On the Possibility that GA 1506 May Not Have Omitted Romans 16:1–24 after All

The placement of the Romans doxology in GA 1506 has long created a good deal of confusion. This manuscript is a copy of John of Damascus’s edited collection of extracts from John Chrysostom’s Homilies on Romans. The biblical text is written in red ink, often very faint, especially in the microfilm images, while the commentary text is written in a darker ink that is much easier to read. 

The NA28 apparatus (in the variation unit on the doxology) tells us: “add p. 14,23 et p. 15,33 (sed om. 16,1–24) 1506.” This is also the reading provided in the IGNTP transcription, in Text und Textwert, and in the literature more generally. Some sources (e.g. Aland’s 1979 article “Der Schluß und die ursprüngliche Gestalt des Römerbriefs”) also point out that a blank space of half a page has been left for 16:1–24. 

Today, however, as I took another look at this “blank space,” I noticed something odd. Most of the text visible on the page is the result of ink bleedthrough from the other side of the folio. As such, the text is reversed. Yet in the margin, outside the block of transfer, a marginal note was visible, one in which the letters were facing the right direction and which therefore cannot be the result of ink bleedthrough or transfer: 

In examining other manuscripts of John of Damascus’s commentary (GA 2110 and GA 0150, identified by David Flood as members of the same family as GA 1506), I discovered that not only did they contain a form of this same marginal note but that this note was a gloss on the name Ἑρμᾶν in 16:14. 

Proportional to the overall length of 16:1–24, the placement of the marginal note in GA 1506 is about where it should be as a comment on this name, as it is in the other manuscripts. In other words, while it may be difficult (or even impossible) to identify any of the biblical text under the heavy ink transfer and ink bleed through with the microfilm images currently available, it is very likely that GA 1506, as originally copied, contained 16:1–24, just as do the other manuscripts of this commentary tradition. 

Therefore, rather than categorizing this as an omission, it is likely better classified as a lacuna due to illegibility (as Swanson already did). In any case, the presence of this marginal note at the correct place and in the same red ink used elsewhere for the lemmata makes it unlikely either that the exemplar of this manuscript was missing these verses or that the red ink used for the lemmata had run out (possibilities suggested by David Flood, “New Readings in GA 1506: A Fresh Analysis of Old Microfilm Scans”). 

The simplest explanation seems to be that the scribe did indeed copy these verses, but that the ink has now faded beyond recovery without better images. It may also be relevant that the page in question (330v) seems to be the final page of its quire, which could have resulted in more severe fading, either before the initial binding or at some subsequent rebinding.  

We really do need better images of the Athos manuscripts! 

Longacre on the larger differences between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the MT

Thanks to the still-humming ETC blogroll, I noticed that Drew Longacre just posted a short blog post at his OTTC site on the similarity of the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa-a) and the MT. This question became something of the flashpoint over the last year after the now famous Wes Huff interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast where he said it was word-for-word the same. 

Many counter-apologists jumped on this as misleading and it went round and round on the interweb (Wes later clarified in a video with John Meade). Apparently the issue is not dead since Bart Ehrman jumped into the fray this week. (I do not recommend you go down the YouTube rabbit hole on this one if you value your time). 

Drew gives some of this backstory in his post. But I want to ignore all that and higlight instead Drew’s 2013 DSD article that deserves much more attention. It addresses some of the largest differences between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the MT. Here is what he says about that:

Third, I would point out a series of difficult passages in the second half of the scroll that differ considerably from the Masoretic text, often with 1QIsa-a missing entire verses of the MT. Eugene Ulrich has argued that 1QIsa-a reflects an earlier version of Isaiah in these passages and that the MT has grown with additional verses being added. I have argued in an article that most of these passages were actually missing in the exemplar from which 1QIsa-a was copied, because it was damaged along the bottom edge. Thus, every column was physically damaged and missing one or more lines. You can see this, e.g., in how the scribe originally left blank lines for the missing verses. If correct, and I’m quite convinced it is, it means that most of the biggest differences between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the MT are easily explained as copying problems in the former.

I don’t think we’ve blogged about Drew’s DSD article here before. The full title is “Developmental Stage, Scribal Lapse, or Physical Defect? 1QIsaa’s Damaged Exemplar for Isaiah Chapters 34-66” and is online here (or in free pre-pub here). Here is the abstract:

The Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (1QIsaa) does not generally reflect a text form earlier than the Masoretic text. Instead, the convergence in 1QIsaa of patterns of spacing irregularities, literary and textual problems, and secondary supplementations, as well as a consistent pattern of distribution, are best explained on the basis of the hypothesis of an exemplar for chapters 34–66 with a damaged bottom edge. Upon reaching the defective edge in each column of his exemplar, the scribe dealt with any lacunose or illegible text in one of two ways before continuing with the unaffected text at the top of the subsequent exemplar column. Sometimes he left blank spaces in his new copy to be filled in with the correct text from other manuscripts at a later time. At other times he attempted full or partial reconstructions of the text based on whatever text remained legible in the damaged exemplar, memory, and contextual clues.

P.S. The fact that anyone is counting spelling differences between these two texts as somehow important is hilarious to me as a NT text critic. 

F.F. Bruce on 'Kept Pure in All Ages'

Yesterday, I was looking for one of F.F. Bruce's more obscure writings, and thankfully, I found that Rob Bradshaw had digitized it. While I was there, I stumbled across something more interesting though. In 1953, Bruce wrote a short overview-type article on textual criticism for The Christian Graduate [6.4 (Dec. 1953): 135-139].

The general thrust of the article is about what you would expect from Bruce: a careful overview of why we can have confidence in the text of the Scriptures.

What was interesting to me was his conclusion, which I share here:

According to F.F. Bruce (and a lot of us who are little more than dust in the shadow of F.F. Bruce), textual criticism is one of the means by which God's providential preservation of Scripture works.

You can read the whole article here.

Unrelated, if you've ever wondered what Bruce sounded like, you can hear his glorious Scottish accent in this lecture from 1977.

Jude 24: The Byzantine Text vs. the KJV

My interest is always piqued when a reading in the Byzantine text is not what’s translated in the KJV. Famous examples where the former lacks text the latter includes are Acts 8.37 and 1 John 5.7-8. In these cases, the bulk of Greek MSS is decidedly on the side of the Byz text against the KJV. But there are other, less notable cases, that go the other direction. In these cases, the KJV abandons the Byz text in favor of the less dominant reading.

Today I came across one in the best known section of Jude, the doxology (vv. 24-25). There we find a difference in our manuscripts as to who God is said to be able to “keep/protect blameless” (φυλάξαι ... ἀπταίστους) in v. 24. The NA28 prints the direct object as ὑμᾶς and gives, in a negative apparatus, the following alternates: ημας A vg-ms sy-ph ¦ αυτους P Byz. According to Tommy’s work on Jude and Klaus Wachtel’s on the Catholic Letters, the NA reading is attested in over 100 Greek MSS; ἡμᾶς is found in less than 10; and αὐτούς in over 300.

Jude 24 in 1611 KJV

The NA reading provides the smoother reading since the previous verses are addressed to the readers who have been warned against “the garment stained by flesh.” In light of this danger, it comes as a relief to be told that there is one who is able to “protect you from stumbling.” The Byz reading, which Wachtel includes in his list of “atypical majority readings,” is less obvious. Who could “they” be and why would Jude switch to address them? The answer comes from the Byz text of v. 23 where it is those who the readers are called on to save by snatching from the fire. God is able to keep them from stumbling. You could certainly argue that this is the lectio difficilior and some have (e.g., Tommy and A. J. Brown).

But, as I said, this is not the reading of the KJV even though it is the reading found in all of Erasmus’s editions. It is also not the reading of Tyndale’s editions, the Matthew Bible, the Geneva Bible or Luther’s 1522 Septembertestament for that matter. Luther and Tyndale particularly stand out here since both used Erasmus as their source and Erasmus has “they” in both his Greek and Latin columns. One waits until Stephanus 1550 to see ὑμᾶς in the margin where it is said to be supported by 5, 6, 2298, and a now lost MS (δ, ε, ι, ια). For his part, Beza has “you” (vos / ὑμᾶς) in his first and last editions which he explains as follows (in his first edition):

Vos ὑμᾶς. Ita lego ex Veteris interpretis and quatuor veterum codicum authoritate. Quod si malimus legere ἀυτοὺς dicemus pro ἑαυτοὺς positum, ita ut eodem recidat sententia. Neque enim videtur satis commode accipi posse pro ipsos vel eos, ut convertit Erasmus.

Which can roughly be translated as

Vos ὑμᾶς. Thus I read from the authority of the Old Interpreter [Jerome, I assume] and the four old codices. But if we prefer to read ἀυτοὺς, we will say that it is placed instead of ἑαυτοὺς, so that the sentence falls back on the same thing. For it does not seem like it can be taken quite conveniently for ipsos or eos, as Erasmus translates. 

Beza, of course, could not be the source for Luther and Tyndale. Neither could Stephanus. More likely is that they have here decided to follow the Vulgate instead of their main source in Erasmus. They were then followed by others who, in time, could point to Stephanus and Beza as further support.

One final note. Given the number of minuscules that support ὑμᾶς, the Byz edition of Robinson-Pierpont has listed it as an alternate in the margin as it does whenever the Byz text is split like this. Since the expressed method in that edition is to use internal evidence when the Byz reading is split, one must assume that the editors felt αὐτούς was finally preferable on those grounds rather than on external ones. Would that we had a commentary on such a decision!

In any case, this is an interesting example where the old KJV has the same text as our modern eclectic editions over and against the dominant Byzantine text.

Vulgate Manuscripts Missing the Last Two Chapters of Romans?

I’m attempting to work on a paper on the doxology in Romans, found as 16:25–27 in the THGNT and (in brackets) in the NA28. As part of my literature review, I spent some time surveying the treatment of this question in a number of commentaries. While reading Cranfield’s classic ICC, I was very surprised to come across the following statement, for which no explicit source was cited: 

(v) In the Vulgate MSS. 1648, 1792 and 2089 the text of Romans comprises only 1:1–14:23 followed immediately by 16:24–27. [p. 1:6]

My previous understanding had been that, despite a number of theories that have postulated a shorter version of Paul’s most famous letter, there were no extant manuscripts that actually contained such a shorter text. Further investigation seemed warranted. 

The first task was to identify which manuscripts Cranfield had in mind. The reference numbers he provided do not match anything found in Wordsworth-White’s large critical edition of the Vulgate, nor do they provide any notice of a Latin manuscript with a shorter text form. Furthermore, although they mention the textual problem of the doxology in a note, they do not cite any Latin manuscripts that have it at the end of our chapter 14, where it is found in the bulk of the Byzantine tradition. 

After a little digging, I determined that Cranfield’s source (which he had previously cited) was almost certainly T. W. Manson’s 1948 article, “St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans—And Others.” Manson states that: 

To the evidence of these tables we can add that of three MSS. of the Vulgate in Gregory’s notation 1648 and 1792 (both of Munich) and 2089 (of the Monza Chapter Library). In these the text ends at xiv. 23 and is followed by a short benediction and the doxology. [p. 232]

My first query was now solved—the numbers used by Cranfield go back to Gregory’s survey of Latin manuscripts in his Textkritik and with this knowledge I was able to identify their modern shelf numbers. For this statement, Manson cites Rudolf Schumacher’s 1929 study Die beiden letzten Kapitel des Römerbriefes in Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen. Schumacher discusses the three manuscripts, all of which have the doxology, preceded by a grace wish in one form or another, after 14:23. Schumacher concludes his discussion of these manuscripts by stating: 

Nach allem Gesagten ist nicht daran zu zweifeln, daß es eine lateinische Rezension gegeben hat, welche die beiden Schlußkapitel fortließ.  [p. 15] 

In light of all that has been said, there is no doubt that there was a Latin version that omitted the two final chapters.

While this is a clear enough statement and could well be the case, what was still not clear to me was whether or not these particular manuscripts actually contained such a shorter version as Cranfield said they did. Schumacher in turn pointed to a 1911 article by De Bruyne, entitled “La finale Marcionite de la lettre aux Romains retrouvée.” 

Having already discussed the Monza manuscript (this is VL 86, a detailed discussion and full transcription of which can be found in Frede’s Altlateinische Paulus-Handschriften), De Bruyne first mentions a group of manuscripts that have the doxology after 14:23. According to De Bruyne: 

• Florence, BML, Plut 25.10 has the doxology after 14:23 written in the margin by a second hand, while a third hand has crossed it out. 
• Florence, BML, Plut 25.2 has the doxology after 14:23 in the main text. 
• Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana, MS 222, as above.
• Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, A.7, as above. 

De Bruyne then comes to the two Münich manuscripts originally mentioned by Cranfield, BSB, Clm 17040 and BSB, Clm 17043. De Bruyne notes that, in Clm 17040, 14:23 is followed by the text of the blessing he had previously reconstructed for the Monza manuscript, then the doxology (“il contient après le chapitre 14 le souhait suivi de la doxologie” [134]). Since this manuscript has few other archaic features, he suspected it as an interpolation, which was confirmed by the fact that it is actually written in the margin of Clm 17043, of which it seems to be a copy. 

In context, De Bruyne is concerned about using these manuscripts to reconstruct the text of the blessing and doxology found in VL 86. Although VL 86 itself contains the last two chapters of Romans, De Bruyne was already convinced that the early placement of the doxology was evidence for a shorter version of Romans in the Latin tradition. Yet while neither he nor Schumacher clearly state that any of these manuscripts actually omit the last two chapters of Romans, they also do not explicitly say that they do contain them. 

Unfortunately, neither of the Münich manuscripts are available online. However, Elisabeth Klemm provides a detailed treatment of Clm 17043 in her 2004 catalogue. In this catalogue, she explicitly refers to this discussion and says: 

Im Zusammenhang mit textkritischen Untersuchungen zu Rm 16,25-27 und der Frage nach dem originalen Schluß des Römerbriefs zieht H. J. Frede u. a. Clm 17043 heran, in welchem die Schlußverse wie in einer Reihe italienischer Hss. an Rm 14,23 anschließen (die Hss. enden aber nicht damit, es folgen trotzdem noch die beiden Schlußkapitel des Römerbriefs). [p. 89]

In connection with textual-critical studies of Rom 16:25–27 and the question of the original conclusion of the Epistle to the Romans, H. J. Frede draws upon, among other sources, Clm 17043, in which the concluding verses follow Rom 14:23, as they do in a number of Italian manuscripts (though the manuscripts do not end there; the two concluding chapters of the Epistle to the Romans still follow). 

In addition to Klemm’s statement about the Münich manuscripts, I was able to consult images of one of De Bruyne’s Italian group (Florence, BML, Plut 25.2, pictured) and determine that, while it did indeed have the doxology after 14:23, this was then followed by the remainder of the last two chapters, as well as a repetition of the doxology in its normal placement in the Latin tradition in 16:25–27.

Taken together, these data points seemed sufficient to settle my second question. While Cranfield was merely repeating Manson, Manson had misunderstood the (admittedly ambiguous) statements by Schumacher, who was, in turn, replicating the ambiguity present already in De Bruyne. While it may be the case that (as De Bruyne argued) the various placements of the doxology provide evidence for a lost shorter version of Romans, this postulated shorter version seems to be indeed lost, not only in Greek, but also in Latin.

The majority of the Latin tradition has the doxology as 16:25–27, VL86 has the doxology (though largely reconstructed) after 14:23. BML, Plut 25.2 has it in both places. (I was unable to check the rest of the witnesses mentioned by De Bruyne, but they will fall into one of these two categories). VL135 and VL77(the Latin of 012) omit it entirely. This means all four placements found in more than one Greek manuscript are also attested in the Latin tradition. (This last paragraph was edited after initial posting)

 

The Hexapla Institute Relaunched

 

The Hexapla Institute was founded in 2001 to publish a “Field for the Twenty-First Century.” Over the past 25 years, the Institute has made certain but limited progress, publishing only one of its volumes (Job 22–42) during this time, even though several dissertations were completed on Genesis, Numbers, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Job. The progress has been slow due to the project’s lack of funding and editors who are already heavily committed to other academic projects (all routine challenges and difficulties for academic projects of this sort). Below is a brief update on what’s the same and what exciting new developments are on the horizon.

The Original Purpose

A new chapter in the life of the Hexapla Institute is now being written, one that hopefully will include many volumes of the Edition published within its pages. But this new chapter continues to be guided by the original purpose of the Hexapla Institute: to publish a new critical edition of the remains of Origen’s Hexapla. We exist to research, edit, and publish a critical text of Origen’s Hexapla. We still intend to carry out this mission in both print (with Peeters) and digital formats (with our database currently in development stages). The Hexapla Institute's Editorial Committee with Alison Salvesen, Bas ter Haar Romeny, Peter Gentry, and yours truly remains the same. I'm excited to announce that the volumes for the Secunda (Benjamin Kantor) and Numbers 19–36 (Andrew McClurg) are in process of being typeset, proofed, and published. Thus, our mission remains the same. The changes listed below have been enacted to advance the original purpose of publishing a New Field. 

A New Chapter

The Hexapla Institute was never set up as its own independent research and education organization, and thus it was not setup to receive donations or even to apply for research grants. There were attempts to affiliate it with other such organizations over the years but to no avail. Thus, what was needed was a move to set up the Hexapla Institute as its own independent charitable tax-exempt organization with 501(c)(3) status with the Internal Revenue Service (USA). And we have now submitted the application for such recognition from the IRS and now wait for their determination. In the meantime, we are still raising funds from gifts which can be retroactively determined tax deductible in order to continue the work.

The work on the Institute’s database continues more efficiently and systematically than ever. And the Institute’s new Fellowship program for residential PhD students at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary will be of interest to readers of this blog.

Following the Work

The Hexapla Institute is not going on social media. We want to spend more time on enduring deep work rather than the ephemeral tweet. The new website will have a blog that will be used for updates on the project as well as drawing attention to the significance of the work. But it does plan to send out a Newsletter with some regularity to keep folks updated. If you want to subscribe to the email list, you can do that here.

I'm excited about this new chapter in the life of such an important Institute carrying out very meaningful and valuable work. I hope you will join me in my excitement about the work ahead. If you're interested in the fellowship program or even learning more about editing the hexaplaric materials themselves, do not hesitate to reach out to learn more.