Friday, September 03, 2010

A Variant or an Explanation?

I am currently in the middle of looking at the Byzantine lexicographic tradition and came across a nice instance where a lexical gloss might be misinterpreted as a textual variant. It is found at 2 Tim 3:17 where NA27 reads in the apparatus for ἄρτιος: τελειος D* ex lat? ¦ υγιης τελειος 104mg (i.e. glossa).
Especially the gloss in 104 is interesting as υγιης, τελειος is the standard wording in the Byzantine lexical tradition to explain ἄρτιος (with some morphological variation), e.g. Suida α 4045 Ἀρτίως: τελείως, ὑγιῶς.

There are a number of possibilities why the gloss of minuscule 104 is cited in NA27:
1) The scribe of 104 misunderstood a lexical gloss for a textual variant,
2) Modern editors misunderstood a lexical gloss for a textual variant (or decided to stay on the safe side and include the gloss because it could possibly be a variant),
3) Minuscule 104 is mentioned here in an attempt to explain the reading of D as deriving from a lexical gloss.

I am somewhat in the dark here.


  1. Given that D/06 is Gk-Latin, I suspect influence from the latter.

    Apparently the Latin MSS unitedly read "perfectus" here -- a term related to the more common TELEIOS (cf. the instances of TELEIOS = PERFECTUS at Mt 5:48; 19:21; Php 3:12; Jas 3:2; 1Jn 4:18).

    This, coupled with the fact that ARTIOS is hapax in the NT, could easily lead the scribe of D/06 to alter his Greek (perhaps subconsciously) on the basis of his more familiar Latin.

    While the margin of the XIth century 104 may well represent a lexicographical gloss, I wouldn't think the same occurred in the VIth century with D/06.

  2. Since the reading is so rare, wouldn't that suggest that 104 was influenced by D?

    After all, D was handled repreatedly throughout the ages and its contents examined, consulted, corrected, etc.

    It seems certain that two MSS copied the PA from D already.


  3. More on 104: Included in the manuscript is a Greek glossary which contains this particular explanation of αρτιος, which makes this glossary the most probable source of the marginal note earlier in the same manuscript.

  4. Nazaroo,
    D 06 (2 Timothy) is not to be confused with D 05 (John).

    But on a related note, the Greek text of the Johannine Comma in the diglot Codex Ottobonianus (629) appears to be heavily corrected in the central margin--to what? The only extant Greek copy of the Comma that could possibly be earlier is in the Greek translation of The Acts of the Lateran Council.
    image here

  5. Daniel, the whole Greek text of 629 is heavily corrected against the Latin column and probably also some other source. It contains many unique readings, and is a very special manuscript.

    One observation I did in Jude: The ECM of Jude records the addition to Jude 24 in 629*V, εν τη παρουσια του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου, which is also found in some Latin MSS. The editors reconstructed this reading on the basis of the Latin colum – it is impossible to see the underlying Greek of the first hand although it is certain that it has been corrected. I thought, however, that it was very difficult to fit in that amount of text in the Greek column, and since I also noted that the Greek column was certainly not always corrected to the Latin column, but corrections went in other directions as well, I thought it was unwarranted to print this reconstructed reading.

  6. Thanks, Tommy, for the further information on 629. Do I understand that this (obviously a harmonization to 1 Thes 5:23) was added to the end of v. 24? If so, was it just erased, or overwritten with something else?

  7. Daniel, yes it was added to v. 24. In the Greek column something was erased, and then text with very wide letters were written, but if I remember correctly, the large addition suggested in the ECM was difficult to fit in.

  8. Regarding the marginal corrections to the Comma in 629--they aren't corrections toward the Latin column. The two are exactly the same, other than the Greek addition of εἰς in v. 7 (probably through transposition with v. 8).

    Really, they hardly make sense as corrections. They appear to read:

    οἱ μοἱ < οἱ μαρ[τυροῦντες]
    οὐρανοἱ < οὐρανοῦ [NS]
    οἱ < ο
    τρ < τρ
    ἐπὶ < ἐπὶ
    τὸ αἷ < τυ αἷ[μα]