Rodenbiker on the Canon List in Claromontanus

Kelsie Rodenbiker has a helpful article clarifying some issues about the odd canon list in Codex Claromontanus (the so-called Catalogus Claromontanus). The pre-pub was uploaded back in March and is available here but it looks like the JSNT version isn’t out yet.

For context, here is the NT list of books with stichometry (copied from here).

Evangelia .IIII.		Four Gospels:
Mattheum ver.	ĪĪDC	Matthew	2600
Iohannes ver.	ĪĪ	John	2000
Marcus ver.	ĪDC	Mark	1600
Lucam ver.	ĪĪDCCCC	Luke	2900
Epistulas Pauli		Epistles of Paul:
ad Romanos ver.	ĪXL	To Romans	1040
ad Chorintios .I. ver.	ĪLX	To Corinthians 1	1060
ad Chorintios .II. ver.	LXX	To Corinthians 2	70
ad Galatas ver.	CCCL	To Galatians	350
ad Efesios ver.	CCCLXV	To Ephesians	365
ad Timotheum .I. ver.	CCVIII	To Timothy 1	209
ad Timotheum .II. ver.	CCLXXXVIIII	To Timothy 2	289
ad Titum ver.	CXL	To Titus	140
ad Colosenses ver.	CCLI	To Colossians	251
ad Filimonem ver.	L	To Philemon	50
—ad Petrum prima	CC	—To Peter 1	200
ad Petrum .II. ver.	CXL	To Peter 2	140
Jacobi ver.	CCXX	Of James	220
Pr. Iohanni Epist.	CCXX	Of John	220
Iohanni Epistula .II.	XX	Of John 2	20
Iohanni Epistula .III.	XX	Of John 3	20
Iudae Epistula ver.	LX	Of Jude	60
—Barnabae Epist. ver.	DCCCL	—Of Barnabas	850
Iohannis Revelatio	ĪCC	Revelation of John	1200
Actus Apostolorum	ĪĪDC	Acts of the Apostles	2600
—Pastoris versi	ĪĪĪĪ	—Shepherd	4000
—Actus Pauli ver.	ĪĪĪDLX	—Acts of Paul	3560
—Revelatio Petri	CCLXX	—Revelation of Peter	270

And here are images from the BnF.

She clarifies a few things that seem to have been missed or forgotten thanks, in part, to Tischendorf’s original transcription. In particular, she argues that (1) the lines (obeli?) before the four NT books (there is also one before Judith too that is often missed) are probably later than the original hand; (2) the line before 1 Peter is not a paragraphos (contra Metzger) but marks the odd title to 1 Peter which she (rightly in my view) accounts for as a scribe’s mistake due to the repetition of ad in the Pauline letters just before; (3) following Metzger, the omission of Philippians, 1–2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews is best explained by homoioteleuton from Ephesians (εφεσιους) to Hebrews (εβραιους) if the list was originally in Greek.

From this she concludes that we shouldn’t see the original list as equivalent to our current NT. Instead, it’s a witness to “the continuing elasticity of the New Testament canon” in the 6th century. Of course, we don’t know how much later the lines (obeli?) are from the original scribe and the fact that the NT list doesn’t match the very books in Claromontanus raises questions for me about the purpose (and weight) of the list in its current form. 

In any case, Rodenbiker’s main contribution is to remind us of the line at Judith, to argue that the lines are later, and to offer a better explanation for the line at 1 Peter. On all three points, I think she’s right.

---

Update: Meade reminds me that he covered some of this ground in his Myths and Mistakes chapter.