Codex Washingtonianus: An Analysis of the Textual Affiliations of the Freer Gospels Manuscript 9781463244521

Citation preview

Codex Washingtonianus

Texts and Studies (Third Series)

27 Series Editor H. A. G. Houghton

Editorial Board Jeff W. Childers Alba Fedeli Viktor Golinets Christina M. Kreinecker Gregory S. Paulson Peter J. Williams

Texts and Studies is a series of monographs devoted to the study of Biblical and Patristic texts. Maintaining the highest scholarly standards, the series includes critical editions, studies of primary sources, and analyses of textual traditions.  

Codex Washingtonianus

An Analysis of the Textual Affiliations of the Freer Gospels Manuscript

Megan Leigh Burnett

gp 2022

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com 2022 Copyright © by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܛ‬

1

2022

ISBN 978-1-4632-4451-4

ISSN 1935-6927

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is available at the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

To my grandparents Dale and Nelda Gann Otto and Geneva Burnett

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements .................................................................. ix List of Abbreviations ................................................................ xi Introduction.............................................................................. 1 State of Research ............................................................... 3 Outline and Methodology ................................................ 19 Chapter One. Mining Codex W: Description, Observations, Transcriptions ......................................................................... 23 Description...................................................................... 23 Significant Variants ......................................................... 37 Provenance ..................................................................... 41 Transcriptions ................................................................. 45 Chapter Two. Methodology of the Quantitative Analysis ......... 47 Chapter Three. Results of the Quantitative Analysis ................ 59 Global Quantitative Analysis ........................................... 60 Quantitative Analysis by Gospel ...................................... 63 Quantitative Analysis by Sanders’s Textual Blocks ........... 69 Quantitative Analysis by Quire ........................................ 79 Conclusion .................................................................... 110 Chapter Four. Pre-genealogical Analysis: Text und Textwert ... 113 Chapter Five. An Analysis of Segmentation and Punctuation . 119 Conclusion .................................................................... 128 Chapter Six. A Study of the Nomina Sacra, Numerals, and Other Features..........................................................................131 Nomina Sacra................................................................. 131 Numerals....................................................................... 137 vii

viii

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Ligatures and Diacritical Marks ..................................... 141 Conclusion .................................................................... 144 Chapter Seven. Orthographical Patterns in W ....................... 145 Chapter Eight. An Analysis of Singular Readings and Corrections in W...................................................................... 151 Singular Readings.......................................................... 151 Corrections .................................................................... 160 Conclusion ............................................................................ 165 Appendix One. Variants where Corrections Affect QA Results ..171 Appendix Two. Significant Singular Readings in W ............... 185 Bibliography ......................................................................... 211 Index .................................................................................... 223

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book is a revised and augmented version of my Ph.D. dissertation accepted by the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (NOBTS) in 2019. This work is the culmination of many years of research, and it would not have been possible without the assistance and patience of many different people: family, friends, and scholars alike. I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to my parents, Doug and Joy Burnett, for embodying a Christian faith that embraces intellectual inquiry. Without them, I would never have pursued textual criticism. Apart from my parents, the rest of my family deserves thanks as well (grandparents, siblings, and extended family members) for their love and support, but a few members merit special mention. My brother Joel Burnett helped me with the mathematical elements presented in the latter chapters of the monograph, and my sister Cheyenne Jones helped with the final proofreading. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Bill Warren, who not only mentored me in writing my dissertation but also guided me academically and spiritually during my time at NOBTS. I would also like to thank the members of the NOBTS H. Milton Haggard Center for New Testament Textual Studies, past and present, who have continually shown me generosity with their time, ideas, and resources. Special mention goes to Les Jensen, whose quantitative analysis computer program was absolutely fundamental for my research. Finally, I am also indebted to the other professors under whom I have studied, both at NOBTS and Southwest Baptist University (SBU). From NOBTS, I would like to thank Drs. Craig Price, Charles Ray, and Gerald Stevens. From SBU, I would like to thank Drs. Bing Bayer, Zach Manis, and Rodney Reeves. I ix

x

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

learned so much from all of you, and it is no exaggeration to say that you changed my life. I am particularly thankful to Mrs. Irlene Smith, a good friend of my grandparents who supported me both personally and financially during my time at NOBTS. In fact, it was only through her that I discovered NOBTS and the CNTTS. I am also grateful to my current employers at the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung (INTF) at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. The resources at the INTF are invaluable to any textcritical research, and this monograph is no exception. For my research, I am especially indebted to the INTF’s New Testament Virtual Manuscript Room. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the people at Gorgias Press who helped change my dissertation into a monograph. Drs. Brice Jones and Tuomas Rasimus, my editors, have been tremendously helpful and patient with me through the entire publishing process, from the initial contract to the final proofreading. Finally, I am indebted the series editor, Dr. Hugh Houghton, for his kind guidance and numerous insights while reading the many drafts of this book. It is an honor to have my work reviewed by someone of his caliber. I would like to end this section with a statement to the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom I owe everything: “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain . . . to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.” Amen.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS A ABD AJA AJT BASP BBR BDAG Bib BM BW C CBGM CNTTS E ECM EstBib ET ETL INTF IGNTP HTR JBL JECS JSNT JTS KC LXX MD

Apostrophe Anchor Bible Dictionary American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Theology Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists Bulletin for Biblical Research A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Biblica Breathing Mark The Biblical World Colon Coherence-Based Genealogical Method H. Milton Haggard Center for New Testament Textual Studies Ekthesis Editio Critica Maior Estudios Biblicos Expository Times Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung International Greek New Testament Project Harvard Theological Review Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal of Theological Studies Καί Compendium Septuagint Middle Dot xi

xii MS MSS MT NA NA27 NA28 Neot NSu NT NTS NT.VMR OL OT OTE P QA RB SBL TLZ TR TuT VL WPA WPBM WPC WPE WPKC WPM WPMD WPNSu WPOL WPP WPPa WPVLE WWU ZNW

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS Manuscript Manuscripts Majority Text Not Applicable Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Edition Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Edition Neotestamentica Nu Superline New Testament New Testament Studies Virtual Manuscript Room Other Ligatures Old Testament Online Transcription Editor Paragraphus Quantitative Analysis Revue biblique Society of Biblical Literature Theologische Literaturzeitung Textus Receptus Text und Textwert Vetus Latina Words per Apostrophe Words per Breathing Mark Words per Colon Words per Ekthesis Words per Καί Compendium Words per Paragraph Mark Words per Middle Dot Words per Nu Superline Words per Other Ligatures Words per Paragraph Words per Paragraphus Words per Vacant Line End Westfälische-Wilhelms Universität Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

INTRODUCTION Codex Washingtonianus, also known as the Freer Gospels and given the siglum W, has been claimed as ‘the third-oldest Greek parchment codex of the Gospels in the world’, coming behind only Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.1 Shortly after the manuscript was discovered and purchased by Charles Lang Freer in the early twentieth century, it was studied by Henry A. Sanders of the University of Michigan. Over several years, Sanders produced numerous publications based on his research. Despite the initial excitement surrounding its discovery, however, W has received curiously little academic attention since that time. Specific aspects of the manuscript have been explored by various scholars,2 but a detailed study of W in its entirety has not been undertaken after Sanders’s work. Codex Washingtonianus is certainly worthy of attention, as the manuscript exhibits numerous interesting textual features, only a few of which will I summarize here.3 First, Codex W displays some unique textual readings, the most celebrated of which is the Freer Logion inserted into the so-called Long Ending of Mark after 16:14. Second, although W is a Greek manuscript, it follows the Clark, ‘Paleography and Philanthropy’, in The Freer Biblical Manuscripts, p. 36. 2 For example, Larry Hurtado performs quantitative analysis on the Gospel of Mark in Text-Critical Methodology; Ulrich Schmid considers paleography and codicology in ‘Reassessing the Palaeography and Codicology of the Freer Gospel Manuscript’; and Thomas Shepherd uses narrative criticism in ‘Narrative Analysis as a Text-Critical Tool’. 3 Significant textual features of W, including the Freer Logion and the ‘Western’ order, are the primary focus of Chapter One. 1

1

2

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

‘Western’ order of the Gospels (named because of its appearance in many Latin manuscripts)—Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark—as opposed to the traditional Gospel order of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Third, and most significant for the character of the manuscript, W shows extensive block mixture in its textual affiliations. W appears to shift from one textual stream to another between Gospels and even in the midst of a single Gospel. Sanders was the first to establish block mixture in W, and his proposed textual divisions have endured in the academic community.4 Sanders’s textual divisions have gained such acceptance in the estimation of scholarship that even in a basic Anchor Bible Dictionary article on W, Larry Hurtado makes special mention of these divisions.5 Using the commonly accepted terminology, Sanders’s textual divisions are delineated in Table 1. Table 1. W’s Block Mixture6 Block Matthew John 1:1–5:11 John 5:12–21:25 Luke 1:1–8:12 Luke 8:13–24:53 Mark 1:1–5:30 Mark 5:31–16:20

Textual stream Byzantine Supplement (Mixed Alexandrian and ‘Western’) Alexandrian Alexandrian Byzantine ‘Western’ (Traditionally) ‘Caesarean’

Sanders not only noticed the block mixture of Codex W, but he also propounded a theory concerning these textual divisions. For Sanders, the basis of the block mixture phenomenon in W comes from the manuscript’s ancient provenance. The patchwork character of the parent MS plainly indicates origin in a time when Biblical MSS came near extinction in certain regions at least. As the last great persecution, in which Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, p. 133. Hurtado, ‘Codex Washingtonianus’, in ABD. 6 The designation of W in Mark as following the ‘Caesarean’ textual stream has been challenged decisively by Larry Hurtado in his dissertation: ‘Codex Washingtonianus in the Gospel of Mark’, republished as Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text. 4 5

INTRODUCTION

3

we are expressly told the sacred books were ordered destroyed, was begun by Diocletian in 303, we are probably justified in dating the parent of W soon after that date. Just how complete a MS of the gospels was gathered for that parent and how much the scribe of W had to add from other MSS we can not determine.7

Sanders’s theory about Codex W’s provenance cannot be tested with any certainty, but the block mixture itself can be examined using modern critical methods and technologies. His thesis concerning W’s block mixture has been oft repeated in textcritical works but has not yet been critically valuated, notwithstanding the passage of more than a century.8 Therefore, an examination of W’s block mixture is my primary focus in this monograph. Ultimately, I seek to clarify the question of block mixture in Codex Washingtonianus through a detailed study of the manuscript. By testing the validity of Sanders’s thesis, a fuller understanding of Codex W’s textual character can be achieved, through focusing on the apparent block mixture in its text but also noting other special features of the manuscript. Are the textual divisions apparent in W really as precise as Sanders proposed, down to the verse? Or are they less clearly defined, while still exhibiting readings from a variety of textual streams?

STATE OF RESEARCH

The American businessman and art collector Charles Lang Freer purchased Codex Washingtonianus along with several other biblical manuscripts from an Arab dealer in Egypt in 1906.9 Freer was well-known even in his lifetime for his extensive and diverse collection of art, which in addition to biblical manuscripts included pottery from the Far East and the largest collection of Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, p. 139. Besides Hurtado’s article in the ABD, another reference to W’s block mixture without further examination occurs in Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, p. 82. 9 Along with Codex W, which contains the Gospels, Freer also purchased manuscripts containing Deuteronomy-Joshua, the Psalms, the Minor Prophets, and the Pauline Epistles. See Clark, ‘Paleography and Philanthropy’ in The Freer Biblical Manuscripts, pp. 35–39. 7 8

4

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

James McNeill Whistler paintings in the world.10 Freer later donated his collection to the Smithsonian Museum, including the biblical manuscripts which he had purchased.11 After purchasing the manuscripts, Charles Freer looked for a qualified individual to study and publish them, eventually settling on Dr. Henry Sanders (previously a Latin expert) at the University of Michigan. Along with his work on the other manuscripts in the collection, Sanders published numerous articles, a facsimile, and ultimately a monograph on Codex W. Among his initial publications were two articles in the American Journal of Archaeology in 1908 and 1909, both detailing his initial findings about the manuscripts in the Freer collection.12 The culmination of his work on W (outlining the apparent block mixture in the manuscript detailed above) was a full examination of the entire manuscript, including textual analysis, paleography, codicology, scribal habits, and a full collation.13 Sanders studied Freer’s manuscripts for several years, so unsurprisingly, his understanding of these manuscripts, particularly Codex W, evolved over time. As such, the conclusions Sanders presented in his initial articles on W were sometimes different from those he presented in his monograph. For example, Sanders originally dated the supplementary quire of John earlier than the rest of the manuscript, making this quire not a supplement of W but rather the remnant quire of a lost possible ancestor of W.14 By the time he published his monograph, however, Sanders had modified his original supposition. He Articles that detail Freer’s artistic collection contemporary to his time include Fenollosa, ‘The Collection of Mr. Charles Lang Freer’, pp. 55–66; Mechlin, ‘The Freer Collection of Art’, pp. 357–68; and Havemeyer, ‘The Freer Museum of Oriental Art’, pp. 529–40. Unfortunately, none of these make mention of the manuscripts that Freer had purchased for his collection. 11 The history behind Freer’s purchase and publication of Codex W and the other manuscripts are revisited in more detail in Chapter One. 12 Sanders, ‘New Manuscripts of the Bible from Egypt’, pp. 49–55, and ‘Age and Ancient Home of Biblical Manuscripts in the Freer Collection’, pp. 130–41. 13 Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection. 14 Sanders, ‘Age and Ancient Home’, p. 136. 10

INTRODUCTION

5

admitted that the first quire of John is in fact a supplement because of the visible crowding of letters in its later folios. However, this first part of John was not supposed by Sanders to be a supplement of W but a supplement of an entirely different and lost manuscript.15 Even to Sanders’s contemporaries, this was a strange proposal.16 The reason for this bizarre claim can be perhaps traced to Sanders’s over-enthusiasm with W. Like many academics amid a new and exciting discovery, Sanders likely fought with the impulse to increase Codex W’s historical significance. Concerning the first quire of John, he writes, [The scribe] was not copying an injured or wornout quire, but was restoring a lost one; he was not copying a definite quire, but was striving to arrange in a quire a certain amount of text. His task was to copy as far as the words κραβαττον σου και περιπατει of 5, 12, but he stopped with the same words in verse 11. This might have been an omission in the parent text and be explained as due to like endings, but the fact that the omission falls exactly at the end of the quire seems sufficient proof that it was made in copying this inserted quire. . . . I can not avoid the conclusion that the error had a common origin, and therefore all others having it are indebted to W, or rather to the first quire of John in W.17

In other words, the omission of John 5:12 is due to homoeoteleuton, and Sanders simply does not want to admit it. Rather, he desires to use this omission to make W the ancestor of many manuscripts and thus increase its importance in the textual tradition.18 In this statement, Sanders refuses to accept that

Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, p. 139. J. Edgar Goodspeed engages Sanders’s treatment of the supplement in an article, noting (correctly) that supposing the first quire of John to supplement a hypothetical manuscript and then be incorporated into W both violates the philosophical principle of Occam’s Razor and fails to account for the paleographical evidence. Goodspeed, ‘Critical Notes’, pp. 240–49. 17 Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, p. 136. 18 Ulrich Schmid presents a detailed critique of Sanders as part of his contribution to the Freer Biblical Manuscripts anthology (see below). 15 16

6

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

homoeoteleuton, as an accidental omission, often arises independently in multiple places in the manuscript tradition. In truth, Sanders need not have worried. The variety of interesting readings and features of Codex W, not least its apparent block mixture, make the manuscript a fascinating object of study. Sanders was the first to note the textual divisions in W, albeit using terminology no longer accepted today. In an article, Zachary Cole neatly summarizes Sanders’s textual divisions using the terminology available to Sanders: ‘Sanders divided the codex into no less than seven distinct parts and specified a source for each: (1) Matt 1:1–8:20: Antioch (2) John 5:12–21:25: Hesychian (3) John 1:1–5:11: mostly Heschyian [sic] with some Coptic influence (4) Luke 1:1–8:12: Hesychian (5) Luke 8:13–24:53: Antioch (6) Mark 1:1–5:30: from a Greek-Latin bilingual (7) Mark 5:31–16:20: from a trilingual with decided Latin-Syriac and less Coptic tendencies.’19 What Sanders had labeled as Antiochene would now be considered Byzantine, and Sanders’s Hesychian source corresponds to the Alexandrian textual stream.20 Sanders’s hypothetical Greek-Latin diglot for the first part of Mark obviously corresponds to the ‘Western’ textual stream, and his description of the latter part of Mark (Latin, Syriac, and Coptic influences) reflects the thoroughly mixed nature of this textual block.21 Sanders’s ideas about sources are now outdated (it is now understood that differing textual streams have little, if anything, to do with geography),22 but his textual divisions remain Cole, ‘Evaluating Scribal Freedom and Fidelity’, p. 227. The Hesychian source is named after the Greek grammarian Hesychius of Alexandria. This text type is one of von Soden’s three proposed text types: Koine (K), Hesychian/Egyptian (H), and Jerusalem (I). See von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. 21 Even more than the concept of a ‘text type’ in general (see Chapter Two), the legitimacy of the ‘Western’ text type has been questioned. The text is less coherent than that of other textual streams, and we have no reason to believe that the ‘Western’ text was ever historically located in the West. See Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 54–55. 22 The separation of textual stream from geographical location began with a 2006 SBL presentation by Holger Strutwolf, titled, ‘Alexandrian, Western Byzantine? The Theory of Local Text Types—A Plea for a Paradigm Shift in New Testament Textual Research’. Strutwolf later used 19 20

INTRODUCTION

7

untouched. As seen in Table 1, Hurtado updated the terminology but kept the textual blocks. Furthermore, Sanders’s extensive work on W (including paleography, codicology, punctuation, segmentation, abbreviations, ligatures, and more) ensured the continuation of his academic legacy. Although Sanders’s work on Codex W is the best known, he was not the only scholar to have studied the manuscript early on. In fact, the discovery of this new manuscript of the Gospels caused a flurry of scholarly activity in the 1900s, drawing the attention of Caspar René Gregory, Albert J. Edmunds, F. C. Burkitt, J. Edgar Goodspeed, and B. H. Streeter. Gregory published a German pamphlet on W’s most famous variant, the so-called Freer Logion, in 1908—almost immediately after the manuscript was brought to the West. However, Gregory failed to persuade Freer to publish an English version of his study.23 Edmunds published a short article on the ending of the Gospel of Mark in W, although he does not mention the Freer Logion.24 In an article published in 1927, ‘W and Θ: Studies in the Western Text of St. Mark’, Burkitt compares several noteworthy readings of the two recently discovered manuscripts.25 Of more interest concerning Sanders’s ideas, however, is the work of J. Edgar Goodspeed. Goodspeed published two articles and a full transcription of Codex W.26 The first of these two articles, ‘Notes on the Freer Gospels’, engages with Sanders on his initial findings in W, especially concerning the manuscript’s provenance.27 The second article, ‘Critical Notes: The Washington material from his SBL presentation for a journal article. See Strutwolf, ‘Entstehung und Entwicklung der Rezensionhypothese in der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft’, pp. 5–42. 23 Gregory, Das Freer-Logion. Clark provides a fuller account of Gregory’s struggles with Freer in ‘Paleography and Philanthropy’, n. 51. 24 Edmunds, ‘The Washington Manuscript and the Resurrection in Mark’, pp. 528–29. 25 Burkitt, ‘Studies in the Western Text of St. Mark’, p. 139. 26 Goodspeed, The Freer Gospels; ‘Notes on the Freer Gospels’; pp. 597– 603, and ‘Critical Notes’. 27 Because the manuscript was acquired in the antiquities market, the provenance of Codex W is difficult to determine. A full discussion of the issues surrounding W’s provenance is undertaken in Chapter One.

8

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Manuscript of the Gospels’, essentially comprises a review of Sanders’s monograph. Although he tentatively accepts Sanders’s analysis of W’s block mixture, Goodspeed takes issue with connecting the manuscript to Diocletian’s persecution. In this ingenious analysis and reconstruction, one must wonder whether the textual problem has not been somewhat too mechanically handled, and whether a subtler test might not have disclosed more homogeneity within the individual gospels than this treatment allows. Certainly we cannot agree that the textual phenomena quite justify the theory of the patchwork parent, resting on bilingual and trilingual codices from North Africa, and various sources, and further pieced out by the scribe of W.28

Goodspeed makes an important point here: accepting block mixture in W does not necessarily entail a particular theory of the manuscript’s textual history. The textual character of a manuscript can be examined without attempting to connect the text to a historical event. In particular, W’s block mixture can be studied without linking the manuscript or its exemplar(s) to Diocletian’s persecution.29 A contrasting opinion from this period is that of B. H. Streeter. Streeter was a major proponent of the now largely debunked theory of a ‘Caesarean’ text of the Gospels in Codex W, particularly Mark. A short article in the Journal of Theological Studies outlines Streeter’s basic theory that W follows the ‘Caesarean’ text (along with manuscripts like 038).30 In a longer article, Streeter takes his ideas further, proposing an alternate hypothesis for the presence of W’s block mixture.31 His hypothesis is worth quoting in full. Goodspeed, ‘Critical Notes’, pp. 245–46. Ultimately, Sanders’s speculations about the connection between Codex W’s composition and Diocletian’s persecution, while intriguing, fail the standards of falsifiability. The academic community has no way of determining, given the historical data available to it, the plausibility of any such historical connection. 30 Streeter, ‘The Washington Manuscripts and the Caesarean Text of the Gospels’, pp. 144–47. 31 Streeter, ‘The Washington Manuscript of the Gospels’, pp. 165–72. 28 29

INTRODUCTION

9

An ancestor of W came from the West—most probably from Rome, from the Greek text of which city the African Latin Version is probably descended. It was brought to Caesarea. Before or after its arrival there, the binding being loosened, it lost some quires at the end—the beginning and end of a manuscript are always most likely to suffer. Now in a manuscript in which the gospels are arranged in the Western order, damage to the end would mean the loss of the latter part of Mark. . . . Suppose that happened to the ancestor of W. Its owner would get a Caesarean scribe to replace the lost leaves from a local manuscript. . . . Suppose next that the MS., or a copy of it, was taken to Egypt. The gospel most read in Egypt was that according to John. Naturally, therefore, an Alexandrian reviser would first of all work on the text in John. Having finished John, it would be natural to go on to Luke, since in this manuscript Luke followed immediately after John; but after reading Luke 8, 12 he gave up his task. . . . The MS. may have been left alone for fifty years or so; then another corrector took up the work, this time using the Byzantine text as his standard.32

Streeter’s ideas are more ingenious than plausible, not least because they are overly complex. They rest on numerous suppositions that are difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate.33 Furthermore, Streeter’s ideas fail because they rely on outdated understandings of text types. However, his work on W is notable in that it shows the longevity of Sanders’s work on the same manuscript. Streeter’s ideas died with him, but Sanders’s work continues to be accepted and cited. Despite interest in Codex W in the early twentieth century, the manuscript was somewhat neglected afterward.34 W is indeed a focus, albeit not the main one, of Calvin Porter’s 1961 dissertation, ‘A Textual Analysis of the Earliest Greek Manuscripts of the Gospel of John’. Porter collated a number of early Ibid., p. 170. Streeter’s shaky methodological ground is shown even in his language: words like ‘suppose’, ‘may’, and ‘naturally’ appear throughout the passage. 34 The Freer Logion (not W as a whole) was the subject of a German dissertation in 1959. See Helze, ‘Der Schluss des Markusevangeliums (Mk 16, 9–20) und das Freer-Logion (Mk. 16, 14w)’. 32 33

10

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

manuscripts of John (notably P66, P75, Sinaiticus [‫א‬, 01], Vaticanus [B, 03], and Washingtonianus [W, 032]), ran basic quantitative analyses on these manuscripts, and studied variants in these manuscripts for theological tendencies. The most relevant part of his work for the current study is his description of W as a manuscript.35 With the work of Larry Hurtado, Codex W became a focus of scholarly attention once more. In 1973, Hurtado published his dissertation, ‘Codex Washingtonianus in the Gospel of Mark: Its Textual Relationships and Scribal Characteristics’, at Case Western Reserve University. In his dissertation, Hurtado examines the relationship between W and the alleged ‘Caesarean’ text, a controversial text-type which earlier scholars, including Streeter, had promoted W in Mark to be a leading representative. Using seven textual witnesses and one edition for comparison with W (‫א‬, 01; A, 02; B, 03; D, 05; Θ, 038; 565; Family 13; and the TR), Hurtado employs quantitative analysis as developed by Ernest Colwell as his primary methodology.36 He concludes that although W and P45 (another ‘leading representative’ of the ‘Caesarean’ text) share a degree of textual affinity with one another, neither manuscript shows significant affinity with the principal manuscripts of the ‘Caesarean’ text: 038 and 565. Rather, he writes that ‘the W-P45 text does not belong to any major text-type’.37 Hurtado revised his dissertation and published it as a monograph in 1981.38 A few decades later, Codex W was the subject of a dissertation by Steven Kearfott in 2005 at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: ‘Codex Washingtonianus as an Illustration of the Need Porter, ‘A Textual Analysis of the Earliest Greek Manuscripts of the Gospel of John’, pp. 83–86. 36 Colwell, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism. 37 Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology, p. 88. 38 Hurtado challenges Sanders’s textual divisions in Mark, albeit in a minor way. While he agrees with Sanders that the first part of Mark is ‘Western’ and that the text shifts in chapter 5, he asserts that the division occurs earlier than 5:30, where Sanders had placed it. Hurtado, based on the results of his quantitative analysis, believes that the shift happens after 5:6. Ibid., pp. 14–23. Hurtado’s and Sanders’s diverging conclusions are engaged in Chapters Two and Three. 35

INTRODUCTION

11

for the Discipline of Apparatus Criticism.’ Kearfott’s work for his dissertation was extensive, but his presented methodology falls far short of scholarly standards. Kearfott defines ‘apparatus criticism’ merely as evaluating the accuracy of a given textual apparatus, in his case the Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Edition (NA27). Kearfott uses Codex W as a test case in his attempt to show that the NA27 inaccurately represents the textual evidence in a significant manner. However, Kearfott’s dissertation fails on two counts. First, he appears not to understand the nature of a negative apparatus, the kind of apparatus used in the NA27. Most of Kearfott’s listed ‘discrepancies’ are variation units in which W simply is not cited. Second, and more problematic, fact-checking an apparatus is not a critical methodology. Ensuring the accuracy of a published textual apparatus is highly important, but it does not comprise the original contribution to knowledge that a dissertation requires. Kearfott’s dissertation is one of the few studies to consider W in its entirety, but the flaws therein severely limit its value. The crowning academic achievement on Codex W is the anthology titled, The Freer Biblical Manuscripts: Fresh Studies of an American Treasure Trove. The anthology was published in 2006 for the centennial celebration of the discovery of the manuscripts which make up the Freer collection. As the anthology’s editor, Larry Hurtado wrote the introduction to the book, focusing on Codex W. Hurtado reiterates both Sanders’s textual divisions and the proposed connection between W and Diocletian’s persecution, although he does not examine these issues in detail.39 Although not all of the essays in the volume pertain to W, the Gospels manuscript commands most of the attention, as will be seen in the following description of its contents.40 Kent Clark’s essay, ‘Paleography and Philanthropy: Charles Lang Freer and His Acquisition of the “Freer Biblical Manuscripts”’, concerns not the Freer collection as such but Charles Freer the man. This essay contains a short biography of Freer and an account of his acquisition of several manuscripts in Egypt, later Hurtado, ‘Introduction’, in The Freer Biblical Manuscripts. In his review, Tommy Wasserman criticizes the anthology for focusing excessively on W in a work intended to cover the entire Freer collection. See Wasserman, ‘The Freer Biblical Manuscripts’, pp. 1–7. 39 40

12

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

constituting the Freer collection. The most important aspect of the essay, however, is Clark’s discussion of the modern provenance of these manuscripts before they came to be in Freer’s possession. Provenance is notoriously difficult to establish, and the provenance of W is no exception. Clark summarizes the positions of numerous contemporary scholars (including Sanders), before turning to what he considered the most likely location of W’s discovery: the Egyptian site of Dimai.41 Jean-François Racine is the first individual in the anthology to consider the text of Codex W in the essay, ‘The Text of Matthew in the Freer Gospels: A Quantitative and Qualitative Appraisal’. As in the present study, Racine uses quantitative analysis, but he applies the methodology only to the Gospel of Matthew. He divided Matthew into seven four-chapter segments and ran an analysis on each. He notes that W shares different rates of agreement with other manuscripts in various segments of the text, but the differences are not enough to shake the consensus that the manuscript in Matthew follows the Byzantine tradition: ‘It is obvious that in Matthew W has a significantly higher rate of agreement with the Byzantine textual group than any other.’42 Qualitatively, Racine compared the textual cohesion of W with the textual cohesion of Codex Vaticanus (B, 03). He concludes that W in Matthew displays more textual cohesion than 03. However, Racine stresses that the manuscript’s greater textual cohesion does not necessarily mean that W is chronologically anterior to 03.43 As an introduction to the problems of provenance in ancient manuscripts, Brent Nongbri also summarizes the story of Codex W’s discovery. Nongbri provides a more succinct account than does Clark, making his narrative more accessible to the average reader. See Nongbri, God’s Library, pp. 1–9. 42 Racine, ‘The Text of Matthew in the Freer Gospels’, in The Freer Biblical Manuscripts, p. 133. 43 Racine borrowed the idea of textual cohesion from discourse analysis, and he defines it as ‘the set of resources available to a writer for construction relations in discourse that transcend grammatical structure. Roughly said, it is what makes the difference between a coherent text and a juxtaposition of unrelated sentences.’ Racine lists five accepted elements of cohesion: reference, ellipsis, substitution, conjunction, and 41

INTRODUCTION

13

Racine focuses on the text of W in Matthew, but J. Bruce Prior focuses on the abbreviations in ‘The Use and Nonuse of Nomina Sacra in the Freer Gospel of Matthew’. As the title suggests, Prior analyzes the treatment of various nomina sacra in W’s Matthew. Although the ‘big four’ (θεός, Ἰησοῦς, κύριος, and Xριστός) are consistently abbreviated in Matthew, all other nomina sacra are treated inconsistently, and some otherwise common sacred names (such as οὐρανός and υἱός) are never abbreviated in this Gospel. Prior does not neglect the other Gospels when variations in abbreviation appear significant.44 Building on some of Larry Hurtado’s previous work on Mark,45 Dennis Haugh’s essay, ‘Was Codex Washingtonianus a Copy or a New Text?’ studies the degree of redactional control that the scribe of W exhibited in all four Gospels. In his own words, Haugh asks the question, ‘Was the original scribe slavishly faithful to a number of exemplars, or did the scribe rather act as a self-conscious redactor, modifying all the Gospel texts to suit the needs of the community who supported the scribal work?’46 Such a question has clear implications for the validity of block mixture in Codex W. By analyzing unique variants, Haugh concludes that the scribe of W did copy the exemplar faithfully: lexical cohesion. The concept of textual cohesion is useful for textual criticism in that it illuminates the history of transmission. A more cohesive text is more likely to have been modified during transmission and thus likely to have emerged later than a less cohesive text. Ibid., pp. 135–36. 44 This essay is not Prior’s only work on W. He also, with T. A. E. Brown produced a full but, as yet unpublished, transcription of W, which he graciously shared with me. See Prior and Brown, The Freer Gospels. He also wrote an article on a variant contained in the supplementary quire of John, but as the article pertains to a single variant, I do not include it in this summary. See Prior, ‘Who is Full of Grace and Truth in W’s Text of John 1:14?’ pp. 233–38. 45 The final chapter of Hurtado’s Text-Critical Methodology, ‘Scribal Purposes of Codex W’, examines the manuscript’s singular readings in Mark. Hurtado concludes that in Mark, either W or its parent manuscript shows clear evidence of scribal redaction. Hurtado’s conclusions about scribal redaction in W are revisited in Chapter Eight. 46 Haugh, ‘Was Codex Washingtonianus a Copy or a New Text?’ in The Freer Biblical Manuscripts, p. 167.

14

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS We . . . see evidence supporting the theory that the scribe of W worked from an exemplar . . . copying the text of the respective Gospels as it lay before him. There is simply no evidence of a self-conscious redaction attempting to promote a common theological viewpoint in the W texts of Matthew and Mark. . . . Codex W, it appears to me, is a late fourth/fifthcentury compilation of unrelated copies of the Gospels by a single scribe in a single codex.47

The implications of Haugh’s conclusion here support Sanders’s ideas concerning block mixture. If, as Haugh asserts, the scribe of W copied the exemplar(s) faithfully, then the striking differences in W’s textual affinity in various blocks are due to differences in exemplar, not editorial activity. In ‘The Corrections in the Freer Gospels Codex’, James Royse applies his other work on scribal habits to Codex W.48 Using highresolution color images produced for the centenary of W’s discovery, Royse identifies four correctors in the main text of the manuscript (one of which was the original scribe) and three correctors in the Johannine supplement (one of which was the supplement’s original scribe). Finally, Royse lists several corrections whose hand he is unable to discern. Royse then provides a comprehensive list and analysis of all the scribal corrections found in W, comparing his own list with Henry Sanders’s earlier list. The corrections present in W, Royse concludes, show a high degree of care on the part of the correctors Ibid., p. 180. At first glance, Haugh’s conclusion appears markedly different from that of Hurtado, who writes concerning Mark, ‘As one examines these cases, the impression is inescapable that the text of W is the result of deliberate editorial activity.’ Hurtado, Text Critical Methodology, p. 81. However, Hurtado admits, ‘It should be noted here that it is not absolutely essential that the variants mentioned here must be the work of the particular scribe of W. It is theoretically possible that some of the variants were created earlier than Codex W and that the scribe of Codex W copied faithfully his exemplar.’ Ibid., p. 69. Haugh and Hurtado can be reconciled by concluding tentatively that the scribe of W did copy the exemplar faithfully but that W’s exemplar in Mark showed evidence of editorial activity. Haugh and Hurtado’s conclusions are explored more fully in Chapter Eight. 48 Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri. 47

INTRODUCTION

15

when copying W’s exemplar. Royse’s conclusions thus cohere well with those of Haugh. The last essay in Hurtado’s anthology to consider Codex W, by Ulrich Schmid, is ‘Reassessing the Palaeography and Codicology of the Freer Gospel Manuscript’. Schmid takes issue with Henry Sanders’s reconstruction of W’s history and provenance, particularly from a methodological standpoint. Schmid points out the methodological problems behind Sanders’s reconstruction. These conclusions include not only judgments on genealogical relationships between W and other witnesses but also inferences drawn from the dates and/or textual data of these other witnesses. These inferences are then exploited to unravel the datings and successive stages of W’s composition history, specifically the combination of the first quire of John with the rest of the manuscript. . . . The problem is mainly due to difficulties in reconciling various matters logically and chronologically.49

Schmid proposes instead, therefore, to use the established methodologies of paleography and codicology to reconsider the question of W’s date. Using these, he explores the possibility that W might be dated to the sixth century, not the traditionally accepted date of late fourth to early fifth century.50 Since the publication of Hurtado’s anthology, Codex W has been the focus of a small number of additional studies. The first of these adopts the unusual perspective of applying narrative criticism to a manuscript. In a 2006 article in the Journal of Early Christian Studies, Justin Howell explores ‘The Characterization of Schmid, ‘Reassessing the Palaeography and Codicology of the Freer Gospel Manuscript’, p. 232. 50 Schmid provides an excellent analysis of the quires of W (and their rebinding, helpful in assessing the originality of W’s ‘Western’ order). Schmid also argues that the case of W’s date should not be closed until the paleography could be supported by scientific analyses: ‘The first items on my wish list would be multispectral photos of crucial pages of the Freer Gospels and a new codicological analysis. . . . The last item on my wish list is a state-of-the-art radiocarbon dating of the two parts of the Freer Gospels.’ Unfortunately, these tests have yet to be performed. Ibid., pp. 248–49. 49

16

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Jesus in Codex W’. Using eight singular and two subsingular readings in the manuscript (Matthew 4:23; 12:48; 26:52; John 21:4; Luke 8:38; 24:36; Mark 1:27; 3:21; 6:50; 10:32), Howell outlines his understanding of the portrayal of Jesus in W: ‘Just as Jesus and other key figures are portrayed as having the abilities, qualities, and duties of a philosopher in early Christian polemic, the character of Jesus displays such a portrayal in Codex W.’51 Howell’s work lead to later narrative analyses of W by Shepherd and Lisboa (see below). Two years later, an essay by John Lowden, ‘The Word Made Visible: The Exterior of the Early Christian Book as Visual Argument’, makes brief but significant mention of Codex W.52 Lowden considers not the text of W but the painted wood covers of the manuscript, noteworthy themselves for a variety of reasons. Not only do they provide an example of early Christian artwork, but the covering of a manuscript can also assist in establishing its date. In addition, the wood covers of W bring attention to the manuscript not as a text but as an artifact, helping to situate the physical object in history. W is the only surviving example of such covers from the early period: in Lowden’s estimation, the covers were created in the fifth century and painted in the seventh. Because painted wood is highly fragile, Lowden proposes that W was used as a relic rather than a text. W likely would not have been read regularly in an increasingly Coptic-speaking setting, but rather its text would have been ‘enshrined’ in the painted wood covers. Because wood was used as the binding material, Lowden places W’s creation in the fifth century. Both the fourth and sixth centuries, in contrast, displayed their own binding techniques.53 Like Howell before him, Thomas Shepherd applies narrative methodology to Codex W. In a 2009 article, he compares the theological tendencies of W in the Long Ending of Mark (including the Freer Logion) with those evident in the rest of the Gospel. Given the vastly different lengths of the two texts, the

Howell, ‘The Characterization of Jesus in Codex W’, p. 47. Lowden, ‘The Word Made Visible’, in The Early Christian Book. 53 Lowden, ‘The Word Made Visible’, pp. 21–23. 51 52

INTRODUCTION

17

results of his investigation may be called into question. Despite this problem, he concludes that Mark’s Gospel in W emphasizes the ‘cosmic power of Christ . . . [which] correlates well with the triumph of the church over paganism in the fourth to fifth centuries CE when W was copied’.54 Shepherd appears to be on firmer methodological ground in an article he co-wrote with Joel Lisboa a few years later. In this article, Shepherd and Lisboa use narrative criticism to analyze the lectio difficilior of Mark 1:40–45 (σπλαγχνισθείς versus ὀργισθείς) in Codices Bezae, Vaticanus, and Washingtonianus (D, 05; B, 03; and W, 032).55 Although ὀργισθείς in 05 has been accepted traditionally as the lectio difficilior in this passage, Lisboa and Shepherd argue that 03 (which uses σπλαγχνισθείς) contains the true lectio difficilior. 05 and W (which also uses σπλαγχνισθείς), despite using different words, are both narratively consistent; 03, however, is narratively inconsistent. Shepherd and Lisboa’s work in this article shows a different method of arriving at the lectio difficilior, challenging one of the ‘canons’ of textual criticism. Furthermore, their work demonstrates that problematic variants such as this can be explained more fully when examined holistically. Another dissertation to consider some features in Codex W is Jeongseop Ahn’s ‘Segmentation Features in New Testament Manuscripts: An Overlooked Resource for Editors and Translators’. Ahn studies and categorizes the instances of segmentation and punctuation of many early manuscripts, both papyri and majuscules. For Codex W, however, Ahn limits himself to the Gospel of Matthew. This restriction is never explained and is all the more problematic since, for other manuscripts, Ahn utilizes data from all four Gospels.56 Such a delimitation diminishes the value of Ahn’s dissertation for a study of W’s block mixture, given that such research naturally needs to encompass the entire manuscript. Shepherd, p. 77. Lisboa and Shepherd, ‘Comparative Analysis as a Tool in Determining the Lectio Difficilior in Mark 1:40–45’, pp. 75–89. 56 Ahn did delineate some helpful categories of segmentation and punctuation in the early manuscripts, and his categories are briefly discussed in Chapter Five. Ahn, ‘Segmentation Features in New Testament Manuscripts’. 54 55

18

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

In his dissertation, since republished as a monograph, Gregory Paulson includes Codex W in Scribal Habits and Singular Readings in Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Bezae, and Washingtonianus in the Gospel of Matthew.57 Paulson focuses on the singular readings in W, paying attention to special features such as nomina sacra. Paulson examines the singular readings of W in Matthew thoroughly, noting differing orthographies, changes out of context, parablepses, transpositions, changes in context, synonyms, Attic and Hebraic influences, aorist constructions, stylistic changes, emphatic changes, theological changes, and conflations. Importantly, Paulson includes both ‘significant’ variations (such as transpositions) and ‘insignificant’ variations (such as orthography). He concludes that the singular readings in W, though intentional, were minor changes created merely to improve upon the manuscript’s exemplar. Paulson’s conclusion therefore coheres with that of Dennis Haugh, mentioned above. Another recent work on Codex W is Zachary Cole’s article, ‘Evaluating Scribal Freedom and Fidelity: Number-Writing Techniques in Codex Washingtonianus (W 032)’. In this article, Cole studies the block mixture of W from a paratextual perspective, namely its methods of numerical notation. In Codex W, numbers are both abbreviated and written plene throughout the manuscript. Cole notes that W’s style of numerical notation depends on the textual blocks in which numbers appear, thus largely following W’s block mixture. He concludes, ‘Each block of text is characterized not only by a particular text-type, but also by a different scribal preference of number-writing’.58 In 2019, David Herbison produced a dissertation on the use of OT quotations in W, titled, ‘As It is Copied: Textual Transmission of the New Testament Quotations of the Old Testament in Codex Washingtonianus’.59 Herbison’s research was inspired by the expansion of a quote from Isaiah in Mark 1:3, a singular reading in the Greek tradition that multiplies the length of the original quotation five times. Intrigued by this, Herbison

Paulson, Scribal Habits and Singular Readings. Cole, ‘Evaluating Scribal Freedom and Fidelity’, p. 237. 59 Herbison, ‘As It is Copied’. 57 58

INTRODUCTION

19

studies W’s quotations from the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Minor and Major Prophets from several angles: multiple citations of the same OT text, differences from the LXX, singular readings in quotations, the relationship between W’s and 05’s OT quotations, and most significantly for the present research, the use of diplai (a distinct paratextual feature) in W’s margins. Synthesizing this information, Herbison critiques and qualifies the criterion of textual dissimilarity used as a principle for understanding NT citations of the OT. In particular, Herbison observes that the LXX text did not always exhibit as strong an influence on NT quotations as previously believed.60 This account presents most of the studies undertaken on Codex Washingtonianus, from when the manuscript was initially published up to the present day. Although W is a highly significant manuscript, the Codex remains under-researched. Matthew and Mark have been studied in several scholarly works, but little research has been undertaken in Luke and John, even though the first quire of John has been identified as a supplement dated to the seventh century.61 Furthermore, Sanders’s initial work on W, especially the manuscript’s apparent block mixture, has never been systematically reevaluated using modern methodological techniques.

OUTLINE AND M ETHODOLOGY

This monograph is divided into eight chapters. In Chapter One, titled ‘Mining Codex W: Description, Observations, and Transcriptions’, I provide a detailed description of W and technical explanations of the transcriptions used for research. My point in this chapter is not to provide new information but to give the reader a thorough understanding of Codex W, noting interesting features both of its text and its paratext. An understanding of the features of W is foundational for Ibid., pp. 408–12. Kenneth Clark dates the supplement to the eighth century, while Frederic Kenyon dates it to the seventh century. Kenyon’s date has been consistently adopted by later scholars. See Clark, A Descriptive Catalogue of Greek New Testament Manuscripts in America, p. 202, and Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible, p. 101. 60 61

20

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

comprehension of the findings presented in the rest of the book. The major findings of my study are produced in Chapters Two and Three, ‘Methodology of The Quantitative Analysis’ and ‘Results of the Quantitative Analysis’. As the titles suggest, I use my primary methodology in these chapters, quantitative analysis,62 to evaluate Sanders’s assertions of block mixture and examine his textual divisions. The H. Milton Haggard Center for New Testament Textual Studies (henceforth referred to as the CNTTS) textual apparatus was used as the basis of the quantitative analysis,63 and W was compared with representative manuscripts of various textual streams (listed in Chapter Two). I include several quantitative analyses in this monograph: an analysis of the entire manuscript (excluding the supplementary quire of John), analyses of the individual Gospels, analyses of Sanders’s textual divisions, and finally, analyses of each of W’s quires.64 After all these data are presented, I examine the quantitative analyses for the presence (or absence) of block mixture. The findings of Chapters Two and Three, concerning quantitative analysis, are supplemented by the findings of the last five chapters. In Chapter Four, I verify the findings of my quantitative analyses using the data published by Text und Textwert. In the remaining chapters, I consider paratextual and other elements of Codex W to see whether they also reflect block mixture. In Chapter Five, ‘An Analysis of Segmentation and Punctuation’, I classify the segmentation and punctuation patterns apparent in W and compare them with the proposed As designed by Ernest Colwell in Colwell, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism. I modify Colwell’s methodology on some important points, and I delineate these points in Chapter Two. 63 The Center for New Testament Textual Studies Textual Apparatus. 64 In past studies of Codex W and other manuscripts, quantitative analyses have often been performed on individual chapters. However, I feel that analyses based on chapter divisions not inherent in the texts leads to problematic arbitrariness. Therefore, I chose to base my quantitative analyses on the quires in W, divisions that are, if not inherent in the texts, are at least inherent in the manuscript. Furthermore, Sanders’s proposed textual shifts often occur in the middle of quires, providing another avenue for evaluating his work. 62

INTRODUCTION

21

textual blocks of the manuscript. In the sixth chapter, ‘A Study of the Nomina Sacra, Numerals, and Other Features’, I use similar methods to compare these elements with W’s textual blocks. The seventh chapter, ‘Orthographical Variations’, examines the numerous orthographical variations present in W for patterns and compares these to the manuscript’s block mixture. Finally, in Chapter Eight, ‘An Analysis of Singular Readings and Corrections’, I consider both the singular readings and the corrections present in Codex W. The main point of this chapter is to consider anew the question of scribal fidelity: was the scribe of W a faithful copyist or a conscious redactor of their exemplar? Many of the works discussed above have specific implications for each chapter of the book, particularly the latter five, and I revisit these works in greater detail in the relevant chapters. The conclusion of this book synthesizes the information presented in the body of the work and relates this information back to Sanders’s block mixture thesis. Is Sanders right in asserting that W displays block mixture, both in its text and its paratext? Furthermore, are his proposed divisions of W’s text, precise down to the verse, to be regarded as accurate? Although I attempt to present a comprehensive study of Codex Washingtonianus, I must mention a certain number of constraints. First, the findings I present in this monograph are based on image and facsimile resources, as I was not able personally to view the manuscript. These resources consist primarily of high-resolution color images made for the 2006 centenary of Codex W’s discovery, which are available through the New Testament Virtual Manuscript Room (henceforth referred to as the NT.VMR) created by the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung (INTF) at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität (WWU) Münster. Furthermore, a full-color facsimile was made available to me during my time at the CNTTS, along with the earlier work and images initially released by Henry Sanders.65 These resources, particularly the images found on the NT.VMR, are of such quality that, apart from a few codicological Codex Washingtonianus, Facsimile. Sanders, Facsimile of the Washington Manuscript of the Four Gospels in the Freer Collection. 65

22

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

observations, I was not hindered in my examination of the manuscript. In any case, codicology (along with paleography) is not a major focus of my research. In this monograph, these methods are considered only insofar as they pertain to a study of Codex W’s block mixture. Even though several scholarly works considering W’s date have been discussed above, no new reconsideration of date will be undertaken in this book. A study of Codex W’s block mixture can easily be undertaken without reference to the manuscript’s date. In addition, although Henry Sanders linked W with the other biblical manuscripts that Charles Freer bought in Egypt, I consider no other manuscript in the Freer collection.66 Furthermore, I do not consider the painted wood covers of W, although I admire them as important examples of early Christian artwork.67 Finally, I only briefly consider the diplai in W’s margins (although they constitute an important paratextual feature) so as not to overlap with David Herbison’s work. These diplai mark quotations from the OT in W, and W’s treatment of OT quotations is the focus of Herbison’s dissertation.

Sanders thought that all four manuscripts were part of a single ancient library: ‘The four manuscripts are of different sizes, shapes, and ages, but they apparently once formed volumes of a single Bible.’ Sanders, ‘New Manuscripts of the Bible from Egypt’, p. 49. Sanders brings up an intriguing line of inquiry but not one that is considered in this book. 67 As noted above, John Lowden uses the wood covers, not the text, to argue for a traditional dating of W. Although the images on the covers are dated to the seventh century, the covers themselves most likely date to the fifth century. See Lowden, ‘The Word Made Visible’, pp. 21–23. 66

CHAPTER ONE. MINING CODEX W: DESCRIPTION, OBSERVATIONS, TRANSCRIPTIONS DESCRIPTION

Most commonly known in the United States as Codex Washingtonianus, the manuscript is actually known by several names, including Washingtonianus, Washingtoniensis, Freerianus, the Washington Manuscript of the Gospels, and the Freer Gospels. The manuscript is housed at the Freer Gallery of Art in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, DC (shelf number F1906.274). According to the Gregory-Aland classification system, it is designated as W or 032; in von Soden’s edition, it is ε014.1 The manuscript is largely intact. With the exception of the supplementary quire of John (1:1–5:11), W is the work of a single scribe, and of the entire manuscript, only John 14:25–16:7 and Mark 15:13–15:38 are lacunose. Generally, the main text of W has been attributed to the late fourth or early fifth century, and the first quire of John is ascribed to the seventh century.2 The Gospels in Codex W are presented in the so-called ‘Western’ order: Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark, an order shared

In the text of this monograph, Codex Washingtonianus is abbreviated as W, but in the quantitative analyses, the manuscript is referred to by its numerical designation, 032. The quantitative analysis program was designed to accommodate only the numerical designations of manuscripts, so when not listed by name (or included in a quotation), all manuscripts except W are referenced by their numerical designations. 2 Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, p. 82. 1

23

24

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

by very few other Greek manuscripts but by several versions. The other Greek manuscripts to exhibit the ‘Western’ order are Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D, 05), Codex Monacensis (Χ, 033), 055, and some minuscule catena manuscripts.3 Concerning versions, the ‘Western’ order is found in several Old Latin manuscripts (a, b, e, f, ff2, and q; Vetus Latina [VL] numbers 3, 4, 2, 10, 8, and 13) and in the Gothic Codex Argenteus, which likely borrowed the order from the Latin.4 The ‘Western’ order of W’s Gospels is noteworthy on two points. First, W would be the oldest Greek manuscript to exhibit the ‘Western’ order, if it is taken to be older than 05.5 Second, the question arises as to whether W was bound originally in the ‘Western’ order or was rebound in this way. The manuscript was designed to begin each Gospel on a new quire, which in theory means that the Gospels could have been bound in any order.6 Henry Sanders himself observes that W had been rebound at least once.7 Nonetheless, the artwork present at the Andrew Patton identifies five catena minuscules with the ‘Western’ order that do not appear in the Kurzgefasste Liste: the Moscow State Historical Museum’s Syn. gr. 137 + 384; the Bibliothèque nationale de France’s Gr. 703; the Biblioteca Angelica’s Gr. 67; the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana’s Vat. gr. 1692; and the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana’s Cl. 1,34 (1070). The dates of these manuscripts range from the seventh to the eleventh centuries. Patton, ‘Greek Catenae and the “Western” Order of the Gospels’, pp. 115–29. 4 Parker, Codex Bezae, pp. 116–18. 5 Hurtado writes in the introduction to The Freer Biblical Manuscripts anthology, ‘Depending on the dating of Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis (D), fifth or perhaps late fourth century, the Freer Gospels codex [of the Gospels] was either third oldest or tied with Codex Bezae for that spot’, n. 9. Restricting himself to manuscripts only of the Gospels, he later states: ‘The Freer manuscript was the earliest known instance of [the ‘Western’ order] among Greek codices of the Gospels,’ p. 5. 6 Schmid notes that many early biblical codices were designed to start new books on new quires. See Schmid, ‘Reassessing the Palaeography and Codicology’, p. 230. 7 Sanders, New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, pp. 6–7. The originality of the ‘Western’ order is one of the few points in which I was limited by my inability to physically access the manuscript. However, since the block mixture of W can be studied independently of the order of its Gospels, this limitation does not affect the main thesis of the monograph. 3

CHAPTER ONE

25

end of each Gospel in W (discussed below) suggests that the ‘Western’ order is indeed original to the Codex. Physically, most of Codex W is written on sheepskin with a few goatskin folios, and the entirety of the supplementary quire is written on sheepskin.8 The inks of the original hands are brown, both in the main text and the supplement, although some corrector hands wrote in ink approaching black in color. Sanders observes, The parchment is mostly sheepskin and has yellowed badly with age; yet in spite of this it is still rather transparent, so that the writing on the opposite side of the leaf is often visible. Some goatskin leaves occur, but they are usually hard to distinguish positively. In general it may be said that the flesh side of the goatskin is whiter, and thus the difference in color between the two sides is greater. I have succeeded in seeing in a dozen or more leaves the branching veins characteristic of goatskin. Rough spots showing the hair roots sometimes occur, but only very rarely extend into the written portion of the page. The spots are smaller and nearer together in the goatskin leaves. . . . In the first quire of John the parchment is all of sheepskin and seems to be of a somewhat different character. It is regularly a little thicker, but more worn and decayed. The flesh side of the parchment is as white as in the rest of the MS, but the skin side has yellowed more.9

Sanders also provides statistics on the thickness of the parchment leaves of W: averaging 0.13 millimeters for the main manuscript and 0.16 millimeters for the supplement.10 In addition, Sanders presents numerical measurements of other physical features of Codex W. According to Sanders, the largest leaves of W measure 21 by 14.5 centimeters; the smallest leaves measure 20.5 by 13 centimeters; and the usual size of W’s Most of the information presented here was compiled originally by Sanders, but I have verified it independently. See Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection. Another source of basic information on the physical characteristics of W is Hurtado, ‘Codex Washingtonianus’, Anchor Bible Dictionary. 9 Sanders, New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, p. 5. 10 Ibid., p. 6. 8

26

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

leaves are 20.8 by 14.3 centimeters. The largest leaves are those of the supplementary quire.11 The pages of W contain thirty lines of text, although some pages have either a partial or a full thirtyfirst line. Ruling is evident in W, and it is more visible on the flesh sides of the parchment. Bruce Metzger provides the following summary of W’s paleographical features in his volume of Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: ‘The writing of the major portion of the manuscript is a graceful, sloping uncial of small size. It was evidently written with ease and rapidity. The letters ρ and υ are usually about twice the height, and φ and ψ nearly three times the height of the other letters. The other scribe was a less-practiced penman, whose letters vary a little more in size and shape, and the line is followed less carefully.’12 Metzger evidently borrowed from Sanders, as the language used by the two writers is very similar. In his monograph, Sanders also includes a table illustrating several forms of each letter for both the main and supplementary hands.13 A recent book by Pasquale Orsini also touches on the two hands in W. Orsini maintains the traditional date, fifth century, for the main hand of W based on its ‘sober chiaroscuro and light terminal thickenings’.14 Orsini dates the supplement, based on its ‘marked chiaroscuro and sober terminal thickenings’ (italics mine), to the middle/late sixth century, rather than the seventh century.15 Orsini provides images of both the main and supplementary hands of W to illustrate his arguments. Paleography is not the focus of my work, but I also provide images of the two hands for the reader’s interest.

Ibid. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, p. 82. 13 Ibid., p. 9. 14 Orsini, Studies on the Greek and Coptic Majuscule Scripts and Books, p. 155. 15 Ibid., p. 156. 11 12

CHAPTER ONE

27

Image 1. F1906.274.122. Paleographical example from the supplementary quire of John. Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.: Gift of Charles Lang Freer.

28

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Image 2. F1906.274.201. Paleographical example from the main hand of Codex W. Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.: Gift of Charles Lang Freer.

CHAPTER ONE

29

Although it contains no lectionary marks, W exhibits various reader’s aids, such as punctuation and segmentation. The most common punctuation feature in W is the middle dot. This appears regularly throughout but is much more frequent in the supplement of John (suggesting a different production context). A colon, which marks more significant breaks, is employed less often. In some instances, diplai are used to mark OT quotations. Segmentation regularly appears in the form of blank spaces between phrases.16 Paragraphs in W are marked by ekthesis at the beginnings of lines and paragraphoi at the ends. These features are considered in greater detail in Chapter Five. W contains numerous diacritical marks, including examples of diaeresis. Sanders notes and describes these as follows: ‘Dots may occur over ι and υ when initial or not to be pronounced with the preceding vowel. Exceptions are numerous, especially in the case of the initial vowel. In the main portion of the MS two dots are used over ι and one over υ; in the first quire of John two dots are used over υ also. Very rarely in both hands the two dots coalesce into a simple stroke.’17 W also contains rough breathing marks, but these occur rarely. The apostrophe is used regularly with a proper noun or to replace the final vowel in a word (for example, ἀλλά to ἀλλ’). Finally, W includes some ligatures, notably the καί compendium and a superline for the final nu in a line.18 All of these features are examined in Chapters Six and Seven. As the quantitative analyses presented in Chapter Three make extensive use of the quire divisions in Codex W, an initial presentation of W’s quires is merited. W contains 187 leaves (374 pages), divided into twenty-six quires that typically, but not always, contain eight folios apiece. Each quire was once marked by a Greek numeral in the upper right-hand corner of the initial page (by the original or by a later hand is uncertain), but many of these numerals have faded over time. The arrangement of the The segmentation often parallels the modern verse divisions created by Robert Estienne in the sixteenth century. 17 Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, p. 19. 18 Other ligatures apart from the καί compendium and final nu appear in W, and these ligatures are listed in Chapter Six. 16

30

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

quires is shown in Table 2.19 The lacunae (John 14:25–16:7 and Mark 15:13–15:38) occur in Quires 12 and 26, and Quire 14 (the last chapters of John) includes a blank folio (two blank pages) at the end. These quires were carefully constructed: ‘the leaves in the quire are so matched that flesh side is brought opposite to flesh side, and hair side is opposite hair side.’20 As previously noted by Ulrich Schmid, the manuscript was designed so that each Gospel begins on a new quire.21 Table 2. Quires in W Quire 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Text

Matthew 1:1–5:20 Matthew 5:20–9:18 Matthew 9:19–12:26 Matthew 12:26–15:27 Matthew 15:28–20:12 Matthew 20:12–24:3 Matthew 24:4–27:2 Matthew 27:3–28:20 John 1:1–5:11 (Supp) John 5:12–8:16 John 8:16–11:48 John 11:48–16:7 John 16:7–19:18 John 19:18–21:25 Luke 1:1–4:13 Luke 4:13–7:20 Luke 7:21–9:13

Folios 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 6

Quire number None None None None None None None Η? Θ? None ΙΑ None None ΙΔ ΙΕ ΙϚ ΙΖ

In this part of the analysis, I am heavily indebted to Prior and Brown, The Freer Gospels. 20 Porter, ‘A Textual Analysis’, p. 85. 21 This is the probable explanation for the blank folio at the end of John. Despite having extra space at the end of Quire 14, the scribe chose not to begin another Gospel until the following quire. See Schmid, pp. 227– 49. 19

CHAPTER ONE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Luke 9:13–11:44 Luke 11:44–15:2 Luke 15:3–19:38 Luke 19:38–23:25 Luke 23:25–24:53 Mark 1:1–5:26 Mark 5:26–9:14 Mark 9:14–13:11 Mark 13:11–16:20

8 8 8 8 4 8 8 8 10

31 ΙΗ ΙΘ Κ ΚΑ ΚΒ ΚΓ ΚΔ ΚΕ ΚϚ?

Each Gospel begins with an inscriptio and ends with a subscriptio, written in majuscule script but by a different hand. The list of inscriptiones is as follows: ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΘΘΑΙΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ These follow a typical pattern, which is ‘The Gospel according to [Evangelist]’. Due to parchment damage, Matthew’s inscriptio is now somewhat difficult to read. Furthermore, Matthew’s inscriptio is marked with a staurogram, although this symbol is included in no other Gospel’s inscriptio. The inscriptio of John is obviously part of the supplementary quire, but it follows the pattern. The Gospels also include subscriptiones, as follows: ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΘΘΕΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ22 In the subscriptiones, the pattern is less clear. Although three of the four Gospels end with the formula ‘The Gospel according to [Evangelist]’, John’s Gospel concludes with a simple ‘According Mark also ends with a special note written in a much later hand. As this note is not part of the original subscriptio, I do not include it in this discussion. Rather, the special note is described and discussed in the section concerning W’s provenance on pages 42–44 below. 22

32

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

to John’.23 Furthermore, Matthew’s name is spelled differently between the inscriptio and subscriptio.24 Three of the subscriptiones are written over two lines; John’s subscriptio, being shorter, comprises a single line. Codex W is also notable for the artwork that accompanies the end of each Gospel. In Matthew, John, and Luke (but not Mark), the manuscript contains stylized drawings of birds accompanied by border designs.25 Although the bird images are shared, the border designs are unique to each Gospel. The end of Mark is accompanied only by a stylized border design. The artwork at the end of each Gospel is shown for comparison. These drawings, although interesting as examples of early Christian artwork, have not garnered much attention from textual critics. One exception is Larry Hurtado, who gives a full description of the artwork in his introduction to The Freer Biblical Manuscripts. Another set of curious features of Codex W that has received scant attention (so far as I know) are the scribe’s decorative devices at the conclusion of each Gospel. In W, these are a simple design running down the left/outer margin of the final several lines of text, intersected at right angles by a horizontal line of interlacing design placed between the last line of the Gospel and the title. Moreover, at the endings of Matthew, John, and Luke, the decoration running down the margin includes a simple stylized bird. . . . At the end of Mark, however, there is a somewhat different and more elaborate decoration that runs down the left/outside margin of the last eight lines, with another decorative design running perpendicular across the page below “ΑΜΗΝ,” which is written one line below the last

The inscriptio in the supplement of John follows the pattern of the rest of the Gospels, but for whatever reason, the subscriptio in the main hand of John deviates from the pattern. 24 Nonetheless, the change from αι to ε between the inscriptio and subscriptio is a standard orthographic change. 25 These stylized bird drawings are not unique to Codex W. For example, a fourth century BCE nonbiblical papyrus, I. P. Berol. 9875, of Timotheus’s The Persians, contains a similar drawing. See Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World. 23

CHAPTER ONE

33

Image 3. F1906.274.112. Bird drawing and border design at the end of Matthew’s Gospel. Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.: Gift of Charles Lang Freer.

34

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Image 4. F1906.274.194. Bird drawing and border design at the end of John’s Gospel. Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.: Gift of Charles Lang Freer.

CHAPTER ONE

35

Image 5. F1906.274.310. Bird drawing and border design at the end of Luke’s Gospel. Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.: Gift of Charles Lang Freer.

36

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Image 6. F1906.274.372. Border design at the end of Mark’s Gospel. Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.: Gift of Charles Lang Freer.

CHAPTER ONE

37

line of Mark. And there is no bird! So far as I can judge, these decorations and the ΑΜΗΝ at the end of Mark were the work of the original/main scribe of Codex W, which makes them all the more interesting as to their possible meaning and function.26

The difference in artwork style between Mark and the other Gospels has implications for the initial binding of W, particularly the originality of the manuscript’s ‘Western’ order. As Hurtado continues, But on one feature of these decorations, I do offer a view. I contend that the change in the tailpiece for Mark, together with the ΑΜΗΝ, functioned to signal the end of the codex, not simply the end of Mark. If, thus, as seems to be the case, these decorations are from the original scribe, then they further support the conclusion that the present order of the Gospels in W was the original order when the codex was first produced.27

If he is correct about the artwork being the work of the original scribe, Hurtado’s argument that the difference between the artwork at the end of Mark and the other Gospels supports the validity of the ‘Western’ order as original to W.

SIGNIFICANT V ARIANTS

The most famous variant in Codex W by far is the so-called Freer Logion, a further addition to the Long Ending of Mark after verse 16:14.28 Included here is a transcription of the Freer Logion in the original Greek and a translation in English. Hurtado, The Freer Biblical Manuscripts, pp. 8–9. Ibid., p. 9. 28 Mark 16:9–20, the so-called Long Ending of Mark, has been almost universally accepted by text critics as a secondary addition. As evidence of the Long Ending’s secondary nature, the Gospel of Mark exhibits a plurality of endings: the ending at Mark 16:8 cited in Sinaiticus (‫א‬, 01) and Vaticanus (B, 03); a short two-sentence addition cited alone in Codex Bobiensis (k, VL 1); this short addition cited along with the Long Ending in some Greek manuscripts and several versions; the Long Ending cited by the majority of the tradition; and the Long Ending including the Freer Logion cited in W. A brief delineation of all these endings can be found 26 27

38

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS κακεινοι απελογουντε λεγοντες οτι ο αιων ουτος της ανοµιας και της απιστιας υπο του σαταναν εστιν ο µη εων τα υπο των πνατων ακαθαρτα την αληθειαν του θυ καταλαβεσθαι δυναµιν δια τουτο αποκαλυψον σου την δικαιοσυνην ηδη εκεινοι ελεγον τω χω και ο χς εκεινοις προσελεγεν οτι πεπληρωται ο ορος των ετων της εξουσιας του σατανα αλλα εγγιζει αλλα δινα και υπερ ων εγω αµαρτησαντων παρεδοθην εις θανατον ινα υποστρεψωσιν εις την αληθειαν και µηκετι αµαρτησωσιν ινα την εν τω ουρανω πνικην και αφθαρτον της δικαιοσυνης δοξαν κληρονοµησωσιν And they were defending themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, the one who does not permit the truth and power of God to overcome the unclean things of the spirits. Therefore, reveal your righteousness now.’ Those ones were speaking to Christ. And Christ was replying to them, ‘The time of the years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other dreadful things draw near. And for the ones who have sinned, I was handed over unto death, so that they might return to the truth and sin no longer, so that they might inherit the spiritual and imperishable glory of righteousness in heaven’ (translation mine).

In the narrative, the Freer Logion is inserted after Jesus appears and rebukes the disciples for ‘their unbelief and hardness of heart’. The insertion creates a dialogue between Jesus and the disciples in W, whereas the Long Ending of Mark itself includes only Jesus’s statements. The Freer Logion is cited in Jerome’s Contra Pelagianos 2.15, but although Jerome asserts that the Logion was present in his time in quibusdam exemplaribus et maxime

in Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 102– 07.

CHAPTER ONE

39

graecis codicibus (‘in some copies and especially in Greek codices’), the variant remains unique among surviving Greek manuscripts.29 While the Freer Logion is certainly the most famous, W also exhibits many interesting textual variants. Supported only by the Latin Codex Colbertinus (c, VL 6), W also includes a long addition after Mark 1:3. Included here is a transcription and a translation into English. πασα φαραγξ πληρωθησεται και παν ορος και βουνος ταπινωθησεται και εσται παντα τα σκολια εις ευθειαν και η τραχεια εις πεδιον κα(ι)30 οφθησεται η δοξα κυ και οψεται πασα σαρξ το σωτηριον του θυ οτι κς ελαλησεν φωνη λεγοντες βοησον και ειπα τι βοησω οτι πασα σαρξ χορτος και πασα η δοξα αυτης ως ανθος χορτου εξηφανθη ο χορτος και το ανθος εξεπεσεν το δε ρηµα κυ µενει εις τον αιωνα Every valley will be filled, and every mountain and hill will be brought low, and all crooked ways will be made straight, and the rugged will be made level. And the glory of the Lord will be seen, and all flesh will see the glory of God, for the Lord has spoken. A voice saying, ‘Cry out!’ And I said, ‘What will I cry out?’ All flesh is grass, and all its glory is as the flower of grass. The grass withers and the flower falls, but the word of Lord remains unto eternity (translation mine).

This addition extends the prophetic citation of Mark 1:2–3, and it might be a harmonization to Luke 3:4–6 (the introduction of John the Baptist). Both Mark and Luke are quoting from Isaiah 40. In W, however, the extended quotation in Mark is longer than the parallel quotation in Luke. Both begin with Isaiah 40:3, but Luke ends with Hieronymus, Dialogi contra Pelagianos Libri 2.15. A more in-depth discussion of Jerome’s reference to and citation of the Freer Logion can be found in Gäbel, ‘Additions in the Latin Text of Mark’, pp. 174–83. 30 The καί here is a correction. The original scribe had written κα before correcting the reading to καί. See Royse, ‘The Corrections in the Freer Gospels Codex’, p. 199. 29

40

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Isaiah 40:5, while the Markan variant in W extends through Isaiah 40:8.31 No part of the quotation in Mark (whether part of the initial text or added by the scribe of W) is marked by diplai in the margin, an irregular practice in W for noting OT quotations.32 Another important variant in W is a large omission: W omits Luke 3:24–38 (and the last two words of 3:23, τοῦ Ἠλὶ). Although both Matthew (1:1–17) and Luke include genealogies of Jesus, only the Matthean genealogy is present in W. The reason for the omission of the genealogy in Luke is unclear, although it appears deliberate rather than the result of error.33 Luke’s genealogy could have been omitted in W (or its exemplar) to avoid inconsistency with Matthew’s genealogy, as the two genealogies are markedly different, but this is only a supposition. Although W includes the Long Ending of Mark (and adds the famous Freer Logion after verse 14), the manuscript does not contain other noteworthy secondary variants, most notably the pericope adulterae usually found at John 7:53–8:11. In this instance, W ends with John 7:52 on one line and begins with 8:12 on the next line without any special markings. W also lacks Luke 22:43– 44 (Jesus in Gethsemane), along with P75, the corrector of Sinaiticus (‫א‬, 01), Alexandrinus (A, 02), Vaticanus (B, 03), and numerous later manuscripts. Additionally, W (in the supplementary quire) does not contain John 5:4, which describes the angel stirring the waters at the Pool of Bethesda. This absence is shared by P66, P75, 01, 03, the original hand of Ephraemi (C, 04), and Bezae (D, 05). In contrast, W includes the doxology at the end of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew (after 6:13), along with majuscules Regius (L, 019), Koridethi (Θ, 038) and Petropolitanus (Π, 041).

The extended citation in W differs slightly from that of the published LXX. See Rahlfs and Hanhart, eds., Septuaginta. 32 Herbison, ‘As It is Copied’, pp. 27–30. 33 Codex W simply skips from the third word from the end of 3:23, Ἰωσὴφ, to the first word of 4:1, Ἰησοῦς. 4:1 is marked by a new paragraph, but a new paragraph is merited here regardless. No possibility of homoeoteleuton, the main explanation for accidental large omissions, exists here. 31

CHAPTER ONE

41

PROVENANCE

Both Codex W’s ancient and modern provenance merit the manuscript being chosen as the ‘poster child’ of provenance discussions in Brent Nongbri’s God’s Library. In the prologue to his monograph, Nongbri succinctly tells the story of W’s journey to the West (along with the other Freer manuscripts), detailing the mysteries and controversies surrounding the manuscript’s discovery. Nongbri sums up the unfortunate situation of W’s (and other manuscripts in the Freer collection) provenance as follows: ‘Nobody involved with the books—the dealer, the buyer, and to a degree even the scholars who studied and published the manuscripts—was completely forthcoming about provenance. The result is an obfuscation of origins at every level. Thus, we don’t know exactly how old the books are, and we don’t know where in Egypt they came from.’34 Keeping Nongbri’s observations in mind, what follows is a basic discussion of what little the academic community knows about W, along with some speculation. Concerning the manuscript’s ancient provenance, little can be stated confidently beyond observing that W is Egyptian. Racine laments the situation in his essay in Hurtado’s anthology. We do not know much about the particular geographical, social, religious, and practical settings of the use of the Freer Gospels. If this manuscript was copied sometime in the late fourth or fifth century and used in a context where Greek was understood . . . we still do not know for how long it was used or in what kinds of settings, such as liturgical, semiprivate, or private. Moreover, we have no knowledge about the way the text of the Freer Gospels would have been appreciated by its ancient readers or even if these readers would have been familiar with the text of other manuscripts.35

According to Racine, the historical context of W is virtually unknown, if not unknowable, but perhaps the situation is not as Nongbri, God’s Library, pp. 1–9. Kent Clark’s ‘Paleography and Philanthropy’ essay gives a more detailed discussion of W’s discovery and provenance, including a full biography of Charles Freer. 35 Racine, p. 133. 34

42

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

dire as Racine describes. Although textual critics do not have direct information to answer the questions that Racine poses, some details concerning W’s provenance can be gleaned both from the circumstances of its discovery and from the features of the manuscript itself. Ali Arabi, the man who sold W to Charles Freer in Cairo, originally claimed that he found the manuscript at Akhmim (ancient Panopolis), on the east bank of the Nile in Upper Egypt.36 However, Henry Sanders was not inclined to trust Ali Arabi’s statements about Akhmim, writing somewhat prejudicially, ‘Anyone acquainted with Arab stories would advise to look in every other direction first’.37 Perhaps Sanders was right to be suspicious, as Ali Arabi later claimed that W was excavated at Dimai, west of the Nile on the banks of Birket Qarun (Lake Moeris). Instead, Sanders turned to the manuscript itself for clues concerning W’s provenance, specifically the note written after the subscriptio of Mark. The final page of Mark is shown with the special note. As can be seen from the image, this note is somewhat difficult to make out because of erasures. Generally, it is taken to read χριστε αγιε συ µετα δουλ[ου σου τιµο]θεου / και παντων των αυτου, in English, ‘Holy Christ, be with your servant Timothy and all the ones with him’. 38 This note was written by three different hands at different points in history.39 Like the inscriptio of Matthew, the note is marked by staurograms: one on the left and two on the right.

As stated previously, Freer originally bought several biblical manuscripts, which Sanders postulated as coming from the same ancient library. Thus, Sanders assumed the same provenance for all of the Freer collection. This theory is worthy of a separate study, and it will not be examined in this book. 37 Sanders, ‘Age and Ancient Home of Biblical Manuscripts in the Freer Collection’, pp. 140–41. 38 The portion in brackets is especially difficult to discern, and the slash marks a line break. 39 Sanders, ‘The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection’, pp. 1–4. I have personally confirmed the presence of multiple hands. 36

CHAPTER ONE

43

Image 7. F1906.274.372 (Detail). Special note at the end of Mark’s Gospel. Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.: Gift of Charles Lang Freer. Sanders presents a thorough analysis of the hands, linking each of the three hands to successive owners.40 As the erasures made difficulties discerning initial and secondary owners, Sanders focuses on the third and (presumably) final owner of W. Here, Sanders believed he had a clue: the name ‘Timothy’ at the end of the first line. According to Sanders, ‘Timothy’ refers to the Church of Timothy in the Monastery of the Vinedresser, located near the pyramids at Giza.41 Sanders’s hypothesis, although intriguing, has many difficulties. Goodspeed was one of the first to point out some of the problems: ‘Since Timotheus was so common a name among Egyptian bishops, patriarchs, and saints, and so many churches and convents with their saints’ names have disappeared from history, to argue from the name Timotheus in our subscription to the manuscript’s one-time residence in a 40 41

Ibid. Ibid., p. 1.

44

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

particular church of Timotheus is more than precarious.’42 Beyond the observation that the name ‘Timothy’ is not enough to historically locate W, the special note does not actually read ‘Timothy’ with certainty. The lynchpin of Sanders’s argument, because it stands on an erasure, is difficult to discern. Despite the changes in his story, Ali Arabi’s final testimony might very well have been trustworthy. Ancient Dimai’s Ptolemaic name was Soknopaiou Nesos, that is, ‘The Island of the Crocodile God’ (although the city was more likely located on a peninsula than a true island).43 Archaeologically, Dimai is a possible location for W, as it shows evidence of human occupation in the early Christian period, at least into the fourth century. However, no clear archaeological evidence for Christian occupation has been found at Dimai, particularly regarding textual evidence, even though numerous papyri of secular texts have been excavated there.44 In all likelihood, the exact provenance of W is unattainable. However, physical features of the manuscript could give clues to its context. Because of W’s distinctive painted wood covers, Lowden speculates that W was enshrined as a relic rather than used as a text. When it is recalled that [the covers] decorate a much older book, it seems reasonable to ask if they were perhaps made in some sense to enshrine the text, a text that perhaps had gained a relic-like status due to an association with some holy person. . . . The Greek text would have become increasingly illegible in a Coptic milieu as the bilingualism characteristic of the early centuries gradually declined. From this it follows that the images on the covers had a special function: they acted as a guide to, in effect a substitute for, what was enclosed within. . . . I suggest that this was a book that, by the time the covers

Goodspeed, ‘Critical Notes’, p. 600. Clark, p. 59. 44 Ibid., p. 65. Clark noted that Dimai had undergone several seasons of excavation by the Joint Archaeological Mission of the Universities of Lecce and Bologna. From his correspondence with one of the leaders, Paola Davoli, no evidence of Christian occupation had been found. The report from 2012, after the tenth season, indicates that the situation has not changed. See ‘Soknopaiou Nesos—Report 2012’. 42 43

CHAPTER ONE

45

were painted, was intended primarily for display and processional use, not to be routinely read in the liturgy.45

Goodspeed makes observations that indirectly support this hypothesis: ‘These gospels are remarkable in being free from lectionary markings; the daily church reading-lessons are not indicated in them, a fact which makes it the highest degree improbable that they ever served liturgical purposes in either church or convent.’46 Finally, an observation by Sanders supports Lowden’s theory. He notes the appearance of black ink (as opposed to brown) only in the note at the end of Mark, and he speculates on its lack of presence in the rest of the manuscript. The third owner of W, who used black ink to write the special note after Mark, appears to have made no corrections or notes to the manuscript itself, as black ink does not appear elsewhere. Sanders assumes that the final owner was hesitant to make changes to W, as he ‘no longer used Greek readily’.47 Lowden, Goodspeed, and Sanders all make observations about the historical setting, or perhaps lack of historical setting, of W. The painted wood covers, the lack of lectionary markings, and the limited use of black ink all suggest that perhaps W became obsolete as a text. Given that W was a Greek manuscript in an increasingly Coptic-speaking world, this hypothesis makes sense. It is, however, a hypothesis. In the end, the historical background of W remains a mystery.

TRANSCRIPTIONS

For my research, two transcriptions were made of Codex W. First, I completed a fresh transcription on the entirety of W by hand. This transcription was compared with the data of the CNTTS textual apparatus (the basis of the quantitative analysis) to ensure the Lowden, ‘The Word Made Visible’, p. 23. When Lowden asserts that the covers ‘decorate a much older book’, what he means by W’s covers is ambiguous. Does he mean the wooden covers themselves decorate a ‘much older’ manuscript, or does he mean that the paintings on the covers are more recent than the interior manuscript? The second interpretation is more likely, given that Lowden uses the codicology of the wooden covers to argue for a fifth century dating of W. 46 Goodspeed, ‘Critical Notes: Notes on the Freer Gospels’, p. 600. 47 Sanders, ‘The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection’, p. 3. 45

46

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

accuracy of the apparatus. Second, two transcriptions of the manuscript were undertaken by myself and another researcher at the CNTTS using the Online Transcription Editor (henceforth referred to as the OTE) in the NT.VMR. I then reconciled these online transcriptions using the computer program Beyond Compare.48 All these transcriptions were made from the 2006 color images of W. Finally, I compared and reconciled the transcriptions with previous transcriptions of W to ensure accuracy.49

Beyond Compare, Ver. 4.2.9. Although the NT.VMR has reconciliation capabilities, an external program was used so that I could analyze the transcriptions for paratextual elements in ways not then available in the NT.VMR. 49 Previous transcriptions include Goodspeed, The Freer Gospels, and the Accordance software program’s published transcription of W from Henry Sanders’s collation. See Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts, 1912. However, the primary transcription I used for comparison is that of Prior and Brown, who likewise had utilized the high-resolution color images published in 2006. See Prior and Brown, The Freer Gospels. Beyond transcriptions, other works were consulted that cited significant portions of readings in W. For example, a major work that I consulted was Royse’s ‘The Corrections in the Freer Gospels Codex’, which listed every correction in W. 48

CHAPTER TWO. METHODOLOGY OF THE QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS When Sanders first delineated the block mixture in Codex Washingtonianus, quantitative analysis (henceforth referred to as QA) had not yet been developed as a formal methodology. Since the method’s development by Ernest Colwell in the 1960s, QA has become a standard in the field of textual criticism. Although various QAs have been performed on different Gospels of W, prior to the present study the method has not been applied to the entire manuscript. In identifying the textual divisions in W, Sanders followed several of the same principles incorporated in Colwell’s QA methodology: he counted instances of significant variation in W (that is, not orthographic or similar changes) and compared them with other textual witnesses. However, whereas modern QA compares instances of textual variation between individual manuscripts, Sanders compared the variants in W to preestablished text types, which he called ‘textual recensions’. Sanders’s methodological reasoning is exemplified in his discussion on the supplementary quire of John: ‘Out of 225 important variants of W, 90 agree or partially agree with the Hesychian recension, though there is generally other and older support. There are 41 agreements with the Antioch recension, but these always have other support, especially from the MS group Γ Δ, etc.’1 As seen in his own statements, Sanders was already 1

Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, p. 128.

47

48

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

moving toward QA methodology. Sanders did excellent work using the resources he had, but his analysis here is flawed. Comparing variants in a manuscript to preestablished text types is methodologically dangerous, as it creates circular reasoning. The variants have been classified before the evidence has been fully weighted. In contrast, comparing instances of variation between manuscripts before assigning variants to textual streams reduces the circularity in the methodology. As an important caveat, I must acknowledge that the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) developed by the INTF has rendered the traditional understanding of text types obsolete.2 Although I recognize that the concept of ‘text type’ is a fiction, I believe that, for now, such a fiction needs to be maintained. Despite its limitations, the term ‘text type’ remains a helpful way to categorize and conceptualize NT Greek manuscripts. In order to use manuscript groupings without tying these manuscripts to specific localities or recensions, I decided to utilize the term ‘textual stream’ rather than ‘text type’. The term ‘textual stream’ maintains the general manuscript groupings but in a less concrete/rigid manner. With these issues in mind, I chose to use the formal QA methodology developed by Ernest Colwell. In the essay entitled ‘Method in Establishing Quantitative Relationships between TextTypes of New Testament Manuscripts’, Colwell establishes several ‘rules’ for a proper QA. For my work, I borrowed Colwell’s paradigms, but I adjusted some of his ‘rules’. A thorough discussion of Colwell’s maxims, their use in later QAs performed on W, and the specific adjustments made for my research is thus merited. First, Colwell asserts that ‘a broad cross-section of manuscripts must be used which will include representatives of all text-types’.3 Although relevant for any QA, this rule is A fuller explanation of the relationship of the CBGM to traditional text types can be found in Wasserman and Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism, pp. 7–10. 3 Colwell, ‘Method in Establishing Quantitative Relationships between Text-Types of New Testament Manuscripts’, in Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 57. 2

CHAPTER TWO

49

especially appropriate for a manuscript like W, where shifts in textual affiliation are noted to have taken place. As such, this study incorporates manuscripts from all textual streams in the QA. Second, ‘the section of text used should be large enough to give several hundred places of variation’.4 The rationale for such a rule is obvious, as the larger the sample size, the more accurate the results will be. Third, Colwell writes, ‘in any given place of variation by one manuscript from any other manuscript, all the varieties of readings at that place should be listed using all the manuscripts in the set of representative manuscripts and recording them with the particular variant which they support’.5 A QA needs to be both thorough and accurate. Fourth, Colwell notes that ‘in order not to blur the picture of relationships we then eliminated readings which occur commonly in manuscripts as the result of scribal error or habit, even if supported by one manuscript’.6 In other words, a QA must limit itself to analysis of significant variants, not insignificant variants such as abbreviations, spelling changes, or even homoeoteleuton.7 Fifth, ‘for tabulation purposes we then eliminated those places where the vast majority of manuscripts agree and each of the few disagreeing manuscripts has a unique reading’.8 As a QA is designed to study the relationships between manuscripts, singular readings, no matter how interesting, are unhelpful and thus disregarded. In contrast, Colwell continues, ‘We use for tabulation the remainder—those places where all manuscripts divide into groups of manuscripts which support two or more variant readings, with at least two supporting each variant’.9 Sixth, ‘using then these places where group (text-type) division occurs, the number of times any certain manuscript reads with any other manuscript out of a given number of places can now be tabulated Ibid. Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 In general, large omissions are considered significant variants, but in the case of homoeoteleuton, they are dismissed from a QA because they comprise accidental omissions on the part of the scribe. 8 Colwell, p. 57. 9 Ibid., p. 58. 4 5

50

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

and converted into percentages. All manuscripts with singular readings are treated as if they had lacunae at these places’ (italics mine).10 Even in places with other variants readings, singular readings are discarded. Seventh (and last), ‘for the case of a corrected reading which supports a group, if the first-hand is a singular reading, the corrected reading is recorded as if it were the first-hand reading—otherwise both the first-hand and the corrected reading are recorded as if different manuscripts’.11 With a few adjustments, the QAs that I ran on W follow the maxims originally outlined by Colwell. Furthermore, the methodological purpose of a QA is delineated by Colwell: ‘If the … percentages of agreement between all the manuscripts in our set are computed, it is then possible to obtain a reasonably accurate picture of the quantitative difference between individual manuscripts and also of the quantitative differences of text-type groupings.’12 In other words, QA allows one to study the relationships between manuscripts (and textual streams) mathematically, making it a particularly apt methodology for the study of block mixture in W. If W indeed shifts textual affinity mid-manuscript, then W’s quantitative relationships with other manuscripts ought to shift accordingly. In his dissertation, later published as Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W in the Gospel of Mark, Larry Hurtado uses QA as his primary methodology to study the text of W in Mark.13 Hurtado’s purpose was to determine the possible relationship between W in Mark and the so-called ‘Caesarean’ text type. In the introduction, Hurtado outlines his rationale for using QA as a methodology: Our purpose in this study is to examine the textual relationships and complexion of Codex W in Mark in order to ascertain whether W agrees closely enough with the major Caesarean

Ibid. The italicized statement is particularly important for the QAs performed on W, and it is revisited later in this chapter. 11 Colwell, pp. 58–59. 12 Ibid., p. 59. 13 Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text. 10

CHAPTER TWO

51

witnesses, Θ and 565, to be considered a representative of an early stage of the Caesarean text. … The approach taken here for determining textual relationships involves a quantitative description of textual relationships and an examination of the kind of readings shared by two witnesses.14

In his dissertation and monograph, Hurtado follows the methodological rules set down by Colwell, albeit with a few adaptations for his own context. To begin, Hurtado uses several witnesses for comparison with W in his QA. Codices Sinaiticus (‫א‬, 01) and Vaticanus (B, 03) were chosen as the primary witnesses of the so-called ‘Neutral’ text; Codex Bezae (D, 05), was chosen as the primary witness of the ‘Western’ text; Codex Alexandrinus (A, 02) and the Textus Receptus (TR) were chosen as witnesses of the ‘Byzantine’ text; and Codex Koridethi (Θ, 038), 565, Family 13, and P45 were chosen as representatives of the ‘Caesarean’ text. As P45 is fragmentary, Hurtado ran the QA comparing W with P45 only on certain sections of text.15 To understand better the shift in textual affiliation that occurs in W’s text of Mark, Hurtado ran QAs on every individual chapter of the Gospel. From the results of his QAs, Hurtado concludes that W shifted textual affiliation not at Mark 5:30, as Sanders originally asserted, but earlier in the chapter, around verses 6 and 7. As such, Hurtado was the first to challenge Sanders’s thesis, albeit in a small way. However, running QAs on individual chapters poses a problem of sample size, which threatens the validity of his conclusions: of the sixteen chapters in Mark, only five chapters contain more than one hundred units of variation. Mark 5, the chapter containing the shift (for both Sanders and Hurtado), contains only 84 units of variation. Is Hurtado truly justified in moving the textual shift in Mark 5 despite a small sample size?16 Ibid., p. 10. Hurtado ran QAs showing the relationship between W and P45 on Mark 6:37–48; 7:25–35; 8:36–9:5; and 9:19–28. See Hurtado, TextCritical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text, p. 63. 16 In part because of sample size considerations, I did not, as a rule, perform QAs on individual chapters but on quires. 14 15

52

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Nonetheless, Hurtado is on firm methodological ground with the main thesis of his dissertation: a thorough QA comparing W with other manuscripts shows that W in the latter part of Mark does not belong to the ‘Caesarean’ text. Concerning W’s relationship with the principal witness to the ‘Caesarean’ text, Codex Koridethi (Θ, 038), Hurtado writes, ‘In Mark 5:31–16:8, W is usually described as a Caesarean witness, but the average quantitative relationship of W and Θ in Mark 6–16 is 39.7 percent. By any stretch of the term this is not a close relationship’.17 In contrast, W and P45 show 68.9 percent textual affiliation with one another in Hurtado’s study,18 even if neither of them particularly agree with representatives of the ‘Caesarean’ text (038 and 565).19 In sum, Hurtado’s dissertation was the first to use QA to determine the nature of W’s text, if only in the Gospel of Mark. As part of an essay, Jean-François Racine later applied QA to W’s text in Matthew, which is considered to follow the Byzantine textual stream for the entire Gospel. Racine lists the manuscripts included for comparison with W in his QA, including some Latin witnesses: Primary Alexandrian: ‫א‬, B Secondary Alexandrian: C, L, f1, 33 ‘Caesarean’: Θ, f13 Byzantine: E, Δ, Π, Σ, Ω, 565, 700 ‘Western’: D, a, b, e, k20

Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology and the Caesarean Text, p. 43. Hurtado’s assessment of the quantitative relationship between W and 038 is different from my own assessment (I calculated their relationship at 43.17 percent), and the reasons for this discrepancy are discussed in the following chapter. Nonetheless, a 43.17 percent relationship is still not particularly high, so Hurtado’s conclusions remain valid. 18 Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology and the Caesarean Text, p. 63. Hurtado’s number for P45 is also different from that of the present study (59.69 percent in the Gospel; 60.22 percent in the second block), although P45 maintains the highest textual affinity with W in both studies. 19 Like the ‘Western’ text, the validity of the ‘Caesarean’ text is debated. 20 These Latin manuscripts are VL 3, 4, 2, and 1, respectively. Racine, p. 124. 17

CHAPTER TWO

53

For his study, Racine divided the Gospel into four-chapter segments and ran an individual QA on each. Like Hurtado, Racine struggles with sample size, and he admits as much in the study: ‘One should keep in mind that the precision of the results is limited by the small size of the sample of variation units.’21 Racine’s essay includes tables of agreements for each four-chapter segment of Matthew.22 Racine’s QAs confirm Sanders’s earlier assertions: Matthew in W is markedly Byzantine. Racine ranks the manuscripts according to their rates of overall agreement with Matthew. Four Byzantine manuscripts, Codices Basilensis (Ε, 07), Sangallensis (Δ, 037), Petropolitanus (Π, 041), and Athos Dionysiou (Ω, 045), show agreements with W at rates of over 80 percent.23 On average, W agrees with manuscripts in the Byzantine group in 80.5 percent of the shared units of variation. Racine concludes, ‘It is obvious that in Matthew W has a significantly higher rate of agreement with the Byzantine textual group than with any other’.24 In this study, I build both on the QA methodology developed by Ernest Colwell and on the findings of Hurtado and Racine. However, several methodological changes made for the present study need to be addressed. First, and most important, the QAs presented here are based on the CNTTS textual apparatus. In particular, the variation units that form the basis of these QAs have been predetermined by the variation units delineated in the CNTTS textual apparatus, even though the apparatus has been adapted to suit present needs.25 In accordance with Colwell, only significant variants are included in the QAs. In contrast to Colwell, however, significant variants with singular readings Ibid., p. 126. Ibid., pp. 126–30. 23 Ibid., p. 131. Like those of Hurtado, the percentage results from Racine do not cohere exactly with mine. Racine’s results are reengaged in the next chapter. 24 Racine, p. 133. 25 The differences in variation units probably account for at least some of the discrepancies between Hurtado’s and Racine’s results and my own results. 21 22

54

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

were removed only if W itself contains a singular reading for that variant. Colwell treated singular readings in significant variants as if they were lacunae, but such is not the case in this book. I am concerned only with determining manuscript relationships with W, not manuscript relationships with one another. Concerning textual witnesses, I wanted to include Codex Monacensis (X, 033) in the QA because it both is one of the few Greek manuscripts (along with W) to exhibit the ‘Western’ order and is a representative of the Byzantine text.26 Although Codex Monacensis was added to the CNTTS textual apparatus for QA, other important witnesses are excluded from comparison, particularly the Old Latin (VL) manuscripts. Racine includes Latin witnesses in his QA of Matthew, but he offers solid reasoning for their exclusion: ‘Working with versional evidence has limitations … because of the differences between Latin and Greek. For instance, Latin does not have a definite article or a middle voice, which makes the testimony of these manuscripts useless when a variant reading involves that type of variation.’27 Therefore, because of the linguistic and practical difficulties, I do not consider Latin witnesses. Turning from witnesses to methodology, some of Colwell’s ‘rules’ needed to be altered for the purposes of this study because of the nature of the QA software program that I used. This program was developed by a fellow CNTTS researcher, Leslie Jensen. One significant change involves the QA treatment of manuscript correctors. In the case of correctors, Colwell recommends that the readings of the original hand and that of the corrector be treated as two different manuscripts, but the QA software does not accommodate this. Rather, the program reads only the original hand of the manuscript and ignores that of the corrector.28 Furthermore, the CNTTS textual apparatus itself notes correctors only when they create two distinct readings in the Codex Bezae also exhibits the ‘Western’ order, but as it was present in the CNTTS textual apparatus already, no changes were needed for its inclusion in the QA. 27 Racine, p. 124. 28 In a few cases, a corrector reading could have affected the QA results, and these variation units are listed in Appendix One. 26

CHAPTER TWO

55

manuscript. In scribendo corrections made by the original scribe are not considered, for such corrections are not useful in establishing manuscript relationships.29 In a few cases, the CNTTS textual apparatus differs from the Editio Critica Maior (ECM) in its assessment of significant textual variants. According to the version of the CNTTS textual apparatus used in this monograph, The significant variants were determined on the basis of readings with the support of at least two witnesses … and involving a textual variation that would be helpful for determining the relationships on a broad level of manuscript relationships. While disagreements will exist as to which readings fall into this category, for many users at least a starting point for such determinations is needed. Variants that could be attributed to orthographic changes or overly common scribal tendencies were normally not classified as significant variants but may be included in some significant variants (italics mine).30

This definition of a significant variant plainly allows for considerable interpretation. In particular, the final statement concerning the relationship between orthographic change and significant variation accounts for differences in judgment between the CNTTS apparatus and the ECM. In general, the CNTTS apparatus regards more instances of orthographic change as potential significant variation than does the ECM. A methodological difference between the CNTTS textual apparatus and the ECM is the explicit classification of significant variants into categories: additions, omissions, transpositions, and replacements. The CNTTS apparatus utilizes these categories, but the ECM does not. The advantage of the CNTTS system is allowance for further types of analysis, as seen in Chapter Eight of this monograph. The advantage of the ECM system is simplicity and avoidance of confusion, as not all significant variants easily In contrast, Royse lists every correction in W, no matter the type, in his essay, ‘The Corrections in the Freer Gospels Codex’. Royse’s findings are discussed in detail in Chapter Eight. 30 The Center for New Testament Textual Studies Textual Apparatus, ‘Introduction’. 29

56

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

fit into one of these categories. For example, a variant could be classified as both a transposition and replacement and sometimes an addition! Perhaps the most prominent disagreement between the CNTTS and the ECM concerns the words εὐθύς versus εὐθέως. The ECM considers these two words as mere orthographic variations of the same word, but the CNTTS apparatus considers these as two words, one as a textual replacement of the other. Other examples concern the words ἄν versus ἐάν and αὐτός versus ἑαυτοῦ. In both cases, the ECM regards these words as orthographic variations while the CNTTS apparatus considers them as replacements. A more significant difference of opinion between the ECM and CNTTS concerns the words ἡµεῖς versus ὑµεῖς (‘we’ versus ‘you’). In this case, the ECM counts these as two different words in contexts which make grammatical sense, but the CNTTS often counts these words as examples of orthographic variation. The CNTTS apparatus does this because, despite the potential change in meaning, the letters eta and upsilon sounded very similar in Greek. The CNTTS apparatus only counts these words as replacements when the editors had reason to believe that the difference did not arise from similarity in pronunciation.31 I ran several QAs on Codex W, including a global QA of the entire manuscript (excluding the supplementary quire of John), four QAs of the Gospels, seven QAs using Sanders’s textual divisions, and twenty-six QAs of the individual quires of W. In contrast to Racine, who divided his QAs of Matthew into fourchapter segments, I chose not to perform QAs based on chapter divisions. Chapter divisions, although convenient, are ultimately arbitrary textual divisions. Instead, I chose to base my QAs on the quires of W, which are codicologically inherent textual divisions in the manuscript. Interestingly, the quire divisions of W do not cohere with its block mixture shifts except in the case of the supplemental quire. Performing QAs on individual quires

The editors made the decision largely on the basis of the dates of manuscripts in question. Older manuscripts with this variation are more likely to be judged significant than newer manuscripts. 31

CHAPTER TWO

57

therefore helps to track the changes in textual affiliation throughout W. The manuscripts, families, and editions listed below were chosen for comparison with W in part because of the parameters of the CNTTS apparatus and in part to create a broad cross-section of Greek witnesses. Of the witnesses chosen, only Codex Monacensis (X, 033) needed to be added to the CNTTS apparatus.32 All other witnesses were already included in the apparatus. For a crosssection of witnesses, representatives were chosen from each textual stream: P4, P66, P75, 01, 03, 04, 019, 33, and Family 1 for the Alexandrian; P45, 038, and Family 13, for the purported ‘Caesarean’; 022, 033, 041, 044, 045, and 35 for the Byzantine; and 05 for the ‘Western’.33 The dates of all these witnesses range from the third to the eleventh centuries. As editions, the Novum Testamentum Graece 28th Edition (NA28) and the Oxford 1873 edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) were chosen as general representatives of the Alexandrian and Byzantine textual streams. Finally, many of these witnesses were chosen because the relationship of their texts to that of W has already been of interest to text critics, most notably P45 in Mark.

033 has since been added to the CNTTS textual apparatus. Given that I limited my QAs to Greek witnesses, the ‘Western’ textual stream is under-represented. 32 33

CHAPTER THREE. RESULTS OF THE QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS The findings of the various QAs performed on Codex Washingtonianus are summarized in a full-color diagram on page 170. As such, this diagram shows the percentage of agreement between each witness and Codex W for every section of text on which a QA was performed. For this study, I evaluated only sample sizes of one hundred units of variation or more.1 Those witnesses with fewer than 100 variation units shared with W are marked out in gray in the diagram. Those witnesses with fewer than 50 variation units are marked out in dark gray. Witnesses entirely lacunose in individual sections of text (most often the papyri) are marked as ‘NA’ (not applicable) in the diagram. After adjustments are made for sample size, the witnesses can be evaluated for higher and lower rates of agreement with W. Those witnesses with the highest rates of agreement with W in each section are highlighted in green. Those witnesses with the lowest rates of agreement are highlighted in red. Furthermore, witnesses with above 70 percent agreement and below 40 percent agreement are highlighted in light green and light red, respectively.2 As seen in the diagram, Codex By necessity, some exceptions to this rule occur in Matthew and Luke. For example, in Luke, I deemed additional QAs on individual chapters necessary for further analysis. QAs on individual chapters of any Gospel rarely exceed 100 units of variation. The rationale for these additional QAs is explained in the Luke section of this chapter. 2 In some cases, the NA28 text or the TR text has the highest/lowest percent of agreement with W, but they are never highlighted as such. As 1

59

60

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

W’s block mixture generally appears to follow the textual divisions set down by Sanders. However, each of the QAs performed are considered in detail before a final evaluation of Sanders’s ideas is presented. I analyze the QAs in this order: the global QA of W, of each Gospel,3 of each of Sanders’s proposed blocks, and finally, of each quire.

GLOBAL QUANTITATIVE A NALYSIS

In this chapter, each table shows only the rate of agreement between W and other manuscripts (the tables do not show, for example, the relationships between 01 and 03). Due to space constraints, only the percentage agreements between W and other witnesses are shown in the color diagram. For the following tables, however, the raw data from the QAs are presented also in ratio form. The ratios are included so that the validity of the results can be determined more easily by the reader. In addition, as the following tables do not employ color, the witnesses are listed in order of percentage agreement. For witnesses that share less than 100 variation units with W in a section, the rows are in gray rather than white.4 In addition to the major supplement of John in Codex W, Codices Bezae (D, 05) and Petropolitanus (Π, 041) also contain minor supplementary portions. In 05, these supplements cover Matthew 3:7–16, John 18:14–20:13, and Mark 16:15–20. In 041, the supplements cover John 21:22–25, Luke 4:17, and Mark 16:18–20. The lengths of these supplements are too small to affect the results of the QAs significantly, but for the sake of accuracy, additional QAs were performed where relevant. In such cases, the tables contain five columns rather than the typical three. The first the NA28 and TR are editions, not witnesses, they are included in the QAs mainly as curiosities. Thus, they are noted in italics in the diagram and following tables, and they are generally excluded from the evaluation of relationships between W and other textual witnesses. 3 In this work, the Gospels are considered in the same order in which they appear in W: Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark. 4 In some sections, every witness shares less than 100 variation units with W. In such cases, witnesses with less than 50 shared variation units are in gray.

CHAPTER THREE

61

column lists the witnesses; the second and third columns present the results of the QA including the supplements in percentage and ratio form; and the fourth and fifth columns present the results of the QA without the supplements in percentage and ratio form. Where the results for 05 or 041 are affected, the rows appear in bold font. To gain a general understanding of the textual character of Codex W, I performed a QA on the entire manuscript. For this QA, only the text of the supplementary quire of John was excluded, having been written by a later hand. Table 3. Global QA of 032 Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

Percentage

Ratio

P66 044 02 P75 f1 NA28 f13 33 04 P45 038 019 03 01 05

56.46 55.92 54.62 54.26 54.10 52.57 52.51 51.11 50.74 49.42 49.40 48.76 47.78 44.93 40.78

599/1061 2271/4061 2687/4919 1069/1970 3378/6244 3283/6245 3279/6245 2674/5232 1958/3859 340/688 3057/6188 2991/6134 2984/6245 2806/6245 2503/6138

56.47 55.90 54.61 54.26 54.09 52.55 52.49 51.09 50.74 49.42 49.39 48.74 47.77 44.93 40.48

598/1059 2269/4059 2685/4917 1069/1970 3376/6242 3281/6243 3277/6243 2672/5230 1958/3859 340/688 3055/6186 2989/6132 2982/6243 2805/6243 2409/5951

P4 033 041 045 TR 35 022

62.31 58.58 58.52 58.19 58.19 57.98 56.88

81/130 2693/4597 3511/6000 3626/6231 3634/6245 3621/6245 1819/3198

62.31 58.56 58.56 58.18 58.18 57.97 56.85

81/130 2691/4595 3501/5978 3624/6229 3632/6243 3619/6243 1817/3196

Based on the results shown in the first three columns of the table, the text of W tends to follow the Byzantine textual stream,

62

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

although the rates of agreement are not particularly high. The overall Byzantine flavor of W accords well with Sanders’s assertions concerning block mixture, as two major portions of W’s text (all of Matthew and the latter part of Luke) are thought generally to be Byzantine. The textual witness showing the highest agreement with W, P4, is Alexandrian, but the agreement here is deceptive. P4 is extant only in the first part of Luke, a section of text in W already thought to be Alexandrian. With only 130 shared units of variation between two witnesses, a 62.31 percent agreement between P45 and W, though at first glance impressive, does not accurately reflect the textual character of W as a whole. In contrast, several Byzantine manuscripts show a reasonably high overall rate of agreement with W, each containing several thousand shared units of variation. Manuscripts sharing nearly 60 percent agreement with W include 033 (58.58 percent), 041 (58.52 percent), 045 (58.19 percent), and 35 (57.98 percent). The TR, an edition based on the Byzantine text, shows 58.19 percent agreement, the same as 045. Conversely, most witnesses within the Alexandrian tradition share less than 50 percent agreement with W. The principal witness to the ‘Western’ text, 05, shares only 40.78 percent agreement with W, making it the witness with the lowest rate of agreement with W overall. In the global QA of all four Gospels, naturally both 05 and 041 contain supplementary material. However, their textual affinities with W change very little: 041 changes from 58.52 to 58.56 percent agreement, and 05 changes from 40.78 to 40.48 percent agreement. Neither change is sufficient to affect their places in the list of witnesses. On a global scale, therefore, W could appear to be an early witness to the Byzantine textual tradition. Since, however, W is a manuscript purported to exhibit block mixture, a single global QA of its text is by no means enough to provide an accurate description of its textual character. The next step, therefore, is to present QAs of each of the four Gospels.

CHAPTER THREE

63

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS BY GOSPEL

Of the four Gospels in Codex W, only Matthew is believed not to exhibit a shift in the middle of its text. Table 4 therefore shows the same results as Table 8, the first of Sanders’s textual divisions: Matthew. Matthew in W has long been considered Byzantine in its character. Table 4. QA of 032 in Matthew Manuscript 041 045 033 35 TR 02 022 04 f13 f1 33 NA28 019 038 03 01 05 P45

Percentage 75.86 75.71 75.13 74.59 74.52 74.36 69.90 62.80 54.25 52.61 51.23 50.30 49.62 43.93 43.00 40.69 39.11 34.62

Ratio

971/1280 1016/1342 583/776 1001/1342 1000/1342 174/234 339/485 655/1043 728/1342 706/1342 669/1306 675/1342 657/1324 565/1286 577/1342 546/1342 483/1235 9/26

Percentage 75.86 75.71 75.13 74.59 74.52 74.36 69.90 62.80 54.25 52.61 51.23 50.30 49.62 43.93 43.00 40.69 38.63 34.62

Ratio

971/1280 1016/1342 583/776 1001/1342 1000/1342 174/234 339/485 655/1043 728/1342 706/1342 669/1306 675/1342 657/1324 565/1286 577/1342 546/1342 472/1222 9/26

According to the results presented here, the manuscript showing the highest textual affinity with W in Matthew, 041 at 75.86 percent, is a Byzantine manuscript.5 Close behind 041 each with over 70 percent agreement are 02 (74.36 percent), 033 (75.13 percent), 045 (75.71 percent), 35 (74.59 percent) and the TR

Furthermore, 041 is the primary witness of the Πa Group. See Chang, ‘An Investigation of the Textual Relationships of Selected Manuscripts of the Πa Group in John’, n. 1. 5

64

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

(74.52 percent).6 Conversely, the manuscript showing the lowest rate of agreement with W, 05 at only 39.11 percent, is a strong ‘Western’ textual witness.7 Other manuscripts showing low rates of agreement with W are 01 (40.96 percent) and 03 (43 percent), strong Alexandrian witnesses, and 038 (43.93 percent), a ‘Caesarean’ witness. In Matthew, only 05 contains supplementary material, affecting the quantitative results by thirteen units of variation. As such, 05 lowers its rate of agreement from 39.11 to 38.63 percent. As such, 05 still shares the lowest rate of agreement with W in Matthew. Racine also concludes that W in Matthew was Byzantine, although his results show higher rates of agreement than mine. Many of the Byzantine witnesses he chose agree with W in over 80 percent of shared variation units, but none of the Byzantine witnesses presented in my QA reach 80 percent agreement with W. The discrepancy between Racine’s and my results most likely can be explained by the witnesses chosen for comparison. Of the Byzantine witnesses chosen for each study, only 041 and 045 are shared by both researchers. Furthermore, Racine includes Latin witnesses and does not include papyri, but I include papyri and exclude Latin manuscripts. Despite the numerically different results between the two QAs, however, we agree on the main point: W in Matthew follows the Byzantine textual stream. The textual situation of John’s Gospel in W is radically different from that of Matthew. Not only does John shift textual affinity mid-Gospel, but it also shifts texts altogether. As I note above, the first quire of John is a supplement from a later century, which means that it could be considered its own manuscript.

02’s textual affinity with W here could be dismissed as misleading, as most of the text of Matthew in 02 is lacunose. Only Matthew 25:7–28:20 is extant. However, 02 still has enough shared units of variation with W (235) to show the Byzantine character of W in at least the latter part of Matthew, and W shows strong affinity with other Byzantine manuscripts extant through the entire Gospel. 7 Technically, P45 at only 34.62 percent agreement, is the manuscript showing the lowest textual affinity with W in Matthew. However, the sample size of P45 (only 26 shared units of variation) is far too small to be considered of use. 6

CHAPTER THREE

65

Therefore, a QA of John’s Gospel in W deserves separate consideration. The supplementary quire is not present in the global QA of W, but I include it in the results here. By comparing the results of this QA with the results of the QAs of John’s textual blocks later on, the differences between the textual characters of the two blocks could become more apparent. The original hand of John is thought to be Alexandrian, whereas the supplement is thought to contain both Alexandrian and ‘Western’ readings. Table 5. QA of 032 in John Manuscript NA28 P75 03 04 019 33 033 044 P66 01 f1 022 P45 02 041 038 TR 35 045 f13 05

Percentage 70.26 69.25 65.66 63.87 63.36 61.21 58.68 58.42 58.09 57.89 56.95 54.18 53.70 53.69 53.56 51.18 50.59 50.33 50.26 47.89 47.62

Ratio

1068/1520 680/982 998/1520 442/692 944/1490 882/1441 744/1268 888/1520 768/1322 880/1520 865/1519 531/980 58/108 699/1302 737/1376 778/1520 769/1520 765/1520 764/1520 728/1520 669/1405

Percentage 70.22 69.25 65.61 63.87 63.31 61.15 58.61 58.37 58.11 57.91 56.89 54.09 53.70 53.62 53.49 51.12 50.53 50.26 50.20 47.83 47.79

Ratio

1066/1518 690/982 996/1518 442/692 942/1488 880/1439 742/1266 886/1518 767/1320 879/1518 863/1517 529/978 58/108 697/1300 735/1374 776/1518 767/1518 763/1518 762/1518 726/1518 594/1243

The results shown in Table 5 accord reasonably well with previous assertions concerning the nature of John’s text in W. Overall, W in John inclines toward the Alexandrian tradition. The manuscript having the highest rate of agreement with W is P75 at 69.25 percent, long thought to be an early Alexandrian witness.

66

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Here, P75 comes slightly behind the NA28 at 70.26 percent. Several other Alexandrian manuscripts (both primary and secondary) share over 60 percent agreement with W: 03 (65.66 percent), 04 (63.87 percent), 019 (63.36 percent), and minuscule 33 (61.21 percent). The Byzantine witnesses, conversely, tend to share between only 50 to 60 percent agreement with W. Once again, the manuscript sharing the lowest rate of agreement with John in W is 05, at only 47.62 percent. In John, both 05 and 041 contain supplementary material. 041 contains a minimum of such material, amounting to a difference of only two variation units and less than a tenth of a percent of textual affinity (from 53.56 to 53.49 percent). The supplement in 05 is far more substantial, creating a difference of 162 shared variation units. The percentage of agreement, however, differs little for 05, from 47.62 percent with the supplement included to 47.79 percent with the supplement excluded. Luke is the first Gospel in W to exhibit a shift in textual affiliation without the presence of a supplement. If (as is generally thought) the first block of Luke in W is Alexandrian and if the second block is Byzantine, then a QA of the entire Gospel should show a mixed textual affiliation. The results shown in Table 6 cohere with this supposition: in Luke, W does not follow a particular textual stream. Table 6. QA of 032 in Luke Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

Percentage

Ratio

f13 f1

57.22 57.02

1121/1959 1117/1959

57.22 57.02

1121/1959 1117/1959

045 35 TR 022 02 041 044 P4 033 038

67.51 67.13 66.97 65.88 65.80 65.07 62.58 62.31 59.00 58.78

1313/1945 1315/1959 1312/1959 670/1017 1289/1959 1250/1921 1226/1959 81/130 1006/1705 1151/1958

67.51 67.13 66.97 65.88 65.80 65.12 62.58 62.31 59.00 58.78

1313/1945 1315/1959 1312/1959 670/1017 1289/1959 1249/1918 1226/1959 81/130 1006/1705 1151/1958

CHAPTER THREE 33 NA28 04 03 019 01 P75 P45 05

55.56 54.67 53.03 50.33 48.03 47.88 44.31 44.20 40.07

834/1501 1071/1959 482/909 986/1959 941/1959 938/1959 553/1248 160/362 785/1959

55.56 54.67 53.03 50.33 48.03 47.88 44.31 44.20 40.07

67 834/1501 1071/1959 482/909 986/1959 941/1959 938/1959 553/1248 160/362 785/1959

No witness shows more than 70 percent textual affinity with W in Luke, and only two manuscripts, 045 (67.51 percent) and 35 (67.13 percent), even approach this threshold of agreement. As the larger section of Luke is purported to be Byzantine, 045’s and 33’s higher rates are not surprising. However, these textual affinities are not nearly as high as those exhibited in the QA of Matthew, a textual block following the Byzantine textual stream in its entirety. Conversely, several Alexandrian manuscripts share less than 50 percent agreement with W in Luke: P45 (44.2 percent), P75 (44.31 percent), 01 (47.88 percent), and 019 (48.03 percent). Manuscript 03, a major Alexandrian witness, shares only 50.33 percent agreement with W. Once more, the manuscript sharing the lowest rate of agreement with W in Luke is 05, at a mere 40.07 percent agreement. Only 041 contains supplementary material for Luke, and the supplement is very small (one verse). This amounts to a difference of only three variation units. The percentage of agreement for 041 changes from 65.07 to 65.12. The last Gospel in Codex W, Mark, also contains a potential shift in textual affiliation. The first part of Mark (through at least part of chapter 5) is thought to follow the ‘Western’ textual stream, and the rest of the Gospel was at one time considered to be ‘Caesarean’. Since Hurtado, however, text critics have generally recognized that the latter section of Mark does not follow a particular textual stream. Therefore, high textual affinities between W and other witnesses would not be expected. The results shown in Table 7 meet this expectation.

68

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS Table 7. QA of 032 in Mark

Manuscript P45 f1 f13 033 022 038 041 TR 35 045 02 NA28 044 05 019 33 04 03 01

Percentage 59.69 49.26 48.96 44.80 42.87 42.02 41.45 41.13 40.71 40.18 40.12 38.58 38.08 37.80 37.61 36.11 36.00 35.19 33.59

Ratio

117/196 830/1685 825/1685 470/1049 385/898 708/1685 698/1684 693/1685 686/1685 677/1685 676/1685 650/1685 321/843 637/1685 610/1622 446/1235 500/1389 593/1685 566/1685

Percentage 59.69 49.26 48.96 44.80 42.87 42.02 41.42 41.13 40.71 40.18 40.12 38.58 38.08 37.60 37.61 36.11 36.00 35.19 33.59

Ratio

117/196 830/1685 825/1685 470/1049 385/898 708/1685 695/1678 693/1685 686/1685 677/1685 676/1685 650/1685 321/843 629/1673 610/1622 446/1235 500/1389 593/1685 566/1685

The agreement rates between W and the other witnesses are lower in Mark than in any other Gospel. The manuscript sharing the highest textual affinity with W by far is P45, but even this ‘high’ affinity is only 59.69 percent. Otherwise, the only witnesses even approaching 50 percent agreement with W are Families 1 (49.26 percent) and 13 (48.96 percent). All other witnesses agree with W in less than 45 percent of shared variation units. Several Alexandrian manuscripts share less than 40 percent agreement: 03 (35.19 percent), 04 (36 percent), 019 (37.61 percent), and 33 (36.11 percent). Mark is the only Gospel not to have 05 share the lowest rate of agreement with W, even though 05’s agreement with W in this Gospel is still only 37.8 percent.8 Instead, the manuscript sharing the lowest rate of agreement here is 01, the only witness to Interestingly, 05 shares a low rate of agreement with W in the QA of Mark’s Gospel even though at least part of the Gospel (1:1–5:30) is believed to follow the ‘Western’ textual stream. 8

CHAPTER THREE

69

agree with W in only 33.59 (barely over a third) of variation units. In Mark, both 05 and 041 contain supplementary material, but the supplements do not affect the textual affinities in any significant way. 05’s rate of agreement changes from 37.8 to 37.6 percent, and 041’s rate changes even less: from 41.45 to 41.42 percent. Including Mark, in no Gospel does the supplementary material substantively affect the results of the QA.

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS BY SANDERS’S TEXTUAL BLOCKS

QAs have now been performed on each individual Gospel, but as the Gospels aside from Matthew are believed to contain two blocks of text, further QAs must be performed. The next set of QAs presented, therefore, are those using Sanders’s traditional divisions of W’s text. Reexamining these blocks of text is the next step in evaluating Sanders’s thesis. Matthew is the only Gospel in W thought to comprise its own textual block, so I present no new information in Table 8. Table 8. QA of 032 in Matthew Manuscript 041 045 033 35 TR 02 022 04 f13 f1 33 NA28 019 038 03 01 05 P45

Percentage 75.86 75.71 75.13 74.59 74.52 74.36 69.90 62.80 54.25 52.61 51.23 50.30 49.62 43.93 43.00 40.69 39.11 34.62

Ratio

971/1280 1016/1342 583/776 1001/1342 1000/1342 174/234 339/485 655/1043 728/1342 706/1342 669/1306 675/1342 657/1342 565/1286 577/1342 546/1342 483/1235 9/26

Percentage 75.86 75.71 75.13 74.59 74.52 74.36 69.90 62.80 54.25 52.61 51.23 50.30 49.62 43.93 43.00 40.69 38.63 34.62

Ratio

971/1280 1016/1342 583/776 1001/1342 1000/1342 174/234 339/485 655/1043 728/1342 706/1342 669/1306 675/1342 657/1342 565/1286 577/1342 546/1342 472/1222 9/26

70

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

As already shown in Table 4, the manuscript sharing the highest textual affinity with W is 041 (a Byzantine witness) at 75.86 percent. The manuscript sharing the lowest rate of agreement is 05 (a major ‘Western’ witness) at only 39.11 percent. As demonstrated above, these findings support the conclusion that W in Matthew follows the Byzantine textual stream. As stated above, only 05 contains supplementary material in Matthew, and its rate of agreement changes from 39.11 to 38.63 percent. The supplementary quire of John is purported to follow the Alexandrian textual stream, albeit with a few ‘Western’ readings. Therefore, a high quantitative relationship between W and Alexandrian witnesses is expected. The results of the QA performed on the supplement are shown in Table 9. Table 9. QA of 032 in John 1:1–5:11 (Supplement) Manuscript P45 04 NA28 03 P66 P75 044 33 019 022 02 35 038 041 045 033 f1 TR 05 01 f13

Percentage 100.00 69.54 69.35 65.13 64.75 63.08 62.84 62.55 61.69 58.24 57.85 55.94 55.56 55.56 55.17 54.73 53.64 53.64 48.63 47.51 47.13

Ratio

4/4 121/174 181/261 170/261 169/261 164/260 164/261 157/251 161/261 106/182 151/261 146/261 145/261 145/261 144/261 110/201 140/261 140/261 71/146 124/261 123/261

CHAPTER THREE

71

The manuscript sharing the highest rate of agreement is P45 at an astonishing 100 percent. However, as only four units of variation are shared between P45 and W in the supplement, this result is of little value. The manuscript sharing the next highest rate of agreement is 04, a secondary Alexandrian witness: a 69.54 agreement with W accords well with expectations. Other Alexandrian witnesses also share a reasonably high rate of agreement with W: P66 (64.75 percent), P75 (63.08 percent), 03 (65.13 percent), 019 (61.69 percent), 33 (62.55 percent), and the NA28 (69.35 percent) share rates of agreement with W in the 60th percentiles. Conversely, Family 13 has the lowest textual affinity with W in this block, at only 47.13 percent. Just above Family 13, with a surprisingly low rate of agreement, is 01 at 47.51 percent. Although 01 is generally considered to be an Alexandrian witness, Gordon Fee has demonstrated that in the first eight chapters of John, 01 follows the ‘Western’ tradition.9 Manuscript 05 shares a rate of agreement of only 48.63 percent here, even though the supplement is thought to exhibit ‘Western’ readings. The results from 01 and 05 are not necessarily surprising, as ‘Western’ witnesses do not cohere as strongly as do witnesses from other textual streams. Furthermore, the supplementary quire is purported to be primarily Alexandrian. Supplementary material from 05 and 041 does not appear in the verses covered by this block of John, so additional data need not be discussed. The findings of the QA meet previous expectations reasonably well, although the rates of agreement between W and non-Alexandrian witnesses are intriguing. If the supplement contains ‘Western’ readings, then why are the textual affinities between W, 01, and 05 not higher? The relationship between the supplement and the ‘Western’ textual stream merits further examination, but the problem should not divert my present study. Despite the surprises, John 1:1–5:11 is the only block in W that cannot be challenged, as it is clearly a supplement added to the codex in a later period. All other textual blocks appear as shifts in textual affiliation made by a single hand, which makes the

9

Fee, ‘Codex Sinaiticus in the Gospel of John’, pp. 23–44.

72

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

supplement qualitatively different. Even if both blocks of John are purely Alexandrian, they are by necessity disparate. Unlike the supplement, the second section of John is thought to be entirely Alexandrian. As shown in Table 10, however, the rates of agreement between W and other Alexandrian witnesses often appear lower than those of the previous section. Table 10. QA of 032 in John 5:12–21:25 Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

Percentage

Ratio

P66 022 041 02

56.46 53.26 53.09 52.64

599/1061 425/798 592/1115 548/1041

56.47 53.14 53.18 52.55

598/1059 423/796 586/1102 546/1039

P75 NA28 03 019 04 33 01 033 f1 044

P45 038 TR 045 35 f13 05

71.47 70.45 65.77 63.71 61.97 60.92 60.05 59.42 57.63 57.51

51.92 50.28 49.96 49.25 49.17 48.05 47.50

516/722 887/1259 828/1259 783/1229 321/518 725/1190 756/1259 634/1067 725/1258 724/1259

54/104 633/1259 629/1259 620/1259 619/1259 605/1259 598/1259

71.47 70.41 65.71 63.65 61.97 60.86 60.06 59.34 57.56 57.44

51.92 50.20 49.88 49.16 49.09 47.97 47.68

516/722 885/1257 826/1257 781/1227 321/518 723/1188 755/1257 632/1065 723/1256 722/1257

54/104 631/1257 627/1257 618/1257 617/1257 603/1257 523/1097

At 71.47 percent, the Alexandrian witness P75 shares the highest rate of agreement with W. At 70.45 percent, the NA28 edition, which follows the Alexandrian textual stream, is not far behind. So far, the findings accord with expectations. Complications arise when considering other primary and secondary Alexandrian witnesses. Of these witnesses, only 01 (60.05 percent), 03 (65.77 percent), 019 (63.71 percent), and Family 1 (57.63 percent) have

CHAPTER THREE

73

higher rates of agreement than found in the supplement.10 Furthermore, 03’s shift in percentage agreement is negligible: less than a half percent increase. As the latter section of John is much longer, it includes more units of variation, but differences in sample size do not seem sufficient to account for these findings. John 5:12–21:25 ultimately slants toward the Alexandrian tradition, so perhaps the problematic assumption lies with the supplement. From these findings, the supplement appears to be more Alexandrian than was previously supposed. 05 shares the lowest rate of agreement with W in the latter part of John at 47.5 percent. For the text found in the main hand, both 05 and 041 contain supplementary material, but removing the supplements alter the results only slightly. 05’s affinity changes from 47.5 to 47.68 percent, and 041’s affinity changes from 53.09 to 53.18 percent. Like the main hand of John, the first block of Luke is thought to be Alexandrian, and the results shown in Table 11 accord with this supposition. Table 11. QA of 032 in Luke 1:1–8:12 Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

Percentage

Ratio

019 01 P4 P75 P45 33 033 044 04

65.35 65.17 62.31 62.23 52.94 50.18 49.16 48.11 47.87

364/557 363/557 81/130 117/188 9/17 274/546 233/474 268/557 146/305

65.35 65.17 62.31 62.23 52.94 50.18 49.16 48.11 47.87

364/557 363/557 81/130 117/188 9/17 274/546 233/474 268/557 146/305

NA28 03

71.63 70.38

399/557 392/557

71.63 70.38

399/557 392/557

01 rises from 47.51 percent agreement in the supplement to 60.05 percent agreement with W in the main text, which is a substantial increase. The marked rise in agreement more likely reflects the shift in textual affiliation in 01 from ‘Western’ to Alexandrian in John 8 than any shift in W. See Fee, ‘Codex Sinaiticus in the Gospel of John’, pp. 13–24. 10

74

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

f1 022 05 02 f13 041 TR 038 35 045

47.22 46.05 45.42 41.83 41.83 39.63 39.14 38.67 38.06 37.75

263/557 70/152 253/557 233/557 233/557 212/535 218/557 215/556 212/557 205/543

47.22 46.05 45.42 41.83 41.83 39.66 39.14 38.67 38.06 37.75

263/557 70/152 253/557 233/557 233/557 211/532 218/557 215/556 212/557 205/543

The manuscript sharing the highest textual affinity with W in Luke 1:1–8:12 is 03, the quintessential Alexandrian witness, at 70.83 percent. An edition rather than a manuscript, the NA28’s rate of agreement with W exceeds that of 03 at 71.63 percent. Other Alexandrian witnesses agree with W in over 60 percent of variation units: P4 (62.31 percent), P75 (62.23 percent), 01 (65.17 percent), and 019 (65.35 percent). Conversely, Byzantine manuscripts share some of the lowest rates of agreement, with manuscript 045 sharing the lowest rate of agreement at 37.75 percent. Even 05’s rate of agreement with W, generally low (here 45.42 percent), does not approach the low rates of agreement exhibit by the Byzantine manuscripts in this section. The textual nature of W in Luke thus ought to shift dramatically in the following block, as the text switches from Alexandrian to Byzantine. For the verses covered in this block, 041 contains a small supplement comprising a difference of three variation units. The change in textual affinity is negligible: from 39.63 to 39.66 percent. The results shown in Table 12 are almost the opposite of those shown in Table 11, reflecting a shift of textual affinity in W’s Luke. Table 12. QA of 032 in Luke 8:13–24:53 Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

02 041

75.32 74.89

1056/1402 1038/1386

045 35 TR

79.03 78.67 78.03

1108/1402 1103/1402 1094/1402

CHAPTER THREE 022 044 038 f13 033 f1 33 04 NA28 P45 03 019 P75 01 05

69.36 68.33 66.76 63.34 62.79 60.91 58.64 55.63 47.93 43.77 42.37 41.16 41.13 41.01 37.95

75 600/865 958/1402 936/1402 888/1402 773/1231 854/1402 560/955 336/604 672/1402 151/345 594/1402 577/1402 436/1060 575/1402 532/1402

The manuscript sharing the lowest rate of agreement with W in the previous block, 045, is now the manuscript sharing the highest rate of agreement, jumping from 37.75 to 79.03 percent (an over 40 percent increase). Other Byzantine manuscripts show similarly dramatic shifts in agreement rate: 022 from 46.05 to 69.36 percent; 033 from 49.16 to 62.79 percent; 041 from 39.63 to 74.89 percent; 044 from 48.11 to 68.33 percent; and 35 from 38.06 to 78.67 percent agreement. The TR also exhibits a shift: in the first block of Luke, the TR agrees with W in only 39.14 percent of variation units, but in this block of Luke the agreement rate rises to 78.03 percent. The Alexandrian witnesses, by contrast, drop in agreement rates with W. Whereas previously the Alexandrian manuscripts agreed with W in at least 60 percent of variation units, most now agree with W in less than 50 percent of units. Manuscript 05 once again shares the lowest rate of agreement with W at 37.95 percent. For the text contained in this block, neither 05 nor 041 contain supplements. Luke is the first Gospel in W to exhibit such a dramatic change in textual character. As Tables 11 and 12 reveal, not only does W change textual affinity between Gospels, but the manuscript changes textual affinity within a single Gospel. Furthermore, both sections of Luke are written by the same hand, unlike the Gospel of John.

76

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Mark 1:1–5:30 is the first textual block in W thought to be aligned with the ‘Western’ textual stream. As the ‘Western’ text is less coherent than its Alexandrian or (certainly) Byzantine counterparts, the rates of agreement shown in Table 13 ought not to be as high as those in previous sections. The results of QA meet and in fact exceed these expectations. Table 13. QA of 032 in Mark 1:1–5:30 Manuscript 022 P45 05 f1 038 041 NA28 019 f13 02 33 01 03 TR 04 045 35

Percentage 52.38 50.00 45.09 40.63 38.84 36.61 35.94 35.71 35.27 35.04 34.89 34.15 33.71 32.81 32.68 32.14 32.14

Ratio

11/21 5/10 202/448 182/448 174/448 164/448 161/448 160/448 158/448 157/448 149/427 153/448 151/448 147/448 134/410 144/448 144/448

Of those manuscripts with sufficient sample size, 05 shares the highest rate of agreement with W in this block. Even so, 05 agrees with W in only 45.09 percent of variation units. The manuscript sharing the highest textual affinity with W, 05, agrees in less than 50 percent of shared variation units! The manuscripts sharing the lowest textual affinity are the Byzantine 045 and 35, each with 32.14 percent agreement. All other witnesses, excepting Family 1 at 40.63 percent (but including the NA28 and TR editions), agree with W in under 40 percent of shared variation units. W has extremely low textual relationships with all other witnesses in this block, but its relationship with 05 here is almost too weak to support to the idea that W belongs to the ‘Western’ tradition in

CHAPTER THREE

77

the first part of Mark.11 Nonetheless, W does not show the same textual character in this block of Mark as it does in the next. In particular, a higher textual relationship with 05 is not maintained. In the verses contained in this block of Mark, neither 05 nor 041 contain any supplementary material. Previously, W was thought to be ‘Caesarean’ or ‘preCaesarean’ in the latter part of Mark, but since the publication of Hurtado’s dissertation, this section is not associated with a particular textual stream. Table 14. QA of 032 in Mark 5:31–16:20 Manuscript P45 f13 f1 033 TR 35 041 038 045 022 02 NA28 019 044 04 33 03 05 01

Percentage 60.22 53.92 52.38 44.80 44.14 43.82 43.20 43.17 43.09 42.65 41.96 39.53 38.33 38.08 37.39 36.76 35.73 35.17 33.39

Ratio

112/186 667/1237 648/1237 470/1049 546/1237 542/1237 534/1236 534/1237 533/1237 374/877 519/1237 489/1237 450/1174 321/843 366/979 297/808 442/1237 435/1237 413/1237

Percentage 60.22 53.92 52.38 44.80 44.14 43.82 43.17 43.17 43.09 42.65 41.96 39.53 38.33 38.08 37.39 36.76 35.73 34.86 33.39

Ratio

112/186 667/1237 648/1237 470/1049 546/1237 542/1237 531/1230 534/1237 533/1237 374/877 519/1237 489/1237 450/1174 321/843 366/979 297/808 442/1237 427/1225 413/1237

In his dissertation, Hurtado moves the shift in Mark from its traditional spot in 5:30 to earlier in the chapter: after verse 6. In Mark 1–4, Hurtado calculated the quantitative relationship between 05 and W to be 57.9 percent, but the agreement between these two manuscripts dropped dramatically in Mark 5. However, based on the QAs I performed on W’s quires, I think that Hurtado may be premature in moving the shift. See Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text, pp. 17–18. 11

78

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

As shown in Table 14, W has the closest textual relationships with P45 and Family 13, at 60.22 and 53.92 agreement respectively. However, these rates of agreement are markedly lower than the highest rates of agreement presented in previous QAs (except for the first block of Mark). Nonetheless, my findings accord with those of Hurtado, who notes the special relationship between P45 and W: ‘Of all the MSS studied, P45 is the closest ally of W in the sample where P45 is extant. This is a confirmation of the common opinion about the mutual relationship of these two MSS.’12 Conversely, the manuscript with the lowest rate of agreement with W is 01 at 33.39 percent. Notably, 05’s rate of agreement drops from 45.09 percent in the previous block to 35.17 percent in this block. This is a drop of just under 10 percent, which suggests that the previous block of Mark is at least more ‘Western’ than this block. W’s and P45’s agreements with one another do not make them representatives of the ‘Caesarean’ text. If they were representatives of the ‘Caesarean’ textual stream, then they would share higher relationships with 038, the primary witness of this stream. As shown in Table 14, however, W’s relationship with 038 is no higher than that of other manuscripts, including several Byzantine manuscripts.13 W shares the second highest affinity with Family 13, another ‘Caesarean’ representative. However, this still does not make the case for a ‘Caesarean’ W, if W’s and Family 13’s agreements occur primarily with Byzantine readings (as Hurtado asserted).14 If the relationship between these two witnesses is a result of their ‘(pre-)Caesarean’ affinity, then a higher relationship for both with 038 would be expected. However, no special relationship between W and 038 appears to Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text, p. 65. For example, 038 shares a rate of agreement with W of 43.17 percent, while 02 and 35, both Byzantine witnesses shares rates of agreement of 41.96 and 43.82 percent, respectively. Neither does P45 share a high relationship with 038: in the second block of Mark, the textual affinity between the two manuscripts is 40.86 percent. 14 Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text, pp. 61– 62. Furthermore, Family 13’s rate of agreement with W is only 53.92 percent, which is not particularly high. 12 13

CHAPTER THREE

79

exist.15 For the text in this block, both 05 and 041 contain supplementary material. After eliminating the supplementary material, 05’s textual affinity with W changes from 35.17 to 34.86 percent, and 041’s affinity changes from 43.2 to 43.17 percent. 05’s change in textual affinity is more significant than 041’s, but neither change is particularly significant. The results of the QAs I present thus far cohere with Sanders’s textual blocks, but I can evaluate his thesis still further. To validate the results of the previous QAs independently and to avoid any ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’, I ran additional QAs on individual quires of W. With the exception of the supplement in John, the textual divisions of W do not correspond to the manuscript’s quire divisions. As such, I can track textual shifts through the quires of W to see whether such changes parallel Sanders’s blocks.

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS BY QUIRE

The first page of quire 1 in Matthew is too badly degraded to discern a quire number in the upper right-hand corner, which is true in the first pages for all except possibly the last quire of Matthew. Only in John do quire numbers begin to be visible.16 The first eight quires of Codex W contain the Gospel of Matthew. A discrepancy between the results of my QAs and those of Hurtado needs to be addressed. In my QA, I calculate the relationship between W and 038 to be 43.17 percent in the latter part of Mark, but Hurtado calculates the relationship to be only 39.7 percent. This is a discrepancy of nearly 4 percent. I suspected the solution to lie in the difference between sample sizes. Hurtado treats Mark 5 as a transitional chapter, so he does not include verses 31–43 in his QA. Furthermore, Hurtado does not include the Long Ending of Mark (most likely because it is not original to the Gospel). Thus, the sample size of my study is larger than that of Hurtado, and differences in sample size could have altered the results. Thus, for the purposes of comparison between myself and Hurtado, I ran a QA on Mark 6:1–16:8. Unfortunately, the results of this comparison QA changed little. According to the new QA, 038 agrees with W in 42.91 percent of cases compared to the original 43.17 percent, the difference being less than 0.3 percent. The adjustment in sample size did not affect the results sufficiently, so the solution to the discrepancy must lie elsewhere. 16 See Table 2 in Chapter One. 15

80

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

As Matthew comprises a single textual block, the results from all eight quires are discussed together after the final Matthean quire. Quire 1 covers Matthew 1:1–5:20, but as Table 15 shows, the text of this part of Matthew contains relatively few units of variation. Table 15. QA of 032 in Quire 1 (Matthew 1:1–5:20) Manuscript 041 TR 045 35 33 f1 019 04 022 NA28 05 f13 03 038 01

Percentage 76.19 69.77 68.60 68.60 62.79 61.63 61.33 60.00 58.33 56.98 55.71 53.49 52.33 50.00 46.51

Ratio

48/63 60/86 59/86 59/86 54/86 53/86 46/75 51/85 7/12 49/86 39/70 46/86 45/86 15/30 40/86

Percentage 76.19 69.77 68.60 68.60 62.79 61.63 61.33 60.00 58.33 56.98 49.12 53.49 52.33 50.00 46.51

Ratio

48/63 60/86 59/86 59/86 54/86 53/86 46/75 51/85 7/12 49/86 28/57 46/86 45/86 15/30 40/86

Despite containing four and a half chapters of text, no witness shares more than 86 units of variation with W. In this quire, the Matthean text is remarkably stable, making the sample size is too small for true analysis. Byzantine manuscripts appear to share higher rates of agreement with W than do traditionally Alexandrian, ‘Caesarean’, or ‘Western’ manuscripts. Thus, a preliminary conclusion is that the first quire of W is Byzantine, but a definitive conclusion must wait until at least the following quire, where the sample size is large enough to be valid.17 For the text covered in this quire, only 05 contains supplementary material. Because of the small sample size, eliminating the supplementary material changes 05’s rate of agreement more substantially, from 55.71 to 49.12 percent. 17

CHAPTER THREE

81

The second quire of W covers Matthew 5:20–9:18. The quantitative results of this quire are presented in Table 16. Table 16. QA of 032 in Quire 2 (Matthew 5:20–9:18) Manuscript 033 045 041 TR 35 022 019 038 04 NA28 33 f13 03 f1 01 05

Percentage 73.40 69.18 67.92 66.67 66.04 63.38 60.38 58.49 55.17 52.20 51.90 50.94 47.80 42.14 40.88 35.80

Ratio

69/94 110/159 108/159 106/159 105/159 45/71 96/159 93/159 48/87 83/159 82/158 81/159 76/159 67/159 65/159 29/81

Although having a large enough sample size for analysis, this section of Matthew’s text is still relatively stable. Nonetheless, manuscript 045, a prominent Byzantine witness, shares the highest rate of agreement with W at 69.18 percent. Manuscript 033, another Byzantine witness, shares 73.4 percent affinity with W (higher than 045), but the sample size at 94 shared units of variation is just slightly too small to be counted. The manuscript sharing the lowest rate of agreement, given adequate sample size, is 01 at 40.88 percent. Neither 05 nor 041 contain supplementary material for the verses contained in this quire. Quire 3 of W covers Matthew 9:19–12:26, and it is the first quire in W to contain an adequate sample size for all extant manuscripts. The results of the QA performed on Quire 3 are shown in Table 17.

82

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS Table 17. QA of 032 in Quire 3 (Matthew 9:19–12:26)

Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

f13 05

52.71 44.96

68/129 58/129

TR 045 041 35 022 NA28 038 03 f1 033 04 33 01 019

70.54 69.77 68.99 68.22 64.41 63.57 62.02 59.69 59.69 58.25 58.14 54.10 53.49 53.49

91/129 90/129 89/129 88/129 76/118 82/129 80/129 77/129 77/129 60/103 75/129 66/122 69/129 69/129

Manuscript 045 at 69.77 percent shares the highest textual affinity with W in Quire 3, followed closely by 041 at 68.99 percent. Both witnesses are Byzantine. Furthermore, the TR actually exceeds the agreement of these two manuscripts, sharing 70.54 percent agreement with W in this quire. The manuscript sharing the lowest rate of agreement is 05 at 44.96 percent. 05 and 041 do not contain supplementary material for the text contained in this quire. Compared with previous quires in Matthew, the quantitative agreements in Quire 4 (Matthew 12:26–15:27) are markedly higher. These agreements are presented in Table 18. Table 18. QA of 032 in Quire 4 (Matthew 12:26–15:27) Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

35 TR

78.79 78.28

156/198 155/198

041 045

80.81 80.30

160/198 159/198

CHAPTER THREE 033 022 04 019 33 f1 NA28 f13 038 03 05 01

75.76 75.00 69.19 61.62 58.55 53.54 53.54 50.51 45.45 43.43 40.40 39.90

83 150/198 81/108 137/198 122/198 113/193 106/198 106/198 100/198 90/198 86/198 80/198 79/198

At 80.81 percent, the Byzantine witness 041 shares the highest textual affinity with W in this quire. Several other Byzantine representatives, 045 (80.3 percent), 35 (78.79 percent), and the TR (78.28 percent) approximate 80 percent agreement; still other Byzantine representatives, namely 022 (exactly 75 percent) and 033 (75.26 percent), approximate 75 percent agreement. The manuscript sharing the lowest rate of agreement here is 01 at 39.9 percent, although it is followed closely by 05 at 40.4 percent. The verses covered by this quire contain no supplementary material for either 05 or 041. Quire 5, covering Matthew 15:28–20:12, continues to show high rates of agreement between W and Byzantine representatives. Table 19. QA of 032 in Quire 5 (Matthew 15:28–20:12) Manuscript 033 TR 35 045 041 022 04 33 NA28 f13

Percentage 78.26 77.78 77.37 76.95 75.49 71.76 64.55 52.92 51.03 50.62

Ratio

126/161 189/243 188/243 187/243 154/204 61/85 122/189 127/240 124/243 123/243

84

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

019 f1 038 05 01 03

48.97 48.97 39.09 37.45 36.63 35.80

119/243 119/243 95/243 91/243 89/243 87/243

The manuscript sharing the highest rate of agreement with W, at 78.26 percent, is 033. Manuscript 033 is followed closely by 35 (77.37 percent) and 045 (76.95 percent). All three witnesses share over 75 percent agreement with W. As an edition following the Byzantine tradition, the TR shares a high rate of agreement with W at 77.78 percent. In this quire, two Alexandrian manuscripts share the lowest rates of agreement with W: 01 (36.63 percent) and 03 (35.8 percent). 05 is not far behind at 37.45 percent. The text covered by this quire contains no supplementary material. Quire 6 of Codex W covers Matthew 20:12–24:3. The results of the QA for Quire 6 are shown in Table 20. As seen in the table, Matthew in W continues to lean toward the Byzantine tradition. Table 20. QA of 032 in Quire 6 (Matthew 20:12–24:3) Manuscript 033 041 35 045 TR 022 04 f1 f13 33 NA28 01 03 019 05 038 P45

Percentage 82.48 80.45 80.45 79.55 76.36 74.63 70.66 53.64 53.18 46.41 43.64 40.91 40.91 40.45 36.82 35.91 33.33

Ratio

113/137 177/220 177/220 175/220 168/220 50/67 118/167 118/220 117/220 97/209 96/220 90/220 90/220 89/220 81/220 79/220 2/6

CHAPTER THREE

85

For the first time in the Gospel of Matthew, one of the papyri used in my study is extant: P45. However, with only six units of variation shared between P45 and W in Quire 6, P45 as a witness is not yet useful for analysis. Of the other witnesses extant in this quire, only 022 contains too small a sample size with 67 shared units of variation.18 Manuscript 033, at 82.48 percent, shares the highest rate of agreement with W in this quire; but other manuscripts in the Byzantine textual stream approximate 80 percent agreement also: both 041 and 35 at 80.45 percent and 045 at 79.55 percent. The manuscript with the lowest rate of agreement is the ‘Caesarean’ 038, sharing only 35.91 percent agreement with W. The chapters in this quire contain no supplementary material for either 05 or 041. Only manuscript 033 approaches 80 percent agreement (79.17 percent) with W in Quire 7, covering Matthew 24:4–27:2, but 033 suffers from too small a sample size. W’s shared rates of agreement with Byzantine witnesses are nonetheless relatively high. Table 21. QA of 032 in Quire 7 (Matthew 24:4–27:2)19 Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

045 TR 35 02 022 f13

75.71 74.76 73.81 72.99 72.73 62.38

159/210 157/210 155/210 100/137 8/11 131/210

033 041

79.17 76.19

57/72 160/210

022, or Codex Petropolitanus Purpureus, is heavily lacunose. The lacunae in 022 affect the sample sizes particularly in Matthew, although they also affect results in John, Luke, and Mark. 19 Codex Alexandrinus (A, 02) has been absent from the QAs presented up to this point because most of Matthew is missing from the manuscript. Because it is extant beginning in verse 25:6, 02 is available for comparison starting in Quire 7 As shown in Tables 21 and 22, 02 shares a high rate of agreement with W in Matthew, which is expected because W in Matthew is Byzantine. 18

86

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

04 f1 NA28 33 038 05 019 01 03 P45

51.45 51.43 40.95 39.30 36.19 36.06 35.71 35.24 35.24 35.00

71/138 108/210 86/210 79/201 76/210 75/208 75/210 74/210 74/210 7/20

The manuscript with the highest rate of agreement is the Byzantine 041 at 76.19 percent. This manuscript is followed closely by another Byzantine witness, 045, at 75.71 percent. By contrast, the Alexandrian witnesses share very low rates of agreement with W in this quire, the manuscripts with the absolute lowest rate of agreement being both the Alexandrian 01 and 03, tied at 35.24 percent. Again, the text in this quire contains no supplementary material. At only four folios, the last quire in W to contain Matthean material is also the shortest quire in the Gospel.20 It covers parts of only two chapters in Matthew: 27:3–28:20. Table 22. QA of 032 in Quire 8 (Matthew 27:3–28:20) Manuscript 022 045 041 02 TR 35 033 04 f13

Percentage 84.62 79.38 77.32 76.29 76.29 75.26 72.73 66.00 63.92

Ratio

11/13 77/97 75/97 74/97 74/97 73/97 8/11 33/50 62/97

Quires 8 and 22 (which covers the end of Luke) are the only two quires in W to contain only four folios. They are, therefore, the smallest quires in the manuscript. 20

CHAPTER THREE f1 33 NA28 019 03 01 038 05

59.79 52.58 50.52 45.56 43.30 41.24 38.14 34.88

87 58/97 51/97 49/97 41/90 42/97 40/97 37/97 30/86

Sample size is also a problem in this quire, as the number of shared variation units between W and most other witnesses is 97. Once again, the text of Matthew is stable (although the length of text in this quire is shorter than the first quire of Matthew). Of those manuscripts with 97 shared variation units, 045 shares the highest rate of agreement with W at 79.38 percent. Manuscript 05, the major ‘Western’ witness, shares the lowest textual affinity with W at only 34.88 percent, followed distantly by the ‘Caesarean’ 038 at 38.14 percent. Unremarkably, the QAs that I performed on the quires of W reveal that Matthew follows the Byzantine textual stream throughout the Gospel. As such, W’s Matthew comprises a single textual block. Unexpectedly, however, I found that W appears to follow the Byzantine stream to a greater degree as the text of Matthew progresses. In the initial quires, the highest agreements between W and Byzantine witnesses hover around 70 percent, but beginning with Quire 4, the agreement rises to over 80 percent. The agreements between W and other Byzantine witnesses remain around and above 80 percent in every quire. Correspondingly, the agreements between W and other textual streams drop significantly in the latter part of Matthew, particularly the Alexandrian stream. In Quire 3, several Alexandrian witnesses agree with W in over 50 percent of cases, but in Quire 4, this number drops to 40 percent. In Quire 5, the rates of agreement between W and the Alexandrians bottom out, and 01 (36.63 percent) and 03 (35.8 percent) agree with W in less than 40 percent of cases. In Matthew, W is Byzantine throughout, but I found that W is more strongly Byzantine in the latter part of the Gospel. The numerical changes between quires are not nearly

88

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

enough to suggest multiple blocks of text in Matthew, but they do suggest development in W’s Matthean text. Moving from the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of John begins with Quire 9. As the supplement of John comprises its own quire, the results shown in Table 23 are the same as those shown in Table 10. Therefore, I do not repeat the results of this QA in detail. Table 23. QA of 032 in Quire 9 (John 1:1–5:11, Supplement) Manuscript P45 04 NA28 03 P66 P75 044 33 019 022 02 35 038 041 045 033 f1 TR 05 01 f13

Percentage 100.00 69.54 69.35 65.13 64.75 63.08 62.84 62.55 61.69 58.24 57.85 55.94 55.56 55.56 55.17 54.73 53.64 53.64 48.63 47.51 47.13

Ratio

4/4 121/174 181/261 170/261 169/261 164/260 164/261 157/251 161/261 106/182 151/261 146/261 145/261 145/261 144/261 110/201 140/261 140/261 71/146 124/261 123/261

The supplement inclines toward Alexandrian tradition, with the secondary Alexandrian witness 04 sharing the highest rate of agreement with W at 69.54 percent. Once again, the witness sharing the lowest rate of agreement with W here is Family 13 at 47.51 percent. Family 13 is closely followed by a manuscript

CHAPTER THREE

89

generally Alexandrian but ‘Western’ in the first eight chapters of John: 01 agrees with W in only 47.51 percent of cases.21 As stated above, neither 05 nor 041 contain supplementary material for the text contained in this quire. The original hand of Codex W resumes in Quire 10, which covers John 5:12–8:16. The second textual block of John also begins with this quire, as the main hand of John’s Gospel is purported to follow the Alexandrian textual stream without ‘Western’ influences. The quantitative results are shown in Table 24. Table 24. QA of 032 in Quire 10 (John 5:12–8:16) Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

033 f1 02 P66

60.95 58.25 57.96 56.65

103/169 180/309 91/157 149/263

NA28 04 03 P75 019 044 33 022

041 f13 TR 045 35 038 01 05 P45

21

77.10 73.81 72.26 71.48 70.32 64.84 64.69 64.21

56.59 53.87 53.23 52.26 52.26 51.94 45.48 43.23 0.00

239/310 62/84 224/310 198/277 218/310 201/310 196/303 174/271

146/258 167/310 165/310 162/310 162/310 161/310 141/310 134/310 0/1

See Fee, ‘Codex Sinaiticus in the Gospel of John’, pp. 23–44.

90

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

In this quire, most Alexandrian manuscripts display high textual affinities with W, often exceeding 70 percent. The manuscript sharing the highest textual affinity is 04 at 73.81 percent, followed somewhat closely by 03 at 72.26 percent and P75 at 71.48 percent. Manuscript 01, which follows the ‘Western’ stream through John 8, continues to share a low rate of agreement with W: only 45.48 percent. However, manuscript 05, at 43.23 percent, shares the lowest rate of agreement with W. Again, the chapters covered in this quire contain no supplementary material. In Quire 11, which covers John 8:16–11:48, the rates of agreement between W and various Alexandrian witnesses are slightly higher. This results from this quire are shown in Table 25. Table 25. QA of 032 in Quire 11 (John 8:16–11:48) Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

P75 019 04 033

73.84 70.64 69.12 67.28

223/302 231/327 94/136 220/327

NA28 03

01 33 044 022

f1 041 038 P66 P45 02 35 TR 045 f13 05

78.29 74.31

66.97 65.91 61.47 59.87 57.80 55.74 55.35 54.94 53.93 53.44 52.91 52.29 51.99 50.15 47.09

256/327 243/327

219/327 203/308 201/327 94/157 189/327 131/235 181/327 178/324 48/89 140/262 173/327 171/327 170/327 164/327 154/327

CHAPTER THREE

91

The manuscript with the highest rate of agreement is now 03 at 74.31 percent. The rate of agreement between W and 01 rises dramatically, from less than 46 (45.48) percent agreement in Quire 10 to nearly 67 (66.97) percent in Quire 11. The rise in agreement between W and 01 in this quire reflects a shift not in W but in 01: in John 8, 01 shifts from the ‘Western’ to the Alexandrian textual stream. As in many quires, the manuscript sharing the lowest rate of agreement with W is 05 at 47.09 percent. The text in this quire contains no supplementary material for either 05 or 041. From a slight rise in agreements between Quires 10 and 11, Quire 12, which contains John 11:48–16:7, now exhibits slight drops in agreement between W and the Alexandrian witnesses, as shown in Table 26.22 Table 26. QA of 032 in Quire 12 (John 11:48–16:7) Manuscript NA28 01 P75 f1 P66 044 03 041 33 033 02 019 045 TR 04 038 35

Percentage 68.29 67.07 66.43 62.20 60.98 60.57 60.16 60.16 59.53 59.36 59.35 57.32 56.10 56.10 53.93 53.66 52.85

Ratio

168/246 165/246 95/143 153/246 150/246 149/246 148/246 148/246 128/215 130/219 146/246 141/246 138/246 138/246 48/89 132/246 130/246

Although it originally had eight folios, Quire 12 currently is missing two folios, which would have contained verses 14:25–16:7. 22

92

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

f13 05 P45 022

50.41 50.00 42.86 29.41

124/246 123/246 6/14 5/17

In contrast to the higher earlier agreement rates, W and several Alexandrian witnesses now agree only in the 60th percentiles. In fact, many Alexandrian witnesses share rates of agreement with W similar to that of many Byzantine witnesses. For example, the Alexandrian 03 and the Byzantine 041 are tied at 60.16 percent agreement. Nonetheless, the two witnesses that agree with W the most are Alexandrian: 01 (67.07 percent) and P75 (66.43 percent) agree with W in approaching 70 percent of variation units. The witness with the lowest rate of agreement is 05 at exactly 50 percent, followed closely by Family 13 at 50.41 percent. The verses in this quire do not contain supplementary material for 05 or 041. In Quire 13, which contains John 16:7–19:18, the textual affinities between W and the Alexandrian manuscripts continue to drop. However, the rates of agreement between W and several Byzantine manuscripts also drop significantly between Quires 12 and 13, making this quire more Alexandrian. Table 27. QA of 032 in Quire 13 (John 16:7–19:18) Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

Percentage

Ratio

044 02 041

46.12 45.66 41.55

101/219 100/219 91/219

45.62 45.16 41.01

99/217 98/217 89/217

01 NA28 04 019 03 05 P66 33 f1 033

61.64 60.27 59.57 58.90 57.99 52.97 52.87 51.83 51.60 50.77

135/219 132/219 84/141 129/219 127/219 116/219 83/157 113/218 113/219 99/195

61.75 59.91 59.57 58.53 57.60 58.41 52.90 51.39 51.15 50.26

134/217 130/217 84/141 127/217 125/217 66/113 82/155 111/216 111/217 97/193

CHAPTER THREE 038 35 022 045 f13 TR

40.64 40.64 39.91 39.27 38.36 38.36

89/219 89/219 85/213 86/219 84/219 84/219

93 40.09 40.09 39.34 38.71 37.79 37.79

87/217 87/217 83/211 84/217 82/217 82/217

P75, a major and early witness to the Alexandrian textual stream, is not extant in this quire. The manuscript sharing the highest rate of agreement with W is once again 01, but the rate drops from 67.07 percent in Quire 12 to 61.64 percent in Quire 13. Family 13 and the TR edition share the lowest rate of agreement at 38.36 percent. For the text contained in this quire (and the next), 05 contains a major supplement, covering John 18:14–20:13. Setting aside this supplementary material means removing two variation units from all manuscripts in the QA, and it raises 05’s textual affinity with W from 52.97 to 58.41 percent. Quire 14, which contains the final portion of John (19:18– 21:25), is comprised of six folios, the last of which is blank. The quantitative results from Quire 14 are shown in Table 28. Table 28. QA of 032 in Quire 14 (John 19:18–21:25) Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

Percentage

Ratio

f1 P66 03 033 019 04 041 022

57.32 54.93 54.78 52.23 50.39 48.53 48.41 47.86

90/157 39/71 86/157 82/157 64/127 33/68 76/157 67/140

57.32 54.93 54.78 52.23 50.39 48.53 49.32 47.86

90/157 39/71 86/157 82/157 64/127 33/68 72/146 67/140

01 NA28 33

044 02 05 TR

61.15 58.60 58.22

45.86 45.22 45.22 45.22

96/157 92/157 85/146

72/157 71/157 71/157 71/157

61.15 58.60 58.22

45.86 45.22 45.54 45.22

96/157 92/157 85/146

72/157 71/157 46/101 71/157

94 038 f13 35 045

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS 44.59 42.04 41.40 40.76

70/157 66/157 65/157 64/157

44.59 42.04 41.40 40.76

70/157 66/157 65/157 64/157

In this quire, the agreement rates between Alexandrian and Byzantine witnesses and W once again converge. However, the percentages are still not as similar as those of Quire 12 (presented in Table 26). Manuscript 01 has 61.15 percent agreement with W, but the next highest Alexandrian witness (not an edition like the NA28) is 33 at only 58.22 percent. Manuscript 03, the primary Alexandrian witness, agrees with W in only 54.78 percent of the quire’s variation units. The manuscript with the lowest rate of agreement is 045, a Byzantine witness, with 40.76 percent agreement. Nonetheless, most other Byzantine witnesses approximate 45 percent agreement with W in this quire, not far behind some Alexandrian manuscripts. The large supplement in 05 continues for the text found in this quire, but the quantitative results here change very little: from 45.22 to 45.54 percent. 041 also contains a small supplement here, changing its textual affinity with W from 48.41 to 49.32 percent. The main hand/second block of John appears to be Alexandrian in its text, although the rates of agreement between W and the Alexandrians are not as high as expected. Quires 10 and 11 show high rates of agreement between W and the major Alexandrian witnesses, but these percentages are not maintained in later quires. Furthermore, in Quire 12, the Alexandrian manuscripts agree with W no more than do the Byzantine manuscripts. Perhaps the main hand of John represents a transitional stage between the Alexandrian and Byzantine textual streams, particularly in later quires. As this Gospel is transcribed by two distinct hands, the textual divisions in W’s John nonetheless cannot be disputed. Luke is the first Gospel in W purported to shift textual stream within a quire. Luke 1:1–8:12 is thought to represent the Alexandrian text, which means that Quires 15 and 16 should lean toward Alexandrian tradition. In the middle of Quire 17, however, W’s textual affiliation should change from Alexandrian

CHAPTER THREE

95

to Byzantine. As shown in Table 29, the QA of Luke’s first quire, Quire 15 (which covers verses 1:1–4:13), meets expectations. Table 29. QA of 032 in Quire 15 (Luke 1:1–4:13) Manuscript 03 NA28 019 01 P4 033 33 f1 044 04 05 02 041 022 TR 35 038 045 f13 P75

Percentage 75.37 74.88 68.47 67.98 60.42 50.38 48.48 47.29 45.32 42.28 41.38 40.89 39.01 38.95 36.95 36.45 36.14 35.98 34.48 28.57

Ratio

153/203 152/203 139/203 138/203 29/48 66/131 96/198 96/203 92/203 52/123 84/203 83/203 71/182 37/95 75/203 74/203 73/202 68/189 70/203 2/7

The manuscript displaying the highest rate of agreement with W in this quire is 03 at 75.37 percent. Other Alexandrian manuscripts, except for 33 (48.48 percent), exceed 60 percent agreement with W.23 Conversely, Byzantine witnesses share low rates of agreement with W, often less than 40 percent (for example, 045 at 35.98 percent and 35 at 36.45 percent). The witness sharing the lowest rate of agreement in this quire is Family 13 at only 34.48 percent. The text contained in the first quire of Luke has no supplementary material in either 05 or 041. From Quire 16 to Quire 18, 33’s textual affinity with W differs markedly from the affinities of other Alexandrian witnesses. 23

96

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Quire 16, which covers Luke 4:13–7:20, also follows the Alexandrian textual stream, although the textual affinities between W and Alexandrian manuscripts are not as high as those of the previous quire. The quantitative results of this quire are presented in Table 30. Table 30. QA of 032 in Quire 16 (Luke 4:13–7:20) Manuscript NA28 03 019 P75 01 P4 022 33 P45 04 033 044 05 f1 f13 02 038 TR 041 045 35

Percentage 71.53 68.68 66.55 66.43 66.19 63.41 57.89 53.60 52.94 51.65 51.48 49.82 47.69 47.33 46.26 41.64 40.93 40.93 39.64 39.15 39.15

Ratio

201/281 193/281 187/281 95/143 186/281 52/82 33/57 149/278 9/17 94/182 139/270 140/281 134/281 133/281 130/281 117/281 115/281 115/281 111/280 110/281 110/281

Percentage 71.53 68.68 66.55 66.43 66.19 63.41 57.89 53.60 52.94 51.65 51.48 49.82 47.69 47.33 46.26 41.64 40.93 40.93 39.71 39.15 39.15

Ratio

201/281 193/281 187/281 95/143 186/281 52/82 33/57 149/278 9/17 94/182 139/270 140/281 134/281 133/281 130/281 117/281 115/281 115/281 110/277 110/281 110/281

Once again, the manuscript with the highest rate of agreement is 03, but the rate drops from 75.37 percent to 68.68 percent. Interestingly, W’s agreement with the NA28 edition exceeds that of 03 (71.53 percent) in this quire. With the exception of 33 (53.6 percent), all other Alexandrian witnesses agree with W in nearly 70 percent of cases. Conversely, the manuscript with the lowest rate of agreement is the Byzantine 35 at only 39.15 percent. For the text in this quire, 041 contains a small supplement, amounting

CHAPTER THREE

97

to three units of variation. Removing the supplement from consideration changes the textual affinity between 041 and W from 39.64 to 39.71 percent, a negligible difference. In Quire 17, which covers Luke 7:21–9:13, the QA results run directly counter to my expectations for the first time in the study. These results are shown in Table 31. Table 31. QA of 032 in Quire 17 (Luke 7:21–9:13) Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

NA28 03 033 04

55.28 51.26 51.26 50.00

110/199 102/199 102/199 43/86

022 02 041 TR 35 045 044 f13 038 f1

33 01 019 P75 05

80.00 66.33 63.82 62.31 61.81 61.31 60.80 58.29 55.78 55.28

49.48 48.74 47.24 43.45 42.71

12/15 132/199 127/199 124/199 123/199 122/199 121/199 116/199 111/199 110/199

95/192 97/199 94/199 63/145 85/199

As the change in textual affinity is supposed to occur only after verse 8:12 (midway through this quire), I expected a reasonably high rate of agreement between W and the Alexandrian manuscripts. However, agreements between W and the Alexandrians drop 20 percent or more. Manuscript 03, which shares 75.37 percent and 68.68 percent agreement in previous quires, now shares only 51.26 percent agreement. Large drops in agreement are seen with other Alexandrian witnesses as well: P75 (from 66.43 to 43.45 percent), 01 (from 66.19 to 48.74 percent),

98

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

019 (from 66.55 to 47.24 percent), and even the NA28 (from 71.53 to 55.28 percent). The manuscript sharing the highest rate of agreement with W in this quire, 02 at 66.33 percent, is a major Byzantine witness. Other Byzantine manuscripts agree with W in at least 60 percent of variation units. These results merit further investigation.24 For the verses in this quire, neither 05 nor 041 contain any supplementary material. To examine the shift in W from the Alexandrian to the Byzantine textual stream, I ran further QAs on Luke chapters 7 and 8. The QA performed on Luke 7, as shown in Table 32, does not meet the requirements for adequate sample size (at only 87 variation units), but because of the surprising results revealed in Quire 17, I made an exception. Table 32. QA of 032 in Luke 7 Manuscript 03 P45 NA28 P75 01 019 044 04 f1 02 033 35 33 041 f13 TR

Percentage 68.97 66.67 65.52 64.81 60.92 57.47 51.72 51.61 45.98 40.23 40.23 40.23 39.29 39.08 39.08 39.08

Ratio

60/87 2/3 57/87 35/54 53/87 50/87 45/87 16/31 40/87 35/87 35/87 35/87 33/84 34/87 34/87 34/87

In Quire 17, 42 of 57 verses (73.68 percent) are located in the first block of Luke. However, only 73 out of 126 variation units (57.94 percent) are from the first block of Luke in this quire. Although the second block of Luke is present in fewer verses on Quire 17, it contains more units of variation. 24

CHAPTER THREE 05 038 045

37.93 36.78 36.78

99 33/87 32/87 32/87

Luke 7 spans Quires 16 and 17. As shown in Table 32, Luke 7 remains Alexandrian despite its presence on both quires. The manuscript displaying the highest rate of agreement with W in Luke 7 is 03 at 68.99 percent. Other Alexandrian manuscripts maintain agreement rates in the 60th percentiles. The manuscript with the lowest rate of agreement with W is 045 at only 36.78 percent, and other Byzantine manuscripts show textual affinities with W either around or under 40 percent. As shown in Table 33, the QA results for Luke 8 are in striking contrast to those of Luke 7. Luke 8 is clearly Byzantine. Table 33. QA of 032 in Luke 8 Manuscript 02 TR 041 045 044 35 f13 038 f1 033 33 NA28 04 019 01 03 05 P75

Percentage 75.41 72.95 72.13 71.31 69.67 69.67 68.03 61.48 61.48 60.66 58.47 54.10 50.85 48.36 47.54 47.54 45.08 42.45

Ratio

92/122 89/122 88/122 87/122 85/122 85/122 83/122 75/122 75/122 74/122 69/118 66/122 30/59 59/122 58/122 58/122 55/122 45/106

The manuscript sharing the highest rate of agreement with W is 02 at 75.41 percent, and other Byzantine manuscripts agree with W in 70 percent or more of cases. The manuscript with the lowest

100

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

rate of agreement is the Alexandrian P75 at only 42.45 percent. All other Alexandrian witnesses, except for 33 (58.47 percent) and the NA28 (54.1 percent), agree with W in 50 percent or less of their shared variation units. Based upon the quantitative results shown in Tables 32 and 33, the textual shift in Luke does not occur in the middle of chapter 8 as Sanders originally proposed. Rather, W shifts textual affiliation between chapters 7 and 8 in Luke. Luke 7, which spans Quires 16 and 17, inclines toward Alexandrian tradition; but Luke 8, which is present entirely in Quire 17, is Byzantine. A definite textual shift occurs in W’s Luke, but I find it to take place earlier than Sanders claimed. Rather than locate the shift after 8:12, I prefer to locate it between chapters 7 and 8. The remainder of Luke is thought to be Byzantine, and the results shown in Tables 34 through 38 support this conclusion. Table 34. QA of 032 in Quire 18 (Luke 9:13–11:44) Manuscript 35 045 TR 02 041 038 044 022 f13 04 033 33 f1 NA28 03 019 P75 01 05 P45

Percentage 81.16 80.43 80.07 78.62 77.29 75.00 72.83 72.64 72.46 68.48 67.95 61.94 60.14 55.07 47.46 46.38 46.21 45.29 41.67 40.53

Ratio

224/276 222/276 221/276 217/276 211/273 207/276 201/276 77/106 200/276 189/276 176/259 166/268 166/276 152/276 131/276 128/276 122/264 125/276 115/276 77/190

CHAPTER THREE

101

In Quire 18, which covers Luke 9:13–11:44, the manuscript displaying the highest textual affinity with W is 35 at 81.16 percent. Conversely, the manuscript with the lowest textual affinity is P45 at 40.53 percent. Most Alexandrian witnesses (for example, P75 at 46.21 percent; 01 at 45.29 percent; and 03 at 47.46 percent) agree with W in less than 50 percent of variation units. Once again, neither 05 nor 041 contain supplementary material for the verses in this quire. Quire 19, which contains Luke 11:44–15:2, continues to show high rates of agreement between W and the Byzantine witnesses. The quantitative results from Quire 19 are shown in Table 35. Table 35. QA of 032 in Quire 19 (Luke 11:44–15:2) Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

TR 02 041 022

77.24 76.12 74.63 70.05

207/268 204/268 200/268 145/207

045 35

044 04 f13 033

f1 33 038 NA28 03 P45 P75 019 01 05

79.10 77.99

68.66 66.67 62.69 62.31 61.57 58.10 54.85 52.99 48.88 47.74 47.39 45.15 42.91 39.18

212/268 209/268

184/268 18/27 168/268 167/268 165/268 104/179 147/268 142/268 131/268 74/155 127/268 121/268 115/268 105/268

The highest rate of agreement between W and another manuscript is that of 045 at 79.1 percent. Conversely, the manuscript

102

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

displaying the lowest rate of agreement with W is 05 at 39.18 percent. The rate of agreement between W and P45 rises from 40.53 percent in Quire 18 to 47.74 percent in Quire 19. By contrast, the agreements between W and major Alexandrian witnesses show little substantive change. Neither 05 nor 041 contain supplementary material for the text found in this quire. Quire 20 covers Luke 15:3–19:38. Agreements between W and the Byzantine manuscripts remain high, with several percentages exceeding those of the previous quire. The QA results of this quire are shown in Table 36. Table 36. QA of 032 in Quire 20 (Luke 15:3–19:38) Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

038 33 033 f1 f13 NA28 01 019 03 05 P75

62.98 60.58 60.52 58.13 57.79 47.75 42.91 42.56 40.83 36.68 36.54

182/289 63/104 141/233 168/289 167/289 138/289 124/289 123/289 118/289 106/289 57/156

35 045 TR 041 02 022 044

82.01 81.31 79.58 74.74 74.39 68.95 67.47

237/289 235/289 230/289 213/285 215/289 171/248 195/289

The manuscript displaying the highest rate of agreement with W is 35 at 82.01 percent. Close behind is 045 at 81.31 percent. Other Byzantine witnesses have rates of agreement in W from the upper 60th to 70th percentiles. The manuscript with the lowest rate of agreement is the Alexandrian witness P75 at 36.54 percent, followed very closely by the ‘Western’ 05 at 36.68 percent. Once

CHAPTER THREE

103

again, neither 05 nor 041 contain any supplementary material for the text in this quire. In Quire 21, covering Luke 19:38–23:25, agreements between W and key Byzantine witnesses are lower than those of previous quires. Nonetheless, the results shown in Table 37 show that W in Quire 21 is still Byzantine. Table 37. QA of 032 in Quire 21 (Luke 19:38–23:25) Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

f13 33 04 NA28

57.56 57.24 43.31 43.09

179/311 87/152 55/127 134/311

045 TR 35 02 041 038 022 044 033 f1

03 P75 01 05 019

76.85 76.53 74.60 73.31 69.87 69.77 67.80 66.56 63.38 61.41

40.84 40.60 37.30 35.37 35.05

239/311 238/311 232/311 228/311 211/302 217/311 160/236 207/311 135/213 191/311

127/311 54/133 116/311 110/311 109/311

At 76.85 percent agreement, manuscript 045 has the highest textual affinity with W.25 An edition and not a manuscript, the TR shows a very similar rate of agreement (only one variation unit different) as 045. Other Byzantine witnesses, with the exception Beginning with Quire 18 (shown in Table 34), agreements between W and 045 are consistently higher than agreements between W and many other Byzantine manuscripts. As shown in Table 38, this pattern continues in the final quire of Luke. 25

104

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

of 044 (close at 66.56 percent), approximate 70 percent agreement in shared variation units with W. At just 35.05 percent, 019 has the lowest rate of agreement with W, followed closely by 05 at 35.37 percent. W and most Alexandrian witnesses agree in about 40 percent of shared variation units. No supplementary material is found here for either 05 or 041. Quire 22 contains the final section of Luke (23:25–24:53), and in this quire, W continues to follow the Byzantine textual stream. The quantitative results from Quire 22 are shown in Table 38. Table 38. QA of 032 in Quire 22 (Luke 23:25–24:53) Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

f1 022 044 033 33 04 05 NA28 019 01 P75 03

66.67 66.04 65.15 60.61 56.92 35.23 34.85 31.82 30.30 28.03 25.00 23.48

88/132 35/53 86/132 80/132 74/130 31/88 46/132 42/132 40/132 37/132 33/132 31/132

041 35 045 TR 038 02 f13

80.30 80.30 79.55 77.27 75.00 70.45 68.94

106/132 106/132 105/132 102/132 99/132 93/132 91/132

Agreements between W and Byzantine manuscripts rise again, with 041 and 35 (both 80.3 percent) tied at over 80 percent agreement. At 79.55 percent, 045 closely approaches 80 percent agreement with W. By contrast, textual affinities between W and several Alexandrian witnesses are extremely low. At just 23.48

CHAPTER THREE

105

percent, 03 has the lowest rate of agreement with W. Interestingly, not only is this the lowest shared rate of agreement in this quire, but 03 here displays the lowest rate of agreement between W and another witness in any quire of W. The text found in this quire does not contain supplementary material for 05 or 041. As Sanders asserts in his study of the manuscript, W shifts textual affiliation in the middle of the Gospel of Luke. The first block of Luke in W follows the Alexandrian textual stream, and the second block of Luke follows the Byzantine stream. Sanders is wrong, however, in identifying the location of the textual shift. Sanders proposes that W changes textual affinity at Luke 8:12, but the results of Tables 32 and 33 show that the change occurs earlier, perhaps between chapters 7 and 8. Aside from this adjustment, however, Sanders’s textual divisions are supported by QAs that I performed. Mark is the shortest of the four Gospels, and thus it comprises only four quires in Codex W. Like the Gospel of Luke, Mark in W is purported to change textual affinity in the middle of a quire. In Quire 23 and a small part of Quire 24, W is thought to follow the ‘Western’ textual stream, although the results of my QA (presented in Table 13) suggest a mixed text with a slight ‘Western’ affinity. Beginning in Quire 24 and continuing for the rest of the manuscript, then, Mark’s text in W was traditionally thought be ‘Caesarean’. Since Hurtado’s dissertation, however, the latter part of Mark is not believed to follow any textual stream. In this, Hurtado and I agree, as I find the second block of Mark (Table 14) to be thoroughly mixed. In Quire 23, the results of the QA (like those for the first block of Mark) do not quite meet my expectations. As the quire covers Mark 1:1–5:26 and Sanders’s textual block covers 1:1– 5:30, the results shown in Table 39 are very similar to the results presented in Table 13. The numerical difference between the two tables is only seven units of variation.26

For example, whereas W and 05 share 448 units of variation in Table 13, the two manuscripts now share 441 units of variation in Table 39. 26

106

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS Table 39. QA of 032 in Quire 23 (Mark 1:1–5:26)

Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

TR 045 35

32.43 31.75 31.75

143/441 140/441 140/441

P45 022 05 f1 038 041 NA28 019 33 f13 02 01 03 04

50.00 50.00 44.90 40.59 39.00 36.51 36.05 35.83 35.24 34.92 34.69 34.47 34.01 33.00

5/10 7/14 198/441 179/441 172/441 161/441 159/441 158/441 148/420 154/441 153/441 152/441 150/441 133/403

Like Mark’s initial textual block, Quire 23 is mixed with perhaps a slight ‘Western’ textual affinity. The manuscript displaying the highest rate of agreement with W is 05 at 44.9 percent. Apart from Family 1 (40.59 percent), no other witness exceeds 40 percent affinity with W. The manuscripts with the lowest rate of agreement with W are 045 and 35, tied at 31.75 percent agreement. Both manuscripts are Byzantine.27 Neither 05 nor 041 contain supplementary material for the text found in this quire.

The results of the QA that I performed on Quire 23, only four verses short of Sanders’s textual division, challenge Hurtado’s assertion that the shift in Mark should be relocated at verse 5:6. The similarities in the results shown in Tables 13 and 39 are too close to support relocating the shift. In fact, the agreement between W and 05 is slightly higher in the traditional block than it is in Quire 23 (45.09 percent in the block as opposed to 44.9 percent in the quire). Furthermore, as seen in Table 40, a shift in Mark’s textual character occurs in Quire 24, supporting the traditional division. 27

CHAPTER THREE

107

In Quire 24, which contains Mark 5:26–9:14, W shifts in textual affiliation from mixed with ‘Western’ tendencies to thoroughly mixed. The quantitative results of this quire are shown in Table 40. Table 40. QA of 032 in Quire 24 (Mark 5:26–9:14) Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

NA28 05 019 03 33 044 01 04

40.42 38.80 38.11 35.80 35.05 34.38 33.03 32.94

175/433 168/433 165/433 155/433 143/408 11/32 143/433 83/252

P45 f13 f1 033 TR 35 038 045 041 02 022

62.94 55.20 50.35 49.64 47.58 47.11 46.88 46.19 46.06 45.50 43.90

90/143 239/433 218/433 136/274 206/433 204/433 203/433 200/433 199/432 197/433 169/385

The witness with the highest rate of agreement with W is now P45 at 62.94 percent, followed by Family 13 at 55.2 percent. P45, Family 13, and W were thought to be representatives of the ‘preCaesarean’ text in Mark, but as Hurtado demonstrates in his dissertation, the three witnesses agree with one another more than they do with a particular textual stream. As shown in Table 40, W agrees with the prime ‘Caesarean’ witness, 038, in only 46.88 percent of shared variation units. This agreement is no higher than W’s agreement with several Byzantine witnesses: 041 (46.06 percent), 045 (46.19 percent), and 35 (47.11 percent). 05’s textual affinity has dropped from 44.9 percent in the previous

108

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

quire to 38.8 percent in this quire. W shares the lowest agreements with Alexandrian witnesses, the lowest being 04 at 33.03 percent. The text in this quire contains no supplementary material for either 05 or 041. Quire 25, which covers Mark 9:14–13:11, continues to exhibit a mixed text. The results of the QA for Quire 25 are shown in Table 41. Table 41. QA of 032 in Quire 25 (Mark 9:14–13:11) Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

TR NA28 019 044 03 02 04 01 33 05

39.75 38.90 38.89 38.69 37.84 37.42 36.70 36.36 36.26 32.98

188/473 184/473 168/432 183/473 179/473 177/473 149/406 172/473 95/262 156/473

f1 P45 f13 033 038 35 041 045 022

53.49 51.16 50.53 41.86 40.80 40.59 39.96 39.96 39.88

253/473 22/43 239/473 198/473 193/473 192/473 189/473 189/473 134/336

P45 is extremely lacunose in Mark, resulting in only 43 shared units of variation with W in this quire. As such, P45, though textually affiliated with W in Mark, cannot be considered for analysis here. The witness with the strongest textual affinity with W in this quire is Family 1 at 53.49 percent, followed by Family 13 at 50.53 percent. The manuscript displaying the lowest rate of agreement with W is 05 at 32.98 percent, signifying that W in Mark no longer exhibits ‘Western’ tendencies.

CHAPTER THREE

109

The final quire of Mark, covering verses 13:11–16:20, is the longest quire in W at ten folios.28 The quantitative results for Quire 26 are shown in Table 42. Table 42. QA of 032 in Quire 26 (Mark 13:11–16:20) Manuscript

Percentage

Ratio

Percentage

Ratio

NA28 019 044 05

39.05 37.66 37.57 34.02

132/338 119/316 127/338 115/338

39.05 37.66 37.57 32.82

132/338 119/316 127/338 107/326

f13 f1 TR 022 033 35 02 041 045 038 33 04

03 01

57.10 53.25 46.15 46.01 45.03 44.38 44.08 44.08 43.79 41.42 41.38 41.16

32.25 29.29

193/338 180/338 156/338 75/163 136/302 150/338 149/338 149/338 148/338 140/338 60/145 135/328

109/338 99/338

57.10 53.25 46.15 46.01 45.03 44.38 44.08 43.98 43.79 41.42 41.38 41.16

32.25 29.29

193/338 180/338 156/338 75/163 136/302 150/338 149/338 146/332 148/338 140/338 60/145 135/328

109/338 99/338

P45 is not extant in this quire of Mark, but W continues to have a reasonably high textual affinity with Family 13. At 57.1 percent, Family 13 is the witness with the highest rate of agreement with W in Quire 26. Less than five percent lower is Family 1 at 53.25 percent. The manuscript displaying the lowest rate of agreement with W is 01 at 29.29 percent, followed by 03 at 32.25 percent and 05 at 34.02 percent. Thus, W exhibits low textual affinities with both Alexandrian manuscripts and ‘Western’ manuscripts. The results of the QAs performed on the quires of Mark support the conclusion that Mark begins mixed with ‘Western’ tendencies and ends thoroughly mixed. In addition, Sanders’s 28

Quire 26 is the only quire in Codex W to contain ten folios.

110

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

original textual blocks for Mark are supported by my QAs. The division between Quires 23 and 24 is very close in location to Sanders’s proposed division. The results of the relevant QAs on both the blocks and quires of W reveal the major divisions in the text. As the results of all relevant QAs are presented and examined, I can now synthesize the information about W’s block mixture.

CONCLUSION

Sanders delineated the block mixture of Codex Washingtonianus when he published his findings in 1912, before modern textcritical methodologies such as QA had been developed (and long before technology was advanced enough to run QAs using computer software). Despite the age of his research, Sanders’s conclusions about W are astonishingly accurate. QA had not been applied to the entire manuscript of W before I applied it in this monograph, but the results of my work, with a few exceptions, ultimately support Sanders’s textual divisions. As Sanders originally proposed, Matthew in W comprises a single block of text following the Byzantine textual stream. Although W’s affinity with the Byzantine stream varies in different quires of Matthew, the Gospel as a whole leans toward the Byzantine tradition. In John, both the supplement and the main hand follow the Alexandrian textual stream. The first section of Luke is Alexandrian, and the second section of Luke is Byzantine. I disagree with Sanders about the location of the shift in Luke, but I agree that a shift is present: I would locate it between chapters 7 and 8 rather than at 8:12. Finally, the first section of Mark in W is mixed with ‘Western’ affinities, and the second block of Mark is mixed. Many of Sanders’s contemporaries wrongly identified the second block of Mark as ‘Caesarean’, but this is not attributable to Sanders himself.29

Sanders identifies a textual affinity between W and Family 13 in the latter block of Mark, but he links neither of these witnesses with the ‘Caesarean’ text. See Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, 73–74. 29

CHAPTER THREE

111

Racine and Hurtado’s QAs support Sanders’s textual blocks for the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, respectively, but the findings from my QAs are the first to confirm the presence of all textual blocks in W. From a QA perspective, Codex W exhibits the block mixture in the manner originally delineated by Sanders. Incidentally, the QAs produced in my study can also be validated independently. In the next chapter, I attempt to supplement and authenticate the findings of my QAs using Text und Textwert.

CHAPTER FOUR. PRE-GENEALOGICAL ANALYSIS: TEXT UND TEXTWERT The Text und Textwert (TuT) book series was designed by the INTF at the WWU Münster to assist with the selection of manuscripts for each part of the ECM. The first volume of TuT was published in 1987 on the Catholic Epistles, leading to the ECM of the Catholic Epistles published in 2013. The volumes of TuT divide the NT into the Catholic Epistles, the Pauline Epistles, Acts of the Apostles, the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John, and Revelation. Using a set number of test passages chosen by Kurt Aland (except in Revelation), the editors of TuT collated all available continuous Greek manuscripts for each section of the NT.1 Based on these manuscripts’ pregenealogical coherence in the test passages2 (in particular, the percentage agreement with the Majority Text [MT]), the editors decide which manuscripts are worthy of inclusion in the corresponding volumes of the ECM. Although TuT was designed primarily for the ECM, its presentation of NT manuscripts’ pregenealogical coherence makes it worthy of consideration from the perspective of Codex Washingtonianus’s diverse textual affinities. In particular, the first section of each TuT volume contains numerous tables listing Revelation was added later, as it was not originally intended to be part of the series. See Houghton, ‘An Initial Selection of Manuscripts’ in The New Testament in Antiquity and Byzantium, pp. 343–44. 2 See Wasserman and Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism, 37–42, for a full discussion of pregenealogical coherence and TuT’s relationship to the ECM. 1

113

114

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

manuscripts according to various percentage agreements. The first table lists all manuscripts by the percentage of agreement to the MT, and the second table lists manuscripts by the percentage of agreement to the ‘early text’, that is, the text of the NA27. The third table lists manuscripts according to the percentage of ‘special readings’. The fourth and final table lists manuscripts with their closest relations. Like the rest of the monograph, I treat each Gospel in W’s order in this chapter, but TuT began its examination of the Gospels with Mark, so most of the introductory material is found in the Markan volume.3 For comparison, I utilize in this chapter the same list of manuscripts that was used for the QAs in the previous chapter. Since Codex W is not the focus of its study, TuT does not divide its analyses into disparate textual blocks. TuT analyses manuscript pregenealogical coherence for each Gospel in its entirety. Fortunately, in W the Gospel of Matthew comprises its own textual block. As such, the percentage agreements presented in TuT for Matthew cover the same amount of text as the first block of W. For Matthew, 64 test passages were chosen, all 64 of which are present in W.4 According to TuT’s first set of data, W agrees with the MT in 78.1 percent of test passages. W in Matthew follows the Byzantine textual stream, so a reasonably high rate of agreement is expected. However, many manuscripts agree with the MT in 90 percent or more of test passages: 037 at 91 percent, 022 at 92 percent, 041 at 95 percent, 045 at 98 percent, and 35 at 100 percent.5 Nonetheless, the rates of agreements between non-Byzantine manuscripts and the MT are even more distant from W: 05 agrees with the MT in 39.6 percent of test passages, 01 in 20.3 percent, and 03 in only 9.4 percent. W is clearly much closer to the MT than these manuscripts.

The purpose of this study is not to delineate or evaluate the methodologies used by TuT, so I do not discuss the finer methodological points and caveats here. For more information, see Aland, et al., Das Markusevangelium, Text und Textwert. 4 Aland, et al., Das Matthäusevangelium, Text und Textwert. 5 Like the software program that ran the QAs in the previous chapter, TuT refers to all witnesses by their numerical designations. 3

CHAPTER FOUR

115

TuT also gauges the textual affinities of manuscripts with what it defines as the ‘early text’. The manuscript with the highest textual affinity with the early text is 03 at 73.4 percent. Conversely, W agrees with the early text in only 42.2 percent of test passages. This puts W’s affinity with the early text behind 01 (70.3 percent), 05 (54.7 percent), and 33 (49.2 percent) but ahead of manuscripts such as 04 (36.5 percent) and 033 (20.6 percent). Concerning special readings, only 6.9 percent of test passages feature these readings in W, far behind 01, 03, 05, and 038, which all contain special readings in the upper 20th percentiles. Finally, TuT lists manuscripts according to their closest relatives. According to TuT, W has no close relatives among my chosen list of manuscripts, but it does have relatives in 024 and 0233. 024 is considered Byzantine, and 0233 is considered Alexandrian with strong Byzantine influences. This information suggests that the QAs are right in identifying W in Matthew as following the Byzantine textual stream. True, W does not agree with the MT as much as 022, 037, 041, 045, and 35 do, but this is only based on 64 chosen test passages, so these results may not be conclusive. Furthermore, W does not have a particularly high textual affinity with the early text, and W’s closest relatives at the very least have strong Byzantine influences. As the degree of difference from the MT is below 90 percent, it is likely that W will be selected for full transcription in Matthew, which means that a full account of its text will be given using the CBGM when the ECM is published. For the Gospel of John, the editors of TuT have only published the results of the first ten chapters.6 As such, the results are incomplete, but fortunately TuT still contains information both for the entire supplement and for a portion of the main hand. One of the blocks of John is the supplement, which means that both blocks are represented in TuT. John chapters 1 through 10 has 153 chosen test passages, 50 of which are present in the supplement and 102 of which are present in the main hand. The supplement has a 44 percent textual affinity with the MT in the test passages, whereas the main hand has only a 36.3 percent 6

Aland and Wachtel, Das Johannesevangelium, Text und Textwert.

116

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

textual affinity. Neither hand has the same high affinity with the MT as such manuscripts as 037 (94 percent) and both 045 and 35 (97 percent). The situation is reversed for the rates of agreement with the early text: the main hand of W has a higher rate of agreement at 70.6 percent, while the supplement has a 62 percent agreement. The rates of special readings are similar for both parts of John: the main hand at 22.5 percent and the supplement at 24 percent. The main hand’s closest relatives are 01 and 03, but the supplement has no close relatives listed. All this evidence suggests that the main hand of W (at least for chapters 5 through 10) does indeed follow the Alexandrian stream. What about the supplement, which covers John 1:1–5:11? The supplement has a lower rate of agreement with the early text and a slightly higher rate of special readings than does the main hand, which suggests that the supplement is less Alexandrian than the main hand. No data are provided by TuT to describe the relationship between the supplement and the ‘Western’ textual stream, but perhaps Sanders is correct in identifying some ‘Western’ readings in the supplement. The results from the supplement are intriguing, but more data will need to be obtained to draw firmer conclusions. The results of the entire Gospel of Luke have been published in TuT, but Luke is the first Gospel in W consisting of disparate blocks without containing supplementary material. As stated above, however, TuT analyzes pregenealogical coherence of the Gospel as a whole. Luke’s TuT has 54 test passages, all of which are present in W.7 The first (and smaller) block of Luke follows the Alexandrian stream, but the second (and larger) block of Luke follows the Byzantine stream. Therefore, I expected a reasonably but not overly high rate of agreement with the MT. The results of TuT show that W agrees with the MT in 64.8 percent of test passages, which accords with my expectations. Conversely, W agrees with the early text in only 38.9 percent of test passages. Of the manuscripts chosen for QA, P75 agrees with the early text the most at 86.1 percent, followed closely by 03 at 85.2 percent. In Luke, W’s rate of special readings is only 10.2 percent, above that of Matthew (6.9 percent) but well below the main hand of John 7

Aland, et al., Das Lukasevangelium, Text und Textwert.

CHAPTER FOUR

117

(22.5 percent). In Luke, W is not closely related to any manuscripts, whether on the QA list or not. The results from TuT suggest that the text of W in Luke leans toward the Byzantine tradition but is generally mixed, results that accord well with Luke’s disparate blocks of text. These results also accord well with the QA results of the Gospel shown in Table 6 in the previous chapter. These show a reasonably but not overly high textual affinity between W and various Byzantine manuscripts. For the Gospel of Mark, the editors of TuT chose 196 test passages; however, given its distinct textual history, the Long Ending of Mark was left out of the general analysis. This means that in the general analysis, TuT contains only 189 test passages, 184 of which are present in W’s Mark.8 W in the Gospel of Mark contains two blocks of text, one of which is mixed with slightly ‘Western’ tendencies and the other of which is thoroughly mixed. The results of TuT confirm the results of the previous QAs. According to TuT, W agrees with the MT in 46.2 percent of test cases, and the manuscript agrees with the early text in 37.5 percent of test cases. W contains special readings in 38.6 percent of test passages, a percentage much higher in Mark than in any other Gospel. In Mark, TuT identifies W’s closest relative as P45, although given P45’s fragmentary nature, this relationship applies only to the second block of text. TuT’s data for Mark diverge from those of the other Gospels, which reflect the distinct textual personality that the Gospel of Mark in W shows. The primary data for my research come from the QAs described and presented in Chapters Two and Three, but for independent analysis and validation, I also consulted the data published by TuT. With a few possible and/or minor exceptions, the data from TuT confirm the findings of the QAs. According to TuT, W in Matthew does not agree as strongly with the MT as I expected (although the results could be affected by the small number of test passages), and results from the supplement of John perhaps are less strongly Alexandrian than shown by the earlier

Aland, Das Markusevangelium, Text und Textwert. W in Mark contains a lacuna from 15:13–38, which accounts for the discrepancy in test passages. 8

118

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

QAs. The data from Luke and Mark, however, cohere almost exactly with the previous quantitative results. As such, the information obtained from TuT reaffirmed my confidence both in the validity of the QAs and in my conclusions about Codex W’s block mixture.

CHAPTER FIVE. AN ANALYSIS OF SEGMENTATION AND PUNCTUATION The results of the QAs presented in Chapter Three reveal that, as far as the text is concerned, Codex Washingtonianus generally exhibits block mixture as Sanders describes. The data from Text und Textwert in Chapter Four support the results of the QAs. In this chapter, I apply the question of block mixture not only to the text but also to the segmentation and punctuation features in W, primarily addressing two related questions. First, do the unit delimitation features present in W follow any discernible patterns? Second, if these features do follow certain patterns, then do these patterns correlate with W’s textual blocks? In his monograph on Codex Alexandrinus (A, 02), W. Andrew Smith writes regarding the various forms of unit delimitation in early manuscripts: ‘Various forms of unit delimitation do occur in the earliest extant manuscripts, including the use of spacing (inserted into otherwise continuous script), rudimentary punctuation, ekthesis (the projection of a character into the left margin, often enlarged), and larger unit markers such as the paragraphus.’1 Forms of unit delimitation appear numerous times throughout Codex W, and the manuscript exhibits all of the features described by Smith, including

Smith’s monograph is a published version of his dissertation. Smith, A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus, p. 190. 1

119

120

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

‘rudimentary punctuation’ in the form of middle dots, colons, and apostrophes.2 Although Smith discusses unit delimitation as a part of a more comprehensive study of Alexandrinus, unit delimitation in early manuscripts is the focus of Jeongseop Ahn’s entire dissertation, ‘Segmentation Features in New Testament Manuscripts’. Ahn classifies the various types of unit delimitation found in majuscule manuscripts as ‘speaker or subject shift, paragraph, quotation, verb, dative or locative, time, and others’.3 As can be seen from his list, Ahn categorizes unit delimitation according to function rather than form. He applies these categories to several majuscule manuscripts: Sinaiticus (‫א‬, 01), Alexandrinus (A, 02), Vaticanus (B, 03), Boreelianus (F, 09), Petropolitanus Purpureus (N, 022), and Washingtonianus (W, 032). In W, Ahn studies only the unit delimitation patterns for Matthew, one textual block out of W’s seven, which limits the usefulness of this work for the present research. In general, Ahn finds that W in Matthew exhibits more textual breaks than the other majuscule manuscripts he studied.4 My goal here is not to classify the segmentation and punctuation features found in W according to grammatical categories (as Ahn does) but rather to see whether these features follow the textual divisions found in the manuscript. In his original monograph on W, Sanders makes a connection between unit delimitation and block mixture, asserting that W’s unit delimitation follows its textual blocks. He uses evidence from W’s paragraph divisions to prove his claim. Sanders begins by describing the paragraph system employed by the scribe of W. Closely allied with the punctuation is the system of paragraphing, shown by setting the first letter of the paragraph about its full size into the margin. These letters are generally a little enlarged, rarely even to double the regular size. … The paragraph mark (— ), standing at the end of the paragraph, sometimes just precedes Observations have been made concerning the similarity in segmentation patterns between W, 05, and P66. These three witnesses appear to preserve stichoi divisions going back to the second century. See Martin, Papyrus Bodmer II. 3 Ahn, p. 31. 4 Ahn, pp. 30–84. 2

CHAPTER FIVE

121

the projecting letter of the next paragraph. In a few cases the paragraph mark stands alone. At Luke 1, 5 it has [a special form]. It is noteworthy that it is always the first letter of the paragraph that projects into the margin. The vacant end of the previous line is never used for the beginning of the paragraph, as often happens in ancient manuscripts. Rather more numerous than the regular paragraphs are the cases where the line end is left vacant for quite a space, and yet the first letter of the next line does not project. These seem to mark rather more decided divisions than mere punctuation, yet one is hardly warranted in classing them as real paragraphs, though errors and interchanges between the two were doubtless easy.5

An image containing the special mark is included here.

Image 8. F1906.274.195 (Detail). Special paragraph mark at the beginning of Luke’s Gospel. Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.: Gift of Charles Lang Freer.

5

Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, p. 15.

122

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Based on his understanding of W’s paragraph system, Sanders was able to chart the paragraphs and pseudo-paragraphs in W according to block mixture. Sanders’s findings are reproduced in Table 43.6 Table 43. Sanders’s Paragraph Calculations Textual block

Matthew (Byz) John 1:1–5:11, Supp (Alex/‘West’) John 5:12–21:25 (Alex) Luke 1:1–8:12 (Alex) Luke 8:13–24:53 (Byz) Mark 1:1–5:30 (‘West’) Mark 5:31–16:20 (‘Caes’)

Paragraphs

Marks

Vacant line ends

69 130 117 0 14

1 1 12 3 0

212 88 212 23 71

195 28

14 3

310 2

Table 43 shows the number of paragraphs Sanders counted for each section; the number of paragraphs accompanied by paragraph markings; and the number of what he defines as ‘pseudo-paragraphs’, that is, definite breaks in W that cannot be classified properly as paragraphs. Because this table shows figures calculated by Sanders, the textual affinities in the table are listed according to their traditional designations.7 Sanders’s calculations support the idea that W’s block mixture is reflected in its segmentation and punctuation, but I do not yet find his results to be conclusive. W contains seven textual blocks, and each block comprises a different amount of text. To calculate segmentation/punctuation proportionally, the size of each block of text must be determined. Therefore, word counts

Ibid. Some of Sanders’s figures (the paragraphs and marks) differ from those presented later in the chapter, but the figures I calculated have been checked against both Prior and Brown’s transcription and the manuscript. 7 For example, the latter part of Mark is listed as ‘Caesarean’ in Table 44 (which Sanders identifies as a mix of Latic, Syriac, and Coptic tendencies), even though the text is now considered mixed. 6

CHAPTER FIVE

123

for both Codex W and the NA28 (which is included for comparison) in each textual block are presented in Table 44.8 Table 44. Word Counts of W’s Textual Blocks Textual block

Matthew John 1:1–5:11 (Supp) John 5:12–21:25 Luke 1:1–8:12 Luke 8:13–24:53 Mark 1:1–5:30 Mark 5:31–16:20

NA28

18,363 3,015 12,656 6,186 13,309 2,963 8,349

Codex W 19,660 3,193 12,341 6,369 14,195 3,077 8,575

In general, Codex W contains more words per block than does the NA28, and the results in the following tables use the word counts from the manuscript rather than the edition. As can be seen in Tables 43 and 44, Matthew in W may have the largest number of paragraphs, paragraph markers, and vacant line ends, but this Gospel also contains the largest amount of text. To assess the unit delimitation in each block of W’s text according to frequency accurately, therefore, the number of words needs to be taken into account. Table 45 shows the frequency of Sanders’s paragraph calculations in relation to word count. I calculated the figures shown in the table by dividing the word count in each section by the number of paragraphs (WPP), paragraph markings (WPM), or vacant line ends for that section (WPVLE). The figures represent the average number of words per paragraph, mark, or vacant line end.9 As such, the words per delimitation marker constitute an inverse relationship to the frequency of unit delimitation in W. In other words, the lower the words per marker for each section, the

I calculated the word counts present in Table 44 using Accordance 11.0.7. 9 I recognize that unit delimitation is irregular in W (even within textual blocks), but these calculations help delineate the relationship between unit delimitation and block mixture when the textual blocks are of disparate sizes. 8

124

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

higher the frequency of unit delimitation appears in that section.10 For ease of reference, the word counts for each textual block are included in Table 45. In addition, the textual affinity of each block is noted according to its traditional designation. Table 45. Words Per Sanders’s Unit Delimitation Markers Textual block

Matthew (Byz) John 1:1–5:11, Supp (Alex/‘West’) John 5:12–21:25 (Alex) Luke 1:1–8:12 (Alex) Luke 8:13–24:53 (Byz) Mark 1:1–5:30 (‘West’) Mark 5:31–16:20 (‘Caes’)

Words

WPP

WPM

WPVLE

12,341 6369 14,195 3077 8575

178.86 48.99 121.32 [NA] 612.5

12,341 6369 1182.92 1025.67 [NA]

58.21 72.38 66.96 133.78 120.77

19,660 3193

100.82 114.04

1404.29 1064.33

63.42 1596.5

As shown in Table 45, block mixture in W’s unit delimitation continues to be supported, although perhaps not as strongly as Sanders asserts. A few findings stand out. First, with the exception of vacant line ends, the frequency of unit delimitation in the supplementary quire of John is not markedly different from that of other textual blocks. Second, both sections of Mark show a lower frequency of unit delimitation overall than the other blocks of the manuscript. Third, the first section of Luke shows a markedly higher frequency of paragraph divisions than any other section (but not of marks or vacant line ends). With less than half of the average words per paragraph (49 words per paragraph as opposed to 101 words per paragraph in Matthew), Luke 1:1–8:12 has paragraph divisions of at least twice the frequency of any other block, even though John 5:31–21:25 is also Alexandrian. Paragraphs (and their corresponding markers) are prominent examples of unit delimitation in W, but they are hardly the only The exception to this rule is the number ‘0’, which cannot be quantified with the equation described. For example, the first part of Mark would have zero words per paragraph simply because no paragraphs appear in that section. Therefore, in subsequent tables in Chapters Five and Six, textual blocks with zero unit delimitation markers or diacritical marks are noted as ‘[NA]’ (‘not applicable’). 10

CHAPTER FIVE

125

such examples present in the manuscript. Rather than reproducing Sanders’s limited calculations, I now present more extensive and original data concerning W’s segmentation and punctuation. In Table 46, my calculations for the number of middle dots (MD), apostrophes (A), colons (C), paragraphoi (P), and ektheses (E) for each textual block in Codex W are presented.11 The middle dot is by far the most common form of punctuation in W. Ekthesis is also fairly common. By contrast, other forms of punctuation in W occur less frequently. Another form of punctuation, the diple, appears in W to signify OT quotations, but for this punctuation marker, I merely reiterate David Herbison’s previous findings.12 Because Table 46 presents my original calculations, the textual affinities for each section are listed according to the designations I chose based on the QA results. Table 46. Punctuation and Segmentation Features in W Textual block

Matthew (Byz) John 1:1–5:11, Supp (Alex) John 5:12–21:25 (Alex) Luke 1:1–8:12 (Alex)

Luke 8:13–24:53 (Byz) Mark 1:1–5:30 (Mixed/‘West’) Mark 5:31–16:20 (Mixed)

MD

A

C

P

E

73 157

24 66

4 9

1 6

73 128

247 393

240 18 120

107 7

54 4 12

13 1

17 7 5

22 2

31 3 0

188 29

119 3 15

As revealed in the table, punctuation features appear more frequently in Matthew and Luke than in John or Mark, regardless of the textual affiliation of individual blocks. For example, Luke consists of two blocks, one Alexandrian and one Byzantine, but both blocks contain relatively high numbers of segmentation features. The one textual block that stands out is the Sanders refers to paragraphoi and ektheses as paragraph marks and paragraphs, respectively. Furthermore, Sanders classifies apostrophes as abbreviation markers (along with numerals and nomina sacra); but as the NT.VMR OTE signifies apostrophes as punctuation, I consider them in this chapter rather than Chapter Six. 12 Herbison, ‘As It is Copied’. 11

126

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

supplementary quire, which contains a remarkable 393 middle dots in a relatively short amount of text (at 3193 words, the supplement is the second shortest block of text in W). The figures for the apostrophe vary widely, but the apostrophe’s function in W differs from that of other punctuation features. As Sanders notes, An apostrophe may occur after any final consonant except ν [with one exception in John 3, 23], ξ, ρ, ς, ψ. It is most frequent with foreign proper names, but may be used when a word has dropped a final vowel, as αλλ’, κατ’, απ’, µεθ’. The apostrophe also occurs several times after ουχ’ and is rarely inserted in the middle of a proper noun; cf. in Matthew, µατ’θαιος, 10, 3; βηθ’σαιδαν, 11, 21; βηθ’σφαγη, 21, 1; γεδ’σηµανι, 26, 36; in Luke, µατ’θολοµεον, 6, 15; βηθ’σαιδαν, 9, 10; in John, βηθ’σαιδα, 1, 45; 5, 2. The apostrophe is rare in Mark.13

Thus, the apostrophe is the only example of punctuation in W used not as a method of unit delimitation. The uses of the apostrophe therefore may be better explained by the writing styles of the Gospels rather than the textual affiliations of blocks. The apostrophe aside, the data presented in Table 46 are ambiguous as to their support of block mixture. A better understanding of the results accounts for the data proportionally. Using the same methodology that was earlier applied to Sanders’s findings, Table 47 shows the frequency of the punctuation/segmentation features in W in relation to word count. As above, I calculated the figures shown in the table by dividing the word count in each section by the number of middle dots (WPMD), apostrophes (WPA), colons (WPC), paragraphoi (WPPa), or ektheses (WPE) for that section. Once again, the words per punctuation marker constitute an inverse relationship to the frequency of that marker in each textual block. For ease of reference, the word counts for each section are included in the table.

13

Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, p. 19.

CHAPTER FIVE

127

Table 47. Words Per Punctuation and Segmentation Feature in W Textual block

Matthew (Byz) John 1:1–5:11, Supp (Alex) John 5:12– 21:25 (Alex) Luke 1:1–8:12 (Alex) Luke 8:13– 24:53 (Byz) Mark 1:1–5:30 (Mixed/‘West’) Mark 5:31– 16:20 (Mixed)

Words WPMD WPA 19,660 79.56 3193 8.12

WPC

WPPa

183.74 1512.31 893.64 456.14 3193 1596.5

WPE

104.57 110.1

12,341 169.05 514.21 3085.25 12,341

169.05

6369

1061.5

49.76

457.9

119.29

40.56

14,195 59.15

96.5

707.67

262.87 835

3077

170.94 769.25 439.57

1025.67 1025.67

8575

71.46

[NA]

714.58 1715

571.67

Proportionally, punctuation features still appear more frequently in Matthew and Luke than in John or Mark, even though the latter three Gospels contain multiple textual blocks. Luke, in both the Alexandrian and Byzantine sections, exhibits higher frequencies of punctuation features than the other Gospels. By contrast, Mark, in both sections, exhibits lower frequencies of punctuation features than other Gospels. Once again, the most striking finding is the frequency of middle dots in the supplement of John, at the rate of only eight words per middle dot in the section. This means that middle dots appear in every line and often multiple times per line in the supplement. The hand of John 1:1–5:11 is noted to be different paleographically than the rest of the manuscript, but the frequency of punctuation in this quire is also a distinctive feature.14 Based on the results in David Herbison’s dissertation, the diplai in Codex W have no connection to the manuscript’s block mixture. To begin, diplai only appear in Matthew and one time in In particular, the high frequency of the middle dot in the supplement suggests a different context of production, perhaps liturgical, than that of the main manuscript. 14

128

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Luke, even though all four Gospels cite from the OT. Furthermore, Herbison observes that it is unclear whether the diplai were added by the original scribe of W or by a later scribe. As such, Herbison was unable to discern a pattern in W’s use of diplai, either in relation to the manuscript’s block mixture or its treatment of OT quotations: ‘None of the criteria one might expect to have governed the addition of diplai sufficiently explain why these texts would be intentionally marked and others intentionally left unmarked.’15

CONCLUSION

In general, the block mixture exhibited by the text of W is supported by its punctuation and segmentation markers. As shown in Tables 46 and 47, different sections of W’s text show markedly different frequencies of punctuation features, including middle dots, apostrophes, colons, paragraphoi, and ektheses. However, although the frequency of punctuation varies according to block, punctuation frequency does not necessarily correspond to textual stream. For example, both John 5:12–21:25 and Luke 1:1–8:12 follow the Alexandrian textual stream, but Luke 1:1– 8:12 shows a much higher frequency of every kind of punctuation marker than does John 5:12–21:25. Independent research into the relationships between punctuation patterns and textual streams (not just for W but for many manuscripts) needs to be undertaken. I designed this chapter to address two questions: do the punctuation and segmentation features present in W follow any patterns, and if these features follow certain patterns, then do these patterns correlate with the block mixture divisions present in W’s text? The answer to the first question is ‘yes’. The features of punctuation/segmentation follow distinct patterns in the results from both Sanders’s and my studies. The answer to the second question, however, is both ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Certain blocks of W’s text show higher frequencies of punctuation and segmentation than other blocks, which supports the hypothesis that these features follow block mixture. However, the rates of punctuation do not cohere with textual streams, whether Alexandrian, 15

Herbison, ‘As It is Copied’, pp. 29–30.

CHAPTER FIVE

129

Byzantine, ‘Western’, or mixed. Luke has more punctuation markers than other Gospels, even though Luke switches from the Alexandrian to the Byzantine textual stream mid-Gospel. Conversely, Mark has fewer punctuation markers than other Gospels, even though it switches from mixed text with ‘Western’ tendencies to a thoroughly mixed text. Nonetheless, distinct blocks of punctuation can be discerned even in Luke and Mark, which suggests that the punctuation and segmentation of W ultimately support block mixture.16

Furthermore, the block mixture in the punctuation and segmentation suggests a high degree of scribal fidelity to W’s exemplar(s) in connection with these paratextual features. Rather than create their own (and possibly more consistent) practice of punctuation, the scribe(s) followed the patterns of the exemplar(s). 16

CHAPTER SIX. A STUDY OF THE NOMINA SACRA, NUMERALS, AND OTHER FEATURES From a quantitative perspective, the block mixture of Codex Washingtonianus has been thoroughly explored, both with the numerous QAs performed in Chapter Three and TuT data reported in Chapter Four. Only about half of the paratextual features in the manuscript, however, have thus far been considered. Moving beyond segmentation and punctuation, I now examine the remainder of paratextual features present in W: nomina sacra, numerals, ligatures, and diacritical marks.

NOMINA SACRA

Codex W contains several nomina sacra, which are special abbreviations for sacred or otherwise significant words such as ‘Jesus’, ‘Christ’, and ‘Lord’, among others. These abbreviations are thought to be unique to early Christian manuscripts.1 J. Bruce Prior was the first to study the nomina sacra in W in his essay, ‘The Use and Nonuse of Nomina Sacra in the Freer Gospel of Matthew’.2 As the title suggests, however, he limits his study to Matthew. Prior’s goal was to test the consistency of the nomen sacrum abbreviations according to the ‘sacredness’ of their Hurtado groups the nomina sacra according to historical development in Chapter Three of his book, The Earliest Christian Artifacts, where he argues that nomina sacra comprise a Christian innovation in scribal practice, developed as a reflection of Christian religious devotion. 2 Prior, pp. 147–66. 1

131

132

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

contexts. Did the scribe of W use an abbreviation only when a nomen sacrum had a sacred connotation? Did they write the word plene otherwise, or did they write the word plene even when the connotation was sacred? To study the treatment of nomina sacra in W, Prior uses a list of fifteen words previously ranked according to their ‘sacredness’ by Hurtado. Primary group: Ἰησοῦς, Xριστός, κύριος, θεός Secondary group: πνεῦµα, ἄνθρωπος, σταυρός Tertiary group: πατήρ, υἱός, σωτήρ, µήτηρ, οὐρανός, Ἰσραήλ, Δαυείδ, Ἰερουσαλήµ3

In this monograph, I use the same list and categorization as that of Prior and Hurtado, although the purposes of the studies diverge. Prior desired to study the consistency of nomen sacrum use in W, but I wish to discern whether the nomina sacra in W follow the manuscript’s pattern of block mixture. Prior’s results are divided into four categories: sacral abbreviations, non-sacral abbreviations, sacral full words, and non-sacral full words. I, however, am interested only in whether the fifteen words listed above are abbreviated in each textual block, irrespective of the ‘sacredness’ of their connotations.4 In Table 48, the results for the primary group of nomina sacra are listed, comparing instances of abbreviation with full words. Table 48. Primary Nomina Sacra in W Ἰησοῦς Textual block

Matthew (Byz)

Abb 169

Full 0

Xριστός Abb 15

Full 0

κύριος Abb 80

Full 3

θεός Abb 52

Full 2

Ibid., p. 148. See Hurtado, ‘The Origins of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal’, pp. 655–73. 4 Sanders also identifies various forms of abbreviation for the nomina sacra in W, as the abbreviation style in the manuscript is not always consistent. A primary example is that of Xριστός, which is almost always abbreviated as χς but is abbreviated as χρς in Luke 9:20 and Mark 9:41. Other irregularities include ισρλ instead of ιηλ for Ἰσραήλ in Matthew 27:42 and δδ instead of δαδ for Δαυείδ in Mark 12:35. For further information, see Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, pp. 8–12. 3

CHAPTER SIX John 1:11–5:11, Supp (Alex) John 5:12– 21:25 (Alex) Luke 1:1–8:11 (Alex) Luke 8:12– 24:53 (Byz) Mark 1:1–5:30 (Mixed/‘West’) Mark 5:31– 16:20 (Mixed)

133

47

0

7

0

4

0

25

0

187

0

12

0

42

0

51

2

31

0

4

0

38

0

44

0

68

0

8

0

60

3

77

0

18

0

2

0

7

0

14

0

57

0

9

0

15

0

36

0

As can be seen from the table, the four primary nomina sacra are abbreviated consistently in W, no matter in which textual block they appear. Only a few exceptions occur with the words κύριος and θεός. Both words are written plene a few times in Matthew; κύριος is written plene three times in the second block of Luke; and θεός is written plene twice in the main hand of John. Despite the exceptions, these four words are abbreviated too consistently across the entirety of W to detect any block mixture differentiation in their use. Given that these are the four primary nomina sacra, however, the consistency of their abbreviation is predictable. The results for the three words categorized as secondary nomina sacra are shown in Table 49. Table 49. Secondary Nomina Sacra in W πνεῦµα Textual block

Matthew (Byz) John 1:11–5:11, Supp (Alex) John 5:12–21:25 (Alex) Luke 1:1–8:11 (Alex) Luke 8:12–24:53 (Byz)

Mark 1:1–5:30 (Mixed/‘West’) Mark 5:31–16:20 (Mixed)

ἄνθρωπος

σταυρός

Abb

Full

Abb

Full

Abb

Full

10 17 14

0 4 1

36 4 37

3 24 3

0 0 0

4 0 3

11

1

41

1

0

2

18 13

12

1 0

2

75 19

5

43 0

8

0 0

0

5 0

0

134

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

The secondary nomina sacra reveal slightly different results than do the primary nomina sacra. In all textual blocks, πνεῦµα is abbreviated in the vast majority of cases. Πνεῦµα is not abbreviated as consistently as the primary nomina sacra, but it is still abbreviated regularly. The word ἄνθρωπος is written plene (rather than abbreviated) more often than other nomina sacra. Excepting the two blocks of Luke 1:1–8:11 and Mark 1:1–5:30, however, ἄνθρωπος is abbreviated still more often than it is written plene. Σταυρός, on the other hand, is never abbreviated in W, regardless of textual block.5 Table 49 reveals some interesting features in the treatment of secondary nomina sacra, but these features appear to be independent of block mixture. Thus far, even the supplementary quire of John follows the same pattern of abbreviation as the rest of the manuscript. The only word that exhibits possible block mixture is ἄνθρωπος: most sections abbreviate the word more than they write it plene, but two blocks write the word plene more than they abbreviate it. However, the ‘block mixture’ of ἄνθρωπος, if it exists, does not correspond to textual affinity: the first block of Luke is Alexandrian, but the first block of Mark has ‘Western’ tendencies. Ultimately, the primary and secondary nomina sacra tend to be treated consistently throughout W. The tertiary nomina sacra comprise the largest category of words regularly abbreviated by scribes. The results for the eight words categorized as tertiary nomina sacra are shown in Table 50. Table 50. Tertiary Nomina Sacra in W πατήρ Textual block

Matthew (Byz) John 1:11–5:11, Supp (Alex)

Abb 53 10

Full 8 0

υἱός Abb 0 19

Full 89 0

σωτήρ Abb 0 1

Full 0 0

µήτηρ Abb 13 5

Full 14 0

Prior’s figures for σταυρός differ from mine, as Prior considers the whole σταυρός word family, and I consider only the word itself. Ultimately the results are the same, as neither Prior nor I find any instances of σταυρός being abbreviated. See Prior, p. 159. 5

CHAPTER SIX

135

John 5:12– 21:25 (Alex) Luke 1:1–8:11 (Alex) Luke 8:12– 24:53 (Byz) Mark 1:1–5:30 (Mixed/‘West’) Mark 5:31– 16:20 (Mixed)

98

9

2

32

0

0

0

5

0

15

0

23

0

2

1

8

31

9

0

54

0

0

0

7

0

1

0

8

0

0

0

5

16

0

7

20

0

0

10

3

Textual block

Abb

Full

Abb

Full

Abb

Full

Abb

Full

0

12

1

0

0

12

1

0

0

5

0

10

0

5

0

10

0

30

0

2

0

30

0

2

0

5

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

17

0

1

0

17

0

1

οὐρανός Matthew (Byz) John 1:11–5:11, Supp (Alex) John 5:12– 21:25 (Alex) Luke 1:1–8:11 (Alex) Luke 8:12– 24:53 (Byz) Mark 1:1–5:30 (Mixed/‘West’) Mark 5:31– 16:20 (Mixed)

0 6

82 0

Ἰσραήλ 1 3

11 0

Δαυείδ 0 6

82 0

Ἰερουσαλήµ 1 3

11 0

With the tertiary nomina sacra, the block mixture in W is finally reflected in its abbreviation patterns. Πατήρ is abbreviated throughout the manuscript, but in the first block of Luke, the word is written plene. With the word υἱός, the supplementary quire of John stands apart from the rest of W. Most of the manuscript has υἱός plene, but the second block of Mark abbreviates a quarter of instances of υἱός, and the supplement abbreviates υἱός in every case. The word σωτήρ is used in W only three times, but whereas it is abbreviated in the supplement, it is written plene in the first block of Luke. Μήτηρ tends to be written plene, but in the supplementary quire, it is abbreviated; and in the second block of

136

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Mark, the word is abbreviated more often than it is written in full. In every block but the supplement, οὐρανός consistently is written plene, but in the supplement the word is always abbreviated. The word Ἰσραήλ generally is written in full in W, but in both blocks of the Gospel of John, the word is abbreviated.6 Δαυείδ also shows a tendency to be written plene in W, but in the latter blocks of John and Mark, the name is abbreviated.7 Ἰερουσαλήµ and its variations are never abbreviated as nomina sacra in W, not even in the supplementary quire. From the presented results of the tertiary nomina sacra, some textual blocks of W exhibit stronger tendencies to abbreviate words than do other textual blocks. The supplementary quire of John exhibits the strongest tendency to abbreviate words, but Mark 5:31–16:20 also demonstrates a strong tendency to abbreviate. By contrast, the Gospel of Luke, especially 1:1–8:12, exhibits the tendency to write nomina sacra fully. Matthew, the only Gospel to comprise its own textual block, is mixed in its patterns of abbreviation. Hurtado’s primary and secondary nomina sacra (except for ἄνθρωπος) are treated consistently throughout W, whether they are abbreviated or written plene. The tertiary nomina sacra abbreviation patterns, however, reflect the block mixture of W’s text. Before turning from nomina sacra to numerical abbreviations, I need to discuss one further point concerning the nomina sacra in W. The supplementary quire of W (which already demonstrates a strong tendency to abbreviate) treats some words not included in Hurtado’s categories as nomina sacra. In particular, the related words βασιλεύς and βασιλεία are each abbreviated on one occasion: βασιλεύς as βλευς in John 1:49 and the accusative of βασιλεία as βλειαν in John 3:3. These additional nomina sacra further illustrate the differences in character between the supplement and main hand of W.

Ἰσραήλ is abbreviated one time in Matthew also. The supplement tends to use abbreviations for nomina sacra more than the rest of the manuscript, but as the word Δαυείδ does not appear in this quire, there is no way to determine if the name follows the general pattern. 6 7

CHAPTER SIX

137

NUMERALS

The relationship between Codex W’s block mixture and its methods of number writings has already been the focus of an article by Zachary Cole: ‘Evaluating Scribal Fidelity: NumberWriting Techniques in Codex Washingtonianus (W 032)’. In the first part of this section, therefore, I focus on summarizing Cole’s previous findings. In the second part of this section, I evaluate and expand Cole’s research using original material. The scribe(s) of W employed both methods of writing numbers found in NT manuscripts: writing numbers either longhand or in Greek alphabetic characters representing numerals. By calculating the ratios of longhand cases to numerical cases, Cole finds that W’s methods of number-writing parallel its block mixture: ‘The Freer Gospels Codex is … inconsistent in its employment of numberwriting methods, alternating between shorthand and longhand. Remarkably, however, the fluctuation is not simply random but is patterned almost precisely with the … textual transitions in W’. Cole’s data are summarized in Table 51.8 Table 51. Percentages of Number Styles in W according to Text-Block Textual block

Matthew (Byz) John 1:1–5:11, Supp (Alex) John 5:12–21:25 (Alex) Luke 1:1–8:12 (Alex) Luke 8:13–24:25 (Byz) Mark 1:1–5:30 (Mixed/‘West’) Mark 5:31–16:20 (Mixed)

Longhand

220 = 99% 16 = 62% 76 = 97% 27 = 84% 147 = 99% 10 = 53% 89 = 81%

Abbreviated 2 = 1% 10 = 38% 2 = 3% 5 = 16% 2 = 1% 9 = 47% 21 = 19%

According to Cole, the system of number writing employed by W coheres not only with its textual blocks but also with its textual affinities. He presents his results in detail: Matthew, which is Byzantine in textual character, almost exclusively contains longhand numbers, containing only two Cole, ‘Evaluating Scribal Fidelity’, p. 230. Table 51 reproduces Cole’s results. Ibid., p. 233. 8

138

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS exceptions (both in 1:17) thus abbreviating less than 1% of all numbers. In contrast, the first quire of John (1:1–5:11) is Alexandrian/Western and contains sixteen longhand numbers and no less than ten numeral abbreviations, equaling a ratio of 62% to 38%. In the bulk of John (5:12–21:25), however, the scribe consistently used longhand numbers with only two deviations (both in 6:19), totaling just 3% of all numbers. This difference between portions of John might not be surprising because the first quire is from the hand of another, later copyist. However, the Alexandrian portion of Luke (1:1–8:12) exhibits nearly a half-dozen abbreviated numerals (five in all), totaling 16% of the numbers, while the Byzantine portion (8:13–24:53) reverts back to the nearly exclusive use of longhand numbers and contains only two abbreviated numbers (15:4, 7), totaling 99% longhand. Likewise, the text of Mark provides yet more changes in the habits of number writing: the Western portion (1:1–5:30) contains ten longhand numbers and nine abbreviated (53%–47%), while the portion akin to P45 (5:31–16:20) contains eighty-nine longhand numbers and twenty-one abbreviated (81%–19%). In sum, the scribal techniques of number-writing in W change at precisely the same points where there are shifts in text-type.9

According to Cole, numbers are written more commonly in longhand in the Byzantine blocks of W than the blocks reflecting other textual streams. The block in W most likely to abbreviate its numbers, Mark 1:1–5:30, is textually mixed, albeit with some ‘Western’ tendencies. All numerical abbreviations in the manuscript are listed in Table 52. The table lists W’s numerical abbreviations by Gospel reference, the relevant number in word form, and the abbreviation appearing in the manuscript. Table 52. Numerical Abbreviations in W Gospel location Matthew 1:17 Matthew 1:17 John 2:1 John 2:6 9

Number

Abbreviation in W

δεκατέσσαρες δεκατέσσαρες

ιδ ιδ

τρίτῃ δύο

γ β

Cole, ‘Evaluating Scribal Fidelity’, pp. 233–34.

CHAPTER SIX John John John John John John John John

2:20 4:18 4:40 4:43 4:52 4:54 5:2 5:5

John 6:19 John 6:19 Luke 2:36 Luke 2:37 Luke 3:23 Luke 4:2 Luke 8:2 Luke 15:4 Luke 15:7

Mark 1:13 Mark 3:14 Mark 4:8 Mark 4:8 Mark 4:8 Mark 4:20 Mark 4:20 Mark 4:20 Mark 5:25 Mark 5:42 Mark 6:7 Mark 6:37 Mark 6:40 Mark 6:40 Mark 6:43 Mark 8:6 Mark 8:8 Mark 8:20 Mark 8:20

139

τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἓξ πέντε δύο δύο ἑβδόµην δεύτερον πέντε τριάκοντα καὶ ὀκτὼ

κ και ς ε β β ζ β ε µ και η

εἴκοσι πέντε τριάκοντα

κε λ

ἑπτά ὀγδοήκοντα τεσσάρων τριάκοντα τεσσεράκοντα ἑπτά

ζ πδ λ µ ζ

ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα

ϥθ ϥθ

τεσσεράκοντα δώδεκα τριάκοντα ἑξήκοντα ἑκατόν τριάκοντα ἑξήκοντα ἑκατόν δώδεκα

µ ιβ λ ξ ρ λ ξ ρ ιβ

δώδεκα δώδεκα ἑκατόν ἑκατόν πεντήκοντα δώδεκα ἑπτά ἑπτά ἑπτά

ιβ ιβ ρ ρ ν ιβ ζ ζ ζ

ἑπτά

ζ

140 Mark 9:35 Mark 10:32 Mark 11:11 Mark 12:22 Mark 12:23 Mark 14:5 Mark 14:10 Mark 14:17 Mark 14:20 Mark 14:43 Mark 16:14

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS δώδεκα δώδεκα δώδεκα ἑπτά ἑπτά τριακοσίων δώδεκα δώδεκα δώδεκα δώδεκα ἕνδεκα

ιβ ιβ ιβ ζ ζ τ ιβ ιβ ιβ ιβ ιβ

As demonstrated by Cole and Table 52, numerical abbreviations in W appear more frequently in the supplement of John and the Gospel of Mark than in other parts of the manuscript. Both Cole and I counted two abbreviated numbers in Matthew, ten in the supplement of John, two in the main hand of John, five in the first section of Luke, two in the second section of Luke, nine in the first section of Mark, and twenty-one in the second section of Mark. The second block of Mark has more than twice the count of abbreviated numbers than any other block in the manuscript, including the supplement. Although the frequency of abbreviations is low in the Byzantine section of Luke, the most interesting kind of numerical abbreviation occurs both times in this section. For the number ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα (ninety-nine) in Luke 15:4 and 7, the scribe of W utilized the archaic Greek qoppa to represent ‘ninety’.10 The abbreviations, though interesting, are not the only numerical oddities present in W. A common orthographical change appearing throughout the manuscript is the shift from τρεῖς to τρίς, spelling variations of the word ‘three’.11 This demonstrates a common orthographical tendency in W, discussed As is sometimes the case in NT manuscripts, the qoppa in W resembles the Coptic letter fai. See Cole, Numerals in Early Greek New Testament Manuscripts, p. 3 11 This change appears in Matthew 12:40 (four times), 17:4, 18:20, and 27:63; John 2:6 (the supplement); Luke 2:46 and 9:33; and Mark 8:2 and 9:5. 10

CHAPTER SIX

141

in more detail in the next chapter. A more significant numerical change is from δώδεκα to δεκαδύο. Δώδεκα is the common way to write the word ‘twelve’, but in addition to the abbreviations for ‘twelve’ listed in the above table, Codex W also utilizes δεκαδύο in Matthew 26:14, Luke 2:42, and Luke 8:1.12 In total, Codex W uses three different ways to refer to ‘twelve’ (two alternate longhand words and a numeral). Each instance of δεκαδύο appears in a different textual block, but with only three instances total, the word appears too infrequently to discern a pattern. Δεκαδύο does not appear in either block of Mark, the most textually unique Gospel in W; however, almost all instances of ‘twelve’ in Mark are abbreviated instead. The research on the number-writing techniques in W, pioneered by Cole and supplemented by my inquiry, shows that once again, W exhibits block mixture not only in its text but also in its paratext. The segmentation and punctuation discussed in Chapter Five and the tertiary nomina sacra of the preceding section reflect the block mixture of W’s text to varying degrees. The pattern continues with W’s number-writing styles. The next step is to examine the ligatures and diacritical marks present in W for potential block mixture.

L IGATURES AND DIACRITICAL MARKS

After punctuation and segmentation, nomina sacra, and numerals, the various ligatures and diacritical marks present in W are the last paratextual features to be considered.13 In Table 53, the numbers of breathing marks (BM), nu superlines (NSu), καί compendia (KC), and other ligatures (OL) are presented.14 Rough Whether δεκαδύο should be one word or two is debated. In his collation, Sanders writes it as two words (Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, p. 162), but I chose to follow BDAG, which lists δεκαδύο as one word. Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon, ‘δέκα’. 13 Only two kinds of diacritical marks are not considered in this section: single and double-dot diaereses. These marks occur throughout W, and given their relationship to orthographic variations, I discuss them in the following chapter. 14 In W, words ending in αι (commonly θαι or ται) most often are ligatured similarly to the καί compendium. However, various mu combinations 12

142

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

breathing marks appear in every block of W except the first block of Mark. As Sanders notes, breathing marks are used in W ‘mostly on monosyllables and especially to distinguish words liable to be confused … and the relative pronoun from the article’.15 The nu superline occurs commonly throughout the manuscript, appearing when the nu is the final letter of a line. Ligatures, whether καί compendia or otherwise, are rare in W. Table 53. Ligatures and Diacritical Marks in W Textual block

Matthew (Byz) John 1:1–5:11, Supp (Alex) John 5:12–21:25 (Alex) Luke 1:1–8:12 (Alex) Luke 8:13–24:25 (Byz) Mark 1:1–5:30 (Mixed/‘West’) Mark 5:31–16:20 (Mixed)

BM

NSu

KC

OL

3

149

1

2

7

63

3

2

51

202

9

10

0

32

0

0

3

139

11

7

28 32

285 25

10 2

9 0

Ligatures and diacritical marks, particularly nu superlines, appear more frequently in Matthew and the latter part of Luke (both Byzantine) than in other blocks of W. Given the small amount of its text, the supplementary quire of John appears to have a high number of breathing marks. Thus far, the distribution of diacritical marks in W appears to support its block mixture, but once again, I wish to account for the results proportionally before I draw any definitive conclusions. Using the methodology applied to the punctuation and segmentation features presented in Chapter Five, Table 54 shows (such as µου, µοι, or µους) are ligatured also throughout the manuscript. For the purposes of this monograph, I consider all ligatures apart from the καί compendium together. 15 Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, p. 18.

CHAPTER SIX

143

the frequency of the ligatures and diacritical marks in relation to word count. I calculated the figures shown in the table by dividing the word count in each block (see Table 44 in Chapter Five) by the breathing marks (WPBM), nu superlines (WPNSu), καί compendia (WPKC), and other ligatures (WPOL) for that block. Once more, the words per ligature or diacritical mark constitute an inverse relationship to the frequency of the feature in each textual block of W. Finally, the word counts for each section are included in Table 54 for reference. Table 54. Words Per Ligature or Diacritical Mark in W Textual block

Matthew (Byz) John 1:1–5:11, Supp (Alex) John 5:12– 21:25 (Alex) Luke 1:1–8:12 (Alex) Luke 8:13– 24:25 (Byz) Mark 1:1–5:30 (Mixed/‘West’) Mark 5:31– 16:20 (Mixed)

Words

WPBM

WPNSu

WPKC

WPOL

12,341

4113.67

82.83

12,341

6170.5

6369

909.86

101.1

2123

3184.5

14,195

278.33

70.27

1577.22

1419.5

3077

[NA]

96.16

[NA]

[NA]

8575

2858.33

61.69

779.55

1225

19,660 3193

702.14 99.78

68.98 127.72

1966 1596.5

2184.44 [NA]

As can be seen from Table 54, the supplementary quire (John 1:1– 5:11) contains the highest frequency of breathing marks, whereas John 5:12–21:25 contains the lowest frequency of breathing marks.16 The frequency of nu superlines is relatively consistent through all sections of W, although the second block of Mark contains twice the frequency of nu superlines as the supplementary quire of John. The καί compendium is rare in all sections of W, but it occurs most often in the second block of Mark, followed by the second block of Luke. Mark 5:31–16:20 also

Technically the block with the lowest frequency of breathing marks is Mark 1:1–5:30, as it contains no breathing marks. 16

144

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

contains the highest frequency of other ligatures, followed once again by the second block of Luke. In general, the first block of Mark (mixed with ‘Western’ tendencies) exhibits fewer ligatures and diacritical marks than the rest of the manuscript. Mark 5:31–16:20 (completely mixed) exhibits more ligatures and diacritical marks. In contrast to my findings pertaining to the unit delimitation and nomina sacra, the supplementary quire of John is markedly different from the rest of W in terms of its other paratextual features.17 The main hand of John exhibits relatively few ligatures and diacritical marks compared to the rest of the manuscript, apart from the first block of Mark. The Alexandrian block of Luke exhibits fewer diacritical marks than does the Byzantine block of Luke. Especially in the blocks of Mark, the other paratextual features appear to reflect its block mixture.

CONCLUSION

In this chapter, I have studied the remainder of the paratextual features exhibited by Codex W: nomina sacra, numerals, ligatures, and diacritical marks. All three categories reflect the block mixture in W’s text. Regarding nomina sacra, W’s block mixture is shown most clearly in the abbreviation patterns of the so-called tertiary nomina sacra. As shown by Cole’s research and mine, the number-writing patterns used by the scribe(s) of W also reflect its block mixture. Finally, the frequency of ligatures and diacritical marks exhibited in the textual blocks of W also match the block mixture. The most significant finding in my study of these features is that both sections of Mark are distinct from the rest of the manuscript. Mark 1:1–5:30 contains the lowest frequency of ligatures and diacritical marks, and Mark 5:31–16:20 contains the highest frequency of these features. Thus, the Gospel of Mark is set apart from the rest of W in its treatment of both ligatures and diacritical marks, even the supplement of John. Block mixture in W continues to be supported, not only in its text but also in its paratextual features.

The supplement is the only block apart from Mark 1:1–5:30 not to contain ligatures apart from the καί compendium. 17

CHAPTER SEVEN. ORTHOGRAPHICAL PATTERNS IN W In this chapter, I briefly consider Codex Washingtonianus’s block mixture from the perspective of orthographical and other spelling changes in the manuscript. The simple question here is: do the spelling patterns in Codex W reflect the manuscript’s block mixture? For the Gospel of Matthew, a study of orthographic variations in W has already been undertaken. In his dissertation republished as a monograph, Gregory Paulson categorizes the orthographic changes in W’s Matthew into itacisms, other vocalic changes, and consonant substitutions.1 However, Paulson limits his study of orthographic changes in W to the singular readings in the manuscript. Common itacisms that Paulson notes in W include ι > ει and ε > αι along with the reverse. Other vocalic changes appear throughout Matthew; but, in Paulson’s estimation, most occur only once in the singular readings. The most common consonantal changes that Paulson notes include the omission of nu or sigma.2 In Codex W, the relationship between orthographic variation and certain diacritical marks, namely the single and double-dot diaeresis, is significant. In Chapter One, I quote Sanders’s observations about these diaereses, and his remarks are worth repeating: ‘Dots may occur over ι and υ when initial or not to be pronounced with the preceding vowel. Exceptions are numerous, especially in the case of the initial vowel. In the main portion of the MS two dots are used over ι and one over υ; in the first

1 2

Paulson, pp. 106–07. Ibid.

145

146

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS quire of John two dots are used over υ also. Very rarely in both hands the two dots coalesce into a simple stroke.’3

An excellent example of this phenomenon is the word υἱός. When not abbreviated as a nomen sacrum, υἱός contains a single-dot diaeresis over the upsilon and a double-dot diaeresis over the iota. Sanders declares the exceptions to diaeresis usage to be ‘numerous’, but with the word υἱός, I only found ten exceptions: six in Matthew (11:19, 12:23, 12:27, 12:32, 13:55, and 27:9), two in Mark (3:11 and 9:17), and two in John (5:26 and 17:12). In most cases, the upsilon is missing its single-dot diaeresis, but in one case (Matthew 27:9), the iota is missing its double-dot diaeresis. In no instance does υἱός lack any diaeresis mark. In the case of υἱός, the exceptions to the usage of diaeresis marks are too small and sporadic for me to detect any patterns. From this sample, therefore, a study of diaeresis marks does not appear to be helpful in studying the manuscript’s block mixture. Expanding the search beyond diaereses, I consider the spelling of proper nouns and the Greek word εἰµί. I chose names because they comprise simple and easily trackable orthographic changes, while εἰµί demonstrates a very common itacistic variation in W. Εἰµί is almost always rendered εἰµεί in W, so much so that my interest here lies in the exceptions to this rule, which are discussed below. One proper noun which illustrates block mixture in Codex W is the name ‘Pilate’. In W, ‘Pilate’ is alternatively spelled both Πιλᾶτος and Πειλᾶτος in disparate blocks. Furthermore, the name ‘Pilate’ appears in every textual block of W except the supplement of John (an indisputable section) and the first block of Mark. Table 55 lists all instances of ‘Pilate’ with their spelling in W. Table 55. ‘Pilate’ Variations in W Gospel location Matthew 27:2 Matthew 27:13 Matthew 27:17 Matthew 27:22

3

Spelling in W Πιλάτῳ Πιλᾶτος Πιλᾶτος Πιλᾶτος

Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, p. 19.

CHAPTER SEVEN Matthew 27:24 Matthew 27:58 Matthew 27:58 Matthew 27:62 Matthew 27:65 John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John

18:29 18:31 18:33 18:35 18:37 18:38 19:1 19:4 19:6 19:8 19:10 19:12 19:13 19:15 19:19 19:21 19:22 19:31 19:38 19:38

Luke 3:1

Luke 13:1 Luke 23:1 Luke 23:3 Luke 23:4 Luke 23:6 Luke 23:11 Luke 23:12 Luke 23:13 Luke 23:20 Luke 23:24 Luke 23:52

Πιλᾶτος Πιλάτῳ Πιλᾶτος Πιλᾶτον Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλάτῳ Πειλᾶτος Πιλᾶτον Πιλᾶτον Πειλᾶτος Πειλάτου Πιλᾶτος Πειλᾶτον Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλάτῳ Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλάτῳ

147

148 Mark 15:1 Mark 15:2 Mark 15:4 Mark 15:5 Mark 15:9 Mark 15:12 Mark 15:43 Mark 15:44

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS Πιλάτῳ Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτος Πειλᾶτον Πειλᾶτος

The results of the table are somewhat surprising. To begin, no single block in Codex W spells ‘Pilate’ consistently.4 The Gospel of Matthew stands apart from the rest of the manuscript, showing a tendency to spell ‘Pilate’ with a simple iota, whereas the rest of the manuscript prefers ει. Given that both Matthew and the second block of Luke follow the Byzantine textual stream, I would expect them to follow similar orthographical patterns, but at least for the name ‘Pilate’, this is not the case. Furthermore, the Gospel of Mark (in both blocks) tends to differ from the rest of the manuscript in textual character, but in the case of the orthographic change in ‘Pilate’, it is Matthew that is different.5 The Gospel of Mark does exhibit a rather bizarre ‘orthographic’ change in the Passion Narrative. When Pilate offers to release Barabbas to the crowd, Codex W (in Mark) writes Βαρναβᾶς rather than Βαραββᾶς. Rather than identifying Pilate’s prisoner as ‘Barabbas’, W’s Mark identifies the prisoner as ‘Barnabas’, the same name as the Apostle Paul’s famous comissionary! Furthermore, W’s Mark identifies the insurrectionist as ‘Barnabas’ in both 15:7 and 15:11.6 No other Gospel in W identifies Pilate’s prisoner as ‘Barnabas’, and no other Greek The exception is the spelling of ‘Pilate’ in the first block of Luke, which is ‘consistently’ spelled as ει. However, given that ‘Pilate’ only appears one time in this block, this is insignificant. 5 Though both blocks follow the Byzantine textual stream, Matthew and the second block of Luke show dissimilar patterns of rendering the name ‘Pilate’. Like the rest of the manuscript outside Matthew, Luke renders ‘Pilate’ with an ει. 6 Mark 15:15, the last appearance of ‘Barabbas’ in the Gospel, is unfortunately part of a lacuna in W. 4

CHAPTER SEVEN

149

manuscript follows W’s Mark in its identification. This name change is illustrative of the difference between W’s Mark and the rest of the manuscript. Another interesting orthographic change that appears several times in Codex W is the addition of a tau to certain proper names, namely ‘Solomon’ and ‘Israel’. Σολοµῶνος becomes Σολοµῶντος in Matthew 1:6, John 10:23, and Luke 11:31; and Ἰσραήλ (when not abbreviated as a nomen sacrum) becomes Ἰστραήλ in Matthew 19:28 and Mark 12:29.7 In these two words, the added tau appears in every Gospel and four out of seven textual blocks. Ultimately, however, five instances of this orthographic change are not enough to establish a pattern. Like ‘Israel’, ‘David’ is identified as a tertiary nomen sacrum by Larry Hurtado and presented as such in the previous chapter. Unlike ‘Israel’, which undergoes orthographic variation only twice in Codex W, ‘David’ when not abbreviated, is presented in a consistent orthographic form throughout the manuscript. In every appearance of ‘David’ that is not treated as a nomen sacrum, it is written as Δαυείδ rather than Δαυίδ. The original Greek spelling of ‘David’ (whether Δαυείδ or Δαυίδ) is debated,8 but regardless, W is consistent in its spelling of the name. Therefore, block mixture reflected by the name ‘David’ can only be discerned in its patterns of abbreviation (see previous chapter), not its orthographic variation. The only word not a proper name that I studied for orthographic patterns is εἰµί, Greek for ‘I am’. Given the theological implications of this word, it appears most often in John, but the word is present multiple times in all four Gospels. In Codex W, εἰµί is consistently, although not exclusively, written as εἰµεί. In this section, I therefore consider all the exceptions rather than the rule. To begin, εἰµί is rendered as ἰµεί in Matthew 8:8. In John 1:20, 1:27, and 1:28, εἰµί becomes ἰµί, and in John 3:28 and 4:26, εἰµί remains εἰµί without orthographic variation. In John 17:14, εἰµί is once again rendered as ἰµεί, and in Mark Codex Vaticanus (B, 03) also uses Ἰστραήλ (by making the rho into a staurogram) twice in the Gospels: Luke 22:30 and John 1:49. 8 The Tyndale House Greek New Testament utilizes the spelling Δαυείδ instead of Δαυίδ. 7

150

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

6:50, εἰµί remains εἰµί. The supplementary quire of John contains the majority of exceptions to this itacistic change; in fact, only in John 1:21 is εἰµί written as εἰµεί like the main hand of W. Otherwise, only Matthew 8:8, John 17:14, and Mark 6:50 deviate from the pattern. Rather than evidence of block mixture for the entirety of W, the itacistic variation of εἰµί is perhaps better understood as more evidence of the supplementary nature of the first quire of John. Unlike the punctuation, segmentation, nomina sacra, numeral abbreviations, and diacritical marks, the patterns of orthographical variation in Codex W show no clear evidence of the block mixture exhibited by its text. Of the examples I consider, only the name ‘Pilate’ even comes close to reflecting block mixture. Naturally, W’s orthographical patterns need extensive examination to be conclusive, but my initial results are not promising. W’s block mixture is clearly evident in its text and paratextual features but not, apparently, in its orthography.

CHAPTER EIGHT. AN ANALYSIS OF SINGULAR READINGS AND CORRECTIONS IN W SINGULAR READINGS

So far, I have examined Codex Washingtonianus’s block mixture in its textual, paratextual, and orthographical features, with only two additional angles remaining to be explored: singular readings and corrections. In the first section of this chapter, I discuss the singular readings in W, and in the second section, I discuss the manuscript’s corrections. Using the QAs featured in Chapter Three, I study W’s block mixture by showing its relationship to other manuscripts, but what about the singular readings? Although singular readings are not helpful in determining relationships among manuscripts, they can be valuable for determining the scribal character of an individual manuscript. In this section, I determine whether the singular readings in W are reflective of the block mixture shown in its quantitative relationships. The singular readings of W have been considered before, albeit within individual Gospels. Larry Hurtado discusses W’s singular readings in Mark, categorizing the types of singular readings found in W’s Mark into seven groups: harmonizations, vocabulary preferences, grammatical improvements, changes toward concise expression, additions for clarification, significant sense changes, and word order changes.1 Given the volume and variety of singular readings Hurtado found, he concludes that ‘as Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text, pp. 68– 82. 1

151

152

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

one examines these cases, the impression is inescapable that the text of W is the result of deliberate activity’.2 According to Dennis Haugh, however, the degree of editorial activity shown in W’s Mark is not reflected elsewhere in the manuscript. Haugh studies the redactional control that W exhibits in all four Gospels in his essay ‘Was Codex Washingtonianus a Copy or New Text?’ With his primary focus on the original hand of John, Haugh writes, ‘I will say that the Gospel of John does not show the same degree of redactional efforts shown in Mark’.3 Although Matthew’s text was not the primary focus of his essay, Haugh considers this Gospel also: ‘Furthermore, the type and number of unique variants in Mark are not reflected in Matthew.’4 Haugh compares the singular readings in Mark with those in the original hand of John to illustrate his point, concluding, ‘Over approximately the same number of verses, the text of Mark shows more than twice as many intentional variants, including 2.5 times more “intentional literary variants” . . . in Mark than in John’.5 Mark in W shows significant redactional changes, while John does not. What about Matthew? Haugh suggests that Matthew resembles John more than Mark, but Gregory Paulson makes scribal habits in the Gospel of Matthew the focus of a complete study. With W’s Matthew, Paulson’s conclusions are similar to those of Haugh: The scribe repeatedly changed the text of Matthew, not so that it is dramatically re-presented, but so that it comes across a little more polished than, perhaps, what is found in other MSS. These changes are not a systematic overhaul, but are rather small changes that occur frequently enough throughout Matthew that, when focusing on the changes that are construed in context, the text of Matthew in W seems to be a more deliberately unified text, especially considering the assimilations to the nearby context. The paucity of nonsense readings could suggest that when the scribe did create singular readings, that [sic] they were intentional more often than not. Ibid., p. 81. Haugh, pp. 168–69. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., p. 172. 2 3

CHAPTER EIGHT

153

But irrespective of the scribe’s intentionality, the result is the same: the singular readings in W in Matthew often make sense in the context and, on the whole, make the text and flow of Matthew a little more resilient, perhaps, than the exemplar was.6

In other words, W’s Matthew shows some degree of editorial effort but not to the same degree as W’s Mark. Paulson finds that the scribe of W in Matthew was restrained in his copying, desiring only to ‘polish up’ the text rather than change it. Between Hurtado, Haugh, and Paulson, each individual Gospel (except for Luke) has been studied from the perspective of singular readings. However, a full picture of W’s singular readings, especially considering the manuscript’s block mixture, has not yet been presented. The relationship between W’s textually established block mixture and its singular readings is therefore my focus. I isolated the singular variants analyzed in this section using the CNTTS textual apparatus. A full list of singular variants is included in Appendix Two.7 Hurtado rightly laments that ‘in the face of the multitude of Greek witnesses (many of which have never been collated), the gathering of a list of truly “singular” readings seems practically impossible’.8 To isolate W’s truly singular readings as far as possible, therefore, I checked the singular readings listed in the CNTTS apparatus against the IGNTP’s published apparatus in Luke and Tischendorf’s apparatus in the other three Gospels.9 In my analysis here, I am interested only in W’s variants that are singular in the Greek tradition. Even if certain variants are supported by versional or patristic evidence, they are classified as singular for the purposes of my research. Paulson, p. 122. In variants in which W contains correctors, I include the reading for analysis only if the original hand shows a singular reading. If the corrector in W shows a singular reading, I do not include it in the analysis. This delimitation is methodologically consistent with that of the previous QAs, in which I only include readings in the original hand(s). 8 Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text, p. 68. 9 The International Greek New Testament Project, The Gospel According to St. Luke. Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece. 6 7

154

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Perhaps the most significant singular reading for W in the Greek tradition concerns the omission of Jesus’s genealogy in Luke 3, which I mention in Chapter One. Although the reading in W is singular, W is not the only manuscript that omits the genealogy in Luke. Manuscript 579, a thirteenth-century minuscule currently housed in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, also omits the genealogy. However, 579 omits verses 23 through 38 in their entirety, but W contains most of verse 23. As such, W includes the phrase καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόµενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ὢν υἱός, ὡς ἐνοµίζετο Ἰωσὴφ and omits only the genealogy. Neither W nor 579, however, marks the omission in any special manner: W merely utilizes ekthesis and a vacant line end to start a new paragraph, while 579 separates 3:22 and 4:1 by a telos lectionary marking. This omission is interesting in W because it focuses specifically on the Lukan genealogy. There is no indication that it was the result of error (such as through homoeoteleuton): it seems rather that it is a deliberate omission. Of all the singular readings in W, the removal of Luke’s genealogy comprises the best case for a variant created in the service of apologetics or theology.10 The scribe of W (and possibly 579) might have omitted the genealogy in Luke to avoid inconsistency with the genealogy of Matthew, although this is ultimately unprovable.11 In his article on the use of numbers in Codex W, Zachary Cole discusses the numbers in W that also comprise singular readings. There is an interesting frequency of inaccurate numbers left uncorrected in W, many of which are singular readings—that is readings found in no other Greek witnesses. For example, a singular is created in the text of Mark, where after the resurrection Jesus is said to appear to the ιβ, that is, “the twelve” (16:14), though at this point, after the suicide of Judas, there are only eleven disciples. Also in Mark 6:37, our manuscript reads δηναριον ρ (= one hundred denarii), where Nonetheless, this variant is not considered in Kannaday, Apologetic Discourse and the Scribal Tradition. 11 Interestingly, no Greek manuscripts appear to omit the genealogy in Matthew. 10

CHAPTER EIGHT

155

all other known witnesses read “two hundred denarii,” which, if abbreviated, would be ς. Furthermore, W is the only witness to record that the crippled man at Bethesda had been there for “forty-eight,” written µ κ(αι) η, rather than “thirty-eight” years (John 5:5). It is also the only witness to the omission of εἷς from Mark 12:29b, which accordingly reads ακουε ισραηλ’ κς ο θς ηµων κς εστιν = “Hear, Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is.” W also contains a singular omission of the phrase κἂν ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ from Luke 12:38, and it stands alone with minuscule 69 in the omission of πρῶτον from Luke 9:59. And finally, yet another singular reading is found at Mark 16:9 in the omission of πρῶτον after εφανη. These numerical oddities and singular readings are quite surprising and simply out of character for the copyist, who, as has been noted elsewhere, rarely creates nonsense readings and consistently corrects his or her own writing.12

Most of Cole’s examples are from the Gospel of Mark, already revealing a different textual personality to the rest of Codex W. Although I recognize the reading as singular, I disagree with Cole about the numerical ‘inaccuracy’ in Mark 16:14, in which Jesus in W appears to the ‘twelve’ rather than the ‘eleven’. After Judas’s suicide, the disciples certainly counted eleven rather than twelve, but is it correct to characterize Mark’s singular use of ‘twelve’ here as an inaccuracy? Most uses of the word ‘twelve’ in the Gospels refer to the group of Jesus’s disciples, and thus ‘twelve’ in the Gospels is used more as a title than a number. Perhaps the singular reading of ‘twelve’ in post-resurrection Mark here indicates further development along this trend. ‘Twelve’ does not denote a number, but rather ‘twelve’ means ‘the definitive group of Jesus’s disciples’. More research must be done to support this hypothesis, but I think Cole is premature in characterizing the number as an inaccuracy. The initial results of the global analysis of W’s singular readings are displayed in Table 56. Following the CNTTS apparatus, I categorize the results into additions, omissions, replacements, and transpositions. I also divide these categories

12

Cole, ‘Evaluating Scribal Fidelity’ pp. 235–36.

156

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

into major changes and minor changes.13 A major change encompasses four or more words, whereas a minor change encompasses three or fewer. The final row shows the total number of singular readings found in each textual block. 14 Table 56. Singular Readings in W

MajAdd MinAdd MajOm MinOm MajRep MinRep MajTran MinTran Total

Matthew J 1:1– J 5:12– L 1:1– L 8:13– M 1:1– M 5:31– 5:11 21:25 8:12 24:53 5:30 16:20 2 28 0 23 0 51 8 14 113

3 15 0 10 0 16 4 4 48

1 23 2 28 1 51 6 20 122

0 11 1 8 0 25 0 5 48

2 22 2 22 0 57 0 5 95

3 26 6 47 14 91 9 8 178

3 45 5 80 17 107 8 25 249

Both blocks of Mark contain far more singular readings than other textual blocks, but like the results concerning paratextual features, the singular readings must be accounted for proportionally before they can be considered definitive. Because none of the blocks is the same length, the number of singular readings in each block must be weighted for comparison. In this analysis, I used the textual block of Matthew as the control. I calculated the ratio by dividing the words in the control block (Matthew) by the number of words

I recognize that dividing singular readings into major and minor changes is somewhat arbitrary, but it is necessary given the (sometimes vastly) disparate lengths of the singular readings present in W. 14 The number of variants in each category exceeds the total number of singular variants for each textual block because many variants encompass numerous categories. For example, in John 2:12, W reads οἱ µαθηταὶ καὶ ἡ µήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ instead of ἡ µήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ according to the NA28 text. This singular reading both changes the word order and omits the possessive, so it is classified both as a transposition and an omission. 13

CHAPTER EIGHT

157

in each of the other blocks.15 For example, Matthew in W has 19,660 words, and the supplement of John has 3193 words, making the conversion ratio for the supplement 6.16. This ratio means that Matthew is roughly six times as long as the supplementary quire. I then calculated the weighted number of singular readings by multiplying the raw number of singular readings by the conversion ratio. Weighting the singular readings allows them to be studied as if all blocks were the same length. The weighted singular readings in W are listed in Table 57. For ease of reference, the word counts for each section are included in the table. Table 57. Weighted Singular Readings in W

Words MajAdd

MinAdd MajOm MinOm MajRep

MinRep MajTran MinTran Total

Matthew J 1:1– J 5:12– L 1:1– L 8:13– M 1:1– M 5:31– 5:11 21:25 8:12 24:53 5:30 16:20 19,660

3193

12,341

6369

14,195

3077

8575

2

18.48

1.59

0

2.77

19.17

6.88

28

92.4

36.64

33.96

30.47

166.12

103.17

0

0

3.19

3.09

2.77

38.34

11.46

23

61.57

44.61

24.69

30.47

300.3

183.42

0

0

1.59

0

0

89.45

38.98

51

98.52

81.25

77.17

78.94

581.43

245.32

8

24.63

9.56

0

0

57.5

18.34

14

24.63

31.86

15.43

6.92

51.11

57.32

113

295.55

194.35

148.17

131.57

1137.3

570.89

As can be observed from Table 57, the weighted results are reasonably consistent for every Gospel except Mark. As Haugh and Paulson demonstrate with John and Matthew, so the scribe must also have carefully copied the exemplar in Luke. The results for both blocks of Luke are similar proportionally to the results in Matthew and the main hand of John. The supplementary quire of John does contain more singular readings proportionally than the rest of the first three Gospels (Matthew, John, and Luke), but this The word counts of W’s textual blocks in both the NA28 and the manuscript itself are listed in Table 44. As in previous chapters, I calculated the conversion ratio using W’s word count. 15

158

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

finding is neither surprising nor significant given that the supplement is known to have been created independently. With the exception of Mark’s Gospel, the similarities in the results presented here support the presence of block mixture in W. Sanders’s original thesis was that the text of Codex W (or its parent) was copied piecemeal from different manuscripts.16 If Sanders’s thesis is correct and if the scribe of W was careful in copying, then I would expect W’s textual blocks to show differing results in their quantitative relationships but similar (and relatively low) results in the numbers of their singular readings. This is almost exactly what I found. In every Gospel but Mark, the results are similar not just in total singular readings but in the singular readings of each type: additions, omissions, replacements, and transpositions. The Gospel of Mark, however, has more singular readings than any other Gospel (both raw and weighted), not only in total but also in type. To begin, significant replacements (singular replacements of at least four words) occur elsewhere only in the main hand of John, and this just in one instance. Otherwise, significant replacements only occur in the Gospel of Mark. Both blocks of Mark show a high number of singular readings, but the block of Mark with ‘Western’ tendencies shows an even higher number of singular readings than does the mixed block. Using the conversion ratio, the first block of Mark contains over 1000 weighted singular readings. Aside from the Freer Logion (which has already been subjected to thorough investigation elsewhere), one of the most interesting singular readings in the Greek tradition of Mark concerns the long addition after verse 1:3, transcribed and translated in Chapter One. The addition comprises an extension of the quotation from Isaiah 40. As I stated above, the extended quotation might have been a harmonization to Luke 3:4–6, as both Gospels are quoting from Isaiah 40. In W, however, the extended quotation in Mark is longer than the parallel quotation in Luke. More specifically, Luke ends with Isaiah 40:5, while the See Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, p. 139. 16

CHAPTER EIGHT

159

Markan variant in W extends through Isaiah 40:8. This variant is illustrative of the limitation of W’s singular readings to the Greek tradition, as the variant reading is shared by a Latin manuscript. Codex Colbertinus (c; VL 6) also contains an extended quotation of Isaiah 40 at this point. Why are the Markan blocks so different from those of the rest of W? According to Hurtado, the scribe of W, even if a careful copyist in the rest of manuscript, acted as a conscious redactor in Mark.17 I find this conclusion unsatisfying. Paleographically, W is the work of one scribe (excluding the supplement), so why would a single scribe exhibit two distinct redactional tendencies? Could there be another explanation here? Hurtado himself admits, ‘It is not absolutely essential that the variants mentioned here must be the work of the particular scribe of W. It is theoretically possible that some of the variants were created earlier than Codex W and that the scribe of Codex W copied faithfully his exemplar.’18 Given the scribe’s behavior in the rest of the manuscript, the theoretically possible in Mark should become the probable. In contrast, Haugh’s conclusion best explains the evidence of singular readings in W for the manuscript in its entirety. I would conclude that the probability that the scribe of Codex W was following a copy of Mark that already included the changes noted is significantly greater than the contrary. Further, even if it were to be shown that the scribe did make the changes in Mark, the probability that the scribe did not exercise similar editorial/redactional control over the other Gospels is even greater. Codex W, it appears to me, is a late fourth/fifth century compilation of unrelated copies of the Gospels by a single scribe in a single codex.19

In other words, the disparity of singular readings in Mark occurred as a result of the differing exemplars of W, not the manuscript itself. In all textual blocks of W, including the two blocks of Mark, the scribe copied the exemplar(s) faithfully.

Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text, p. 68. Ibid., p. 69. 19 Haugh, p. 180. 17 18

160

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

CORRECTIONS

In the second section of this chapter, I study the numerous corrections (and correctors) of Codex W. For this manuscript, extensive work on the corrections already has been undertaken. In his contribution to the anthology on the Freer biblical manuscripts, James Royse catalogues every single correction that he could discern in W.20 For the most part, I agree with Royse’s analysis, although I differ from Royse in a few places. In the first part of this section, I summarize Royse’s arguments, and in the second part I supplement Royse with some additional comments and critiques. To begin, Royse (using Sanders) delineates the numerous hands found in the main portion of W and assigns a number of corrections to each: Within W proper Sanders distinguishes four hands: the scribe, a second hand…, a third hand, and a fourth hand. The activities of the last two hands were limited. By my counts, the original scribe made eighty-five corrections, the second hand made sixty-nine corrections, the third hand made ten corrections, the fourth hand made four corrections, and there remain two corrections that I cannot assign.21

Royse then discusses the corrections made by all four hands individually in the main part of W before noting the corrections found in the supplementary quire. Royse makes a special point of noting the number of corrections made in scribendo in W, that is, corrections made by the original scribe during the course of copying and not in subsequent revisions of the work. Finally, to ensure thoroughness, Royse also includes a master apparatus of all the corrections in W.22 Although I have independently verified the vast majority of corrections identified by Royse, in some cases Royse identifies a correction that I could not corroborate: these occur in twelve instances in Matthew, five in John, twelve in Luke, and four in Mark. There are also some cases in which I found a correction not noted by Royse. Table 58 lists all instances by location, textual change, and the corrector identified by Royse. Royse, ‘The Corrections in the Freer Gospels Codex’, pp. 186–226. Ibid., p. 186. 22 Ibid., pp. 216–26. 20 21

CHAPTER EIGHT

161

Table 58. Disputed Corrections Identified by Royse Gospel location

Correction

Corrector hand

John 1:13 John 4:47

… ρκος > σαρκος γαλι(λεας) > ιουδεας

Corr. c Corr. a

Matthew 12:31 Matthew 12:46 Matthew 14:24 Matthew 15:8 Matthew 16:25 Matthew 20:12 Matthew 21:19 Matthew 21:30 Matthew 21:32 Matthew 24:32 Matthew 27:4 Matthew 27:17

John 6:18 John 8:46 John 11:24 Luke 1:6 Luke 4:18 Luke 8:6

Luke 8:21 Luke 8:42 Luke 11:4 Luke 13:35 Luke 16:9 Luke 18:16 Luke 22:12 Luke 23:34 Luke 23:43 Mark 2:25 Mark 4:32 Mark 5:2 Mark 7:21

homoeoteleuton ??? > εξω … νιζοµενον > βασανιχοµενον omit > και τοις χειλεσιν µε τιµα απολεση > απολεσει υµων > αυτου αυτου > αυτους επ > εν Επιστευ … > επιστευσαν εγγυς > ευθυς οι δ ι(πον) > οι δε ειπον ι(ν) > η

διηγειρι(το) > διηγειρετο omit > δια τι αναστησιται > αναστησεται

παση > πασαις τεθραµµενους > τεθραυµενους ??? > δια το αυ(τοις) > προς αυτους συνεθριβον > συνεπνιγον οφιλοµεν > αφειοµεν ηξοι > ηξει οτε α(υτοις) > εαυτοις ηµ(ας) > εµε αναγιον > αναγεον αυτων > αυτου τηµερον > σηµερον ι(ησεν) > omit ??? > λαχανων τ(ω) > ανος φονοι > φονος

Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 2 Corr. 2 Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 3 Corr. 1 Corr. 1

Corr. 1 Corr. 3 Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 3 Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 1 Corr. 1

162

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

The table reveals that the majority of disputed corrections were identified by Royse as made by corrector 1, that is, the hand of the original scribe of Codex W.23 The corrections made by the original hand were often made in scribendo over erasures, often making the existence of a correction difficult to discern. Neither Royse nor I examined the manuscript of Codex W directly, but worked from the same high-resolution color images produced in 2006. In the case of in scribendo corrections, perhaps the discrepancies could be solved by examining the physical manuscript. In addition, I identify a few instances of corrections not noted by Royse: three in Matthew, one in John, four in Luke, and one in Mark. These corrections are listed by location and textual change in Table 59. Unlike Royse, I do not identify the corrections by scribal hand. Table 59. Newly Identified Corrections Gospel location

Correction

John 10:32

πρι > πρς

Matthew 3:9 Matthew 5:23 Matthew 6:25 John 14:10 Luke 6:31

Luke 12:4 Luke 19:2 Luke 22:63 Mark 14:9

λιγειν > λεγειν αν > εαν τις > της πηρ > πηρ

ποιηται > ποιειται

περισσοτιρον > περισσοτερον ζαχχαιος > ζακχαιος δεγοντες > δεροντες µνηµοσυνο > µνηµοσυνον

All discrepancies comprise minor textual changes, most often by a single letter. Furthermore, these corrections are regularly orthographic, affecting the nature of W’s text very little. In John 14:10, in fact, the correction did not change the nature of the text Royse believes that the second corrector in nearly all cases corrected W to an exemplar that the original hand had failed to accurately reproduce and, further, that the third and fourth correctors were later readers of the manuscript who changed what seemed to them to be obvious errors in the text. Ibid., pp. 201–10. 23

CHAPTER EIGHT

163

at all, but merely added an overline to an existing nomen sacrum. Given the nature of the disagreements between Royse and this study (in scribendo and single-letter changes) and the numerous corrections appearing in the manuscript, our conclusions about the nature and purpose of these corrections remain unchanged. Like Haugh and Paulson in their analyses of the singular readings present in W, Royse concludes that the scribe(s) of W was careful in copying the exemplar. What we see, therefore, is that most of the corrections emended the initial transcriptional errors of the scribe of W to the text of the exemplar that the scribe was attempting to copy in the first place. Exactly half of the corrections were made by the scribe himself, as he caught his own errors in the course of his copying or during subsequent inspection of his own work. Most of the rest of the corrections were made by a second hand who, likewise, evidently intended to correct W to the parent text. Then two later readers made a few further changes of miscellaneous points that caught their eyes. The corrections made in Ws (the replacement first quire of John) are exclusively of minor slips of the scribe of that quire. In this important codex of the Gospels at least, we see no consistent effort to shift W from one textual tradition (‘text-type’) to another, nor do we find evidence of the overall reaction of the text under the influence of doctrinal motives. Instead, essentially, Codex W reflects a concern simply to copy with reasonable care.24

Interestingly, the corrections of W include one situation in which the Gospel of Mark is not markedly different from the rest of the manuscript. By combining the data from both Royse’s and my studies, I calculated the instances of potential corrections as 52 in Matthew, 11 in the supplement of John, 25 in the main hand of John, 19 in the first block of Luke, 50 in the second block of Luke, 9 in the first block of Mark, and 23 in the second block of Mark. Using the same conversion method presented in the section on singular readings, I found the weighted number of corrections to be 52 in Matthew, 67.76 in the supplement of John, 39.75 in the main hand of John, 58.71 in the first block of Luke, 69 in the 24

Ibid., p. 216.

164

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

second block of Luke, 57.51 in the first block of Mark, and 52.67 in the second block of Mark. As seen by the weighted numbers of corrections, neither block of Mark contains a significantly different number of corrections to the other blocks in the manuscript. These findings support the conclusion that the differences in Mark’s text result from differences in exemplars rather than differences in the nature of the scribe. In all four Gospels, the main scribe of W created block mixture by copying one or more exemplars with little redactional activity and preserved the manuscript’s block mixture by correcting the text conservatively. Later correctors of W followed this conservative pattern. The purpose of the corrections was not to change the nature of W’s text but to reflect W’s exemplars. In this chapter, I sought to determine whether the block mixture revealed in Codex W’s quantitative relationships and supported by its paratextual and orthographical features was indicated also by the manuscript’s singular readings and corrections. My analysis of singular readings in W’s textual blocks supports previous assertions that the scribe of W was careful in copying. As such, Sanders’s thesis about the piecemeal composition of W, and thus its block mixture, continues to be supported. Using Royse’s previous work, I also examined the corrections present in W. My conclusion from studying W’s corrections is the same as my conclusion from studying the singular readings. Thus, the block mixture shown in W’s quantitative relationships was not the result of redactional activity on the part of the scribe of W but must have derived from multiple exemplars, as Sanders originally proposed.

CONCLUSION Charles Lang Freer purchased Codex Washingtonianus in Egypt in 1906, and by 1912, Henry Sanders had published his research on this important and fascinating manuscript. In his monograph, Sanders demonstrates the numerous shifts in W’s textual affiliation, now known as block mixture. Although some of Sanders’s theories have been rejected, particularly concerning the manuscript’s textual history and composition, his work on W’s block mixture has become standard in text-critical studies. Using my terminology, Sanders’s textual divisions are reproduced here. Table 60. Block Mixture in W Block

Matthew John 1:1–5:11 John 5:12–21:25 Luke 1:1–8:12 Luke 8:13–24:53 Mark 1:1–5:30 Mark 5:31–16:20

Textual stream

Byzantine Supplement (Alexandrian) Alexandrian Alexandrian Byzantine Mixed with ‘Western’ tendencies Mixed

I designed my research to evaluate Sanders’s work on Codex W, focusing on how a detailed study of the manuscript could clarify the question of block mixture and test the validity of Sanders’s thesis. His proposed textual divisions were tested by a comprehensive study of Codex W, giving special attention to the block mixture in the manuscript’s text but noting also the importance of W’s paratextual and other features. My original thought was that Sanders’s thesis would ultimately prove 165

166

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

untenable. I was suspicious of Sanders’s textual divisions because I believed that W’s shifts in textual affiliation would, at the least, be less precise than Sanders originally had identified. I further believed that a comprehensive study of W would demonstrate that the manuscript exhibits a variety of textual affiliations but does not display clearly defined blocks of text. However, my findings from the examination of W directly contradict my hypothesis. Rather, I found that W’s textual blocks are clearly defined and that the textual divisions within the manuscript are as precise as Sanders describes. W’s textual blocks are supported in the study of the manuscript from almost every perspective, both textual and paratextual. The first chapter, ‘Mining Codex W: Description, Observations, Transcriptions’, was designed to provide the reader with background information on Codex W, noting special and interesting features of the manuscript. In this chapter, I briefly describe W’s ‘Western’ order, paleography and codicology, diacritical marks, quires, inscriptiones and subscriptiones, artwork, significant variants, and provenance (both historical and modern). The secondary purpose of this chapter is to outline my transcription work, including both hand and digital transcriptions of the manuscript. In the second and third chapters of the book, titled ‘Methodology of the Quantitative Analysis’ and ‘Results of the Quantitative Analysis’ respectively, I describe and utilize the monograph’s primary methodology: quantitative analysis. I begin Chapter Two with a discussion of both the methodology as developed by Ernest Colwell and the previous QA work on W, primarily by Hurtado and Racine. I then note the differences between Colwell’s methodological principles and the adaptations I made to suit the needs of my QAs. Chapter Three presents the results of QAs that I performed. To understand the shifts in textual affiliation in W, I ran numerous QAs: on the entire manuscript (excluding the supplementary quire of John), on each Gospel, on the textual blocks identified by Sanders, and on every individual quire in W. Ultimately, I identify some modifications to W’s previously defined block mixture. Two modifications stand out. First, the shift from the Alexandrian to Byzantine textual stream

CONCLUSION

167

in Luke likely occurs between chapters 7 and 8, not after verse 8:12. Second, the first section of Mark does not have a high enough textual affinity with Codex Bezae (D, 05) to justify calling the block ‘Western’, so I redefine this block as mixed with ‘Western’ tendencies. Nonetheless, Sanders’s thesis is supported by the results of the QAs. In the text, at least, W exhibits block mixture just as Sanders originally asserted. Chapter Four, ‘Pre-Genealogical Analysis: Text und Textwert’, uses independent data to validate the data of the previous QAs. I consulted the results from each Gospel volume of TuT to discern W’s relationship to the MT, early text, special readings, and other manuscripts (at least in the test passages that TuT used). Synthesizing this information, I found W in Matthew to follow the Byzantine stream; both portions of John more or less follow the Alexandrian stream; I found Luke to be mixed with slight Byzantine tendencies; and Mark thoroughly mixed. Given the limitations of TuT (particularly that the data are not divided into textual blocks), the data that I found in its volumes corroborate the presence of block mixture in Codex W. I designed subsequent chapters of this monograph to supplement the analyses of the QAs and TuT, namely that Codex W exhibits block mixture in its text. In Chapters Five and Six, I explore whether W’s block mixture is reflected in its paratextual features. The fifth chapter, ‘An Analysis of Segmentation and Punctuation’, notes the unit delimitation features present in W and the relationship between these features and W’s textual blocks. The results from this chapter show that segmentation/punctuation in W appears more frequently in some textual blocks than others. The frequency of unit delimitation in W does not appear to cohere with textual streams, but it does cohere with W’s block mixture. The sixth chapter, ‘A Study of the Nomina Sacra, Numerals, and Other Features’, examines the remainder of W’s paratextual features from the perspective of its block mixture. All remaining features are found to reflect W’s block mixture, the nomina sacra and numerals in their abbreviation styles and the other paratextual features in the frequency of their use. As such, all paratextual features present in Codex W (with the exception of diplai) reflect the manuscript’s block mixture.

168

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

For the first time, Codex W’s block mixture is not supported in Chapter Seven, ‘Orthographical Patterns in W’. I consider various types of words in W for orthographic patterns: diaereses in υἱός, orthographic changes in proper names (particularly ‘Pilate’), and the generally consistent itacism found in εἰµί. However, even from a variety of perspectives, orthographic variation is not found to correlate with W’s block mixture. However, the results from the eighth and final chapter, ‘An Analysis of Singular Readings and Corrections in W’, support the manuscript’s block mixture. Both the examination of W’s singular readings and the examination of W’s corrections come to the same conclusion: the scribe of W was a careful copyist of the manuscript’s exemplar(s). As such, the patchwork character of W and its exemplar(s) is clearly indicated by the manuscript’s block mixture and scribal habits. As for areas awaiting further research, I examine Codex Washingtonianus from multiple perspectives in this monograph, but I was naturally limited by my focus on the manuscript’s block mixture. My research considers both W’s text and paratextual features, but these elements, the paratextual features in particular, are considered only for their relationship to block mixture and not for their own sake. Textually, additional work is warranted on the relationship between both the supplement of John and the first block of Mark and the ‘Western’ textual stream. Because I limited the QA to Greek witnesses, the relationship between the ‘Western’ stream and these blocks is not fully explored. Moving from the text to the paratext, any one of the features I consider in this monograph could be comprehensively researched as part of its own study, not just as an additional element of block mixture.1 Furthermore, an examination of Codex W would be greatly augmented by a more thorough evaluation of the manuscript’s orthographical variations. Given the focus on block mixture, I considered only a cursory examination of these variations to be necessary here, but W contains many intriguing

For example, David Herbison focuses his entire dissertation on the use of OT quotations in W, which covers both textual and paratextual features. See Herbision, ‘As It is Copied’. 1

CONCLUSION

169

orthographical variations and idiosyncrasies, and these merit further study. Finally, Codex W contains fascinating examples of early Christian artwork, notably the bird drawings at the end of each Gospel (except Mark), and these drawings have never been studied in detail. The work of a NT text critic is never done, especially given the thousands of NT manuscripts awaiting study. However, perhaps I can adapt the idiom ‘one day at a time’ to ‘one manuscript at a time’. Up-to-date, comprehensive studies need to be performed on many NT manuscripts. I chose W because of the compelling nature of its text, particularly its block mixture. W exhibits multiple textual characteristics, unlike perhaps any other NT manuscript. Since this block mixture has not been thoroughly examined since Sanders’s monograph in the early 1900s, I felt that W deserved to be reevaluated. However, as my work shows, the age of Sanders’s study does not necessarily preclude its value. For the most part, when it came to W, Sanders was right.

Summary of Quantitative Agreements with 032

170 CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

APPENDIX ONE. VARIANTS WHERE CORRECTIONS AFFECT QA RESULTS Matthew 3:6-1.0

4:6-1.0

4:18-1.0

5:4-3.0

S

0

εβαπτιζοντο

A

2

+ παντες

99

lacunae

S

0

λεγει

R

2

ειπεν

99

lacunae

S

0

Περιπατων δε

A

2

+ ο ιησους

R

50

παραγων δε

99

lacunae

S

0

πενθουντες

A

2

+ νυν

99

lacunae

01 03 04* 05 019 032 041 045 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 04c 33

P45 02 022 033 038 044 01* 03 04 05 019 038 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01c 032 P45 02 022 033 041 044 01 03 04 032 041 045* 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 019 045c TR 05

P45 02 022 033 038 044 01* 03 04 05 032 038 041 045 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01c 33 P45 02 019 022 033 044

171

172 5:25-25.0

5:30-5.0

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS S

0

βληθηση

R

2

βληθης

99

lacunae

S

0

η δεξια σου (1) χειρ

T

2

η, 4, 3, 1, 2 (η χειρ σου η δεξια)

T

50

4, 3, 1, 2 (χειρ σου η δεξια)

90

6:8-9.0

6:26-13.0

9:10-3.0

9:16-7.0

01 03 05* 032 038 041 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 05c 019 P45 02 04 022 033 044 01 03 019 032 041 045 33 35 f1 NA28 TR 038c f13

H

038*

OM

05

99

lacunae

S

0

πατηρ

A

2

ο θεος πατηρ

99

lacunae

S

0

αποθηκας

A

2

τας αποθηκας

99

lacunae

S

0

αυτου (1) ανακειµενου

T

2

ανακειµενου αυτου

RM

50

ανακειµενων

99

lacunae

S

0

αγναφου

R

2

αγναφους

P45 02 04 022 033 044 01* 05 019 032 038 041 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01c 03 P45 02 04 022 033 044 01* 03 022 032 038 041 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01c 019 P45 02 04 05 033 044 03 05 019 022 032 033 038 041 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01c 04 01*

P45 02 044 01 03 05 019 022 032* 033 038 041 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR

04 032c

APPENDIX ONE

9:33-5.0

99

lacunae

S

0

εφανη ουτως εν τω Ισραηλ

T

2

2,1,3-5 (ουτως εφανη εν τω ισραηλ)

TM

50

2,1,3,5 (ουτως εφανη εν ισραηλ)

99

lacunae

0

ως η αλλη

M

2

OM

R

50

ωσει αλλη

99

lacunae

S

0

εξερχεται

R

2

εξερχονται

12:13-15.0 S

15:18-5.0

90

16:4-5.0

20:2-1.0

P45 02 044 01 03 04 019 022 032 038 041 045 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 05c 33 05*

P45 02 033 044 03 04* 05 022 032 033 038 041 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01 04c 019

P45 02 044 01c 03 04 05 019 033 041* 045 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR

H

038 041c

OM

01* 032 33

99

lacunae

S

0

σηµειον (1) επιζητει και (2)

R

2

σηµειον ζητει και

R

50

σηµειον αιτει και

TR

51

ζητει, 1, 3 (ζητει σηµιον και)

99

lacunae

0

συµφωνησας δε

S

173

P45 02 022 044

01 03c 04 019 022 032 033 041 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 05c 038 03* 05*

P45 02 044 01 03 04 05 019 032 038 045 33 f1 f13 NA28 TR

174

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS R

2

και συµφωνησας

M

50

συµφωνησας

99

lacunae

20:26-21.0 S

0

εσται (2)

R

2

εστω

99

lacunae

S

0

θελετε ποιησω

A

2

θελετε ινα ποιησω

R

50

θελεις ποιησω

99

lacunae

S

0

πωλον υιον υποζυγιου

M

2

πωλον υποζυγιου

R

50

πωλον νεον

99

lacunae

22:11-11.0 S

0

ουκ ενδεδυµενον

R

2

µη ενδεδυµενον

99

lacunae

S

0

ουν

R

2

δε

20:32-9.0

21:5-19.0

24:15-1.0

033 35c 35*

P45 02 022 041 044 01* 03 04 05 032 033 038 041 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28

01c 019 TR P45 02 022 044 01* 03 05 022 032 033 038 041 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01c 019 04

P45 02 044 01* 03 04 05 022 032 033 038 041 045 33 35 f13 NA28 TR 01c 019 f1

P45 02 044 01 03 04* 019 032 033 038 041 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 04c 05 P45 02 022 044 01* 03 05 032 038 041 045 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01c 019

APPENDIX ONE 99

lacunae

25:27-13.0 S

0

τοκω

A

2

τω τοκω

99

lacunae

S

0

γαρ

M

2

OM

99

lacunae

S

0

γαρ

M

2

OM

99

lacunae

S

0

εν σοι εγω

A

2

+ δε

99

lacunae

26:39-21.0 S

0

συ (see Luke 22:42-5.0)

A

2

+ [[Luke 22:43-44]]

99

lacunae

26:53-25.0 S

0

αγγελων

R

2

αγγελους

26:10-9.0

26:28-1.0

26:33-9.0

175

P45 02 04 022 033 044 33 01 02 03 04 05 019 033 038 041 045* 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 032 045c P45 022 044 P45vid 01* 02 03 05 019 032 038 041 045 33 35 f13 NA28 TR 01c f1 04 022 033 044 01 02 03 04* 05 019 032 038 041 045 33 35 f13 NA28 TR 04c f1 P45 022 033 044 01 02 03 04* 05 019 032 038 041 045 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 04c 33 P45 022 033 044

01 02 03 04* 05 019 032 038 041 045 33 35 f1 NA28 TR

04cmg f13

P45 022 033 044 01* 02 03 04 05 019 032 038 041c 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01c 041*

176

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS 99

lacunae

P45 022 033 044

John 1:1–5:11 (Supplement) 1:15-21.0

1:21-3.0

1:22-5.0

5:4-15.0

5:7-3.0

S

0

εµπροσθεν

A

2

ος εµπροσθεν

99

lacunae

S

0

αυτον

A

2

+ παλιν

AM

50

παλιν

99

lacunae

S

0

τις ει

A

2

συ τις ει

99

lacunae

B

0

{εταρασσε}

R

2

εταρασσετο

94

OM

99

lacunae

S

0

απεκριθη

R

2

λεγει

99

lacunae

P66 P75 01c 02 03 04 05 019 032* 033 038 041 044 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01* 032c P45 022 P66 P75 02 03 04 019 033 038 041 044 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01c 032 01*

P45 05 022 P66* 01 02 03 04 019 022 032 033 038 041 044 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR P66c P75 P45 05

02 019 033 038 044 045 35 f1 f13 TR 04c 041 P66 P75 01 03 04* 05 032 33 NA28 P45 022 P66 P75 01 02* 03 04 019 032 033 038 041 044 045 33vid 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 02c 05 P45 022

APPENDIX ONE John 5:12–21:25 5:32-11.0

S

0

µαρτυρια

A

2

+ αυτου

A

50

+ µου

99

lacunae

S

0

εστιν

M

2

OM

99

lacunae

S

0

εξ υµων εις

T

2

3, 1, 2 (εις εξ υµων)

M

50

εξ υµων

99

lacunae

S

0

πολυς

A

2

ο πολυς

99

lacunae

12:26-25.0 S

0

πατηρ

A

2

+ µου

A

50

+ µου ο εν τοις ουρανοις

99

lacunae

6:31-9.0

6:70-13.0

12:12-5.0

177

P66 P75vid 01 02 03 019 022 032 033 041 044 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 05c 038 05*

P45 04 P75 01 02 03 05* 019 022 032 038 044 045 f13 NA28 TR 05c f1 P45 P66 04 033 041 P66 P75 03 04 019 022 032 038 041 044 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01c 05 01*

P45 02 033 P66* P75vid 01 02 03 05 019 032 033 041 044 045 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR P66c 038 P45 04 022 33 P66* P75 01 02 03 05 019 032 033 041 044 045 33 35 f1 NA28 TR P66c 038 f13

P45 04 022

178 17:11-1.0

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS S

0

και (1) ουκετι ειµι εν (1) τω (1) κοσµω (1)

T

2

1, 2, 4-6, 3 (και ουκετι εν τω κοσµω ειµι)

99

lacunae

17:11-21.2 S

0

ω

R

2

ους

R

50

ου

99

lacunae

S

0

ωσιν και (2) αυτοι

T

2

2,3,1 (και αυτοι ωσιν)

M

50

ωσιν αυτοι

99

lacunae

17:20-11.0 S

0

πιστευοντων

R

2

πιστευσοντων

99

lacunae

S

0

δεδωκας (1)

R

2

εδωκας

99

lacunae

0

δευτερον

17:19-7.0

17:24-5.0

21:16-3.0

S

P66vid 01 02* 03 04 05 019 022 032 033 038 044 045 33vid 35 f1 f13 MT NA28 TR 02c 041

P45 P75 P66 01 02 03 04 05* 019 032 033 038 041 044 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 05c 022c TR 022*

P45 P75

P66cvid 01 02 03 04* 05 019 022 032 033 038 041 044 045 33 f1 f13 NA28 04c 35 TR P66*vid P45 P75 P66vid 01 02 03 04 05* 019 032 033 038 041 044 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 05c 022 TR P45 P75

P66vid 01 03 04 05 019 022 032 033 038 041* 044 045 33 35 f1 f13 MT NA28 TR 02 041c P45 P75 02 03 04 022 032 033 038 041 044 045 33 35 f13 NA28 TR

APPENDIX ONE A

2

το δευτερον

M

50

OM

A

51

+ ο κυριος

99

lacunae

S

0

κυριου (2)

R

2

θεου

M

50

OM

99

lacunae

S

0

Και οτε επλησθησαν

R

2

και οτε επληρωθησαν

99

lacunae

S

0

εαυτων

R

2

αυτων

99

lacunae

S

0

αυτου (3)

M

2

OM

99

lacunae

0

οφρυος

Luke 1:1–8:12 2:9-7.0

2:22-1.0

2:39-15.0

3:17-11.0

4:29-11.0

S

179

01c f1 01* 05

P45 P66 P75 019

01* 02 03 019 032 038 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01c 044 05

P4 P75 04 022 033 041 01* 02 03 05 019 032 033 041 044 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01c 038 P4 P45 P75 04 022 01 02 03 05* 019 022 032 033 038 041 044 045 33 35 f1 NA28 05c f13 TR P4 P45 P75 04 P4vid 01* 02 03 04 019 022 032 033 038 041 044 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01c 05 P45 P75 01 02 03 04 019 032 033 038 041 044 045 33 35 f1 NA28

180

5:1-15.0

5:19-1.0

6:35-23.0

6:36-11.0

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS A

2

του οφρυος

A

50

της οφρυος

99

lacunae

S

0

και (2) αυτος ην εστως

A

2

+ ο ιησους

R

50

εστωτος αυτου

99

lacunae

S

0

ποιας

R

2

πως

R

50

ποθεν

A

51

δια ποιας

99

lacunae

S

0

πολυς

A

2

+ εν τοις ουρανοις

99

lacunae

S

0

υµων

A

2

+ ο ουρανιος

99

lacunae

05c f13 05* TR P4 P45 P75 022

P75vid 01 02 03 04* 019 032 038 041 044 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 04c 033 05

P4 P45 022 01 02 03 04 05 019 022* 032 033 038 041 044 045* 33 f1 NA28 022c 045c 35 f13 TR

P4 P45 P75 01* 03 05 019 032 033 038 041 044 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01c 02

P4 P45 P75 04 022 P75vid 01* 02 03 05 019 032 033 038 041 044 045 33 35 f1 NA28 TR 01c f13

P4 P45 04 022

APPENDIX ONE Luke 8:13–24:53 11:32-1.0

S

0

Νινευιται

R

2

νινευη

90

181

P45 P75 01 02 03 04 019 032 033 038 041 044 045* 33 f1 f13 NA28

H

045c 35 TR

OM

05

99

lacunae

S

0

διδασκων

A

2

+ ο ιησους

99

lacunae

S

0

πλην δει µε σηµερον και (1) αυριον και (2) τη εχοµενη

R

2

πλην δει µε σηµερον και αυριον και τη ερχοµενη

R

50

πλην δει µε σηµερον και τη ερχοµενη

R

51

πλην δει µε σηµερον και τη αυριον και τη ερχοµενη

99

lacunae

S

0

των συνανακειµενων ταυτα

T

2

3, 1, 2 (ταυτα των συνανακειµενων)

M

50

των συνανακειµενων

99

lacunae

14:16-15.0 S

0

µεγα

R

2

µεγαν

13:10-1.0

13:33-1.0

14:15-1.0

P4 022 P45 P75 01 02 03 05 019 022 032 033 038* 041 044 045* 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 038c 045c P4 04 33

P45vid 02 03 019 022 032 033 038 041 044 045 33vid 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR P75 01c 01* 05

P4 04 P75 02 03 019 022 032 033 038 041 044 045 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01c 05 01*

P4 P45 04 33 P75 01 02 03* 019 022 032 038 041 044 045 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 03c 05

182

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS M

50

OM

99

lacunae

S

0

αυτου

R

2

εαυτου

80

OM

99

lacunae

18:28-11.0 S

0

σοι

A

2

+ τι αρα εσται ηµιν

99

lacunae

22:44-17.0 B

0

[[καταβαινοντες]]

R

2

καταβαινοντος

94

OM

99

lacunae

S

0

δε

A

2

+ συν τω ιησου

99

lacunae

0

δικτυα

18:14-9.2

23:32-1.0

Mark 1:1–5:30 1:19-19.0

S

033

P4 P45 04 33 01 02 019* 022 032 033 038 041 044 045 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 03 019c 05

P4 P45 P75 04 33 01* 02 03 05 019 022 032 038 041 044 045 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01c 033

P4 P45 P75 04 33 04cmg 05 019 033* 038 041 044 045 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR

01* 033c P75 01c 02 03 022 032 P4 P45 04* 33 P75 01 02 03 04* 05 019 022 032 033 038 041 044 045 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 04c 33

P4 P45

01 02 03 04* 05 019 032 038 041c 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR

APPENDIX ONE A

2:21-1.0

3:10-7.0

2

+ αυτων

99

lacunae

S

0

Ουδεις

A

2

και ουδεις

A

50

+ δε

99

lacunae

S

0

αυτου

R

2

αυτω

R

50

αυτον

99

lacunae

S

0

ο (1) βασιλευς Ηρωδης

T

2

3, 1, 2 (ηρωδης ο βασιλευς)

A

50

+ την ακοην ιησου

99

lacunae

S

0

εις

R

2

επ

99

lacunae

0

την (1) ψυχην (1) αυτου (1)

Mark 5:31–16:20 6:14-1.0

6:31-9.0

8:35-7.0

S

183

04c 041* P45 022 033 044 01 02 03 04 019 038 041* 045 33 f1 f13 NA28 041c 35 TR 05

P45 022 033 044 01 02 03c 04 05 019 032* 038 041 045 33 35 f1 NA28 TR 032c f13 03*

P45 022 033 044

01 02 03 04* 019 022 032 038 041 045 33 35 f1 NA28 TR 04c 05 f13

P45 033 044 01* 02 03 04 05 022 032 038 041 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 01c 019 P45 033 044

P45vid 01 02 04 05* 019 032 033 038 041 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR

184

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS T

14:25-1.0

15:43-5.0

16:1-1.0

2

1, 3, 2 (την αυτου ψυχην)

99

lacunae

S

0

αµην

A

2

+ δε

99

lacunae

S

0

[ο ]

M

2

OM

99

lacunae

S

0

του (1) σαββατου

M

2

σαββατου

90

16:1-7.0

03 05c

022 044 01 02 03 04 05 019 032 033 038 041* 044 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 041c 045 P45 022 33 01 02 03* 04 019 032* 033 038 041 044 045 33 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR 03c 05 032c P45 022

01c 02 03 04* 019 032 038 041 044 045 35 f1 f13 NA28 TR

H

04c 33

OM

01*

94

OM

99

lacunae

S

0

αλειψωσιν αυτον

R

2

αλειψωσιν τον ιησουν

T

50

αυτον αλειψωσιν

99

lacunae

05

P45 022 033 01 02 03 04 019 032 038 041 044 045* 33 35 f1 NA28 TR 045c f13 05

P45 022 033

APPENDIX TWO. SIGNIFICANT SINGULAR READINGS IN W Matthew Reference

Base Text (NA28)

Reading in W

1:18

Ιησου Χριστου γη Ιουδα κατ οναρ τω Ιωσηφ του προφητου των ουρανων δε και οτι εν τω κρυφαιω ουδε σκοτος εστιν ουχ σηµερον ζητων αγαθον τοις ουρανοις

ιυ τη Ιουδα τω Ιωσηφ κατ οναρ

2:6 2:13 2:17 3:17 5:33 5:44 6:7 6:18 6:20 6:23 6:26 6:30 7:8 7:17 7:21 7:25 8:17 8:27 8:28 8:29

omit

του ουρανου omit omit omit

εν τω κρυπτω αυτος και εστιν σκοτος ουχει + εν αγρω αιτων omit

προσεπεσαν αυτος ουτος εις την χωραν προ καιρου βασανισαι ηµας

185

ουρανοις αυτος εισελευσεται εις την βασιλειαν των ουρανων προσεκρουσαν οτι αυτος + ο ανος omit

απολεσαι ηµας και προ καιρου βασανισαι

186 9:6 9:9 9:10 9:15 9:27 10:5 10:14 10:17 10:21 10:22 10:33 11:17 12:1 12:4 12:16 12:20 12:27 12:48 13:20 13:22 13:23 13:30 13:41 13:54 14:8 14:21 14:30 14:30 15:19 15:23 15:32 16:3 16:24 17:4 17:8 17:8 17:9 17:15

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS επι της γης αφιεναι λεγοµενον πολλοι τελωναι απαρθη εκειθεν τω Ιησου απεστειλεν τους λογους αυτων τεκνον ουτος οστις δ αν εκοψασθε τοις σαββασιν πως αυτοις ου κατεαξει αυτοι κριται εσονται εισιν ευθυς λογον λογον εως αποστελει τουτω δος ωσει [ισχυρον] εφοβηθη εξερχονται οπισθεν φαγωσιν [δυνασθε] εαυτον και Μωυσει και Ηλια µιαν αυτων αυτον εκ νεκρων εγερθη πολλακις

αφιεναι επι της γης καλουµενον τελωναι πολλοι αφερεθη τω ιυ εκειθεν εξαπεστιλεν των λογων omit

τεκνα omit

και οστις εκλαυσασθαι εν τοις σαββασιν ως + και επετιµησεν αυτοις ου µη κατεαξει κριται εσονται αυτοι omit

+ και + µου + µου µεχρις και αποστελει + ταυτα και τις ειπεν δος omit

+ σφοδρα + ελθειν εξερχεται εµπροσθεν φαγειν δυνασθαι δοκιµασαι αυτον και ηλια µιαν µωυσι µιαν omit omit

αναστη εκ νεκρων omit

APPENDIX TWO 17:24 18:4 18:7 18:15 19:8 19:16 19:24 19:30 20:15 20:27 21:8 21:18 21:23 21:26 21:30 21:32 22:18 22:38 23:8 23:25 23:37 24:2 24:11 24:13 24:14 24:20 24:31 24:39 24:45 24:49 25:1 25:19 25:24 25:26 25:32 25:41 26:1

ου τελει ουν πλην ελεγξον Μωυσης προς την σκληροκαρδιαν υµων επετρεψεν υµιν σκω ζωην δια τρυπηµατος ραφιδος διελθειν εσχατοι ο θελω ποιησαι ειναι πρωτος απο των δενδρων επαναγων προσηλθον ανθρωπων αποκριθεις ουκ την πονηριαν η µεγαλη και πρωτη υµιν ο διδασκαλος ακρασιας λιθοβολουσα ωδε πολλους ουτος πασιν η φυγη υµων και ηλθεν αυτοις µεθουντων οµοιωθησεται πολυν χρονον ου διεσκορπισας οτι εµπροσθεν αυτου παντα τα εθνη ευωνυµων τουτους

187

ουτε γαρ + εκεινω και ελεγξε µωυσης επετρεψεν προς την σκληροκαρδιαν υµων ζωην εχω εισελθειν δια τρυπηµατος ραφιδος + εσονται ποιησαι ως θελω πρωτος ειναι omit

υπαγων προσηλθεν ανθρωπου απεκριθεις omit

τας πανηριας η πρωτη και η µεγαλη ο καθηγητης υµων + αδικειας λιθοβολησασα omit

υµας omit omit

υµων η φυγη + τοτε αν ηλθεν omit

µεθυστων ωµοιωθη χρονον τινα ουκ εσκορπισας + εγω ανος αυστηρος ειµει παντα τα εθνη εµπροσθεν αυτου ευωνυµοις τους

188 26:2 26:3 26:15 26:19 26:26 26:49 26:49 27:6 27:39 27:43 27:47 27:50 27:60 27:61 28:1 28:2

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS µετα δυο ηµερας αρχιερεις παραδωσω και εποιησαν και ευλογησας προσελθων ειπεν εξεστιν τας κεφαλας αυτων θεου εστηκοτων παλιν κραξας τη θυρα απεναντι θεωρησαι καταβας

µεθ ηµερας δυο + και οι φαρισαιοι παραδω εποιησαν ουν ευχαριστησας προσηλθεν και ειπεν εστιν αυτων τας κεφαλας του θυ στηκοτων κραξας παλιν εν τη θυρα επι θεωρουσαι κατεβη

John 1:1–5:11 (Supplement) Reference

Base Text (NA28)

Reading in W

1:4

ην παρα παντες χαρις µονογενης εξηγησατο Ηλιας ει ο προφητης κυριου την αµαρτιαν αυτον θεου εµβλεψας υιον του Ιωσηφ σοι σε µειζω τουτων εις Καφαρναουµ

omit

1:6 1:16 1:17 1:18 1:18 1:21 1:21 1:23 1:29 1:33 1:36 1:42 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:12

απο + ζωην δε χαρις ει µη ο µονογενης + ηµιν ει ηλιας τι ουν ο προφητης κυ ευθιας ποιειτε τας τριβους αυτου τας αµαρτιας αυτω θυ ο ερων τας αµαρτιας του κοσµου και εµβλεψας τον τω ιωσηφ omit omit

τουτων µιζω omit

APPENDIX TWO 2:12 2:12 2:14 2:16 2:17 2:20 2:21 2:22 2:22 2:24 3:2 3:13 3:13 4:6 4:7 4:11 4:12 4:14 4:24 4:27 4:29 4:31 4:45 4:47 4:48 4:51 5:3 5:5 5:7 5:10

η µητηρ αυτου και οι αδελφοι [αυτου] και οι µαθηται αυτου εκει κερµατιστας τας περιστερας πωλουσιν εµνησθησαν οικοδοµηθη ο ναος ουτος εκεινος ηγερθη οι µαθηται αυτου αυτον ταυτα τα σηµεια ουδεις αναβεβηκεν ωρα ερχεται ουτε αντληµα εχεις και το φρεαρ εστιν βαθυ ποθεν ουν εχεις φρεαρ πιη θεος µεντοι µοι εν Ιεροσολυµοις ηκει ο Ιησους οι δουλοι αυτου υπηντησαν αυτω ξηρων τριακοντα [και] οκτω ετη ω αραι

οι µαθητε αυτου και η µηρ και οι αδελφοι αυτου omit

κολλυβιστας πωλουσιν τας περιστερας και εµνησθησαν ο ναος ουτος οικοδοµηθη αυτος ηνεστη αυτω ο εαυτον τα σηµια ταυτα ουδις εστιν ος ανεβη + δε και ερχαιται το φρεαρ εστιν βαθυ και ουτε αντληµα εχις και ποθεν εστιν + το ζων δε πιη ος µεντοιγε omit

και εν τοις ιεροσολυµοις ηκεν ις υπηντησαν αυτω οι δουλοι αυτου + εκδεχοµενοι την του υδατος κινησιν µ και η ετη οσω αριν

John 5:12–21:25 Reference

Base Text (NA28)

Reading in W

5:15

απηλθεν Ιουδαιοις

+ δε + και ειπεν αυτοις

5:15

189

190 5:18 5:19 5:19 5:21 5:24 5:29 5:37 5:39 6:2 6:2 6:3 6:16 6:21 6:23 6:28 6:44 6:46 6:53 6:56

6:58 6:60 7:1 7:3 7:6 7:14 7:17 7:31 7:37 7:39 7:39 7:46 7:52 8:23

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS οι Ιουδαιοι αποκτειναι τι α ο πατηρ εγειρει τους νεκρους εις κρισιν ουκ ερχεται οι δε αυτου εκειναι οτι εθεωρουν δε οι µαθηται αυτου λαβειν αυτον εγγυς του τοπου προς αυτον αυτον ουτος µη εν εµοι

τουτον τον αρτον εστιν ηθελεν ειπον ουν ουπω µεσουσης ποιειν του οχλου δε εαν εµελλον λαµβανειν απεκριθησαν εραυνησον του κοσµου τουτου

αποκτειναι οι ιουδαιοι omit

ο τους νεκρους εγειρει ο πηρ ουκ ερχεται εις κρισιν και οι omit αυται omit

θεωρουντες ουν omit

αυτον βαλιν omit

αυτω + προς µε αυτος omit

εχει ζωην αιωνιον καγω αναστησω αυτον τη εσχατη ηµερα η γαρ σαρξ µου αληθης εστιν βρωσις και το αιµα µου αληθης εστιν ποσις ο τρωγων µου την σαρκα και πινων µου το αιµα εν εµοι τον αρτον τουτον omit

ειχεν εξουσιαν και ειπον ουδεπω µεσης ουσης ποιη του ουν οχλου ει omit

ελαµβανον + αυτοις + τας γραφας τουτου του κοσµου

APPENDIX TWO 8:26 8:28 8:36 8:38 8:38 8:42 8:54 9:16 9:19 9:21 10:2 10:16 10:18 10:21 10:25 10:25 10:31 10:32 10:38 10:42 11:9 11:10 11:14 11:17 11:19 11:20 11:26 11:32 11:33 11:38 11:48 11:49 11:51 12:2 12:9 12:25 12:29

λαλειν πατηρ ο υιος παρα λαλω εµαυτου µου τοιαυτα σηµεια λεγοντες αυτον ερωτησατε ποιµην εστιν εκ εµαυτου αλλοι ελεγον µου ταυτα µαρτυρει οι Ιουδαιοι καλα ινα γνωτε και τουτου το φως ειπεν ηδη ηµερας εχοντα εν τω µνηµειω Μαριαµ εκαθεζετο εις εµε ιδουσα αυτη εµβριµωµενος τον τοπον ων αρχιερευς ο εκ νεκρων εις ζωην αιωνιον φυλαξει αυτην ουν

191

ειπειν omit omit

απο ταυτα λαλω + ουκ omit

σηµια τοιαυτα omit omit

εκεινος εστιν ο ποιµην omit

+ και ελεγον δε αλλοι µου αυτα ταυτα τα εργα µαρτυρησει omit omit

αναγνωτε ουν omit

φως λεγει ηµερας ηδη εν τω µνηµιω εχοντα την µαριαν εκαθητο omit

+ δε omit

ενβριµων την πολιν omit

αρχων αυτω ο omit

φυλαξει αυτην εις ζωην αιωνιον δε

192 12:35 12:41 12:44 12:47 12:48 13:7 13:7 13:12 13:26 13:32 13:33 13:38 14:20 14:22 16:17 16:24 17:3 17:3 17:4 17:6 17:20 17:22 17:23 17:24 18:1 18:17 18:18 18:32 18:36 19:7 19:9 19:13 19:20 19:20 19:30 20:1 20:1 20:4

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS καταλαβη οτι Ιησους δε εκραξεν και µη τη εσχατη συ αρτι αυτου βαψω το ψωµιον και δωσω και ευθυς δοξασει αυτον ειπον αρνηση µε τρις εν ηµιν µελλεις οτι η πεπληρωµενη σε απεστειλας εργον σοι ερωτω µονον δοξαν εµε θεωρωσιν εισηλθεν η και ο Πετρος ο λογος του Ιησου πληρωθη εκ του κοσµου τουτου ην υιον θεου παλιν εξω τον Ιησουν τουτον Εβραιστι Ρωµαιστι Ελληνιστι παρεδωκεν πρωι εις εις

λαβη επει εκραξεν δε ο ις µη δε εσχατη σοι τι εαυτου δωσω ενβαψας το ψωµιον omit

ειρηκα συ µε απαρνηση τρις omit

µελλεις ηµιν εγω πεπληρωµενη ην omit

απεστιλεν + σου σου µονων ερωτω + µου καµε θεωρουσιν εισεληλυθεν αυτων και πετρος πληρωθη ο λογος του ιυ ην εκ του κοσµου τουτου υιον του θυ + και τον ιν εξω τοτε εβραιστι ρωµαειστι εβραειστι παραδεδωκεν omit

επι επι

APPENDIX TWO 20:13 20:15 20:15 20:20 20:21 20:22 20:30 20:31 21:4 21:5 21:6 21:15

εθηκαν ει αυτον αρω τουτο αυτοις [ο Ιησους] παλιν και λεγει αυτοις εποιησεν εστιν ο Χριστος ο υιος εις τον αιγιαλον ου µεντοι ηδεισαν οι µαθηται οτι Ιησους εστιν λεγει ουν ελκυσαι ισχυον πλεον

τεθεικασιν omit

αρω αυτον ταυτα παλιν αυτοις αυτοις και λεγει πεποιηκεν ο χς εστιν ο υς omit

και λεγει ισχυσαν ελκυσαι πλειον παντων

Luke 1:1–8:12 Reference

Base Text (NA28)

Reading in W

1:15

εκ κοιλιας πληρωθησονται εσται µακαρια διελαλειτο τω λαω του δουναι τον πρωτοτοκον µεγαν Χριστος κυριος τον Χριστον νηστειαις µου διετηρει Ιτουραιας οργης ελεγεν του Ηλι 3:24–38 µονω αυτον της οικουµενης ταυτην απασαν

εν κοιλια πλησθησον εστι η καρδια και διελαλειτο του λαου δουναι

1:20 1:34 1:45 1:65 1:68 1:77 2:7 2:9 2:11 2:26 2:37 2:49 2:51 3:1 3:7 3:11 3:23 4:4 4:5 4:5 4:6

omit

+ σφροδα κς χς χν νηστιαις τε omit

ετηρει ιουδαιας omit

ειπεν omit omit

+ εις ορος της γης πασαν ταυτην

193

194 4:41 5:11 5:17 5:37 5:38 6:14 6:17 6:21 6:27 6:27 6:34 6:34 6:35 6:43 6:49 6:49 7:3

7:5 7:9 7:28 7:30 7:44 7:44 7:44 7:49 8:4

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS αυτα λαλειν επι κωµης γε βλητεον Βαρθολοµαιον και της παραλιου γελασετε ακουουσιν υµων υµιν χαρις [εστιν] απολαβωσιν εσεσθε σαπρον η προσερηξεν αυτον ωκοδοµησεν τω ακολουθουντι αυτω οχλω ειπεν ο δε υπ αυτου την οικιαν µοι επι ποδας εδωκας εν εαυτοις επιπορευοµενων

λαλειν αυτα και επι χωρας omit

βαλληται µατθολοµεον και της περεας και της παραλιου γελασουσιν + µου + και χαρις εστιν υµιν απολαµβανωσιν εσται κακον και προσερρηξεν αυτη αυτο εποιησεν τω οχλω ειπεν και ο + το βαπτισµα ιωαννου τον οικον υπο ποδας µοι επεδωκας προς αυτους εισπορευοµενων

Luke 8:13–24:53 Reference

Base Text (NA28)

Reading in W

8:17

omit

8:32

γαρ ειπεν ορει

8:38

entire verse

8:47

ενωπιον αυτου εστηρισεν αγγελους

8:28

9:24 9:51 9:52

+ αυτω ορι τουτω ... εδιδασκεν δε αυτον ο ις λεγων εναντιον omit

εστηριξεν αυτου τους αγγελους

APPENDIX TWO 9:53 10:7 10:10 10:39 10:40 11:15 11:24 11:49 12:6 12:15 12:18 12:19 12:29 12:31 12:44 12:48 12:48 12:48 12:50 13:2 13:15 13:15 13:21 13:21 13:22 13:24 15:1 15:16 15:17 15:24 15:28 15:29 15:32 16:5 16:31 16:31 17:11

εδεξαντο και πινοντες πλατειας τηδε κατελιπεν εκβαλλει ευρισκον και πωλουνται ασσαριων δυο αυτου ... αυτω µου ψυχη µετεωριζεσθε ταυτα οτι ολιγας πολυ πολυ οτου ειπεν αυτοις τω σαββατω φατνης αλευρου ολον πορειαν λεγω υµιν παντες χορτασθηναι µισθιοι ην απολωλως και ευρεθη αυτου εντολην σου και χρεοφειλετων αναστη πεισθησονται διηρχετο

εξεδεξαντο omit

πλατιους ταυτη ενκατελιψεν εκβαλλειν + αναπαυσιν omit

πωλειται δυο ασσαριων αυτων ... αυτων omit

συ µετεωριζεται omit omit

ολειγα το πολυ το πολυ omit omit

εν σαββατω πατνης αυτηνρου ολη ποριας omit omit

γεµισαι την κοιλιαν και χορτασθηναι µισθιου omit omit

σου εντολην omit

χρεωστων απελθη πιστευουσιν διερχεται

195

196 17:21 17:35 18:2 18:5 18:11 18:13 19:8 19:12 19:12 19:15 19:23 19:37 19:39 20:6 20:10 20:14 20:18 20:20 20:21 20:32 20:37 20:38 21:5 21:24 21:25 21:26 21:36 21:37 22:18 22:18 22:25 22:33 22:36 22:38 22:54 23:3 23:18 23:35

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS η εσονται δυο ανθρωπον µοι προσηυχετο ηθελεν τα ηµισια τις επορευθη διεπραγµατευσαντο συν τοχω αν αυτο επραξα απαν των Φαρισαιων ανθρωπων εξαπεστειλαν αυτον δειραντες διελογιζοντο πεση παρατηρησαντες λεγοντες υστερον και θεον Ιακωβ αυτω ζωσιν κεκοσµηται µαχαιρης απορια οικουµενη τα µελλοντα εξερχοµενος απο του ου οι εξουσιαζοντες ετοιµος ο κυριε ιδου και εισηγαγον ο δε αποκριθεις δε και

και και αποκριθεντες λεγου δυο εσονται ανους omit

προσευχεται ηδυνατο το ηµισυ + ην και επορευθη επραγµατευσατο συν τω τοχω αν επραξα αυτο απανταν φαρισαιοι ανθρωπου διραντες αυτον εξαπεστιλαν αυτον διελογιζοντες πεσειτε υποχωρησαντες + οιδαµεν υστερα δε παντων omit

αυτου ουτοι κεκοσµητο µαχαιραις απορεια η ως οικουµενης µελλοντα omit omit

του εξουσαιζουσιν omit omit

και ιδου και συνηγαγον αυτον αυτος ουν εν οις και

APPENDIX TWO 23:36 23:39 23:54 24:6 24:14 24:29 24:30 24:30 24:35 24:36 24:36 24:46

προσερχοµενοι ουχι ... σεαυτον επεφωσκεν ηγερθη προς αλληλους εσπεραν κατακλιθηναι λαβων τον αρτον τα αυτος ειρηνη υµιν γεγραπται

197

προσευχοµενοι ει ... και αυτον επιφαυσκεν ανεστη περι παντων εσπερας κατακεισθαι omit

το αυτοις ο ις εγω ειµει µη φοβεισθαι ειρηνη υµιν + και ουτως εδει

Mark 1:1–5:30 Reference

Base Text (NA28)

Reading in W

1:3

αυτου

1:6

και και εγενετο ηλθεν ως περιστεραν καταβαινον

+ πασα φαραγξ πρληρωθησεται και παν ορος και βονους ταπινωθησεται και εσται παντα τα σκολια εις ευθειαν και η τραχεια εις πεδιον κα οφθησεται η δοξα κυ και οψεται πασα σαρξ το σωτηριον του θυ οτι κς ελαλησεν φωνη λεγοντος βοησον και ειπα τι βοησω οτι πασα σαρξ χορτος και πασα η δοξα αυτης ως ανθος χορτου εξηρανθη ο χορτος και το ανθος εξεπεσεν το δε ρηµα κυ µενει εις τον αιωνα + ην εγενετο δε και ηλθεν καταβαινον απο του ουρανου ωσει περιστεραν και µενον του ουρανου των ουρανων ις µετα των µισθωντων εν τω πλοιω

1:9 1:9 1:10 1:11 1:15 1:17 1:20

των ουρανων του θεου ο Ιησους εν τω πλοιω µετα των µισθωντων

198 1:24 1:25 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:27 1:27 1:27 1:27 1:30 1:31 1:31 1:34 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:37 1:37 1:37 1:38 1:38 1:39 1:42 1:42 1:44 2:1 2:1 2:2 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:4 2:4 2:8 2:9

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS οιδα λεγων σπαραξαν αυτον το πνευµα το ακαθαρτον φωνησαν εξηλθεν εθαµβηθησαν ωστε συζητειν τι εστιν τουτο κατ εξουσιαν ευθυς ηγειρεν αυτην κρατησας της χειρος αυτοις εξεβαλεν πρωι λιαν εξηλθεν και και ευρον αυτον και λεγουσιν οτι παντες ζητουσιν σε ινα και εκει κηρυξω και τα δαιµονια εκβαλλων ευθυς και εκαθαρισθη σεαυτον δειξον εισελθων παλιν δι ηµερων µηδε τα προς την θυραν φεροντες προς αυτον παραλυτικον αιροµενον υπο τεσσαρων προσενεγκαι αυτω οπου εν εαυτοις και αρον τον κραβαττον σου

ωδε οιδα και ειπεν εξηλθεν το πνα σπαραξαν αυτον ανεκραγεν και απηλθεν εθαυµαζον και συνεζητουν τις η εξουσιαστικη αυτου και οτι omit

εκτινας την χειρα και επιλαβοµενος ηγειρεν αυτην αυτω + απ αυτων omit omit omit

λεγοντες αυτω omit

ζητουσιν σε παντες omit

κηρυσσιν omit

ευθεως omit

δειξον εαυτον παλιν ερχεται omit omit

προς αυτον βασταζοντες εν κρεβαττω παραλυτικον omit omit

προσελθειν αυτω εις ον omit omit

APPENDIX TWO 2:10 2:11 2:12 2:12 2:12 2:12 2:12 2:12 2:12 2:15 2:15 2:17 2:18 2:19 2:21 2:22 2:22 2:22 2:22 2:23 2:25 2:26 2:26 2:26 2:27 2:27 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:2 3:3 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:5 3:6

επι της γης σοι λεγω και ηγερθη και ευθυς τον κραβαττον εξηλθεν εµπροσθεν παντων εξιστασθαι παντας ειδοµεν κατακεισθαι αυτου ηλθον οι Φαρισαιοιοι υιοι χειρον παλαιους ρηξει τους ασκους καινους σποριµων ουδεποτε εισηλθεν και τους αρτους της προθεσεως εφαγεν και ελεγεν αυτοις εγενετο και ουχ ο ανθρωπος δια το σαββατον εισηλθεν παλιν και ην εκει ανθρωπος εξηραµµενην εχων θεραπευσει αυτον την ξηραν χειρα εχοντι εις το µεσον κακοποιησαι και περιβλεψαµενος συλλυπουµενος εδιδουν

199

omit omit

ο δε εγερθεις και αυτου τον κραβαττον εµπροσθεν παντων απηλθεν θαυµαζειν αυτους ειδον ανακειµενων omit

εληλυθα µαθηται των φαρισαιων νυµφιοι πλειω + αλλ εις καινους διαρρησονται οι ασκοι + βαλλουσιν εσπαρµενων ουδε τουτο εισελθων omit

εφαγεν τους αρτους της προθεσεως λεγω δε υµιν οτι εκτισθη εισελθοντος αυτου ερχεται ανθρωπος προς αυτον εχων ξηραν θεραπευει εχοντι την χειρα ξηραν εκ του µεσου ου περιβλεψαµενος δε omit

εποιουντο

200 3:7

3:8 3:8 3:11 3:11 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:14 3:15 3:16 3:17

3:18 3:18 3:18 3:18 3:18 3:18 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:21 3:22 3:22 3:23 3:25 3:26

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS [ηκολουθησεν] και απο της Ιουδαιας 3:8 και απο Ιεροσολυµων και απο της Ιδουµαιας πληθος πολυ ηλθον προς αυτον και τα πνευµατα εθεωρουν και προσκαλειται αυτος δωδεκα [ους και αποστολους ωνοµασεν] ινα ωσιν µετ αυτου δαιµονια τω Σιµωνι και Ιακωβον τον του Ζεβεδαιου και Ιωαννην τον αδελφον του Ιακωβου και Ανδρεαν και τον και Θαδδαιον τον Καναναιον Ισκαριωθ ος παρεδωκεν εξεστη οι γραµµατεις οι απο Ιεροσολυµων καταβαντες και οτι εν τω αρχοντι των δαιµωνιον εν παραβολαις ελεγεν αυτοις η οικια εκεινη ανεστη εφ εαυτον και εµερισθη

και της ιουδαιας και απο ιεροσολυµων

ηκολουθουν αυτω omit τα πνευµατα δε ιδον omit

προσεκαλεσατο omit

ιβ µαθητας ινα ωσιν µετ αυτου ους και αποστολους ωνοµασεν + και περιαγοντας κηρυσσιν το ευαγγελιον σιµωνι κοινως δε αυτους εκαλεσεν

ησαν δε ουτοι σιµων και ανδρεας ιακωβος και ιωαννης omit

ο omit

ο κανανεος ισκαριωτης ο παραδους εξηρτηνται αυτου οι απο ιεροσολυµων καταβαντες τον αρχοντα των δαιµονιων και δι αυτου ειπεν αυτοις εν παραβολαις omit

εφ εαυτον εµερισθη

APPENDIX TWO 3:27

3:27 3:28 3:28 3:30 3:31 3:32 3:33 3:33 3:34 3:35 3:35 4:1 4:1 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:5 4:8 4:8 4:8 4:8 4:8 4:12 4:16 4:16 4:17 4:17 4:18 4:19 4:20 4:20 4:20

εις την οικιαν του ισχυρου εισελθων τα σκευη αυτου διαρπασαι την οικιαν αφεθησεται τοις υιοις των ανθρωπων τα αµαρτηµατα οσα εαν βλασφηµησωσιν εχει η µητηρ αυτου ζητουσιν και αποκριθεις αυτοις λεγει µου τους περι αυτον κυκλω καθηµενους ος [γαρ] ποιηση εν τη θαλασση προς την θαλασσαν επι της γης ησαν εγενετο εν τω σπειρειν ο πετεινα και επεσεν εδιδου εν τριακοντα εν εξηκοντα εν εκατον βλεπωσιν και και ουτοι οι η σκανδαλιζονται και αλλοι εισιν οι η απατη και εκεινοι σπαρεντες καρποφορουσιν

201

τα σκευη του ισχυρου διαρπασαι εισελθων εις την οικειαν τα σκευη τα αµαρτηµατα αφεθησεται τοις υιοις των ανων omit

εχειν αυτον αυτου η µητηρ στηκουσιν ζητουντες ος δε απεκριθη και ειπεν αυτοις omit

κυκλω αυτου καθηµενους τους µαθητας και ος ποιη παρα τον αιγιαλον εν τω αιγιαλω ην omit

το ορνεα omit

επεσαν εδιδει το εν λ το εν ξ το εν ρ omit

ουτοι δε οιτινες και σκανδαλιζεται οι δε απαται ουτοι δε πιπτοντες καρπον φερουσιν

202 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:21 4:22 4:26 4:29 4:29 4:30 4:32 4:32 4:36 4:37 4:37 4:38 4:39 4:39 4:40 5:1 5:3 5:3 5:4 5:4 5:4 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:7 5:15 5:15 5:19 5:21 5:21 5:22 5:27 5:27

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS εν τριακοντα εν εξηκοντα εν εκατον ουχ ου βαλη τον σπορον δε ευθυς αυτην παραβολη θωµεν και οταν σπαρη υπο την σκιαν αυτου αλλα πλοια ην µεγαλη επεβαλλεν αυτω σιωπα µεγαλη ουπω Γερασηνων ουκετι ουδεις αυτον πεδαις και αλυσεσιν δεδεσθαι και διεσπασθαι υπ αυτου και ουδεις δαµασαι και δια παντος νυκτος και ηµερας εδραµεν του θεου θεωρουσιν καθηµενον ιµατισµενον και ηλεησεν διαπερασαντος του Ιησου [εν τω πλοιω] εις ακουσασα ελθουσα

το εν λ το εν ξ το εν ρ αλλ ουδεν οταν βαλη σπορον omit omit

την παραβολην δωµεν αυξει αυτου υπο την σκιαν αµα πολλοι ησαν µεγαλου εισεβαλλεν omit omit omit

ουτως γεργυστηνων αυτον ουκετι omit

δεδεσθαι και πεδες και αλυσεσι διεσπακεναι δε µηδενα δε ετι δαµασαι νυκτος δε και ηµερας δια παντος προσεδραµεν θυ ευρισκουσιν omit

ηλεηκεν διαπερασαντες εν τω πλοιω του ιυ τις και ακουσασα omit

APPENDIX TWO 5:27 5:28

του ιµατιου εαν αψωµαι καν των ιµατιων αυτου

203

omit

καν των ιµατιων αψωµαι αυτου

Mark 5:31–16:20 Reference

Base Text (NA28)

Reading in W

5:31

αυτου συνθλιβοντα ιδειν ουδενα µετ αυτου συνακολουθησαι τον Πετρον αυτη κουµ εκειθεν και ερχεται εκει ποιησαι ουδεµιαν εδιδου ζωνην αυτοις αυτοις εξεβαλλον εν αυτω ον εγω εχειν την γυναικα και ωµοσεν αυτη [πολλα] ο τι εαν µε αιτησης δωσω σοι εως ηµισους της βασιλειας µου προς τον βασιλεια ητησατο λεγουσα εξαυτης δως µοι οσα εποιησαν και οσα εδιδαξαν αυτοι ολιγον και προηλθον αυτους πολλη διακοσιων φαγειν

omit

5:31 5:32 5:37 5:37 5:41 5:41 6:1 6:5 6:5 6:7 6:8 6:10 6:11 6:13 6:14 6:16 6:18 6:23

6:25 6:25 6:30 6:31 6:31 6:33 6:35 6:37 6:37

συντριβοντα omit

αυτω ουδενα παρακολουθησε µονον πετρον omit omit omit omit

ουκετι ποιησαι εδωκεν πηραν omit

αυτων εξεπεµπον αυτου εγω ον γυναικα εχειν εως ηµισυ της βασιλειας

omit

µοι δωσης και οσα εποιησεν και εδιδασκεν omit

λοιπον omit

παρηλθεν ρ + ινα εκαστος αυτων βραχυ τι λαβη

204 6:40 6:45 6:50 6:52 6:53 7:2 7:4 7:6 7:10 7:13 7:13 7:13 7:19 7:19 7:21

7:24 7:33 7:33

7:37 8:1 8:3 8:4 8:4 8:5 8:5 8:10 8:11 8:12 8:14 8:18 8:18 8:20

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS κατα εως εγω ειµι µη φοβεισθε συνηκαν επι την γην ηλθον τινας των µαθητων αυτου αγορας απεχει κακολογων τον λογον παρεδωκατε και παροµοια τοιαυτα πολλα ποιειτε καρδιαν εκπορευεται πορνειαι κλοπαι φονοι 7:22 µοιχειαι πλεονεξιαι πονηριαι δολος εκειθεν δε αναστας απολαβοµενος εβαλεν τους δακτυλους αυτου εις τα ωτα αυτου και πτυσας της γλωσσης αυτου ποιει ακουειν και [τους] αλαλους λαλειν αυτοις νηστεις αυτου οτι τουτους δυνησεται τις ωδε και ηρωτα ποσους εις τα µερη Δαλµανουθα παρ αυτου τη γενεα ταυτη επελαθοντο εχοντες ου βλεπετε εχοντες κλασµατων

ανδρες + αν µη φοβεισθαι εγω ειµι συνηκον ηλθαν επι την γην τινες των µαθητων αυτου τινας + δε οταν ελθωσιν εχει αθετων + την εντολην παρεδοτε omit

διανοιαν χωρει µοιχιαι πορνιαι κλοπαι φονος πλεονεξια πονηρια δολος και αναστας προσλαβοµενος εβαλε δακτυλους πτυσας εις τα ωτα αυτου και ηψατο της γλωσσης αυτου πεποιηκεν ακουειν και λαλειν omit

νηστις εως λεγοντες ωδε δυνασαι αυτους ο δε ηρωτησεν + ωδε προς το ορος δαλµουναι απ αυτου ταυτη τη γενεα απελθοντες οι µαθηται αυτου εχετε και ου βλεπουσιν εχεται και omit

APPENDIX TWO 8:23 8:23 8:23 8:24 8:25 8:25 8:29 8:33 8:34 8:34 8:36 8:38 9:4 9:5 9:5 9:8 9:11 9:13 9:18 9:19 9:20 9:20 9:21 9:23 9:24 9:27 9:27 9:28

9:31 9:35 9:36 9:39 9:41 9:41 9:42 9:42

πτυσας αυτω τι και ενεβλεπεν τηλαυγως απαντα ειναι ιδων αρατω αυτου και την ψυχην αυτου λογους αυτοις ηµας ωδε ποιησωµεν περιβλεψαµενοι οτι λεγουσιν Ηλιας ισχυσαν αυτοις και ιδων αυτον το πνευµα ευθυς αυτον τον πατερα αυτου το ο πατηρ του παιδιου αυτου και ανεστη οι µαθηται αυτου κατ ιδιαν επηρωτων αυτον ελεγεν και εν δυνησεται ος γαρ αν Χριστου τουτων ονικος

205

ενπτυσας επ αυτω omit

ο δε ανεβλεπεν παντα τηλαυγως omit

ιδως αρας omit

την εαυτου ψυχην omit

αυτος ωδε ηµας ποιησω ωδε περιβλεποµενοι τι ουν λεγουσιν ηδη ηλιας ηδυνηθησαν εκβαλειν αυτο + ο ις ιδων αυτον ευθεως το πνα omit

αυτου τον πρα τουτο το πνα του παδαριου omit omit

προσηλθον αυτω οι µαθηται και ιδιαν και επηρωτησαν αυτον λεγοντες λεγει omit omit

δυνησονται ος αν γαρ χρς µου ονικον

206 9:43 9:45 9:47 9:47 9:49 9:50 10:2 10:7 10:10 10:12 10:12 10:16 10:17 10:20 10:21 10:21 10:22 10:22 10:24 10:24 10:28 10:28 10:30 10:32 10:33 10:35 10:35 10:37 10:38 10:39 10:42 10:42 10:43 10:44

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS κυλλον εισελθειν εις την ζωην αποκοψον ο οφθαλµος βληθηναι αλισθησεται εχετε εν εαυτοις προσελθοντες Φαρισαιοι επηρωτων αυτον ανθρωπος οι µαθηται περι τουτου επηρωτων αυτον εαν αυτη απολυσασα τον ανδρα αυτης γαµηση αλλον κατευλογει τιθεις τας χειρας επ αυτα αυτον µου ο δε Ιησους ουρανω επι τω λογω απηλθεν παλιν εισελθειν ιδου ηµεις αφηκαµεν παντα και αδελφους οι δε ακολουθουντες εφοβουντο αυτον προσπορευονται αιτησωµεν σε σου αυτοις ο δε Ιησους ειπεν αυτοις αυτους ο Ιησους αυτων ος παντων

εις την ζωην εισελθειν κυλλον κοψον ει ο οφθαλµος omit

αλισγηθησεται υµεις ουν εν εαυτοις εχεται φαρισαιοι προσελθοντες επηρωτησαν αυτον εκαστος επηρωτησαν οι µαθηται εαν ανηρ απολυση την γυναικα omit

επιτιθει τας χειρας επ αυτα και ευλογει αυτα omit

+ τι υστερω ετι ις ουρανοις απο του λογου + απ αυτου omit

+ πλουσιον omit

παντα αφηκαµεν omit

ακολουθουντες αυτω omit

προσηλθοντες σε αιτησωµεθα omit

αυτω omit omit omit

οστις υµων παντων

APPENDIX TWO 10:46 10:49 10:52 11:2 11:2 11:2 11:7 11:11 11:12 11:12 11:13 11:14 11:15 11:21 11:28 11:31 12:1 12:2 12:5 12:5 12:8 12:10 12:12 12:14 12:14 12:17 12:19 12:21 12:21 12:21 12:23 12:25 12:26 12:26 12:26 12:29

Βαρτιµαιος αυτω και ο Ιησους εις την κωµην την κατεναντι υµων εφ ον εκαθισεν αυτων ηδη επαυριον απο Βηθανιας εν αυτη αυτη και τους αγοραζοντας και εδωκεν την εξουσιαν ταυτην λεγοντες και ωρυξεν προς τους γεωργους κακεινον απεκτειναν ους µεν δεροντες ους απεκτειναν αυτον και εξεβαλον αυτον ανεγνωτε και αφεντες αυτον απηλθον ου µελει κηνσον ο δε Ιησους αυτου και απεθανεν µη καταλιπων σπερµα και [οταν αναστωσιν] τινος αυτων αγγελοι οτι ανεγνωτε πως ειπεν αυτω ο θεος λεγων εις

207

omit omit

ο δε εις την κατεναντι κωµην ω επικεκαθεικεν omit omit

αυριον εις βηθανιαν εις αυτην + ο ις omit omit

ταυτην την εξουσιαν εδωκεν + οτι εξωρυξεν omit omit

τους δε δεροντες τους αυτον απεκτιναν και εξεβαλον ανεγνωκατε omit

µελει omit

και αποκριθεις omit omit

ουδε αυτος αφηκεν omit

ουν αυτων τινος οι αγγελοι ει ανεγνωκατε ως ειπεν ο θς λεγων omit

208 12:31 12:32 12:33 12:34 12:35 12:35 12:38 12:41 12:43 12:43 12:44 13:1 13:2

13:8 13:8 13:8 13:8 13:9 13:12 13:13 13:15 13:16 13:17 13:20 13:21 13:22 13:25 13:33 13:33 13:37 14:1 14:3 14:5

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS δευτερα εις εστιν των ουκετι ετολµα αυτον επερωτησαι ελεγεν ο στολαις εθεωρει αυτου οτι παντα οσα ειχεν ιδε ου µη καταλυθη

και δευτερα οµοιως εις θς εστιν

γαρ εσονται λιµοι αρχη ωδινων ταυτα παραδωσουσιν επαναστησονται ουτος µηδε εισελθατω αραι τι εκ της οικιας αυτου το ιµατιον ταις θηλαζουσαις κυριος Χριστος ψευδοχριστοι εσονται εκ του ουρανου πιπτοντες βλεπετε γαρ ο δε υµιν λεγω πασιν λεγω γραµµατεις ηλθεν γυνη τουτο το µυρον πραθηναι

omit

omit

ετολµα αυτον ουκετι επερωταν λεγει omit

ταις στολαις εθεωρι παντας omit omit omit omit

ου µη αφεθη ουδε διαλυθησεται και δια τριων ηµερων αλλος αναστησεται ανευ χειρων omit

+ ταραχαι omit

και δωσουσιν αναστησονται omit

µηδε εισελθετω αρε εκ της οικειας αυτου τι τα ιµατια θηλαζουσαις omit

κς πολλοι ψευδοχριστοι εκ του ουρανου πεσουντε βλεπεται δε + ει µη ο πηρ και ο υιος α δε υµιν λεγω πασιν φαρισαιοι γυνη προσηλθεν πραθηναι το µυρον

APPENDIX TWO 14:6 14:10 14:13 14:13 14:13 14:14 14:18 14:21 14:22 14:22 14:23 14:27 14:28 14:30 14:30 14:32 14:41 14:41 14:46 14:47 14:50 14:53 14:54 14:60 14:61 14:62 14:63 14:64 14:70 15:2 15:4 15:39 15:41 15:44 15:46 16:1 16:2 16:4

κοπους Ιουδας αποστελλει και λεγει και και οπου εαν παραδωσει µε υπαγει αυτων εστιν αυτοις διασκορπισθησονται µε σοι απαρνηση ερχονται απεχει ιδου εκρατησαν παρεστηκοτων και συνερχονται και ουκ αποκρινη ουδεν ο αρχιερευς επηρωτα αυτον των νεφελων διαρρηξας υµιν φαινεται και γαρ Γαλιλαιος ει αυτω λεγει ποσα σου ο παρεστηκως εξ εναντιας αυτου διηκονουν παλαι καθελων ελθουσαι και µεγας σφοδρα

209

κοπον ιδου ο ιουδας αποστιλας λεγει + εισελθοντων υµων οπου αν µε παραδωσει παραδιδοτε υπαγει omit omit

τοις µαθηταις σκορπισθησεται + εκ νεκρων omit

αρνηση εξερχονται + το τελος ιδου και εκρατουν παρεστωτων τοτε οι µαθηται αυτου συνπορευονται omit omit

επηρωτα αυτον εκ δευτερου της δυναµεως ευθυς διαρηξας φαινεται υµιν omit

ειπεν σου ποσα παρεστως αυτω διηκονουσαν ηδη ευθεως ηνεγκεν και καθελων εισελθουσαι omit

σφοδρα µεγας

210 16:5 16:6 16:6 16:6 16:8 16:8 16:9 16:10 16:14

16:15 16:16 16:19

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS ειδον εκθαµβεισθε ζητειτε τον Ναζαρηνον ο τοπος και εξελθουσαι ειχεν πρωτον και κλαιουσιν επιστευσαν

και ειπεν αυτοις κατακριθησεται Ιησους

θεωρουσιν φοβεισθαι οιδα γαρ οτι τον ναζαρηνον ζητιται εκει ο τοπος αυτου εστιν και ακουσασαι εξηλθον και εσχεν omit omit

+ κακεινοι απελογουντε λεγοντες οτι ο αιων ουτος της ανοµιας και της απιστιας υπο τον σαταναν εστιν ο µη εων τα υπο των πνατων ακαθαρτα την αληθειαν του θυ καταλαβεσθαι δυναµιν δια τουτο αποκαλυψον σου την δικαιοσυνην ηδη εκεινοι ελεγον τω χω και ο χς εκεινοις προσελεγεν οτι πεπληρωται ο ορος των ετων της εξουσιας του σατανα αλλα εγγιζει αλλα δινα και υπερ ων εγω αµαρτησαντων παρεδοθην εις θανατον ινα υποστρεψωσιν εις την αληθειαν και µηκετι αµαρτησωσιν ινα την εν τω ουρανω πνικην και αφθαρτον της δικαιοσυνης δοξαν κληρονοµησωσιν αλλα κατακριθεις ου σωθησεται + χς

BIBLIOGRAPHY Acker, Geoffrey Bernard. ‘The Codex Argenteus Upsaliensis: A Codicological Examination.’ unpubl. diss., University of Illinois, 1994. Ahn, Jeongseop. ‘Segmentation Features in New Testament Manuscripts.’ unpubl. diss., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2012. Aland, Barbara and Klaus Wachtel. Das Johannesevangelium: Handschriftenliste und vergleichende Beschreibung, Band 1: Teststellenkollation der Kapitel 1–10. Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Aland, Kurt, ed. Synopsis Quattor Evangeliorum. 15th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996; corr. impr., 2005. Aland, Kurt, et al., Das Lukasevangelium: Handschriftenliste und vergleichende Beschreibung. Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014. ———. Das Markusevangelium: Handschriftenliste und vergleichende Beschreibung. Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. ———. Das Matthäusevangelium: Handschriftenliste und vergleichende Beschreibung. Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014. 211

212

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

———. eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. ———. eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012. Amphoux, Christian-Bernard. ‘Le texte évangelique de Cesarée et le type de texte “Cesareen des Evangiles”.’ Filologia Neotestamentaria 12 (1999): pp. 3–16. Ayuso, Teofilo. ‘Texto arrecensional, recensional o prerecensional?’ EstBib 6 (1947): pp. 35–90. ———. ‘Texto cesariense o precesariense? Su realidad y su transcendencia en la critica textual del Nuevo Testamento.’ Bib 16 (1935): pp. 369–415. Barbour, Ruth. Greek Literary Hands: A.D. 400–1600. Oxford Paleographical Handbooks. Oxford: Oxford University, 1981. Beyond Compare. Version 4.2.9. Madison, WI: Scooter Software, 2019. Brown, J. Pairman. ‘An Early Revision of the Gospel of Mark.’ JBL 78 (1959): pp. 215–27. Burkitt, F. C. ‘Studies in the Western Text of St. Mark.’ JTS 17 (1927): p. 139. Casson, Lionel. Libraries in the Ancient World. New Haven: Yale University, 2001. Cavallo, Guglielmo, and Herwig Maehler. Greek Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period, A.D. 300–800. London: University of London, 1987. The Center for New Testament Textual Studies Textual Apparatus. Revised edition. New Orleans: New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014. Champagne, David G. ‘Scribal Habits within the Superscription and Subscription Traditions of Greek New Testament Manuscripts.’ unpubl. diss., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2012. Chang, Dong Soo. ‘An Investigation of the Textual Relationships of Selected Manuscripts of the Πa Group in John.’ unpubl. diss., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1997. Clark, Kenneth W. A Descriptive Catalogue of Greek New Testament Manuscripts in America. Chicago: Chicago University, 1937.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

213

Codex Washingtonianus. Facsimile. Washington, DC: apmanuscripts.com, 2017. Cole, Zachary J. ‘Evaluating Scribal Freedom and Fidelity: Number-Writing Techniques in Codex Washingtonianus (W 032).’ BASP 52 (2015): pp. 225–38. ———. Numerals in Early Greek New Testament Manuscripts. TextCritical, Scribal, and Theological Studies. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Colwell, Ernest C. Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Comfort, Philip Wesley. Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography and Textual Criticism. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005. Curry, David P. ‘Charles Lang Freer and American Art.’ Apollo 118, no. 258 (1983): pp. 169–79. Danker, Frederick William, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Third ed. Chicago and London: University of Chicago, 2000. Dunn, Mark. ‘An Examination of the Textual Character of Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C, 04) in the Four Gospels.’ unpubl. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1990. Edmunds, A. J. ‘The Washington Manuscript and the Resurrection in Mark.’ Monist 28 (1915): pp. 528–29. Ehrman, Bart D., and Michael W. Holmes, eds. The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research. Second edition. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Elliott, J. K. A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts. Third edition. Leiden: Brill, 2015. ———. New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles: Essays on Manuscripts and Textual Variation. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Epp, Eldon Jay. The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1966. Epp, Eldon Jay, and Gordon D. Fee. Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

214

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Fee, Gordon. ‘Codex Sinaiticus in the Gospel of John: A Contribution to Methodology in Establishing Textual Relationships.’ NTS 15 (1969): pp. 23–44. ———. Papyrus Bodmer II (P66): Its Textual Relationships and Scribal Characteristics. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1968. Fenollosa, Ernest F. ‘The Collection of Mr. Charles Lang Freer.’ Pacific Era 1, no. 2 (1907): pp. 57–66. Finegan, Jack. Encountering the New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Fonkic, B. L., and F. B. Poljakov. ‘Paläographische Grundlagen der Datierung des Kolner Mani-Kodex.’ BZ 83 (1990): pp. 22–30. Frend, W. H. C. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. Frey, Jorg. ‘Zu Text und Sinn des Freer-Logion.’ ZNW 93 (2002): pp. 13–34. Gäbel, Georg. ‘Additions in the Latin Text of Mark in the Old Latin Text Types K and C and Longer Additions in Diverse Old Latin Witnesses, including the Freer Logion in Latin.’ Das Markusevangelium. Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior. Volume Three. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2021: pp. 174–84. Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New ed. New Haven: Yale University, 1997. Geerlings, Jacob. Family 13—The Ferrar Group. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1961–62. Glasson, Thomas Francis. ‘Did Matthew and Luke Use a “Western” Text of Mark?’ ET 55 (1943–44): pp. 180–84. Goodspeed, J. Edgar. ‘Critical Notes: The Washington Manuscript of the Gospels.’ AJT 17, no. 2 (1913): pp. 240–49. ———. The Freer Gospels. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1914. ———. ‘Notes on the Freer Gospels.’ AJT 13 (1909): pp. 597–603. Gregory, Caspar René. Das Freer-Logion. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905. Gunther, Ann C. A Collector’s Journey: Charles Lang Freer and Egypt. Washington, DC: Freer Gallery of Art, 2002.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

215

Haelewyck, Jean-Claude. ‘The Healing of a Leper (Mark 1, 40– 45): A Textual Commentary.’ ETL 89, no. 1 (2013): pp. 15– 36. Harnack, Adolf. ‘Neues zum unechten Marcusschluss.’ TLZ 33, no. 6 (1908): pp. 168–70. Hatch, William H. P. The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1939. Havemeyer, Louisine W. ‘The Freer Museum of Oriental Art.’ Scribner’s Magazine 73 (1923): pp. 529–40. Helze, Eugen. ‘Der Schluss des Markusevangeliums (Mk 16, 9–20) und das Freer-Logion (Mk. 16, 14w), ihr Tendenzen und ihr Gegenseitiges Verhaltnis: Eine Wortexegetische Untersuchung.’ unpubl. diss., Tübingen University, 1959. Herbison, David R. ‘As It is Copied: Textual Transmission of the New Testament Quotations of the Old Testament in Codex Washingtonianus.’ unpubl. diss., Bergische Universität Wuppertal, 2019. Hernández, Juan, Jr. Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Hill, Charles E., and Michael J. Kruger, eds. The Early Text of the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University, 2012. Hills, E. F. ‘The Caesarean Family of New Testament Manuscripts.’ unpubl. diss., Harvard Divinity School, 1946. Holmes, Michael W. ‘Early Editorial Activity and the Text of Codex Bezae in Matthew.’ unpubl. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1984. Horton, Charles, ed. The Earliest Gospels: The Origins and Transmission of the Earliest Christian Gospels—The Contribution of the Chester Beatty Gospel Codex P45. New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Hoskier, H. C. ‘The New Codex W.’ Expositor 7 (1913): pp. 467– 80, 515–31. Houghton, H. A. G., et al, eds. The New Testament in Antiquity and Byzantium: Traditional and Digital Approaches to its Texts and Editing. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2019. Howell, Justin R. ‘The Characterization of Jesus in Codex W.’ JECS 14, no. 1 (2006): pp. 47–75.

216

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Hurtado, Larry W. ‘Codex Washingtonianus.’ Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ———. ‘Codex Washingtonianus in the Gospel of Mark: Its Textual Relationships and Scribal Characteristics.’ unpubl. diss., Case Western Reserve University, 1973. ———. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. ———, ed. The Freer Biblical Manuscripts: Fresh Studies of an American Treasure Trove. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. ———. ‘The Origins of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal.’ JBL 117 (1998): pp. 655–73. ———. Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W in the Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981. The International Greek New Testament Project. The Gospel According to St. Luke. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984/1987. Jacquier, E. ‘Le Manuscrit Washington des Evangiles.’ RB 10 (1913): pp. 547–55. Jongkind, Dirk. Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2007. Jongkind, Dirk, and Peter Williams, eds. The Greek New Testament: Produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge. Cambridge: Crossway, 2017. Kannaday, Wayne. Apologetic Discourse and the Scribal Tradition: Evidence of the Influence of Apologetic Interests on the Text of the Canonical Gospels. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Kearfott, Steven Joseph. ‘Codex Washingtonianus as an Illustration of the Need for the Discipline of Apparatus Criticism.’ unpubl. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005. Kenyon, Frederic G. The Text of the Greek Bible. 1937. Reprint, London: Duckworth, 1953. Klingshirn, William E., and Linda Safran, eds. The Early Christian Book. Washington, DC: Catholic University of American, 2008.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

217

Knight, Stan. Historical Scripts: From Classical Times to the Renaissance. New Castle: Oak Knoll, 1998. Kraus, Thomas J. Ad fontes: Original Manuscripts and Their Significance for Studying Early Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Kretzmann, P. E. ‘The Freer Manuscripts and the Oxyrhynchus Papyri.’ Theological Monthly 1 (1921): pp. 255–59. Lake, K., R. P. Blake, and S. New. ‘The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark.’ HTR 21 (1928): pp. 207–404. Lake, Kirsopp. Codex 1 of the Gospels and Its Allies. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1902. Lake, Kirsopp, and Silva Lake. Family 13—The Ferrar Group: The Text According to Mark. London: Christophers, 1941. ———. ‘De Westcott et Hort au Père Lagrange et au-dela.’ RB 48 (1939): pp. 497–505. Lameere, William. Aperçus de paleographie homerique. Les publications de scriptorium 4. Paris: Edition Erasme, 1960. Lawton, Thomas, and Linda Merrill. Freer: A Legacy of Art. Washington, DC: Freer Gallery of Art, 1993. Linton, Olof. ‘Evidences of a Second Century Revised edition of St. Mark’s Gospel.’ NTS 14 (1967–68): pp. 321–55. Lisboa, Joel E. and Thomas R. Shepherd. ‘Comparative Analysis as a Tool in Determining the Lectio Difficilior in Mark 1:40– 45.’ Neot 49, no. 1 (2015): pp. 75–89. Louie, Richard. Freer Gallery of Art. Washington, DC: Freer Gallery of Art, 1983. Lowden, John. ‘The Word Made Visible: The Exterior of the Early Christian Book as Visual Argument.’ Pp. 13-47 in The Early Christian Book. Edited by William E. Klingshirn and Linda Safran. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 2008. Mansfield, Howard. ‘Charles Lang Freer.’ Parnassus 7, no. 5 (1935): pp. 16–18. Martin, Victor. Papyrus Bodmer II: Evangile de Jean chap. 1–14. Cologny/Geneva: Bibliothèque Bodmer, 1956. Mathisen, Ralph W. ‘Palaeography and Codicology.’ Pp. 140-68 in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University, 2008.

218

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Mechlin, Leila. ‘The Freer Collection of Art: Mr. Charles L. Freer’s Gift to the Nation, to Be Installed in Washington.’ Century Magazine 73 (1907): pp. 357–68. Metzger, Bruce M. ‘The Caesarean Text of the Gospels.’ JBL 64 (1945): pp. 457–89. ———. Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Paleography. Corrected edition. New York: Oxford University, 1991. ———. ‘St. Jerome’s Explicit References to Variant Readings in Manuscripts of the New Testament.’ Pp. 179-90 in Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black. Edited by Ernest Best and R. McL. Wilson. Cambridge, 1979. ———. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Metzger, Bruce, and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University, 2005. Meyer, Agnes E. Charles Lang Freer and His Gallery. Washington, DC: Freer Gallery of Art, 1970. ———. ‘The Charles Lang Freer Collection.’ Arts 12, no. 2 (1927): pp. 65–82. Moreschini, C., ed. Hieronymus. Dialogi contra Pelagianos Libri III. CCSL 80. Turnhout: Brepols, 1990. Morey, Charles R. East Christian Paintings in the Freer Collection. Part 1 of Studies in East Christian and Roman Art. University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series 12/1. New York: Macmillan, 1918. Moss, Candida R. Ancient Christian Martyrdom: Diverse Practices, Theologies, and Traditions. New Haven: Yale University, 2012. Nongbri, Brent. God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts. Yale University, 2018. Orsini, Pasquale. Studies on the Greek and Coptic Majuscule Scripts and Books. Studies in Manuscript Cultures 15. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019. Parker, David. Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and Its Text. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1992.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

219

———. Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World’s Oldest Bible. London: British Library, 2010. ———. An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2008. Patton, Andrew. ‘Greek Catenae and the “Western” Order of the Gospels.” Novum Testamentum 64 (2022): pp. 115–29. Paulson, Gregory S. Scribal Habits and Singular Readings in Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Bezae, and Washingtonianus in the Gospel of Matthew. GlossaHouse Dissertation Series. Volume 5. Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2018. Porter, Calvin. ‘A Textual Analysis of the Earliest Greek Manuscripts of the Gospel of John.’ unpubl. diss., Duke University, 1961. Porter, Stanley E. ‘Pericope Markers in Some Early Greek New Testament Manuscripts.’ Pp. 161-76 in Layout Markers in Biblical Manuscripts and Ugaritic Tablets. Edited by Marjo Korpel and Josef Oesch. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005. Prior, J. Bruce. ‘Who is Full of Grace and Truth in W’s Text of John 1:14?’ BBR 11, no. 2 (2001): pp. 233–38. Prior, J. Bruce and T. A. E. Brown. The Freer Gospels: Transcription of Washington Manuscript III. Forthcoming. Rahlfs, Alfred, and Robert Hanhart, eds. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Robertson, A. T. An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Nashville: Broadman, 1925. ———. ‘Some Interesting Readings in the Washington Codex.’ Expositor 3 (1925): pp. 192–98. Royse, James R. Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Sanders, Henry. ‘Age and Ancient Home of Biblical Manuscripts in the Freer Collection.’ AJA 13, no. 2 (1909): pp. 130–41. ———. Facsimile of the Washington Manuscript of the Four Gospels in the Freer Collection. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1912. ———. ‘Four Newly Discovered Biblical Manuscripts.’ BW 31, no. 2 (1908): pp. 82–142. ———. ‘New Manuscripts of the Bible from Egypt.’ AJA 12, no. 1 (1908): pp. 49–55.

220

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

———. The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection. The Washington Manuscript of the Four Gospels. New York: MacMillan, 1912. Schmid, C. ‘Die neuen grieschischen Bibelhandschriften.’ TLZ 33, no. 12 (1908): pp. 359–60. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, ed. New Testament Apocrypha. Translated by R. McL. Wilson. Revised edition. Two Volumes. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Shepherd, Thomas R. ‘Narrative Analysis as a Text-Critical Tool: Mark 16 in Codex W as a Test Case.’ JSNT 32, no. 1 (2009): pp. 77–98. Smith, W. Andrew. A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus: Codicology, Palaeography, and Scribal Hands. Leiden: Brill, 2014. ‘Soknopaiou Nesos—Report 2012.’ Centro di Studi Papirologici, 2015. http://www.museopapirologico.eu/sok_re12.hrm. Souter, Alexander. ‘The Freer (Washington) Ms. of the Gospels.’ Expositor 7 (1914): pp. 350–67. Streeter, B. H. ‘The Caesarean Text of the Gospels.’ JTS 26 (1925): pp. 373–78. ———. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, and Dates. London: Macmillan, 1926. ———. ‘The Washington Manuscript of the Gospels.’ HTR 19 (1926): pp. 165–72. ———. ‘The Washington Manuscripts and the Caesarean Text of the Gospels.’ JTS 27 (1926): pp. 144–47. Strutwolf, Holger. ‘Entstehung und Entwicklung der Rezensionshypothese in der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft.’ Biblische Notizen 184 (2020): pp. 5–42. Strutwolf, Holger, et al., eds. Die Apostelgeschichte. Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior. Four Volumes. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2017. ———, eds. Die Katholischen Briefe. Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior. Two Volumes. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

221

———, eds. Das Markusevangelium. Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior. Three Volumes. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2021. Strutwolf, Holger, and Klaus Wachtel, eds. Parallel Pericopes. Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Swanson, Reuben J. New Testament Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus. Four Volumes. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Swete, Henry B. Two New Gospel Fragments. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, 1908. Textus Receptus. Oxford: Clarendon, 1873. Thompson, Edward Maunde. Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography. 1903. Reprint. Chicago: Ares, 1980. ———. An Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography. 1912. Reprint. Richmond, Surrey: Tiger of the Stripe, 2008. Tischendorf, Constantin. Novum Testamentum Graece. Eighth edition. Two Volumes. Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient, 1869– 72. Turner, Eric G. Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World. Second edition. London: University of London, 1987. ———. The Typology of the Early Codex. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1977. von Soden, Hermann Freiherr. Die Schriften des Neues Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902–1913. ———. ‘Ein Neues “Herrenwort” Aufgehalten als Einfugung in den Schluß des Markusevangeliums.’ Die Christliche Welt 22/20 (1908): pp. 482–86. Warner, Langdon. ‘The Freer Gift of Eastern Art to America.’ 23, no. 8 (1923): pp. 164–67. Wasserman, Tommy. ‘The Freer Biblical Manuscripts: Fresh Studies of an American Treasure Trove.’ TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 13 (2008): pp. 1–7. Wasserman, Tommy and Peter J. Gurry. A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2017.

222

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Westcott, Brooke Foss, and Fenton John Anthony Hort. The New Testament in the Original Greek. Cambridge and London: Macmillan, 1881. Wilson, Nigel. ‘Greek Palaeography.’ Pp. 101-14 in The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford: Oxford University, 2008.

INDEX Ahn, Jeongseop, 17–18, 122 Aland, Kurt, 6n21, 115, 116n3, 116n4, 117n6, 118n7, 119n8 Antioch Recension, 6, 49

CNTTS Textual Apparatus, 20, 45, 46, 53–57, 153, 155 Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM), 48, 115 Cole, Zachary J., 6, 18, 137–41, 144, 154–55 Colon, 29, 120, 125–26, 128 Colwell, Ernest C., 10, 20n62, 47–51, 53–54, 166 Covers (Wooden), 16, 22, 44–45

Bird Drawing, 32–35, 37, 171 Block Mixture, 2–4, 6, 8, 14, 18– 22, 24n7, 47, 50, 56, 60, 62, 110–11, 118–20, 122, 123n9, 124, 126, 128–29, 131–37, 141, 142, 144, 146, 149–51, 153, 158, 164–69 Border Design, 32–37 Breathing Mark, 29, 141–43 Brown, T. A. E., 13n44, 30n19, 46n49, 122n6 Burkitt, F. C., 7

Dimai, 12, 42, 44 Diocletian, 3, 8, 11 Diple, 19, 22, 29, 40, 125, 127– 28, 167 Editio Critica Maior (ECM), 55– 56, 113, 115 Edmunds, A. J., 7 Ekthesis, 29, 119, 125–26, 128, 154 Exemplar, 8, 13–15, 18, 21, 40, 130n16, 153, 157, 159, 162n23, 163–64, 168

Clark, Kent, 1n1, 3n9, 7n23, 11–12, 41n34, 44n43–44 CNTTS (see H. Milton Haggard Center for New Testament Textual Studies), 20–21, 45–46, 53–57, 153, 155

Fee, Gordon D., 71, 73n10, 89n21

223

224

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Freer, Charles Lang, 1, 3–4, 7, 11–12, 22, 27–28, 33–36, 41n34, 42–43, 121, 165 Freer Gallery of Art/Smithsonian Museum, 4, 23, 27–28, 33–36, 43, 121 Freer Logion, 1, 7, 9n34, 16, 37–40, 158

Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung (INTF), 21, 48, 113 International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP), 153n9

Genealogy (see Lukan Genealogy), 40, 154 Goodspeed, J. Edgar, 5n16, 7– 8, 43, 44–45, 46n49 Gregory, Caspar René, 7 Gurry, Peter. J., 48n2, 113n2

Καί Compendium, 29, 141–43, 144n17 Kearfott, Steven Joseph, 10–11

H. Milton Haggard Center for New Testament Textual Studies (see CNTTS), 20– 21, 45–46, 53–57, 153, 155 Haugh, Dennis, 13–15, 18, 152–53, 157, 159, 163 Herbison, David, R., 18–19, 22, 40n32, 125, 127–28, 168n1 Hesychian Recension, 6, 49 Homoeoteleuton, 5–6, 40n33, 49, 154, 161 Howell, Justin R., 16 Hurtado, Larry W., 1n2, 2, 3n8, 7, 10–11, 13, 14n47, 15, 24n5, 25n8, 32, 37, 41, 50–53, 67, 77–78, 79n15, 105, 106n27, 107, 111, 131n1, 132, 136, 149, 151, 153, 159, 166

Jerome, 38–39

Latin New Testament/Manuscripts, 2, 6, 9, 24, 39, 52, 54, 64, 159 Ligature, 7, 29, 131, 141–45 Lisboa, Joel E., 16–17 Long Ending of Mark, 1, 16, 37– 38, 40, 79n15 Lowden, John, 16, 22n67, 44–45 Lukan Genealogy (see Genealogy), 40, 154 Majority Text, 113 Metzger, Bruce M., 3n8, 23n2, 26, 37n28 Middle Dot, 29, 120, 125–28 New Testament Virtual Manuscript Room (NT.VMR), 21–22, 46, 125n11 Nomen Sacrum/Nomina Sacra, 13, 18, 21, 125n11, 131– 36, 141, 144, 149–50, 167 Nongbri, Brent, 12n41, 41 Novum Testamentum Graece (NA), 11, 57, 59n2, 61, 64–

INDEX 77, 80–84, 86-104, 106–09, 114, 123, 156n14, 157n15 Nu Superline, 129, 141–43 Online Transcription Editor (OTE), 46, 125n11 Orsini, Pasquale, 26 Orthography, 18, 21, 32n24, 47, 55–56, 140, 141n13, 145– 51, 162, 164, 168–69 Paragraphus, 29, 119, 125–26, 128 Paulson, Gregory S., 18, 145, 152–53, 157, 163 Porter, Calvin, 9–10, 30n20 Prior, J. Bruce, 13, 30n19, 46n49, 122n6, 131–32, 134n5 Qoppa, 140 Quantitative Analysis (QA), 1n2, 10–12, 20, 23n1, 29, 45–46, 47–55, 56, 57n33, 59–74, 76–93, 95–111, 114–19, 125, 131, 151, 153n7, 166–68 Quire, 4–5, 9, 13n44, 15, 19–20, 23–27, 29–31, 40, 47, 51n16, 56, 60–61, 64–65, 70–71, 77n11, 79–110, 124, 126–27, 134–36, 138, 142–44, 146, 150, 157, 160, 163, 166 Racine, Jean-François, 12–13, 41–42, 52–54, 56, 64, 111 Royse, James R., 14–15, 39n30, 46n49, 55n29, 160–65

225 Sanders, Henry A., 1–9, 10n38, 11–12, 14–15, 19–22, 24– 26, 29, 42–45, 46n49, 47– 48, 51, 53, 56, 60, 62–63, 69, 79, 100, 105, 106n27, 109–11, 116, 119–26, 128, 132n4, 141n12, 142, 145– 46, 158, 160, 164–67, 169 Schmid, Ulrich, 1n2, 5n18, 15, 24n6, 30 Septuagint (LXX), 19, 40n31 Shepherd, Thomas R., 1n2, 16–17 Smith, W. Andrew, 119–20 Smithsonian Museum (see Freer Gallery of Art), 4, 23, 27– 28, 33–36, 43, 121 Special Note at the End of Mark, 31n22, 42–45 Staurogram, 31, 42, 151n7 Streeter, B. H., 7–10 Supplementary Quire of John, 2–5, 13n44, 14, 19–20, 23, 25–27, 29, 31, 32n23, 40, 47, 56, 60–61, 64–65, 70–73, 79, 88, 110, 115– 17, 124, 126–27, 134–36, 140, 142–44, 146, 150, 157–60, 164–66, 168 Textual Block, 2, 6–7, 14, 18, 21, 52n18, 60, 65–67, 69, 71–80, 87–89, 94, 98n24, 105–06, 110–11, 114–17, 119–20, 122–29, 132–38, 140–44, 146, 148–49, 156–59, 164–68 Text und Textwert (TuT), 20, 111, 113–19, 131, 167

226

CODEX WASHINGTONIANUS

Tischendorf, Constantius, 153 Vetus Latina, 24, 39, 52n20, 54, 159 von Soden, Hermann Freiherr, 6n20, 23

Wassermann, Tommy, 11n40, 48n2, 113n2 ‘Western’ Order, 1n3, 2, 9, 15n50, 23–25, 37, 54, 166