives the contents incorrectly. Scrivener also lists it as apalimpsest,but the Alands simply list it as fragments; one must assume that portions of thismanuscript, so fragmented as to be mistaken for a lectionary, are partly palimpsest).Scrivener dates it to the seventh century, but the Alands describe it as beingfrom the eighth. Scrivener reports that the portion known as 095 (his G orGa) was "written in thick uncials withoutaccents, torn from the wooden cover of a Syriac book." 095 containsActs 2:45-3:8. The portion known as 0123 consistsof fragments with parts of Acts 2:22-28. It is difficult to assessthe manuscript's type because ofits small size. Von Soden listed 095 as H (Alexandrian), and the Alandslist it as Category III, while Scriveneradmits "a few rare and valuable readings." If we examine the apparatusof Nestle-Aland27, we find the manuscript cited explicitly onlysix times; in these, it agrees with A and C five times (and with P74in all four readings for which both are extant); with E,Ψ, 33, and 1739 fourtimes; with the Majority Text three times; and withℵ, B, and Dtwice. If such a small sample means anything at all, it would seem to implya late Alexandrian witness.
Grottaferrata, Biblioteca della Badia Z' α' 24.Tischendorf Rp. Von Soden'sα1025.Palimpsest, containing only 2 Corinthians 11:9-19. The upper writing isthe Iliad. Dated by the Alands to the seventh century; Scrivener (whogives the catalog number as Z' β1) says seventh or eighth. Withsuch a small amount of text, it is hard to assess the manuscript, butvon Soden considered it to be non-Byzantine, although he couldn't decidewhether it was H or I. The Alands give it the amazing status of aCategory I manuscript. This is quitesurprising given that they cite it only twice, and neither reading isparticularly unusual although neither one is Byzantine.
Rome, Vatican Library Greek 2302.Tischendorf/Scrivener Gb; Von Soden'sα1005.Palimpsest, six folios(only five of which had been discovered byScrivener's time), consisting of pp. 65-66, 69-72, 75-76,79-94 of the upper manuscript (a menaeon). The manuscript consistsof Acts 16:30-17:17, 17:27-29, 31-34,18:8-26.The date of the manuscript is most uncertain; the date listed inScrivener (apparently from Gregory) is fourth century (with a questionmark); the Alands date the manuscript to the ninth century! (In favour ofthe later date is the fact that the Alands will have examined the manuscriptusing more modern methods.)
0120 is rarely cited; it is not, e.g., a "constant witness"in the Nestle-Aland text. We are, as a result, largely dependent on theclassifications of others. The Alands list 0120 asCategory III. Von Soden listed it as Ib1,which (if accurate) is very interesting; Ib1 is the groupcontaining witnesses such as 206 429 522. In other words, in Acts, this isa weaker branch of Family 1739. Unfortunately, we must remind ourselves thatVon Soden's results are anything but reliable, particularly for fragments.Clearly a more thorough examination is called for.
0121: London. British Museum Harley 5613.
0243 (Corinthian portion): Venice. San Marco Library 983 (II 181)
0243 (Hebrews portion): Hamburg. Univ. Libr. Cod. 50 in scrin.
As currently designated (the designations have changed over time):
Henke, who first published the Hebrews portion (the first to be found),believed it to be the two outer leaves of a six-leaf quire. He noted thatit uses only a single point as punctuation, except that there is a singleinstance of an interrogative mark. It has accents and breathings, but noiota adscript. This portion was known as Codex Uffenbachianus, afterM. von Uffenbach, its first known possessor, who suggested a seventh oreighth century date. Wettstein gave an eleventh century date. Henke movedthis back to the ninth century. Since then, we've reached a sort ofcompromise: both 0121 and 0243 generally dated to the tenth century(so, e.g. NA27).
G. Zuntz, however (The Text of the Epistles, London, 1953, pp. 74,286-287) states that 0121 "is by no means an 'uncial': its lettersare the kind of majuscule which scribes of the tenth and later centuriesoften used to distinguish marginal scholia from the text. In M [=0121]these majuscules contain a significant admixture of minuscule forms....I should ascribe M to the twelfth century." (See facsimile at right.)
Both 0121 and 0243 are written in red ink on parchment, two columns per page,which explains why their contents were confused for a time.
Facsimile of 2 Cor. 1:3-5 in 0121 (after Scrivener).Colors are exaggerated andmanuscript is enlarged. The unaccented text reads
ΠΑΡΑΚΛΗΣΕΩΣ • Ο ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΩΝ
ΗΜΑΣ Ε&PiΙ ΠΑΣΗ ΤΗΙ ΘΛΙΨΕΙ • ΕΙΣ ΤΟ
ΔΥΑΝΣΘΑΙ ΗΜΑΣ ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΕΙΝ
ΤΟΥΣ ΕΝ ΠΑΣΗ ΘΛΙΨΕΙ ΔΙΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑ
ΡΑΚΛΗΣΕΩΣ ΗΣ ΠΑΡΕΚΑΛΟΥΜΕ
ΘΑ ΑΥΤΟΙ ΥΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΘΥ • ΟΤΙ ΚΑΘΩΣ
Before we can describe these manuscripts, we must describe their recent history.When first two portions of the manuscript (what we now call 0121 and theHebrews portion of 0243) were discovered, it was observed that both wereof about the same date, that both were in red ink, that they had similartexts, and that both were in two columns on parchment. It was naturallyassumed that they were the same. In Tischendorf, the fragments were referredto as M. In the Gregory catalog, this became 0121. Then Birdsall observedthat the two were in distinct hands. So the Corinthian portion became 0121aand the Hebrews portion 0121b. They were cited in this way in NA26.
Of course, many manuscripts are written by more than one scribe. This was not really proofthat they were originally separate. But more was forthcoming.
At about the same time Birdsall discovered that the two were by differentscribes, the larger (Corinthian) portion of 0243 came to light. Some time later,it was realized that this was part of the same manuscript as 0121b. This finally proved that0121a and 0121b were separate (since 0121a and 0243 overlap). So 0121b wasrenumbered 0243 and 0121a became 0121. This is how things are cited in NA27.
If this is confusing, maybe this table will help:
|Contents||Tischendorf Symbol||Gregory Symbol||NA26 symbol||NA27 symbol|
|1 Cor. 15:42-end, 2 Cor. 1:1-15, 10:13-12:5||M||0121||0121a||0121|
|Heb. 1:2-4:3, 12:20-end||M||0121||0121b||0243|
|1 Cor. 13:4-end and all of 2 Cor.||-||-||0243||0243|
In all this shuffling, one thing remains certain: Both manuscripts areclosely affiliated with 1739. 0243 is a probably a first cousin (perhapseven a sister); 0121 is a cousin or descendant.
Several striking examples of agreements between 0243 and 1739 may becited. Perhaps the most noteworthy is Hebrews 2:9, where 0243, 1739*, andperhaps 424**, alone among Greek manuscripts, readΧΩΡΙΣ ΘΕΟΥinstead of the majority readingΧΑΡΙΤΙ ΘΕΟΥ.
The reader who wishes further details, including a comparison of thereadings of 0121 and 1739, is referred to the entry on1739 and family 1739.
Von Soden lists 0121 as H. Aland and Aland list 0121a asCategory III and the Corinthian portion of0243 as Category II (its sister 1739 is,however, a Category I). 0121b is stillin their list, and is Category III (!).
For 0121: von Soden: α1031. Tischendorf: Mp
J.N. Birdsall, A Study of MS. 1739 and its Relationship to MSS.6, 424, 1908, and M (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 1959)
A collation of the Hebrews portion of0243 is available here.
(I know of none in the standard editions; Scrivener has a facsimile)
Editions which cite:
Cited in NA26 as 0121a, 0121b, and 0243.
Cited in UBS3 as 0121a, 0121b, and 0243.
Cited in NA27 as 0121 and 0243.
Cited in UBS4 as 0121 and 0243.
Von Soden, Merk, and Bover cite the "M" portions.
Saint Petersburg, Russian Pubic Library Greek 32. Soden'sα1030; Tischendorf/Scrivener N(p); Hort's Od.Two folios containing small fragments of Paul:Gal. 5:12-6:4, Heb. 5:8-6:10.Dated paleographically to the ninth century. Textually, the Alandshave assigned it to Category III,but Von Soden listed it as K (purely Byzantine), and the latterassessment seems to be correct. An examination of its readingsin Galatians reveals the following departures from the Byzantinetext:
|Verse||Byzantine reading||0122(*) reads||comment|
|5:12||αναστατουντες||0122* ανασταντουντες||singular; probable copying error at some stage|
|5:14||εαυτον||0122* σεαυτον||Byzantine text divided|
|5:17||α αν||0122* α εαν||also found in ℵ A pc|
|5:22||δε||0122c omits||singular reading|
|5:23||εγκρατεια||0122c εγκρατεεια υπομονη||singular reading|
|5:24||Ιησου Χριστου||01221 Χριστου Ιησου||0122*, 01222 with the Byzantine text|
|6:1||προληφθη||0122c προσληφθη||singular reading|
|6:3||τι||0122c omits||subsingular, found also in B* 075c|
It will thus be observed that all deviations from the Byzantine text arerelatively trivial and generally poorly supported. I have not examined theportion in Hebrews in detail, but the Nestle apparatus makes it appear that 0122is equally Byzantine there. It will be observed that the manuscript has beenfairly heavily corrected (observe the double correction in Gal. 5:24), butthe corrections have no more significance than the original text; indeed,in this admittedly tiny sample they seem simply to be more idiosyncratic.
St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek 18 (pp. 143-146); Stiftsbibliothek 45 (pp. 1-2); Zürich, Central Library MS. C.57 (folios 5, 74, 93, 135).Von Soden's ε80; Tischendorf's Wc. Dated paleographically to the ninth century. Palimpsest (except for part of St. Gall 18 p. 146 which was not erased); the upper text of St. Gall 18 is a twelfth century Vulgate psalter; St. Gall 45 is a thirteenth century Vulgate; the Zürich portion also has a thirteenth century upper text. Von Soden classified it as I', which in a fragment so short probably means only that it is not purely Byzantine. The Alands list it as Category III "influenced" by V (in other words, mostly but not entirely Byzantine) but offer no statistics about its text. Legg cited it only for Mark 2:8-16. Very likely originated in St. Gall, where Greek was still used (if poorly understood) long after it had been forgotten in the rest of the western church; St. Gall 18 also includes (p. 4) sample Greek uncial and minuscule alphabets, presumably to help scribes read or learn them.
Current location unknown. Formerly at Damascus, Kubbet et Chazne.Von Soden's ε013.Fragment of a commentary manuscript, with the only surviving portion beingJohn 6:26-31. Dated to the seventh century. Von Soden tentativelyclassified it as a K (Byzantine) manuscript but with a possibility thatit was H (Alexandrian). The Alands list it as Category III but offer no statisticsabout its text. With so little text to work with, we cannot really hopeto offer a judgment -- but we observe that it has the Byzantine reading in theonly place in NA27 where it is cited (John 6:29). There are threereadings in SQE13; two are Byzantine and one is subsingular. Probablywe should simply call the manuscript "unclassifiable."
The manuscript may have had a complex history. Found by Grenfell and Hunt, and numbered Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1352, it was granted to Bonebrake Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, in 1924, but was not to be found there when Clark looked for it in the 1930s. But it's now in the United Theological Seminary in Dayton, the successor of Bonebrake. Also, apparently someone wanted to number it P25 before it was noticed that it wasn't on papyrus! Contains 1 Peter 5:5-13. Dated to the fourth century. The writing is said to be large and somewhat similar to ℵ. The surviving page is described as damaged and worm-eaten by Clark, but most of the original page survives. The Alands list it as Category III but do not cite it in the Nestle-Aland edition.
New Haven, Yale University Library P. Dura 10. 0212 is not technically a New Testament manuscript; rather, it is a fragment of a gospel harmony. It was discovered in the ruins of Dura Europus in 1933. Since Dura was a Roman fortress town sacked by Shapur I of Persia in 256/7 C.E., the assumption is that the manuscript was written in the first half of the third century, though an earlier date cannot be excluded. The fragment was found in an earth embankment believed to have been built for the final defense of the town. It was fairly close to a small Christian chapel, but far enough away that it may have come from some other source. Physically, the surviving fragment (usually regarded as only a portion of a leaf, though the edges are sharp andsome seem to have been cut with a knife) measures 10.5 cm by 9.5 cm. It is written on only one side, and may well have come from a scroll. (The most recent study of the manuscript, D. C. Parker, D. G. K. Taylor, M. S. Goodacre, "The Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony," published in Taylor, Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts, concludes that it is definitely a scroll, not a codex, based on observations of holes along one edge which seemingly correspond to stitches. I think this very likely, but I would not consider it definitive; the holes do appear to be there, but they might arise from, say, pricking lines to align the text, and the manuscript would naturally tear where pricked.) The surviving column originally contained about 30-35 letters per line (with the first five or more letters lost, and with additionaldamage to certain of the lines). Portions of fourteen lines survive, although the last two lines, especially the very last one, are almost gone, and the five lines above that all have damage; depending on who is reading it and how confident they are in their eyesight, there are probably fewer than 250 letters all told (I personally counted 171 that I thought legible in the photograph). As noted, it is a gospel harmony, containing phrases seemingly from Matt. 27:56-57, Mark 15:40, 42, Luke 23:49, 50, 51, John 19:38. (So Kraeling, who first edited the manuscript; for this transcription, see e.g. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, p. 66. The reconstruction of Parker, Taylor, and Goodacre, found in the article cited above, differs in only a few particulars, though some of the differences are significant). The manuscript has some unusual orthographic features, including the Nominum Sacrum στα -- an abbreviation found nowhere else, with uncertain meaning.
0212 has generally been regarded as a fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron, though the small size of the fragment meant that this was never certain. Parker, Taylor, and Goodacre, upon detailed examination and comparison with recent studies, are convinced that the fragment is not Tatianic, but is a fragment of a separate Gospel harmony (perhaps devoted solely to the passion narrative), compiled in Greek from Greek sources.
Since 0212 is not a New Testament fragment, the Alands did not analyse it, and it is too recent to have been analysed by Von Soden. It appears to contain a unique reading in Luke 23:49, referring to the wives of Jesus's disciples. This text is, however, only partly legible.
High-resolution scans are available on the Yale University site at http://findit.library.yale.edu/catalog/digcoll:2771873?_ga=2.75253143.486184954.1556201867-1963971293.1556201867.
Vienna, Austrian National Library, P. Vindobonensis 26083 and 36113.As the catalog numbers indicate, it consists of two fragments, which were foundseparately. The first one found contained Romans 2:21-23; the second, Romans 3:23-25, 27-30. The first fragment has portions of eight lines, the second has portions of ten; it is thought the original had two columns per page, with 26 lines per column. Found inthe Fayyum. Dated paleographically to the fifth century by Treu; the Alands say fourthor fifth. The full text is printed in in G. H. R. Horsley, New DocumentsIllustrating Early Christianity, 2, 1982, p. 134. The Alands place it inCategory III.It is cited for only two readings in NA28, and even those are uncertain; itappears in Romans 3:8 to add εφ ημας after ελθη along with 81 a and the bohairic (the actual surviving text is εφ η; the rest is missing), and it appears to omit της before πιστεως in Romans 3:25 along with ℵ C* D* F G 365 1505 1506 1739 1881. This reading is based solely onspace considerations; the manuscript has the first two letters of the preceding δια but nothing else. Horsley also things that, in 3:30, it has επειπερ along with ℵc D* F G L P 33 1175 1505 1881 Byz rather than ειπερ of ℵ A B C 6 81 365 1506 1739, but this argument is based entirely upon space considerations; NA28 refuses to cite it for this variant, and given that there are only two letters per line at that point in the parchment, I think this correct. If these readings are correct, though, what we have is a mixed text -- one reading found elsewhere mostly in late Alexandrian texts, one that is perhaps originally "Western," one Byzantine.
Based on codicological considerations, Treu believed that this manuscript contained only the Pauline Epistles, but Horsley has shown that this was a miscalculation. All that is certain (or nearly) is that Romans began at the top of a page, very likely the first page.
See: 0121 and 0243
Fromerly at Damascus, Kubbet el Chazne, but it had vanished from sighteven before the troubles in Syria. Fortunately, it had been carefullyexamined before it was lost. Tiny fragment containing Luke 10:19-22. A verynarrow column of parchment; the full height of the page (31 cm.) has beenpreserved, but only about 9 cm. of a page width estimated at 25 cm.The Greek text is of the sixth century; it was overwritten (without beingerased) by an Arabic religious text. The hand is quite large, there are14 lines per page. Only about seven letters per line have been preserved.The line lengths (based on the full text printed in G. H. R.Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 2, 1982, p. 128)are very irregular; excluding one short line, those on the recto range from one lineof twelve letters to two of seventeen letters, with the average being about fourteenletters per line. Thus we have about half the text of this one leaf.Based on the surviving portion, the use of the nomina sacra is veryinconsistent, although it may simply be that the scribe had a different list.Treu, who edited the piece, estimated that it would have required about 250 leavesjust to hold the Gospel of Luke, so it is almost certainly a copy of Luke alone,not of the four gospels. The Alands list it as Category V. The manuscript exists for only ahandful of variants:
It will be evident that 0253 does agree primarily with the Byzantine text. On the other hand, it does have one unusual reading, and this is a very short sample. On the gripping hand, it does not attest to any particularly significant or rare readings. The Aland declaration that it is Byzantine may not be entirely true. But it is certainly true that 0253 doesn't tell us much that is useful.
Lost. Formerly Damascus, Qubbat al-ḫazna (Kubbet el Chazne). Fortunately,B. Violet, who found it, photographed one side of it in 1901.Palimpsest, with Arabic upper writing. A single leaf with portions of Gal.5:13-17. In the photograph, there are twenty lines, of which eighteen arelegible. Dated paleographically to the fifth century. The surviving textis printed in G. H. R.Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 2, 1982, p. 137(although it incorrectly states that it contains Gal. 3:13-17).The Alands list it as Category I but offer no statistics -- andNA28 cites it for only one reading, Gal. 5:14, where it readsπεπληρωται with P46 ℵ A B C 0278 33 81 104 326 330 1175 1739against πληρουται of D F G K L P Ψ 056 075 6 1505 1611 1881 2495 Byz vg andανακεφαλαιουται of 365 1319 1573 (i.e. Family 1319/2127). But there are many variantsin these verses, and it appears 0254 agrees with the NA/UBS text in all of them (and withB everywhere except in 5:14, where B* has αγαπησις instead of αγαπησεις, a readingcorrected in Bc). Little surprise, then, that the Alands like it a lot.It is so short, however, that it really adds very little to our knowledge. It wouldbe fascinating if it could be found and its other side read.
Berlin, Staatliche Museen, P. 3605. Thought to be from the Fayum.A strange almost-square leaf, with very small pages (about 8 cm. high by 9 cm. wide), andone page blank; it has been suggested that it was a school practice exercise(although I wonder if it wasn't a leftover scrap that someone was using totest an ink or something). The text contains 1 Timothy 1:4-5, 6-7.The surviving text is printed in G. H. R.Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 2, 1982, p. 137.Dated paleographically to the sixth century. The Alands list it as Category III but do not cite it in NA28.The manuscript has an interesting and somewhat unusual mark, ``, to mark sensebreaks. The only variant in NA28 to which it attests is
1:4 -- οικονομιαν ℵ A F G K L P Ψ 33 81 365 1505 1739 1881 Byz versus οικοδομην D(2) a b d vg.
0259 does have one unique reading in 1:6, where it has εξετραπτησαν for εξετραπησαν (which might just be a scribal error).
There are a few other variants in these verses where one uncial, or the related uncials FG, deviate from the reading of NA28, but the uncials ℵ A L Ψ 056 075 0142 and the minuscules 223 876 1739 1022 1960 all agree with 0259 for every reading it has, and D agrees with it for every reading except the variant in 1:4. Thus any classification of the manuscript is really pretty meaningless; agreement about the reading of these verses is too close to universal.
Berlin, Staatliche Museen, P. 5542. Tiny fragment containing a fewletters of John 1:30-32 on one side, and a Fayyumic Coptic text of John 1:16-18on the other. The full Greek text, but not the Coptic, is printed in G. H. R.Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 2, 1982, p. 131.It begins with [γεγο]νεν [οτι] πρω[το]ς and ends with τυρησεν Ιςαννη[ς]Portions of just sixteen lines survive, with no more than seven extant letters per line;four or five is more typical, and some have fewer. It seems likely that it was originallyin two columns, but this cannot be certain -- the extant columns are very narrow, typically six or seven letters per column, so there might well have been many columns.(Indeed, were it not for the fact that both Greek and Coptic are from near the beginningof John, I might have speculated that this was a scroll with Greek on one side and Copticon the other.)Dated to the sixth century. The Alands tentatively list it as Category III but offer no statistics. The only common variant to which it appears to testify is in John 1:30; it omits τω before υδατι with P45vid P66 P75 ℵ B C G L P T Wsupp Θ Ψ 0233 f1 33 69 579 788 892 1241 1424; A E F H K N Γ Δ Ω 13 346 543 565 700 1006 1342 1506 pm add the article. Although most Byzantine manuscripts include τω, enough omit it that this single variant really tells us nothing at all about the manuscript's type.
Berlin, Staatliche Museen, P. 6791, 6792, 14043.Three fragments containing parts of Galatians1:9-12, 19-22, 4:25-27, 28-31. The two fragments containing chapter 1 are from asingle leaf, one fragment containing eleven lines, the other seven, from the middleand lower portions of the leaf; the portion from chapter 4 contains twenty linesand is from the upper part of the leaf. It appears that there were two columns perpage and probably 25 lines per column. On this basis Turner believe that the fragmentsare from the first and seventh leaves of a single quaternion, but I don't think thiscan be regarded as proved.The full Greek text is printed in G. H. R.Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 2, 1982, p. 136; mostof it can also be reconstructed from Reuben Swanson's New Testament Greek Manuscripts:Galatians.Dated paleographically to the fifth century. Horsley calls it Alexandrian,but the Alands list it as a mereCategory III. Its use of the nomina sacra iscuriously inconsistent, and the line lengths are curiously irregular; the columnsseem to have been narrow, from a minimum of about nine to a maximum of about thirteenletters; eleven or twelve letters is typical. This wide variation makes it difficultto judge add/omit variants on the basis of space (e.g. in Gal. 1:10, add/omit γαρbetween ει and ετι, adding the conjunction gives us a line of 14 letters, omitting gives us 11. In 1:11, δε gives us twelve or thirteen letters in the line, γαρ or ουν thirteen or fourteen. The shorter readings are more probable but by no means sure).
The only readings for which it is cited in NA28 are:
Berlin, Staatliche Museen, P. 13977. A small scrap of parchment, 7.5 cm. tall by 12 cm. wide, with two columns oftext with six lines in each column. The writing is on the flesh side only;the hair side is blank. It has been suggested that it was part of an amulet. The text contains 1 Timothy 1:15-16, preceded by the mark of a cross.The surviving text is printed in G. H. R.Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 2, 1982, p. 138.Dated paleographically to about the seventh century. Horsley says the orthographyis "very poor," and the use of the nomina sacra inconsistent.I would consider "very poor" to be a kind description of the orthography;as an extreme example, the first words of 1:15 are [πισ]τος ω λλοκος instead of πιστος ο λογος. Also it has ομ for ων and ιμιν and ειμι; in verse 16, it spells αλλα as αλα, τουτο as τατο, and so forth. My strong suspicion is that the copyistwas copying from dictation -- and very likely was not entirely fluent in Greek.The Alands list it as Category III, but NA28 cites it for onlyone reading, in 1 Timothy 1:16. The manuscript in that verse readsΧϹ[..]ΤΗΝ, which NA28 interprets as Χριστος Ιησους την,the reading of A D* H Ψ 33 81 104 326 365 629 1175, as opposed to theΙησους Χριστος την of ℵ D2 K L P 1505 Byz orΙησους την of F G 1022 1739 1881. But given 0262's inconsistent use of the nominasacra, this reading must be regarded as uncertain (and indeed NA28marks it as vid). There is one other unique reading in 1:15, where0262 has αποτοχης for αποδοχης, but this might be another mis-hearing.
This really isn't much to go on; despite the Alands' categorization, we can't saymuch about the textual affiliations of 0262.
Berlin, Staatliche Museen, P. 14045. Tiny fragment containing a fewletters of Mark 5:26-27, 31 (based on the full text printed in G. H. R.Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 2, 1982, p. 127,there are just 40 extant letters, and a few of which are uncertain). It ispart of a single leaf, probably of one column with about 17 or 18 lines perpage. Dated to the sixth century.The Alands do not even attempt to classify it. In Mark 5:26, it hasthe reading εις το [χειρον], as in ℵ A B C L W Δ 33 892 Byz,as against επι το... in D Θ 565, and in 5:31 it has [συνλιθ]βοντα with allmajor witnesses as against the συνπνιγοντα of 565(=Luke 8:42), but thesereadings tell us little except that the text is probably not "Western"or "Cæsarean;" we cannot tell if it is Alexandrian, Byzantine,or something else.
Berlin, Staatliche Museen, P. 14049. Fragment containing John 8:19-20, 23-24 (based on the full text printed in G. H. R.Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 2, 1982, p. 133).A tiny scrap of a single sheet of what appears to have been quite a small codex;seven lines survive of what are estimated to have been eighteen lines per sheet.The surviving text comes from the inner edge of the leaf.The lines appear to have averaged about twenty letters (although there is a lotof variation), but in no case do as many as ten letters survive on an individual line.I count 88 surviving letters, some of them not fully legible. It is datedpaleographically to the fifth century.In 8:24, it has ουν, which is omitted by P66 ℵ 543 a e but found in B etc. and it appears to agree with B etc. in omitting μοι, which is added by ℵD Θ f13 e. There is also a peculiar reading in verse 23, which Horsley says isan accidental omission of υμεις εκ τουτου του κοσμου, but there are variations in word order here; I do not think we can form a firm conclusion as to its reading. Horsleyconcludes that it "clearly sides with the Alexandrian [text]," but theAlands describe it as too short to place in anyCategory, and in this instance, I think they are right.
Berlin, Staatliche Museen, P. 16994. Tiny fragment containing a fewletters of Luke 7:20-21, 34-35 (based on the full text printed in G. H. R.Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 2, 1982, p. 127,there are just 53 extant letters, and many even of those are uncertain). It isthe bottom of a single leaf, probably in two columns with about 24 lines perpage; the surviving text is from the bottom five lines.Dated to the sixth century. The Alands tentatively list it as Category V but offer no statistics. Itis extant for only one reading cited in NA28, in Luke 7:21, whereit has [αuτη δ]ε τη ωρα -- which, if the reconstruction is right, agrees withA D K Γ Δ Θ Byz against the Alexandrian reading εκεινη τα ωρα of P75ℵ B L W 892. (There is also some text of a variant in Luke 7:35, but notenough to be sure of the original reading). On this basis it has been said thatthe manuscript is not Byzantine, but of course it's just one reading. We reallydon't have enough information to say anything useful about it.
Berlin, Staatliche Museen, P. 17034. Very long, narrow fragmentcontaining bits of Luke 20:19-25, 30-39. Dated paleographically to thesixth century. There are two fragments which contain fragments of twentylines, out of an estimated 33-34 lines per page. The surviving scraps are fromthe upper part of the leaf. The reconstruction by Treu (reprinted in G. H. R.Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 2, 1982, p. 129)shows about 30 letters per line, but on many lines only three or four letterssurvive, making it very hard to know just where the line breaks actually fell.The Alands list it as Category III but offer no statistics. In fact ittestifies to the following variants
This is obviously a small sample, and many of the readings are very uncertain, but it is clear that 0266 is not Byzantine, and it does not agree at all with D. We note that, apart from some probably singular readings, the only place where it disagrees with B is in 20:24, ad even there, it is close to ℵ. On the evidence, the Alands' decision to place it in Category III is too low; it should surely be Category II or even Category I. However, given the limited amount of text and the high degree of uncertainty of the readings, it must be admitted that 0266 is of very little use to us.
Berlin, Staatliche Museen, P. 6790. Tiny fragment containing a fewletters of John 1:30-33. The full text is printed in G. H. R.Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 2, 1982, pp. 131-132.This fragment contains parts of 17 lines (seven of them so damaged that no text at allcan be reliably read; the Alands therefore list it as having only ten lines).It appears the text originally averaged11-12 letters per line, but I count only 59 surviving letters, many of them onlypartially legible; some lines are completely obliterated, and none appear to have morethan eight surviving letters. Treu, who edited it, dates it to the sixth or seventhcentury; the Alands say the seventh. It has been suggested that it was part of a miniaturecopy of the Gospel of John. The surviving text contains an illustration of an embellishedcross; it has been suggested that this is some sort of place marker, but I wonder if itmight not be some sort of illumination.The Alands freely admit that there is too little text to classify. The only readings to which it appears to offer any testimony at all is are:
Clearly there isn't much to be learned from this fragment.