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.