Today at SBL, I will be giving a paper in a special section on the 75th anniversary of The International Greek New Testament Project. Revisiting their website reminded me that the IGNTP set up a YouTube channel not long ago and it is full of videos. Today seemed like a good day to remind our readers of this great resource. Go check it out.
The new volume 28 (2023) of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism has just been published here, and it is packed with twelve articles and some reviews. I have pasted contents and links below.
Abstract: This paper reviews Dieter Böhler’s theory about the conception of Jerusalem in MT Ezra Nehemiah and 1 Esdras. According to Böhler, 1 Esdras preserves earlier versions in variants dealing with the rebuilding and settlement of Jerusalem, while the MT was revised to accommodate Ezra (and Neh 8) to the Nehemiah story. This paper argues that Böhler’s theory is highly unlikely. It is based on things lacking in the MT, while there is little positive evidence for the theory in the MT variants. The theory also neglects many passages that contradict the conception of an unsettled and unbuilt Jerusalem before Nehemiah. Textual variants used in favor of the theory are often controversial, heavily edited, and/or the result of textual corruption. In none of the cases does 1 Esdras unambiguously preserve the original reading. A conceptional connection between the MT variants remains unclear or is based on the variants in 1 Esdras. The 1 Esdras variants are connected by Jerusalem, its physical spaces, and temple gates. This may be an attempt to highlight the accomplishments of the Davidic Zerubbabel, which fits well with the anti-Hasmonean stand of 1 Esdras. Nehemiah and his accomplishments (such as references to the wall) were omitted because he was a non-Davidic leader whose memory 1 Esdras sought to eradicate.
Abstract: This study catalogs and categorizes the scribal corrections found in the earliest fragmentary Greek New Testament manuscripts (second–fourth/fifth centuries). Although corrections are normally identified and discussed by manuscript editors, this analysis gathers such evidence from a wide range of artifacts in order to observe relevant trends in scribal habits across the group as a whole. Corrections are identified in the earliest 114 fragmentary manuscripts of the New Testament, including papyri and parchment. These corrections are then categorized and discussed, with attention given to the copying process, text-critical evidence, and the identity of the correctors.
Abstract: As regularly noted, the Freer-Logion has not often been studied until today. Its reference by Jerome in Pelag. 2.15 is mentioned, but New Testament scholars have overlooked its first modern commentator, Erasmus, until three 2022 and 2023 articles by Krans, Yi, and Burnet. As a next step, this article presents the first French and English translations of the complete Annotationes of Erasmus on Mark 16:14 next to the Latin text edited by Hovingh (2000). We demonstrate that his philological notes are particularly fruitful for understanding the history of Mark’s ending. Using the term coronis, in the sense of the end of a given unit, Erasmus asserts that the sentences quoted by Jerome have been inserted into chapter 16 and may have come from an apocryphal source. We suggest that the addition after Mark 16:3 in VL 1 can also be seen as a coronis inserted in Mark 16. Finally, we discuss the κορωνίς drawn at the end of Mark in GA 032: this editorial decoration adds supplementary evidence for a fifth-century date for the copy of Mark in W, as proposed by Orsini (2019).
Abstract: It has been suggested that a number of textual variants in the Bethany account in John 11:1, 2, 3, 5; 12:2 suggest that Martha was not originally present but was interpolated at a later stage to minimize the importance of Mary. This article will argue that these variants are best explained not by a theory of interpolation but by a general tendency to downplay the role of women and by subsequent attempts to harmonize the text to the immediate context. In particular, we will see that an alteration to 11:1 defined Martha by her relationship to her male relative (Lazarus) rather than to her sister Mary and inadvertently created tensions with 11:2–3. This led to later adjustments that we see in the text, in particular in P66. This article makes a contribution to the subject of textual variants that suppress women, a topic that will require more research in the future.
Abstract: The purpose of this article is threefold. First, it provides biographical information about B. P. Grenfell and his afflictions by narrating multiple episodes of incarceration in lunatic asylums, based on his medical records and available archival material. Most readers of this journal have benefited from Grenfell’s scholarship and studied the texts he and A. S. Hunt edited, but few are aware of the severity of his illness. Second, it attempts to clarify the nature of this illness and its effect on Grenfell’s career and collegial relationships. One scholar has claimed that Grenfell was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, but a comparison with modern psychiatric diagnostic guides suggests that his episodes of psychosis may have been the result of a mood disorder or a multitude of other ailments. A brief portrait of British insane asylums in the 1900s and the societal perception of their patients helps explain the dissolution of Grenfell and Hunt’s harmonious relationship. Last, this article briefly addresses current mental health concerns within the academy and makes a modest appeal for empathy and compassion toward our colleagues who suffer with mental health problems. By discussing the nature and severity of Grenfell’s illness in light of his accomplishments, this article seeks to diminish the stigma surrounding mental illness in the academy.
Abstract: A plausible Greek New Testament text can be automatically generated by a computer program using statistical analysis and algorithms that weigh the earliest manuscript data in a manner simulating a reasoned-eclecticism approach. This method offers several substantial advantages by providing a consistently weighed text that is openly transparent, without any theological bias, and scientifically reproducible, and the results are very similar to our best modern critical tests. This initial accomplishment could have a number of future implications for the field of textual criticism regarding advances in the use of statistics and algorithms for further refinements in the production of critical texts
Abstract: The editors introduce the five articles in the special section of the current volume. These papers were first presented at a workshop at the University of Brimingham.
Abstract: Ugo Rozzo quipped, “it should also be obvious that the paratext is not the text (even if it is a text).” His sentiment certainly is reflected in most Greek New Testament manuscripts: the page focuses on the scriptures, and paratexts serve the reader in navigating, understanding, and appreciating the sacred words. Determining paratextual relationships in Greek New Testament manuscripts with catenae is more complicated because of the presence of a second extensive text in the same codex. This article explores the relationship between the scriptures and the catenae in manuscripts of the gospels. It proposes that some catena manuscripts reverse the usual text-paratext relationship and decentralizes the biblical text, including it as a reference for the commentary. The format of the constituent elements within a manuscript does not alone suffice to determine the paratextual relationships in commentary manuscripts.
Abstract: In the late ancient Mediterranean, biblical commentary often took citational form through the creation of catenae. The citational gesture of such projects deployed the authority of tradition and embedded the biblical lemma within an interpretative frame. Late ancient catenae for Matthew, Luke, John, and other biblical texts reconfigured prior commentary. Yet because Mark lacked a commentary tradition, one could not use existing commentaries on Mark to construct a catena. The absence prompted an innovative form of recycling: the sixth-century Catena in Marcum repurposed commentary on Matthew, Luke, and John in order to create a novel catena for Mark. This double act of recycling reappropriated existing commentary for a new text. The resulting catena embedded Mark within a fourfold tradition of gospel commentary, underscoring narrative and theological tensions between Mark and other gospels. Since similar tensions and ruptures attend other commentarial projects as well, the Catena in Marcum illuminates the broader practice of recycling in commentary.
Abstract: This article looks at one of the oldest and most stable Greek gospel paratexts, the kephalaia (known also as the Old Greek Chapters) and their use in gospel commentary manuscripts. Although their original purpose remains the subject of speculation, the kephalaia fulfill various practical functions, acting as a bookmarking tool through the marginal placement of titloi and as an exegetical lens, since each kephalaion brings into focus one particular event or theme of the gospel story. As part of the standard paratextual furniture of gospel books since antiquity, the kephalaia also appear in many gospel commentaries, usually in unaltered form, where they also operate as structuring elements for the lemmata or as section headings for the ensuing commentary text. A few commentary manuscripts, however, feature kephalaia lists that are greatly expanded and specially adapted to the commentary text. This article will focus on one particular set of commentary kephalaia attested in three manuscripts and examine the additions, alterations, and refinements that the standard lists and titloi undergo to suit them to the commentary’s contents. It will also consider how an expanded kephalaia system might affect the reader’s approach to both the biblical and the commentary text in a way that differs from how the kephalaia mediate the text in a standard gospel manuscript.
Abstract: According to the current version of the official register (Kurzgefasste Liste), there are currently ninety-eight Greek New Testament manuscripts housed in the National Library of Austria in Vienna. Resulting from work on this article, three of these manuscripts have been registered and assigned a Gregory-Aland number: two lectionaries (GA L2530, L2531) and one minuscule (GA 3010). A fourth item, one leaf from a commentary manuscript glued into MS Theologicus gr. 164, has not yet been registered in the Liste. Finally, a fifth item, MS Theol. gr. 209, a miscellaneous manuscript, contains a lectionary (GA L155) and a commentary on Matthew that was registered as GA 2988 quite recently (fols. 56r–143v). In my opinion, the first part of this fifth codex, copied from another exemplar with a different commentary on Matthew (fols. 1–55v), also qualifies for inclusion in the Liste as part of GA 2988. In this first commentary, the text from Matthew has been abbreviated at times—an example of how the biblical text has been decentralized in a commentary manuscript (a feature that is not uncommon). In fact, in all these manuscripts, the New Testament text has been marginalized in favor of other textual or codicological features, which has arguably worked against their registration in the Liste
Abstract: Ecclesial divisions following the christological controversies of the Council of Chalcedon in the fifth century and leading into the Council of Trullo in the seventh century provide a cultural backdrop for the creation of catenae and offer a potential explanation for how catenae were used in the development and promulgation of a syncretic Byzantine theology. During the reigns of both Justinian I (527–565) and Justinian II (685–695/705–711) attempts were made to unite the divisions within the Greek church—each for divergent purposes. Justinian I established a precedent in legal matters by consolidating the numerous Roman legal codes into a single volume, intended to supersede all previous tomes and become the singular reference source for all discussion. He expressed similar interests in seeking to unite the Byzantine church under a single christological perspective. By the first reign of Justinian II, the Council of Trullo was convened. Within the acts of the council, we read Canon 19, which declares that all clergy are to teach piety and defend the scripture only with the words of the orthodox divines and not from one’s own intellect. This marks a second attempt to unite the church, but this time through the authority of the past. This paper will draw upon historical data to parallel the development of the New Testament catena manuscript tradition, proposing that these manuscripts served as a reference point for clergy, particularly post-Trullo, to preach piety and defend orthodoxy to the confessional community.
Let's meet outside the bookstalls at 11:45 AM Wednesday, 15 November and walk together to the Whataburger at 412 E Commerce St, San Antonio, TX 78205. That link should take you to a map to the specific one. I think that's what we did last time we were in San Antonio, and it seemed to work well.
I'll plan to leave around 11:45 to walk over. My dad always says "When you hesitate, you don't get to participate," which ironically is why I won't be at the Crossway breakfast this year.
That being said, let us know if you plan to be there so that we can look out for you. Everyone is welcome who is interested in manuscripts and textual criticism; no experience-level required!
See you then!
 |
| Peter Gurry waiting for his Whataburger order |
Because we have been discussing the difficulty of counting manuscripts lately, I decided to jump in with my own way of making things worse minor contribution: It might be the case that Gregory 724 should be removed from the Liste.
 |
| Gregory 724—the note in the front |
Gregory 724 is a Greek manuscript of the Gospels on paper+parchment and dated 1520. A note in the front of the manuscript even claims that it was copied from an edition of the New Testament ("scriptus fuit ex aeditione noui testamenti"). We know the copyist from this note, Levinus Ammonius, a Carthusian monk. There's an entry for him on pp. 50–51 of Bietenholz, ed., Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, vol. 1. A–E. According to Bietenholz, Ammonius lived from 13 April 1488–19 March 1557, and "...joined the Carthusian order, making his profession on 18 August 1506 in the monastery of St Maartensbos near Geraardsbergen, 30 kilometers west of Brussels."
Ammonius also had a bit of correspondence with Erasmus, and some of those letters have been published. Their first interaction (to my knowledge) occurred when Ammonius wrote to Erasmus on 4 July 1525 (Ep 1463, available in CWE 10), which the editor describes as "his first attempt to open a continuing correspondence with Erasmus." The editor continues: "His second attempt was successful (Epp 2016, 2062), and five of the letters in their subsequent correspondence survive (Epp 2082, 2197, 2258, 2483, 2817). The beginning of Ep 1463 shows the respect he had for Erasmus (my second-favorite Dutch scholar to live in Cambridge and edit a Greek New Testament): "For a long time I was full of misgivings, Erasmus most incorruptible of theologians, whether my action would be inexcusable if I were to interrupt you with a letter, I being a monk living obscurely in solitude and you the most distinguished of our whole generation for your outstanding gifts, and if I who enjoy the blessings of leisure were to inflict this tedium on a man who labours for the common good of Christendom."
In Ep 2016 (available in CWE 14), Ammonius mentions that he had once copied out a Greek Psalter that Erasmus had even seen. Gamillscheg and Harlfinger (1981; Repertorium I a no. 10; p. 28) identify him as the copyist of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College ms 448, though the data at the Parker Library on the Web suggests that the copyist may have been Johannes Olivarius. This alternative identification seems to go back at least to K.A. de Meyier in 1964. That is all to say that by his own testimony, we can conclude that he copied at least one other Greek manuscript (and a Biblical text at that), and there may be at least one other manuscript copied by him that is now in the Parker Library at Corpus Christi, Cambridge. Here are samples of each below. I am not familiar enough with handwriting in this era to say anything about them worth taking too seriously, but I do see a lot of similarities. One thing that jumps out to me is that in the color images of CCC ms 248, the capital letters seem to have yellow 'around' them (or something that has faded to yellow), and I see the exact same pattern of 'discoloration' (for lack of a better word) in the microfilm of Greg. 724.
 |
| Writing sample from Greg. 724 |
 |
| Writing sample from Cambridge, CCC ms 248. |
Pinakes mentions a few references for Greg. 724 that I haven't been able to check.
The first and second editions of the Liste are identical, save that it's on p. 100 in the 1st ed. and on p. 90 in the 2nd ed. (and the line break is at a different place in the location section). Here it is in the 2nd ed.:
724 is ε530 in von Soden's edition; here is his entry on vol. 1, p. 208:
How I found it:
I was reading an article about Erasmus and chased a rabbit trail. There's more to the story, but in short, the only manuscript I could find (at first) with the lives of the four evangelists by Dorotheus of Tyre (which Erasmus included in his 1516 edition, and only the 1516 edition) is 724. So obviously I looked into 724. I did end up finding the content elsewhere, so I can be confident that it's not another patristic forgery by Erasmus.
1. Getting curious and chasing rabbits can lead to interesting things.
2. Robinson's collation data needs to be published! Where else do we get to see the work of someone who examined ~3,000 manuscripts and made notes about them.
3. Jacob Peterson might not have been wrong to extrapolate a level of error in counting manuscripts back into the minuscules and lectionaries. I wasn't looking for mistakes and, unless I am making one myself (which is certainly possible), I seemed to have happened upon one.
4. Even if 724 should be removed from the Liste, it could still be very interesting. Are there changes from Erasmus' 1516 edition? Do any changes represent textual decisions (or, dare we say it, conjectures?) of Levinus Ammonius? It may be just a boring copy of Erasmus 1516 with the usual sorts of scribal errors, but if we don't look, we won't know.
In Oxford this term we have a colloquium or reading group working through and discussing Simon Gathercole's brilliant new book, The Gospel and the Gospels: Christian Proclamation and Early Jesus Books (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022). Now this is a five hundred page book, so when in this post I point out an error on one of those pages, please (Simon!) take this in the spirit in which it is intended (straightforward academic one-upmanship) (pursuing the truth) and with a sense of proportion. (Also Simon Gathercole is not the only victim of this error; Chuck Hill made a similar error; cf. here in connection with my comment re p. 72 - this post now resolves the problem noted there.)
Anyway, here is page 4:
The specific problem that is obvious here is that Clement of Alexandria (like other patristic writers) barely ever quotes Mark's Gospel. The general problem is that all the figures for the canonical gospels look inflated and thus suggests the overwhelming preference of Clement for the canonical gospels. But the actual data is more complicated. Gathercole is quite clear that he gets these figures from Mutschler's monograph. He is also basically not adjudicating this data, but in his actual argument is showing that scholars differ in their assessment of the attestation of the various gospels so we need a theological content discriminator to make an argument for the distinctiveness of the canonical gospels from the noncanonical gospels. So maybe Gathercole can be slightly let off the hook; but the data as cited here is (as I will show) plainly wrong. Here is the relevant page from B. Mutschler's monograph, Irenäus als johanneischer Theologe: Studien zur Schriftauslegung bei Irenäus von Lyon (STAJ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) (it is not necessarily a problem to go to a monograph on Irenaeus' use of gospel traditions to get data about Clement of Alexandria - since Mutschler has a chapter comparing the two writers; but in this case we are being mislead because of decisions made by Mutschler) (thanks to the Bodleian Library Scan & Deliver Team):
We can see from this that Gathercole has accurately transcribed the numbers from Mutschler's chart (although Mutschler does not compare the noncanonical gospels so Gathercole has got those numbers - which are correct - from somewhere else). So where does Mutschler get his numbers and what are they actually counting? 'Anzahl der biblischen Bezugnahmen' means the number of biblical references; but really what is going on here? Well, now it is a little unclear. There is no footnote to this chart on p. 101. On the previous page, in relation to a more general chart we learn from the footnotes in Mutschler that Mutschler claims to get his data (the raw numbers) from A. van den Hoek,
‘Techniques of Quotation in Clement of Alexandria: A View of Ancient Literary
Working Methods’ Vig. Chr. 50 (1996),
223-243, and that A. van den Hoek got her data from the indices to the Stählin GCS edition of Clement of Alexandria (vol. 4, pp. 1-59) (Mutschler note 5 on p. 100: 'Die Zahlen sind A. VAN DEN HOEK, Techniques, 240f Anm. 55 entnommen, die sich
dabei auf die GCS-Indices von O. STÄHLIN beruft (s. GCS Clemens Alexandrinus IV, l- 59 STÄHLIN).'). The complication here is that van den Hoek doesn't give any figures at
this level of granularity (i.e. for all the different books of the Bible), so the implication would seem to be that in
fact Mutschler has taken van den Hoek's idea and done his own
count based on the indices in the Stählin edition of
Clement of Alexandria.
Now, an interesting subpoint here is that both van den Hoek and Mutschler are aware of problems with the data they are using. van den Hoek says that 'the index of Stählin, however, is less accurate [than the TLG] since it is a vast vessel of very diverse materials that were collected over the centuries. Experience suggests that it contains too many parallels, not all of which are valid.' (van den Hoek, ‘Techniques of Quotation', 230). Since she is mostly interested in Clement citing by author's name she thinks that the combined search (TLG and the Index to Stählin) for e.g. Παῦλος will be sufficient for her needs (and that the errors are probably the same for all of his searches, so that the comparison will still be worthwhile). Mutschler has an interesting comment about potential problems where he suggests that the Stählin Index might cause the results for the synoptic gospels to be overrepresented by almost three percent (note 7, p. 100-101).
So it is time to check out the Index to Stählin. Here is a portion of page 14
The first entry here is: Mark 1.3: I, 9, 18f; 64, 10; 224, 16.
So vol. 1, p. 9 lines 18-19 should be a direct
citation. Here is the page:
What we have there is a brief citation from Is 40.3 in a form that doesn’t appear to directly match any of the NT uses (or the LXX for that matter): εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς ὁδοὺς κυρίου. The apparatus refers to Is 40.3 (Matt 3.3; Mark 1.3; Luke 3.4; John 1.23) – the four places where this passage is cited in the NT. Clearly there is no direct evidence for any relationship between Clement and Mark’s Gospel at this point.
Vol. 1, p. 64 line 10 should be a passage with literary dependence that is not a direct citation. Here is the page:
We can see that this is a general allusion to this passage. The apparatus has ‘vgl.’ i.e. cf. Matt 3.3; Mark 1.3; Luke 3.4. Again no direct evidence for Clement and Mark's Gospel.
Vol. 1, p. 224 line 16 should be a passage with literary dependence that is not a direct citation. Here is the page:
This passage is also a general allusion to the making straight terminology (in the context of John the Baptist) and the apparatus has ‘vgl.’ i.e. cf. Matt 3.3; Mark 1.3; Luke 3.4; John 1.23 (Is 40.3). Again no direct evidence for Clement and Mark's Gospel.
I didn't bother going any further. These indices are not a little bit problematic (van den Hoek) or three percent out (Mutschler), they are totally useless and misleading on the use of Mark in Clement of Alexandria! There is no useful data to be drawn from the total number of references to Mark in the apparatus (i.e. 182 times, as noted above). It is all ‘contamination’ from the synoptic parallels. Please, please, please, may no one ever refer to this again.
Actually we do have useful books on this subject.
M. Mees, Die Zitate aus dem Neuen Testament bei Clemens von Alexandrien (Quaderni di ‘Vetera Christianorum’ 2; Bari: Istituto di Letteratura Cristiana Antica, Universita di Bari, 1970). I bought a copy to check this out. He finds 18 passages where Clement might exhibit knowledge of Mark.
C.P. Cosaert, The Text of the Gospels in Clement of Alexandria (NTGF 9; Atlanta: SBL, 2008). Cosaert is quite critical of Mees lack of methodological control. He finds only three passages in which Clement quotes Mark (one of which is the extensive and rather wild text of Mark 10.17-31).
Lessons learned:
