The Apostolos: The Acts and Epistles in Byzantine Liturgical Manuscripts (Texts and Studies) 9781463206093, 1463206097

Citation preview

The Apostolos

The Acts and Epistles in Byzantine Liturgical Manuscripts

Samuel Gibson

gp 2018

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2018 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.

‫ܙ‬

1

2018

ISBN 978-1-4632-0609-3

ISSN 1935-6927

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

The Apostolos: The Acts and Epistles in Byzantine Liturgical Manuscripts by Samuel James Gibson

Do not delete the following information about this document. Version 1.0 Document Template: Template book.dot. Document Word Count: 12772 Document Page Count: 331

¿¼ÑÉľ ÌÇİË ÇĤɸÅÇİË »À¾ÅÇÀºÄšÅÇÍË

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgements............................................................................................................... vii Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... ix Index of Tables ...................................................................................................................... xi Figures ................................................................................................................................... xiii Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 I. The Apostolos Tradition........................................................................................... 1 Minuscule Codices containing Lection Apparatus ........................................... 11 Majuscule Codices containing Lection Apparatus ............................................ 15 Codex Relationships and Lectionary Research ................................................. 17 Issues of Terminology ........................................................................................... 17 II. Outline of Study...................................................................................................... 18 An Interdisciplinary Approach ............................................................................ 18 Navigating this Study............................................................................................. 20 1. The Apostolos in Past and Present Scholarship .......................................................... 23 I. The Apostolos and Lectionary Studies ................................................................. 23 II. The Apostolos in Textual Scholarship ................................................................ 24 III. Art History, Codicology and Liturgical Studies ............................................... 38 IV. Apostolos Manuscripts in Editions .................................................................... 47 V. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 51 2. Sources for the Study of the Apostolos Tradition ...................................................... 53 I. Monastic and Ecclesiastical Sources ..................................................................... 53 a) Introduction ....................................................................................................... 53 b) Monastic Inventories and Liturgical Typika ................................................. 54 c) The Apostolos in Liturgical Commentary ..................................................... 62 d) Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 66 II. Criteria for the Selection of Manuscripts ............................................................ 68 III. The Apostolos Manuscript Selection and its Features .................................... 71 a) The Sample of Apostolos MSS ....................................................................... 71 b) Features of Notable Manuscripts ................................................................... 77 IV. Continuous Text and Liturgical Manuscripts ................................................... 87 V. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 90 3. Textual Variation in the Apostolos Synaxarion ........................................................... 93 I. Textual Methodology............................................................................................... 93 a) Sources for Textual Investigation ................................................................... 93 b) Criteria for the Selection of Test Passages .................................................... 99

v

vi

THE APOSTOLOS

II. Textual Commentary on Selected Test Passages ............................................. 105 III. Textual Commentary: Summary ....................................................................... 131 IV. Textual Grouping among Apostolos Witnesses ............................................ 132 a) Textual Affinity Methodology ....................................................................... 132 b) New Testament Textual Affinity and Grouping ........................................ 137 V. Variation in Synaxarion Liturgical Material ...................................................... 143 a) Lection Identifiers in Recent Scholarship.................................................... 143 b) Anagnostic Numbering Variation ................................................................143 c) Synaxarion Lection Identifier Variation ....................................................... 147 VI. Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 150 4. The Scribal and Monastic Context of Apostolos Manuscripts ...............................153 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 153 II. Codex Dimensions, Columns and Lines ..........................................................154 III. Lacunae and Supplements ................................................................................. 159 IV. Codex Types ........................................................................................................ 162 V. Ekphonetic Notation ...........................................................................................166 VI. Headpieces ........................................................................................................... 171 VII. Scripts and Hands..............................................................................................176 VIII. Synaxarion Lection Boundaries and Lection Tables .................................. 186 IX. Corrections ........................................................................................................... 196 X. Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 197 5. Menologion Variation in Apostolos Manuscripts ..................................................... 199 I. Menologion Methodology .................................................................................... 199 II. Textual Variation in the Apostolos Menologion ............................................. 200 Minority Festal Lections and Synaxarion-Menologion Comparisons ......... 212 III. Menologion Lection and Festal Variation ...................................................... 216 IV. Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 227 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................229 Postscript: An Apostolos Critical Edition? ..................................................................... 237 Glossary ................................................................................................................................239 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 243 Printed Works............................................................................................................. 243 Digital Resources ....................................................................................................... 254 Appendix 1: Structure of Synaxarion Anagnostic Cycles ............................................. 255 Appendix 2: Menologion Festal Commemorations and Lections ..............................265 Appendix 3: Select Synaxarion Lections in L156...........................................................295 Appendix 4: The Sample of Apostolos Manuscripts .................................................... 305 Index ..................................................................................................................................... 317

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book is substantially the product of three years of doctoral research guided by the patient supervision of David Parker at the University of Birmingham and consequently owes much to his teaching and expertise, for which I am very grateful. I hope this work contributes something of value to textual scholarship in general as well as to the study of Byzantine liturgy and manuscripts. I would also like to thank Hugh Houghton as series editor of Texts and Studies for all his academic and personal encouragement, and all members of the Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing (ITSEE) at the University of Birmingham. I am particularly grateful to my former doctoral colleagues, especially Dora Panella, Alba Fedeli, and Matthew Steinfeld, who has also organised publication of the present volume. Many thanks to Bruce Morrill for his statistical expertise, to the late Geoffrey Rowell for his wise advice, and to Chris Jordan for his ongoing discussion of the Lectionary. I thank my thesis examiners Simon Crisp and Ekaterini Tsalampouni for their patient engagement with this work. Any deficiencies are of course my own. I thank the librarians at the following institutions for their assistance, and for image permissions where relevant: Dumbarton Oaks; the British Library; the Bodleian; University of Glasgow Library, Special Collections; Lambeth Palace Library; Bibliothèque nationale de France; Cadbury Research Library; Christ Church, Oxford; the Monastery of St John the Theologian, Patmos; the Monastery of St Catherine, Sinai; the Russian National Library, St Petersburg; The Laurentian, Florence; the Austrian National Library, Vienna; Michigan University Library. I am thankful for the support of family, especially to Pat and Terry Down for their kind assistance during my studies, and for the support of tutors and friends at St Stephen’s House, Oxford. I am aware of the privilege of studying the traditions of the Orthodox churches, so I thank those Orthodox scholars who have expressed patience with and encouragement for this project. I have been sustained throughout this period of research and writing by the patience of my wife Charlotte, especially at times when my attention was devoted to writing and care of our beloved children fell to her.

vii

ABBREVIATIONS A AD ANT AP Byz/Byz CBGM CBM CT De Vries E EA ECM esk GA GNT5 Gregory ID IGNTP INTF ITSEE Lect/Lect L Liste LXX MP

Apostolos manuscript Apostoliki Diakonia lectionary edition The 1904 Antoniades Patriarchal Edition of the New Testament Week after Pentecost e.g., AP1A The Byzantine text; the text attested by the majority of Byzantine minuscule witnesses Coherence-Based Genealogical Method K. Spronk, G. Rouwhorst and S. Royé eds., Catalogue of Byzantine Manuscripts Continuous text I. M. De Vries, Epistles, Gospels and Tones Week after Easter e.g., E1A Evangelio-Apostolos manuscript Editio Critica Maior î¹»ÇÄŠ»¼Ë/ʸ¹¹¸ÌÇÁÍÉÀ¸Á¸ţ: an Apostolos manuscript containing lections for weekdays and Saturday/Sunday Gregory-Aland number United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, 5th edition C.R. Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes Lection Identifier International Greek New Testament Project Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing The text read by the majority of lectionary witnesses The siglum appended to a number (e.g., L156) to refer to a lectionary manuscript in the Gregory-Aland system Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, as cited in bibliography Septuagint Inventory of the Pantoiktirmon Monastery

ix

x MG MS(S) NA28 Byzpt/Lectpt PR RS sk SAL STE Studies TE T&T THS TP/MTP TR UC VU

THE APOSTOLOS MS Messina Gr. 115 Manuscript(s) Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 28th edition A division in the Byzantine or Lectionary traditions Pierpont-Robinson New Testament edition Rule of the Monastery of St. John Stoudios ʸ¹¹¸ÌÇÁÍÉÀ¸Á¸ţ: an Apostolos manuscript containing lections for Saturday and Sunday Saliberos Apostolos edition Synaxarion of the Monastery of the Theotokos Evergetis Chicago Studies in the Lectionary Text Acts of the Monastery of the Theotokos Eleusa Text und Textwert Typikon of Hagia Sophia Test Passage/Menologion Test Passage Textus Receptus Uncertain Lection assignment e.g., UC1 Variation Unit

INDEX OF TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27

Major selections from NT works in Apostolos Synaxarion Acts Lections in pre-10th century MSS Epistles Lections in pre-10th century MSS Sources for Lectionary Tables in Scrivener Lavra MSS used in 1904 Antoniades Edition Iviron MSS used in 1904 Antoniades Edition Extract of the Final Selection of Apostolos MSS Liste and CBM Classifications of Apostolos MSS Extract of Appendix 3 for L156 CT MSS for the Study of the Apostolos Correspondence of Final and Initial Test Passage IDs Extract from Agreement Table for L1021 Textual Agreement among Apostolos Witnesses Codex Dimensions in the Apostolos Sample Dimensions of Apostolos MSS at St Catherine’s Sinai Columns and Lines in the Apostolos MS Selection Lacunae in the Apostolos MS Selection Codex Types in Apostolos Sample Arrangement of Lections in Evangelio-Apostolos MSS Liturgical Texts in L23, L173 and THS Lection Variation in MSS and Edited Sources Lection Variation in MSS and Edited Sources Lection Variation in MSS and Edited Sources Corrections in Apostolos MSS Constantinopolitan Commemorations in Apostolos MSS Possible Palestinian and Local Lections in Apostolos MSS Multiple lections to Single Commemorations in MSS

xi

5 6 7 26 48 49 73 75 84 87 135 137 139 154–155 156–157 159 159–160 163–164 165 179 187 188 192 196 217 220–221 223–224

FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28

Initial Test Passage File Transcription of L2024 Transcription of L1141 Transcription of L1610 File ‘Apostolos Variation Units’ Variation Units with Reading Numbers GA 1897, f.20r (Jerusalem Patriarchate) Ekphonetic Notation in L23, L173 and L809 L809, f.39r (Monastery of St Catherine, Sinai) L1178 f.37v (Monastery of St John, Patmos) L1442, f.159r (Monastery of St Catherine, Sinai) L809, f.1v (Monastery of St Catherine, Sinai) L604, f.12v (Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana) L2024, f.4r (Benaki Museum, Athens) L2024, f.313r (Benaki Museum, Athens) L1159, f.1r (Great Lavra, Athos) L1774, f.286r (Monastery of St Catherine, Sinai) L173, f.1v (Russian National Library, St Petersburg) L1141, f.69v (Vatopedi, Athos) L1141, f.1r (Vatopedi, Athos) L60, f. 170r (Bibliothèque nationale de France) L23, f.10r, C2 (British Library) L173, f.5v C1 & C2 (Russian National Library, St Petersburg) L1298, f.129r (Jerusalem Patriarchate) L112, f.27v (Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana) L2024, f.111v (Benaki Museum, Athens) L170, f.8v (Michigan University Library) L1021, f.2r (Jerusalem Patriarchate)

xiii

100–104 133 133 133 134 135 146 168 170 170 170 171 172 172 173 173 174 174 175 175 176 177 178 180 181 181 182 183

xiv Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 Figure 32 Figure 33 Figure 34 Figure 35 Figure 36 Figure 37 Figure 38 Figure 39 Figure 40 Figure 41

THE APOSTOLOS L162, f.190r (University of Glasgow Library, Special Collections) 183 L1021, f.160r (Jerusalem Patriarchate) 184 L162, f.183r (University of Glasgow Library, Special Collections) 184 L162, f.297v (University of Glasgow Library, Special Collections) 185 L1141, f. 109r (Vatopedi, Athos) 185 GA 424, f.5r (Austrian National Library) 191 GA 1897, f. 104v (Jerusalem Patriarchate) 191 L1178, f.95r (Monastery of St John, Patmos) 193 L156, f.46r (Bibliothèque nationale de France) 194 L156, f.53r (Bibliothèque nationale de France) 194 Proposed Relationships of Manuscripts to the Apostolos Synaxarion 198 L173, f.132v (Russian National Library, St Petersburg) 205 L1141, f.148r (Vatopedi, Athos) 205

INTRODUCTION նĊ˹¸Êţ¼À¸ºÛɼĊʼÉÏŦļ¿¸ÌľÅÇĤÉ¸ÅľÅբÒÊÌɸÈÌŦÅÌÑÅëÈÀ¹¸ţÅÇļÅ ÏÑÉţÑÅե ÇÂÂýË ÌŠ ìÅ»ÇÅ ºšÄ¼À ÊÀºýË Á¸Ė ÄÍÊ̾ÉţÑÅ ĨÈšÉ ÉŢÌÑÅե 'ÂÂÛ ÈÉÇʚϼ̼ ļÌÛ ÒÁÉÀ¹¼ţ¸Ë ж Ţ ºÛÉ ÌľÅ ɸξÅ ÒÅŠºÅÑÊÀË ÌľÅ ÇĤÉ¸ÅľÅ ëÊÌÀÅÓÅÇÀÆÀËեո “It is the kingdom of heaven we are entering, after all: we are going to places where lightning flashes. Inside, it is all silence and mysteries beyond telling. Pay precise attention, however: the reading out of the Scriptures is the opening of the heavens.” John Chrysostom, Homily II on Isaiah 1

I. THE APOSTOLOS TRADITION An Apostolos is a Greek manuscript containing lections (also called anagnosmata, pericopae) from Acts, Paul and the Catholic Epistles. The Apostolos codex is a relative of the Gospel Lectionary (¼Ĥ¸ººšÂÀÇÅ) and Prophetologion Lectionary codices, and certain examples contain combinations of Gospel, Praxapostolos and Old Testament material. 2 Lections are prepared for recitation in the cycle of Offices of the Orthodox Church in monastic, parish or cathedral worship, and in the Byzantine Eucharistic rites. Non-Gospel anagnosmata were usually recited by a deacon, or by a lector (¸Å¸ºÅŪÊ̾Ë). 3

1 PG 56: 109. Translation adapted from R.C. Hill, St. John Chrysostom: Homilies on the Old Testament: Homilies on Isaiah and Jeremiah. (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2003), 61–67. 2 For OT lections in Byzantium see E. J. Pentiuc, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 223–262. 3 For lectors at the Divine Liturgy in Byzantine sources see e.g., R. Taft, Through their Own Eyes: Liturgy as the Byzantines Saw It. (Berkeley, CA: InterOrthodox Press, 2005), 57, 65; H. Wybrew, The Orthodox Liturgy: The Development of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite. (London: SPCK, 2013), 80.

1

2

THE APOSTOLOS

The most reliable catalogue contains over six hundred entries for extant Apostolos codices, the earliest examples (sixteen) of which are dated to the ninth century C.E. 4 These are listed below: L171 (St. Petersburg, Russian National Library Gr. 38, fol. 8): 1 leaf L178 (Leipzig, University Library Cod. Gr. 69): 1 leaf L249 (St. Petersburg, Russian National= Library Gr. 44): 69 leaves L846 (Sinai Gr. 212): 114 leaves L1575 (No catalogue information) 5 L1576 (Vienna, Austrian National Library Pap. K. 17): 1 leaf L1637 (Ann Arbor, Michigan University Library 37): 144 leaves L1855 (St. Petersburg, Russian National Library Gr. 775): 2 leaves L1952 (Oxford, Bodleian Auct. F. 6. 25*): 1 leaf L2123 (Rome, Vat. Borg. gr. 19, fol. 46. 47): 2 leaves L2125 (Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. R IV 11 (Gr. 11), ff. 17–42. 46–61.63. 98–100.103–104.107–110): 52 leaves L2132 (Damascus, Kubbet-el-Chazne): 1 leaf L2214 (Sinai N. E. MG 31): 1 leaf L2215 (Sinai N. E. MG 36): 7 leaves L2216 (Sinai N. E. MG 73): 6 leaves L2234 (Sinai N. E. M 74): 2 leaves

However, most of the manuscripts dated to the ninth century are highly fragmentary, amounting to no more than a few leaves, and often palimpsest. 6 In

4 According to descriptions as found in the document produced from the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung (INTF) database and kindly given to me by Professor Ulrich Schmid [10/01/12]. An exact figure is difficult due inconsistencies in the data, including two codices listed (London, British Library Or. 3579B; Cambridge, University Library Or. 1699) which may contain portions of Greek-Coptic diglot lectionaries also present under other shelf marks. 5 The online Liste reveals that L1575 is scattered into five fragments: 2 leaves are Paris Bib. Nat. Copt. 129,11, fol. 52. 53; 2 leaves at Cambridge, University Library Or. 1699; one leaf at London, British Library Or. 3579B; one leaf each in Vienna, Austrian National Library Pap. K. 16 and K. 17 respectively. Liste der Handschriften [online] http://intf.uni-muenster.de/vmr/NTVMR/ListeHandschriften.php [accessed 13/07/2015] See K. Schüssler, “Eine Griechisch-Koptische Handschrift Des Apostolos (l 1575, 0129, 0203).” K. Aland ed., Materialien Zur Neutestamentlichen Handschriftenkunde 1. [Arbeiten Zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 3] (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969), 218–265. 6 Parker comments regarding rewritten majuscule codices used to prepare Middle/Late Byzantine lectionary manuscripts: “040 [was rewritten] as L299 … 0134 as L26, 0209 as L1611, 0233 as L1684, 0257 as L2904 … the majuscule lectionary palimpsests were rewritten, for the most part, a rather later point.” D.C. Parker, “The Majuscule Manuscripts of the New Testament.” B.D. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes eds. The Text of the

INTRODUCTION

3

comparison, thirteen Apostolos manuscripts are dated by the Liste to the tenth century. 7 Of the sixteen codices dated to the ninth century, fifteen have been positively identified as containing majuscule script and therefore originating from the period of transition to minuscule in Lectionary codices. 8 Based on a survey of extant tenth century Apostolos codices, it appears that six are written in majuscule and three in minuscule – four lack images or description. Many early Apostolos manuscripts present lection arrangements which differ from the fully-developed Byzantine system, either containing the ‘Jerusalem’ anagnostic system or earlier systems arranged according to local custom. 9 As a result of these factors, any Apostolos researcher is faced with fragmentary pre-tenth century evidence and then an abundance of later codices: upwards of fifty are dated to the eleventh century (over 8% of catalogued examples) and over ninety (15%) are from the twelfth century. Consequently, the concentration in this study is necessarily on the Apostolos tradition as found in the Middle and Late Byzantine periods, but in reference to early traditions where relevant. In general, Apostolos lections are arranged according to two concurrent annual sequences which are generally referred to as the ‘Synaxarion’ and ‘Menologion’. The basic structure and content of the Synaxarion can be examined in Appendix 1 and that of the Menologion in Appendix 2. These tables are based on previous editorial sources, corrected where necessary, and consultation of manuscript sources. Appendix 1 contains a comparison of the structure of the Synaxarion anagnosmata in manuscript sources in the seasons of Pascha and Pentecost, since it was not feasible to compare data for the entire year’s cycle within the limits of a single study. Likewise, the Menologion data in Appendix 2 is from the September-February portion of that cycle. A definitive critical edition or handbook for the cycles in their entirety is a prerequisite for future research.

New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. (2nd ed.) (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 44. 7 These are L156 L173 L179 L250 L473 L586 L597 L909 L2211 L2212 L2233 L1730. L156 and L173 are included in the current selection; see Chapter 2 below. 8 The Alands provide figures for the chronological distribution of lectionary and minuscule MSS. Though out of date, this confirms the 9th century as the period of transition to minuscule in continuous text manuscripts and the 10th as the period of transition for lectionary manuscripts. Their ratio of ‘uncials’ to minuscule in continuous text MSS is 53:13 (IX) and 17:124 (X). In Lectionaries the comparable figures are 113:5 (IX) and 108:38 (X) – only by the eleventh century do minuscule lectionary manuscripts outnumber majuscules by a ratio of 227:15. K. Aland and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament. E. F. Rhodes trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 83. 9 For arrangements of anagnostic systems and echoes of earlier traditions in Middle/Late Byzantine Apostolos manuscripts see Chapters 4 and 5 below.

4

THE APOSTOLOS

The Synaxarion follows the ecclesial liturgical year and the Menologion “follows the civil calendar of the Byzantine Empire and starts on 1st September.” 10 However, some Apostolos manuscripts are of a select or deluxe variety and contain alternative anagnostic arrangements for specific institutions or local commemorations. 11 The two sequences, Synaxarion and Menologion, usually form discrete sections within an Apostolos codex, but certain codices contain only one sequence of pericopae e.g., Menologion only. There is a spectrum of content in the Synaxarion ranging from ‘full’ codices which present a full arrangement of anagnosmata for Saturday, Sunday and weekdays, to those which present lections for one of these divisions exclusively, or a limited combination. In its most fully-developed form, the liturgical cycle of the Byzantine Church is divided into seasons which prioritise lections from the Gospels of John, Matthew and Luke. Johannine lections dominate the period from the Vigil of Pascha to Pentecost Sunday, with Matthew and Luke fulfilling that function for Pentecost to Holy Cross Day and Holy Cross Monday to Lent respectively. 12 In principle, there is an appointed reading from the fullest form of the Apostolos to accompany every Gospel lection from Pascha until the pre-fast Week, when the Liturgy of the Presanctified is celebrated. 13 The Pascha (Johannine) period in the Gospel Lectionary is accompanied by a series of lections from Acts, while Matthew and Luke in the Synaxarion cycle are typically accompanied by lections which draw on the text of the Pauline corpus. The Catholic Epistles are least represented in the Synaxarion, appearing mostly in the period approaching the Great Fast. The table below gives an approximate percentage for each NT work in the model of the Synaxarion cycle presented by De Vries and Scrivener, indicating the three most common Apostolos works for each season.

10 D.C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 56. 11 Highly select lectionaries are usually given individual treatment and the current study is no exception. As a result, some ‘select’ Apostolos manuscripts are studied but the majority examined in the present book are not of this variety. Many further individual studies of Apostolos codices of this kind are needed. 12 See ‘Cycle of the Gospels’, I. M. De Vries, The Epistles, Gospels and Tones of the Byzantine Liturgical Year (Exeter: Catholic Records Press, 1954), 16. 13 De Vries, Epistles, Gospels and Tones, 15.

INTRODUCTION Liturgical Season

Gospel lections

Apostolos lections

John: Easter-Pentecost Matthew: Pentecost-Holy Cross

John, Mark Matthew, Mark

Luke: Holy Cross-Great Fast

Luke, Mark

Great Fast & Holy Week

Selections from all

1. Acts 50/50 (100%) 1. Romans 40/119 (34%) 2. 1 Corinthians 33/119 (28%) 3. 2 Corinthians 25/119 (21%) 1. 1 Thessalonians 16/126 (13%) 2. Colossians 14/126 (11%) 3. Hebrews 12/126 (10%) 1. Hebrews 14/23 (61%) 2. Galatians 3/23 (13%) 3. Romans 2/23 (9%)

5

Table 1: Major selections from NT works in Apostolos Synaxarion

The Apostolos Synaxarion cycle is derived from the structure of the Gospel Lectionary and therefore, in its fully developed Byzantine form, is likely to have arisen slightly after the Byzantine Gospel Lectionary, which was in place by the eighth century. 14 The fragmentary nature of the pre-tenth century evidence for the Apostolos renders elusive any solid conclusions regarding its origins. No theory has yet been advanced with regards to the origins of the Apostolos, and those which have been advanced for the Gospel Lectionary have been detailed elsewhere. 15 Therefore it is prudent to limit this discussion to a survey of the evidence for the existence of lections from Acts, Paul and the Catholic Letters before the tenth century. Evidence for pericopae from these NT works can be found in certain majuscule manuscripts and compared to the Byzantine Apostolos anagnostic system found in manuscripts of the tenth century and beyond. 16 First, a comparison of a sample of Acts lections found in pre tenthcentury codices including (Greek) Acts in Codex Bezae (05), 020, 044, 014, 04, and the later Byzantine Apostolos anagnostic arrangement: The most convincing discussion of Gospel Lectionary origins and dating can be found in C.R.D. Jordan, The Textual Tradition of the Gospel of John in Greek Gospel Lectionaries from the Middle Byzantine Period. (Birmingham: Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, 2009), 12– 15; 520. 15 For further discussion of Lectionary origin-theories see Chapter 1, pp. 27–33. Art historians and codicologists typically pose the origins question in terms of a transition from one codex type to another rather than a literary production or theological motivation. Anderson, for example, asks “At what point did the number of readings [in the lection system] become large enough to justify, in terms of opposing pressures, the production of a separate book?” J.C. Anderson, The New York Cruciform Lectionary (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), 4. 16 In doing so I develop further Jordan’s suggestion, that “[t]he system of pericopae found in Gospel lectionaries of 8th–11th century may have existed … for a period of time in the form of lectionary rubrics, which are found in the margins of continuous text manuscripts, or in the form of lectionary tables … Parts of the lectionary system probably date to the period of the early church.” Jordan, Greek Gospel Lectionaries, 13. 14

6

THE APOSTOLOS

Day

Byzantine 17

05 (VI/VII) 18 Acts 8:26 [†] onwards

020 (IX) Acts 8:26 onwards

044 (VIII/IX) None

014 (IX) Acts 8:26–39

Thursday, 3rd week of Pascha 3rd Saturday of Pascha

Acts 8:26–39 Acts 9:19–31

None [Lac]

None

Acts 9:19– 31

Acts 9:19–31

5th Sunday of Pascha

Acts 11:15– 26, 29–30

Acts 11:19– 30 20

Acts 11:19– 30 21

Ascension of Our Lord

Acts 1:1– 12/Acts 1:1– 8 Acts 28:1–31

None

None[Lac]

Acts 11:19–27; 29–30 Acts 1:1– 12

Acts 11:19–27; 29–30 None[La c]

None [Lac]

Acts 28:1 onwards

Acts 28:1 onwards

Acts 28:1 onwards

Saturday before Pentecost

04 (IX) 19 Acts 8:26 onwards Acts 9:19 onwards None [Lac] None [Lac] Acts 28:1 onwards

Table 2: Acts Lections in a Selection of pre-10th century MSS

Second, a comparison of Pauline and Catholic Epistle lections in codices predating the tenth century and the later Byzantine arrangement:

As represented by De Vries, Epistles, Gospels and Tones. The hands which added lectionary apparatus to Bezae (Acts N, O, O2) “all fit into the period 550–650 … it is clear that the habit of noting lections was in the manuscript was of a fairly short duration – a hundred years at the most.” D.C. Parker, Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and its Text. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 44. 19 See footnote 38 below, p. 15. 20 There is a numeral (Á¿ = 29) in the left margin of Bezae which accompanies the ÒÉÏŢ. The IGNTP transcription notes that “the lectionary number refers to the day after Easter” i.e., the fifth Sunday of Pascha. See Codex Bezae: Cambridge Digital Library [online] http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002–00041/753 [accessed 14/07/14] 21 No ÒÉÏŢ is present in 020 here but there is a minuscule identifier f.7v ÁÍ(ÉÀ¸Á¾) ɂത which is accompanied by the incipit and adapted opening phrase of v.19 “¼Å̸ÀË ¾Ä¼É¸ÀË ¼Á¼ÀŸÀË »À¸ÊȸɼÅÌ¼Ë …” The ÌšÂÇË, however, is present in majuscule at v.30 (f.8v), suggesting that this element of the lection apparatus was present at an earlier date. 17 18

INTRODUCTION Assignment

Byzantine

Tuesday, 1st week after Pentecost Saturday after Pentecost 4th Sunday after Pentecost 31st Saturday after Pentecost 23rd Sunday after Pentecost Monday, Cheese Fare Week Sunday of Orthodoxy (1st of Great Lent)

Rom 1:1– 7,13–17 Rom 1:7–12

7

020 (IX) None

044 (VIII/IX) None

049 (IX) None

04 (IX) None

Rom 1:7–12

Rom 1:7–12

Rom 1:7–12

None

Rom 6:18–23 Rom 6:18–23 Rom 6:18– 23 Col 1:1–7 Col 1:1–7 None

Rom 6:18–23

None 22

Col 1:1–6

Ends Col 1:6

Eph 2:4–10

Eph 2:4–10

Eph 2:4[†]-10

None[Lac]

3 John 1:1– 14 Heb 11:24– 26; 11:32– 12:2

No CathoNone lic Epistles Heb 11:24– None 27; 11:33–40

None

None

Hebrews not present

None[Lac]

Eph 2:4–10

Table 3: Epistle Lections in a Selection of pre-10th century MSS

Strictly speaking, this data reveals some history of what might be termed the ‘proto-Apostolos’, since there is not enough evidence to suggest that the fully developed anagnostic cycles observed in post-tenth century manuscripts existed in Lectionary codices prior to the ninth century. However, there are enough observable similarities in the pericopae detailed above and those found in tenth century manuscripts to suggest a trajectory towards the Apostolos Lectionary proper. Writing in relation to the Gospel Lectionary, Royé states that “foregoing scholars have observed that, in the history of the development of pericopes in the four Gospels, the liturgical readings (ÒŸºÅŪÊĸ̸) were already fixed in Tetraevangelion codices long (I mean for more than a century) before Tetraevangelia were transformed into Evangelion codices.” 23 Even the limited data sample above confirms this much for the Apostolos. Apostolos lections were present in a nascent form in the lection apparatus of eighth-ninth century majuscule Praxapostolos codices. Certain Acts lections might be traced to a much earlier period as suggested by the lection apparatus of Codex Bezae (05) and by certain features of Acts in the tradition of liturgical recitation i.e., consecutive narratival arrangement of pericopae interspersed with certain extracted passages. 24 In contrast, anagnosmata from Margins are lacunose on f. 209v. S. Royé, “Stages in the Creation, Establishment and Evolution of Byzantine Codex Forms”, K. Spronk, G. Rouwhorst and S. Royé, eds. Catalogue of Byzantine Manuscripts in their Liturgical Context: Challenges and Perspectives. [Subsidia 1] (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 259. 24 See discussion below of Ericsson’s “dislocated lessons”. Chapter 1, Section II, pp. 30–31. 22 23

8

THE APOSTOLOS

the Pauline corpus and Catholic Letters are likely to have developed earlier on a local scale, but found their way into a synthesised corpus now understood as the Apostolos some time after the end the Second Iconoclast Era (814–842), and further flourished during the transition to minuscule as the dominant lectionary script. As Table 3 (above) shows, certain weekday Epistle lections are missing from the majuscule lection apparatus, especially the Tuesday after Pentecost which is in flux even in the later Apostolos Synaxarion tradition (see data for AP1C, Appendix 1). This evidence hints at a stage in the development of Apostolos lections during which certain major Sunday Epistle lections were fixed – perhaps the Paschal and Pentecost cycles – but where weekday lections where yet to reach their later full arrangement. Also, the Hebrews lection for the Sunday of Orthodoxy, which commemorates the end of iconoclasm, does not seem to be present in Codex Athous Lavrensis (044) (VIII/IX), the earliest source surveyed for the Epistles. This suggests that some Sunday lections – like their weekday counterparts – developed after the end of the second Iconoclast period and the ‘Victory of Orthodoxy’ in 843 C.E. Undoubtedly this later development will have been influenced by longstanding liturgical and theological custom in the reading of the Epistles, but the evidence for such practices is no longer clearly available in the manuscript tradition. On the basis of the evidence presently available, it is best to describe the post-843 period as a time of consolidation, during which previous lection traditions were synthesised in a new way and flourished initially in the margins of majuscule Praxapostoloi, and then in minuscule codices and lectionaries proper. The very nature of the manuscript tradition, with its process of copying and composition from one codex to another, necessitates viewing the ninth century as a distinctive period of development and not a single, universally effective recension. Much further study is needed on the developmental period termed ‘proto-Apostolos’ and therefore this topic cannot detain the present study. However, as several scholars note, traditions of liturgical recitation of Acts, Paul and the Catholic Epistles must have existed since the earliest period of Chris-

INTRODUCTION

9

tian history. 25 While the concern of the current study is the tradition as it exists in its Middle and Late Byzantine forms, some awareness of the pre-history of the Apostolos is informative for later discussion. For example, where anagnostic arrangements differ in the Apostolos tradition proper this may be due to the influence of earlier or local liturgical customs. The custom of reading Scripture during festal commemorations, as in the Menologion, undoubtedly has a related yet distinctive history in need of further research. The association of Apostolos pericopae with certain commemorations must be very ancient indeed and therefore requires concentrated attention on a wide range of patristic and liturgical sources not possible within the limits of this book. The Menologion of each Apostolos codex is arranged according to the commemorative and festal customs of the institution for which it was produced, and thus exhibits considerable geographical and chronological variety in lections presented. The stable form of the Menologion, in which a number of set commemorations are spread throughout the Byzantine liturgical year, is an editorial idealisation of the manuscript tradition. While many major feasts are widely commemorated for theological reasons, the lection assigned to such a feast may appear in its full form only in a minority of manuscripts. There are a number of commemorations and lections which appear only in a minority of codices. Apostolos manuscripts are not exclusively biblical in content, but may also contain liturgical text including prokeimena, stichera, Psalms, ekphonetic notation necessary for the recitation of lections, tables of lections (sometimes referred to as anagnosma tables) and incipits (the opening phrase of a lection), and marginal material, such as scribal notes or commentary. The latter can be indicative of post-liturgical use in a monastic institution. Thus the Apostolos manuscript, as with other lectionaries, is a synthesis of multiple biblical and extra-biblical traditions and sources, both in its initial composition and subse-

Unfortunately, most existing literature on liturgical reading and circulation of Apostolos material in early Christianity has a Western focus. See for example: H. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. (Chelsea, MI: Yale University Press, 1997), 98–99; E. Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books from the Beginning to the Thirteenth Century. M. Beaumont trans. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 83–90; G. Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy. New ed. (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 360–366. An exception (though primarily focused on the Gospel Lectionary) is G. Rouwhorst, “The Liturgical Reading of the Bible in Early Eastern Christianity: The Protohistory of the Byzantine Lectionary.” K. Spronk, G. Rouwhorst and S. Royé, eds. Catalogue of Byzantine Manuscripts, 155–171; G. Rouwhorst, “The Bible in Liturgy.” J.C. Paget and J. Schaper, eds. The New Cambridge History of the Bible: From the Beginnings to 600. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 822–842. Parsons discusses the potential lectionary context of Acts in the 1st and 2nd centuries. See M.C. Parsons, Acts. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 4–5. 25

10

THE APOSTOLOS

quent use. 26 Moreover, as Jordan points out “Apostolos and Gospel pericopae appear sporadically in ľŸė¸, ¼ĤÏŦÂǺÀ¸ and иÂÌûÉÀ¸, the main text of which are hymns, prayers and Psalms.” 27 As a result, such liturgical codices are sometimes catalogued as select or deluxe type Apostolos manuscripts. Evidently, these codex types are important for understanding the Apostolos tradition, so the topic is worthy of fuller study, but once again the range and variety of such manuscripts makes such a study impossible here. However, this aspect of the tradition crucially reveals that Apostolos research cannot take place in isolation from the wider study of Byzantine liturgical and biblical codices. The Apostolos is closely related to and, it will be argued, often prepared from the minuscule continuous text Praxapostolos tradition, which consists of manuscripts containing some or all of the following works: Acts, Pauline Epistles, Pastoral Epistles, Catholic Epistles. Many Praxapostoloi contain lection apparatus which served at least two purposes: to enable the liturgical recitation of Scripture from the codex itself; to enable the production of Apostolos codices from the apparatus contained therein. 28 Before any textual examination proceeds, in order to highlight the strong prior relationship between continuous text codices containing Apostolos material and the “Apostolos” proper, it is important to show how many continuous text codices contain lection apparatus either in tables, ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ (boundary markers) or identifiers. 29 These are divided into two groups in reverse chronological order in the lists and discussions that follow, examining first minuscule codices and then their majuscule forebears.

26 In his discussion of the Latin Western liturgical-biblical tradition van Liere writes that “[a]lthough a lectionary, strictly speaking, was not a bible, we can see that the line between bibles and liturgical books was sometimes a thin one.” This distinction – if valid – holds even less for the Byzantine tradition in which arrangements of Apostolos pericopae permeate the margins of apparently “non-liturgical” manuscripts (see discussion Introduction below, and Chapter 4 below) and in which lectionary manuscripts function as the normative public Scripture for monastic institutions and for the laity. F. van Liere, An Introduction to the Medieval Bible. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 29. 27 Jordan, Greek Gospel Lectionaries, 4–5. 28 There is also the possibility that such apparatus in continuous text manuscripts allowed the private reading of the appointed liturgical pericopae in monastic institutions, but – as perhaps is to be expected – there is little textual evidence of this practice. 29 These lists are based on my own extensive examination of manuscripts as well as information provided by the Liste. The term “lection identifiers” is here used to mean any paratext which indicates the presence of a lection or draws the user’s attention to a lection incipit or boundary.

INTRODUCTION

11

Minuscule Codices containing Lection Apparatus If attention is focused on codices dated from 1000–1399 C.E. then, according to the Liste search tools, there are one hundred and eighty catalogued minuscule manuscripts containing text from Acts. 30 If Romans is taken as representative of the presence of Pauline material in minuscules there are one hundred and ten such manuscripts catalogued. Of course, it is not known what proportion of Byzantine minuscules are no longer extant and there are also manuscripts yet to be catalogued in terms of lection contents. Additionally, the Liste often does not contain adequate descriptions of the work-content of NT codices. These three factors suggest that the actual number of Praxapostolos manuscripts is considerably higher. However, since the purpose of this investigation is to calculate the proportion of Praxapostolos manuscripts likely to contain lection apparatus it is helpful to take one hundred and eighty entries as a representative sample. 31 GA 1 (Basel, University Library AN IV 2) (XII): ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 6 (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France Gr. 112) (XIII): ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 18 (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France Gr. 47) (XIV): ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾; identifiers GA 35 (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France Coislin Gr. 199) (XI): ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾; identifiers GA 43 (Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal 8409, 8410) (XI): identifiers GA 51 (Oxford, Bodleian Laud. Gr. 31) (XIII): lection tables; identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 62 (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France Gr. 62) (XIV); identifiers GA 81 (Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria MS 59; London, British Library Add. 20003) (1044); ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾; identifiers GA 88 (Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale “Vittorio Emmanuele III” Ms. II. A. 7) (XII): identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 103 32 (Moscow, State Historical Museum V. 96, S. 347) (XII): lection tables GA 104 (London, British Library Harley 5537) (XI): identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 105 (Oxford, Bodleian Auct. T. inf. 1. 10) (XII): lection tables; identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾

Liste [online] http://intf.uni-muenster.de/vmr/NTVMR/ListeHandschriften.php [accessed 30/06/2015] 31 According to Parker, there are 2820 extant minuscule manuscripts in total, with Praxapostoloi less numerous than Gospel codices. D.C. Parker, Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 40–41. 32 GA 103 is a commentary or catena manuscript. 30

12

THE APOSTOLOS GA 110 (London, British Library Harley 5778) (XII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 141 (Rome, Vat. Gr. 1160) (XIII): lection tables; lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 177 (Munich, BSB Cod.graec. 211) (XI): lection identifiers GA 180 (Rome, Vat. Borg. gr. 18 ff. 1–238) (XIII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 201 (London, British Library Add. 11837) (XIV): lection tables; identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 204 (Bologna, University Library 2775) (XIII/XIV): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 206 (London, Lambeth Palace Library 1182) (XIII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 218 (Vienna, Austrian National Library Theol. gr. 23, NT: ff. 486–623) (XIII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 226 (El Escorial, Biblioteca de El Escorial X. IV. 17) (XII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 234 (Copenhagen, Royal Library GKS 1322, 4°) (XIII): lection tables; lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 256 33 (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France Armen. 27 [9]) (XI/XII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 321 (London, British Library Harley 5557) (XII): lection tables; lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 330 (St Petersburg, Russian National Library Gr. 101) (XII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 367 (Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana Conv. Soppr. 53) (XIV): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 378 (Oxford, Bodleian E. D. Clarke 4) (XIII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 383 (Oxford, Bodleian E. D. Clarke 9, fol. 1–181) (XIII): lection identifiers GA 424 34 ư ;,  lection tables; lection identifiers GA 429 (Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek Codd. Aug. 16.7.4°, ff. 1–185) (XIV): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 431 (Straßburg, Priesterseminar 1) (XII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 436 (Uppsala, University Library Gr. 1, ff. 3–182) (XIII): lection tables; lection identifiers GA 451 (Rome, Vat. Reg. gr. Pii II 50) (XII): lection identifiers 33 GA 256 is a diglot Greek-Armenian Praxapostolos and therefore its lection apparatus is worthy of further research, especially in analysis of the Byzantine and Armenian lectionary traditions. 34 GA 424 is a commentary or catena manuscript.

INTRODUCTION GA 459 (Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana Pluteo IV. 32) (XI): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 460 35 (Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Gr. Z. 11 (379)) (XIII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 465 (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France Gr. 57) (XI): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 506 (Oxford, Christ Church Wake 12) (XI): lection tables; lection identifiers GA 614 (Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana E. 97 sup.) (XIII): lection tables; lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 623 (Rome, Vat. gr. 1650) (XI): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 642 (London, Lambeth Palace Library 1185) (XIV): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 665 (Oxford, Bodleian Auct. F. 6. 24) (XIII): lection tables; lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 676 (Münster, Bibelmuseum MS. 2) (XIII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 824 (Grottaferrata Monastery A. a. 1) (XIV): lection tables; lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 876 (Ann Arbor, Michigan University Library MS. 16) (XII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 915 (El Escorial, Biblioteca de El Escorial T. III. 12) (XIII): lection tables; lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 945 (Athos, Dionysiu 37) (XI): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 996 (Athos, Iviron 28) (XIV): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 999 (Athos, Iviron 31) (XIII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1072 (Athos, Lavra G80) (XIII): lection tables GA 1094 (Athos, Panteleimonos 29) (XIII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1140 (Athos, Esphigmenu 67, ff. 1–208) (1242): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1241 (Sinai Gr. 260) (XII): lection identifiers GA 1251 (Sinai Gr. 270) (XIII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1270 (Modena, Biblioteca Estense G. 71, a.W.2.7 [II C 4]) (XI): lection tables; identifiers GA 1315 (Jerusalem, Orthodox Patriarchate Taphu 37) (XII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1359 (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France Suppl. Gr. 1335) (XII): ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾

35 GA 460 is a polyglot Greek-Latin-Arabic manuscript in three columns, with Greek lection identifiers in the right-hand margin of Romans (f.284).

13

14

THE APOSTOLOS GA 1398 (Athos, Pantokratoros 56) (XIII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1448 (Athos, Lavra A' 13) (XII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1501 (Athos, Lavra A' 79) (XIII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1503 (Athos, Lavra A' 99) (XIV): lection tables; identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1505 (Athos, Lavra B 26) (XIII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1563 (Athos, Vatopedi 929) (XIII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1597 (Athos, Vatopedi 966) (XIII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1609 (Athos, Lavra A' 90) (XIII): lection tables; lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1642 (Athos, Lavra L' 128) (XIII): lection identifiers GA 1732 (Athos, Lavra A' 91) (XIV): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1733 (Athos, Lavra B' 5) (XIV): lection tables; lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1740 (Athos, Lavra B' 80) (XII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1746 (Athos, Lavra W' 114) (XIV): lection tables; lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1795 (New York, Morgan 714; Sofia, Centre for Slavo-Byzantine Studies 369) (XII): lection tables; lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1828 (Athens, National Library 91) (XI): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1831 (Athens, National Library 119) (XIV): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1832 (Athens, National Library 89) (XIV): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1842 (Rome, Vat. gr. 652) (XIII/XIV): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 1890 (Jerusalem, Orthodox Patriarchate Taphu 462) (XIV): lection tables; lection identifiers GA 1897 (Jerusalem, Orthodox Patriarchate Stavru 57) (XII/XIII): lection tables; lection identifiers GA 2005 (El Escorial, Biblioteca de El Escorial Y. III. 2) (XIII): lection identifiers GA 2086 (Sinai Gr. 278) (XIV): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 2374 (Baltimore, Walters Art Museum MS. W. 525) (XIII/XIV): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 2412 (Chicago, University Library Goodspeed 922) (XII): lection identifiers GA 2431 (Athos, Kavsokalyvia 4) (XIV): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾

INTRODUCTION

15

GA 2554 36 (Bucharest, Romanian Academy 3/12610): lection tables; lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 2805 (Athens, Studitu 1) (XII/XIII): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 2918 (Rome, Vat. Borg. gr. 18 ff. 239–444) (1273): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾

There are eighty-four such manuscripts in total, approximately forty-seven percent of the Liste sample of minuscule Praxapostolos codices. At this stage, it is sufficient to comment that this is a high proportion of witnesses classified as “continuous text” which are at least closely related to the Lectionary cycle, if not prepared with it in mind. In addition, there are two reasons to expect that the actual proportion is higher. First, the fact that such apparatus is difficult to detect even to the trained eye since it often takes the form of small marginalia. Second, the possibility that lection tables themselves may have been appended to continuous text codices which were later damaged. Since lection tables are often on the outer folios or first quire of a codex, these have a tendency to suffer greater damage. The ubiquity of lection tables and the ongoing transmission of the tradition would render their immediate repair unnecessary. Consequently, this is a conservative estimate of the data where minuscule Praxapostoloi are concerned. Majuscule Codices containing Lection Apparatus An initial search of the catalogue finds fourteen majuscule witnesses meeting all of the following criteria: (1) not fragmentary (i.e., containing ten or more leaves); (2) containing Acts; (3) digital images available for examination at the time of writing. If, as in the previous discussion of minuscule codices, criterion (2) is switched from Acts to the Pauline Epistles the resulting figure is thirty-two. Each of these codices has been examined and the following contain lection apparatus: GA 04. (Ephraemi Rescriptus. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France Gr. 47) (IX): lection identifiers 37 36 GA 2554 is an illuminated codex and therefore may be demonstrably related to another manuscript. 37 The lection apparatus in 04 must belong to the period of usage before storage and eventual reuse. Here I simply follow the standard dating of C3, the presumed originator of the lection apparatus in Constantinople or another major centre, in the ninth century. See Aland and Aland, Text of the New Testament, 108. If correctors 2 and 3 were conflated, as in Tischendorf and Lyon, and dated to the sixth century as is the current C2, this might suggest an earlier terminus post quem for the lection apparatus in 04. However, the lection system in 04 as detailed Table 3 (above) p. 7 provides little additional evidence in favour of this theory. See R.W. Lyon, A Re-examination of Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis: St Andrews, 1959), 24.

16

THE APOSTOLOS GA 05 (Bezae Cantabrigiensis. Cambridge, University Library Nn. 2. 41) (VI– VII): 38 ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾, marginalia GA 014 (Mutinensis. Biblioteca Estense G. 196, a.V.6.3 (II G 3)) (IX): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 020 (Angelicus. Rome, Biblioteca Angelica 39) (IX): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 044 (Athous Lavrensis. Athos, Lavra B ' 52) (IX/X): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 049 (Athos, Lavra A' 88) (IX): lection identifiers; ÒÉϸţ and ̚¾ GA 0142 (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Gr. 375) (X): identifiers 39 GA 056 (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France Coislin Gr. 26) (X): identifiers 40 GA 057 (Athens, National Library 100, ff. 46–378) (X): lection tables 41

Without pre-empting later textual analysis, several observations can be made regarding the majuscule sample containing lection apparatus. First, it is lower than the minuscule sample, and the majority of extant majuscules containing lection apparatus are, unsurprisingly. from the ninth and tenth centuries. Nevertheless, they are preceded by two prominent earlier witnesses to the biblical text. Second, while the majority of these codices are generally regarded as witnesses to the developing “Byzantine” or majority textual tradition, not all are so classified. In fact, some are “Byzantine” codices with a greater affinity to the initial text than that exhibited by later minuscules, while others clearly afford occasion for different textual traditions to pass into the Apostolos proper. Acts in Bezae is the obvious example in this respect. Although no lectionary witness proper has yet been discovered which strongly reflects the Bezan text of Acts – an admittedly unlikely occurrence – the fact that many continuous text witnesses are liturgically oriented suggests that its use for lection preparation was not necessarily for the Apostolos codex proper, especially as its marginalia pre-date the formative period. As was observed above, it is possible to trace an outline of the development of Acts and Epistle anagnosmata from earlier codices to the period in which both ‘lectionary’ Praxapostoloi and Apostolos codices proper began to flourish. Future research may shed further light on this early period. Finally, even among majuscules, commentary or catena codices are among the continuous text codices used to prepare lections and, presumably, lectionary codices proper. This suggests that the degree of intercommunicability of biblical and liturgical texts which, it will be argued, is See footnote 18 above, p. 6. A commentary MS possessing an identifier for Pascha Sunday and subsequent lectionary marginalia. 40 An Athonite codex, the Epistles contain commentary text as well as lection apparatus. 41 A catena MS. 38 39

INTRODUCTION

17

characteristic of the Apostolos, obtains somewhat for earlier centuries as well as the Middle and Late Byzantine periods. Codex Relationships and Lectionary Research The initial evidence of lection apparatus in a range of majuscule and minuscule codices counts against the argument that Apostolos manuscripts are seldom prepared from continuous text manuscripts, or the related argument that a type of NT and liturgical text passed from a select number of early Praxapostolos exemplars into the Lectionary and was subsequently transmitted from lectionary to lectionary manuscript. On the contrary, the number of codices containing lection apparatus as well as the chronological and geographical distribution suggests that the opposite is the case. It was quite common, if not the norm, for the Apostolos manuscript to be prepared from a Praxapostolos. In fact, there are so many Praxapostolos codices possessing lection apparatus of some kind that it is obvious many also had a liturgical function. Many such manuscripts are Tetraevangelion-Praxapostolos codices, suggesting that the production of an Evangelio-Apostolos (EA) lectionary would have been possible from one such codex. Thus the Apostolos researcher should expect to find elements of a continually changing and evolving manuscript tradition, both in NT and liturgical text, and not simply a static tradition transmitting text and rubrics from the pre-tenth century period of initial formation. The last time the Apostolos was subject to any extended research was by Ericsson and Cocroft in the wake of the Studies in the Lectionary Text of the Greek New Testament at the University of Chicago, which ran from 1933 onwards. 42 It is surprising that these authors did not pay attention to the wider context of biblical-liturgical manuscripts in relation to the Apostolos, including the number of continuous text codices containing lection apparatus indicative of liturgical recitation. While the technical constraints of the period made an analysis of such a large number of manuscripts difficult, even within the limited number of manuscripts surveyed there is little evidence of engagement with other codex types. This insight is crucial to the analysis offered in the chapters that follow. Issues of Terminology There are several points of terminology in need of clarification. ‘Apostolos’ is used here to refer both to the individual manuscript and to the wider tradition. ‘Praxapostolos’ is used to refer to continuous text manuscripts contain42 D.E. Ericsson, The Book of Acts in the Greek New Testament. (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis: University of Chicago, 1961); R.E. Cocroft, A Study of the Pauline Lessons in the Matthaean Sections of the Greek Lectionary. [Studies and Documents 32] (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1968). See Chapter 1, Section II, pp. 27–31.

18

THE APOSTOLOS

ing the Acts and Epistles although, as observed above, such manuscripts may also contain extensive apparatus for liturgical recitation. Throughout the study, the terms ‘lection’ and ‘anagnosma’ are used interchangeably to refer to the extracts of biblical text presented for liturgical recitation in the Apostolos, the plural being ‘lections’ and ‘anagnosmata’ respectively. The arrangement of lections presented in any given codex is referred to as its lection or anagnostic system or arrangement. Basic terminology used for the Synaxarion lection system is as follows: ‘esk’ (î¹»ÇÄŠ»¼Ë/ ʸ¹¹¸ÌÇÁÍÉÀ¸Á¸ţ) describes an Apostolos manuscript containing lections for weekdays and Saturday/Sunday and ‘sk’ (ʸ¹¹¸ÌÇÁÍÉÀ¸Á¸ţ) describes a manuscript containing lections for Saturday and Sunday only. However, this is approximate since the exact lection system in the various parts of the Synaxarion varies from codex to codex. 43 The term ‘reading’, as a noun, is reserved for the state of text or variants present in the biblical or liturgical text of a manuscript and is not used to refer to an extract of biblical text. For brevity, throughout the present volume De Vries’ abbreviations are used to describe the designation of a lection for a particular day in the Synaxarion anagnostic cycle e.g., ‘E’ (Easter, Pascha), ‘AP’ (After Pentecost). For instance, ‘AP2B’ refers to the Monday (B) of the second week after Pentecost, while ‘AP2A’ is the Sunday of the same week. Somewhat differently, each Menologion festal commemoration is given an abbreviated ID with the same end in mind. In the discussion of ‘lection numbers’ present in some codices, 44 Greek numerals are presented with an overline e.g., തɈȽ തതത (21). In transcription, the tags [num][/num] recommended by the International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP) were used to record this feature. 45 Other features such as marginal text, illegible text or corrections are also presented in tags according to IGNTP guidelines, and these are described where relevant throughout.

II. OUTLINE OF STUDY An Interdisciplinary Approach This study focuses on the text of Acts and Paul as transmitted in the Apostolos tradition. In order to do justice to this tradition, equal attention must be given to each aspect: the NT text and its relationship to the wider textual tradition, and liturgical texts and their relationship to liturgy and theology. The For further discussion of lection system nomenclature see Chapter 2, Section IIIa, pp. 73–77. 44 See Chapter 3, Section Vb, pp. 143–147. 45 R. Kevern, M. L. Lakmann, M.B. Morrill, and D.C. Parker. IGNTP-INTF guidelines for the transcription of manuscripts using Unicode. Manual. International Greek New Testament Project - Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster. (2011: Unpublished) [online] http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1482/ 43

INTRODUCTION

19

title and contents of this volume reflect this reality, attempting to avoid the twin pitfalls of either treating the Apostolos as a mere vessel for transmitting biblical text, or else viewing it as an arcane Byzantine tradition unworthy of the attention of biblical scholarship. Lectionary research requires a critical synthesis of textual criticism, liturgical studies, Byzantine history and codicology. This synthesis is difficult to achieve because few scholars are, by nature, conversant in all of these disciplines. The present writer is no exception, but it is hoped that by attempting such a synthesis this study may interact with other researchers who have made this attempt in related fields, and so pave the way for future methods which will be fruitful in lectionary research. In everything that follows the question of the ‘lectionary text’ takes centre stage. As alluded to above and discussed in the chapter which follows, the ‘lectionary text’ view may be broadly defined as the theory that the lectionary witnesses transmit a common text, distinguished from the wider NT textual tradition by variant readings and adaptations, which may be traced to an earlier Vorlage. On this view, the text of Acts and Paul transmitted by Middle and Late Byzantine lectionary witnesses would lead us to such a textual archetype or archetypes, or at least provide evidence sufficient for a critical reconstruction of earlier stages in the tradition. A related view, often advocated in codicology and historical discussion of the Lectionary, is that the liturgical texts and anagnostic arrangements presented by later Byzantine lectionary manuscripts may lead back to a liturgical archetype, allowing researchers to trace the origins of the Lectionary system. While each chapter in this study approaches the Apostolos from a different perspective, each views the evidence through the lens of this ‘lectionary text’ question. In order to test the validity of archetypal theories all the evidence must be examined, separately and in synthesis, in light of this question. What does each piece of evidence suggest about the way in which NT and liturgical text came to be present in each manuscript? Do patterns of copying, variation, commemoration, liturgical use, storage, textual transmission and theological reflection reveal a tradition traceable to earlier centuries, or something different? It will be argued that the Apostolos tradition is in fact a biblical-liturgical synthesis substantially completed in the tenth century, echoing earlier textual and liturgical traditions but not carrying them wholesale into later centuries. Are the NT and liturgical traditions of the Apostolos homogeneous or do they exhibit a degree of continued variation, evolution and flux? In this study it is argued that, far from being homogeneous, the Apostolos tradition contains much textual and liturgical variation. It may be objected that placing the ‘lectionary text’ question in the centre contradicts the interdisciplinary approach, prioritising text-critical goals at the expense of others. However, as will be shown, answering the ‘lectionary text’ question necessitates the opening up of many other avenues of research that liberate the manuscript tradition from a narrow (as opposed to a broad) textual criticism and open it up to new possibilities.

20

THE APOSTOLOS

Navigating this Study Given the interdisciplinary approach of this study, different chapters may be of particular interest to specific readers. Textual critics, for example, may be particularly interested in the NT textual data, while liturgists may wish to focus on patterns of festal commemoration. To aid the reader in this endeavour, a summary of each chapter and its focus is provided here. At the same time, the evidence in this study – directed towards proving the hypothesis that the Apostolos is an evolving Byzantine liturgical-biblical synthesis composed from continuous-text sources – is set out cumulatively, so that different sources are brought to bear on the central ‘lectionary text’ question. Chapter 1 discusses the Apostolos in past and present scholarship. First, it introduces the place of Apostolos scholarship within the wider study of the Greek Lectionary, which includes the Gospel Lectionary and OT lectionaries. Next, the discussion moves on to the three key disciplines in which the Apostolos has been researched: NT textual criticism, art history/codicology, and liturgical studies. Attention is drawn to the key themes in each discipline, as well as commonalities and differences of approach. Chapter 1 traces the key arguments and historical factors which have caused the dominance of archetypal ‘lectionary text’ approaches to the Lectionary, and therefore the Apostolos, and questions this dominant narrative. It concludes with a survey of the place of Apostolos witnesses in some printed editions. Throughout the chapter, attention is drawn to the relative paucity of previous Apostolos scholarship, and the limitations of what has been achieved. Chapter 2 examines the sources for the study of the Apostolos. Section I details references to the Apostolos in Byzantine sources outside the manuscript tradition itself. It shows the place of the Apostolos within Byzantine bibliographic practice, in historical context with other codex types. It also explores how Byzantine authors viewed the Apostolos codex from a liturgical and theological perspective. Section II of Chapter 2 discusses the criteria for selecting a sample of Apostolos manuscripts in the present study. Attention is drawn to the advantages and disadvantages of following the criteria set out by previous researchers. Section III moves on to a discussion of the manuscript sample. Exceptional features of various codices in the sample are discussed. It is argued that direct study of Apostolos codices alongside historical and liturgical sources is essential for an accurate understanding of the tradition. Section IV concludes the chapter with an examination of the continuous text sources examined for the present study and how these complement and shed light on the Apostolos sample. Chapter 3 focuses on the text-critical aspect of Apostolos research. Section I deals with the selection of test passages and sources of textual investigation proper to the Apostolos tradition. Section II discusses a selection of test passages and determines the relationship of the Apostolos text found in the Synaxarion to that of the wider NT textual tradition, including the Ausgangstext represented by NA28, the wider Byzantine textual tradition, and the question of the ‘lectionary text’. Once again, analyses of liturgical and biblical text can-

INTRODUCTION

21

not be separated, and so Section V moves to an examination of variation in the liturgical text of the Synaxarion, including anagnostic numbering and lection identifiers. The key question here is whether there are common patterns between NT and liturgical textual variation. Chapter 4 moves beyond a text-critical focus and into a study of the Apostolos corpus and its paratextual, palaeographical and codicological features. Key research questions in this chapter include: ‘what size are Apostolos codices?’; ‘how are Apostolos codices copied, in what scribal hands, and with what degree of skill?’; ‘which scripts and hands are used for which texts?’; ‘what codex types are there?’; ‘how much variation is there in the arrangement of Acts and Epistles sections of the anagnostic cycle?’; ‘how many Apostolos codices contain notation to aid liturgical recitation and what is the significance of this feature of the tradition?’ Each of these questions is set within the wider research context set out above. For example, if there are few deluxe Apostolos manuscripts, how does this relate to the theological significance accorded to them in Byzantine sources (Chapter 1)? If different hands are used for biblical and liturgical texts, does this suggest that texts were copied from multiple sources (Chapter 2)? Section IX of Chapter 4 examines patterns of anagnosma variation in the Synaxarion and what this means for the Apostolos tradition, its transmission and origins. Chapter 5 concentrates exclusively on the Menologion, discussing patterns of textual variation (Sections I and II) and festal commemoration variation (III). In the text-critical discussions, the research questions regarding the place of the Apostolos in the NT textual tradition are repeated, albeit from a different perspective via the focus on the festal rather than the movable liturgical cycle. Here the purpose is not only to relate the text of Acts and Paul in the Lectionary to the NT textual tradition, but also to compare the texts transmitted by the Synaxarion and Menologion sections of Apostolos witnesses. Patterns of festal commemoration are investigated as evidence for the provenance, production, copying and storage of Apostolos codices, as well as the manuscript sources for liturgical and biblical material in the Menologion. In investigating these areas, Chapter 5 builds on lines of enquiry opened in previous chapters and is once again directed towards answering the critical question of the ‘lectionary text’.

1. THE APOSTOLOS IN PAST AND PRESENT SCHOLARSHIP I. THE APOSTOLOS AND LECTIONARY STUDIES The vast majority of research on the Greek Lectionary has been directed towards the Gospel tradition. Several factors have resulted in this state of affairs. First, these manuscripts are more numerous. Second, it has been convenient to make individual studies of each Gospel, rendered logical by the structure of the Byzantine lection system itself. Third, the Apostolos tradition has – to some degree correctly – been viewed as derivative from the Gospel Lectionary in structure and origin and therefore neglected. Until the late twentieth century, the primary concern of textual critics was to discover and reconstruct the earliest (or ‘original’) text of the NT. It was widely hypothesised that Gospel Lectionary manuscripts would preserve earlier texts. Underlying this theory were three key assumptions: that the Gospel Lectionary was the product of a recension predating the earliest extant (majuscule) witnesses of that tradition; that one lectionary manuscript was copied to another; and that the scribal practices of Byzantine copyists were inherently conservative. As a result, it was believed that lections present in later manuscripts would preserve earlier readings. The Chicago Studies conceived of this in terms of the traditional language of text-types: lectionary manuscripts contained a shared text which, while reflecting the Koine or Byzantine text of later centuries, preserved Alexandrian or Caesarean readings. There was little attempt to discover how the Apostolos tradition might affect this view of the Greek Lectionary or to theorise regarding its text and origins. Meanwhile, the fields of Byzantine and liturgical studies were nascent until the twentieth century, meaning that research into the ‘paratextual’ or extra-biblical features of the Lectionary remained of secondary importance. In this introduction to the Apostolos tradition in previous and current scholarship, a number of key questions come to the fore. How do textual scholars, art historians, Byzantinists and codicologists view the Apostolos tradition? What methodologies are employed in the study of this tradition? To what extent has research focused on text and non-textual issues? Which codices have been studied and in what detail? What are the main methodological trends in Apostolos research and how do they affect the results of each study? These questions are asked with a view to discovering the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and the validity of each study for current and future research.

23

24

THE APOSTOLOS

The interaction of these questions with the closely related field of Gospel Lectionary research is addressed when necessary. It is neither possible nor useful to replicate the histories of Gospel Lectionary research which have already been produced other than to refer to debates and developments which impact directly on the present subject. 46 Some of these areas of interaction include: where manuscripts contain both Gospel and Apostolos lections; where a major methodological development has been made in Gospel research which impacts on present study; when a particular codex has been identified which may shed light on an aspect of the Apostolos tradition.

II. THE APOSTOLOS IN TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP It is convenient to set out the history of Apostolos scholarship in chronological order, giving particular detail to certain prominent figures. This study is not exhaustive since most scholars introducing textual criticism have at least mentioned the Apostolos in passing. Nevertheless, this section is comprehensive where important studies are concerned. Gregory examines over three hundred Apostolos codices in his major work on NT textual criticism. 47 Gregory also provides an overview of the lections in the Synaxarion and Menologion sections of the Byzantine Lectionary for which he uses several manuscripts as well as previous edited sources, the most prominent for the Synaxarion being those of Scholz and von Matthäi. 48 Gregory appears to consult codices independently of editorial sources. One is Evl. 32 (Gotha, Landesbibliothek Memb. I 78), now designated L32 and dated to the eleventh century. 49 The other is Evl. 292 (Carpentras, Bibliothèque municipale 10 [L11]), now designated L292 and identified as a palimpsest majuscule lectionary dated to the ninth century. 50 Gregory’s work forms the basis for later editorial collations of Apostolos anagnostic arrangements. Gregory acknowledges the terminological distinction between the continuous text ÈɸƸÈŦÊÌÇÂÇË and the ÒÈŦÊÌÇÂÇË as a lectionary codex and comments on the difference in nomenclature between Western European scholarship and Greek usage. 51 46 For reasonably up-to-date accounts of the history of Gospel Lectionary research see e.g., M. Lyon-Dolezal. The Middle Byzantine Lectionary: Textual and Pictorial Expression of Liturgical Ritual. (University of Chicago: Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, 1991), 7–144; Jordan, Greek Gospel Lectionaries, 15–38. 47 C.R. Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes. Vol. 1 (Leipzig: Hinrichs’, 1900), 465– 478. 48 I.M.A Scholz, Novum Testamentum Graece. (Leipzig: Fleischer, 1830); C.F. von Matthäi, Novum Testamentum Graece. (Ronneburg, 1807). 49 Gregory, Textkritik, 343. 50Liste [online] http://intf.uni-muenster.de/vmr/NTVMR/ListeHandschriften.php [accessed 09/09/14] 51 Gregory, Textkritik, 355.

1. THE APOSTOLOS IN PAST AND PRESENT SCHOLARSHIP

25

Scrivener’s discussion of the Greek Lectionary in his Plain Introduction references the Apostolos several times. In distinguishing between Apostolos and Gospel codices Scrivener writes that the “general name of Lectionary is often, though incorrectly confined to the latter class.” 52 Even in the twentieth century scholars use the terms ‘Lectionary’ and ‘Gospel Lectionary’ as if they were synonymous. In terms of textual issues, Scrivener is aware of possible ‘interpolations’ into the continuous NT text from Apostolos lectionaries. Examples include the presence of Ò»¼ÂÎÇĖ or ÌšÁÅÇÅ ÀÄŦ¿¼¼ in the continuous text of 2 Tim 4:5, as well as “a peculiarity of style kept out of sight by the addition of ÉÀÊÌġË in the common text of 1 Thess ii:19; iii:13: 2 Thess i:8, 12.” 53 Scrivener believes that the clarifying Byz reading ÁɸÌÇıÅÌÇË »ò ÌÇı Ċ¸¿šÅÌÇË ÏÑÂÇı (Acts 3:11) – found in the majority of continuous text minuscule manuscripts – is caused by “several words … inserted or substituted in order to suit the purpose of public reading”, 54 suggesting a lectionary origin for a widely attested continuous text reading. The bulk of Scrivener’s work on the Apostolos tradition consists of collating and comparing the lection systems of individual codices and cataloguing the manuscripts themselves. On the subject of lections, Scrivener is aware of liturgical and geographical variations in the Menologion sections of lectionary codices, so that “the character of the menology … will often guide us to the country and district in which the volume itself was written.” 55 Following scribal usage, Scrivener also proposes that the terms ÊÍŸƊÉÀÇÅ and ¼ÁÂǺŠ»ÀÇÅ are used in a closely related manner to describe “a table of daily lessons for the year beginning at Easter”, and he believes the Synaxarion exhibits less variation than the Menologion anagnostic system. 56 In total Scrivener catalogues two hundred and eighty-eight “Lectionaries containing the Apostolos or Praxapostolos”, 57 though his system is complicated by the fact that the same codex can be assigned separate numbers in multiple catalogues according to its contents e.g., a lectionary containing both Gospel and Epistle

52 F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. 4th ed. (London: Deighton, Bell and Co., 1883), 74. 53 Scrivener, Plain Introduction, 12. 54 Scrivener, Plain Introduction, 76. On this issue the editors of the USB GNT editions concur: “The reading ÁɸÌÇıÅÌÇË »òÌÇıĊ¸¿šÅÌÇË ÏÑÂÇı (P S most minuscules, followed by the Textus Receptus), which identifies the colorless ¸ĤÌÇı of the earlier witnesses, is obviously a secondary development, probably connected with the beginning of an ecclesiastical lection at this point.” B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, (2nd rev. ed.) (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 269. 55 Scrivener, Plain Introduction, 77. 56 Scrivener, Plain Introduction, 77. 57 Scrivener, Plain Introduction, 368–376.

26

THE APOSTOLOS

lections can appear twice, separately in each section according to its contents. 58 Several codices catalogued by Scrivener and not included in the current manuscript selection are noteworthy, since he does not exclude codices with select or alternative lection systems from his list. This includes a number of ‘Apostolos’ manuscripts with liturgical or OT content or which blur the boundaries of codex classification e.g., the MS Mosc. Typogr. Syn. 31, dated to 1116, containing “a few lections from 1 John at the end of lections from the Old Testament” 59 and “(Evst. 290) Lond B-C. III. 44 … a Typicum [ÌÍÈÀÁġÅ] in two separate hands, [which] contains twenty-nine lessons: viz. eleven from the Old Testament, six from the Apocrypha, two from the Gospels … [and] ten from St. Paul’s Epistles.” 60 The manuscript Rome Barberini 18 is a palimpsest said by Scrivener to contain “[l]essons from the Old Testament, with a few from the Catholic Epistles at the end.” 61 Another palimpsest (Evan. 561) dated to the eighth or ninth century is said by Scrivener to be “written over the Gospels and table of Lessons, and containing Rom xv. 30– 33 [AP10G]; 1 Cor iv. 9–13 [AP10A]; xv 42–5; 2 Cor. ix 6, 7 [Uncertain].” 62 Scrivener’s collation of Synaxarion and Menologion lections is drawn from eleven codices, including lectionaries and liturgical books such as the ÍÏÇÂŦºÀÇÅ. The current designations and locations of these sources are set out in the table below. MS: Scrivener Evangelist. Arund. 547 Parham 18 Harley 5598 Burney 22 Gale O. 4.22 Cambridge, Christ’s College F. 1.8 Wake 12 Codex Bezae (D) Apostolos B-C III.24 Apostolos B-C III.53 Euchology B-C III.42

Current IDs London, British Library Arundel 547/L183 London, British Library Add MS 39600/ GA 912 London, British Library Harley 5598/ L150 London, British Library Burney 22/L184 Cambridge, Trinity College O. IV. 22/L186 Cambridge, Christ’s College F. 1.8 Oxford, Christ Church Wake 12/ GA 506 Cambridge, University Library Nn. 2. 41/GA 05 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale Gr. 68/GA 21 Besançon, Bibliothèque d’étude et de conservation MS. 44 London, British Library Burney 22

Table 4: Sources for Lectionary Tables in Scrivener [Source: Scrivener, Plain Introduction, p.80]

Kenyon erroneously describes Apostolos manuscripts as ‘Praxapostoli’ and notes that at that time there were approximately three hundred known extant Scrivener, Plain Introduction, 78. Scrivener, Plain Introduction, 368. 60 Scrivener, Plain Introduction, 371. 61 Scrivener, Plain Introduction, 369. 62 Scrivener, Plain Introduction, 369. 58 59

1. THE APOSTOLOS IN PAST AND PRESENT SCHOLARSHIP

27

Apostolos codices. 63 He briefly discusses the terminology of Greek Lectionaries and approves of Brightman’s view that the term ‘Evangelistarium’ (¼Ĥ¸ºº¼ÂÀÊÌŠÉÀÇÅ) in Byzantine manuscripts refers to the “table of lessons” rather than the codex type. 64 Kenyon’s introduction to textual criticism discusses all lectionary manuscripts under the heading of ‘minuscules’. In a statement indicative of the past approach to lectionary research, he describes them as “a whole class of authorities … of less value than those [minuscules] already described, but serving to swell the total.” 65 Kirsopp Lake erroneously believes that an Apostolos simply contains “a selection from the Acts.” 66 Lake writes of liturgical-biblical manuscripts that “[t]hese may be conveniently termed ‘Lectionaries’, though they are strictly known by various names, according to the name of the New Testament from which they have been compiled … general faithfulness to an originally continuous text … gives to the evidence of lectionaries both its value and its limitations.” 67 In the introduction to the Chicago Studies, Colwell and Rife correctly define the Apostolos as a “[l]ectionary with lections from the Acts and Epistles.” 68 Ericsson’s doctoral thesis on the text of Acts in the Lectionary is one of two textual studies to focus exclusively on the Apostolos tradition. 69 As such, it is necessary to summarise Ericsson’s methodology, hypotheses and findings in some detail. Using the TR as his collation base, Ericsson selects four lections (Acts 3:19–26; 10:21–33; 12:25–13:12; 20:16–18, 28–36) in twenty-four Apostolos manuscripts. These lections are spread over the second, fourth, fifth and seventh weeks after the Sunday of Pascha in the Byzantine calendar respectively, with only the final lection being for a Sunday liturgy (ÁÍÉÀ¸Á¾½). Ericsson acknowledges the potential weakness of the TR as a base text, yet concludes that readings which distinguish the text of Acts in the Lectionary from the TR are of greatest interest. 70 “Majority variants” are then selected F.G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. (London: MacMillan and Co., 1901), 109–110. 64 F.E. Brightman, “The Marginal Notes of Lections.” Journal of Theological Studies. Vol. 1 (3), (1900), 446–454. In fact, this is very unlikely to be correct since ‘Synaxarion’ is generally used for such tables. 65 Kenyon, Handbook, 109. 66 K. Lake, The Text of the New Testament. (London: Rivingtons, 1908), 51. 67 Lake, Text, 51. 68 E.C. Colwell and J.M. Rife, “Special Uses of Terms in the Gospel Lectionary.” E.C. Colwell and D.W. Riddle eds. Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933), 7. 69 Ericsson, Book of Acts. 70 “The disadvantage of using this base is that potentially significant readings in which the Lectionary agrees with TR are lost sight of.” Ericsson, Book of Acts, 5. 63

28

THE APOSTOLOS

from the collated text of these four lections – defined as “a reading in which 50 per cent or more of the manuscripts used in this study agree against the TR” 71 – while minority lectionary variants are analysed separately. For the majority variants, Tischendorf’s apparatus is used to select twenty-six instances at which there are three or more variant readings (termed ‘multiple variants’) “chosen by a random process.” 72 The resulting textual data is compared to the continuous text tradition via von Soden’s apparatus and textual groupings, and several other manuscripts available to Ericsson. 73 The use of the TR and von Soden’s groupings as the basis for textual comparison are methodological techniques common to the works in the Studies. 74 Ericsson’s textual methodology is driven by his hypothesis that the Lectionary contains a homogeneous text. 75 His approach is indicative of this from the outset, since eight ‘randomly’ selected manuscripts are used (in the four lections) to establish what he describes as a textual ‘pattern’ – only once this pattern has been established are the remaining manuscripts collated. The Apostolos witnesses to Acts are ranked in terms of their percentage of majority and minority lectionary variants. As a result, Ericsson is confident that his study is “representative of the Lectionary as a whole. Individual manuscripts may deviate from the standard, but the family as a group is probably adequately represented here.” The supposed homogeneity of the text – conceived of in terms of relation to the TR and von Soden’s groupings – is, in Ericsson’s words, “demonstrated in each of the tests applied to it”. 76 In the conclusions of his study, Ericsson states that there is a minority strain in the Apostolos text of Acts which “seems to go back to more ancient text forms than does the majority text”, and he also suggests that the Menologion textual tradition differs from that of the Synaxarion. 77 Nevertheless, these aspects of the tradition are seen as subsidiary to the central conclusion, namely that one “may properly speak of ‘the lectionary text’ as a distinct entity.” Ericsson believes that “the lectionaries, as a family, associate themselves most closely with von Soden’s Ia3 group” while the minority strain is “not possible to define … with precision. It has both Alexandrian and Western affini-

Ericsson, Book of Acts, 6. Ericsson, Book of Acts, 9. 73 Ericsson notes that von Soden rarely cites ‘K’ type Byzantine witnesses in Acts and therefore supplies four majuscules supposedly of this type (H L P 049) and five minuscules. Ericsson, Book of Acts,14. 74 A. Wikgren, “Chicago Studies in the Greek Lectionary of the New Testament.” J.N. Birdsall and R.W. Thomson eds. Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey. (Freiburg: Herder, 1963), 99, 102, 104, 105–107. 75 Ericsson, Book of Acts, 15. 76 Ericsson, Book of Acts, 72. 77 Ericsson, Book of Acts, 72. 71 72

1. THE APOSTOLOS IN PAST AND PRESENT SCHOLARSHIP

29

ties.” 78 His textual comparison concludes with a summary of the relationship between the ‘lectionary text’ of Acts and its counterparts in two modern Greek editions, the Patriarchate edition (Antoniades, 1904) 79 and an edition of the printed Apostolos of Àϸ޸Âţ¹¼ÉÇË produced in Venice from 1879 onwards (Saliberos, 1921). 80 Ericsson concludes that Antoniades agrees primarily with the majority Lectionary tradition and therefore rejects readings unique to the Lectionary tradition, while the Saliberos edition is regarded as having a close affinity to the TR and not “descended from the tradition represented by the Lectionary manuscripts used in this study.” 81 Ericsson’s conclusions regarding the Saliberos edition are largely unsubstantiated since he uses only a single lection test passage (Acts 8:40–9:42) in comparison to one lectionary (L809, supposedly a representative witness) to establish the nature of the Saliberos text. Within the context of the methodological and technological limitations of the period, Ericsson’s textual study has numerous features to commend it. First, he makes a legitimate attempt to compare the various sub-traditions within the Apostolos codex (e.g., Menologion and Synaxarion), a feat not always attempted by other Chicago Studies. Second, his analysis of ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ variants in four lections reveals the relationship of a small strand of the Apostolos textual tradition to continuous text witnesses. Third, the desire to compare the texts of Apostolos witnesses to contemporary printed editions demonstrates a willingness to move beyond the TR, even if the actual methodology is lacking in this respect. Finally, the appreciation of minority/Menologial readings raises the fascinating possibility that – despite the overarching hypothesis of a ‘lectionary text’ – an evidence-driven approach to the Apostolos might make for different conclusions. Even though the question regarding multiple states of text in the manuscript tradition is posed in terms of traditional textual groupings now widely criticised, the impetus to appreciate rather than entirely subsume textual variation is clear. At the same time, the limitations of Ericsson’s hypothesis-led approach, both in relation to the Apostolos and in the Chicago school more generally, are equally clear. Homogeneity is assumed and concluded based on a supposedly random process of variant-selection, when in fact the process of selecting lections, test passages and variants must be careful and based on some prior

Ericsson, Book of Acts, 72–73. H ¸ÀÅüÀ¸¿ŢÁ¾ ëºÁÉţʼÀ ÌýË ¼ºŠÂ¾Ë ÌÇıÉÀÊÌÇı