Codex Zacynthius

Codex Zacynthius is two Greek New Testament manuscripts in one.

 It is a palimpsest, with two levels of writing throughout.

The upper text is lectionary 299, a thirteenth-century gospel lectionary. And the underlying text is 040 a manuscript of Luke 1-11 with commentary (variously dated from the sixth to the eighth century). The codex is owned by the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS MS #213), and currently resides, like the rest of the BFBS books and manuscripts in the University Library in Cambridge (where they have been since 1985). I have seen it several times, it has always been perfectly accessible to scholars who want to study it.

So now the Bible Society wants to sell Codex Zacynthius to the University Library for 1.1 million pounds, so that it can build a visitor centre in this rather pretty little abandoned church in Wales, to celebrate the role of the Bible in shaping Wales:

And the University Library wants to buy Codex Zacynthius for 1.1 million pounds (and would love to hear from any benefactor on the subject). There are probably good reasons to buy such a manuscript (and move it from one shelf in the UL to a different one somewhere else in the UL). Some of those which have been offered so far may not, however, be very persuasive:

a) “It is unique” (attributed here to Ben Outhwaite). Hmmmm. Every manuscript is by definition “unique”.

b) “It must be in the top 20 of New Testament manuscripts” (attributed here to Ben Outhwaite) or “among the top flight of Biblical manuscripts” (attributed here to Rowan Williams). Hmmmm. Who would determine this? Since NA27 puts it among the ‘consistently cited witnesses of the first order’ for the Gospels (NA27 p. 58*) that puts it among the top one hundred and sixty-one Greek manuscripts of the Gospels. I could see it having a place in the top one hundred of New Testament manuscripts, but definitely not in the top twenty.

c) It is “critical to establishing the transmission of Luke’s Gospel” (attributed here to Rowan Williams). Hmmmm. No doubt it is interesting and helpful and contributes something to our understanding of the transmission of the text of Luke’s Gospel, as of course does every manuscript. But “critical”? I am not familiar with any study of the last hundred years which would say such a thing about Zacynthius.

d) “It is the oldest extant New Testament manuscript with a commentary alongside the text” (attributed here to Rowan Williams). Hmmmm. This one does look to me to be correct (even if one took an eighth century date, which is actually something that has been much disputed in the scholarly literature).

e) “Purchasing Codex Zacynthius would give us the opportunity to digitise the manuscript and share it on a global scale” (attributed here to Anne Jarvis). Hmmmm. In one sense this is true, but in every other sense this is nonsense. The Bible Society could digitise it themselves, or give CSNTM permission to digitise it, and post the images on-line for next to nothing. A change of ownership may facilitate the production of new images, but can hardly be deemed necessary.

Purchasing Codex Zacynthius would give us the opportunity to digitise the manuscript and share it on a global scale - See more at: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/cambridge-university-library-bids-to-purchase-early-gospel-manuscript#sthash.Qn2BWGyH.dpuf

it is the oldest extant New Testament manuscript with a commentary alongside the text - See more at: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/cambridge-university-library-bids-to-purchase-early-gospel-manuscript#sthash.Qn2BWGyH.dpuf

critical to establishing the transmission of St Luke’s Gospel - See more at: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/cambridge-university-library-bids-to-purchase-early-gospel-manuscript#sthash.Qn2BWGyH.dpuf

among the top flight of Biblical manuscripts

among the top flight of Biblical manuscripts

among the top flight of Biblical manuscripts

among the top flight of Biblical manuscripts

What does CBGM actually stand for?

Last Monday, when Peter Head, Peter Gurry, and yours truly were having a good old conversation with the Münster folk deep in the heart of the Institute itself, we were playing around with the CBGM as a universal method for the past and present. I claimed that the true CBGM is practiced at Tyndale House, since a correct interpretation of the abbreviation yields ‘Coffee Based Greek Method’.

Not to be outdone, our German colleagues retorted that the CBGM as the Coherence Based Genealogical Method had already an earlier incarnation in the days of Kurt Aland himself when the approach was pretty much the ‘Cigar Based Genealogical Method’. There are even rumours that the smoke detectors in the strictly non-smoking building were adjusted to tolerate Kurt Aland’s persistent flaunting of the rules. Wonderful!

Inscriptions for Catholic Epistles in Sinaiticus (errors in ECM2)

Here are an interesting series of pictures from the header space above the start of the relevant columns of text in Codex Sinaiticus (from the Sinaiticus Project Website):

These raise a couple of interesting issues. Firstly, given the general consistency I'm sure that most of us would agree that these are probably best understood to be connected products of the same scribal activity. Secondly, given that both 1 Peter and 1 John are introduced as 'the first epistle of Peter' and 'the first epistle of John' respectively, it seems likely that the meaning of the others is thought to be consistent, i.e. 'the second [epistle] of Peter', 'the second [epistle] of John', 'the third [epistle] of John'.

So now to the ECM2. Firstly it attributes the inscriptions for 1 Peter (p. 103), 1 John (p. 263), 2 John (p. 369), 3 John (p. 387) and Jude (p. 403) to 01C2 (in each case 01* is given for "om.", i.e. originally lacking any inscription); but the inscription for 2 Peter is attributed directly to 01 (p. 203). From this we would deduce that Sinaiticus originally had an inscription for 2 Peter, but nothing for the other Catholic Epistles until the seventh century. But this is clearly wrong, both because it is inconsistent, and because there does not appear to be a clear link with the C2 corrector. Probably within the parameters available in the ECM2 they should all have been attributed to 01C1 [covering corrections from the fourth to the sixth century]. But in any case the Sinaiticus Project attributes all these titles to S1 - a scriptorium corrector, and this seems right to me. This means that they could be regarded as an aspect of the original production of the manuscript as a whole.

For these I would suggest that we regard them as an aspect of the original production of the manuscript as a whole, and hence simply 01. Or perhaps if we were being pedantic we could attribute them to 01Z(S1) - an addition (Zusatz) by a different but contemporary hand (and not to give any 01*).

The Gospel of Thomas: a quick guide

Need to remember or revise some basic information about the Gospel of Thomas? Here is a guide I have used before and wrote up for a seminar last week.

 

Gospel according to Thomas: title acc. to the subscription in Nag Hammadi Codex II

Gospel: significant

Thomas (GT 1; lost of other literature attributed: Acts Thomas, Book Thomas Contender, Infancy Gospel of Thomas)

G = Gnostic (obviously a question as well of definition, history, provenance & theology)

O = Origen (knows of a Gospel according to Thomas, Hom. Luke 1)

S = Sayings (GT 1: ‘these are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke’)

P = Parables (many: net, sower, weeds, banquet, vineyard etc.: diff. from SGs)

E = Early (early material on almost any view)

L = Lacking OT (nothing; polemical: GT 52)

O = oi logoi sophwn (words of the wise: connection with wisdom genres)

F = Form/genre

T = Three Greek papyri (P. Oxy 1, 654, 655)

H = Hundred and 14 sayings (not numbered in original, but clearly demarcated)

O = One Coptic Manuscript (Nag Hammadi Codex II; Apoc. John, GT, Gos. Philip …)

M = Monachoi (‘monks’ = GT 16, 49, 75)

A = ‘All’ (GT 2: ‘… king over the All’, 67, 77: ‘I am the All’)

S = Seventy-Nine sayings have synoptic parallels

Fortunatianus' Commentary on the Gospels

Fortunatianus was bishop of Aquileia in the middle of the fourth century. About him Jerome had the following to say (De Viris Illustribus 97 from here):

Fortunatianus, an African by birth, bishop of Aquilia during the reign of Constantius, composed brief Commentaries on the gospels arranged by chapters, written in a rustic style, and is held in detestation because, when Liberius bishop of Rome was driven into exile for the faith, he was induced by the urgency of Fortunatianus to subscribe to heresy.

 According to W.H. Fremantle (in Smith & Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. 2, p. 550) 'He persuaded Liberius, the bishop of Rome, who was ready to go into exile for his faith, that he might properly subscribe the formula of the council of Sirmium; and he even went so far as to consent to the condemnation passed upon Athanasius in the council of Milan.'

So Fortunatianus was obviously a bit Arian in Christology. But Jerome did value his commentaries, describing them in a letter requesting that Paulus of Concordia send him a copy, as 'the pearl of the Gospel, the words of the Lord, pure words, even as the silver which from this earth is tried, and purified seven times in the fire' (Jerome, Ep. X of AD 374, alluding to Matt 13.46; Ps 12.7).

Only a couple of fragments survive of Fortunatianus' commentary, .... or so we thought. Recently Lukas Dorfbauer has identified an anonymous commentary on the gospels (MS Köln, Erzbischöfliche Diözesan- und Dombibl. 17) as a copy of this commentary:  "Thus, Fortunatianus’ work becomes the apparently oldest commentary on the Gospels written in the Latin West which is still extant; it amplifies our knowledge of ancient Christianity and its literature in many respects." (CSEL web page)
For details see L. J. Dorfbauer, Der Evangelienkommentar des Bischofs Fortunatian von Aquileia (Mitte 4. Jh.). Ein Neufund auf dem Gebiet der patristischen Literatur, Wiener Studien 126 (2013), 177-198.

The manuscript itself is online here. (HT: Roger Pearse [with more details from Quasten]) [Looks like further confirmation of Head's rule.]

The Text of the NT in Contemporary Research, 2nd Ed., Now in Paperback

I'm happy to announce that The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, 2nd edition (ed. Ehrman and Holmes; Brill, 2013 [2012]), is now available in a paperback edition, at a considerably more affordable price (€59, $76). (Details available here.)

Also, Larry Hurtado has posted a discussion of the chapter dealing with the topic of "original text" at his blog (here).