Orthodox New Testament Textual Scholarship: Antoniades, Lectionaries, and the Catholic Epistles 9781463242664

Citation preview

Orthodox New Testament Textual Scholarship

Texts and Studies (Third Series)

26 Series Editor H. A. G. Houghton

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

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

Orthodox New Testament Textual Scholarship

Antoniades, Lectionaries, and the Catholic Epistles

Jovan Stanojević

gp 2021

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com 2021 Copyright © by Gorgias Press LLC

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

1

2021

ISBN 978-1-4632-4267-1

ISSN 1935-6927

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

To Bishop Lukijan Vladulov († 2017) Епископу Лукијану Владулову († 2017)

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .................................................................... vii Abbreviations .......................................................................... ix Preface................................................................................... xiii Acknowledgements .................................................................. xv Introduction.............................................................................. 1 Chapter One. History and Background of the Antoniades Edition .............................................................................. 9 Antoniades’ Textual Scholarship According to the Introduction to His Edition ........................................ 9 Printed Greek New Testaments in the Orthodox Church: Selected Editions...................................................... 15 Orthodox New Testament Textual Scholarship since Antoniades............................................................... 40 Antoniades’ Edition in Western Scholarship..................... 56 Concluding Remarks........................................................ 72

Chapter Two. Antoniades’ Manuscripts, with Special Reference to the Witnesses of the Praxapostolos .................................... 75 Eight Revelation Manuscripts from Lavra ........................ 84 Distribution of Antoniades’ Witnesses to the Praxapostolos according to Age and Collection .................................... 86 Order of Books in Antoniades’ Witnesses to the Praxapostolos........................................................... 87 Gregory-Aland 1869. 1739. and l 884.............................. 89 Antoniades’ Witnesses to the Praxapostolos in the Most Significant Editions of the Greek New Testament ..... 91 Concluding Remarks........................................................ 93 vii

viii

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Chapter Three. Teststellen: Collation of the Catholic Epistles... 95 Concluding Analysis ...................................................... 141 Chapter Four. The Editio Critica Maior and Antoniades’ Text of the Catholic Epistles .................................................. 145 Collations ...................................................................... 145 The Nature and Significance of Differences Between ECM and Antoniades’ Edition................................. 153 A Commentary on the Selected Variation Passages ........ 154 Concluding Remarks...................................................... 170 Chapter Five. Final Reflections............................................. 173 Appendix: A Translation of Antoniades’ Preface to his Edition of the Greek New Testament ............................. 179 Bibliography ......................................................................... 187 Indices .................................................................................. 201 Index of Biblical Passages .............................................. 201 Index of Manuscripts ..................................................... 203 Index of Subjects ........................................................... 205

ABBREVIATIONS ANT ANTF ASV BDAG

BFBS BSIH BTSI CBGM CEB CJB CSB DBY eapcr

EC ECM EkklAl EO ESV

Antoniades’ Edition: Constantinople: Ecumenical Patriarchate, 1904. Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung American Standard Version Bauer–Danker–Arndt–Gingrich: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. British and Foreign Bible Society Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History Brill’s Texts and Sources in Intellectual History The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method Common English Bible The Complete Jewish Bible Holman Christian Standard Bible The Darby Translation Describes the content and/or order of the NT books in MS(S) or edition(s): e=Gospels, a=Acts+Catholic Epistles if c=Catholic Epistles is not separately indicated, p=Pauline epistles, and r=Revelation. Early Christianity Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior Ekklesiastike Aletheia Ecclesia Orans. Roma English Standard Version ix

x

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

GA GNT GOTR GW HNT HNV HTKNT HTR JAJSup JSNTSup JBL JUB JWAM KJV l+ae laesk le LEB lesk LTP MS(S) MSG NA27 NA28

Gregory-Aland catalogue number of a Greek New Testament Manuscript Good News Translation Greek Orthodox Theological Review God’s Word Translation Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Hebrew Names Version Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Journal of Ancient Judaism – Supplements Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis Jubilee Bible 2000 Journal of the Walters Art Museum King James Version Gospel and Apostolos lectionary with Synaxarion readings for all days of the liturgical year Apostolos lectionary with Synaxarion readings for all week days from Easter until Pentecost and thereafter only for Saturdays and Sundays Gospel lectionary with Synaxarion readings for all days of the liturgical year Lexham English Bible Gospel lectionary with Synaxarion readings for all weekdays from Easter until Pentecost and thereafter only for Saturdays and Sundays Lectionary Test Passage Manuscript(s) The Message Bible Barbara Aland et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993) Barbara Aland et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012)

ABBREVIATIONS NAS NCV NIRV NIV NKJV NLT NovTSup NTTS NTTSD OrthFor REB RHE RSV SacSc TEV ThLBl TMB TPs TR TS TU TuT UBS1 UBS2 UBS3 UBS4 UBS5 WBT

xi

New American Standard Bible New Century Version New International Reader’s Version New International Version The New King James Version New Living Translation Supplements to Novum Testamentum New Testament Tools and Studies New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents Orthodoxes Forum Revised English Bible Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible Revised Standard Version Sacra Scripta Today’s English Version Theologisches Literaturblatt. Leipzig Third Millennium Bible Test Passages Textus Receptus Teststelle Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments Kurt Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament. First ed. (London: United Bible Societies, 1966) Kurt Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament. Second ed. (London: United Bible Societies, 1968) Kurt Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament. Third Corrected ed. (London: United Bible Societies, 1983) Barbara Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament. Fourth Revised ed. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1993) Barbara Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament. Fifth Revised ed. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2014) The Webster Bible

xii WEB WNT

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP The World English Bible Weymouth New Testament

PREFACE The motivation for this research developed during my Master’s studies at the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, MA. At that time, I had the opportunity to cross-register at other theological schools in Boston, which allowed me to attend a course on New Testament manuscripts and textual criticism with Professor Eldon J. Epp at Harvard Divinity School during the spring semester of the academic year 2009/10. It was then that I became acquainted with the subject, methods, and the theoretical and practical problems of New Testament textual scholarship. The different ideological and methodological approaches to the problem of New Testament textual plurality became evident. Virtually all theoretical and methodological reflections that could be found in the literature had evolved in the context of the Western Christian tradition. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, to which I belong, Greek New Testament textual scholarship has not yet developed in a sufficient way. This prompted me to try to conceptualize and conduct an initial research project that could serve as prolegomena and as a methodological paradigm for the further development of New Testament textual scholarship from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. For preliminary study, I went as a guest student to the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster (2014–2016). In 2016, I received the exceptional opportunity to become a member of a doctoral research programme financed by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Graduiertenkolleg 2196: Document - Text - Edition: Conditions and forms of their transformation and modeling in transdisciplinary perspective, located at the Bergische Universität Wuppertal in cooperation with the xiii

xiv

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal/Bethel. There, I prepared my dissertation entitled Editing the Greek New Testament for the Orthodox Church: Research into Antoniades’ Praxapostolos, with Special Reference to the Catholic Letters, supervised by Prof. Dr. Martin Karrer (Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal/Bethel) and Prof. Dr. Stefan Weise (Bergische Universität Wuppertal) which I defended on 28 August 2019. I publish this dissertation here in a revised form. I hope that this work will be a modest contribution to the development of the New Testament textual scholarship from an Orthodox perspective and that it will improve our understanding of the problems of the textual history of the Greek New Testament in the context of the interfaith and international academic context.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work would have been impossible without the encouragement of many people who have supported me over the past years. The names of all those whose kindness is built into the pages of this work are beyond number, and their contributions have been so great that space does not allow me to appropriately express my gratitude. However, I shall here mention the contributions to my life and work of certain individuals and groups. Without the generous support of my late Bishop Lukijan Vladulov (†2017), my academic accomplishments would have not been possible. Bishop Lukijan was my spiritual father and a selfless benefactor and supporter. He was immensely happy for each of my successes during my academic career. As a modest way of expressing my gratitude I am dedicating this work to Bishop Lukijan. I am also very thankful to Bishop Irinej Bulović who has also continued wholeheartedly to support my research and the writing of my dissertation. Regarding specific academic contributions, I would like first to thank my supervisor, Professor Dr. Martin Karrer. His expertise, kindness, support, inspiration, and enthusiasm with each new step during my research gave me unique strength. It is incomprehensible to me how, in addition to his numerous obligations, he always managed to be available and ready to help in various situations. I am extremely honored and blessed to have had the opportunity in previous years to learn from Professor Karrer not only about academic excellence but also about the authentic Christian ethos of self-sacrificial giving. For all that, and for much more than I have mentioned, I thank you most sincerely, my dear Doktorvater. xv

xvi

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

I would also like to express my gratitude to Professor Dr. Stefan Weise for his helpful and kind supervision during the preparation of the dissertation. I am also grateful to Professor Dr. Martin Ohst, who accepted nomination as a reader and member of the examination committee, and who, as the head of doctoral studies, was always helpful during the process. I thank Professor Dr. Ulrich B. Schmid, who was also a member of the examination committee, for all his support and help, from the time we met at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster until the present. I owe a great deal of gratitude to the professors and colleagues from the Graduiertenkolleg 2196 Dokument – Text – Edition. I want especially to thank Professor Dr. Jochen Johrendt, and Dr. Rüdiger Nutt-Kofoth whose support, engagement, and commitment made the stay and work at Graduiertenkolleg a pleasant experience. I am grateful to my colleagues from the Institut für Septuaginta- und biblische Textforschung (ISBTF) from Wuppertal for kindly accepting me into their team and for their friendly support. I am also very thankful for my colleagues from the project The Paratexts of the Apocalypse of John in Greek Manuscripts, Dr. Emmanuel Van Elverdinghe, Darius Müller and Gabriella Mighali. As I mention in the preface, this work began with preliminary research at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster (INTF). My stay in Münster was a period of intensive learning and experiences that would have been impossible without the kindness and support of all the employees and associates of the Institute. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Dr. Holger Strutwolf for providing a warm welcome and patiently answering all of my questions. I am very grateful to Dr. Klaus Wachtel for his kind support and for always finding the time to resolve my doubts, directing me towards the right sources. I also thank Dr. Marie-Luise Lakmann for helping me with gaining my earliest experiences with Greek paleography and the process of transcribing manuscripts, and Dr. Greg Paulson. At INTF, I also met Dr. Troy A. Griffitts who has supported me throughout the years not only as an IT expert and New Testament Virtual Manuscript Room manager but also as a sincere friend. Thank you, Troy, for all your patience.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

xvii

My sincere thanks go also to Professor David Parker from Birmingham who contributed his insights to this work in its preliminary stages. I would also like to express my gratitude to Professor Daniel B. Wallace and his team from The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (Dallas, TX) for giving me access to digital images of certain manuscripts. The research was greatly facilitated by the contributions of Angela Kump, who as studentische Hilfskraft always found a way to help in the best possible way in the shortest possible time. Dear Angela, thank you for your help. I am very grateful to the late Albert Rauch († 2015) and Nikolaus Wyrwoll from the Ostkirchliches Institut from Regensburg where I had my first German language classes. I also thank Dr. Johannes Oeldemann from Johann-Adam-Möhler-Institut für Ökumenik from Paderborn and Renovabis for supporting me during the initial stages of my research. No words would suffice to express my gratitude to my parents Dušan and Boja and sister Đurđica for their love and support over the past years. They always found a way to encourage and support me even in the most difficult life situations. I am very thankful for my friends Milica, Donald, Alex and Dunja Pogorzelski and Đorđe, Ankica, and Roksanda Koldžić from Boston, MA for their friendly and kind support in the past years. I am also grateful to Raymond and Constance Clark from Palatka, FL and their family for their long-lasting kind and friendly support. I thank Constance especially for helping me to express myself in a “more English” way. Many thanks to Dr. Garrick Allen for his kindness and patience in correcting the manuscript and improving the English idiom. For all deficiencies of the work, I take full responsibility. Last but not least, I want to express my most sincere gratitude to Professor Hugh Houghton and Dr. Brice C. Jones of Gorgias Press for accepting this work in the Texts and Studies series.

INTRODUCTION The present study attempts to expand the methodological and practical framework of textual scholarship on the Greek New Testament from an Orthodox perspective. From its first printing in 1516 through to the nineteenth century there was essentially only one textual form of the Greek New Testament: the Textus Receptus, which preserved a prevailing late Byzantine textual form.1 Several editions in the nineteenth century were produced based on more ancient manuscripts, editions that were independent in some ways from the Textus Receptus. Karl Lachmann (1793–1851), for example, is credited with editing the first Greek New Testament (1831) that diverged from the Textus Receptus.2 His edition was followed in that period by those of Constantin von Tischendorf (1815–1874), whose eighth major edition was the most comprehensive, Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1813–1875), Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–

The first published Greek New Testament was Desiderius Erasmus, Novum Instrumentum omne (Basel: Johann Froben, 1516). See further Robert F. Hull, The Story of The New Testament Text: Movers, Materials, Motives, Methods, and Models (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 35–42; Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 137–52; Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 3–6; Marvin R. Vincent, A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, NTHb 1 (New York; London: Macmillan, 1899), 48–62. 2 Karl Lachmann, Novum Testamentum Graece (Berlin: Reimer, 1831). 1

1

2

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

1892), Richard Francis Weymouth (1822–1902), Bernhard Weiss (1827–1918), and Eberhard Nestle.3 Nestle’s pocket editions played a particularly significant role in the popularization of the modern critical text. In 1904, the British and Foreign Bible Society replaced the Textus Receptus with the text of one of Nestle’s editions.4 Multiple editions were also published in the twentieth century with a modern critical text, the most prominent of which became the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece and the Greek New Testament of the United Bible Societies.5 These two editions have shared the same text since the United Bible Societies’ third (1975) and Nestle-Aland twenty-sixth (1979) edition. The most comprehensive and methodologically transparent is the Novum Testamentum Graece: Editio Critica Maior, of which the Catholic Epistles and Acts have thus far been published.6 Constantin von Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece: ad antiquissimos testes denuo recensuit, apparatum criticum omni studio perfectum: Editio octava critica maior, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Giesecke und Devrient, 1869-72); Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, The Greek New Testament, 6 vols. (London: Bagster & Sons, 1857–72); Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (Cambridge: Macmillan, 1881); Richard Francis Weymouth, The Resultant Greek Testament: Exibiting the Text in Which the Majority of Modern Editors Are Agreed and Containing the Readings of Stephens (1550), Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Lightfoot, Ellicott, Alford, Weiss, The Bâle edition (1880), Westcott and Hort, and The Revision Committee (London: Paternoster, 1892); Bernhard Weiss, Das Neue Testament (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902); Eberhard Nestle, ed. Novum Testamentum Graece, First ed. (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1898). 4 Η καινη διαθηκη: Text with Critical Apparatus (London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1904). 5 Cf. Kent D. Clarke, Textual Optimism: A Critique of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, JSNTSup 138 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 17–69. 6 Barbara Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior 4: Catholic Letters: Part 1: Text (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2014); Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior 4: Catholic Letters: Part 2: Supplementary Material (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2014).; Holger Strutwolf et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior 3: Acts of the Apostles: Part 1.1: Text: Chapters 1–14, ECM 3/1.1 (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2017); Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior 3: Acts of the Apostles: Part 1.2: Text: Chapters 15–28, ECM 3/1.2 3

INTRODUCTION

3

Although the critical text published in the Nestle-Aland and UBS editions is the most widely used, some scholars and communities still prefer editions that maintain the Byzantine majority text. Among these groups is the Eastern Orthodox Church. Western editors and users of different editions have developed theoretical and methodological justifications for the use of varying textual forms and editions.7 This is not reflected in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The text-critical and editorial principles within the Orthodox Church were formulated for the first time by Vasileios Antoniades (Βασίλειος Αντωνιάδης 1851–1932) in his edition of the Greek New Testament published in 1904.8 Since this time, eastern Orthodox scholars and ecclesiastical authorities have, with a few exceptions, repeated Antoniades’ principles with virtually no modifications. To this day, the Antoniades edition preserves the only text authorized by Orthodox ecclesiastical authorities. Antoniades’ principles can be summarized as follows: (1) the edition is independent and distinctive from any other edition, including the Textus Receptus; (2) modern critical editions and their sources are a priori to be rejected; (3) the distinctive textual character of lectionaries has a special value; (4) the existence of a patristic textual form and its agreement with the ecclesiastical text is presupposed. These suppositions have never been elaborated or analyzed in any way. Although the critical text of the NestleAland and UBS editions continues to be used in Orthodox educational institutions, it is not accepted in any official capacity. The (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2017); Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior 3: Acts of the Apostles: Part 2: Supplementary Material, ECM 3/2 (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2017); Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior 3: Acts of the Apostles: Part 3: Studies, ECM 3/3 (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2017). Regarding the Editio Critica Maior project cf. https://www.uni-muenster.de/INTF/ECM.html. 7 For an overview of the theoretical justification of the Byzantine majority text cf. Daniel B. Wallace, “The Majority Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, NTTSD 42 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014). 8 Mihael Kleovoulos, Apostolos Hristodoulou, and Vasileios Antoniades, eds., Η καινη διαθηκη: Eγκρισει της µεγαλης του χριστου εκκλησιας (Constantinople: Ecumenical Patriarchate, 1904).

4

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Antoniades edition has been regarded as authoritative, even as the exemplar of the modern translations.9 There is awareness that Antoniades’ edition has deficiencies, but it is still regarded within the Orthodox Church as superior to all other editions. The Orthodox Church has never seriously considered replacing the Antoniades edition with any of the available editions. Rather, the Antoniades edition has served so far as the theoretical and practical model for textual scholarship on the Greek New Testament within the Orthodox Church. Despite this, little is known about that edition. This situation suggests that the quest to continue to develop textual scholarship on the Greek New Testament from an Orthodox perspective must start with an examination of Antoniades’ edition and his proposals. There are two main tasks: the first is to analyze Antoniades’ edition with regard to the sources he selected and the way they are presented in the edition, and the second is to analyze the textual differences between Antoniades’ text and the most widely accepted critical text. It has not been possible in the present study to pay equal attention to all aspects of the problems related to the Antoniades edition and Orthodox New Testament textual scholarship, both in terms of possible topics and comprehensiveness of analysis of all New Testament books. The situation is too complex. The Catholic Epistles have been selected as a corpus for detailed analysis because these texts can be sufficiently explored in a study of this size and also because they were available in the Editio Critica Maior. The relationship between the patristic text and the Antoniades The two most recent examples of English and German translations based on Antoniades’ edition chose his text as their Vorlage precisely because it is regarded as the only Orthodox edition of the Greek New Testament. Cf. Laurent Cleenewerck, ed. The Eastern/Greek Orthodox New Testament, 3 vols. (Columbia: Newrome Press, 2012); Reto Mayer and Martin Vogler, eds., Byzantinischer Text Deutsch: Die Evangelien (Biel; Bienne: Schweizerische Bibelgesellschaft, 2018). Regarding Modern Greek translation cf. Theodora Panella, “The Influence of the Catenae on the Most Recent Modern Greek New Testament Translation of the Hellenic Bible Society,” in Liturgy and the Living Text of the New Testament: Papers from the Tenth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, ed. H. A. G. Houghton (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2018), 233–34. 9

INTRODUCTION

5

edition has not been examined, because there is little to suggest that any connection can be justified. Although Antoniades mentions that Chrysostom brought the Byzantine text from Antioch to Constantinople (Appendix 3,2), he does not appeal to any supporting evidence. The assumption that the Byzantine or ecclesiastical text is almost identical to the text of the church fathers, starting with John Chrysostom, is part of the Orthodox argument regarding the authority of the Byzantine text even after Antoniades’ edition. Although a large number of Byzantine variants can be found in St. John Chrysostom, this does not mean that he knew and quoted the Byzantine textual form, which at least in the case of the Catholic Epistles had been widespread since the ninth century.10 Moreover, recent research shows that even Photius of Constantinople in the ninth century did not always quote the Byzantine majority text.11 Finally, patristic quotations do not exist to the extent that New Testament texts can be reconstructed on their basis.12 Although some of the manuscripts used by Antoniades contain important paratexts, these too are beyond the scope of the present research. Taking an Orthodox perspective in this study implies considering the results of contemporary textual scholarship together with the practical needs of the Orthodox Church in order to formulate guidelines for preparing an edition of the Greek New Testament that would satisfy all needs of Orthodox users in different Klaus Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text der katholischen Briefe: Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Koine des Neuen Testaments, ANTF 24 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), 200. 11 Roderic L. Mullen, “Photius: A Re-evaluation of the Johannine Evidence in Light of Modern Tools,” in The New Testament in Antiquity and Byzantium: Traditional and Digital Approaches to its Texts and Editing: A Festschrift for Klaus Wachtel, ed. Hugh A. G. Houghton, David C. Parker, and Holger Strutwolf (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019); J. Neville Birdsall, “The New Testament Text Known to Photius: A Reconsideration,” Collected Papers in Greek and Georgian Textual Criticism (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013). 12 Cf. Andrew Blaski, “Myths About Patristics: What the Church Fathers Thought About Textual Variation,” in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, ed. Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019). 10

6

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

contexts: academical studies, liturgical readings, and modern translations. This means: (1) examining all forms of text at a variation unit, and (2) evaluating the existing variants with regard to the original form, the original meaning and their ability to be communicated to scholars, readers, listeners, and translators. This approach, therefore, is not oriented exclusively towards determining and presenting the earliest attainable form of text, but it does represent a departure from an Orthodox perspective that regards the Byzantine or ecclesiastical text as an ideal. This methodology has many practical consequences. In some cases, a variant of the initial text should be adopted in the Orthodox edition, while in other cases a secondary Byzantine majority variant should be included in the text of the Orthodox edition with an indication that it is an addendum. In still other cases, a variant should be adopted in the text that is neither the earliest nor the Byzantine majority reading, but the one that best reflects the original meaning. The results of this study demonstrate that Antoniades’ edition does not represent a distinctive lectionary textual form, a point suggested by the fact that more continuous minuscule manuscripts than lectionaries were used as sources for the Praxapostolos in the Antoniades edition (cf. Table 8 below). Antoniades’ edition is not as independent from the Textus Receptus as Antoniades himself suggested. Moreover, there is a small number of significant differences regarding meaning between the texts of Antoniades and the ECM. The differences in some of these cases are significant, requiring further consideration of the ways these passages ought to be presented in an Orthodox context. This book consists of five chapters. The first introduces the critical discussion and sets out the historical background of the Antoniades edition and Orthodox scholarship on the New Testament text. I give special attention to Antoniades’ own perspectives according to the introduction to his edition, the history of printed Greek New Testaments in the Orthodox Church, the development of Orthodox New Testament textual scholarship since Antoniades, and the evaluation and reception of the Antoniades edition in Western scholarship. In the second chapter I identify and analyze the manuscripts that form of the basis of the Antoniades edition,

INTRODUCTION

7

focusing on their main features and representation in the most significant critical editions. Chapters Three and Four represent the core of the study. In Chapter Three I present collations of the Antoniades edition, twenty-eight manuscripts that Antoniades selected as the basis of his edition, Stephanus’ 1550 edition, and an 1830 Textus Receptus edition at ninety-eight test-passages. On the basis of the results of these extensive collations, I explore the textual relationships among the collated witnesses. Chapter Four examines the relationship between the Antoniades edition and the ECM, collating the differences between the two editions in the Catholic Epistles. The final chapter offers some conclusions and suggests further lines of research for a future Orthodox edition of the Greek New Testament. I provide a fresh translation of Antoniades’ introduction to his edition as an appendix.

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OF THE ANTONIADES EDITION A NTONIADES’ TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP ACCORDING TO THE I NTRODUCTION TO HIS EDITION

This section presents an overview of Antoniades’ textual scholarship according to the introduction to his Greek New Testament whose English translation is given in the Appendix.1 References to this introduction are noted in the text below in parentheses according to its division into chapters and verses in the appendix. At the beginning of the introduction, Antoniades first notes that the goals of the edition were defined five years before the publication by the editorial committee (in 1898). According to him, the editorial committee aimed to restore the earliest Constantinopolitan Ecclesiastical text (1,1). Here, two things deserve attention: on one hand, the given definition is too loose and therefore can hardly be regarded as an achievable goal, and, on the other, the goal of the editors was determined before the research even started. A Constantinopolitan Ecclesiastical textual family was presupposed without even the benefit of preliminary research or a clear justification of the defined goals. Moreover, Antoniades Antoniades’ statements from the introduction to the edition are also summarized in his introductory textbook on the New Testament with no essential differences. Cf. Vasileios Antoniades, Εγχειριδιων εισαγωγης εις τας αγιας γραφας: Τοµος βʹ: Εισαγωγη εις την καινην διαθηκην (Athens: Foinikos, 1937), 214–15. 1

9

10

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

emphasized that his edition was not based on any printed edition nor on the great codices in majuscule script that supported other recent critical editions, but on the manuscripts that are usually neglected. Antoniades here used the biblical phrase rejected by the builders (1,2). He did not explain the a priori exclusion of the great majuscule codices from the sources of the edition. It seems that Antoniades’ rhetoric suggests that the Western editors of the Greek New Testament are the builders that rejected the stones, which are, as can be understood from his introduction, lectionary manuscripts (1,3–4). These introductory statements seem to have been decisive, giving rise to the subsequent perception of Antoniades’ edition as one based predominantly on lectionaries. Antoniades noted that two types of text can be verified in the lectionary manuscripts that he selected (2,1). According to him, these two types are documented in Gospel lectionaries dated between the ninth and sixteenth centuries (2,5) and especially in pericopes from the synoptic Gospels in the synaxarion readings of the full Gospel lectionary (2,2). He emphasized that those two types were transmitted virtually unmixed (2,6). This indicated, according to Antoniades, that that both types were used commonly in the Byzantine Church from an early period and, therefore, that both should be regarded as authoritative (3,1). Antoniades believed that one of these two types that became known as Byzantine was brought from Antioch to Constantinople by St. John Chrysostom, while the other type was in use in the Constantinopolitan Church from its inception (3,2–3). Antoniades concluded the discussion about two types of text by stating the following: A similar distinction of types is likely found also in the Praxapostoli. This reality is indicated by the manuscript of the Theological School catalogued under number 14. The manuscript, however, cannot be regarded as indisputable evidence for this distinction insofar as the variants observed in its text admit to another possible explanation. The variants are not attested unanimously by the majority of older and more trustworthy manuscripts, especially those having more certain evidence of their lineage, as in the case of the Gospel lectionaries (4,1–4).

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

11

As we can see, Antoniades’ observations regarding the two types of text were largely confined to the texts of the synoptic Gospels. He mentioned manuscript 14 of the Theological School (GA l 884) as the one example that indicated that the two types of text exist also in the Apostolos, acknowledging however that the two types of text are not documented as clearly in his Apostolos lectionaries as they are in Gospels manuscripts. At this place, Antoniades did not mention different types of the text in his witnesses of Revelation. Nevertheless, he was aware of the different textual groups of the text of Revelation in his witnesses. In the list of manuscripts, he stated that among the manuscripts of the Lavra Α 91. Β 5. 18. 80. and Ω 16 were selected, as well as eight others of the same type as B 80 (8,5). He was, therefore, aware of at least two textually distinctive groups of witnesses to the text of Revelation. In the list of manuscripts, Antoniades offered a classification of manuscripts according to their textual features. He attached a β after a manuscript number which stands for the Byzantine text of the Gospel lectionaries, and he attached an α to the most significant of the short (esk) Gospel and Apostolos lectionaries (cf. 5,3). Antoniades used concepts such as textual type and Syrian, Antiochian, and Byzantine text that were coined by Western scholars and that had become standard since Westcott and Hort’s edition.2 As mentioned above, Antoniades emphasized that his edition was based mainly on lectionaries. For the Apocalypse and the parts of Acts which do not feature in lectionaries, he based his text on minuscules, while the rest of the New Testament texts were based on lectionaries. However, Antoniades later pointed out two ways that he also used continuous minuscule manuscripts as sources for the Gospels and (especially) the Praxapostolos. According to the introduction, he did not list in his catalogue many of the short Gospel lectionaries (esk) and minuscule manuscripts Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction and Appendix (Cambridge: Macmillan, 1882). Cf. Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 50–52; Metzger and Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 276–80. 2

12

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

(Τετραευάγγελα) that were used only incidentally (5,2). It should be also pointed out that Antoniades explicitly marked continuous minuscule manuscript witnesses to the Praxapostolos with an σ as an abbreviation for συνεχής i.e. continuous (5,3). Antoniades stated that continuous manuscripts were used because of the small number of the more complete Apostolos lectionaries and because the text of the continuous minuscule manuscripts is similar to the text of lectionaries (5,4). We should first note Antoniades’ claim that the textual form of the continuous manuscripts is similar to the textual form of the lectionaries. This would mean, on the one hand, that lectionary manuscripts do not contain any distinctive textual form in comparison to the continuous manuscripts. On the other hand, he suggested here too that the lectionaries were the criterion for selection of the continuous manuscripts. This claim, as we will see, is contrary to the results of the evidence that I adduce in this study. There are twenty manuscripts of the Praxapostolos marked with σ in Antoniades’ catalogue and all of them are continuous minuscule manuscripts. Therefore, while one might say that the texts of the Gospels in Antoniades’ edition could be based on lectionaries, at least according to the catalogue of the manuscripts, this was not the case with the Praxapostolos and, of course, Revelation. Antoniades stated that his manuscripts are, with a few exceptions, from between the tenth and the fourteenth century (9,1–3). He attempted to justify the usage of the latter manuscripts by claiming that some younger manuscripts have a more ancient text. This view could be correct in theory. However, GA 1869, copied in the year 1688, which Antoniades gave as an example of a young manuscript with an old text (9,4–5), seems to have been transcribed from, or at least heavily influenced by, a printed edition (cf. Chapter 2 below). The following statement from the introduction may be regarded as Antoniades’ general editorial principle: our critical approach was such that, aside from punctuation and orthography, we made no transpositions, substitutions, additions, or deletions without the support of the manuscripts, except in rare incidents but with sufficient testimony elsewhere (10,4).

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

13

This general principle might at first appear helpful in understanding Antoniades’ editorial procedures and the relationship between the edition and its sources. However, since it seems that Antoniades did not list all exceptions, we cannot know to what extent the edition deviates from the rule. Furthermore, he went on to state that he generally preferred non-Byzantine readings in some places, like Matt 12:25–27, 40; 13:13, 36; 17:22; and Luke 21:38. However, he added in a footnote that the most significant exceptions to this rule are preferences in Luke 4:44 for the Byzantine reading Γαλιλαίας, against the reading Ἰουδαίας of the other type, and in Luke 12:48 the Byzantine reading παρέθεντο instead of παρέθετο (10,5). As we can see from these examples, Antoniades was not entirely consistent. For that reason, it is impossible to deduce the relationship between the edition and sources on the basis of the information in the introduction. Antoniades’ general rule, along with the absence of a critical apparatus, leaves the impression that there are very few textual differences among the selected witnesses. It is not surprising, then, that most scholars have supposed from the introduction that Antoniades’ edition was based more or less on lectionaries and that the edition largely represented the text of lectionaries. In Antoniades’ edition, certain sequences were printed in a smaller type, a typographic choice that he discusses in the introduction: Where the judgment was doubtful concerning the addition or excision of a word or an entire passage, these were written in a smaller type. 7 The smaller font was also used in a limited number of places that, although they have no attestation in the ecclesiastical texts, nevertheless were retained as exception since they were sufficiently well attested elsewhere. (10,6–7)

Antoniades’ usage of smaller type reflects editorial uncertainty, resembling the usage of square brackets in the Nestle-Aland editions. Certain textual sequences that cannot be justified on the basis of Antoniades’ editorial principles were printed in smaller type. The most significant among those are Acts 8:37, adopted on the basis of only one manuscript (GA 1739 [10,7]), although Antoniades’ wording does not match with the wording of the

14

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

manuscript,3 and the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8), which was retained from the Textus Receptus. In the case of the Comma Johanneum, the Holy Synod had the last word. Antoniades disagreed but the only thing he could do was to print the Comma in a smaller type (11,1–3). Antoniades printed in the regular font size the pericope of the adulterous woman (John 8:3–11), noting that it could not be found among the synaxarion pericopes in his lectionaries but was sufficiently attested in the menologion as the reading for St. Pelagia’s day on October 8. He also noted that in that portion of the text there were very few variations among his manuscripts (10,8). Antoniades emphasized differences between his edition and the Textus Receptus. He stressed that his edition differs from the Textus Receptus in some 2000 readings and 1400 passages (12,1). He further pointed out that the marking of parallel and antithetical passages represents another improvement upon the Textus Receptus (13,1). His edition differs from the Textus Receptus in punctuation, spelling, and presentation of quotations (14,1–2). Finally, Antoniades appended the lectionary tables for Sundays and major feast days to his edition (15,1). It seems that by pointing out the differences between his edition and Textus Receptus, Antoniades wanted to present his edition as both independent of and superior to the Textus Receptus. Antoniades was aware of some shortcomings of his edition, especially of the editorial inconsistency in establishing the text. He explicitly mentioned as problematic the choice between the two types of the text in the Gospels and the selection of different readings in general (10,1–3). Antoniades concluded his introduction with the following words: “as a human effort, and especially since it is a first attempt, this edition will suffer its own peculiar fate. But the Word of God is not enchained by human imperfections, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes” [Rom 1:16] (16,1–2).

3

Cf. chapter 2 of this work.

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

15

PRINTED GREEK NEW TESTAMENTS IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH: SELECTED EDITIONS

In this section, I will give a brief overview of the history of the most significant printed Greek New Testament editions in the Orthodox Church. The section is divided into four parts: (1) whole editions of the Greek New Testament before 1904, (2) editions of Antoniades’ text, (3) printed lectionaries with special reference to Apostolos, and (4) Critical editions in the Orthodox Church. The first published printed text of the entire Greek New Testament was edited by Erasmus of Rotterdam, printed by Jochan Froben of Basel in 1516 as a Greek-Latin edition with the title Novum Instrumentum omne, intended for Western readers.4 Its main aim was the emendation of the Latin Vulgate on the basis of the Greek text.5 Although the printing of the Greek-Latin New Testament of the Complutensian Polyglot was finished on January 4, 1514 it was only sanctioned by the Pope on March 22, 1520.6 Meanwhile, Erasmus’ editions dominated the market. In 1522 J. Froben published Erasmus’ third edition. Up to the end of the sixteenth century at least 130 editions of the Greek New Testament were printed.7 Nonetheless, Erasmus’ text became the standard text of the Greek New Testament until the end of the nineteenth century when it was replaced by the modern critical text. Although Erasmus’ editions were not critical according to modern standards, they represented Western critical scholarship of the time that was further developed in subsequent centuries. In the Greek and other Orthodox Churches needs regarding an edition of the printed Greek New Testament were significantly For more information see Basel 1516: Erasmus’ Edition of the New Testament, SMHR 91 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016); Ueli Dill and Petra Schierl, eds., Das bessere Bild Christi: das Neue Testament in der Ausgabe des Erasmus von Rotterdam: Begleitpublikation zur Ausstellung “Das bessere Bild Christi: Die Ausgabe des Neuen Testaments von 1516”: 24. Juni bis 12. November 2016 im Basler Münster (Basel: Schwabe, 2016). 5 Jan Krans, Beyond What is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, NTTS 35 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006), 13–14. 6 Eberhard Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, trans. William Edie (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1901). 7 Isaac H. Hall, “Appendix 1: List of Printed Editions of the Greek New Testament,” in A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, ed. Philip Schaff (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1883), 498–501. 4

16

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

different. In this context the New Testament texts were experienced mainly through their reading in liturgy, instead of through the critical and detailed exegetical studies of humanist scholars.8 For this reason, there was a relatively high demand for printed lectionaries, while the demand for editions of the entire New Testament was relatively limited (cf. below). Evro Layton has noted that in the sixteenth century only one edition of the Greek New Testament was produced that was intended for a Greek audience:9 Τῆς Καινῆς Διαθήκης ἅπαντα from 1538 published in Venice by Giovanni Antonio Nicolini da Sabbio.10 This edition consists of two volumes. The first volume contains the Gospels and Acts and the second the Epistles and Revelation. It was studied in most detail by Isaac H. Hall and William H. P. Hatch.11 Even though Hatch does not appear to be aware of Hall’s study, their conclusions regarding the textual features and potential sources are essentially in agreement. To use Hatch’s words, ‟it is clearly an eclectic text.”12 In addition to several print editions, the editor probably used some Greek manuscripts.13 The edition contains the Comma Johanneum, which suggests that the edition was not produced independently from Erasmus’ third edition or any latter text that contained the Comma. According to Layton, the 1538 Venice edition was twice reprinted for a Greek audience in the seventeenth century: in 1687 by Nikolaos Glykys and in 1695 by Nikolaos Saros.14 Additionally, Cf. Athanasios Despotis, “Orthodox Biblical Exegesis in the Early Modern World (1450–1750),” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible: From 1450 to 1750, ed. Euan Cameron (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 521. 9 Evro Layton, The Sixteenth Century Greek Book in Italy: Printers and Publishers for the Greek World (Venice: Hellenic Institute, 1994), 153. 10 Giovanni Antonio Nicolini da Sabbio, ed. Της καινης διαθηκης απανδα (Venice: 1538). 11 Isaac H. Hall, “Some Remarkable Greek New Testaments,” JSBL 6 (1886): 40–63; William H. P. Hatch, “An Early Edition of the New Testament in Greek,” HTR 34 (1941): 69–78. 12 “An Early Edition of the New Testament in Greek,” 78. 13 “An Early Edition of the New Testament in Greek,” 78. 14 Layton, The Sixteenth Century Greek Book in Italy: Printers and Publishers for the Greek World, 153. 8

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

17

in this century at least eight editions of the Greek New Testament that were most probably intended for Greeks were also produced.15 Moreover, in 1638, Pierre Aubert published in Geneva 1500 copies of the Elzevirs’ Textus Receptus from 1633 with a translation into Modern Greek by the monk Maximos.16 The translator Maximos died in 1633. Patriarch Kyrillos Loukaris corrected the text and contributed the preface to the edition.17 This edition, therefore, may be regarded as the first approved edition of the Textus Receptus by an Orthodox ecclesiastical authority. It should be noted that the focus of the edition was rather the Modern Greek translation and not the source text. Nevertheless, the source text was not problematized or discussed in any substantive way, which suggests that the Textus Receptus was accepted in the Orthodox Church even though it contained some readings that were foreign to the Greek manuscript tradition. In 1703, the bilingual edition from 1638 was revised by Archimandrite Serapheim of Mytilene (Σεραφείµ ο Μυτιληναίος) and printed in London.18 The preface of the edition was very critical Thomas I. Papadopoulos, Ελληνικη βιβλιογραφια: 1466–1800 (Athens: Academy of Athens, 1984), 83: 1090–97. 16 Konstantinos Sp. Staikos and Triantaphyllos E. Sklavenitis, The Publishing Centres of the Greeks: From the Renaissance to the Neohellenic Enlightenment: Catalogue of Exhibition (Athens: National Book Centre, 2001), 87. For Maxomos’ translation Cf. Nomikos M. Vaporis, Translating the Scriptures into Modern Greek (Brookline: Holy Cross, 1994), 8; Georgios D. Metallenos, Το 15

ζητηµα της µεταφρασεως της αγιας γραφης εις την νεοελληνικην: κατα τον ιθʹ αι. (Athens: University of Athens, 1977), 48; Constantine Scouteris and Constantine Belezos, “The Bible in the Orthodox Church from the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible 4: From 1750 to the Present, ed. John Riches (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 527. Digitalized copy available at http://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/metadata/9/3/f/metadata-375-0000000.tkl. 17 Vaporis, Translating the Scriptures into Modern Greek, 8. 18 Thomas Herbert Darlow and Horace Frederick Moule, Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society: Languages other than English: Greek to Opa (New York: Kraus Reprint, 1963), 680: 4960; Vaporis, Translating the Scriptures into Modern Greek, 10; Ulrich Moennig, “Η δευτερη εκδοση της καινης διαθηκης σε µεταφραση του Μαξιµου καλλιουπολιτη (Λονδινο 1703): πληροφοριεσ για τη χρηµατοδοτηση,” in The Printed Greek Book: 15th–19th

18

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

of the Orthodox Church hierarchy.19 In 1704 Patriarch Gabriel III of Constantinople (1702–1707) decreed the book be burned.20 The second, more successful edition with an exhortation to the Patriarch and clergy instead of criticism was published in 1705.21 In 1710 the same text with some corrections was published in Halle.22 This edition, as we will shortly see, became the Vorlage for the editions of the British and Foreign Bible Society that preceded Antoniades’ edition and were widely distributed among Orthodox Greeks. In 1804 the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) was established. Its first edition of the Greek New Testament was published in 1810.23 The title page reads Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δίγλωττος τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, τὸ θεῖον ἀρχέτυπον καὶ ἡ αὐτοῦ µετάφρασις εἰς κοινὴν διάλεκτον· Μετὰ πολλῆς ἐπιµελείας διορθωθέντα, καὶ νεωστὶ µετατυπωθέντα. Ἐν Λονδίνο. Ἐξετυπώθη παρ᾽ Ἰωάννου Τιλίγγου τῆς Χελσέας. Ἔτει ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἐνσαρκώσεως ᾀώί.24

Century: Acts of the International Congress: Delphi: 16–20 May 2001, ed. Triantaphyllos E. Sklavenitis and Konstantinos Sp. Staikos (Athens: Kotinos 2004). 19 Vaporis, Translating the Scriptures into Modern Greek, 10–11. 20 Metallenos, Το ζητηµα της µεταφρασεως της αγιας γραφης εις την νεοελληνικην: κατα τον ιθʹ αι., 52–53. 21 Cf. Darlow and Moule, Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society: Languages other than English: Greek to Opa, 680. 22 Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society: Languages other than English: Greek to Opa, 680: 4961; Metallenos, Το ζητηµα της µεταφρασεως της αγιας γραφης εις την νεοελληνικην: κατα τον ιθʹ αι., 53. 23 Cf. Darlow and Moule, Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society: Languages other than English: Greek to Opa, 640: 4787; Vaporis, Translating the Scriptures into Modern Greek, 33. 24 Digitized copy available at https://books.google.gr/books?id=PlBIAAAAcAAJ.

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

19

This was a reprint of the 1710 diglot edition from Halle. Eberhard Nestle noted that this 1810 edition most accurately represented the Elzevirs’ text, i.e. the Textus Receptus, in comparison to some other editions.25 Henry Lindsay, Chaplain to the British Embassy in Constantinople, was glad to report in 1815 that he had obtained the sanction for the diglot Greek edition of the BFBS from the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril.26 Lindsay refers to the edition as ‟the Modern Greek Testament.” He reported that he had realized on the basis of the information he obtained that distribution of the diglot New Testament would be opposed by Greek priests. For this reason, he had asked the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril for the sanction. The Patriarch issued a declaration.27 Its facsimile was printed in the report with the translation that reads as follows. CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, NEW ROME, AND ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH. Our Lowliness notifies by this present Patriarchal Declaration, that having examined accurately, and with the necessary attention, the Edition of the New Testament in two languages, Hellenic and Romaic, published in England by the Society there established, of British Typography, by John Tilling, at Chelsea, in the year one thousand eight hundred and ten of the incarnation of Christ our Saviour, we have found in it nothing false, or erroneous; wherefore we have judged right to give permission for it to be used, and read by all pious, united, and Orthodox Christians; to be sold in the Booksellers’ shops; and to be bought freely by all who wish it, without any one making the least hesitation; for the manifestation of which, this our present Patriarchal Declaration has been issued, In the thirteenth day of the month of December 1814.28

Eberhard Nestle, Vom Textus Receptus des Griechischen Neuen Testaments (Barmen: Wuppertaler Traktatgesellschaft, 1903), 19. 26 John Tilling, ed. Reports of the British and Foreign Bible Society for 1814 and 1815 (Chelsea: Tilling, 1815), 467–70. 27 Reports of the British and Foreign Bible Society for 1814 and 1815, 468– 69. 28 Reports of the British and Foreign Bible Society for 1814 and 1815, 470. 25

20

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

This sanction was important for the distribution of the Textus Receptus with a translation among the Orthodox. In 1821 the Old and New Testament in Greek was published by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow, and its editors explicitly stated that they reprinted the text of the New Testament from 1810 that was approved by the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril.29 In 1902, a Greek New Testament edition was published by the Athenian publisher Saliberos.30 The edition was prepared by Spyridon K. Papageorgiou (Σπυρίδων Κ. Παπαγεωργίου). This edition is significant because (1) it was approved by the Holy Synod and Ecumenical Patriarchate, (2) it predates Antoniades’ edition, and (3) it claims to be based, in addition to Byzantine manuscripts which were the primary sources, on the great majuscule codices: Sinaiticus (‫ א‬or 01), based on Tischendorf’s edition from 1863; Alexandrinus (A or 02), based on Woide’s and Cowper’s edition from 1860; and Vaticanus (B or 03), based on Buttmann’s edition from 1862 and Tischendorf’s Novum Testamentum Graece from 1862.31 Papageorgiou’s 1902 edition contains some variants that are characteristic of the Erasmian Text. For example, it includes the Comma Johanneum, the addition of οὗτος λαλήσει σοι τί σε δεῖ ποιεῖν in Acts 10:6, and some variants in Revelation.32 In contrast, the edition omits variants that are characteristic of the great Darlow and Moule, Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society: Languages other than English: Greek to Opa, 642–43: 4796. 30 Spyridon Papageorgiou, ed. Η καινη διαθηκη (Athens: Saliveros, 1902). 31 Constantin von Tischendorf, Novum testamentum sinaiticum: sive Novum testamentum cum epistala Barnabae et fragmentis Pastoris. Ex Codice sinaitico auspiciis Alexandri II. omnium Russiarum imperatoris (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1863); Charles Godfrey Woide and B. Harris Cowper, Codex alexandrinus. Η καινη διαθηκη. Novum Testamentum Graece ex antiquissimo codice alexandrino (London: Williams & Norgate, 1860); Philip Buttmann, Novum testamentum graece, ad fidem codicis Vaticani recensuit Philippus Buttmann. (Berlin: R. L. Decker, 1862); Constantin von Tischendorf, Η καινη διαθηκη. Novum Testamentum Graece: Editio stereotypa secunda (1862). 32 For those variants see Darius Müller, “Abschriften des Erasmischen Textes im Handschriftenmaterial der Johannesapokalypse,” in Studien zum Text der Apokalypse, ed. Marcus Sigismund, Martin Karrer, and Ulrich Schmid, ANTF 47 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 173. 29

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

21

majuscule codices and critical editions based on those codices. The edition is therefore a reprint of the Textus Receptus. Statements regarding the majuscules and Tischendorf’s edition as sources indicate awareness of new developments in the textual scholarship of the Greek New Testament, but these did not have any significant role in the preparation of the edition. Also, it is difficult to determine which Byzantine manuscripts were used in the preparation of the edition and how their use may have affected the editorial text. This overview demonstrates that until 1904 the Textus Receptus was accepted by all Orthodox as their text of the Greek New Testament. Antoniades’ edition was published in 1904 and ever since it has been the most widespread edition of the continuous text of the Greek New Testament among the Greek Orthodox, while the Russian Orthodox Church retained the Textus Receptus.33 After the first Antoniades edition from 1904, the Patriarchal Press in Constantinople printed and distributed another edition in 1912.34 In addition to the official publisher of the Greek Orthodox Cf. Dmitry Dobykin and Nikolay Tarnakin, “Текстология и библейская история в трудах православных библеистов в СССР. Период с 1953 по 1964 гг,” Христианское чтение 76, no. 5 (2017). Stephen K. Batalden, Russian Bible Wars: Modern Scriptural Translation and Cultural Authority (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 64; Robert P. Casey, “A Russian Orthodox View of New Testament Textual Criticism,” Theology 60, no. 440 (1957); Anatoly A. Alekseev, “Новое издание византийского текста Евангелия от Иоанна,” in Proceedings of the International conference “Text Interpretation in the Culture of the Christian East: Translation, Commentary and Poetic Treatment” (Moscow: Indrik, 2013). Stephen K. Batalden, “Наследие Россйского библейского общества в русской библеистике XIX и XX веков,” in Библия в духовной жизни, истории и культуре России и православного славянского мира. К 500-летию Геннадиевской Библии: Сборник материалов международной конференции: Москва, 21–26 сентября 1999 г., ed. Galina S. Barankova (Moscow: Biblical Theological Institute of St. Andrew the Apostle, 2001), 115; Anatoly A. Alekseev, “Greek New Testament (GNT), Nestle–Aland (NA), Textus Receptus (TR) и русское религиозное сознание,” Церковь и время 5, no. 2 (1998). 34 Cf. Leda Istikopoulou, Βιβλιογραφια των εκδοσεων του πατριαρχικου τυπογραφειου κωνσταντινουπολεως: βιβλια-περιοδικα 1798–1923 (Athens: Συλλογος προς διαδοσιν ωφελιµων βιβλιων, 2018), 249: 662, 294: 861. 33

22

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Church, Apostoliki Diakonia (Αποστολική Διακονία), which was founded in 1936, other significant publishers and distributers of the Antoniades text have been the Athenian publisher Michael Saliberos (Μιχαήλ Σαλίβερος), and the Greek Orthodox lay movements Zoe (Η Ζωή), and Soter (Ο Σωτήρ).35 Since 1907, Antoniades’ edition was also distributed by the BFBS.36 Antoniades’ text has also been distributed as an e-book on the Kindle platform and it is available online and as a module of some Bible software, for example Logos and Bibleworks.37 On the website Faith Comes by Hearing, among many audio Bibles, there is also one based on the Antoniades text.38 There are several editions of the Antoniades text with parallel Modern Greek translation. In 2012 an English translation of the New Testament was published that was, according to the editor, based on the Antoniades edition.39 In 2017 a German translation of the Antoniades text was announced as a project of the Swiss Bible Society. Thus far only the translation of the four Gospels has been published (in 2018).40 Almost all editions of the Greek Apostolos and Gospels lectionaries until the end of the nineteenth century were published in Venice. Thereafter Athens gradually took the lead as the center of the production of Greek books. The first Apostolos is from 1525 Cf. Amaryllis Logotheti, “The Brotherhood of Theologians Zoe and Its Influence on 20th-century Greece,” in Orthodox Christian Renewal Movements in Eastern Europe, ed. Aleksandra Djurić Milovanović and Radmila Radić (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017). 36 Cf. Thomas Herbert Darlow, ed. The Leaves of the Tree: A Popular Illustrated Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society for the Year 1906– 1907 (London: The Bible House, 1907), 26; The Highway in the Wilderness: A Popular Illustrated Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society for the Year 1907–1908 (London: The Bible House, 1908), 20; The Word Among Nations: A Popular Illustrated Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society for the Year 1908–1909 (London: The Bible House, 1909), 43–44. 37 For an example of an online edition cf. http://www.goarch.org/chapel/biblegreek and https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/new-testament. 38 Cf. https://open.spotify.com/album/77LI7knpZEoflKOrFAf8Cc. 39 Cleenewerck, The Eastern/Greek Orthodox New Testament. 40 Cf. https://www.die-bibel.ch/die-bibel/bibeluebersetzung/byzantinischertext-deutsch-btd/; Mayer and Vogler, Byzantinischer Text Deutsch: Die Evangelien. 35

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

23

and the first Gospels lectionary is from 1539. In Tables 1 and 2 below, the printed Apostolos and Gospels lectionaries up to the end of the nineteenth century are listed based on the available bibliographical information.41 Table 1: Printed Gospel Lectionaries 1539–1900 Year

Title

1 1539 Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Publisher

Place

Stefano da Sabbio for

Venice

Girolamo Giraldi and D. di Santa Maria 2 1550 Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Andrea Spinelli (ed.

Venice

Vasilios Valeridis) 3 1552

Τὸ θεῖον καὶ ἱερόν Εὐαγγέλιον Cristoforo Zanetti 4 1560 Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Iakovos Longinos

Venice Venice

(ed. Simeon Verivelos) 5 1560

Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον 6 1560 Τὸ θεῖον καὶ ἱερόν Εὐαγγέλιον 7 1563 Τὸ θεῖον καὶ ἱερόν Εὐαγγέλιον 8 1575 Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Iakovos Longinos

Venice

Cristoforo Zanetti

Venice

Cristoforo Zanetti

Venice

Iakovos Longinos

Venice

(ed. Theofanis Lagaras) 9 1575

Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Cristoforo Zanetti

Venice

(ed. Theofanis Lagaras) 10 1581

Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Cristoforo Zanetti

Venice

(ed. Theofanis Lagaras) 11 1590

Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

12 1599

Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Cristoforo Zanetti

Venice

(ed. Georgios Vlastos) Inheritors of Pietro

Venice

Zanetti (ed. Dionisios Katilianos) 13 1606

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Antonio Pinelli (ed.

Venice

Theofanos Ksenakios) 14 1637

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

I. Pietro Pinelli (ed.

Venice

Theofilaktos Tzanfurnaros)

Data on editions of the Apostolos and Gospels lectionaries are based on an electronic catalog available online at http://www.benaki.gr/bibliology/search_simple.asp. 41

24

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Year

15 1647

Title

Publisher

Place

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον: Εὐαγγελιστάριον

I. Pietro Pinelli

Venice

(corrected by Theofilaktos Tzanfurnaros)

16 1645

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

I. Pietro Pinelli

Venice

(corrected by Theofilaktos Tzanfurnaros) 17 1671

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

18 1671

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

(corrected by Gradenigos) Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

(corrected by Gradenigos) 19 1681

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον 20 1681 Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον 21 1686 Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Andrea Giuliano Nikolaos

Glykys

Venice (cor- Venice

rected by Mihail Mitros) 22 1686

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Nikolaos Saros (corrected Venice by Nikodimos Vavateni)

23 1687

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Nikolaos Saros (corrected Venice

24 1697

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

25 1711

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον: Νεωστὶ µετατυπωθέν Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Valdisero Giuliano

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Nikolaos Saros

Venice

by Nikodimos Vavateni) Nikolaos Saros (corrected Venice by Nikodimos Vavateni)

26

No year

27 1728

(corrected by Alexandros Kankelarios) 28 1737

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Nikolaos Saros

Venice

(corrected by Alexandros Kankelarios) 29 1740

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Nikolaos Saros

Venice

(corrected by Alexandros Kankelarios) 30 1745

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον 31 1747 Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Nikolaos Saros

Venice

Nikolaos Saros

Venice

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Year 32 1748

25

Title

Publisher

Place

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

(corrected by Alexandros Kankelarios) 33 1754

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον 34 1759 Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Nikolaos Saros

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

(corrected by Spiridonos Milias) 35 1760 Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Dimitrios Theodosios

Venice

(corrected by Georgios Konstantinos) 36 1761 37 1780 38 1766 39 1768

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον (with Εὐαγγελιστάριον) Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον (with Εὐαγγελιστάριον) Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Nikolaos Saros

Venice

Dimitrios Theodosios

Venice

Nikolaos Saros

Venice

Dimitrios Theodosios

Venice

(corrected by Spiridonos Papadopulos) 40 1768

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

41 1769

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

(ed. Spiridonos Milias) Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

(ed. Spiridonos Milias) 42 1773

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Dimitrios Theodosios

Venice

(corrected by Agapios Loverdos) 43 1776

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

(corrected by Spiridonos Papadopulos) 44 1780 45 1780

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Dimitrios Theodosios

Venice

(with corrections and new typeset) 46 1781

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

(with corrections and new typeset) 47 1785

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον 48 1791 Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Dimitrios Theodosios

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

26

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Year

49 1793

Title

Publisher

Place

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Panos Theodosios

Venice

(corrected by Kirikos Heretos) 50 1799

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον 51 1801 Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον 52 1803 Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Panos Theodosios

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys (with

corrections

Venice and

new typeset) 53 1811 54 1818 55 1833

56 1851

57 1852 58 1857

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς Νέας Διαθήκης ἐπιµελῶς διορθωθέν, µετὰ προσθήκης τῶν τῆς Παλαιᾶς µαρτυριῶν, καὶ ἀνατυπωθὲν διὰ συνδροµῆς Ἀνδρῶν Εὐσεβῶν καὶ Φιλοκάλων Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς Νέας Διαθήκης ἀκριβῶς διορθωθὲν Μετὰ προσθήκης τῶν τῆς Παλαιᾶς µαρτυριῶν καὶ νεωτέρας εἰς τὰ κανόνια τῶν Εὐαγγελίων τυπικῆς ὑποσηµειώσεως τοῦ ἀοιδίµου ἐν Ἱεροµονάχοις Βαρθολοµαίου τοῦ Κουτλουµουσιανοῦ Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς Νέας Διαθήκης ἀκριβῶς διορθωθὲν Μετὰ προσθήκης τῶν τῆς Παλαιᾶς µαρτυριῶν καὶ νεωτέρας εἰς τὰ κανόνια τῶν Εὐαγγελίων τυπικῆς ὑποσηµειώσεως τοῦ ἀοιδίµου ἐν Ἱεροµονάχοις Βαρθολοµαίου τοῦ Κουτλουµουσιανοῦ

Panos Theodosios

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Francesco Andreola

Venice

Agios Georgios

venice

Foinikos

Venice

Agios Georgios

Venice

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Year

Title

Publisher

59 1860

27 Place

Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Agios Georgios Ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς Νέας Διαθήκης ἀκριβῶς διορθωθὲν Μετὰ προσθήκης τῶν τῆς Παλαιᾶς µαρτυριῶν καὶ νεωτέρας εἰς τὰ κανόνια τῶν Εὐαγγελίων τυπικῆς ὑποσηµειώσεως τοῦ ἀοιδίµου ἐν Ἱεροµονάχοις Βαρθολοµαίου τοῦ Κουτλουµουσιανοῦ 60 1860 Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Ἐξ Foinikos Ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς Νέας Διαθήκης Ἐπιµελῶς διορθωθὲν µετὰ προσθήκης τῶν τῆς Παλαιᾶς µαρτυρίων, καὶ νῦν λαµπρότερον ἐκδοθὲν τῇ ἐγγράφῳ ἀδείᾳ τῆς Ἁγίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας

Venice

61 1865

Evangelinos Misailidis

Istanbul

Foinikos

Venice

Agios Georgios

Venice

Agios Georgios

Venice

Agios Georgios

Venice

Foinikos

Venice

Brothers Kurmuzi

Alexan-

Venice

(second edition)

62 1865 63 1866 64 1870 65 1872 66 1872 67 1874

68 1879

Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Συλλογὴ Τῶν εἰς τὰς Κυριακὰς τοῦ ὅλου ἐνιαυτοῦ ἀναγινωσκοµένων ἐν τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ περικοπῶν τοῦ Ἱεροῦ Εὐαγγελίου, ἐκδοθεῖσα ὑπὸ Γρηγορίου Γώγου, Ἀρχιµανδρίτου, Γενικοῦ Ἱεροκήρυκος τοῦ Ἀποστολικοῦ καὶ Πατριαρχικοῦ Θρόνου Ἀλεξανδρείας Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον: ἐπιµελῶς διορθωθὲν

dria

Foinikos

Venice

69 1883

Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Foinikos

Venice

70 1884

Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

Foinikos

Venice

(fifth edition) (sixth edition)

28

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Year

71 1890

Title

Publisher

Place

Τὸ Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον

A. Kolarakis &

Athens

N. Triantofilos

72 1890

Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Palamidis 73 1890 Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Vivliopolion 74 1893 Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον: Foinikos ἐπιµελῶς διορθωθὲν (eighth

Athens Athens Venice

edition) 75 1895

76 1897

77 1899 78 1900

79 1900 80

no date

Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον ὅµοιον κατὰ πάντα πρὸς τὸ ἀναγινωσκόµενον ἐν ταῖς Ἐκκκλησίαις (second edition) Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον ὅµοιον κατὰ πάντα πρὸς τὸ ἀναγινωσκόµενον ἐν ταῖς Ἐκκκλησίαις (third edition) Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον ὅµοιον κατὰ πάντα πρὸς τὸ ἀναγινωσκόµενον ἐν ταῖς Ἐκκκλησίαις. (fourth edition) Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον Θεῖον καὶ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον καὶ νῦν λαµπρότερον ἐκδοθὲν Τῇ ἐγκρίσει τῆς Ἱερᾶς Συνόδου τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῆς Ἑλλάδος

Ioanis Nikolaidis

Athens

Ioanis Nikolaidis

Athens

Saliveros

Athens

Ioanis Nikolaidis

Athens

Saliveros

Athens

Anestis Konstantinidis

Athens

Table 2: Printed Apostolos Lectionaries 1539–1900 Year 1 1525

Title

Publisher

Place

Ἀπόστολος

Stefano da Sabbio

Venice

(ed. Demetrios Zenos) 2 1532

Ἀπόστολος

3 1534

Ἀπόστολος

Stefano da Sabbio

Verona

& Brothers Stefano da Sabbio

Venice

& Brothers 4 1542 5 1550 6 1550

Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος

Stefano da Sabbio

Venice

Andrea Spinelli

Venice

Cristoforo Zanetti

Venice

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Year

29

Title

Publisher

Place

Pietro di Sabio

Venice

Cristoforo Zanetti

Venice

Cristoforo Zanetti

Venice

10 1569

Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος: νεωστὶ µετὰ πολλῆς ἐπιµελείας διορθωθέν Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος

11 1573

Ἀπόστολος

12 1579

Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος

7 1551 8 1559 9 1564

Iakovos Longinos (ed. Venice Priest Ioannis Nathanail) Iakovos Longinos (ed. Venice Priest Ioannis Nathanail)

13 1583

Cristoforo Zanetti

Venice

Inheritors of Cristoforo

Venice

Zanetti 14 1584

Ἀπόστολος

Spinelli (ed. Grigorios

Venice

15 1585

Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος

Kunadis

Venice

Francesco Giuliani

Venice

Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος

Malaksi) 16 1594 17 1596 18 1602

Inheritors of Pietro Zanetti Venice Antonio Pinelli

Venice

Antonio Pinelli

Venice

Antonio Pinelli

Venice

Antonio Pinelli

Venice

Gian Pietro Pinelli

Venice

Gian Pietro Pinelli

Venice

Gian Pietro Pinelli

Venice

Andrea Giuliano

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος: Νεωστὶ µετατυπωθείς

Andrea Giuliano

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Iann. Antonio Iulianos

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

32 1692

Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος

Nikolaos Saros (ed.

Venice

33 1702

Ἀπόστολος

19 1607 20 1614 21 1618 22 1633 23 1641 24 1649 25 1661 26 1672 27 1680 28 1680 29 1687 30 1689

31 1690

(corrected by Nikodimos of Leivadia)

Georgios Maiotos) Inheritors of Nikolaos

Venice

30

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Year

Title

Publisher

Place

Saros (ed. Methodios Anthrakites from Ioannina) 34 1702 35 1710 36 1716 37 1719 38 1720 39 1721 40 1726

Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Nikolaos Saros

Venice

Nikolaos Saros

Venice

Nikolaos Saros

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Nikolaos Saros

Venice

Nikolaos Saros

Venice

(corrected by Alexandros Kankelarios) 41 1728

Ἀπόστολος

Nikolaos Saros

Venice

(corrected by Alexandros Kankelarios) 42 1730

Ἀπόστολος

Nikolaos Saros

Venice

(corrected by Alexandros Kankelarios) 43 1762 44 1775 45 1795 46 1801

47 1802

Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος Ἀποστόλων Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Αἱ Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ Ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας καθ’ ἑκάστην κηρυττόµεναι. Μετὰ προσθήκης καὶ Χαλκογραφίας τινὸς περιεχούσης τὰ µαρτύρια τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων. Νεωστὶ µετατυπωθεῖσαι, καὶ ἐπιµελῶς διορθωθεῖσαι Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Αἱ Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ Ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας καθ᾽ ἑκάστην κηρυττόµεναι. Μετὰ Προσθήκης πολλῶν Ἐπιστολῶν, τῶν Προκειµένων ἑκάστης Ἡµέρας, νέου Πίνακος, καὶ Χαλκογραφίας τινὸς περιεχούσης τὰ Μαρτύρια τῶν ἁγίων ἀπο-

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

No editor

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Year

48

49

50

51

52

Title

στόλων. Νεωστὶ µετατυπωθεῖσαι, καὶ ἐπιµελῶς διορθωθεῖσαι 1806 Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Αἱ Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ, Ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας κηρυττόµεναι. Μετὰ Προσθήκης πολλῶν Ἐπιστολῶν, τῶν Προκειµένων ἑκάστης Ἡµέρας, νέου Πίνακος, καὶ Χαλκογραφίας τινὸς περιεχούσης τὰ Μαρτύρια τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων. Νεωστὶ µετατυπωθεῖσαι, καὶ ἐπιµελῶς διορθωθεῖσαι 1810 Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Αἱ Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ, Ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας καθ’ ἑκάστην κηρυττόµεναι. Μετὰ Προσθήκης πολλῶν Ἐπιστολῶν, καὶ τῶν Προκειµένων ἑκάστης Ἡµέρας. Ἔκδοσις Πρώτη 1810 Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Αἱ Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ, Ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας καθ’ ἑκάστην κηρυττόµεναι. Μετὰ Προςθήκης πολλῶν Ἐπιστολῶν, τῶν τε Προκειµένων ἑκάστης Ἡµέρας, καὶ νέου Πίνακος 1811 Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Αἱ Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ, Ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας καθ’ ἑκάστην κηρυττόµεναι. Μετὰ Προςθήκης πολλῶν Ἐπιστολῶν, τῶν τε Προκειµένων ἑκάστης Ἡµέρας, καὶ νέου Πίνακος 1811 Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Αἱ (differ- Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ, Ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας καθ’ ἑκάστην ent κηρυττόµεναι. Μετὰ Προςθήκης edition πολλῶν Ἐπιστολῶν, τῶν τε from Προκειµένων ἑκάστης Ἡµέρας, previκαὶ νέου Πίνακος ous)

31

Publisher

Place

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Panos Theodosios

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

32

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Year

53 1812

54 1812

55 1813

56 1815

57 1817

58 1818

59 1830

Title

Publisher

Place

Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Αἱ Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ, Ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας καθ’ ἑκάστην κηρυττόµεναι. Μετὰ Προςθήκης πολλῶν Ἐπιστολῶν, τῶν τε Προκειµένων ἑκάστης Ἡµέρας, καὶ νέου Πίνακος Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Αἱ Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ, Ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας κηρυττόµεναι. Μετὰ Προσθήκης τῶν προκειµένων ἑκάστης ἡµέρας. Ἔκδοσις Δευτέρα Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Αἱ Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ, Ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας καθ’ ἑκάστην κηρυττόµεναι. Μετὰ Προςθήκης πολλῶν Ἐπιστολῶν, τῶν τε Προκειµένων ἑκάστης Ἡµέρας, καὶ νέου Πίνακος Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Αἱ Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ Ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας καθ’ ἑκάστην κηρυττόµεναι. Μετὰ Προςθήκης πολλῶν Ἐπιστολῶν, τῶν τε προκειµένων ἑκάστης ἡµέρας, καὶ νέου Πίνακος Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Αἱ Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ Ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας καθ’ ἑκάστην κηρυττόµεναι. Μετὰ Προςθήκης πολλῶν Ἐπιστολῶν, τῶν τε Προκειµένων ἑκάστης ἡµέρας, καὶ νέου Πίνακος Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Αἱ Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ Ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας καθ’ ἑκάστην κηρυττόµεναι. Μετὰ Προςθήκης πολλῶν Ἐπιστολῶν, τῶν τε Προκειµένων ἑκάστης ἡµέρας, καὶ νέου Πίνακος Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ Ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Panos Theodosios

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Francesco Andreola

Venice

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Year

60 1831

61 1832

62 1835

63 1836

64 1838

65 1839

Title

καθ’ ἑκάστην κηρυττόµεναι. Μετὰ Προσθήκης Πολλῶν Ἐπιστολῶν, τῶν τε Προκειµένων ἑκάστης ἡµέρας, καὶ νέου Πίνακος. Τυπογραφικῇ διορθώσει Σπυρίδωνος Βλαντῆ Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Αἱ Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ Ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας καθ’ ἑκάστην κηρυττόµεναι. Μετὰ Προςθήκης πολλῶν Ἐπιστολῶν, τῶν τε Προκειµένων ἑκάστης ἡµέρας, καὶ νέου Πίνακος Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ Νεωστὶ ἐκδοθεῖσαι Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων, καθ’ ὅλον τὸ ἔτος ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας ἀναγινωσκόµεναι, ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς νέας Διαθήκης ἐπιµελῶς διορθωθείς, µετὰ προσθήκης διαφόρων Ἀποστόλων καὶ Ἀντιφώνων, ἀπὸ τὰς προλαβούσας ἐκδόσεις ἐλλειπόντων, καὶ ἀνατυπωθεὶς διὰ συνδροµῆς εὐσεβῶν καὶ φιλοκάλων ἀνδρῶν Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων (second edition) Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ Νεωστὶ ἐκδοθεῖσαι Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων καθ’ ὅλον τὸ ἔτος ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας ἀναγινωσκόµεναι ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς νέας Διαθήκης ἐπιµελῶς διορθωθεὶς µετὰ προσθήκης διαφόρων Ἀποστόλων καὶ

33

Publisher

Place

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Francesco Andreola

Venice

Francesco Andreola

venice

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Foinikos

Venice

34

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Year

66 1841

67 1842

68 1844

69 1844

Title

Ἀντιφώνων ἀπὸ τὰς προλαβούσας ἐκδόσεις ἐλλειπόντων Ἀνατυπωθεὶς δὲ καὶ Τρίτον Ἐν Βενετίᾳ (third edition) Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ Νεωστὶ ἐκδοθεῖσαι Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Καθ’ ὅλον τὸ ἔτος ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας ἀναγινωσκόµεναι, Ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς νέας Διαθήκης ἐπιµελῶς διορθωθεὶς µετὰ προσθήκης διαφόρων Ἀποστόλων καὶ Ἀντιφώνων ἀπὸ τὰς προλαβούσας ἐκδόσεις ἐλλειπόντων Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Καθ’ ὅλον τὸ ἔτος ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας ἀναγινωσκόµεναι, Ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς Νέας Διαθήκης ἐπιµελῶς διορθωθεὶς µετὰ προσθήκης διαφόρων Ἀποστόλων καὶ Ἀντιφώνων, ἀπὸ τὰς προλαβούσας ἐκδόσεις ἐλλειπόντων. Νῦν δὲ ἀκριβέστατα διορθωθεὶς ὑπὸ Πολυχρονίου Φιλιππίδου (second edition) Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαί τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Καθ’ ὅλον τὸ ἔτος ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας ἀναγινωσκόµεναι. Πλουτισθεὶς δὲ νῦν τῇ προσθήκῃ διαφόρων Ἀποστόλων καὶ Ἀντιφώνων, καὶ ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς Νέας Διαθήκης ἀκριβέστατα διορθωθεὶς ὑπὸ Πολυχρονίου Φιλιππίδου Ἐξεδόθη πρώτην ἔκδοσιν

Publisher

Place

Nikolaos Glykys

Venice

Foinikos

Venice

Foinikos (corrected

Venice

by Polihrinios Filipidis)

Press of Nikolaos Glykys Venice (corrected by Polihrinios Filipidis)

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Year 70 1846

71 1847

72 1849

35

Title

Publisher

Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἑπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων καθ’ ὅλον τὸ ἔτος ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας ἀναγινωσκόµεναι. Πλουτισθεὶς δὲ νῦν τῇ προσθήκη διαφόρων Ἀποστόλων καὶ Ἀντιφώνων, καὶ ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς Νέας Διαθήκης ἀκριβέστατα διορθωθείς. Ὑπὸ Πολυχρονίου Φιλιππίδου ἐξεδόθη δευτέραν ἔκδοσιν Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων καθ’ ὅλον τὸ ἔτος ἐπ’ ἐκκλησίας ἀναγινωσκόµεναι ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς Νέας Διαθήκης ἐπιµελῶς διορθωθεὶς µετὰ προσθήκης διαφόρων Ἀποστόλων καὶ ἀντιφώνων ἀπὸ τὰς προλαβούσας ἐκδόσεις ἐλλειπόντων (third edition) Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Καθ’ ὅλον τὸ ἔτος ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας ἀναγινωσκόµενα. Πλουτισθεὶς νῦν τῇ προσθήκῃ διαφόρων Ἀποστόλων καὶ Ἀντιφώνων, καὶ ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς Νέας Διαθήκης ἀκριβέστατα διορθωθεὶς ὑπὸ Πολυχρονίου Φιλιππίδου Ἔκδοσις (third

Press of Nikolaos Glykys Venice

Place

(ed. Polihrinios Filipidis)

Foinikos

Venice

Press of Nikolaos Glykys Venice (ed. Polihrinios Filipidis)

edition) 73 1850

Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Agios Georgios Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων καθ’ ὅλον τὸ ἔτος ἐπ’ ἐκκλησίας ἀναγινωσκόµεναι ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς Νέας Διαθήκης Ἐπιµελῶς διορθωθεὶς µετὰ προσθήκης

Venice

36

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Year

74 1852

75 1855

76 1856

77 1858

Title

διαφόρων Ἀποστόλων καὶ Ἀντιφώνων ἀπὸ τὰς προλαβούσας ἐκδόσεις ἐλλειπόντων Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Καθ’ ὅλον τὸ ἔτος ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας ἀναγινωσκόµεναι Ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς Νέας Διαθήκης ἐπιµελῶς διορθωθεὶς Μετὰ προσθήκης διαφόρων Ἀποστόλων καὶ Ἀντιφώνων ἐκ τῶν προλαβουσῶν ἐκδόσεων ἐλλειπόντων (second edition) Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων καθ’ ὅλον τὸ ἔτος ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας ἀναγινωσκόµεναι Ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς Νέας Διαθήκης ἐπιµελῶς διορθωθεὶς µετὰ προσθήκης διαφόρων ἀποστόλων καὶ ἀντιφώνων ἐκ τῶν προλαβουσῶν ἐκδόσεων ἐλλειπόντων Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων καθ’ ὅλον τὸ ἔτος ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας ἀναγινωσκόµεναι Ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς Νέας Διαθήκης διορθοθεὶς Μετά Προσθήκης διαφόρων Ἀποστόλων καὶ Ἀντοφώνων ἀπὸ τῶν προλαβουσῶν ἐκδόσεων ἐλλειπόντων. Ἔκδοσις Ἕκτη Τῇ ἐγγράφῳ ἀδείᾳ τῆς Ἁγίας τοῦ Χριτοῦ Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας (sixth edition) Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Καθ’ ὅλον τὸ ἔτος ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας ἀναγινωσκόµεναι Ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς

Publisher

Place

Agios Georgios

Venice

Agios Georgios

Venice

Ecclesiastical

Press

of Venice

Press

of Venice

Foinikos

Ecclesiastical Foinikos

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Year

Title

37

Publisher

Place

Agios Georgios

Venice

Foinikos

Venice

Agios Georgios

Venice

Foinikos

Venice

Foinikos

Venice

Ioanis Atanasiadis

Tripoli

Foinikos

Venice

Νέας Διαθήκης διορθωθεὶς µετά προσθήκης διαφόρων ἀποστόλων καὶ ἀντιφώνων ἀπὸ τῶν προλαβουσῶν ἐκδόσεων ἐλλειπόντων. Ἔκδοσις Ἑβδόµη τῇ ἐγγράφῳ ἀδείᾳ τῆς Ἁγίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας (seventh edition) 78 1865

79 1866

80 1870

81 1870

82 1873

83 1874

84 1879

85 1881

86 1883

87 1885

Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων (eleventh edition) Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων (twelfth edition) Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Καθ’ ὅλον τὸ ἔτος ἐπιµελείας διορθωθεῖσαι Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων (thirteenth edition) Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων (fourteenth edition) Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων

Rome

Foinikos

Venice

N. Mihalopulos

Athens

38

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Year

88 1886

89 1891

90 1894

Title

Publisher

Place

Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων (fifteenth edition) Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων (sixteenth edition) Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων

Foinikos

Venice

Foinikos

Venice

Ioanis Nikolaidis reprinted Athens an edition of Agios Georgios (Venice) for Foinikos bookstore in Athens.

91 1895

92 1898

93 1899 94 1899

95 1899

96 1899

97 No date

98 No date

Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων (seventeenth edition) Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων (stereotyped edition) Ἀπόστολος Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων (eighteenth edition) Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων (stereotyped edition) Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων (stereotyped edition) Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων Καθ’ ὅλον τὸ ἔτος: ἀδείᾳ τῆς Ἁγίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας Ἀπόστολος ἤτοι Πράξεις καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων καθ’ ὅλον τὸ ἔτος: Ἐξ ἀρίστων ἐκδόσεων τῆς Νέας Διαθήκης διορθωθεὶς µετά προσθήκης διαφόρων ἀποστόλων καὶ ἀντιφώνων ἀπὸ τῶν προλαβουσῶν ἐκδόσεων

Foinikos

Venice

Anestis Konstantinidis

Athens

Saliveros

Athens

Foinikos

Venice

Anestis Konstantinidis

Athens

Ioanis Nikolaidis

Athens

M. Saliveros

Athens

Georgios D. Feksi

Athens

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Year

Title

Publisher

39 Place

ἐλλειπόντων (stereotyped edition)

There is to date no substantial research into the history of the text of the printed Greek lectionaries.42 Although this is beyond the scope of the present study, it is clear that the printed editions of the Greek Orthodox Apostolos Lectionaries were not produced independently from the Erasmian text. For instance, two examples that are characteristic of the Erasmian editions later remained distinctive variants of the Textus Receptus: the famous Comma Johanneum and the addition of οὗτος λαλήσει σοι τί σε δεῖ ποιεῖν in Acts 10:6. The Comma Johanneum was not included in the first edition of the Apostolos from 1525 edeted by Demetrios Zenos, nor was it included in editions from 1550 published by Andrea Spinelli and 1573 published by Iakovos Longinos (cf. Table 2). However, the addition in Acts 10:6 is present in all these editions. According to Grantley McDonald, the Comma Johanneum was present in Pineli’s edition of the Apostolos from 1602.43 It is also present in all sixteen editions that I had access to from the seventeenth century to today including an online electronic edition.44 The presence of these two variants suggests the dependence of the text of the Apostolos lectionaries on some printed editions of Erasmian provenance. In the BFBS report for 1905–06 it was noted that the Principal of the Greek Orthodox Theological School on the island of Patmos purchased copies of Nestle’s critical edition for the school, Stefanos Alexopoulos and Dionysios Bilalis Anatolikiotes, “Towards a History of Printed Liturgical Books in the Modern Greek State: An Initial Survey,” EO 34 (2017); Gregory S. Paulson, “A Proposal for a Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament Lectionary,” in Liturgy and the Living Text of the New Testament: Papers from the Tenth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, ed. H. A. G. Houghton (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2018). 43 Grantley McDonald, Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma, and Trinitarian Debate (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 112. 44 Cf. editions in Table 2 with years printed in bold. Digital edition available at http://glt.goarch.org/misc/Apostelos.html. 42

40

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

even though Antoniades’ edition was already available at that time.45 In the Orthodox Theological Schools the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece and the Greek New Testament of the United Bible Societies are now widely accepted.

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP SINCE A NTONIADES

Later Orthodox scholars have made numerous assertions about the manuscript basis of the Antoniades edition. According to Ioannes Karavidopoulos (Ιωάννης Καραβιδόπουλος), it is based entirely on lectionaries.46 Emilianos Tsakopoulos (Αιµιλιανός Τσακόπουλος) claimed that it was largely based on Panagias 93 (96) (GA 1872) and Panagias 26 (GA 1870), adding in a footnote that Triados 13 (=GA l 883), 14 (=GA l 884), 15 (=GA l 895), and 16 (=GA 1868) were also consulted.47 Agourides, Delicostopoulos, Cleenewerck refer to a committee for the preparation of the Patriarchal edition that was appointed in 1902, which studied twenty manuscripts on Mount Athos and, in the end, chose only one as the basis for the edition.48 Anatoly А. Alekseev (Анатолий Алексеевич Алексеев) stated that Antoniades’ edition eclectically combined features of the Byzantine tradition with the features of the fourthcentury codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.49 Karavidopoulos’ statement that the edition is based entirely on lectionaries, drawing on Antoniades’ own preface, is common and prevalent among Western Thomas Herbert Darlow, ed. There is a River: A Popular Illustrated Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society for the Year 1905–1906 (London: The Bible House, 1906), 13–14. 46 Ioannes Karavidopoulos, “Textual Criticism in the Orthodox Church: Present State and Future Prospects,” GOTR 47 (2002): 392. 47 Emilianos Tsakopoulos, Περιγραφικος καταλογος των χειρογραφων της 45

βιβλιοθηκης του οικουµενικου πατριαρχειου Aʹ: τµηµα χειρογραφων παναγιας καµαριωτισσης (Istanbul: Ecumenical Patriarchate, 1953), 157. 48 Savvas Agouridis, Εισαγωγη εις την καινην διαθηκην (Athens: Γρηγορη,

1971), 31–32. Athan Delicostopoulos, “Major Greek Translations of the Bible,” in The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 305. Cleenewerck, The Eastern/Greek Orthodox New Testament, 11. 49 Alekseev, “Новое издание византийского текста Евангелия от Иоанна,” 582.

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

41

researchers. The other hypotheses mentioned in this paragraph are unusual and cannot be justified either on the basis of the introduction to the patriarchal edition nor by the present study. Antoniades’ edition was announced in 1900 in Ekklesiastike Aletheia (Εκκλησιαστική Αλήθεια), a weekly publication of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.50 An anonymous short article made the following points: (1) a new edition of the New Testament will be published by the Ecumenical Patriarchate; (2) it will be printed by the press that some time ago arrived from England; (3) it will be prepared on the basis of the old Gospel lectionaries (from the tenth century and later) that are read in the churches of the Orthodox East and old Byzantine codices that are always in agreement (ἐν συµφωνία) with the form of the text found in the writings of the holy Fathers that are in accordance with the tradition and teaching of the Еastern Orthodox Church; (4) the edition will be prepared by an appointed committee whose members are professors of theology: the dean of the Great National School, Archimandrite Michael Kleovoulos (Μιχαήλ Κλεόβουλος), the dean of the theological school of Halki, Apostolos Christodoulou (Απόστολος Χριστοδούλου), and Vasilios Antoniades (Βασίλειος Αντωνιάδης), professor of the Theological School of Halki; and (5) the edition will be stereotyped. In 1905, a short advertisement was published in the Ekklesiastike Aletheia (Εκκλησιαστική Αλήθεια) with the title The New Testament Approved by the Great Church of Christ (Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη: Ἐγκρίσει τῆς Μεγάλης τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησίας). The advertisement also offers information on the editorial board. The author hoped that this first edition of the Greek New Testament by our Mother Church (πρώτην εκδοσιν της Καινής Διαθήκης, της Μητρός Εκκλησίας) would be well received and that readers would purchase copies at the Patriarchal Press and in the Capital for 5 groschen.51 Although this advertisement is not signed, it may be assumed based on the content and the conclusion that it was written by Ioannes Andreades (cf. below).

Anonymous, “Εκδοσις της καινης διαθηκης,” EkklAl 42 (1900): 459. “Η καινη διαθηκη: εγκρισει της µεγαλης του χριστου εκκλησιας,” EkklAl 25 (1905): 313. 50 51

42

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

In the same issue of the Ekklesiastike Aletheia (Εκκλησιαστική Αλήθεια) the first part of a five-part article was published under the title About the Types of Editions of the Text of the New Testament (Περι των τυποις εκδοσεων του κειµενου της καινης διαθηκης) by Ioannes Andreades (Ιωάννης Ανδρεάδης).52 Andreades provides an overview of Greek New Testament editions from the Complutensian Polyglot to Antoniades’ edition. The Antoniades edition was described in the last part, following the information from the introduction to the edition.53 Andreades notes that the scope of the edition was the oldest ecclesiastical text from Constantinople, based on the old Gospel lectionaries read in the Eastern Orthodox Church from the tenth century and later with some variations among them. Andreades also repeated the information from the introduction regarding differences between Antoniades’ text and the Textus Receptus of the BFBS. The author concludes with the hope that the Patriarchal edition will be well received. In 1938 the Metropolitan of Ilioupoli, Gennadios (Γεννάδιος) wrote a response to a negative evaluation of the Antoniades edition by Rife.54 It was published in the journal Orthodoxia of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, with the title, How American Theologians Express themselves regarding the Patriarchal Edition of the New Testament (Πως οι αµερικανοι θεολογοι εκφραζονται περι της πατριαρχικης εκδοσεως της καινης διαθηκης).55 Gennadios addresses Rife’s conclusion that the Antoniades edition is neither a better representation of the lectionary text than the Textus Receptus, nor a better representation of the Byzantine text. Gennadios responded to the critique with the claim that the Antoniades edition is in accordance with its specific scope, i.e. a representation of the

Ioannes Andreades, “Περι των τυποις εκδοσεων του κειµενου της καινης διαθηκης,” EkklAl 25–27, 29, 30 (1905). 53 “Περι των τυποις εκδοσεων του κειµενου της καινης διαθηκης,” 368–69. 52

John Merle Rife, “The Antoniades Greek New Testament,” in Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels, ed. Ernest C. Colwell and Donald W. Riddle (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933), 66. See further pp. 67–68 below. 55 Gennadios Metropolitan of Ilioupoli, “Πως οι αµερικανοι θεολογοι 54

εκφραζονται περι της πατριαρχικης εκδοσεως της καινης διαθηκης,” Ορθοδοξια:

ηθικοθρησκευτικον περιοδικον του οικουµενικου πατριαρχειου 13 (1938).

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

43

official or standard (επίσηµον) text of the New Testament of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Markos A. Siotes (Μάρκος Α. Σιώτης) published his contribution in two parts on January 1 and 15 1960 in the journal Ekklesia (Εκκλησια) with the title Necessity of a New Greek Edition of the New Testament (Αναγκη νεας ελληνικης εκδοσεως της καινης διαθηκης).56 In the first part Siotes pointed out, among other issues, that a comprehensive critical edition of the Greek New Testament in Greece would not be possible because of the absence of study and knowledge of the ancient languages that transmitted the New Testament translations from the second century onward. He also provided a general overview of the sources and problems in the editing of the Greek New Testament. In the second part of his article, Siotes described the tasks involved in editing the New Testament, dividing it into two main phases: the first is purely technical (gathering and analysing material, and its organisation in families and types according to their texts), and the second is purely theological (evaluation of each phrase, word, letter and even punctuation and establishing the text, and a critical apparatus).57 Siotes believed that the Orthodox Church had a special mission and responsibility in the second phase. When it comes to the theoretical presuppositions regarding the theory of New Testament textual history, Siotes relied on Western scholarship. He referred both to a grouping of the manuscripts into text-types and to the value of the Byzantine text on the basis of von Soden’s conclusions. Siotes believed that there had been a lack of progress in the research of the Ecclesiastical text because of the unfamiliarity of foreign researchers with Greek Orthodox tradition. He perceived within this lacuna a special mission for Greek Orthodox theologians. For Siotes, through the restoration of the liturgical text (τοῦ λειτουργικοῦ ἡµῶν κειµένου) Greek theologians could contribute to international efforts toward creating a better edition of the Greek New Testament.

56

Markos A. Siotes, “Αναγκη νεας ελληνικης εκδοσεως της καινης διαθηκης,”

Εκκλησια: επισηµον δελτιον της εκκλησιας της ελλαδος 1–2 (1960). 57

“Αναγκη νεας ελληνικης εκδοσεως της καινης διαθηκης,” 30.

44

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Siotes stated that the ecclesiastical text is witnessed by the majority of majuscule manuscripts, almost all minuscules, all versions since the third century, and the Greek Fathers from the end of the fourth century onward, led by St. Chrysostom. According to him, the core of that type derives from the end of the second century and it represents essentially the original text, its harmonizations and smoothing coming from the end of the third century. He describes the main characteristics of the Byzantine text and points to the value of the text of the lectionaries (τοῦ κειµένου τῶν λειτουργικῶν περικοπαρίων) and the Byzantine text itself for determining the textual history of the Greek New Testament.58 He believed that it was particularly important to reconstruct the earliest form of the Lucianic text and saw this as a special task for Greek theologians. Siotes also noted that none of the critical editions were accepted by the Orthodox Church and that the editors of critical editions introduced their own changes and corrections according to their own judgments. He further stated that the foreign textual critics would never be able to offer to the Orthodox Church the proper ecclesiastical text; the Orthodox edition should be prepared by Orthodox scholars according to purely Orthodox criteria of Church tradition (ἑπὶ τῶν καθαρῶς ὀρθοδόξων κριτηρίων τῆς ἱστορικῆς ἡµῶν παραδόσεως καὶ ζωῆς). Although the task envisaged was very complex, Siotes was optimistic in part because the project had been initiated and because its beginning corresponded to the 1700–year anniversary of the establishment of the Antiochian School by Lucian, who first edited the ecclesiastical text. In the issue of Ekklesia published on February 15, 1960, Panagiotis Mpratsiotis (Παναγιώτης Μπρατσιώτης) published an article with the title, The Objective of a Greek Critical Edition of the New Testament (Η σκοπιµοτης µιας ελληνικης κριτικης εκδοσεως της καινης διαθηκης).59 In the first part of the article Mpratsiotis offers an overview of the history of New Testament textual criticism, from the Alexandrian librarians to his own time. He described the 58 59

“Αναγκη νεας ελληνικης εκδοσεως της καινης διαθηκης,” 32. Panagiotis Mpratsiotis, “Η σκοπιµοτης µιας ελληνικης κριτικης εκδοσεως

της καινης διαθηκης,” Εκκλησια: επισηµον δελτιον της εκκλησιας της ελλαδος 4 (1960).

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

45

Lachmann/Buttmann edition of 1842–1850 as the first critical edition, pointing out that it was based mainly on majuscules, while minuscules with the Byzantine text, on which the Textus Receptus was based, were neglected. Mpratsiotis continued with a brief overview of the development of textual criticism until Hermann von Soden, lauding von Soden for paying attention to the previously neglected Byzantine text. Mpratsiotis divided manuscripts into groups according to their textual affiliations, concluding that, despite immense scholarly efforts toward the main goal of the discipline, the reconstruction of the original text of the New Testament had not yet been achieved. This did not mean, however, that any of the existing editions would not contain the authentic text, which exists in all of them to essentially the same degree. He believed that the imperfections of the existing editions justified new efforts toward both the enhancement of the existing popular Nestle-Aland edition, which he termed ‘Protestant’, and the preparation of the new critical edition of the American Bible Society, with the contribution of European scholars and of the general editorial committee of the International Greek New Testament Project. Mpratsiotis noted that although the participation of Greek scholars in New Testament textual scholarship had been limited, there were also some worthy groundbreaking efforts in the form of the Antoniades edition of the ecclesiastical text. He noted further that that text had been in liturgical usage from the time of John Chrysostom, the Archbishop of Constantinople, who was the trustee of the Eastern ecclesiastical text of the New Testament. However, Mpratsiotis argued that, although Antoniades’ edition was good and worthy, it could not be considered a true critical edition of the liturgical text of the New Testament of the Greek Church because it lacked an apparatus criticus and was based on a small number of lectionaries, an insufficient base since the number of lectionaries exceeds 1,670. Mpratsiotis made the case that the new edition should actually be a completion of the Antoniades edition of the Orthodox traditional liturgical text of the New Testament. The primary basis of this new edition should be lectionaries, patristic quotations, the Old Church Slavonic version, and all other critically edited witnesses of the Greek Orthodox liturgical text. His

46

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

proposed Orthodox critical edition would not contest Nestle or any other edition, but it would represent both an improvement of the Antoniades edition and a contribution to the international collaborative efforts toward determining the original text of the New Testament. Mpratsiotis further noted that the significance of the liturgical ecclesiastical text had been recognized by Western scholars among others because of the old age of its tradition, which was in everyday liturgical use over a long period and therefore protected from significant changes. Mpratsiotis concluded by noting the willingness of Kurt Aland to support the project in the form of his personal participation, the contribution of his colleagues, and the sharing of the research resources of the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung to support the project. As is well known, none of the ecumenical or local councils recognised by the Eastern Orthodox Churches discussed the problem of textual plurality and the official form of biblical writings. Therefore, no edition of the Greek New Testament has been sanctioned by the highest ecclesiastical authority of the Eastern Orthodox Church: a council. The idea of the need to hold a PanOrthodox council after several centuries of isolation and alienation among the Orthodox Churches appeared in the middle of the nineteenth century. Preparations were intensified after World War Two. At the pan-Orthodox preparatory conferences in Rhodes (1961) and Chambesy (1968), the scientific edition of the Byzantine text of the Greek New Testament was included among the topics that the council was supposed to discuss.60 The Eastern Orthodox Church, therefore, seemed to be on the way to preparing a Pan-Orthodox official edition of the Greek New Testament. Later, however, the catalogue of topics was changed and the production of the edition was not mentioned at the Pan-Orthodox Council held in Crete in 2016. Ioannes Karavidopoulos (Ιωάννης Καραβιδόπουλος) is the most prolific Orthodox Greek New Testament textual scholar since the Viorel Ionita and Remus Rus, Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church: The Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Meetings Since 1923 until 2009 (Freiburg: Institut für Ökumenische Studien, 2014), 125, 40. For the Pan-Orthodox Council held in Crete in 2016 cf. https://www.holycouncil.org/home. 60

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

47

publication of the Antoniades edition. He has contributed to New Testament textual scholarship through contributions to the production of critical editions and through his text-critical studies. Karavidopoulos served as a member of the editorial committee for the twenty-seventh edition of Nestle-Aland and the fourth edition of UBS. At the time Professor Karavidopoulos became a committee member, the critical text was already established and was not changed during his term. Nevertheless, Karavidopoulos contributed significantly to these editions. Under his leadership and supervision at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, thirty Gospel and forty Apostolos lectionaries were collated for the critical apparatus of the fourth edition of The Greek New Testament of UBS,61 which were retained also for the fifth edition.62 Additionally, Karavidopoulos contributed by collating thirty-three lectionaries for The Gospel According to John in The Byzantine Tradition.63 In several studies, Karavidopoulos addressed the problem of New Testament textual scholarship and the editing of the Greek New Testament from an Orthodox perspective.64 The Antoniades Kurt Aland et al., The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1993). 62 Barbara Aland et al., The Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2014). 63 Roderic L. Mullen, Simon Crisp, and David C. Parker, eds., The Gospel According to John in the Byzantine Tradition (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2007), vi. The electronic version is available at http://www.iohannes.com/byzantine. See below for more details on this edition. 64 Karavidopoulos, “Textual Criticism in the Orthodox Church: Present State and Future Prospects.”; “The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s 1904 New Testament Edition and Future Perspectives,” SacSc 10 (2012); “Το εκκλησιαστικο κειµενο της Καινης Διαθηκης στη συνχρονη ερευνα,” in 61

Τιµητικο αφιερωµα στον οµοτιµο καθηγητη Κωνσταντινο Δ. Καλοκυρη (Thessaloniki: Aristotle University, 1985); “Η πατριαρχικη εκδοση της Καινης Διαθηκης του 1904 και η αξια των βυζαντινων εκλογαδιων,” in Biblical Studies 3 (Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 2004); “Το αιτηµα της οµοιοµορφιας του λειτουργικου κειµενου της Καινης Διαθηκης,” in Διακονια: Αφιερωµα στη µνηµη Βασιλειου Στογιαννου (Thessaloniki: Aristotle University, 1988); “Einige kürzere Lesarten des kirchlichen NT-Textes,” OrthFor 4 (1990); “Lectio Brevior Potior: Συντοµες γραφες του εκκλησιαστικου κειµενου της Καινης Διαθηκης,” in Μνηµη Ιωαννου Ευανγ. Αναστασιου (Thessaloniki:

48

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

edition was always his point of reference. On one hand, Karavidopoulos noticed its inadequacies and shortcomings, pointing out also a problem regarding the textual differences between Antoniades’ text and printed lectionaries. For these reasons Karavidopoulos, on several occasions, argued for a new Orthodox critical edition of the Greek New Testament. At the same time, Karavidopoulos was critical of the critical text. Although he expressed appreciation for this, he argued for the superiority of the ecclesiastical text, based on the presupposed non-historicity of the critical text as an eclectic text not witnessed by manuscript tradition, in contrast to the historicity of the Byzantine ecclesiastical text. The latter had for centuries been a central part of the liturgical life of the Greek Orthodox Church. Regarding critical editions, among other items, he noted: The ‟eclectic” character of their text, i.e., the fact that their text is a mixture and a combination, or the comparative result, so to speak, of manuscripts and of the types of text. Thus, they provide a text, which does not echo the specific liturgical tradition of any particular church, because the selected scripture can be derived from different manuscripts and not be the same in all the editions.65

On another occasion Karavidopoulos wrote: Let us not forget that critical editions of the Greek New Testament comprise an artificial text. These editions are the result—on the basis of scientific principles—of a large portion of manuscripts (geographically and chronologically), but such editions have never been read in the liturgical life of the church. Conversely, the so-called Byzantine text, that which we have referred to repeatedly in this paper as the ‟liturgical” or ‟ecclesiastical” text, has been read for many centuries (and

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 1992); Εισαγωγη Στην Καινη Διαθηκη (Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 2010), 69–70. 65 “Textual Criticism in the Orthodox Church: Present State and Future Prospects,” 384.

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

49

is still being read) during the liturgical assemblies of the Orthodox Church.66

For these reasons, Karavidopoulos did not suggest the adoption of the critical text by the Orthodox Church. He expressed a belief that more thorough research into the Byzantine text and its history could contribute to the improvement of the critical text. Karavidopoulos paid special attention to the shorter readings in the Byzantine text, arguing that these might contribute to the construction of the critical text. In that regard, after giving some examples of these readings, he stated: None of this means uncritical acceptance of the ecclesiastical text as a substitute for today’s prevailing ‟critical text”. However, it can lead the critical editors to adopt some short readings of the ecclesiastical text (such as those mentioned above), which, with modern scholarly criteria and generally prevailing principles, have a right to be considered as original readings, from which the extended readings of the other text types later derived.67

In an interview in 2015, Karavidopoulos stated: ‟some short Byzantine Readings could be adopted by the committee of which I am no longer a member.” And he added: ‟The Byzantine text type must be more seriously investigated.”68 At the same time, Karavidopoulos observed the nature and significance of the critical text: Ignorance of what is a critical edition of the New Testament has led certain people, theologians included, to characterize the critical editions as ‟Protestant” texts, being oblivious to the fact that these texts are based on the ancient manuscripts

“The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s 1904 New Testament Edition and Future Perspectives,” 12. 67 “Textual Criticism in the Orthodox Church: Present State and Future Prospects,” 391. 68 Cf. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2015/09/etc-interviewwith-john-karavidopoulos.html. 66

50

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP and that these manuscripts constitute a treasure of the Church and, indeed, of the undivided Church of the first centuries.69

Nevertheless, it seems that Karavidopoulos was generally in favor of the Byzantine text as the ecclesiastical text. Konstantinos Nikolakopoulos (Κωνσταντίνος Νικολακόπουλος) is a professor of biblical theology at the Orthodox Theological Institute at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich. In his introduction to the New Testament, Nikolakopoulos dedicated the second part to the New Testament’s textual history and textual criticism. The most relevant part for this disucssion is the section entitled Der „kirchliche” Text und die Textkritik.70 Nikolakopoulos believes that further research on the New Testament’s text as transmitted in liturgical manuscripts could be helpful for two reasons. First, due to its conservativism the ecclesiastical text was preserved with few changes and, therefore, its analysis can contribute to the reconstruction of the original text in some passages. On the other hand, a good critical edition of the liturgical text can contribute to a harmonization of the different New Testament texts that are in liturgical use in the Greek Orthodox Church. Christos Karakolis (Χρήστος Καρακόλης) is Professor of New Testament at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (Εθνικό και Καποδιστριακό Πανεπιστήµιο Αθηνών). He is a member of the editorial committee of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece twenthy-ninth edition and the UBS Greek New Testament sixth edition as a Greek Orthodox representative and successor of Professor Karavidopoulos. Together with Ekaterini Tsalampouni (Αικατερίνη Τσαλαµπούνη), Karakolis was appointed as Director of the Department of the Study of the Manuscript Tradition of the New Testament of the Research Centre (Τοµέας Μελέτης της Χειρόγραφης Παράδοσης της Καινής Διαθήκης) at the Volos Academy for Theological Studies.71 Karavidopoulos, “Textual Criticism in the Orthodox Church: Present State and Future Prospects,” 387. 70 Konstantinos Nikolakopoulos, Das Neue Testament in der Orthodoxen Kirche: Grundlegende Fragen einer Einführung in das Neue Testament (Berlin: LIT, 2011), 38. 71 https://web.archive.org/web/20180320045658/ http://academia.org/en/research-center/department-of-the-study-ofthe-manuscript-tradition-of-the-new-testament. 69

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

51

Karakolis addresses text-critical problems from an Orthodox perspective in two papers presented in 2013 in Moscow and 2014 in Athens. The paper presented in Moscow is entitled: The Critical Text of the New Testament from an Orthodox perspective (Критический текст Нового Завета: православная перспектива).72 The paper presented in Athens is entitled Critical Editions and Translation of the New Testament (Κριτικες εκδοσεις και µεταφραση της καινης διαθηκης).73 In the following, I will summarize the most significant of Karakolis’ statements regarding the Antoniades edition, New Testament textual criticism, and the editing of the New Testament for the Orthodox Church. Karakolis points out the inadequacy of Antoniades’ edition, noting that it was based on a limited number of lectionaries except for the parts not read in Church, which are based on continuous manuscripts.74 As such it is a hybrid (ένα υβρίδιο),75 which does not represent a particular manuscript or the entire Byzantine textual tradition.76 On the other hand, as Karakolis notes, critical editions are in usage only in Orthodox academic context, although some theologians are against it. However, according to Karakolis, as the texts of liturgy, for popular reading, or as source texts for modern translations, critical texts are not acceptable in the Orthodox Church.77 Karakolis is somewhat sceptical about the goal of critical editions, which is, according to him, the reconstruction of the original or earliest attainable text. He points out several times that the critical text is an eclectic text. He also

Christos Karakolis, “Критический текст Нового Завета: православная перспектива,” in Современная библеистика и Предание Церкви, ed. Ilarion Alfeyev (Moscow: Saint Cyril and Methodius Institute, 2016). 73 “Κριτικες εκδοσεις και µεταφραση της καινης διαθηκης,” in Η µεταφραση 72

της βιβλου στην εκκλησια και στην εκπαιδευση: Αφιερωµα στα 25 χρονια απο την εκδοση της νεας µεταφρασης της καινης διαθηκης στη νεοελληνικη γλωσσα, ed. Βασιλικη Ηλ. Σταθοκωστα (Athens: Greek Bible Society,

2015). 74 “Критический текст Нового Завета: православная перспектива,” 180. 75 “Κριτικες εκδοσεις και µεταφραση της καινης διαθηκης,” 33. 76 “Κριτικες εκδοσεις και µεταφραση της καινης διαθηκης,” 36. 77 “Критический текст Нового Завета: православная перспектива,” 171; “Κριτικες εκδοσεις και µεταφραση της καινης διαθηκης,” 34.

52

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

reminds readers that such a text is a reconstruction that cannot be found in any single manuscript.78 Karakolis also makes some proposals regarding a future Orthodox edition that would meet the needs of Orthodox users. He conceptualizes his textual theory based on the findings of Amy Donaldson’s research into explicit patristic references to the New Testament variant readings, the concept of the living text as presented by David Parker, and some premises related to the history of the New Testament canon.79 According to him, the earliest Church did not seek to preserve the New Testament text in its original form because New Testament writings were not considered as canonical scriptures until the fourth century. Instead, they were viewed as written oral tradition that required reinterpretation. He believes that textual plurality was preserved not because the Church failed to unify the text, but because the Church did not even try do it.80 Karakolis concludes both that the reconstruction of the original text cannot give absolutely reliable results and that a determination of the state of the text at a certain moment in its textual history is possible. For him this is the primary goal of the Orthodox Church: not to find out the historical origin of the text, but to see and express in it its own identity.81 Karakolis points to the importance of tradition over historicity in the Orthodox approach to the problem of textual plurality. He believes that in the Orthodox Church it is not important to have a text that is closest to the original form but rather the text that was in liturgical usage during the peak development of its identity and self-consciousness, the period between the great schism of 1054 and the beginning of the Ottoman period in 1453.82 He uses the Comma Johanneum as an “Критический текст Нового Завета: православная перспектива,” 172. “Κριτικες εκδοσεις και µεταφραση της καινης διαθηκης,” 32; “Критический текст Нового Завета: православная перспектива,” 183. Cf. Amy M. Donaldson, “Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings among Greek and Latin Church Fathers” (PhD, University of Notre Dame, 2009); David C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 80 Karakolis, “Критический текст Нового Завета: православная перспектива,” 177. 81 “Критический текст Нового Завета: православная перспектива,” 183. 82 “Κριτικες εκδοσεις και µεταφραση της καινης διαθηκης,” 33. 78 79

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

53

example of the precedence of the Church tradition over historicity. Returning to Antoniades, Karakolis notes that, although Antoniades was aware that the Comma was not witnessed by manuscript tradition, it was retained by the Holy Synod because it is an interpretation that stands in accordance with the criteria of Church teaching. Therefore, the Church wished to retain the Comma, giving to it the same canonical status as the rest of the text of 1 John. From this view, the original text does not have any special significance on its own. What is significant is the local tradition, which is given priority if it differs from the original text.83 Karakolis argues that any future Byzantine edition should be based on the ECM. It will, however, be decades until the ECM is finished.84 Nonetheless, according to Karakolis it is important to have a truly critical edition of the Byzantine text as an Orthodox edition, and Karakolis thinks that it would be significant for all Orthodox Churches.85 Additionally, he suggests that textual plurality is very important for the Orthodox Church; therefore, the Orthodox Church would need several editions that would reflect different periods of ecclesiastical history and different phases of the New Testament’s textual development. Modern digital technologies enable such an editorial concept.86 Karl Klimmeck recently published an article in which he presents a project for translating the New Testament into German: Byzantinischer Text Deutsch. Considering that the translation is based on the Byzantine text in general and on Antoniades’ edition specifically, Klimmeck offers his views on both items. Klimmeck relies on the same arguments that previous Orthodox scholars have proffered. He calls the credibility of the critical edition into question, highlighting its eclectic nature, while also emphasizing the value of the Byzantine text and Antoniades’ edition as the text that represents the Church tradition and its liturgical life. Klimmeck writes:

“Критический текст Нового Завета: православная перспектива,” 180. “Критический текст Нового Завета: православная перспектива,” 184. 85 “Критический текст Нового Завета: православная перспектива,” 184. 86 “Критический текст Нового Завета: православная перспектива,” 184; “Κριτικες εκδοσεις και µεταφραση της καινης διαθηκης,” 36. 83 84

54

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Dieser eklektische Text ist in keinem Gottesdienst der christlichen Kirche seit ihrer Entstehung so (in Griechisch) gelesen worden. Allerdings nicht im eklektisch gewonnenen Text, sondern im „praktizierten” Text, dem Text der Mehrheit der Textzeugen und im besonderen Masse im Text, der in der Liturgie verwendet wird. Dort werden wir für unsere Übersetzung die Quelle finden müssen.87

Klimmeck, like some other Orthodox scholars, relativizes the importance of textual historicity. Nicht die Frage nach der Historizität steht im Vordergrund, sondern die nach der Authentizität, wir suchen einen Text, der gelebt wurde und finden ihn in den Lektionaren und damit in der Ausgabe von Antoniades.88

In addition to making the case for using the lectionaries as the basis of the Byzantinischer Text Deutsch, Klimmeck also explains how the translation takes into consideration the Church Slavonic translation and, among the Church Fathers, Chrysostom and Theophylact of Ochrid. We may see from the previous presentation that the prevailing belief among Orthodox scholars is that the Orthodox edition of the Greek New Testament should be an edition of the Byzantine majority text. It is often assumed that the new Orthodox edition should be an upgrade to the Antoniades edition. The attitude of Orthodox scholars towards the critical text makes cooperation at the international level somewhat difficult, especially when it comes to modern translation projects. At one of the meetings between the representatives of the United Bible Societies and the Eastern Orthodox Church in El Escorial, Spain in 1999, the problem of the base text and the translating principles were discussed. On that occasion, the representatives of the Orthodox Church, among other things, asked the representatives of the United Bible Karl Klimmeck, “Auf der Suche nach dem byzantinischen Bibeltext: Vom liturgischen Kodex zur Übersetzung,” in The Bible in Byzantium: Appropriation, Adaptation, Interpretation, ed. Claudia Rapp and Andreas Külzer, JAJSup 25,6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019), 12. 88 “Auf der Suche nach dem byzantinischen Bibeltext: Vom liturgischen Kodex zur Übersetzung,” 20. 87

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

55

Societies to produce an edition of the Byzantine text of the Greek New Testament. To meet this request, a team at the Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing at the University of Birmingham produced The Gospel According to John in the Byzantine Tradition edited by Roderic L. Mullen with Simon Crisp and David C. Parker, published by the German Bible Society in 2007.89 The printed version was produced from the electronic transcriptions that are available as an electronic edition at http://www.iohannes.com/byzantine. This edition can be regarded, conditionally at least, as a scholarly edition of the Antoniades text of the Gospel according to John. It includes nineteen majuscules, twenty-eight minuscules, nine commentaries, twenty-four lectionaries, selected works from five Church Fathers (John Chrysostom, Basil of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa), and the texts of the Antoniades edition and Nestle-Aland 27. The base text of the edition is a slightly corrected and normalized text of GA 35. Complete electronic transcripts are available for each of the listed witnesses. In the electronic edition Antoniades’ text is displayed under the base text, which allows for a relatively easy comparison both with the text of GA 35 and all other witnesses displayed in the critical apparatus. The preface and introduction in the printed edition are in English, Greek and Russian. Metropolitan Ignatios of Demetrias expressed his hope that this edition would provoke interest in further research of the Byzantine text and the publication of other New Testament writings in the Byzantine tradition. It is a pity that this edition, which was ordered by the representatives of the Greek Orthodox Church, has been largely ignored by Orthodox theologians and clergy.90 David C. Parker has said that the editors believe that the edition was not well received in the Orthodox Church because it printed the text of GA 35 and

Mullen, Crisp, and Parker, The Gospel According to John in the Byzantine Tradition. 90 Philip C. Stine, Let the Words be Written: The Lasting Influence of Eugene A. Nida (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2004), 134. 89

56

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

not Antoniades’ text as the main text of the edition.91 An additional reason could be that this edition clearly shows that the Byzantine textual tradition is not unified to the extent that it is often assumed, which calls into question the concept of continuity and stability of the еcclesiastical text from the patristic to the late Byzantine period. In this respect, the insight into the patristic textual tradition seems particularly provocative. The Fathers of the Church, whose quotations are included in the edition, represent the greatest authorities in the Eastern Orthodox Church. For that reason, from the Orthodox perspective this edition does not represent a solution, but points to the problem of unsustainability of certain assumptions about New Testament textual history, which has not yet been discussed in Orthodox circles. From the announcement of the Antoniades edition until now, Orthodox scholars generally believe that the Byzantine text should be preferred as the text of the Orthodox Church. This was also the opinion of the committee for the preparation of the PanOrthodox Council. Scholars justify this view by appealing to the presupposition that the Byzantine text represents the traditional ecclesiastical text of the Orthodox liturgy, which is also the text of the Church Fathers. Although it is sometimes mentioned that Antoniades’ text is eclectic, it is more often stressed that the critical text is eclectic and, as such, not historically attested in any manuscript. Scholars are aware that the Antoniades edition had deficiencies. Nevertheless, only an edition of the Byzantine text has so far been considered as an option for the Orthodox Church. More recently, Christos Karakolis has suggested that the future Orthodox edition may be rather conceptualized as a set of editions that would present several historical layers of the text.92

A NTONIADES’ EDITION IN WESTERN SCHOLARSHIP

Western scholarship has also engaged with Antoniades’ edition and referenced some of his sources and the theoretical issues David C. Parker, “New Testament Textual Traditions in Byzantium,” in The New Testament in Byzantium, ed. Derek Krueger and Robert S. Nelson (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2016), 27. 92 Cf. Karakolis, “Κριτικες εκδοσεις και µεταφραση της καινης διαθηκης,” 36. 91

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

57

associated with the edition. Most New Testament textual scholars describe it as an edition based exclusively or mainly on lectionaries. In his summary chapter, Carroll Osburn states simply that the Antoniades edition was based on lectionaries, without any further description or qualification.93 Earlier, Eberhard Nestle had described it as based on minuscules and especially on lectionaries.94 Subsequently, Nestle, along with John Merle Rife, stated that the Antoniades edition was based mainly on lectionaries, without acknowledging the other sources.95 Donald W. Riddle held that Antoniades’ edition was based on lectionaries with the exception of the text of Revelation.96 According to D. E. Ericsson, Bruce M. Metzger, and Klaus Wachtel the Antoniades edition was based essentially on lectionaries, except for Revelation and the parts of Acts that are not part of Byzantine lectionaries.97 In a more substantial treatment, G. McDonald observed that the Antoniades edition was based on about sixty manuscripts.98

Carroll Osburn, “The Greek Lectionaries of the New Testament,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, NTTSD 42 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013), 100. 94 Eberhard Nestle, “Die Patriarchats-Ausgabe des griechischen Neuen Testaments,” ThLBl 26 (1905): 385. 95 Einführung in das Griechische Neue Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1909), 199; Rife, “The Antoniades Greek New Testament,” 62. 96 Donald W. Riddle, “The Use of Lectionaries in Critical Editions and Studies of the New Testament Text,” in Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels, ed. Ernest C. Colwell and Donald W. Riddle (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933), 73. 97 Dwight Elwood Ericsson, “The Book of Acts in the Greek New Testament” (PhD, University of Chicago, 1961), 68; Bruce M. Metzger, “Greek Lectionaries and a Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament,” in Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare: Der gegenwärtige Stand ihrer Erforschung und ihre Bedeutung für die griechische Textgeschichte, ed. Kurt Aland, ANTF 5 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972), 486; Klaus Wachtel, “Early Variants in the Byzantine Text of the Gospels,” in Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies, ed. J. W. Childers and D. C. Parker (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2006), 33. 98 McDonald, Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma, and Trinitarian Debate, 115. 93

58

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

As has been noted, Eberhard Nestle was the first Western scholar that evaluated Antoniades’ edition.99 He also referred to the Antoniades edition in the seventh through twelfth edition of his Novum Testamentum Graece and in his Einführung in das griechische Neue Testament. His 1905 review offers a brief, but important textual analysis of the Antoniades edition. Nestle noted that, despite the 2000 differences from Textus Receptus mentioned in the introduction, Antoniades’ edition does not differ significantly from the Textus Receptus, even though some notable differences do exist. Nestle also observed that Antoniades’ text contains some rare variants: for example, the reading at Mark 9:47 τούς δύο οφθ. was not mentioned by Tischendorf or Wettstein; according to Scrivener it is witnessed only by H (GA 013). Nestle’s summary of his evaluation of the Antoniades edition is as follows: Der Druck ist sauber, und die Ausgabe überhaupt erwünscht, sofern sie uns den traditionellen Text gibt, ohne die durch Erasmus und seine Nachfolger verschuldeten Fehler des Textus Receptus; Lesarten wie εὗρον statt εἶδον Matth. 3, 11, vollends Dinge, wie ἀκάθαρτητος Apoc. 17, 4 καίπερ ἐστίν 8, findet man hier nicht, obgleich die angeführten Beispiele Matth. 10, 8; 1 Joh. 5, 7 (ebenso 1 T, 6, 5 παραδιατριβαί) zeigen, dass dem „Textus Receptus‟ noch zu grosse Konzessionen gemacht sind.100

In his concluding words, however, Nestle noticed that the character of the text of the Apocalypse is of a different character in comparison to the rest of the edition: ‟Man sieht, wie nur in der Apokalypse der orientalische Text in der Hauptsache mit unseren kritischen Ausgaben geht, sonst mit dem Textus Receptus, über dessen Grundlagen noch nicht das letzte Wort gesprochen ist.”101 Nestle included references to the lectionary system for the first time in the 1908 seventh edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece, denoted in the margins and appendices. Nestle also referred to the Antoniades edition (as patriarchatus ConstantinoNestle, “Die Patriarchats-Ausgabe des griechischen Neuen Testaments.” “Die Patriarchats-Ausgabe des griechischen Neuen Testaments,” 386–87. 101 “Die Patriarchats-Ausgabe des griechischen Neuen Testaments,” 387. 99

100

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

59

politani 1904) as a source of information for the lectionary pericope system: Pericopas Ecclesiae Graecae in marginibus vel in appendice addendas posteriori tempori reservare coactus curiosos refero ad editiones Matthaei 1803–7, Scholzii 1830–36, patriarchatus Constantinopolitani 1904, [et opera introductoria Scriveneri et Gregorii, quibus conferas St. Beissel, Entstehung der Perikopen des römischen Messbuchs (Freiburg 1907)].

The entirety of this quotation was included in the seventh edition, while the first part, without the text in brackets, was included in the eighth through twelfth editions. From the thirteenth edition, edited by Erwin Nestle, up to the present, references to the lectionary system have been omitted from the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. Nestle noted in his Einführung in das griechische neue Testament that the Comma Johanneum was printed in the Antoniades edition in a smaller type, that it was included according to the decision of the Holy Synod, and that Antoniades noted in the introduction that it does not have manuscript support. Additionally, he referred to the Antoniades edition in the context of the ending of the book of Revelation. Finally, Nestle referred to Antoniades’ statements regarding two main Byzantine text-types in the context of considering the koine text.102 In 1932, Ernest Cadman Colwell published a short study entitled Is there a Lectionary Text of the Gospels?103 This may be regarded as an announcement and initiation of the Chicago Lectionary Project, led by Colwell and D. W. Riddle.104 In 1933, they published The Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels.105 The ultimate goal of the project was an edition of a critical text of the lectionaries with apparatus, but among other

Einführung in das Griechische Neue Testament, 199. Ernest Cadman Colwell, “Is there a Lectionary Text of the Gospels,” HTR 25, no. 1 (1932). 104 “Is there a Lectionary Text of the Gospels,” 73 n. 2. 105 Ernest Cadman Colwell and Donald Wayne Riddle, eds., Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933). 102 103

60

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

immediate objectives was also the determination of the majority text.106 The Chicago Lectionary Project produced several dissertations, monographs, and shorter studies, and Antoniades’ edition was considered by some contributors to the project because of the presupposition that it was based on lectionaries. The present overview of the Chicago Lectionary Project is limited to the works that referred explicitly to the Antoniades edition.107 The earliest reference to Antoniades’ edition within the Chicago Lectionary Project was made by Ernest Cadman Colwell in the aforementioned article. Colwell included in table 7 collations of nine lectionaries, together with Antoniades’ and WestcottHort’s editions in Mark 5:1–20.108 Colwell, however, did not make any statement regarding the character of the Antoniades text in this article. John Merle Rife contributed to The Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels by translating the introduction to the Antoniades edition and also by offering some evaluations of the edition and the character of its texts of the Gospels.109 Rife was critical of Antoniades, among others, because of the edition’s rather devotional character, the absence of critical apparatus, and an arbitrariness regarding punctuation and orthography. Furthermore, Rife offered answers to two questions regarding the character of the text of Antoniades’ edition. The first question was from Rife himself: since, according to the editor, the Antoniades edition was based on lectionaries, does it then represent a lectionary text? The second question was from Kirsopp Lake: is the Allen Wikgren, “Chicago Studies in the Greek Lectionary of the New Testament,” in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, ed. J. Neville Birdsall and Robert W. Thomson (Freiburg: Herder, 1963), 98. 107 For more details about the project see: Colwell and Riddle, Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels; Wikgren, “Chicago Studies in the Greek Lectionary of the New Testament.”; Metzger, “Greek Lectionaries and a Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament.” For a complete list of the dissertations see: James Keith Elliott, A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts, NovTSup 160 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015), 329–30. 108 Colwell, “Is there a Lectionary Text of the Gospels,” 82–83. 109 Rife, “The Antoniades Greek New Testament.” 106

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

61

Antoniades text a more accurate representative of the Byzantine text than the Textus Receptus? Rife concluded that Antoniades’ text is not a better representative of the Byzantine text than the Textus Receptus because it represents a poor lectionary text achieved by arbitrary methods.110 Rife based his conclusions on Colwell’s collations regarding lectionaries and on the collations of K. Lake and his colleagues of late Byzantine continuous manuscripts.111 Allen Wikgren referred to the Antoniades edition for the first time in his short study The Lectionary Text of the Pericope, John 8:1–11.112 Wikgren’s goal was twofold: to test the presupposition of a distinctive lectionary text proposed by Colwell and, if a distinctive lectionary text exists, to define it for John 8:1–11. Wikgren based his research on thirty-seven lectionaries, of which he himself collated sixteen, using pre-existing collations for the remainder. His study concluded that in the lectionaries there were three textual families with several subgroups. Of those three families one has majority support, while the two remaining families are supported by several manuscripts each. In the case of John 8:1–11, the majority text and Antoniades’ text agreed. To make his case stronger, Wikgren referred to Antoniades’ edition, supposing that all the manuscripts listed by Antoniades were in perfect agreement. This would mean that a distinctive lectionary text for John 8:1–11 exists and that, if some sixty manuscripts listed by Antoniades are taken into account, it was attested by some 100 lectionaries. Although it was not explicitly stated, the way Wikgren used Antoniades’ edition assumed that the edition was a proper representation of the lectionary text. Later, however, in his overview of the results of the Chicago Lectionary Project, Wikgren noted on the basis of the lectionary evidence for 1 and 2

“The Antoniades Greek New Testament,” 66. Colwell, “Is there a Lectionary Text of the Gospels.”; Kirsopp Lake, Robert P. Blake, and Silva New, “The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark,” HTR 21, no. 4 (1928). 112 Allen Wikgren, “The Lectionary Text of the Pericope, John 8:1–11,” JBL 53 (1934). 110 111

62

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Corinthians that Antoniades’ edition is weak as a lectionary text.113 Alfred Scott Illingworth’s engagement with Antoniades can be found in his study The Text of Luke in the Menologion of the Greek Lectionary, focusing on eight lections from twenty-seven manuscripts that represent the lectionary control.114 Illingworth noted at the outset that lectionaries exhibit broad variation in textual quality. Lectionaries were collated against the 1873 Oxford edition of the Textus Receptus. He also used fifty-three manuscripts for four non-lectionary control groups, namely, Alexandrian, Caesarean, Western, and Byzantine, using also versions and fathers.115 Some non-lectionary manuscripts were collated afresh, while the texts of other manuscripts were taken from previous editions. Illingworth found around nine hundred lectionary variants from the Textus Receptus.116 Among those variants he selected 233 for closer research. His two main conclusions were (1) that the text of lections that he researched was in agreement with the Byzantine majority text in most variants and (2) that a minority of variants witness to a pre-caesarean text-type. Lectionary menologion pericopes from Luke can be regarded as a connecting link between the Caesarean text and the Byzantine recension.117 More specifically, Illingworth also compared Antoniades’ text at 21 passages with majority lectionary readings. He found that, excluding eight spelling variants, Antoniades’ text witnesses to all significant majority lectionary variants save one.118 We may conclude therefore that Illingworth’s evaluation of Antoniades’ edition, as a representative of the lectionary text, was generally positive. Finally, Dwight Elwood Ericsson’s 1961 dissertation The Book of Acts in the Greek New Testament was based on twenty-four

“Chicago Studies in the Greek Lectionary of the New Testament,” 118 n 44. 114 Alfred Scott Illingworth, “The Text of Luke in the Menologion of the Greek Lectionary” (PhD, University of Chicago, 1957), 6. 115 “The Text of Luke in the Menologion of the Greek Lectionary,” 10. 116 “The Text of Luke in the Menologion of the Greek Lectionary,” 30. 117 “The Text of Luke in the Menologion of the Greek Lectionary,” 69. 118 “The Text of Luke in the Menologion of the Greek Lectionary,” 40–41. 113

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

63

lectionaries.119 Regarding Antoniades’ edition, Ericsson concluded that it represents a weak lectionary text. Klaus Junack undertook comprehensive research into the lectionaries with special reference to the text of Catholic Letters.120 This led to a general conclusion regarding the textual character of lectionary witnesses to the text of the Catholic Letters as well as an examination of several manuscripts that were listed by Antoniades as sources. For the evaluation and classification of the lectionary texts, Junack examined James and 2 Peter. He made use of ninety-nine lectionaries for James and ninety-eight for 2 Peter, collating them at twenty-five Teststellen in James and fifteen in 2 Peter. On the basis of the results of the collations at the Teststellen, Junack chose twenty lectionaries as representatives of four control groups to be fully collated in two passages in James. For Jas 3,1–10 he collated fifteen manuscripts and for Jas 5,10– 20 he collated nineteen. The lectionaries mainly witness to the Byzantine majority text. A significant exception is the text of l 596, which Junack takes as the exception that proves the rule.121 In this process, Junack made explicit references to four of Antoniades’ ten lectionaries: l 883, l 884, l 921 and l 938. Junack referred to l 884 in the context of his spot-collation of James at twenty-five test passages, finding that l 884 differs from the majority text at only two passages. It was not considered further. Antoniades’ lectionaries l 883, l 921 and l 938 were fully collated by Junack. Extracts from Junack’s results for these manuscripts are presented in Table 3 below.

Ericsson, “The Book of Acts in the Greek New Testament,” 16–17. Klaus Junack, “Zu den griechischen Lektionaren und ihrer Überlieferung der Katholischen Briefe,” in Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare: Der gegenwärtige Stand ihrer Erforschung und ihre Bedeutung für die griechische Textgeschichte ed. Kurt Aland (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972). 121 “Zu den griechischen Lektionaren und ihrer Überlieferung der Katholischen Briefe,” 551. 119 120

64

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Table 3: Junack’s Results for l 883. l 921. and l 938. l 883

l 921

l 938

Teststellen

395

395

395

Category A: Majority variants

373

341

376

94%

87%

95%

3

10

4

1%

2.5 %

1%

6

24

10

1.5 %

6%

2.5 %

6

5

6

1.5 %

1.5 %

1.5 %

8

14

/

2%

3%

/

Category B: Ancient variants Category C.1: Special variants shared by late Manuscripts and lectionaries.

Category C.2: Special variants unique

for late Manuscripts or lectionaries respectively

Category D: singular readings

Table 3 demonstrates that three of the ten lectionaries listed by Antoniades as the basis for his edition are not in complete agreement. These manuscripts have both ancient as well as singular readings. Klaus Wachtel contributed in many ways as a member of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster towards editing the Editio Critica Maior. His research into the Byzantine text of the Greek New Testament and particularly his dissertation Der byzantinische Text der Katholischen Briefe: Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Koine des Neuen Testaments is of particular importance to this study.122 Wachtel’s primary sources were data published in TuT.123 With the application of the local-genealogical Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text der katholischen Briefe. Annette Benduhn-Mertz, Gerd Mink, and Kurt Aland, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments 1: Die katholischen Briefe: Bd. 1: Das Material, ANTF 9 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987); Kurt Aland, Gerd Mink, and Annette Benduhn-Mertz, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments 1: Die katholischen Briefe: Bd. 2,1: Die Auswertung (P23-999), ANTF 10,1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987); Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments 1: Die katholischen Briefe: Bd. 2,2: Die Auswertung (1003-2805), ANTF 10,2 122 123

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

65

method,124 Wachtel established a local stemma for every test-passage i.e. for each of 98 Teststellen in TuT, taking into consideration also the overall agreements among the collated witnesses. For that reason, Wachtel’s work may be considered as one of the initial stages in the development of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, as originally conceptualized by Gerd Mink.125 Wachtel showed that the Byzantine text could not be the result of a fourth-century recension for three reasons. (1) The Byzantine manuscripts preserve also the atypical Byzantine variants that render the text more difficult and therefore indicate that a deliberate recension is rather improbable.126 (2) Early manuscripts and Church Fathers witness to many typical Byzantine variants but not to the Byzantine text as a set of characteristically Byzantine variants. In the case of the Catholic Epistles, the Byzantine text was widespread only after the ninth century.127 (3) The retroversion of the Syriac translation of Thomas of Harkel from the seventh century is an approximate witness to the standard Byzantine text at the time, showing a tendency toward a Byzantine text which was still not finished in the sixth century.128 The data, insights, and conclusions of Wachtel’s work are very significant in several respects. First, it is not easy to justify the concept of the ecclesiastical text since this cannot be defined, especially prior to the ninth century. This conclusion calls into question the goals of the Antoniades edition. Second, Wachtel’s text-critical commentaries are very helpful in the evaluation of the textual differences between Antoniades and ECM. Third, Wachtel’s grouping and interpretation of the manuscript clusters on the basis of their agreements is significant because it points out that the text of some manuscripts listed by Antoniades deviate significantly from the Byzantine majority text. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987); Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments 1: Die katholischen Briefe: Bd. 3: Die Einzelhandschriften, ANTF 11 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987). 124 Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text der katholischen Briefe, 44. 125 Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text der katholischen Briefe, 46–48. 126 Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text der katholischen Briefe, 199. 127 Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text der katholischen Briefe, 200. 128 Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text der katholischen Briefe, 189.

66

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Christopher Jordan in his dissertation The Textual Tradition of the Gospel of John in Greek Gospel Lectionaries from the Middle Byzantine Period (8th–11th Century), collated 126 lectionaries in forty-four test passages.129 He concludes that the Greek Gospel lectionary emerged in the eighth century,130 and that “the text of the lectionaries derives from the continuous text tradition of 8th– 11th century”.131 Among the 126 manuscripts that Jordan studied, there are six lectionaries that were listed by Antoniades as the basis for his edition. Although Jordan did not offer any evaluation of the Antoniades edition, the results of his collation provide insight into the textual coherence of the oldest Gospel witnesses used by Antoniades and their relationship with his editorial text. Table 4 presents the results of Jordan’s collations with the collation of the Antoniades text at forty-four selected test passages. Table 4: Results of Jordan’s Collations of Antoniades’ Manuscripts LTP

l 672 (IX) l 991(X/XI) l 995 (XI) l 1004 (XI) l 1086 (XI) l 1096 (X)

1

1

1

3

3

2

1*2

1*2

1*2

3

1*2

1*2

1*2

4

Z

1*2

5

V OM.

1*2

6

1*2

7 8

ANT

1

1

1

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

V OM.

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

3

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

5

1*2

1

1

1

7

7

1

1

9

Z

1

1

1

1

1

1

10

Z

1*2–o2

1*2–o2

1*2–o2

1*2

1*2–o2

1*2

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

12

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Christopher Robert Dennis Jordan, “The Textual Tradition of the Gospel of John in Greek Gospel Lectionaries from the Middle Byzantine Period (8th–11th century)” (PhD, University of Birmingham, 2009), 43. 130 “The Textual Tradition of the Gospel of John in Greek Gospel Lectionaries from the Middle Byzantine Period (8th–11th century),” 520. 131 “The Textual Tradition of the Gospel of John in Greek Gospel Lectionaries from the Middle Byzantine Period (8th–11th century),” 523. 129

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND LTP

67

l 672 (IX) l 991(X/XI) l 995 (XI) l 1004 (XI) l 1086 (XI) l 1096 (X)

ANT

13

1

1

1

1

1

Z

1

14

1*2

1*2

Z

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

15

1*2

1*2

Z

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

16

Z

1

1

1

2

1

1

17

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

4

1*2

4

18

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

19

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

3

1*2

20

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

21

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

22

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

23

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

24

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

25

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

26

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

27

1

3

1

3

1

1

3

28

1

5

1

5

1

1

1

29

1

1

1

1

Z

1

1

30

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

31

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

32

Z

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

33

Z

1

1

1

1

1

1

34

Z

1

1

U2

1

2

1

35

Z

1

1

1

1

1

1

36

Z

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

37

Z

1*2

1*2–f

1*2

1*2

1*2–f

1*2

38

Z

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

39

Z

1*2

3

1*2

4

1*2

1*2

40

Z

1*2

3

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

41

Z

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

1*2

42

Z

1

1

1

1

Z

3

43

Z

1

2

1

1

1

2

44

Z

Z

Z

Z

11

Z

1

As we can see from Table 4, twenty-three of the forty-four testpassages are without variation. Table 5 presents the agreements for each pair of witnesses.

68

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Table 5: Antoniades’ Text and Six Lectionaries: Agreements/of Compared Passages

l 672 (IX)

l 991 (X/XI ) l 995 (XI)

l 1004 (XI) l 1086 (XI) l 1096 (X) ANT

l 672

l 991

l 995

l 1004

l 1086

l 1096

(IX)

(X/XI)

(XI)

(XI)

(XI)

(X)

26

21/26

20/24

19/26

19/24

19/25

23/26

21/26

43

34/41

40/42

32/41

34/41

36/43

20/24

34/41

41

33/40

28/39

31/39

31/41

19/26

40/42

33/40

42

31/40

32/40

33/42

19/24

32/41

28/39

31/40

42

27/39

33/42

19/25

34/41

31/39

32/40

27/39

41

30/41

23/26

36/43

31/41

33/42

33/42

30/41

44

ANT

As Table 5 shows, the oldest Antoniades manuscripts do not preserve a coherent text in John. Furthermore, the agreement between Antoniades’ text and each of the six lectionaries is relatively low (cf. Table 6). Therefore, there is no lectionary witness to John copied between the ninth and eleventh centuries that might be considered particularly close to Antoniades’ text. Consequently, if Antoniades’ edition represents the texts of one or more lectionaries that he selected, they would have to be from the twelfth century or later. Table 6: Ranking List: Witness 1 Antoniades’ Text of John Witness 2

Agreements/of total LTP

1

l 672 (IX)

88.46%

23/26

2

l 991(X/XI)

83.72%

36/43

3

l 1004(XI)

78.57%

33/42

4

l 1086(XI)

78.57%

33/42

5

l 995(XI)

75.61%

31/41

6

l 1096(X)

73.17%

30/41

It may also be noted that at a few passages (LTP 17 and 20) Antoniades adopted a variant attested by the minority of his oldest

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

69

witnesses. Among Antoniades’ oldest witnesses there are many disagreements, suggesting that a strictly defined ecclesiastical text cannot be confirmed by the earliest lectionaries. Antoniades himself admitted textual differences among his Gospel witnesses. However, Antoniades’ division of witnesses into two groups seems to be a simplification. In his dissertation The Liturgical and Textual Tradition of Acts and Paul in the Byzantine Apostolos Lectionary,132 Samuel Gibson examined “the Apostolos in its scribal, monastic, liturgical, and theological context, as well as in light of other manuscript traditions.” Gibson concluded, among other things, that over the centuries continuous manuscripts were regularly the sources for Apostolos lectionaries. Of particular importance is Gibson’s conclusion that: There is a fair degree of variation within the Byzantine tradition indicating that Apostolos witnesses are far from homogeneous in their NT text within that tradition. At the same time, there are a very few instances where Apostolos witnesses share readings with earlier textual traditions and few Apostolos witnesses agree closely with the Ausgangstext represented by NA28.133

Gibson also makes more immediate references to the Antoniades edition. For example, he asserts that ‟the Apostoliki Diakonia edition is the best printed representation of the Apostolos tradition, and the TR is the worst, but neither is particularly representative in general.”134 The Apostoliki Diakonia edition actually represents a reproduction of the Antoniades text. His perspective on these textual traditions is illustrated by his Appendix 3: Apostolos Affinity Tables.135 In the appendix there are 47 tables that represent textual agreements of 47 witnesses (41 manuscripts and 6 editions) on the basis of 63 selected text-passages. Table 7 below is reproduced from Gibson’s appendix, representing agreements Samuel Gibson, “The Liturgical and Textual Tradition of Acts and Paul in the Byzantine Apostolos Lectionary” (PhD, University of Birmingham, 2015). Published as: The Apostolos: The Acts and Epistles in Byzantine Liturgical Manuscripts, Texts and studies 18 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2018). 133 The Apostolos: The Acts and Epistles in Byzantine Liturgical Manuscripts, 231. 134 The Apostolos: The Acts and Epistles in Byzantine Liturgical Manuscripts, 232. 135 “The Liturgical and Textual Tradition of Acts and Paul in the Byzantine Apostolos Lectionary,” 343–49. 132

70

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

between the Antoniades text and other witnesses.136 Only one among the manuscripts that Gibson selected (l 1159) was listed by Antoniades as the basis for his edition. Nevertheless, the available data are significant. As we can see, the first three witnesses are compared with Antoniades at a relatively small number of passages. The highest ranked witnesses are the Textus Receptus and the Robinson-Pierpont edition of the Majority Text. On the other hand, agreement between Antoniades and virtually all manuscripts is low. This data reinforces the eclectic nature of Antoniades’ text and its dependence on the Textus Receptus. Table 7: Ranking List of Antoniades and Other Witnesses According to Gibson Gibson’s sigla AD – Apostoliki Diakonia Lectionary edition PR – Pierpont-Robinson New Testament edition SAL – Saliberos Apostolos edition TR – Textus Receptus Witness 1: Antoniades’ edition Witness 2

Ranking number

Agreements (%)

Agreements (TPs)

l 1774

1

90.9

10/11

AD

2

86.7

13/15

l 241

3

83.3

10/12

PR

4

81

51/63

TR

5

81

51/63

l 1298

6

77.4

24/31

l 2024

7

72.9

35/48

l 156

8

71.1

32/45

l 1364

9

70

28/40

SAL

10

69.4

34/49

l 587

11

69.2

36/52

l 1159

12

67.5

27/40

l 168

13

65.9

27/41

“The Liturgical and Textual Tradition of Acts and Paul in the Byzantine Apostolos Lectionary,” 429–31. 136

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

71

Witness 2

Ranking number

Agreements (%)

Agreements (TPs)

l 1126

14

65.2

15/23

l 1281

15

63.9

23/36

l 604

16

63.8

30/47

l 1141

17

63.6

35/55

l 809

18

63.4

26/41

l 165

19

63.2

12/19

l 1188

20

62.7

32/51

l 173

21

62.5

25/40

l 1590

22

62.5

25/40

l 2058

23

62.5

25/40

l 2010

24

61.3

19/31

l 1825

25

61

25/41

l 23

26

60.7

17/28

l 1894

27

60.5

23/38

l 170

28

60

18/30

l 162

29

58.5

24/41

l 257

30

57.7

15/26

l 1021

31

57.5

23/40

l 1178

32

57.4

27/47

l 112

33

57.1

12/21

l 1300

34

57.1

16/28

l 1442

35

57.1

8/14

l 1506

36

57.1

16/28

l 1282

37

56.8

21/37

l 1439

38

55.6

15/27

l 169

39

55.3

21/38

l 1685

40

55

22/40

l 610

41

53.7

22/41

l 1440

42

50

13/26

l 1297

43

48.6

18/37

l 60

44

45.5

15/33

l 1985

45

45.5

5/11

l 164

46

43.6

17/39

NA28

47

41.3

26/63

72

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

CONCLUDING REMARKS

According to Antoniades’ introduction to the Patriarchal Greek New Testament, he wanted to produce an edition independent from both the Textus Receptus and the critical text. The edition was supposed to represent the oldest form of the ecclesiastical text, especially the text of the Church of Constantinople. Antoniades stated initially that the edition was based on lectionaries, except for Revelation and certain parts of Acts that are not present in the lectionary. However, he added later that in the case of the Praxapostolos continuous manuscripts marked in the catalogue with σ were also used. Antoniades did not explain the criteria for the selection of manuscripts, indicating only that the text of the selected manuscripts was not homogeneous. He recognized two textual types in the Gospel lectionaries, assuming the possibility of a similar situation in the Praxapostolos based on one manuscript with unusual text (GA l 884). But he could not confirm this supposition based on available evidence. Additionally, Antoniades printed some textual sequences in a smaller type, which indicates doubts about the inclusion of the given reading in the edition, the absence of a reading from the lectionaries (as Acts 8:37), and, in case of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8), the absence of manuscript witnesses. Antoniades concluded the introduction with self-criticism. He did not regard the edition as perfect or final; the significant number of readings printed in smaller type indicated that his edition was a work in progress. The use of smaller type can be understood as a question mark over readings that need to be reconsidered. Prior to 1904 in the Orthodox Church the Textus Receptus was adopted as the text of the Gospel and Apostolos lectionaries, the whole New Testament, and as the source text for modern translations. After 1904, the Textus Receptus was retained with minor revisions as the text of the Greek Lectionary, while Antoniades’ text was widely distributed as the Greek New Testament in Greek speaking Orthodox Churches. Additionally, critical editions are in use in Orthodox theological schools. Although the Antoniades edition is not the only one in use in the Orthodox Church, it is the most widespread text of the whole Greek New Testament in Greek-speaking Orthodox Churches and it is regarded in the

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

73

Orthodox context as exceptional insofar as it is considered the only Orthodox edition. As we have seen, most Western scholars believe that Antoniades’ edition was based on lectionaries. Despite this perspective, Eberhard Nestle noted in 1905 that Antoniades largely depends on Textus Receptus. The conclusion of the Chicago Lectionary Project was that Antoniades’ text is a weak representative of both the lectionary and the Byzantine majority text. The results of the most recent research into lectionaries by Jordan and Gibson also suggest that Antoniades’ text is not particularly close to the text of lectionaries as a group or to the text of any particular lectionary. Furthermore, Klaus Junack showed that the text of the Catholic Epistles in lectionaries is generally the Byzantine majority text. His research also showed that the textual homogeneity of the lectionaries is not such that one can conclude that lectionaries represent a defined, controlled, and closed ecclesiastical textual tradition. Finally, Klaus Wachtel’s study showed that the theoretical model of textual history, according to which text-types originate from third- and fourth-century recensions, cannot be justified, at least when it comes to the Catholic Epistles.

CHAPTER TWO. ANTONIADES’ MANUSCRIPTS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE WITNESSES OF THE PRAXAPOSTOLOS This chapter examines the manuscripts that Antoniades listed as the sources of his edition. Although some manuscripts have already been listed with their corresponding GA numbers, no comprehensive identification of Antoniades’ manuscripts has yet been undertaken. This is necessary in order to provide a preliminary insight into the characteristics of selected manuscripts, enable the integration of existing research results, and communicate the results of this research within the field of New Testament textual scholarship. For these reasons, the first part of this chapter identifies Antoniades’ manuscripts, presenting also the distribution of the witnesses to the Praxapostolos according to their age and the libraries in which they are kept. I also provide an overview of the order of New Testament books in each of Antoniades’ minuscule continuous-text witnesses to the Praxapostolos, focusing in particular on three manuscripts that Antoniadis explicitly mentioned in the introduction to the edition: GA 1739, 1869 and l 884. The last part of the chapter surveys the presence of Antoniades’ witnesses to the Praxapostolos in eighteen of the most significant editions of the Greek New Testament or their parts. Not all the manuscripts that Antoniades listed were precisely described. Some of the manuscripts are only mentioned by number, for example the eight manuscripts of Revelation from the Laura Monastery (καὶ ἄλλα 8, τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχοντα τύπον τῷ Β 80) and one Gospel manuscript from the Iviron Monastery (καὶ ἓν † α). In 75

76

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

another case, Antoniades refers to an unspecified number of gospel manuscripts from the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem (καί τινα τῶν τοῦ Ναοῦ τῆς Ἀναστάσεως β). The introduction also includes the following statement: “apart from a few exceptions, we omit here the many copies of the short Gospel lectionaries, as well as many tetraevangelia collated at Constantinople and Athos” (Appendix 5,2). There are, therefore, many Gospel manuscripts that were used in preparation of the Antoniades edition that cannot be identified, and even their exact number cannot be determined. The edition thus provides no evidence as to whether it depended more on continuous text or lectionary manuscripts. There are, however, 104 manuscripts which were listed with precise descriptions. Of these, the following nine gospel manuscripts could not be identified: three from the Merchant School of Halki (Ἐµπορικῆς Σχολῆς Χάλκης 167.169β.170.), two from the Church of St. Demetrios of Tatoula (Ἁγίου Δηµητρίου Ταταούλων), and four from the Iviron Monastery (Ἰβήρων 10β.11.12β.13.). The remaining ninety-five manuscripts were identified and are presented in Table 8 below. Additionally, eight manuscripts of Revelation from the Great Lavra that were referred to as “καὶ ἄλλα 8, τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχοντα τύπον τῷ Β 80” were identified with high certainty and are presented in Table 9. Most of the ninety-five manuscripts from the catalogue of the Antoniades edition were easily identified because their description matches that in the Kurzgefaßte Liste.1 However, some manuscripts listed in the Antoniades edition were described differently in the Kurzgefaßte Liste for various reasons and, therefore, cannot be immediately identified. In these cases, explanatory notes are included. Keith Elliott previously identified fourteen manuscripts of Revelation used by Antoniades,2 and Klaus Wachtel identified ten Kurt Aland et al., Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, second ed., ANTF 1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994). An electronic edition is available at: http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/de/liste. 2 James Keith Elliott, “The Distinctiveness of the Greek Manuscripts of the Book of Revelation,” in New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles: Essays on Manuscripts and Textual Variation, NovTSup 137 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010), 150. 1

CHAPTER TWO. ANTONIADES’ MANUSCRIPTS

77

Gospel lectionaries.3 Klaus Junack also identified most of the manuscripts in an unpublished list recently found in the library of the INTF in Münster: I only examined this after I had already identified the manuscripts presented below.4 Unfortunately, Junack’s identification did not contribute to further identification of the manuscripts that I could not identify. Identified manuscripts are presented in Table 8. The table has five columns. The first column contains the manuscripts description from Antoniades’ edition. The following three columns correspond to the information in the Kurzgefaßte Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: GA number, age, and the short description of the content. The manuscripts are ordered according to the GA numbers. The last column contains information regarding the part of the New Testament (Gospels, Praxapostolos, Revelation) for which a certain manuscript was used according to Antoniades. Antoniades gave additional descriptive tags to some manuscripts as follows: he appended stars to manuscripts that he collated himself. The manuscripts that he collated in the preparation of the text he marked with two stars (**), and the manuscripts that he used for the revision he marked with one star (*). Antoniades marked the Byzantine type manuscripts with a beta (β) after the manuscript shelf number. The most noteworthy incomplete Gospel and Apostolos lectionaries are marked with an alpha (α) after the shelf number. Manuscripts kept in sacristies are marked with a dagger (†) after the shelf number. Antoniades marked continuous-text Apostolos manuscripts with a sigma (σ) after the shelf number. Table 8: Identified Antoniades’ Manuscripts Antoniades’ Sigla

GA

Origin C./Yr. Cont. W to

1 * Ἰβήρων 9β

992

XIII

e

G

2 * Ἰβήρων 28σ

996

XIV

eap

PA

3 * Ἰβήρων 29σ

997

XIII

eap

PA

Wachtel, “Early Variants in the Byzantine Text of the Gospels,” 41–42. The list was found by Greg Paulson, to whom I am thankful for allowing me access to it. 3 4

78

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Antoniades’ Sigla

GA

Origin C./Yr. Cont. W to

4 * Ἰβήρων 30σ (31)

999

XIII

eap

PA

5 * Ἰβήρων 52σ

1003

XV

eap

PA

1022

XII

ap

PA

7 * Καρακάλλου 62 (128)

1041

XIII

e

PA8

8 * Κουτλουµουσίου 80σ

1069

XIII

ap

PA

1149

XIII

eap

PA

5

6 * Ἰβήρων 24σ

6 7

9

** Ἐµπορικῆς

Σχολῆς Χάλκης 133σ9

MS 30 of the Iviron is GA 998. It contains the four gospels and therefore could not be a witness for the Praxapostolos. On the other hand, GA 999 (Iviron 31) contains both the Four Gospels as well as the Praxapostolos. It seems that Antoniades confused manuscripts 30 and 31, a mistake also made by Hermann Freiherr von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt, Second ed., 2 vols., vol. 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1911), 70. 6 This manuscript is currently in Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, Maryland where it was catalogued as W. 533. Cf. Georgi R. Parpulov, “A Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts at the Walters Art Museum,” JWAM 62 (2004): 125. 7 The numbers in the parentheses are used in the Lambros Catalogue. Antoniades follows the old catalogue of Karakallou. Cf. Spyridon P. Lampros, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos, 2 vols., vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), 476–78; Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt, 1, 70. 8 In fact, this manuscript does not contain the text of the Praxapostolos, despite Antoniades’ catalogue. 9 In 1831 the Merchant School of Halki was opened at the Panagia Kamariotissis of Halki, which was in operation until 1912. For this reason, Antoniades and von Soden identified those manuscripts as belonging to the Merchant School of Halki. In 1936, these manuscripts were transferred to the Ecumenical Patriarchate where some of the manuscripts were catalogued as manuscripts of Skeuofilakion. Cf. Matoula Kouroupou and Paul Géhin, Catalogue des manuscrits conservés dans la Bibliothèque du Patriarcat Œcuménique. Les manuscrits du monastère de la Panaghia de Chalki, 2 vols., vol. 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008), 13–23; Tsakopoulos, 5

Περιγραφικος καταλογος των χειρογραφων της βιβλιοθηκης του οικουµενικου πατριαρχειου Aʹ: τµηµα χειρογραφων παναγιας καµαριωτισσης, 6–7.

CHAPTER TWO. ANTONIADES’ MANUSCRIPTS

79

Antoniades’ Sigla

GA

Origin C./Yr. Cont. W to

᾿Ιεροσολυµιάδος Βιβλιοθήκης 95β10

1353

XII/XIII

e

G

11 *Λαύρας A 65σ

1490

XII

eap

PA

12 **Λαύρας Ω16

1626

XV

eapr

R

13 ** Κουτλουµουσίου 356

1704

XVI

eapr

R

14 **Λαύρας A91

1732

XIV

apr

R

15 **Λαύρας B5

1733

XIV

apr

R

16 **Λαύρας B18

1734

XI

apr

R

17 *Λαύρας B 64σ

1739

X

ap

PA

18 **Λαύρας B 80

1740

XII

apr

R

19 * Ἰβήρων 25σ

1854

XI

apr

PA/**R

20 * Ἰβήρων 37σ

1855

XIII

ap

PA

21 * Ἰβήρων 57σ

1856

XIV

ap

PA

XIII

apr

PA/**R

10

22 * Ἰβήρων 60σ

1857/

292311

23 ** Κουτλουµουσίου 82

1859

XIV

ar

R

24 ** Κουτλουµουσίου 83

1860

XIII

ap

R 12

1868

XII

ap

PA

1869

1688

ap

PA

1870

XI

apr

PA/R

25

** Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς

Χάλκης (Μονῆς) 16σ ** Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς 26 Χάλκης (Σχολῆς) 9σ 27

** Ἐµπορικῆς Σχολῆς

Χάλκης 26

The Library of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem (᾿Ιεροσολυµιάδος Βιβλιοθήκη) has several sub-collections. From four of those sub-collec10

tions there were nine Gospel manuscripts that were listed in the Antoniades edition. Antoniades mentioned only the Anastaseos collection explicitly. 11 Revelation in this MS is a supplement which was given a separate GA number. Cf. Ulrich Schmid, “Die Apokalypse, überliefert mit anderen neutestamentlichen Schriften: eapr-Handschriften,” in Studien zum Text der Apokalypse, ed. Marcus Sigismund, Martin Karrer, and Ulrich Schmid, ANTF 47 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 430, 39. 12 In fact, GA 1860 does not contain Revelation despite Antoniades’ list.

80

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Antoniades’ Sigla

GA

Origin C./Yr. Cont. W to

1871

X

ap

PA

1872

XII

apr

PA/R

XVI

r

R

XV

r

R

XVII

r

R

2667

XVI

r

R

Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης Ἑλλάδος 164 Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης 35 Ἑλλάδος 186 Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης 36 Ἑλλάδος 67

l 384

XII

le

G

l 408

XII

le

G

l 437

XII

le

G

37 * Ἰβήρων 1α

l 672

IX

lesk

G

38 * Ἰβήρων 3β

l 673

XII

le

G

28

** Ἐµπορικῆς Σχολῆς

Χάλκης 35σ13 ** Ἐµπορικῆς Σχολῆς 29 Χάλκης 96σ 30 ** Ἰβήρων 594

2076 ** Μετοχίου τοῦ Ἁγίου 31 Τάφουἐν Κωνσταντινου- 2084 πόλει, 303 32 ** Ἰβήρων 589 2258 33

** Κουτλουµουσίου 165(163)14

34

It seems that Antoniades referred to Kamariotissis 33 as 35 by mistake. Kamariotissis 35 does not contain any New Testament text. Besides five manuscripts from Panagia Kamariotissis that can be identified without doubt, there are only two more manuscripts (33 and 88) that contain the texts of the Praxapostolos. Manuscript 88 is GA l 1164 and manuscript 33 is GA 1871. GA 1871 agrees with Antoniades’ description as minuscule manuscript. If we consider that numbers 3 and 5 could be confused, there is little doubt that by manuscript 35σ Antoniades actually meant Kamariotissis 33 i.e. GA 1871. Moreover, von Soden does not refer to MS 35 of the Merchant School of Halki, even though he listed all the minuscule manuscripts from that library. 14 There are all together four manuscripts of Revelation from the Koutloumousiou Monastery. Besides GA 1704 and 1859 that were identified as the manuscripts from the catalogue of the Antoniades edition, the remaining two are GA 1064 and 2667. 1064 is incomplete, and its shelf number is 286. Since GA 2667 is complete, and its shelf number is 165 and, therefore, close to 163, it is most likely the manuscript to which Antoniades referred. 13

CHAPTER TWO. ANTONIADES’ MANUSCRIPTS Antoniades’ Sigla

81

GA

Origin C./Yr. Cont. W to

l 680

XIII

l+ae PA

l 683

XV

le

G

41 * Καρακάλλου 11 (15)

l 690

XIII

le

G

42 * Κουτλουµουσίου 62β

l 698

XIII

le

G

43 * Κουτλουµουσίου 64

l 700

XII

le

G

44 * Κουτλουµουσίου 65

l 701

XII

le

G

45 * Ξηροποτάµου 122β

l 717

XVI

le

G

46 * Καρακάλλου 13β

l 740

XI

lae

G

l 770

X

le

G

l 772

?

l

G

l 773

XI

le

G

l 776

XIV

le

G

l 780

XII

lesk

G

l 781

XIV

lesk

G

l 784

XI

lesk

G

l 785

XIV

lesk

G

l 790

XII

lesk

G

39 * Ἰβήρων 39σ

15

40 * Ἰβήρων 638 16

17

47 48

** Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς

Χάλκης (Μονῆς) 1

** Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς

Χάλκης (Μονῆς) 3α ** Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς 49 Χάλκης (Μονῆς) 4 ** Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς 50 Χάλκης (Μονῆς) 7 **Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς 51 Χάλκης (Σχολῆς) 1 52

** Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς

Χάλκης (Σχολῆς) 2β ** Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς 53 Χάλκης (Σχολῆς) 5α ** Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς 54 Χάλκης (Σχολῆς) 6α 55 Ἁγίου Γεωργίου παρὰ τῇ

This is not, as can be seen, a minuscule as Antoniades suggested. Regarding the two numbers cf. n. 161 above. 17 The Kurzgefaßte Liste relies on the Lambros numbering 1-279 according to which the shelf number for this MS is 3. On the other hand, Antoniades listed the manuscripts according to the old Karakalou Monastery catalogue. Cf. http://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/fond/id/448. 15 16

82

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Antoniades’ Sigla

GA

Origin C./Yr. Cont. W to

l 791

XIII

le

G

l 792

XII

le

G

l 794

XII

le

G

l 795

XIII

le

G

l 883

XI

lae

PA

l 884

XII

lae

PA

l 895

XIII

laesk PA

l 921

XII

lae

PA

l 938

XIII

lae

PA

l 991

X/XI

le

G

l 995

XI

le

G

18

56 57 58 59 60 61

πύλῃ Ἀδριανουπόλεως Ἁγίου Γεωργίου παρὰ τῇ πύλῃ Ἀδριανουπόλεως19 Μετοχίου Ἁγίου Τάφου ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει 1120 Μετοχίου Ἁγίου Τάφου ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει 64921 Μετοχίου Ἁγίου Τάφου ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει 27222 ** Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς Χάλκης (Μονῆς) 13 ** Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς

Χάλκης (Μονῆς) 14 ** Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς 62 Χάλκης (Μονῆς) 15α 63

** Ἐµπορικῆς Σχολῆς

Χάλκης 59 ** Ἐµπορικῆς Σχολῆς 64 Χάλκης 74 ᾿Ιεροσολυµιάδος 65 Βιβλιοθήκης 33 ᾿Ιεροσολυµιάδος 66 Βιβλιοθήκης 12

These manuscripts are originally from the church of St. George near the Gate of Adrianople and were transferred to the Skevophylakion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Cf. Georgios A. Soteriou, Κειµηλια του οικουµενικου πατριαρχειου: Πατριαρχικoς ναoς και σκευοφυλακιον (Athens: Estia, 1937), 66–70. 18

19

Κειµηλια του οικουµενικου πατριαρχειου: Πατριαρχικoς ναoς και σκευοφυλακιον, 66–70. The manuscript was transferred from the Library of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the National Library of Greece in Athens. 21 The manuscript was transferred from the Library of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the National Library of Greece in Athens. 22 The manuscript was transferred from the Library of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the National Library of Greece in Athens. 20

CHAPTER TWO. ANTONIADES’ MANUSCRIPTS

83

Antoniades’ Sigla

GA

Origin C./Yr. Cont. W to

67

᾿Ιεροσολυµιάδος Βιβλιοθήκης 40

l 997

XII

68

᾿Ιεροσολυµιάδος Βιβλιοθήκης 152

69

le

G

l 1004 XI

le

G

᾿Ιεροσολυµιάδος Βιβλιοθήκης 236

l 1014 X

le

G

70

᾿Ιεροσολυµιάδος Βιβλιοθήκης 245β

l 1015 XIII

le

G

71

᾿Ιεροσολυµιάδος Βιβλιοθήκης 9

l 1022 1535

le

G

72 *Λαύρας A 72

l 1079 XIV

le

G

73 *Λαύρας A 84

l 1084 XIII

le

G

74 *Λαύρας A 86α

l 1086 XI

lesk

G

75 *Λαύρας A 93β

l 1092 XIII

le

G

76 *Λαύρας A 95

l 1094 XIII

le

G

77 *Λαύρας A 97β

l 1096 X

lesk

G

78 *Λαύρας A 105

l 1102 XIII

le

G

79 *Λαύρας A 111β

l 1107 XIV

le

G

80 *Λαύρας A 113

l 1109 1367

le

G

81 *Λαύρας A 116β

l 1112 XIII

le

G

82 *Λαύρας A 117

l 1113 XII

le

G

83 *Λαύρας A 118

l 1114 XIV

lesk

G

84 *Λαύρας B 74

l 1153 XIV

lae

PA

85 *Λαύρας B 79

l 1154 XII

lae

PA

l 1156 XIV

la

PA

l 1159 XIV

lae

PA

le

G

86 *Λαύρας B 90 87 *Λαύρας Γ 123

23

Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς 88 Ἀκαδηµείας l 139124 1033 Πετρουπόλεως ἀπὸ 1034.

In the Kurzgefaßte Liste, Γ=G. l 1391 is from the year 1033. It, therefore, differs by one year from Antoniades’ description. However, it is from the same location and is 23 24

84

89

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Antoniades’ Sigla

GA

᾿Ιεροσολυµιάδος Βιβλιοθήκης 186β

l 1008 1628

le

G

l 1552 985

le

G

l 177925 XII

lesk† PA

l 1780 XII

le

G

l 1782 XIII

le

G

l 1783 XIII

le

G

l 1787 1599

l

G

Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς

90 Ἀκαδηµείας

Πετρουπόλεως ἀπὸ 985β

91 92

** Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς 177σ

** Ἐµπορικῆς Σχολῆς

Χάλκης 172 ** Ἐµπορικῆς Σχολῆς 93 Χάλκης 171 94 95

** Ἐµπορικῆς Σχολῆς

Χάλκης 173

** Ἐµπορικῆς Σχολῆς

Χάλκης 168β

Origin C./Yr. Cont. W to

Table 8 identifies fifty-three witnesses for the Gospels, thirty witnesses for the Praxapostolos (of which two do not actually contain the text of the Praxapostolos!), and sixteen for Revelation. Antoniades cited four manuscripts twice, as for both Praxapostolos and Revelation. In one of these cases (* Ἰβήρων 60σ) Revelation has recently been assigned a new GA number (GA 2923).

E IGHT REVELATION M ANUSCRIPTS FROM L AVRA

As mentioned earlier, Antoniades listed eight manuscripts of Revelation from the Great Lavra as a group. J. K. Elliot identified the following fourteen manuscripts that were described by Antoniades: 1626. 1704. 1732. 1733. 1734. 1740. 1854. 1857. 1859. 1870.

dated. For that reason, it is very probable that Antoniades referred to that manuscript. 25 This is neither a Praxapostolos nor a continuous manuscript as Antoniades suggests.

CHAPTER TWO. ANTONIADES’ MANUSCRIPTS

85

1872. 2076. 2084. 2258.26 The group of the manuscripts from the Great Lavra has not been identified so far. In the Kurzgefasste Liste there are eighteen manuscripts from the Great Lavra that contain Revelation. In TuT, eleven of those manuscripts are listed as representatives of the Complutensian Text: 1072. 1075. 1503. 1617. 1637. 1733. 1740. 1745. 1746. 1771. 1774.27 Besides those eleven, TuT also notes that GA 2196 and 2669 have a high affinity toward the Complutensian Text.28 Another three manuscripts from the Great Lavra (GA 1626. 1734. 2638.) are listed as representatives of the Koine text and 1732 was listed among manuscripts that could be in a broader sense regarded as witnesses of the Andreas text.29 Finally, GA 1652 is fragmentary and is not suitable for any comparison or statistical analysis. Since we have a textual profile for all manuscript witnesses of Revelation from the Great Lavra provided by TuT and Antoniades’ information regarding the control manuscripts of the group, it is possible to identify the eight manuscripts that Antoniades listed as a group with relatively high certainty. Antoniades stated that those eight manuscripts are of the same type as Lavra B 80 (καὶ ἄλλα 8, τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχοντα τύπον τῷ Β 80). Lavra B 80 is GA 1740, the text of which is closely related to a group with a strong Complutensian Text. Antoniades explicitly listed one more Lavra manuscript from the same group: GA 1733. There are nine more manuscripts from Lavra that, according to TuT, belong to this group: 1072. 1075. 1503. 1617. 1637. 1745. 1746. 1771. and 1774. However, 1774 is very fragmentary. It contains Revelation 2:20–4:10; 5:12–11:19; 22:7–21 and is extent at only 20 of TuT’s 123 Teststellen. 1774 would probably not be included in Antoniades’ sources. But the remaining eight manuscripts agree with Antoniades’ description in number and their textual affinity with 1740 Elliott, “The Distinctiveness of the Greek Manuscripts of the Book of Revelation.” 27 Cf. Markus Lembke et al., Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments 6: Die Apokalypse: Teststellenkollation und Auswertungen, ANTF 49 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017), 24. 28 Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments 6: Die Apokalypse: Teststellenkollation und Auswertungen, 24 n. 3. 29 Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments 6: Die Apokalypse: Teststellenkollation und Auswertungen, 24 n. 2. 26

86

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

mean that they are probably the manuscripts that Antoniades grouped together. Antoniades most likely referred to the following eight manuscripts as a group: GA 1072. 1075. 1503. 1617. 1637. 1745. 1746. 1771.

DISTRIBUTION OF A NTONIADES’ WITNESSES TO THE PRAXAPOSTOLOS ACCORDING TO A GE AND COLLECTION

Tables 9 and 10 present the distribution of Antoniades’ manuscripts of the Praxapostolos according to the holding libraries and age respectively. Table 9: Antoniades’ Manuscripts of the Praxapostolos According to Holding Libraries Library Ἰβήρων (Iviron) Λαύρας (The Great Lavra) Ἐµπορικῆς Σχολῆς (Hellenic Trade School of Halki) Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς (Theological School of Halki) Κουτλουµουσίου (Koutloumousiou)

Manuscripts (GA numbers) 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. l 680. 1490. 1739. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. 1149. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 921. l 938. 1868. 1869. l 883. l 884. l 895. 1069.

total 10 6 6 5 1

Table 10: Antoniades’ Manuscripts According to Age origin C./Yr. X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVII/1688

Manuscripts (GA numbers) 1739. 1871. 1854. 1870. l 883. 1022. 1490. 1868. 1872. l 884. l 921. l 1154. 997. 999. 1069. 1149. 1855. l 680. l 895. l 938. 996. 1856. 1859. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. 1003. 1869.

total 2 3 7 8 6 1 1

CHAPTER TWO. ANTONIADES’ MANUSCRIPTS

87

ORDER OF BOOKS IN ANTONIADES’ WITNESSES TO THE PRAXAPOSTOLOS

There are differences in the order of the books in the manuscripts that Antoniades selected as the basis of his edition (cf. Table 11), but he followed the same order as found in the Textus Receptus and Nestle-Aland. The Catholic Epistles are placed between Acts and the Pauline Epistles in most of Antoniades’ continuous-text witnesses to the Praxapostolos. However, there are three cases showing the same position of the Catholic Epistles as they appear in Antoniades’ edition: GA 996, GA 1490, and GA 1869. It should be also noted that Hebrews in GA 1739 and GA 1868 is positioned between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy, and Revelation in GA 1870 between Jude and Romans. We may conclude regarding the order of the books that Antoniades did not follow the majority of his manuscripts. However, his order of books is not entirely without support in his manuscript witnesses. Of these witnesses, the textual character of GA 1869 suggests its dependence on a printed edition, a reality that could also influence the position of the Catholic Epistles in that manuscript (cf. 2.4; the manuscripts GA 1490 from the twelfth and GA 996 from the fourteenth century are not influenced by print editions). Despite the preponderance of the manuscript evidence, the edition followed the order of the Textus Receptus, an order supported (more or less) by only three continuous Greek manuscripts, even though Antoniades’ order is in general agreement with the order of the epistles in the Apostolos lectionary. The convergence of the Apostolos lectionary and order of the Textus Receptus may have influenced Antoniades’ decision. Martin Karrer recently also argued for the preservation of the order of books in the future Nestle-Aland editions although it will be changed in the structure of the Editio Critica Maior.30

Cf. Martin Karrer, “Von den Evangelien bis zur Apk. Die Ordnung der Schriften in der Edition des Neuen Testaments,” in The New Testament in Antiquity and Byzantium: Traditional and Digital Approaches to its Texts and Editing. A Festschrift for Klaus Wachtel, ed. H. A. G. Houghton, David C. Parker, and Holger Strutwolf, ANTF 52 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019). 30

88

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Table 11: Order of Books in Antoniades’ Witnesses to Praxapostolos 997. 1022.1069.

999.

1854.1855.

GA

996

1149

1871

1

Acts

Matt

Acts

Matt

2

Rom

Mark

Jas

3 1 Cor

Luke

4 2 Cor 5 6 7 8

1739.

1869

1870

1872

Acts

Acts

Acts

Acts

Mark

Jas

Rom

Jas

Jas

1 Pt

Luke

1 Pt

1 Cor

1 Pt

1 Pt

John

2 Pt

John

2 Pt

2 Cor

2 Pt

2 Pt

Gal

Acts

1 John

Acts

1 John

Gal

1 John 1 John

Eph

Jas

2 John

Rom

2 John

Eph

2 John 2 John

Phil

1 Pt

3 John

1 Cor 3 John

Phil

3 John 3 John

Col

2 Pt

Jude

2 Cor

Jude

Col

Jude

Jude

9 1 Thes 1 John

Rom

Gal

Rom

1 Thes

Rev

Rom

10 2 Thes 2 John

1 Cor

Eph

1 Cor

2 Thes

Rom

1 Cor

11 1 Tim 3 John

1003. 1856.1857.

1490

1868

2 Cor

Phil

2 Cor

1 Tim

1 Cor

2 Cor

12 2 Tim

Jude

Gal

Col

Gal

2 Tim

2 Cor

Gal

13 Titus

Rom

Eph

1 Thess

Eph

Titus

Gal

Eph

14 Phile

1 Cor

Phil

2 Thess

Phil

Phile

Eph

Phil

15 Heb

2 Cor

Col

1 Tim

Col

Heb

Phil

Col

Col

1 Thess

16

Jas

Gal

1 Thess

2 Tim 1 Thess

Jas

17 1 Pt

Eph

2 Thess

Titus 2 Thess

1 Pt

1 Thess 2 Thess

18 2 Pt

Phil

1 Tim

Phile

2 Pt

2 Thess 1 Tim

19 1 John

Col

2 Tim

Heb

1 Tim 1 John 1 Tim 2 Tim

20 2 John 1 Thess

Titus

Jas

2 Tim 2 John 2 Tim

Titus

21 3 John 2 Thess

Phile

1 Pt

Titus

Phile

22 Jude

1 Tim

Heb

2 Pt

Phile

23 Matt

2 Tim

1 John

24 Mark

Titus

2 John

25 Luke

Phile

3 John

26 John

Heb

Jude

Heb

3 John Titus Jude

Phile

Heb

Heb

Rev

CHAPTER TWO. ANTONIADES’ MANUSCRIPTS

89

GREGORY-A LAND 1869. 1739. AND L 884.

Manuscripts GA 1869. 1739. and l 884. are taken here into special consideration because Antoniades referred to them explicitly in his introduction. A brief review of their usage and evaluation by Antoniades may contribute to a better understanding of the critical principles behind Antoniades’ edition. In the introduction to the edition, Antoniades referred explicitly to GA 1869 as follows: Yet even among the younger manuscripts there are some not less trustworthy and venerable than many older copies, since they are copies of older exemplars. 5 This is the case for MS 9 of the Theological School, dated to the year 1688, which preserves some features of older manuscripts, such as, among others, the omission of 1 John 5:7–8 about the three witness in heaven (9,4–5).

Despite Antoniades’ belief that GA 1869 preserved the more ancient text even though it was copied in 1688, it seems that it was not copied independently from a printed edition as a partial collation and some variants suggest. GA 1869 and Stephanus 1550 edition disagree at only 3 (32, 72, 94) of 98 test-passages. Teststelle 72 presents the Comma Johanneum. At Teststelle 32, the first hand of GA 1869 reads variant 1I καταλωσιν υµων ως κακοποιων together with 1161. This reading was corrected, however, to agree with variant 1 καταλαλωσιν υµων ως κακοποιων, which is also the reading of Stephanus 1550 edition. While the reading of the first hand seems to be an obvious mistake attested in only one other manuscript, the correction probably represents the reading of the Vorlage of GA 1869. At Teststelle 94 GA 1869 agrees with the majority of witnesses that preserve variant 1 ους δε εν φοβω σωζετε εκ πυρος αρπαζοντες, while Stephanus, along with some manuscripts, adds the article του before πυρος. Since the article could be easily omitted in the process of copying, the only substantial difference between GA 1869 and Stephanus in the 98 collated passages is the Comma Johanneum. The high level of agreement, coupled with the nature of the disagreements, suggests the dependency of 1869 on one of the printed editions of the Greek New Testament. Acts 10:6 in 1869 also preserves the addition ουτος λαλησει σοι τι σε δει ποιειν. The manuscript 69C is

90

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

the only known Greek witness to this reading,31 but it is contained in the printed editions of Erasmian origin. There is a possibility that Erasmus translated it from Latin.32 Antoniades stated in his introduction: Where the judgment was doubtful concerning the addition or excision of a word or an entire passage, these were written in a smaller type. 7 The smaller font was also used in a limited number of places that, although they have no attestation in the ecclesiastical texts, nevertheless were retained as exception since they were sufficiently well attested elsewhere. (10,6–7).

Antoniades added in a footnote that the most noteworthy of these locations is Acts 8:37, attested by Lavra Β 64 (=GA 1739). GA 1739 is in the second rank of potential descendents of the Initial Text in Catholic Epistles33 and the sixth rank in Acts,34 indicating its independence from the Byzantine text. As we can see from the 98 Teststellen collation of the Catholic Letters in TuT, GA 1739 agrees with Antoniades’ text of the Catholic Epistles in only 21% (cf. Chapter 3 below). It is surprising that such a witness would be included in Antoniades’ edition. Furthermore, the text of Acts 8:37 in GA 1739 and in Antoniades’ edition is not the same. While GA 1739 reads ειπεν δε αυτω, Antoniades’ text and the Textus Receptus read ειπε δε ο φιλιππος. It seems that Antoniades adopted the verse from a printed edition; the function of GA 1739 was to justify the inclusion of the verse that was absent from all the rest of Antoniades’ witnesses. Antoniades stated regarding l 884 as follows: A similar distinction of types is likely found also in the Praxapostoli. 2 This reality is indicated by the manuscript of the Cf. Strutwolf et al., Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior 3: Acts of the Apostles: Part 1.1: Text: Chapters 1–14. 32 Cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2002). 33 Cf. Genealogical Queries: Catholic Letters at: http://intf.uni-muenster.de/cbgm/. 34 Cf. Genealogical Queries: Acts at: http://intf.uni-muenster.de/cbgm/acts/index.html. 31

CHAPTER TWO. ANTONIADES’ MANUSCRIPTS

91

Theological School catalogued under number 14. 3 The manuscript, however, cannot be regarded as indisputable evidence for this distinction insofar as the variants observed in its text admit to another possible explanation. 4 The variants are not attested unanimously by the majority of older and more trustworthy manuscripts, especially those having more certain evidence of their lineage, as in the case of the Gospel lectionaries (4,1–4).

The editors of ECM also noted that l 884 differs significantly from the mainstream lectionary text.35 The Teststellen collations of Catholic letters showed that l 884 has a high number of variants that are characteristic of the old text. However, l 884 was not copied with much care. Seventeen errors in l 884 are recorded in ECM edition of James. Although most of the lectionaries testify to a relatively uniform Byzantine majority text, l 884 suggests that even in the thirteenth century a lectionary with an unusual text could be produced and read in liturgy.

A NTONIADES’ WITNESSES TO THE PRAXAPOSTOLOS IN THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Table 12 represents an excerpt from Elliott’s Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the Greek New Testament36 with updates from UBS Greek New Testament fourth and fifth edition, ECM IV: Catholic Letters, and ECM III: Acts. The table provides an overview of the usage of Antoniades’ manuscripts of the Praxapostolos in the most significant editions since Tischendorf. The synopses were excluded since they do not contain material from Praxapostolos. In the table, an underlined GA number means that the manuscript was mentioned in the Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s edition and was known to him at least theoretically. A dagger after a GA number means that the MS was known and catalogued by Hermann von Soden. Additionally, the following sigla were used in the table: Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior 4: Catholic Letters: Part 2: Supplementary Material, 12. 36 James Keith Elliott, A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the Greek New Testament, NovTSup 57 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1987). 35

92

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

/ [/] the appa S altM

present in the apparatus. There is no explicit reference to the manuscript in ratus, although it was listed in the introduction. Sundry, a manuscript that was used in the apparatus, hough was not mentioned in the introduction. Majority Text.

2

997†

3

999†

4

1003†

5

1022†

6

1069† M

7

1149† M

8

1490†

9

1739† /

/

/

/I

/I

/

10

1854† /

/

/

/I

/I

/

11

1855† M

12

1856† M

13

1857†

14

1868†

15

1869† M

16

1870† M

17

1871†

18

1872† M

/

[/] /

/

[/] /

/

UBS4 & UBS5

Souter2

BFBS2

ECM IV

996 †

ECM III

1

Vogels4

Merk9

UBS1 & UBS2

MC

UBS3

Bover-O’Callaghan

NA27 & NA28

NA26

GA

Table 12: Antoniades’ Manuscripts of Praxapostolos in the most Significant Editions

/

/

/

James / / /

/

[/] /

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/I

ECM IV

93

ECM III

UBS4 & UBS5

Souter2

BFBS2

Vogels4

Merk9

UBS1 & UBS2

MC

UBS3

Bover-O’Callaghan

NA27 & NA28

GA

NA26

CHAPTER TWO. ANTONIADES’ MANUSCRIPTS

19

l 680

/

20

l 883

21

l 884

/

22

l 895

/

23

l 921

/

/

24

l 938

/

/

25

l 1153

26

l 1154

/

27

l 1156

/

28

l 1159

/

I1

a

/I

CONCLUDING REMARKS

/ James

/

It is not possible to know the exact number of manuscripts that Antoniades used because he did not list all of them. Among the 104 manuscripts which he did list, ninety-five have been identified, and eight manuscripts of Revelation to which Antoniades referred as a group were identified with a relatively high degree of certainty. Antoniades listed thirty manuscripts as his sources for the Praxapostolos, even though two of them do not contain any text of the Praxapostolos. Among the remaining twenty-eight manuscripts, eighteen are continuous minuscules and ten are lectionaries. Despite Antoniades’ statement that GA 1869 (copied in1688) preserves textual features of older manuscripts, it seems that it is heavily dependent on a printed text of Erasmian origin. Moreover, it appears that Antoniades used GA 1739 only to justify the reading in Acts 8:37, although Antoniades’ text of the verse differs from the text of GA 1739; he did not mention that GA 1739 contains a significantly different text from all of the remaining witnesses. Antoniades was right regarding the idiosyncratic text of l 884. It is interesting to note, however, that l 884 is included

94

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

in his list of witnesses, even though it could not contribute to the establishing of the text of his edition. As we can see from Table 12, Antoniades’ manuscripts have very rarely been used in critical editions since Tischendorf. An exception is the presence of the Antoniades lectionaries in UBS4 and UBS5. For that reason, there is little available data in editions that would help us to evaluate systematically the textual relationships of Antoniades’ edition and the witnesses that Antoniades selected as the basis of his edition. To solve this issue, I collated Antoniades’ edition, his manuscript witnesses to Praxapostolos, and two more editions at 98 Teststellen. The results and analyses of the data are presented in Chapter Three.

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN: COLLATION OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES The main task of this chapter is to determine the level of textual coherence of the texts of the Catholic Letters in Antoniades’ edition by collating the manuscripts he used, the BFBS edition from 1830, and Stephanus’ Novum Testamentum edition from 1550. The 1830 BFBS edition is a reprint of the Textus Receptus accompanied by a modern Greek translation.1 It was clearly intended for the Greek Orthodox Church. For that reason, one might assume that Antoniades had in mind one of the BFBS editions that reproduced the Textus Receptus when he mentioned the Textus Receptus of the Bible Society in the introduction to the edition. I selected the 1830 BFBS edition because it may represent the text against which Antoniades collated his manuscript witnesses. Antoniades claimed that his edition was made independently from any printed edition, including the Textus Receptus, and that his edition differs from the Textus Receptus in at least two thousand places. Collating the Textus Receptus allows us to determine if, and to which extent, Antoniades’ text of the Catholic Letters is independent from the Textus Receptus. The 1550 Stephanus edition is included in the present study because of its similarity with Antoniades’ text, indicating the possible dependence of Antoniades’ edition on the text of Stephanus’ edition. The Teststellen collation model of the Text und Textwert volumes has been adopted to compare the texts of the twenty-eight manu1

Cf. Nestle, Vom Textus Receptus des Griechischen Neuen Testaments, 19.

95

96

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

scripts and three printed editions for several reasons.2 First, Text und Textwert had already selected ninety-eight Teststellen (test passages) distributed throughout the seven Catholic Letters. This model ensures a solid basis for a relatively reliable evaluation of the textual profiles and the textual coherence of the collated witnesses. Additionally, the adoption of this model made it possible to retrieve the results of the collations for the eighteen continuous-text minuscule manuscripts that Antoniades listed as his witnesses to Praxapostolos directly from TuT. To this material I added the collation results for ten lectionaries and the three printed editions. These are accompanied by tables showing all variants for the witnesses collated in ninety-eight Teststellen, an overview of the textual profile of each of the witnesses, the agreement of collated witnesses in percentages, and ranking lists in descending order of the thirty witnesses on the basis of their level of agreement with Antoniades’ text. Comments and conclusions are offered at the end of the chapter. Abbreviations and Sigla 1 Reading of majority of manuscripts that differs from reading 2 2 Reading of NA26/27 1/2 Reading of majority of manuscripts that does not differ from reading 2 ≥3 Readings that differ from readings 1, 2 and 1/2 W Uncertain which reading the manuscript contains Z Physical lacuna in the manuscript Add. Addition Sine add. Without addition * First-hand reading C Correctors reading S Supplement Om. Omits, Omitted, Omission U Homoeoteleuton or homoeoarcton

Antoniades listed thirty manuscripts as witnesses to the Praxapostolos. However, GA 1041 (Καρακάλλου 62) and GA l 1779 (Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς 177) do not contain any text of the Praxapostolos; For the the Text und Textwert cf. Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 317–37. 2

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN V LS ANT STE BFBS

97

Omission of a word or phrase Lectio singularis (singular reading) Antoniades’ edition Stephanus’ edition from 1550 BFBS edition from 1830

Note: Readings representing errors, itacisms, and orthographic differences are listed under the variants they essentially represent. These readings are given in parentheses along with their witnesses. Teststellen: Results of the Collations ** 1

2 Z ** 1

1B 2 3 Z

1

Jas 1:5 του διδοντος θεου πασιν απλως και µη ονειδιζοντος ουκ ονειδιζοντος ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. µη ονειδιζοντος STE. BFBS. 1739. 1868. 1869. Lacuna l 895. 2

Jas 1:12 στεφανον ... ον επηγγειλατο add. Add. ο κυριος STE. BFBS. ANT. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. Add. κυριος l 680. Sine add. 996. Add. ο θεος 1739. 1857. Lacuna l 895

98 ** 1/2

Z ** 1

2 3 Z ** 1/2

3 Z **

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP 3

Jas 1:17 παρ ω ουκ ενι παραλλαγη η τροπης αποσκιασµα παραλλαγη η τροπης αποσκιασµα STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1739. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 680. l 1153. (l 1154 παραλαγη). l 1156. l 1159. Lacuna l 895. 4

Jas 1:20 δικαιοσυνην θεου ουκ εργαζεται ου κατεργαζεται STE. BFBS. ANT. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1739. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1871. 1872. l 883. l 938. l 680. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159 ουκ εργαζεται 1870. l 884. l 921. κατεργαζεται 996. Lacuna l 895. 5

Jas 1:22 γινεσθε δε ποιηται λογου και µη µονον ακροαται µονον ακροαται STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490*. 1739. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. ακροαται µονον 1490C. Lacuna l 895. 6

Jas 1:25 ο δε ... παραµεινας add. ουκ ακροατης

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN 1

1Β 2 Z ** 1

2 3 Z ** 1

2 6 8

99

Add. ουτος STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. Add. ουτως 1022. 1069. 1149. 1871. Sine add. 1739 Lacuna l 895 7

Jas 1:26 ει τις δοκει θρησκος ειναι add. ειναι εν υµιν STE. BFBS. ANT. 997. 999. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 884. l 1159. ειναι 1739. εν υµιν ειναι 996. 1003. 1022. 1069. l 680. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. Lacuna l 895. 8

Jas 2:3 πτωχω ειπητε συ στηθι εκει η καθου υπο το υποποδιον εκει η καθου ωδε υπο το υποποδιον STE. BFBS. ANT. 997. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884f3 (υπο του υποποδιον). l 921. l 938. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. εκει η καθου υπο το υποποδιον 996. η καθου εκει επι το υποποδιον 1739. εκει η καθου ωδε επι το υποποδιον 999.

100

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Z

Lacuna l 895.

**

9

1

2 Z ** 1

2 3 Z ** 1

3

Jas 2:4 ου διεκριθητε εν εαυτοις και ου διεκριθητε STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. ου διεκριθητε 1490. 1739. 1855. 1856. l 1159. Lacuna l 895. 10 Jas 2:5 εξελεξατο τους πτωχους τω κοσµω του κοσµου ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884f3. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. L 1159. τω κοσµω 1739. του κοσµου τουτου STE. BFBS. Lacuna l 895. 11 Jas 2:18 δειξον µοι την πιστιν σου χωρις των εργων εκ STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159.

There is an error not recorded in ECM. The manuscript reads τους κοσµου.

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN 2 Z ** 1

1B 2 2Β 4 Z ** 1

2 Z **

101

χωρις 1739. Lacuna l 895. 12 Jas 2:19 πιστευεις οτι εις εστιν ο θεος οτι ο θεος εις εστιν STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490C. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. οτι θεος εις εστιν l 1154. οτι εις εστιν ο θεος οτι εις εστιν θεος 1739. οτι εις θεος εστιν 1490*. Lacuna l 895. 13 Jas 2:20 πιστις χωρις των εργων αργη εστιν νεκρα STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. αργη 1739. Lacuna l 895. 14 Jas 2:24 ορατε add. οτι εξ εργων δικαιουται

102 1

LS 2 Z ** 1

2 Z ** 1

2 3 6 Z

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Add. τοινυν STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. νυν l 1154. Sine add. 1490. 1739. Lacuna l 895. 15 Jas 3:3 εις τα στοµατα βαλλοµεν εις το πειθεσθαι προς το πειθεσθαι STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. εις το πειθεσθαι 1739. Lacuna l 895. 16 Jas 3:8 (1) την δε γλωσσαν ουδεις δαµασαι δυναται ανθρωπων ουδεις δυναται ανθρωπων δαµασαι STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1149. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. ουδεις δαµασαι δυναται ανθρωπων 1739. ουδεις δυναται δαµασαι ανθρωπων 1490. 1854. ουδεις δυναται ανδρων δαµασαι 1069. Lacuna l 895.

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN ** 1

2 Z ** 1

2 Z ** 1/2

8 Z **

103

17 Jas 3:8 (2) ακαταστατον κακον µεστη ιου ακατασχετον STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1739C. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. ακαταστατον 1739*. Lacuna l 895. 18 Jas 4:4 Add. µοιχαλιδες ουκ οιδατε µοιχοι και µοιχαλιδες STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. µοιχαλιδες 1739. l 921f. (Μοιχαλιδαι) Lacuna l 895. 19 Jas 4:9 και πενθησατε και κλαυσατε STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1739. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. και κλαυσατε 1854. Lacuna l 895. 20 Jas 4:11 ο καταλαλων αδελφου η κρινων τον αδελφον

104 1

2 Z ** 1

1B 1C 2B 4 Z ** 1

2 3

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP και κρινων STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. η κρινων 1490. 1739. 1857. Lacuna l 895. 21 Jas 5:7 εως λαβη πρωιµον και οψιµον λαβη υετον πρωιµον και οψιµον (STE. BFBS οφιµον sic) ANT. 1003. 1022. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1154. (l 1153 o πρωηµον) l 1156. l 1159. λαβη υετον πρoιµον και οψιµον 997. λαβοι υετον πρoιµον και οψιµον 999. 1069. λαβη πρωιµον και οψιµον 1739. λαβη καρπον πρoιµον και οψιµον 996. Lacuna 1856. l 895. 22 Jas 5:9 µη στεναζετε αδελφοι κατ’ αλληλων κατ’ αλληλων αδελφοι STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1855. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. αδελφοι κατ’ αλληλων 1022. 1490. 1739. κατ’ αλληλων 1871.

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN 4 Z ** 1

2 Z ** 1

2 Z ** 1

2

105

µετ αλληλων αδελφοι l 884. Lacuna 1856. l 895. 23 Jas 5:11 πολυσπλαγχνος εστιν ο κυριος και οικτιρµων εστιν και οικτιρµων 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1857. 1868. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921S. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1159. l 895*. εστιν ο κυριος και οικτιρµων STE. BFBS. ANT. 1739. 1869. l 895C. Lacuna 1856. l 1156. 24 Jas 5:16 εξοµολογεισθε αλληλοις τας αµαρτιας τα παραπτωµατα STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1855. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 895. l 921S. l 938S. l 1153. l 1154. l 1159. τας αµαρτιας 1490. 1739. Lacuna 1856. l 1156. 25 Jas 5:20 σωσει ψυχην αυτου εκ θανατου ψυχην εκ θανατου STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 895. l 921S. l 938S. l 1153. l 1154. l 1159. ψυχην αυτου εκ θανατου 1739.

106

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Z

Lacuna 1856. l 1156.

**

26 1 Peter 1:22 (1) εν τη υπακοη της αληθειας Add. Add. δια πνευµατος STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. Add. δια του πνευµατος l 884. Sine add. 1739. Lacuna l 895.

1

1B 2 Z ** 1

Z ** 1

2

27 1 Peter 1:22 (2) εκ (καθαρας) καρδιας αλληλους αγαπησατε καθαρας STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1739. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. Lacuna l 895. 28 1 Peter 1:23 δια λογου ζωντος Θεου και µενοντος add. Add. εις τον αιωνα STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. Sine add. 1739.

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN

107

Z

Lacuna l 895.

**

29 1 Peter 2:21 χριστος επαθεν υπερ υµων υµιν υπολιµπανων επαθεν υπερ ηµων υµιν BFBS. ANT. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857C. 1868. 1870C. 1871. l 884. l 1159. επαθεν υπερ ηµων ηµιν STE. 999. 1003. 1022. 1869. επαθεν υπερ υµων υµιν 1739. 1857*. 1872. επαθεν υπερ ηµων 1870*. υπερ ηµων επαθεν υµιν l 680. l 883. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. υπερ ηµων επαθεν ηµιν l 921. επεθανεν υπερ υµων υµιν 996. επεθανεν υπερ ηµων υµιν 997. Lacuna l 895.

1 1Β 2 4 5 5B 6 6C Z ** 1

2 Z

30 1 Peter 3:8 ταπεινοφρονες (9) µη αποδιδοντες κακον φιλοφρονες STE. BFBS. ANT. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1855. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. ταπεινοφρονες 996. 1490. 1739. 1856. 1857. l 884. Lacuna l 895.

108 ** 1

2 Z ** 1 1B 1D 1I 2 LS Z ** 1

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP 31 1 Peter 3:9 ευλογουντες οτι εις τουτο εκληθητε ινα ειδοτες οτι εις τουτο εκληθητε STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. οτι εις τουτο εκληθητε 1739. 1871. Lacuna l 895. 32 1 Peter 3:16 εν ω καταλαλεισθε καταισχυνθωσιν καταλαλωσιν υµων ως κακοποιων STE. BFBS. 999. 1022. 1149. 1856. 1857. 1869C. 1871. 1872. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. καταλαλουσιν υµων ως κακοποιων ANT. 997. 1003. 1069. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1868. 1870. l 680. l 1159. καταλαλωσιν υµας ως κακοποιων 996. καταλωσιν υµων ως κακοποιων 1869*. l 884. καταλαλεισθε 1739. καταλαλωσιν υµιν ος κακοποιων Lacuna l 895. 33 1 Peter 4:1 χριστου ουν παθοντος σαρκι παθοντος υπερ ηµων σαρκι STE. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1855. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938S. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159.

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN 1Β 2 2Β 3 Z ** 1 1B 2 Z ** 1/2 3 3B 4 Z

109

παθοντος υπερ υµων σαρκι BFBS. 1856. παθοντος σαρκι 1739. παθοντος εν σαρκι 1854. παθοντος σαρκι υπερ ηµων 1870. Lacuna l 895. 34 1 Peter 4:3 αρκετος γαρ add. ο παρεληλυθως χρονος Add. ηµιν STE. BFBS. 997. 999. 1022. 1149. 1854. 1856. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. Add. υµιν ANT. 1003. 1069. 1490. 1855. 1857. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938S. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. Sine add. 996. 1739. Lacuna l 895. 35 1 Peter 4:14 το της δοξης και το του θεου πνευµα δοξης και το STE. BFBS. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1855. 1857. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 1159. δοξης και 996. δοξης 1490. δοξης και δυναµεως και το ANT. 1739. 1868. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938S. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. Lacuna 1856. l 895.

110 ** 1

4 Z ** 1

1D 2 Z ** 1 1C 1Ε

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP 36 1 Peter 5:2 ποιµανατε ... ποιµνιον του θεου (επισκοπουντες) µη αναγκαστως επισκοπουντες STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1739. 1854. 1855. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. επισκοπουντος l 884. Lacuna 1856. l 895. 37 1 Peter 5:5 παντες δε αλληλοις την ταπεινοφροσυνην εγκοµβωσασθε αλληλοις υποτασσοµενοι STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. l 680. 1872. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. αλληλους υποτασσοµενοι l 883. αλληλοις 1739. Lacuna 1856. l 895. 38 1 Peter 5:11 αυτω το κρατος εις τους αιωνας αυτω η δοξα και το κρατος STE. BFBS. ANT. 1003. 1490. 1855. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1872C. l 895. l 1159. αυτω η δοξα κρατος 996. 997. 999. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1870. 1871. 1872*. l 680. l 883. l 938S. l 1153. l 1156. αυτω δοξα κρατος l 921S.

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN 1F 2 Z ** 1

1B 2 5 6 7 Z ** 1

2 6 Z

111

αυτω το κρατος και η δοξα 1739. αυτω το κρατος Lacuna 1856. l 1154. l 884. 39 2 Peter 1:4 δι’ ων τα τιµια και µεγιστα ηµιν επαγγελµατα δεδωρηται τιµια ηµιν και µεγιστα επαγγελµατα δεδωρηται ANT. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. τιµια υµιν και µεγιστα επαγγελµατα δεδωρηται 1857. τιµια και µεγιστα ηµιν επαγγελµατα δεδωρηται 1490. µεγιστα και τιµια ηµιν επαγγελµατα δεδωρηται 1739. µεγιστα ηµιν και τιµια επαγγελµατα δεδωρηται STE. BFBS. µεγιστα και τιµια επαγγελµατα δεδωρηται υµιν 996. Lacuna l 895. l 884. 40 2 Peter 1:12 διο µελλησω αει υµας υποµιµνη σκειν διο ουκ αµελησω STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 883. l 884. l 921S. l 938S. l 1153. l 1156S. l 1159. l 895. διο µελλησω 1739. διο µαλλον αδελφοι ουκ αµελησω 999. Lacuna l 1154.

112 ** 1

2 Z ** 1

2 Z ** 1

1C 2 6 Z

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP 41 2 Peter 1:17 ο υιος µου ο αγαπητος µου ουτος εστιν ουτος εστιν ο υιος µου ο αγαπητος STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1739. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 883. l 921S. l 938S. l 1153. (l 1156S ουτως). l 1159. l 895. ο υιος µου ο αγαπητος µου ουτος εστιν Lacuna l 1154. l 884. 42 2 Peter 1:18 οντες εν τω αγιω ορει ορει τω αγιω STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1739. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 883. l 921S. l 938S. l 1153. l 1156S. l 1159. l 895. αγιω ορει Lacuna l 1154. l 884. 43 2 Peter 1:21 φεροµενοι ελαλησαν απο θεου ανθρωποι αγιοι θεου ανθρωποι ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1871. 1872. l 680. L 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. οι αγιοι θεου ανθρωποι STE. BFBS. 1869. απο θεου ανθρωποι 1739. αγιοι ανθρωποι 1870. Lacuna l 895. l 884.

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN ** 1

Z ** 1

1C 1D 3 Z ** 1/2

113

44 2 Peter 2:13 και φθαρησονται (13) αδικουµενοι µισθον κοµιουµενοι STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1739. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. Lacuna l 895. 45 2 Peter 2:17 και οµιχλαι υπο λαιλαπος ελαυνοµεναι οις ο ζοφος του σκοτους τετηρηται νεφελαι υπο λαιλαπος ελαυνοµεναι οις ο ζοφος του σκοτους εις αιωνα τετηρηται STE. BFBS. ANT. 1003. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872C. l 883. (l 921. l 884. λελαπος). l 938. l 1153. l 1156. νεφελαι υπο λαιλαπος ελαυνοµεναι οις ο ζοφος του σκοτους εις τον αιωνα τετηρηται 996. 997. 1872*. (l 1154 λελαπος). νεφελαι υπο λαιλαπος ελαυνοµεναι οις ο ζοφος του σκοτους εις αιωνας τετηρηται 999. 1022. 1855. l 1159. και οµιχλαι υπο λαιλαπος ελαυνοµεναι οις ο ζοφος του σκοτους εις αιωνα τετηρηται 1739. Lacuna l 895. 46 2 Peter 2:20 εν επιγνωσει του κυριου (ηµων) και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου κυριου και σωτηρος STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870.

114

4 Z ** 1

2 5 Z ** 1

2 Z **

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. κυριου ηµων και σωτηρος 1490. 1739. Lacuna l 895. 47 2 Peter 2:21 η επιγνουσιν υποστρεψαι εκ της παραδοθεισης επιστρεψαι STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. υποστρεψαι 1739. εις τα οπισω επιστρεψαι 1490. Lacuna l 895. 48 2 Peter 3:10 (1) ηξει δε η ηµερα κυριου ως κλεπτης add. Add. εν νυκτι STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. Sine add. 1739. 1868. l 1154. Lacuna l 895. 49 2 Peter 3:10 (2) και τα εν αυτη εργα ευρεθησεται

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN 1

2 Z ** 1

2 5Β Z ** 1

2 Z **

115

κατακαησεται STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1739L. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. ευρεθησεται 1739Τ. Lacuna l 895. 50 2 Peter 3:11 τουτων ουτως παντων λυοµενων τουτων ουν παντων STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. (l 884 παντον). l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. τουτων ουτω(ς) παντων 1739. τουτων ουν ουτω(ς) παντων 1490. Lacuna l 895. 51 2 Peter 3:16 ως και εν πασαις επιστολαις λαλων ταις επιστολαις STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1739. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 1156. l 1159. επιστολαις l 938. l 1153. Lacuna l 1154. l 895. 52 2 Peter 3:18 και εις ηµεραν αιωνος. (αµην).

116 1

2 Z ** 1

2 Z ** 1

2 4 Z **

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP αµην STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1739C. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870C. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. Omitted αµην 1739*. Lacuna 1870*. l 1154. l 895. 53 1 John 1:7 και το αιµα ιησου του υιου αυτου καθαριζει ιησου χριστου του υιου αυτου STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921S. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. l 895. ιησου του υιου αυτου 1739. Lacuna l 1154. 54 1 John 2:7 (1) αγαπητοι ουκ εντολην καινην γραφω αδελφοι STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. αγαπητοι 1739. αδελφοι µου 1872. Lacuna l 1154. l 895. 55 1 John 2:7 (2) η εντολη η παλαια εστιν ο λογος ον ηκουσατε

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN 1

2 Z ** 1/2

1/2B Z ** 1

2 Z ** 1

117

ηκουσατε απ’ αρχης STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. ηκουσατε 1739. Lacuna l 1154. l 895. 56 1 John 2:10 και σκανδαλον εν αυτω ουκ εστιν σκανδαλον εν αυτω ουκ εστιν STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1739. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. σκανδαλον ουκ εστιν εν αυτω 1022. Lacuna l 1154. l 895. 57 1 John 2:14 εγραψα υµιν παιδια οτι εγνωκατε τον πατερα γραφω STE. BFBS. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 883. l 1159. εγραψα ANT. 1490 1739. l 680. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. Lacuna l 1154. l 895. 58 1 John 2:19 ει γαρ εξ ηµων ησαν µεµενηκεισαν ησαν εξ ηµων STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1739. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869.

118

2 Z ** 1

Z ** 1

2 Z ** 1

2

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. εξ ηµων ησαν 1490. Lacuna l 895. 59 1 John 2:20 και οιδατε παντες παντα STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1739. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. Lacuna l 895. 60 1 John 2:23 ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο οµολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει ΟΜ. ο οµολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει STE. BFBS. ANT. 997. 999. 1003. 1149. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. ο οµολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει 996. 1022. 1069. 1490. 1739. l 884. Lacuna l 895. 61 1 John 2:28 (1) µενετε εν αυτω ινα εαν φανεροθη οταν STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. εαν 1739.

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN 3 Z ** 1

2 Z ** 1

1Β 2 4 Z ** 1

119

οτε 997. Lacuna l 895. 62 1 John 2:28 (2) σχωµεν παρρησιαν και µη αισχυνθωµεν εχωµεν παρρησιαν STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. σχωµεν παρρησιαν 1739. Lacuna l 895. 63 1 John 3:1 ινα τεκνα θεου κληθωµεν και εσµεν τεκνα θεου κληθωµεν STE. BFBS. ANT. 997. 999. 1003. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. τεκνα κληθωµεν θεου 996. τεκνα θεου κληθωµεν και εσµεν 1490. 1739. 1872. τεκνα θεου κληρωθωµεν 1022. Lacuna l 895. 64 1 John 3:14 ο µη αγαπων add. µενει εν τω θανατω Add. τον αδελφον STE. BFBS. ANT. 996*. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871.

120

1C 2 Z ** 1/2

1/2B 3 Z ** 1

1Β 2 Z **

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. Add. τον αδελφον αυτου 996C. 1490. 1854. Sine add. 1739. Lacuna l 895. 65 1 John 3:23 ινα πιστευσωµεν τω ονοµατι του υιου πιστευσωµεν STE. BFBS. ANT. 997. 999. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1855C. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. πιστευσοµεν 996. πιστευωµεν 1003. 1490. 1739. 1855*. l 884. Lacuna l 1154. l 895. 66 1 John 4:3 (1) ο µη οµολογει τον ιησουν ιησουν χριστον 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. τον ιησουν χριστον STE. BFBS. ANT. 1868. 1869. l 883. τον ιησουν 1490. 1739. Lacuna l 1154. l 895. 67 1 John 4:3 (2) τον ιησουν add. εκ του θεου ουκ εστιν

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN 1

2 Z ** 1

2 Z ** 1

2 Z **

121

Add. εν σαρκι εληλυθοτα STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. Sine add. 1739. l 883. Lacuna l 1154. l 895. 68 1 John 4:12 και η αγαπη αυτου εν ηµιν τετελειωµενη εστιν τετελειωµενη εστιν εν ηµιν STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. l 895. εν ηµιν τετελειωµενη εστιν 1739. Lacuna l 680. 69 1 John 4:20 τον θεον ον ουχ εωρακεν ου δυναται αγαπαν πως δυναται STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. l 895. ου δυναται 1739. Lacuna l 1154. 70 1 John 5:4 η νικη η νικησασα τον κοσµον η πιστις ηµων

122 1/2 3 U Z ** 1/2

4 5 LS Z ** 1/2

1/2B

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP πιστις ηµων STE. BFBS. ANT. 999. 1490. 1739. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1869. l 884. l 895. l 1159. πιστις υµων 996. 997. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1868. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. Homoeoteleuton from τον κοσµον (v. 4) to τον κοσµον (v. 5) l 883. Lacuna l 1154. 71 1 John 5:6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι’ υδατος και αιµατος δι’ υδατος και αιµατος STE. BFBS. ANT. 997. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1739*. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. δι’ υδατος και αιµατος και πνευµατος 999. 1490. 1739C. δι’ υδατος και πνευµατος και αιµατος 996. l 884. δι’ υδατος µονον homoeoarcton? from υδατος και to υδατι µονον l 895. Lacuna l 1154. 72 1 John 5:7–8 οτι τρεις εισιν οι µαρτυρουντες το πνευµα και το υδωρ και το αιµα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν το πνευµα και το υδωρ και το αιµα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν 996. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1739. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. το πνευµα το υδωρ και το αιµα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν 1490.

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN 1/2D 1/2L LS 6C

Z ** 1

1D 5 5Β 7 15

123

το πνευµα το υδωρ το αιµα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν l 921. το πνευµα το υδωρ και το αιµα και οι τρεις το εν εισιν 999. το πνευµα και το υδωρ και το βαπτισµα και οι τρεις εν το εν εισιν l 884. οτι τρεις εισιν οι µαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω, ο Πατηρ, ο Λογος και το Αγιον Πνευµα, και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισι. και τρεις εισιν οι µαρτυρουντες εν τη γη, το Πνευµα και το υδωρ και το αιµα, και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν. STE. BFBS. ANT. Lacuna 997. l 895. l 1154. 73 1 John 5:13 (1) ταυτα εγραψα υµιν ινα ειδητε οτι ζωην εχετε αιωνιον τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονοµα του υιου του θεου εγραψα υµιν τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονοµα του υιου του θεου ινα ειδητε οτι ζωην αιωνιον εχετε STE. ANT. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1871. 1872. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. (l 680. l 884. εχεται). εγραψα υµιν τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονοµα του υιου του θεου ινα ειδητε οτι ζωην αιωνιον εχητε 996. εγραψα υµιν τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονοµα του υιου του θεου ινα ειδητε οτι ζωην εχετε αιωνιον BFBS. l 1153. εγραψα υµιν τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονοµα του υιου του θεου ινα ειδητε οτι ζωην εχητε αιωνιον 999. εγραψα υµιν τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονοµα του θεου ινα ειδητε οτι ζωην αιωνιον εχετε 1870. εγραψα υµιν ινα ειδητε οτι ζωην εχετε αιωνιον 1739.

124 V2 Z ** 1

1Β 1D V2 Z ** 1

2 V Z ** 1

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Omission (cf. TS 72) 997. Lacuna l 895. l 1154. 74 1 John 5:13 (2) ... add. και αυτη εστιν η παρρησια Add. και ινα πιστευητε εις το ονοµα του υιου του θεου STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1739C. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. Add. και ινα πιστευετε εις το ονοµα του υιου του θεου 1739*. l 680. Add. και ινα πιστευσητε εις το ονοµα του υιου του θεου 999. 1490. 1854. Omission (cf. TS 72) 997. Lacuna l 1154. 75 1 John 5:21 φυλαξατε εαυτα απο των ειδωλων. add. Add. αµην STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. Sine add. 1739. l 884. Omission (cf. TS 72) 997. Lacuna l 1154. 76 2 John 3 και παρα ιησου χριστου του υιου του πατρος κυριου ιησου χριστου STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870.

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN

2 U V Z ** 1

1Β 2 V Z ** 1

1Β 2

125

1871. 1872C. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. ιησου χριστου 1739. Homoeoteleuton from παρα θεου πατρος to του υιου του πατρος 1872*. Omission (cf. TS 72) 997. Lacuna l 1154. 77 2 John 5 ουχ ως εντολην καινην γραφων σοι αλλα γραφων σοι καινην BFBS. ANT. 999. 1003. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1868. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. γραφω σοι καινην STE. 996. 1022. 1857. 1869. l 680. l 884. καινην γραφων σοι 1739. Omission (cf. TS 72) 997. Lacuna l 1154. 78 2 John 8 ινα µη απολεσητε α ειργασαµεθα αλλα µισθον πληρη απολαβητε απολεσωµεν...απολαβωµεν STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. απολεσοµεν...απολαβοµεν 1870. απολεσητε ... απολαβητε 1739. l 884.

126 W1 5 Z ** 1

2 Z ** 1

2 U2 Z **

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP Uncertain, lacuna before απολαβωµεν 997. απολεσωσιν...απολαβωµεν l 883. Lacuna l 1154. 79 2 John 9 (1) πας ο προαγων και µη µενων παραβαινων STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1739. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. προαγων l 884. Lacuna l 895. l 1154. 80 2 John 9 (2) ο µενων εν τη διδαχη add. Add. του χριστου STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868C. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. Sine add. 1739. Homoeoteleuton from διδαχη του χριστου to διδαχη του χριστου 1069. 1868*. Lacuna l 895. l 1154. 81 2 John 12 αλλα ελπιζω γενεσθαι προς υµας

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN 1

2Β Z ** 1

2 4 Z ** 1

2 3

127

ελθειν STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153 l 1156. l 1159. γαρ γενεσθαι 1739. Lacuna l 895. l 1154. 82 2 John 13 ασπαζεται σε τα τεκνα της αδελφης σου της εκλεκτης. add. Add. αµην STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. Sine add. 1739. Add. η χαρις µετα σου. αµην 1490. Lacuna l 895. l 1154. 83 3 John 5 εις τους αδελφους και τουτο ξενους εις τους ξενους STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. τουτο ξενους 1739. 1857. τους ξενους l 883.

128

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Z

Lacuna l 895. l 1154.

**

84 3 John 7 µηδεν λαµβανοντες απο των εθνικων εθνων STE. BFBS. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 883. l 884. l 1159. εθνικων ANT. 1739. 1857. l 680. (l 921. εθνηκων) l 938. l 1153. l 1156. Lacuna l 895. l 1154.

1

2 Z ** 1

2 LS Z ** 1

2

85 3 John 8 οφειλοµεν υπολαµβανειν τους τοιουτους απολαµβανειν STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. υπολαµβανειν 1739. 1857. υπολαµβανοντες l 884. Lacuna l 895. l 1154. 86 3 John 12 µαρτυρουµεν και οιδας οτι η µαρτυρια ηµων αληθης εστιν οιδατε STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. οιδας 1739. l 884.

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN 3 Z ** 1

2 Z ** 1/2

8 Z ** 1

2

129

οιδαµεν 1855. 1856. l 1159. Lacuna l 895. l 1154. 87 3 John 14 ελπιζω δε ευθεως σε ιδειν ιδειν σε STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. σε ιδειν 1739. Lacuna l 895. l 1154. 88 Jude 1 αδελφος δε ιακωβου τοις εν θεω πατρι ηγαπηµενοις τοις εν θεω πατρι STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. τοις εθνεσιν εν θεω πατρι 1739. Lacuna l 895. l 1154. 89 Jude 3 γραφειν υµιν περι της κοινης ηµων σωτηριας της κοινης σωτηριας STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. l 1159. της κοινης ηµων σωτηριας 999. 1739.

130 2B Z ** 1

2 3 Z ** 1

1Β 1D 1G 3 7 Z

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP της κοινης σωτηριας ηµων l 884. Lacuna l 895. l 1154. 90 Jude 4 τον µονον δεσποτην και κυριον ηµων ιησουν χριστον δεσποτην θεον και κυριον STE. BFBS. 997. 999. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 883. l 884. l 1159. δεσποτην και κυριον ANT. 1739. l 680. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1156. θεον και δεσποτην τον κυριον 996. 1003. Lacuna l 895. l 1154. 91 Jude 5 βουλοµαι ειδοτας (υµας) παντα οτι (ο) κυριος απαξ λαον ειδοτας υµας απαξ τουτο οτι ο κυριος STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1490 1739. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857C. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872*. l 680. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1156. l 1159. ειδοτας υµας απαξ τουτο οτι κυριος 1149. 1857*. ειδοτας ηµας απαξ τουτο οτι ο κυριος l 1153. ειδοτας υµας τουτο απαξ οτι ο κυριος 1872C. ειδοτας παντα οτι ιησους απαξ 1739. ειδοτας απαξ τουτο οτι ο κυριος l 884. Lacuna l 895. l 1154.

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN ** 1

3 5 Z ** 1

3 5 8 Z ** 1

131

92 Jude 15 ελεγξαι πασαν ψυχην περι παντων των εργων παντας τους ασεβεις αυτων STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 883. l 884. l 1159. παντας τους ασεβεις 999. l 680. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. παντας ασεβεις 1739. Lacuna l 895. 93 Jude 18 ελεγον υµιν (οτι) επ’ εσχατου (του) χρονου εσονται εµπαικται εν εσχατω χρονω STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 999. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 921. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. επ’ εσχατου των χρονων 1739. επ’ εσχατων των χρονων l 884. εσχατω χρονω l 938. Lacuna l 895. 94 Jude 23 και ους µεν ελατε διακρινοµενους (23) ους δε σωζετε εκ πυρος αρπαζοντες ους δε ελατε εν φοβω ους δε εν φοβω σωζετε εκ πυρος αρπαζοντες 997. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 883. l 884. l 1159.

132 1Β 1Κ 2 11 14 Z ** 1

2 2B 11 12 Z **

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP ους δε εν φοβω σωζετε εκ του πυρος αρπαζοντες STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 1003. l 680. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. ους δε εν φοβω σωζετε εκ πυρος αρπαζοντος 1022. ους δε σοζετε εκ πυρος αρπαζοντες ους δε ελατε εν φοβω 1739. ους δε εν φοβω σωζετε εκ πυρος αρπαζοντες ους δε ελατε εν φοβω 999. ους δε εν φοβω σωζετε εκ πυρος αρπαζοντες ους δε ελεγχετε εν φοβω 1868. Lacuna l 895. 95 Jude 24 τω δε δυναµενω φυλαξαι υµας απταιστους και στησαι...αµωµους φυλαξαι (ε)αυτους απταιστους STE. ANT. 996C. 997. 1069. 1149. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. φυλαξαι υµας απταιστους BFBS. 996*. 999. 1003. 1022. 1490. l 884. υµας φυλαξαι απταιστους 1739L. φυλαξαι υµας απταιστους και ασπιλους 1868. υµας φυλαξαι απταιστους και ασπιλους 1739Τ. Lacuna l 895. 96 Jude 25 (1) µονω θεω σωτηρι ηµων

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN 1

2 5 Z ** 1

2 Z ** 1

2B Z

133

µονω σοφω θεω σωτηρι ηµων STE. BFBS. ANT. 996C. 997. 999. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. l 680. l 883. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. µονω θεω σωτηρι ηµων 1739. µονω σοφω σωτηρι ηµων 996*. 1003. l 884. Lacuna l 895. 97 Jude 25 (2) δια ιησου χριστου του κυριου ηµων Omitted δια ιησου χριστου του κυριου ηµων STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 1003. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1869. 1870. 1871. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. δια ιησου χριστου του κυριου ηµων 999. 1739. 1868. 1872. Lacuna l 895. 98 Jude 25 (3) δοξα µεγαλοσυνη κρατος και εξουσια προ παντος του αιωνος Omitted προ παντος του αιωνος STE. BFBS. ANT. 996. 997. 1003*. 1022. 1069. 1149. 1490. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. l 680. l 883. l 884. l 921. l 938. l 1153. l 1154. l 1156. l 1159. προ παντος αιωνος 999. 1003C. 1739. 1872. Lacuna l 895.

Table 13: Variants of collated witnesses at ninety-eight Teststellen

134 ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN

135

136

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN

137

Table 14: Overview of the Textual Character of Collated Witnesses GA

TS

2

1/2

1

1/2+1

LS

SL

C

Z

L

996

98

6

8

74

82

1

10

3

0

0

997

91

0

9

79

88

0

3

0

7

0

999

98

4

10

78

88

0

6

0

0

0

1003

98

1

9

83

92

0

5

1

0

0

1022

98

3

10

82

92

0

3

0

0

0

1069

97

1

10

83

93

1

3

0

1

0

1149

98

0

10

87

97

0

1

0

0

0

1490

98

13

7

69

76

0

9

2

0

0

1739

98

66

7

12

19

0

13

4

0

2

1854

98

1

9

85

94

0

3

0

0

0

1855

98

1

10

85

95

0

2

1

0

0

1856

89

2

10

76

86

0

1

0

9

0

1857

98

6

11

80

91

0

1

2

0

0

1868

97

3

9

81

90

0

4

1

1

0

1869

98

2

11

85

96

0

0

1

0

0

1870

97

1

10

81

91

0

5

2

1

0

1871

98

1

10

85

95

0

2

0

0

0

1872

97

4

10

81

91

0

2

4

1

0

l 680

97

3

9

80

89

0

5

0

0

0

l 883

97

1

9

82

91

0

5

0

1

0

l 884

93

10

7

66

73

2

8

0

6

0

l 895

18

0

1

15

16

1

0

1

81

0

l 921

98

5

8

80

88

0

5

0

0

0

l 938

98

4

9

80

89

0

5

0

0

0

l 1153 98

4

9

79

88

0

6

0

0

0

l 1154 61

1

4

52

56

0

4

0

38

0

l 1156 95

3

9

78

87

0

5

0

3

0

l 1159 98

1

10

85

95

0

2

0

0

0

ANT

4

9

83

92

0

2

0

0

0

98

Table 15: Agreements of Collated Witnesses in Percentages

138 ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN

139

140

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Table 16: Agreements Ranking Manuscript Agreement with Antoniades’ Edition at Ninety-Eight Teststellen W2 GA/printed ed.

agree-

number of

Of com-

ments

agree-

pared

in %

ments

TSS

1

l 1156.

91.58

87

95

2

l 1159. STE.

89.80

88

98

l 895.

88.89

16

18

3

1869. l 938. BFBS.

88.78

87

98

4

1856.

88.76

79

89

5

1149. 1855. l 921. l 1153.

87.76

86

98

6

l 883.

87.63

85

97

7

l 1154.

86.89

53

61

8

1871.

86.73

85

98

9

1868.

86.60

84

97

10

l 680.

85.57

83

97

11

1003. 1857.

84.69

83

98

12

997.

84.62

77

91

13

1069.

84.54

82

97

14

1854.

83.67

82

98

15

1872.

83.51

81

97

16

1870.

82.47

80

97

17

1022.

78.57

77

98

18

999.

76.53

75

98

19

1490.

71.43

70

98

20

l 884.

71.28

67

94

21

996.

70.41

69

98

22

1739.

21.43

21

98

(3)

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN

CONCLUDING A NALYSIS

141

As we saw in Chapter 1, Antoniades’ goal was to produce an edition independent of any other printed edition and the great majuscule script manuscripts. His edition was supposed to represent the Constantinopolitan ecclesiastical textual family. Antoniades also noted that, with a few exceptions, his edition entirely reflected the manuscripts apart from punctuation and orthography. Considering that he listed twenty-eight manuscripts as the basis for the Praxapostolos of his edition and that the edition has no critical apparatus, one might conclude that Antoniades’ group of manuscripts represents a distinctive Constantinopolitan textual family. If that were the case, that special textual family should exhibit a high level of textual coherence, especially among the lectionaries that are emphasized as the primary sources and, in a way, as the basic criterion of the edition. If this were the situation, we would expect a high level of textual coherence among Antoniades’ witnesses, as well as an exceptionally high level of coherence between his text and the manuscripts that he used. Additionally, it would also follow from Antoniades’ explicit comments that there are no witnesses among his manuscripts to the textual form that is closely related to the great majuscules. However, the results of the comparison and analysis of the data in this chapter indicate that the situation is far more complex than would be expected based on the information from the edition’s introduction. First, we can see that among the witnesses that are extent in all ninety-eight Teststellen, the one with the highest level of agreement with the Antoniades edition is GA l 1159 and Stephanus’ 1550 edition, both sharing 88 of the 98 readings (89.80%). These two witnesses are followed by GA 1869. l 938. and the BFBS edition with 87/98 (88.78%). The high level of agreements between Antoniades’ text and the text of the printed editions suggests dependence on these editions, as Eberhard Nestle already observed. This dependence is reflected also in the fact that the edition contains Acts 8:37, which is present only in GA 1739 among Antoniades’ witnesses. Two points are important here: Antoniades’ text of Acts 8:37 is not identical to the text in GA 1739 and, additionally, GA 1739 contains a text very similar to that of the great majuscules (and, therefore, also

142

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

to reconstructed critical text). According to the CBGM database, the text of GA 1739 is found in the second rank of potential descendants of the Initial Text of the Catholic Epistles. GA 1739 agrees with Antoniades’ text in only twenty-one of the ninetyeight Teststellen (21.43%). Although Antoniades did not include any of the great majuscules or any critical editions among his sources, he thus did include one manuscript whose textual form is closely related to such witnesses. We can also see that the agreement of Antoniades’ text with other witnesses fluctuates significantly between those with the highest (GA l 1159) and the lowest (GA 1739) level of agreement. Although the nearly 90% agreement between Antoniades’ text and l 1159 is relatively high from the general perspective of the history of New Testament texts, it remains low if we take into account the assumption of a controlled ecclesiastical text whose textual coherence should be higher than average. If we exclude GA 1739 and l 884, there are four further manuscripts (GA 996, 999, 1022, 1490) with an agreement lower than 80% with the Antoniades text. Moreover, although there are some manuscripts that agree with the Antoniades edition in at least 90% of the Teststellen, taken as a whole his manuscripts do not represent a single textually coherent group. Among Antoniades’ manuscripts GA 1855 and l 1159 agree at the highest level in ninety-six of the ninety-eight Teststellen (97.96%). Together the data suggest that Antoniades’ manuscripts do not represent a single textually coherent group. His text of the Catholic Epistles cannot represent the text of the manuscripts that he listed as his sources. The text of the edition is not particularly close to any witness in such a way that would indicate that the edition was based on a single manuscript, as some scholars have suggested.4 Antoniades’ edition is eclectic because it represents a combination of readings from different manuscripts and most likely also editions. It was not produced independently of the Textus Receptus. In most cases, Antoniades adopted the variant that was witnessed in most of his manuscripts. However, in some cases Cf. The section on Orthodox New Testament Textual Scholarship since Antoniades in Chapter 1 above. 4

CHAPTER THREE. TESTSTELLEN

143

he chose variants witnessed in a smaller number of manuscripts. The most extreme case is Teststelle 23 where Antoniades adopted variant 2, εστιν ο κυριος και οικτιρµων (attested outside printed editions only in 1739 1869 and the corrected text of l 895) instead of variant 1, εστιν και οικτιρµων (witnessed by twenty-four of his manuscripts). The textual data indicates that, in the end, Antoniades prepared his edition without any systematic principles.

CHAPTER FOUR. THE EDITIO CRITICA MAIOR AND ANTONIADES’ TEXT OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES In this chapter I present collations and analyze the textual differences between ECM and Antoniades’ text of the Catholic Epistles. After collating Antoniades’ text with the Initial Text of the ECM, I analyze the significance of the differences between the ECM and Antoniades’ text of the Catholic Epistles. Additionally, I give special attention to twelve selected variation units, providing textual commentary.

COLLATIONS

Aside from punctuation, capital letters, movable nu, and final sigma, all differences for a particular variation unit are provided in the collations. Where Antoniades’ text and the ECM’s alternative variant readings (♦) are the same, they are marked by ECM’s apparatus corresponding letter and a diamond indicating that the guiding line is split. Variation unit addresses are given according to the ECM’s model: to each word is assigned an even number and each space an odd number. In some cases, the variation units in Antoniades do not completely match those in the ECM. This, however, does not affect the possibility of locating each variant reading. The collations are presented in the format ECM] Antoniades. 1. 2.

Jas 1:5/30 µή] οὐκ Jas 1:7/16 λήµψεταί] λήψεταί 145

146

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

Jas 1:12/18 λήµψεταί] λήψεταί Jas 1:12/31 om.] ὁ Κύριος Jas 1:19/2 Ἴστε] Ὥστε Jas 1:19/12 δέ] om. Jas 1:25/24 om.] οὗτος Jas 1:26/10 om.] ἐν ὑµῖν Jas 2:1/10 προσωποληµψίαις] προσωποληψίαις Jas 2:2/9 om.] τήν Jas 2:3/2–4 ἐπιβλέψητε δέ] καὶ ἐπιβλέψητε Jas 2:3/23 om.] αὐτῷ Jas 2:3/44–48 ἢ κάθου ἐκεῖ] ἐκεῖ ἢ κάθου ὧδε Jas 2:5/22–24 τῷ κόσµῳ] τοῦ κόσµου Jas 2:9/6 προσωποληµπτεῖτε] προσωποληπτεῖτε Jas 2:11/26–28 µοιχεύεις, φονεύεις] b♦ µοιχεύσεις, φονεύσεις Jas 2:15/3 om.] δέ Jas 2:17/14–16 ἔχῃ ἔργα] ἔργα ἔχῃ Jas 2:18/30 χωρίς] ἐκ Jas 2:18/35 om.] σου Jas 2:18/38–40 σοι δείξω] δείξω σοι Jas 2:18/53 om.] µου Jas 2:19/8–14 εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός] ὁ Θεός εἷς ἐστι Jas 2:20/26 ἀργή] νεκρά Jas 2:24/3 om.] τοίνυν Jas 2:26/27 om.] τῶν Jas 3:1/22 ληµψόµεθα] ληψόµεθα Jas 3:3/2–4 εἰ δέ] ἴδε Jas 3:3/22 εἰς] πρός Jas 3:4/18–20 ἀνέµων σκληρῶν] b♦ σκληρῶν ἀνέµων Jas 3:4/32–42 ὅπου ἡ ὁρµὴ τοῦ εὐθύνοντος βούλεται] ὅπου ἂν ἡ ὁρµὴ τοῦ εὐθύνοντος βούληται Jas 3:5/18–20 µεγάλα αὐχεῖ] µεγαλαυχεῖ Jas 3:5/24 ἡλίκον] ὀλίγον Jas 3:6/17 om.] οὕτως Jas 3:8/10–14 δαµάσαι δύναται ἀνθρώπων] δύναται ἀνθρώπων δαµάσαι Jas 3:8/16 ἀκατάστατον] ἀκατάσχετον Jas 3:9/10 κύριον] θεόν

CHAPTER FOUR. THE EDITIO CRITICA MAIOR 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73.

147

Jas 3:12/21 om.] οὕτως Jas 3:12/22–26 οὔτε ἁλυκὸν γλυκύ] οὐδεµία πηγὴ ἁλυκὸν καὶ γλυκύ Jas 3:17/37 om.] καί Jas 3:18/5 om.] τῆς Jas 4:1/8 πόθεν] om. Jas 4:2/29 om.] καί Jas 4:4/1 om.] µοιχοὶ καί Jas 4:4/28 ἐάν] ἄν Jas 4:5/28 κατῴκισεν] κατῴκησεν Jas 4:7/12 δέ] om. Jas 4:9/22 µετατραπήτω] b♦ µεταστραφήτω Jas 4:11/16 ἤ] καί Jas 4:12/32–34 ὁ κρίνων] c♦ ὃς κρίνεις Jas 4:12/38 πλησίον] ἕτερον Jas 4:13/12 ἤ] καί Jas 4:13/33 om.] ἕνα Jas 4:14/15 om.] γάρ Jas 4:14/26 ἐστε] ἔσται Jas 4:14/38 om.] δέ Jas 5:5/21 om.] ὡς Jas 5:7/45 πρόϊµον] ὑετὸν πρώϊµον Jas 5:9/6–10 ἀδελφοί, κατ᾽ ἀλλήλων] κατ᾽ ἀλλήλων ἀδελφοί Jas 5:10/7 om.] µου Jas 5:10/26 ἐν] om. Jas 5:11/8 ὑποµείναντας] ὑποµένοντας Jas 5:12/60–62 ὑπὸ κρίσιν] εἴς ὑπόκρισιν Jas 5:16/4 οὖν] om. Jas 5:16/8–10 τὰς ἁµαρτίας] τὰ παραπτώµατα Jas 5:19/4 µου] om. Jas 5:20/24 αὐτοῦ] om. 1 Pet 1:6/18 λυπηθέντας] λυπηθέντες 1 Pet 1:7/38–42 δόξαν καὶ τιµήν] τιµὴν καὶ δόξαν 1 Pet 1:8/6 ἰδόντες] εἰδότες 1 Pet 1:10/12 ἐξηραύνησαν] ἐξηρεύνησαν 1 Pet 1:11/2 ἐραυνῶντες] ἐρευνῶντες 1 Pet 1:16/8 ἔσεσθε] γίνεσθε

148

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109.

1 Pet 1:16/12–14 ἐγὼ ἅγιος] ἐγὼ ἅγιός εἰµι 1 Pet 1:20/18 ἐσχάτου] ἐσχάτων 1 Pet 1:21/8 πιστούς] πιστεύοντας 1 Pet 1:22/19 om.] διὰ πνεύµατος 1 Pet 1:23/12 ἀλλ᾽] ἀλλά 1 Pet 1:23/27 om.] εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα 1 Pet 1:24/18 αὐτῆς] ἀνθρώπου 1 Pet 1:24/37 om.] αὐτοῦ 1 Pet 2:3/2 εἰ] εἴπερ 1 Pet 2:5/18 εἰς] om. 1 Pet 2:5/31 om.] τῷ 1 Pet 2:6/7 om.] τῇ 1 Pet 2:7/14 ἀπιστοῦσιν] ἀπειθοῦσι 1 Pet 2:7/18 λίθος] λίθον 1 Pet 2:11/14 ἀπέχεσθαι] ἀπέχεσθε 1 Pet 2:12/8–14 ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἔχοντες καλήν] ἔχοντες καλὴν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν 1 Pet 2:12/40 ἐποπτεύοντες] b♦ ἐποπτεύσαντες 1 Pet 2:13/3 om.] οὖν 1 Pet 2:16/28–30 θεοῦ δοῦλοι] δοῦλοι θεοῦ 1 Pet 2:21/20 ὑµῶν] ἡµῶν 1 Pet 2:24/47 om.] αὐτοῦ 1 Pet 2:25/10 πλανώµενοι] πλανώµενα 1 Pet 3:4/22 πραέως] πραέος 1 Pet 3:5/20 εἰς] ἐπί 1 Pet 3:5/21 om.] b♦ τόν 1 Pet 3:7/32 συγκληρονόµοις] συγκληρονόµοι 1 Pet 3:8/18 ταπεινόφρονες] φιλόφρονες 1 Pet 3:9/25 om.] εἰδότες 1 Pet 3:10/25 om.] αὐτοῦ 1 Pet 3:10/33 om.] αὐτοῦ 1 Pet 3:11/4 δὲ] om. 1 Pet 3:13/18 ζηλωταί] µιµηταί 1 Pet 3:15/8 χριστόν] θεόν 1 Pet 3:15/21 om.] δέ 1 Pet 3:16/24 καταλαλεῖσθε] καταλαλοῦσιν ὑµῶν ὡς κακοποιῶν 1 Pet 3:18/24 ὑµᾶς] ἡµᾶς

CHAPTER FOUR. THE EDITIO CRITICA MAIOR 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141.

149

1 Pet 3:20/32 ὀλίγοι] b♦ ὀλίγαι 1 Pet 3:21/4–10 καὶ ὑµᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν] ἀντίτυπον νῦν καὶ ἡµᾶς 1 Pet 4:1/7 om.] ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν 1 Pet 4:1/27 om.] ἐν 1 Pet 4:3/6–10 ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος] ὑµῖν ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος τοῦ βίου 1 Pet 4:3/14 βούληµα] θέληµα 1 Pet 4:3/20 κατειργάσθαι] κατεργάσασθαι 1 Pet 4:7/21 om.] τάς 1 Pet 4:8/19 om.] ἡ 1 Pet 4:8/22 καλύπτει] καλύψει 1 Pet 4:9/10 γογγυσµοῦ] γογγυσµῶν 1 Pet 4:14/21 om.] καὶ δυνάµεως 1 Pet 4:14/37 om.] κατὰ µὲν αὐτοὺς βλασφηµεῖται, κατὰ δὲ ὑµᾶς δοξάζεται 1 Pet 4:15/24–28 ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος] ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος 1 Pet 4:19/19 om.] ὡς 1 Pet 5:2/26–28 κατὰ θεόν] om. 1 Pet 5:5/15 om.] ὑποτασσόµενοι 1 Pet 5:7/10 ἐπιρίψαντες] ἐπιρρίψαντες 1 Pet 5:8/26 καταπιεῖν] καταπίῃ 1 Pet 5:10/28–30 ἐν Χριστῷ] c♦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ 1 Pet 5:10/39 om.] ὑµᾶς 1 Pet 5:11/3 om.] ἡ δόξα καί 1 Pet 5:11/13 om.] b♦ τῶν αἰώνων 1 Pet 5:12/46 στῆτε] ἑστήκατε 1 Pet 5:14/22 Χριστῷ] b♦ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ 1 Pet 5:14/23 om.] ἀµήν 2 Pet 1:3/40–46 ἰδίᾳ δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ] διὰ δόξης καὶ ἀρετῆς 2 Pet 1:4/10–14 καὶ µέγιστα ἡµῖν] b♦ ἡµῖν καὶ µέγιστα 2 Pet 1:4/40 τῷ] f♦ om. 2 Pet 1:12/4 µελλήσω] οὐκ ἀµελήσω 2 Pet 1:17/34–48 ὁ υἱός µου ὁ ἀγαπητός µου οὗτός ἐστιν] οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός µου ὁ ἀγαπητός 2 Pet 1:18/28–32 ἁγίῳ ὄρει] ὄρει τῷ ἁγίῳ

150

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178.

2 Pet 1:21/12–14 προφητεία ποτέ] c♦ ποτὲ προφητεία 2 Pet 1:21/28 ἀπό] ἅγιοι 2 Pet 2:3/38 νυστάζει] b♦ νυστάξει 2 Pet 2:5/12 ἀλλ᾽] ἀλλά 2 Pet 2:12/12–14 γεγεννηµένα φυσικά] φυσικὰ γεγενηµένα 2 Pet 2:12/40–42 καὶ φθαρήσονται] καταφθαρήσονται 2 Pet 2:13/2 ἀδικούµενοι] κοµιούµενοι 2 Pet 2:17/10–12 καὶ ὁµίχλαι] νεφέλαι 2 Pet 2:17/29 om.] εἰς αἰῶνα 2 Pet 2:18/24 ἀποφεύγοντας] ἀποφυγόντας 2 Pet 2:19/27 om.] καί 2 Pet 2:21/26 ὑποστρέψαι] ἐπιστρέψαι 2 Pet 2:22/3 om.] δέ 2 Pet 2:22/34 κυλισµόν] b♦ κύλισµα 2 Pet 3:3/14 ἐσχάτων] b♦ ἐσχάτου 2 Pet 3:3/20–22 ἐν ἐµπαιγµονῇ] om. 2 Pet 3:6/4 ὅν] ὧν 2 Pet 3:7/18 αὐτῷ] αὐτοῦ 2 Pet 3:9/5 om.] ὁ 2 Pet 3:9/26 ὑµᾶς] ἡµᾶς 2 Pet 3:10/5 om.] b♦ ἡ 2 Pet 3:10/13 om.] ἐν νυκτί 2 Pet 3:10/32 λυθήσεται] λυθήσονται 2 Pet 3:10/48–50 οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται] κατακαήσεται 2 Pet 3:11/4 οὕτως] ούν 2 Pet 3:15/36–38 δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ] αὐτῷ δοθεῖσαν 2 Pet 3:16/26 αἷς] οἷς 2 Pet 3:16/44 στρεβλώσουσιν] στρεβλοῦσιν 2 Pet 3:18/45 om.] ἀµήν 1 John 1:3/12 καί] om. 1 John 1:4/8 ἡµεῖς] ὑµῖν 1 John 1:5/4–6 ἔστιν αὕτη] αὕτη ἐστίν 1 John 1:5/10 ἀγγελία] ἐπαγγελία 1 John 1:7/3 om.] b♦ δέ 1 John 1:7/39 om.] χριστοῦ 1 John 2:4/6 ὅτι] b♦ om. 1 John 2:7/2 ἀγαπητοί] ἀδελφοί

CHAPTER FOUR. THE EDITIO CRITICA MAIOR 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214.

151

1 John 2:7/45 om.] ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς 1 John 2:18/17 om.] ὁ 1 John 2:19/6 ἐξῆλθαν] ἐξῆλθον 1 John 2:19/22–26 ἐξ ἡµῶν ἦσαν] ἦσαν ἐξ ἡµῶν 1 John 2:20/20 πάντες] πάντα 1 John 2:23/20–34 ὁ ὁµολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει] om. 1 John 2:24/3 om.] οὐν 1 John 2:27/18–22 µένει ἐν ὑµῖν] ἐν ὑµῖν µένει 1 John 2:27/46 αὐτοῦ] αὐτό 1 John 2:27/80 µένετε] µενεῖτε 1 John 2:28/16 ἐάν] ὅταν 1 John 2:28/20 σχῶµεν] ἔχωµεν 1 John 2:29/16 καί] om. 1 John 3:1/24–26 καὶ ἐσµέν] om. 1 John 3:2/23 om.] δέ 1 John 3:5/17 om.] ἡµῶν 1 John 3:7/2 παιδία] τεκνία 1 John 3:13/2 καί] om. 1 John 3:13/9 om.] µου 1 John 3:14/35 om.] τὸν ἀδελφόν 1 John 3:15/38 αὐτῷ] ἑαυτῷ 1 John 3:16/44 θεῖναι] τιθέναι 1 John 3:18/3 om.] µου 1 John 3:19/8 γνωσόµεθα] γινώσκοµεν 1 John 3:19/28–30 τὴν καρδίαν] τὰς καρδίας 1 John 3:21/15 om.] ἡµῶν 1 John 3:22/12 ἀπ᾽] παρ᾽ 1 John 3:23/44 ἡµῖν] om. 1 John 4:3/16 Ἰησοῦν] Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν 1 John 4:3/17 om.] ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα 1 John 4:10/18 ἠγαπήκαµεν] ἠγαπήσαµεν 1 John 4:12/34–40 ἐν ἡµῖν τετελειωµένη ἐστίν] b♦ τετελειωµένη ἐστιν ἐν ἡµῖν 1 John 4:15/4 ἐάν] ἄν 1 John 4:16/66 µένει] om. 1 John 4:19/5 om.] αὐτόν 1 John 4:20/42 αὐτοῦ] om.

152

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221.

222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246.

1 John 4:20/58 οὐ] b♦ πῶς 1 John 5:2/36 ποιῶµεν] τηρῶµεν 1 John 5:5/4 δέ] om. 1 John 5:6/42 ἐν] g♦ om. 1 John 5:7/11–8/1 om.] ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦµα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι· 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ µαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ 1 John 5:9/40 ὅτι] ἥν 1 John 5:13/8–36 ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ] τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχετε, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύητε εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ ὑιοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ 1 John 5:15/4 ἐάν] ἄν 1 John 5:15/34 ἀπ᾽] παρ᾽ 1 John 5:21/6 ἑαυτά] b♦ ἑαυτούς 1 John 5:21/13 om.] ἀµήν 2 John 3/6 ἡµῶν] ὑµῶν 2 John 3/23 om.] κυρίου 2 John 5/24 ἀλλ᾽] ἀλλά 2 John 6/26–30 ἡ ἐντολή ἐστιν] ἐστιν ἡ ἐντολή 2 John 7/8 ἐξῆλθον] εἰσῆλθον 2 John 8/10 ἀπολέσητε] ἀπολέσωµεν 2 John 8/22 ἀπολάβητε] ἀπολάβωµεν 2 John 9/6 προάγων] παραβαίνων 2 John 9/39 om.] τοῦ Χριστοῦ 2 John 11/4–6 λέγων γάρ] γὰρ λέγων 2 John 12/12 ἐβουλήθην] ἠβουλήθην 2 John 12/22 ἀλλ᾽] ἀλλά 2 John 12/26 γενέσθαι] ἐλθεῖν 2 John 13/19 om.] ἀµήν 3 John 5/22 τοῦτο] εἰς τούς 3 John 8/8 ὑπολαµβάνειν] ἀπολαµβάνειν 3 John 9/4 τι] om. 3 John 12/12 ὑπό] ὑπ᾽ 3 John 12/30 οἶδας] οἴδατε 3 John 13/6–8 γράψαι σοι] γράφειν 3 John 13/24–26 γράφειν] γράψαι

CHAPTER FOUR. THE EDITIO CRITICA MAIOR 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268.

153

3 John 14/8–10 σε ἰδεῖν] ἰδεῖν σε Jude 1/24 ἠγαπηµένοις] ἡγιασµένοις Jude 3/20 ἡµῶν] om. Jude 4/34 χάριτα] χάριν Jude 5/14–20 πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς] τοῦτο ὅτι ὁ Κύριος Jude 5/26 γῆς] τῆς Jude 6/18 ἀλλ᾽] ἀλλά Jude 7/24–26 τρόπον τούτοις] τούτοις τρόπον Jude 12/6 οἱ] om. Jude 13/31 om.] τόν Jude (TS 92)15/14–16 πᾶσαν ψυχήν] πάντας τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς αὐτῶν Jude 16/16 ἑαυτῶν] αὐτῶν Jude 18/7 om.] b♦ ὅτι Jude 18/8–12 ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου χρόνου] ἐν ἐσχάτῳ χρόνῳ Jude 20/8–18 ἐποικοδοµοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑµῶν πίστει] τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑµῶν πίστει ἐποικο-δοµοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς Jude 22/8–10 ἐλεᾶτε διακρινοµένους] ἐλεεῖτε διακρινόµενοι Jude 23/2–20 οὓς δὲ σῴζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ] οὓς δὲ ἐν φόβῳ σῴζετε, ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες Jude 24/10 ὑµᾶς] αὐτούς Jude 25/3 om.] σοφῷ Jude 25/10–20 διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν] om. Jude 25/23 om.] καί Jude 25/32–38 πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος] om.

THE NATURE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ECM AND ANTONIADES’ EDITION

There are no universal principles for an objective interpretation and evaluation of textual differences. The interpretation of differences always depends on the observer and their overall purpose. The present analysis considers the position of Orthodox users: editors, theologians, exegetes, listeners in the church, lay readers, and translators. In this regard, the analysis will be guided by two

154

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

main principles: textual originality and pragmatism. While we should not doubt that the original form of the texts is indispensable, regardless of confessional or other presuppositions, changes are sometimes necessary to make the texts meet the needs of users in different contexts. Among the passages collated above, there are seventy-four differences that are purely formal; they do not influence meaning. Among those are twenty-two orthographica (passages 2, 3, 9, 15, 27, 45, 71, 72, 78, 96, 123, 127, 145, 181, 211, 222, 228, 236, 237, 243, 250, 253), seventeen transpositions (passages 18, 21, 23, 30, 35, 59, 69, 89, 92, 137, 141, 142, 167, 173, 182, 186, 210, 229, 235, 247, 254), eleven differences in article usage (passages 10, 26, 41, 84, 85, 98, 117, 118, 138, 160, 180, 255, 256), and twenty-four cases in which the guiding line in ECM is split (passages 16, (30), 48, 50, 90, (98), 110, 129, 132, 134, (137), (138), (142), 144, 155, 156, (162), 175, 177, (210), 215, 218, 224, 259). The preponderance of the other 194 differences do not in any way affect the meaning of the text. However, there are several variants that to a greater or lesser extent affect the meaning of the text. I present twelve variation units with comments below, which I selected for more detailed comment because they are significant in terms of meaning and illustrate well the two principles of selection central to my argument: originality and pragmatism.

A COMMENTARY ON THE SELECTED VARIATION PASSAGES Jas 1:12/31 om.] ὁ Κύριος

The ECM records the following variants: a) om., b) κυριος, c) ο κυριος, d) ο θεος, and e) ο αψευδης θεος. The hypothesis of the genealogy of this variation unit is presented as a local stemma in Figure 1.1

1

http://intf.uni-muenster.de/cbgm/.

CHAPTER FOUR. THE EDITIO CRITICA MAIOR

155

Figure 1: Local stemma Jas 1:12/31

The possibility of development of variant b from two variants: a and c is indicated by the results of the module Coherence in Attestations presented in Figure 2 below. As we can see, besides the initial text (siglum A) there are four witnesses with variant c that are potential ancestors with ranking number 1 to the five witnesses with variant b. GA 1739 with variant d is a potential ancestor of GA 04 with variant b but with ranking number 2 which indicates that that scenario would be less probable. Besides, it is not difficult to imagine that it could happen several times in transmission history that a scribe would omit article from variant c) ο κυριος and in that way would create variant b) κυριος. Figure 2: Coherence in Attestations Jas 1:12/31

All variants except e) ο αψευδης θεος, are present also in Antoniades’ manuscripts.2

2

Cf. collation for TS 2.

156

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Antoniades adopted the Byzantine majority variant: c) ο κυριος. McCartney believes that the subject of this passage is clear based on the context.3 However, if the implied subject were entirely clear, there would be no need to add it in the first place. Comfort has observed, not only ancient users and translators inserted the Lord or God as the subject, but also modern translators.4 Omanson warned translators that the implicit subject of the verb ἐπηγγείλατο is almost certainly the Lord God and not the Lord Jesus. For that reason he suggests that translators make the subject clear by adding the noun God, a choice made by the translators of the REB and TEV.5 Weiss and Hort also believed that the subject is God.6 Hartin placed the noun God in parentheses in his translation.7 We can see here that neither the original nor majority Byzantine or ecclesiastical variant correctly represent the meaning. From a text-critical perspective, all additions to the initial text should be ignored. However, from the point of view of the textual pragmatist, for a theologian, exegete, translator, lay reader or listener in the church, the subject is required here. Yet, the subject (ο) κυριος remains ambiguous at this place, as Omanson noted, particularly because it seems that the implied subject was the God. For this reason, I would suggest that Orthodox editions adopt the variant d) ο θεος, somehow indicating its secondary nature. This

3 Dan G. McCartney, James, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 102. 4 Cf. Philip W Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Carol Stream: Tyndale, 2008), 728. Cf. also Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 608; Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text der katholischen Briefe: Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Koine des Neuen Testaments, 209. 5 Roger L. Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2012), 468. 6 Bernhard Weiss, Die katholischen Briefe: Textkritische Untersuchungen und Textherstellung (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1892), 95. Fenton John Anthony Hort and John Owen Farquhar Murray, The Epistle of St. James: The Greek Text with Introduction, Commentary as far as Chapter IV, verse 7, and Additional Notes (London: Macmillan, 1909), 20. 7 Patrick J. Hartin, James (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 88.

CHAPTER FOUR. THE EDITIO CRITICA MAIOR

157

choice retains the integrity of the earliest textual form and avoids ambiguity. Jas 1:19/2 Ἴστε] Ὥστε and Jas 1:19/12 δέ] om.

These two variants are codependent. B. Metzger, R. Omanson, and P. Comfort noted that the Byzantine variant readings (Ὥστε along with omission of δέ) emerged as an attempt to make a smooth transition from James 1:18 to 1:19.8 It should be noted that the second pericope of James in the Byzantine lectionary and the second chapter of the Euthalian apparatus both begin with 1:19.9 The following variants recorded in the ECM arose as lectionary incipits: g) αδελφοι µου αγαπητοι, h) αδελφοι αγαπητοι, i) αδελφοι, and j) αγαπητοι. Lectionary variants were probably based on the Byzantine text, otherwise, it would be difficult to explain the change of the reading Ἴστε…δέ, which would serve very well as an incipit of the lectionary. These variants do not significantly affect the meaning of the text. Nevertheless, the verb Ἴστε can be understood as a warning that draws special attention what follows (cf. CSB GNT LEB NIV NIRV NRS ASV ESV NLT RSV CEB). The initial variants might therefore be considered as more suitable for both the Orthodox lectionary and continuous text editions since it is most likely the earliest preserved text and also more pragmatic for both lectionary and continuous text than the Byzantine majority variant. Jas 1:26/10 om.] ἐν ὑµῖν

K. Wachtel noted that the addition ἐν ὑµῖν fits well to the context.10 However, he also noted that the addition ἐν ὑµῖν represents a harmonization in relation to James’ style, while the motive for omitting it, if it were the initial reading, would be difficult to Cf. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 609; Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament, 470; Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, 725. 9 Vemund Blomkvist and David Hellholm, Euthalian Traditions: Text, Translation and Commentary, TU 170 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 60. 10 Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text der katholischen Briefe: Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Koine des Neuen Testaments, 218. 8

158

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

understand. In addition, the external evidence suggests that it is most likely secondary. However, it seems that this addendum can help listeners or readers to identify themselves more easily with the recipients of the message, a point illustrated, for example, by the WEB translation that is based on the Byzantine text: If anyone among you thinks himself to be religious. I would suggest therefore, that for the sake of better understanding and more effective reception, the phrase ἐν ὑµῖν should be included in Orthodox editions with the indication that it is secondary in the tradition. Jas 2:5/22–24 τῷ κόσµῳ ] τοῦ κόσµου

The variations of this passage influence the understanding of the relationship between the poor and the world. CBGM’s local stemma presents the hypothesis of the textual history of this variation unit (Figure 3). Figure 3: Local stemma Jas 2:5/22–26

The local stemma represents a hypothesis of the history of the following variants: a) τω κοσµω πλουσιους, b) και τω κοσµω πλουσιους, c) εν τω κοσµω πλουσιους, d) εν κοσµω πλουσιους, e) του κοσµου πλουσιους, f) του κοσµου πλουσιως, g) του κοσµου τουτου πλουσιους, h) του κοσµου ἢ πλουσιους, and i) om. According to ECM, variants b, c, d, f, h, and i are very poorly attested and do not appear to have played any important role in the history of the text and its reception, although some of them represent attempts to overcome the difficulties associated with the oldest variant. Variants a, e, and g are historically significant. Variant a is considered to be the initial text. Antoniades adopted the Byzantine

CHAPTER FOUR. THE EDITIO CRITICA MAIOR

159

majority variant e, attested also in the Georgian, Armenian, and Old Church Slavonic versions. Variant g is attested in some thirty manuscripts and Pseudo-Oecumenius. The g reading is also adopted in the Textus Receptus. Both external evidence and internal probabilities suggest that reading a is the earliest; it is attested in manuscripts in which the ancient form of the text predominates. This reading’s originality is also supported by the CBGM database, and variant a is the most difficult reading. It is therefore likely that variants e and g were developed as simplifications of the variant a. The differences in the variants are illustrated by some English translations. Translations that read “the poor of this world” are based on the variant g) του κοσµου τουτου πλουσιους, i.e. on Textus Receptus (cf. YLT WBT TMB KJV NKJV NAS JUB). Some translations contain “the poor of this world”, based on the Byzantine majority variant e) του κοσµου πλουσιους (cf. CJB LEB). The variants g and e in the genitive case are not ambiguous in their possessive function. This is not the case with variant a) τω κοσµω πλουσιους. Its dative case can be interpreted as possessive, locative, dative of reference, and even as instrumental. If it is interpreted as possessive, its meaning would not differ from variant e) του κοσµου πλουσιους. Certain translations have interpreted variant a) τω κοσµω πλουσιους as locative (cf. RSV ESV NIRV WEB HNV CSB NLT RHE NCV NRS GW), but some have interpreted it as the dative of reference.11 Here are some examples: “those who are poor in the world’s estimation” (BDAG); “the poor in the eyes of the world” (F. J. A. Hort);12 “the poor by the standard of the world” (J. H. Ropes);13 “them that are poor as to the world” (ASV); “those whom the world regards as poor” (WNT); “those who are poor in the eyes of the world” (NIV); “the poor as to the world” (DBY). The ECM’s variant a) τω κοσµω πλουσιους indicates Cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 144–46. 12 Hort and Murray, The Epistle of St. James: The Greek Text with Introduction, Commentary as far as Chapter IV, verse 7, and Additional Notes, 51. 13 James Hardy Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1916), 193. 11

160

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

that the world and God perceive the poor in completely different ways.14 In contrast to the world’s standards, those that are perceived by world as poor are chosen as rich in faith by God. Variant a therefore coheres to its immediate context better than the remaining readings. Since variant a is most likely the earliest reading and is significant in terms of meaning, I would argue that it should be adopted in the Orthodox editions. Jas 2:18/30 χωρίς] ἐκ

This variation unit is longer in the ECM than in my collation. Figure 4 presents a local stemma of nine extant variants in Greek.15 Figure 4: Local stemma Jas 2:18/24–34

The local stemma represents a hypothesis of the textual history of the following variants: a) την πιστιν σου χωρις των εργων, b) την πιστιν σου χωρις των εργων σου, c) την πιστιν χωρις των εργων σου, [d) (την) πιστιν χωρις των εργων],16 e) την πιστιν σου εκ των εργων σου, f) την πιστιν σου εκ των εργων, g) την πιστιν εκ των εργων, h) εκ των εργων σου την πιστιν σου, i) την πιστιν σου εργων σου, j) την πιστιν σου. Both external evidence and internal probabilities suggest the originality of the variant reading χωρίς (“without” or Cf. Hort and Murray, The Epistle of St. James: The Greek Text with Introduction, Commentary as far as Chapter IV, verse 7, and Additional Notes, 51. 15 Cf. http://intf.uni-muenster.de/cbgm/index_en.html. 16 Variant d was witnessed only in Latin version: L:F. For that reason it was not included in the CBGM. 14

CHAPTER FOUR. THE EDITIO CRITICA MAIOR

161

“apart”). The difference between χωρίς and ἐκ at this place is significant. The variant ἐκ most likely arose as the result of a misunderstanding. James is asking an imaginary debater to show faith without or apart from action or deeds, assuming that it is impossible.17 By replacing χωρίς with ἐκ the Byzantine text misses the point of the passage. I would therefore suggest that Orthodox editions adopt the variant reading χωρίς. Jas 4:4/1 µοιχαλίδες] µοιχοὶ καὶ µοιχαλίδες

In the ECM there are three variants at this passage: a) om., b) µοιχοι και, and c) µοιχοι. Variant c is a singular reading and b is a Byzantine majority reading. The hypothesis of the genealogical relationships of these variants, according to the ECM editors, is presented in the Local Stemma in Figure 5. Figure 5: Local Stemma Jas 4:4/1

Scholars agree that James did not use µοιχαλίδες literally, but rather in the way it was used in the Bible to occasionally illustrate the relationship between God and Israel.18 However, the variant Cf. Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Comments (London: Macmillan, 1910), 99. 18 Cf. James Hardy Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1916), 260. Martin Dibelius and Heinrich Greeven, Der Brief des Jakobus, 6th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 263; Christoph Burchard, Der Jakobusbrief, HNT 15,5 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 169–70; Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text 17

162

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

in its original form could lead to misconceptions. Some could read the passage as if James was exclusively addressing women as sexually immoral. On the other hand, the Byzantine reading is misleading through the banalization and, therefore, deprives the text of its original meaning. Ropes noted that µοιχαλιδες can be explained only by its figurative sense.19 When it comes to the editions of the Greek text, it seems that it would be best to adopt variant a) µοιχαλιδες with the addition of a footnote that explains the intertextual meaning of this variant.20 Jas 5:5/22–24 ἐν ἡµέρᾳ] ὡς ἐν ἡµέρᾳ

In the ECM there are five variants at this passage. A hypothesis of their history is presented in the local stemma in Figure 6. Figure 6: Local Stemma Jas 5:5/22–24

The local stemma presents the following variants: a) εν ηµερα, b) εν ηµεραις, c) ως εν ηµερα, d) ως ηµερα, e) ως εν ηµεραις. External evidence strongly supports variant a) εν ηµερα, a reading that is also the most difficult. Antoniades adopted the Byzantine majority variant c) ως εν ηµερα. The difference in meaning between these two variants is illustrated by the NKJV, based on variant c, der katholischen Briefe: Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Koine des Neuen Testaments, 232–33; Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, 729; Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 612. 19 Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James, 260. 20 Cf. Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament, 475.

CHAPTER FOUR. THE EDITIO CRITICA MAIOR

163

and NIV, based on variant a. James 5:5b in the NKJV reads “you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter” and NIV reads “you have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter”. Ropes and Dibelius pointed out that variant c smooths the text by interpreting it metaphorically.21 This smoothing, however, deprives the text of its directness in warning that the day of slaughter is something that is already taking place.22 For these reasons, I would suggest that Orthodox editions adopt variant a) εν ηµερα. Jas 5:12/56–64 ἵνα µὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε] ἵνα µὴ εἴς ὑπόκρισιν πέσητε According to the ECM there are seven variants at this passage. The hypothesis of the genealogical relationships of these variants is presented as a local stemma in Figure 7. Figure 7: Local Stemma Jas 5:12/56–64

The local stemma represents the genealogical relationship of the following variants: a) ινα µη υπο κρισιν πεσητε, b) ινα µη υπο κρισεις πεσητε, c) ινα µη υπο κρισιν εµπεσητε, d) ινα µη εις υποκρισιν πεσητε, e) ινα µη εις υποκρισιν εµπεσητε, f) µη εις υποκρισιν πεσητε, g) om. Antoniades adopted the Byzantine majority variant d) ινα µη εις υποκρισιν πεσητε. The difference in meaning between variants a and d is reflected in some English translations. The NRS reflects variant a, “so Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James, 291. Dibelius and Greeven, Der Brief des Jakobus, 285 n. 2. 22 Cf. McCartney, James, 235. 21

164

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

that you may not fall under condemnation”, while the WEB reflects variant d, “that you do not fall into hypocrisy”. Both variants fit the context, but variant а still better enhances the probable allusion to Matthew 5:34–37 where Jesus prohibits oath-making.23 Transgressing this prohibition can result in falling under condemnation, not falling into hypocrisy. In addition, variant a is attested in manuscripts in which the ancient form of the text predominates. The CBGM database also supports the hypothesis presented in the local stemma.24 Since variant a is most likely original and important in terms of meaning, I suggest that it be adopted in Orthodox editions. 1 John 2:23/20–34 ὁ ὁµολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει] om.

The hypothesis of the genealogy of this passage is presented in the local stemma in Figure 8. Figure 8: Local Stemma 1 John 2:23/20–34

In the ECM the following variants are recorded: a) ο οµολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει, b) οµολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει, [c) ο µη οµολογων τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει], and d) οm.25 B. Metzger and K. Wachtel both note that the clause was omitted due to homoeoteleuton:26 Cf. McCartney, James, 246. In the module Coherence in Attestations even at maximal connectivity 1739 that contains variant a is the potential ancestor of the GA 323, the manuscript that is the potential ancestor of all remaining witnesses with variant d. In contrast, witnesses of the variant a are highly coherent. 25 Variant c is not presented in the local stemma because it is a variant reading created by a corrector. 26 Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 641. 23 24

CHAPTER FOUR. THE EDITIO CRITICA MAIOR

165

1 John 2:23a πατερα εχει

πας ο αρνουµενος τον υιον ουδε τον

1 John 2:23b

ο οµολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει

The earliest witness with the omission is from the ninth century.27 Antoniades omitted the clause even though six of his witnesses contain it (cf. collation for TS 60 above). It should be noted that the omission according to the ECM is a Byzantine variant. GA 468 is the only one of the seven manuscripts that witness to the Byzantine text of 1 John in ECM that contains the clause. According to TuT, 402 manuscripts omit the clause, but there are still 109 manuscripts that preserve it. In any case, I propose variant a in the ECM should be included in Orthodox lectionary and continuous editions because its omission in the majority Byzantine text is an obvious error in the transmission of the text. 1 John 3:1/24–26 καὶ ἐσµέν] om.

The hypothesis of the genealogy of this passage is presented in the local stemma in Figure 9. Figure 9: Local Stemma 1 John 3:1/24–26

This stemma represents the following four variants recorded in ECM: a) και εσµεν, b) εσµεν, c) οm., and d) και ωµεν. Variants b and d are poorly attested. Variant c, omission, is present, according to TuT, in 426 manuscripts and was designated in ECM as Byzantine. Variant a και εσµεν is present in seventy-three continuous manuscripts. Three of Antoniades’ manuscripts have variant Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text der katholischen Briefe: Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Koine des Neuen Testaments, 299–300. 27 Cf. Der byzantinische Text der katholischen Briefe: Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Koine des Neuen Testaments, 300.

166

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

a (cf. collation for TS 63). Metzger, Omanson, and Comfort agree that the omission is an error in transmission.28 Moreover, as Wachtel has argued, based on manuscript evidence the omission is most likely relatively late.29 F. Vouga rightly pointed that και εσµεν connects the ινα clause with the perception that we are not only called children of God but that we really are God’s children.30 Since it is rather clear that the omission of the phrase is late and that it is significant for understanding the passage, I propose that this variant should be included in Orthodox editions. 1 John 4:3/17 om.] ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα

The hypothesis of the genealogy of this passage is presented in the local stemma in Figure 10. Figure 10: Local Stemma 1 John 4:3/17

The stemma represents the following three variants recorded in ECM: a) οm., b) εν σαρκι εληλυθοτα, and c) εν σαρκι εληλυθεναι. According to TuT, there are 583 witnesses to variant b, and 13 to variant a. Among Antoniades’ manuscripts, two have variant a Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 642; Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament, 507; Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, 776. 29 Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text der katholischen Briefe: Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Koine des Neuen Testaments, 303. 30 François Vouga, Die Johannesbriefe, HNT 15/3 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990), 51. 28

CHAPTER FOUR. THE EDITIO CRITICA MAIOR

167

(1739. l 883) and the remainder variant b. Metzger noted that external evidence supports the omission and that the secondary nature of the addition is indicated also by the variety of the supplemented variants.31 Comfort and Omanson also argued that the latter scribes made explicit what was implicitly already contained in the text by way of this addition.32 Omanson further suggested that the extension of the variant b might be useful as a model for modern translations since it contributes to textual clarity.33 M. Culy observed that different variant readings represent the same information whether explicitly or implicitly with no difference in meaning.34 This addition, however, is ancient; its earliest witness is Codex Sinaiticus (GA 01). The CBGM module Coherence in Attestations suggests that variant a emerged multiple times in the tradition since the closest potential ancestors of the witnesses 398, 629, and 720, manuscripts that contain variant a, are witnesses 424 and 307, manuscripts that contain variant b. For those reasons it is possible that the phrase was lost in the early stages of transmission in the lineage of witnesses that contain predominantly an ancient form of the text. Since variant b does not change the meaning of the text, is ancient, and enhances a pragmatic approach to the text, I suggest that it should be included in the Orthodox editions with a note that it may be secondary. 1 John 5:7/11–8/1 om.] ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦµα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι· (8) καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ µαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ This variation passage represents the well-known Comma Johanneum. It has so far been found in nine Greek witnesses. In five of them it is the main text: GA 629 – a Latin-Greek manuscript from the fourteenth century with a Greek text revised toward the Vulgate; GA 61 – an early sixteenth-century manuscript copied from a Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 645. 32 Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, 780; Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament, 510. 33 A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament, 510. 34 Martin M. Culy, 1, 2, 3 John: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004), 102. 31

168

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

tenth-century manuscript that did not have the Comma; GA 918 – from the sixteenth century; GA 2473 from 1634; and GA 2138 from the eighteenth century. In four witnesses the Comma is present as a variant reading added by a latter hand: GA 88, 221, 429, and 636.35 In the ECM, the Comma is divided into two variation passages: 1 John 5:7/11 a) οm. b) εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ και ο λογος και το αγιον πνευµα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν 88Z c) εν τω ουρανω πατηρ λογος και πνευµα αγιον και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν 61. 429Z. 918 d) απο του ουρανου πατηρ λογος και πνευµα αγιον και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν 629 1 John 5:8/1 a) οm. b) και τρεις εισιν οι µαρτυρουντες εν τη γη 61. 88Z. 429Z. 918. c) και τρεις εισιν οι µαρτυρουντες απο της γης 629. Scholars agree that the comma was translated from Latin where it gradually became a part of the standard text.36 It is not surprising that in the subsequent period its deletion was virtually unthinkable. Even Lorenzo Valla and Giannozzo Manetti did not dare to omit or to critically comment on it, although they were otherwise very critical of the textual sequences that they believed

Cf. Metzger and Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 147. Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text der katholischen Briefe: Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Koine des Neuen Testaments, 315. 36 Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction and Appendix, 103–06; Rudolf Schnackenburg, Die Johannesbriefe, 7. ed., HTKNT (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1984), 44–46; Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 647–49; Juan Jr. Hernández, “The Comma Johanneum: A Relic in the Textual Tradition,” EC 11, no. 1 (2020). 35

CHAPTER FOUR. THE EDITIO CRITICA MAIOR

169

to be a secondary addition to the Vulgate.37 The Comma in Antoniades’ edition essentially agrees with variants b in both passages in the ECM. However, in the first case Antoniades’ text is missing και between ο πατηρ and ο λογος. The Antoniades text of the Comma was not based on any manuscript but on the Textus Receptus. As Antoniades stated in the introduction, despite the lack of any witness in lectionaries, church fathers, ancient versions, Old Church Slavonic version, and any Greek manuscript copied independently from the Latin, it was retained in his edition according to the decision of the Holy Synod (cf. Appendix 9,1). Due to the lack of support in the manuscripts, Antoniades printed the Comma in smaller type. From the sixteenth century onward the Comma was contained in all the Greek New Testament editions prepared for the Orthodox Church. Richard Simon noted at the end of the seventeenth century that all editions of the Greek Apostolos lectionary that he consulted contained the Comma.38 Isaac Newton probably correctly observed that the Comma became part of the Orthodox editions through the Venetian presses.39 The Comma in the Byzantine lectionary is within the pericope that is assigned for the Thursday of the twenty-fifth week after Pentecost (1 John 4:20–5:21), even though it seems that the Comma was not inserted in the printed Apostolos lectionary before the end of the sixteenth or the beginning of the seventeenth century. It is not present, for example, in the printed Apostolos editions from 1525, 1550, and 1578 (cf. Table 2). However, the Comma was included

Nigel G. Wilson, From Byzantium to Italy: Greek Studies in the Italian Renaissance (London: Duckworth, 1992), 74; Annet den Haan, Giannozzo Manetti’s New Testament: Translation Theory and Practice in FifteenthCentury Italy, BSIH 257/BTSI 19 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2016), 71. 38 Richard Simon, Critical History of the Text of the New Testament: Wherein is Established the Truth of the Acts on Which the Christian Religion is Based, trans. Andrew Hunwick, NTTSD 43 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013), 173. A. Hunwick translated incorrectly Ἀπόστολος as Apostolic. Cf. Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament: Où l’on établit la Verité des Actes sur lesquels la Religion Chrêtienne est fondée (Rotterdam: Leers, 1689), 203. 39 Herbert W. Turnbull, ed. The Correspondence of Isaac Newton 3: 1688– 1694 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), 84, 98. 37

170

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

no later than 1602.40 After that time all thirteen printed Apostolos lectionaries published before the end of the nineteenth century, to which I had access (which are marked in bold in Table 2 above), contain the Comma.41 Contemporary Orthodox scholars are divided regarding the Comma. On one hand, the recent research of P. Vasiliadis represents an attempt to elaborate reasons for the exclusion of the Comma from the Scriptures, and on the other hand, C. Karakolis and G. Valsamis believe that insertion of Comma by the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is legitimate.42 I believe that the Comma should be omitted from the text because its inclusion cannot be justified on the basis of manuscript evidence.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

ECM and Antoniades’ text differ in 268 variation units. If we subtract from this number the twenty-four passages where the guiding line is split and twenty-two orthographica, 222 differences remain. In the ECM there are 3000 variation units, excluding the 43 passages with split guiding lines. Therefore, Antoniades’ text agrees with ECM in 92.6% of its readings. Accordingly, Antoniades’ text would be, according to the CBGM database, ranked as the third of 124 potential descendants to the initial text after GA 03 and 1739. Therefore, the agreement between Antoniades’ edition and ECM is relatively high; the similarities between the two texts are far greater than has often been assumed when only the differences have been emphasized.

McDonald, Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma, and Trinitarian Debate, 112. 41 These lectionaries were printed in the following years: 1633, 1663, 1692, 1795, 1801, 1806, 1830, 1839, 1844, 1847, 1850, 1855, and 1856. 42 Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, “Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7, 8): A Study on its Interpolation and Removal from the Biblical Text” (Master, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 2013); Karakolis, “Критический текст Нового Завета: православная перспектива,” 180; George Valsamis, ed. The New Testament: Original Greek (Koine) Text (Athens: Elpenor, 2014), 478 n. 6. 40

CHAPTER FOUR. THE EDITIO CRITICA MAIOR

171

Commenting on all the differences between the two editions would not make sense, given that many of these are more or less formal differences that affect the meaning of the text only slightly or not at all. I have commented on twelve selected passages, trying to demonstrate the importance of two guiding principles that, in my opinion, should be adopted in editing the Greek New Testament for the Orthodox tradition. These two principles are originality and pragmatism. I am convinced that where it can be established with high probability that the text has been altered in such a way as to change the meaning of the original text significantly, it cannot be accepted. On the other hand, if a certain change contributes to the better understanding of the text without changing its meaning, it should be welcomed into Orthodox editions with the indication that it is a secondary variant reading. Taking these principles into consideration, I made the following proposals: At Jas 1:12/31 instead of the omission, or ὁ κύριος, I suggested that the variant ὁ θεός should be adopted because it seems to best express the the original meaning of the text. At Jas 1:19/2 Ἴστε] Ὥστε and Jas 1:19/12 δέ] om. I proposed that the ECM’s Initial Text should be adopted because it seems to be the earliest preserved reading and serves better for both the lectionary and continuous text than the Byz variants. At Jas 1:26/10 om.] ἐν ὑµῖν I suggested for the sake of better understanding and more effective reception that phrase ἐν ὑµῖν should be included into the text with an indication that it is secondary. At Jas 2:5/22– 24 τῷ κόσµῳ] τοῦ κόσµου, I argued that τῷ κόσµῳ should be adopted because of its potential significance regarding the meaning of the passage. At Jas 2:18/30 χωρίς] ἐκ I suggested adopting χωρίς since variants with ἐκ cause the Byzantine text to miss the intended point of the passage. The reading at Jas 4:4/1 µοιχαλίδες] µοιχοὶ καὶ µοιχαλίδες is difficult because both readings are confusing and do not represent for modern readers the passage’s intended meaning. For that reason, I suggested adopting µοιχαλίδες with an additional explanation. At Jas 5:5/22–24 ἐν ἡµέρᾳ] ὡς ἐν ἡµέρᾳ I would adopt ἐν ἡµέρᾳ since the Byz variant changes the original point. At Jas 5:12/56–64 ἵνα µὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε] ἵνα µὴ εἴς ὑπόκρισιν πέσητε I argued that the Initial Text should be adopted because of its originality as well as its importance in

172

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

terms of meaning. At 1 John 2:23/20–34 ὁ ὁµολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα εχει] om. and 1 John 3:1/24–26 καὶ ἐσµέν] om., I suggested that the Initial Text should be adopted because they are important for the pragmatics of interpretation: their omission is due to obvious errors in textual transmission. At 1 John 4:3/17 om.] ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα I proposed that the Byz variant should be adopted with a note that it could be secondary because it does not change the meaning of the text: it is ancient, and it enhances the pragmatic interpretation of the text. Finally, I believe that the Comma Johanneum, 1 John 5:7–8, should be omitted from the text because its inclusion cannot be justified based on manuscript evidence; it can be recorded somewhere but exclusively as a gloss.

CHAPTER FIVE. FINAL REFLECTIONS The goal of this study has ben to contribute to the development of textual scholarship on the Greek New Testament from an Orthodox perspective. I began by examining the character and nature of the Antoniades edition. That edition has been regarded in both the east and west as distinctively Orthodox, based primarily (or even exclusively) on lectionaries. Within the Orthodox church this edition is also regarded as innately superior to all other editions. One might say that it practically serves as the theoretical paradigm of Orthodox Greek New Testament textual scholarship. Yet very little is actually known about the Antoniades edition. In light of this situation, it was appropriate to begin this examination by examining Antoniades’ edition and his own text-critical statements in order to identify positive and negative aspects of his approach that have contributed to the conceptualization and development of Greek New Testament textual scholarship in an Orthodox context. I explored the underlying presuppositions related to the character and nature of Antoniades’ edition, seeking to answer the following questions: Was Antoniades’ edition based on lectionaries? What criteria determined his selection of manuscripts? What is the edition’s relationship to the Textus Receptus? Does it represent a distinctive Constantinopolitan text? What is the extent, nature, and significance of the differences between Antoniades’ edition and modern critical texts? The Catholic Epistles were an ideal test case for answering these questions. Simply by identifying the manuscripts that Antoniades listed as the basis of his edition, it was clear that eighteen of the twenty173

174

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

eight witnesses to the Praxapostolos are continuous-text minuscule manuscripts. Antoniades himself pointed out this fact, even though his bold statement at the outset of the introduction that the lectionary forms the basis of his edition (appendix 1,2–4) has led to the popular misconception that his edition is only based on lectionaries. Another erroneous claim deriving from the introduction is that Antoniades’ edition represents a distinctive Constantinopolitan liturgical textual tradition. This belief led to the usage of Antoniades’ edition in some lectionary studies within the Chicago Lectionary Project, comparing certain variation units of selected lectionaries with the text of Antoniades’ edition. Their main conclusion was that Antoniades’ edition cannot be regarded as a representative of a lectionary text, nor it is a better representative of the Byzantine text than the Textus Receptus. These Chicago studies did not examine the same manuscripts that Antoniades listed as the basis of his edition. My own ninety-eight Teststellen collations of the Catholic Epistles confirmed that Antoniades’ text does not represent any single manuscript, nor does it reflect the text of a particular group of manuscripts that Antoniades listed as the basis of his edition. Antoniades’ manuscripts are more or less textually heterogeneous. His text was formed eclectically, but it was not established independently from the Textus Receptus, a fact already noted by Eberhard Nestle. Antoniades’ inclusion of the manuscripts GA 1739, 1869 and l 884 in particular suggest inconsistency in his selection of the manuscripts in terms of textual makeup. GA 1739 is known for its ancient textual form that differs considerably from the Antoniades text. It seems that Antoniades included it to justify maintaining Acts 8:37 from the Textus Receptus, since his text of Acts 8:37 agrees with the Textus Receptus and differs from GA 1739. Similarly, GA 1869 (copied in 1688) is heavily dependent on a printed text of Erasmian origin. It is not clear why Antoniades listed l 884, a manuscript that has an idiosyncratic text that did not contribute to the establishment of the text of his edition. We may also note that, when it comes to position of the Catholic Epistles, Antoniades retained the order of the books from the Textus Receptus, placing the Catholic Epistles between Hebrews and Revelation, not between Acts and Romans as is the case

CHAPTER FIVE. FINAL REFLECTIONS

175

in the majority of his continuous manuscript witnesses, even though the order he chose was reflected in a few continuous manuscripts and in the Apostolos lectionaries. For that reason, the order of books that Antoniades adopted might be justified as reflecting liturgical manuscript traditions. Until recently, many scholars presented the critical and Byzantine texts as diametrically opposed to one another, creating a situation in which the differences between these two forms of text were overemphasized. Thanks to the recent development of the ability to compare entire texts within the CBGM database, we can now see that the disagreements between the critical text and the Byzantine majority text are relatively minor. Among the differences, only a relatively small number of variants affect the meaning of the text. Similar results were obtained by comparing Antoniades’ text of the Catholic Epistles with ECM. ECM and Antoniades’ text differ in 268 variation units. After subtracting the twenty-four split guiding line passages and twenty-two orthographica, there are 222 differences at in the total of 3,000 variation units, meaning that Antoniades’ text agrees with ECM in 92.6% of its readings. If Antoniades’ text were included in the CBGM database, it would be ranked as the the third of 124 potential descendants to the initial text after GA 03 and 1739, signifying a relatively high level of agreement between the two editions. I selected twelve passages that contain variants that influence the meaning of text and that, at the same time, serve as examples that help to define some guiding principles for Orthodox Greek New Testament textual scholarship. I had two primary principles in mind: originality and pragmatism. On one hand, it is very important to preserve, as far as possible, the integrity of the original or earliest textual form. On the other hand, the earliest textual form remains liable to small-scale changes in order to preserve the intended textual meaning or to improve textual understanding. However, at each point of modification of the initial text for the purpose of intelligibility, editors must indicate in some way that it is a secondary variant reading. At eight passages (Jas 1:19/2, Jas 1:19/12, Jas 2:18/30, Jas 5:5/22–24, Jas 5:12/56–64, 1 John 2:23/20–34, 1 John 3:1/24–26, 1 John 5:7/11–8/1), I proposed that the ECM Initial Text reading should be adopted also for Orthodox editions

176

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

of continuous text as well as of lectionaries. At Jas 1:26/10 and 1 John 4:3/17 I suggested for the sake of better understanding and more effective reception that Byz readings should be adopted with an indication that those variant readings are secondary. Among the passages I examined in more depth, there are also two special cases (Jas 1:12/31 and Jas 4:4/1) at which neither the ECM nor the Byz variant ought to be adopted. At Jas 1:12/31, Byz reads ὁ κύριος where the Initial Text does not specify the subject. However, it seems that the variant reading ὁ θεός best reflects the intended meaning and should be preferred with an indication that it is a secondary variant to an initial text. At Jas 4:4/1 neither the ECM reading µοιχαλίδες nor the Byz reading µοιχοὶ καὶ µοιχαλίδες represent the intended meaning. As a result, I suggested adopting variant µοιχαλίδες with an explanation that µοιχαλίδες should be interpreted figuratively and not literally. This book is not an attempt to respond to all questions related to the New Testament textual scholarship from an Orthodox perspective. It is probable that research on some other parts of New Testament would offer somewhat different results, not least because the Catholic Epistles are less prominent in the history of reception than the other New Testament writings, especially the Gospels. Nevertheless, this study forms a methodological foundation for further development of New Testament textual scholarship from an Orthodox perspective, one that is informed both by modern critical scholarship and the larger Orthodox tradition. I am not arguing for an approach that would be exclusively Orthodox. Under the “Orthodox approach” I understand a theoretical and practical framework that takes into consideration the importance of both the originality and receivability of the texts. This study suggests that Antoniades’ edition cannot be justified as a distinctively Orthodox edition, which suggests that the Orthodox Church needs another edition. The critical editions accepted by Western scholars fail to fulfill all the needs of Orthodox users. Interpreters of the New Testament should not have any problem with using a scholarly edition because they have at their disposal many other tools that enable them to explain many important phenomena, including text-historical issues. Listeners in church, lay readers, and even translators often are not in this position.

CHAPTER FIVE. FINAL REFLECTIONS

177

They require a tool that does something different. We can see some examples in this study, as when secondary readings should be included but with an indication that they are secondary. However, in cases in which original or earliest variant readings are not ambiguous for usage in any of the aforementioned contexts, the original or the earliest readings should be adopted.

APPENDIX: A TRANSLATION OF ANTONIADES’ PREFACE TO HIS EDITION OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT The following text is my translation of Antoniades’ preface to his edition of the Greek New Testament (pages γʹ– ηʹ). This introduction was translated originally by John M. Rife, and Klaus Wachtel has also translated some sections of the text.1 In the printed text, Antoniades set off both the words he wanted to emphasize and biblical quotations through the use of blank spaces. In the present translation, these parts that Antoniades wished to emphasize are in bold, while the biblical quotations are in italics. In certain cases, Relevant comments in footnotes have also been added, and I divided the text of the preface into chapters and verses for ease of referencing. Translation 1,1 According to the initial proposal and expert decision by the committee which was appointed five years ago toward editing a NEW TESTAMENT, the objective of this edition was designed to, as far as achievable, restore the earliest text of the Ecclesiastical tradition, and in particular of the Church of Constantinople. 2 In line with this aim, the present text was not prepared on the basis of any printed edition or on the basis of those great

Rife, “The Antoniades Greek New Testament,” 57–62. Wachtel, “Early Variants in the Byzantine Text of the Gospels,” 41–42. 1

179

180

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

majuscule script codices used for critical editions, but on the basis of those manuscripts that are usually neglected and, to express it in the scriptural language, rejected by the builders.2 3 However, in the preparation of the Apocalypse and some parts of Acts that are not read in the Church, the edition was prepared on the basis of the Byzantine copies that are usually written in small or cursive script, that are mostly younger than tenth century, and that contain the holy text in the continuous form. 4 And the remaining parts of the sacred collection that are recited in church were prepared on the basis of the manuscripts of similar lineage, age, and script, manuscripts that contain the sacred text divided into the pericopes or readings and that comprise the so-called selections [ἐκλογάδια] (lectionaria), both Gospels or Praxapostoli, both those that are full (containing all the readings according to a certain plan arranged for all the days of the ecclesiastical year) and those that are abbreviated (containing only the readings for Saturdays, Sundays, and other feasts or days celebrated as feasts). 2,1 Regarding their text, there are differences among the lectionaries. 2 In the Gospel lectionaries, the differences are not so clear in the abbreviated forms, but they are clearer in the complete forms, and, especially in the daily readings of the first three evangelists, two types of text can be differentiated. 3 The first type is related to the ordinary Byzantine copies. And the second type, in addition to being related to the first, also has certain variants and noteworthy readings that, although not entirely unattested elsewhere, nonetheless indicate transcribing from textually distinctive copies. 4 The distinction of the two types – that have each been transcribed from textually different copies – is also indicated by the fact that the Gospel lectionaries that have different daily readings from the text of the common Byzantine copies often repeat the same pericopes with different readings in the feasts and the menologion, readings that correspond to those of the Byzantine type. 5 According to the indisputable testimony of more than sixty manuscripts of the fuller Gospel lectionaries which we collated here or on the Holy Mountain [Athos] (more than 45), Antoniades quotes a phrase contained in several biblical texts. Cf. Ps 118:22; Matt 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:7. 2

APPENDIX

181

or were collated for us in Athens and Jerusalem, or were collated elsewhere by others and were available for our use, both of these types belong to the Church of Constantinople and were in common and official use at least from the ninth to the sixteenth century. 6 Yet each type was preserved so carefully and unmixed that, despite the length of the time, only a few copies and then only in a few respects show any variation or influence of one type on the other. 7 Consequently, if one preserves some distinctive readings of one of the types, it almost always with no complications preserves also the other distinctive readings of that same type. 8 And, most important of all, if someone has studied a few copies of the one type, this person has little to learn from the studying the remaining copies of the same type. 3,1 The fact that within the context of the same church two types of Gospel text were preserved almost unmixed for at least eight centuries is most simply explained, in our opinion, by the following scenario: both types were from an early point in common and official use, both having the authority of antiquity and authenticity. 2 And the type most similar to the Byzantine text seems to correspond to the Antiochian or Syrian recension disseminated in the Church of Constantinople from the time of St. Chrysostom onward. 3 In all likelihood, the other type is the text that was used at the beginning of that Church. 4 And since that type was in use at an earlier point, it is found in the undoubtedly earlier defined pericopes of the daily lessons. The other [Byzantine] type, introduced later and utilized to a limited extent, is found in the later defined pericopes of the Gospel lectionary and in the slightly augmented lessons of the Menologion. 4,1 A similar distinction of types is likely found also in the Praxapostoli. 2 This reality is indicated by the manuscript of the Theological School catalogued under number 14. 3 The manuscript, however, cannot be regarded as indisputable evidence for this distinction insofar as the variants observed in its text admit to another possible explanation. 4 The variants are not attested unanimously by the majority of older and more trustworthy manuscripts, especially those having more certain evidence of their lineage, as in the case of the Gospel lectionaries.

182

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

5,1 The following list presents the manuscripts collated in the preparation of the text and its revision, together with those collated for us by others and those otherwise accessible. 2 Since they were used only as a supplement to the longer lectionaries, apart from few exceptions, we omit here the many copies of the short Gospel lectionaries, as well as many tetraevangelia collated at Constantinople and Athos. 3 Asterisks (prefixed) mark those manuscripts that we ourselves studied. Those collated in the preparation of the text are marked with double asterisks (**) and those marked with a single asterisk (*) were omitted during our later revision. β indicates the Gospel lectionaries of the Byzantine type; α indicates the most noteworthy of the short Gospel and Apostolos lectionaries. The † siglum signals manuscripts kept in sacristies, and σ marks continuous texts of the Praxapostoli. 4 These last manuscripts were used because of the small number of the full Apostolos lectionaries and also because their text is similar to the text of the previous ones [i.e. lectionaries]. Gospel Lectionaries 6,1 ** From the Theological School of Halki: 1. 3α. 4. 7 of the Monastery and 1. 2β. 5α. 6α of the school. 2 ** From the Commerce School of Halki: † 167. 168β. 169β. 170. 171. 172. 173. 3 ** From the Dependency of Monastery of the Holy Sepulcher in Constantinople: 11. 272. 649. 4 ** From St. George by the Gate of Adrianople: two †, the one short, the other full (from those of the Holy Wisdom). 5 * From St. Demetrius of Tataouli: two †, the one from 1550, the other older β. 6 * From Koutloumousiou: 62β. 64. 65. 7 * From Karakallou: 11. 13β. 8 * From Xiropotamou: 122β. 9 * From Iviron: 1α. 3β. 9β. 10β. 11. 12β. 13. 638. καὶ ἓν † α. 10 * From the Lavra: Α 72. 84. 86α. 93β. 95. 97β. 105. 111β. 113. 116β. 117. 118.111β. 113. 116β. 117. 118. 11 From the Greek National Library: 67. 164. 186. 12 From the Jerusalem Library: 9. 12. 33. 40. 95β. 152. 186β. 236. 245β. (and some from the Church of the Resurrection β).

APPENDIX

183

13 From the Church Academy of St. Petersburg: two, the one of 985β, and the other from 1034. Praxapostoli 7,1 ** From the Theological School: 13. 14. 15α. 9σ. 16σ. 177σ (the last defective). 2 ** From the School of Commerce: 59. 74. 26σ. 35σ. 96σ. 133σ. 3 * From Koutloumousiou: 80σ. 4 * From Karakallou: 62. 5 * From Iviron: 24σ. 25σ. 28σ. 29σ. 30σ. 37σ. 39σ. 52σ. 57σ. 60σ. 6 * From the Lavra: Β 64σ. 74. 79. 90. Γ 123. Α 65σ. Apocalypse 8,1 ** From the School of Commerce of Halki: 26. 96. 2 ** From the Dependency of Monastery of the Holy Sepulcher in Constantinople: 303. 3 ** From Koutloumousiou: 82. 83. 163. 356. 4 ** From Iviron: 25. 60. 589. 594. 5 ** From the Lavra: Α 91. Β 5. 18. 80. Ω 16 (defective) and eight others of the same type as B 80. 9,1 Very few of these manuscripts are older than the tenth or younger than the sixteenth century. 2 A few are from the fifteenth and sixteenth century. 3 The rest, some according to their own testimony and others according to the most plausible conjecture, are from the intervening period, from the tenth to the fourteenth century. 4 Yet even among the younger manuscripts there are some not less trustworthy and venerable than many older copies, since they are copies of older exemplars. 5 This is the case for MS 9 of the Theological School, dated to the year 1688, which preserves some features of older manuscripts, such as, among others, the omission of 1 John 5:7–8 about the three witness in heaven. 10,1 Created on such foundations, this edition is likely to elicit some criticism. 2 The main issue is the choice between the two different types of gospel text. 3 Likewise, criticism may arise regarding the choice between the different lectionary sections of the two text types and the individual readings that are present in

184

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

each manuscript. 4 Otherwise, our critical approach was such that, aside from punctuation and orthography, we made no transpositions, substitutions, additions, or deletions without the support of the manuscripts, except in rare incidents but with sufficient testimony elsewhere3 5 The readings of the Byzantine type as a rule gave way to those of the other type as in Matt 12:25–27, 40; 13:36; 17:22; Luke 21:38.4 6 Where the judgment was doubtful concerning the addition or excision of a word or an entire passage, these were written in a smaller type. 7 The smaller font was also used in a limited number of places that, although they have no attestation in the ecclesiastical texts, nevertheless were retained as exception since they were sufficiently well attested elsewhere.5 8 The pericope of the adulterous woman (John 8:3–11), although not included in the series of daily readings of this Gospel, is nevertheless present in the Menologia in a sufficient number of both the short and full Gospel lectionaries, in particular, on St. Pelagia’s Day, October 8. On this account it was printed in regular type following the wording as found in the copies that contain it, apart from very few variants. 11,1 The opposite case is true with the passage on the three witnesses in the First Epistle of John 5:7–8. 2 This passage did not seem appropriate to include, both on the basis of the manuscripts used in the present edition and also on the criteria for an exception, since it is entirely unattested in the ecclesiastical texts, in the fathers and teachers of the Eastern Church, in the ancient versions, in the oldest copies of the Slavonic and even the Latin version, and in any known Greek manuscript written independently of the Vulgate in which this addition was gradually introduced. 3 It is retained upon the opinion of the Holy Synod.

Thus, in Mark 12:29, instead of the reading πάντων (τῶν) ἐντολῶν of the manuscripts, it was decided to publish [ἐκρίθη νὰ ἐκδοθῇ] πάντων ἐντολή. 4 A most noteworthy exception is the preference in Lk 4:44 for the Byzantine reading Γαλιλαίας against the Ἰουδαίας of the other type; and in Lk 12:48, παρέθεντο instead of παρέθετο. 5 Most noteworthy of these is Acts 8:37, attested by Lavra Β 64 [GA 1739]. 3

APPENDIX

185

12,1 The text of the present edition, prepared and printed as described above, differs from the Common Editions (Textus Receptus) distributed by the Bible Societies in about 2000 readings and 1400 passages. Specifically: Matthew 150, Mark 175, Luke 260, John 100, Acts 125, Pauline Epistles 165, Catholic Epistles 65, and the remaining passages [360] in the Apocalypse. 13,1 Because it is valuable, parallel biblical passages (according to both sense and wording) and antithetical passages are also included in the present edition. Both features are useful in the study and understanding of the sacred texts. 2 Because these were prepared, it surpasses the utility of the Textus Receptus. 3 In this regard the present edition also differs from the former [i.e. Textus Receptus]. 14,1 Moreover, this edition differs not a little in punctuation and orthography, as well as in the presentation of quoted passages in the holy scriptures, especially those taken from the Old Testament, which are exhibited in bold type instead of quotation marks. 2 Those quotations taken from elsewhere, for the sake of distinction from the biblical quotations, are spaced out. 15,1 Finally, guides for the Orthodox public in the form of tables have been added for Sundays and feasts, showing for all Sundays and feast days the pericopes read in the Orthodox Church from the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. 16,1 As a human effort, and especially since it is a first attempt, this edition will suffer its own peculiar fate. 2 But the Word of God is not enchained by human imperfections, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes [Romans 1:16]. 3 In the Theological School at Halki, February 22, 1904 4 The Committee: 5 Michael, Bishop of Sardis 6 Apostolos, Bishop of Stavropolis 7 V. Antoniades (editor) [εἰσηγητής]6 Two translations of the εἰσηγητής are possible: editor or introducer. Antoniadis probably introduced himself here as the editor. Cf. Antoniades, 6

Εγχειριδιων εισαγωγης εις τας αγιας γραφας: Τοµος βʹ: Εισαγωγη εις την καινην διαθηκην 214.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Agouridis, Savvas. Εισαγωγη εις την καινην διαθηκην. Athens: Γρηγορη, 1971. Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Gerd Mink, Holger Strutwolf, and Klaus Wachtel. Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior 4: Catholic Letters. 2 vols. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2014. Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Holger Strutwolf, Ioannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Maria Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. The Greek New Testament. 5th ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2014. Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Aland, Kurt, Matthew Black, Carlo Maria Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, Allen Paul Wikgren, Barbara Aland, and Ioannes Karavidopoulos. The Greek New Testament. 4th ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1993. Aland, Kurt, Gerd Mink, and Annette Benduhn-Mertz. Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments 1: Die katholischen Briefe. 3 vols. ANTF 9–11. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987. Aland, Kurt, Michael Welte, Beate Koster, and Klaus Junack. Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. ANTF 1. second ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. Alekseev, Anatoly A. “Greek New Testament (GNT), Nestle–Aland (NA), Textus Receptus (TR) и русское религиозное сознание.” Церковь и время 5, no. 2 (1998): 111–27. 187

188

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

———. “Новое издание византийского текста Евангелия от Иоанна.” In Proceedings of the International conference “Text Interpretation in the Culture of the Christian East: Translation, Commentary and Poetic Treatment”, 581–90. Moscow: Indrik, 2013. Alexopoulos, Stefanos, and Dionysios Bilalis Anatolikiotes. “Towards a History of Printed Liturgical Books in the Modern Greek State: An Initial Survey.” EO 34 (2017): 421–60. Andreades, Ioannes. “Περι των τυποις εκδοσεων του κειµενου της καινης διαθηκης.” EkklAl 25–27, 29, 30 (1905): 313–16, 23– 24, 30–31, 58–60, 66–69. Anonymous. “Εκδοσις της καινης διαθηκης.” EkklAl 42 (1900): 459. ———. “Η καινη διαθηκη: εγκρισει της µεγαλης του χριστου εκκλησιας.” EkklAl 25 (1905): 313. Antoniades, Vasileios. Εγχειριδιων εισαγωγης εις τας αγιας γραφας: Τοµος βʹ: Εισαγωγη εις την καινην διαθηκην Athens: Foinikos, 1937. Batalden, Stephen K. Russian Bible Wars: Modern Scriptural Translation and Cultural Authority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. ———. “Наследие Россйского библейского общества в русской библеистике XIX и XX веков.” In Библия в духовной жизни, истории и культуре России и православного славянского мира. К 500-летию Геннадиевской Библии: Сборник материалов международной конференции: Москва, 21–26 сентября 1999 г., edited by Galina S. Barankova, 212–20. Moscow: Biblical Theological Institute of St. Andrew the Apostle, 2001. Birdsall, J. Neville. “The New Testament Text Known to Photius: A Reconsideration.” In Collected Papers in Greek and Georgian Textual Criticism Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013. Blaski, Andrew. “Myths About Patristics: What the Church Fathers Thought About Textual Variation.” Chap. 12 In Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, edited by Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, 228–52. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

189

Blomkvist, Vemund, and David Hellholm. Euthalian Traditions: Text, Translation and Commentary. TU 170. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Burchard, Christoph. Der Jakobusbrief. HNT 15,5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Buttmann, Philip. Novum Testamentum Graece. Berlin: R. L. Decker, 1862. Casey, Robert P. “A Russian Orthodox View of New Testament Textual Criticism.” Theology 60, no. 440 (1957): 50–54. Clarke, Kent D. Textual Optimism: A Critique of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. JSNTSup 138. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Cleenewerck, Laurent, ed. The Eastern/Greek Orthodox New Testament. 3 vols. Columbia: Newrome Press, 2012. Colwell, Ernest Cadman. “Is there a Lectionary Text of the Gospels.” HTR 25, no. 1 (January 1932): 73–84. Colwell, Ernest Cadman, and Donald Wayne Riddle, eds. Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933. Comfort, Philip W. New Testament Text and Translation Commentary. Carol Stream: Tyndale, 2008. Culy, Martin M. 1, 2, 3 John: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004. Darlow, Thomas Herbert, ed. The Highway in the Wilderness: A Popular Illustrated Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society for the Year 1907–1908. London: The Bible House, 1908. ———, ed. The Leaves of the Tree: A Popular Illustrated Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society for the Year 1906–1907. London: The Bible House, 1907. ———, ed. There is a River: A Popular Illustrated Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society for the Year 1905–1906. London: The Bible House, 1906. ———, ed. The Word Among Nations: A Popular Illustrated Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society for the Year 1908–1909. London: The Bible House, 1909. Darlow, Thomas Herbert, and Horace Frederick Moule. Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library

190

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

of the British and Foreign Bible Society: Languages other than English: Greek to Opa. New York: Kraus Reprint, 1963. Delicostopoulos, Athan. “Major Greek Translations of the Bible.” In The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia, 297–316. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. den Haan, Annet. Giannozzo Manetti’s New Testament: Translation Theory and Practice in Fifteenth-Century Italy. BSIH 257/BTSI 19. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2016. Despotis, Athanasios. “Orthodox Biblical Exegesis in the Early Modern World (1450–1750).” In The New Cambridge History of the Bible: From 1450 to 1750, edited by Euan Cameron, 518–31. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Dibelius, Martin, and Heinrich Greeven. Der Brief des Jakobus. 6th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Dill, Ueli, and Petra Schierl, eds. Das bessere Bild Christi: Das Neue Testament in der Ausgabe des Erasmus von Rotterdam: Begleitpublikation zur Ausstellung “Das bessere Bild Christi: Die Ausgabe des Neuen Testaments von 1516”: 24. Juni bis 12. November 2016 im Basler Münster. Basel: Schwabe, 2016. Dobykin, Dmitry, and Nikolay Tarnakin. “Текстология и библейская история в трудах православных библеистов в СССР. Период с 1953 по 1964 гг.” Христианское чтение 76, no. 5 (2017): 61–73. Donaldson, Amy M. “Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings among Greek and Latin Church Fathers.” PhD, University of Notre Dame, 2009. Elliott, James Keith. A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts. NovTSup 160. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015. ———. “The Distinctiveness of the Greek Manuscripts of the Book of Revelation.” Chap. 10 In New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles: Essays on Manuscripts and Textual Variation. NovTSup 137, 145–55. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010. ———. A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the Greek New Testament. NovTSup 57. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1987. Erasmus, Desiderius, ed. Novum Instrumentum omne. Basel: Johann Froben, 1516.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

191

Ericsson, Dwight Elwood. “The Book of Acts in the Greek New Testament.” PhD, University of Chicago, 1961. Gibson, Samuel. The Apostolos: The Acts and Epistles in Byzantine Liturgical Manuscripts. Texts and studies 18. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2018. ———. “The Liturgical and Textual Tradition of Acts and Paul in the Byzantine Apostolos Lectionary.” PhD, University of Birmingham, 2015. Hall, Isaac H. “Appendix 1: List of Printed Editions of the Greek New Testament.” In A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, edited by Philip Schaff, 497–524. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1883. ———. “Some Remarkable Greek New Testaments.” JSBL 6 (1886): 40–63. Hartin, Patrick J. James. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003. Hatch, William H. P. “An Early Edition of the New Testament in Greek.” HTR 34 (1941): 69–78. Hernández, Juan Jr. “The Comma Johanneum: A Relic in the Textual Tradition.” EC 11, no. 1 (2020): 60–70. Hort, Fenton John Anthony, and John Owen Farquhar Murray. The Epistle of St. James: The Greek Text with Introduction, Commentary as far as Chapter IV, verse 7, and Additional Notes. London: Macmillan, 1909. Hull, Robert F. The Story of The New Testament Text: Movers, Materials, Motives, Methods, and Models. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010. Illingworth, Alfred Scott. “The Text of Luke in the Menologion of the Greek Lectionary.” PhD, University of Chicago, 1957. Ionita, Viorel, and Remus Rus. Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church: The Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Meetings Since 1923 until 2009. Freiburg: Institut für Ökumenische Studien, 2014. Istikopoulou, Leda. Βιβλιογραφια των εκδοσεων του πατριαρχικου τυπογραφειου κωνσταντινουπολεως: βιβλια-περιοδικα 17981923. Athens: Συλλογος προς διαδοσιν ωφελιµων βιβλιων, 2018. Jordan, Christopher Robert Dennis. “The Textual Tradition of the Gospel of John in Greek Gospel Lectionaries from the Middle

192

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Byzantine Period (8th–11th century).” PhD, University of Birmingham, 2009. Junack, Klaus. “Zu den griechischen Lektionaren und ihrer Überlieferung der Katholischen Briefe.” In Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare: Der gegenwärtige Stand ihrer Erforschung und ihre Bedeutung für die griechische Textgeschichte, edited by Kurt Aland. ANTF 5, 498–591. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972. Karakolis, Christos. “Κριτικες εκδοσεις και µεταφραση της καινης διαθηκης.” In Η µεταφραση της βιβλου στην εκκλησια και στην εκπαιδευση: Αφιερωµα στα 25 χρονια απο την εκδοση της νεας µεταφρασης της καινης διαθηκης στη νεοελληνικη γλωσσα, edited by Βασιλικη Ηλ. Σταθοκωστα, 27-37. Athens: Greek Bible Society, 2015. ———. “Критический текст Нового Завета: православная перспектива.” In Современная библеистика и Предание Церкви, edited by Ilarion Alfeyev, 171–84. Moscow: Saint Cyril and Methodius Institute, 2016. Karavidopoulos, Ioannes. “The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s 1904 New Testament Edition and Future Perspectives.” SacSc 10 (2012): 7–14. ———. “Einige kürzere Lesarten des kirchlichen NT-Textes.” OrthFor 4 (1990): 5–7. ———. “Lectio Brevior Potior: Συντοµες γραφες του εκκλησιαστικου κειµενου της Καινης Διαθηκης.” In Μνηµη Ιωαννου Ευανγ. Αναστασιου, 273–99. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 1992. ———. “Textual Criticism in the Orthodox Church: Present State and Future Prospects.” GOTR 47 (2002): 381–96. ———. Εισαγωγη στην Καινη Διαθηκη. Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 2010. ———. “Η πατριαρχικη εκδοση της Καινης Διαθηκης του 1904 και η αξια των βυζαντινων εκλογαδιων.” In Biblical Studies 3, 311– 29. Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 2004. ———. “Το αιτηµα της οµοιοµορφιας του λειτουργικου κεοµενου της Καινης Διαθηκης.” In Διακονια: Αφιερωµα στη µνηµη Βασιλειου Στογιαννου, 135–55. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University, 1988.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

193

———. “Το εκκλησιαστικο κειµενο της Καινης Διαθηκης στη συνχρονη ερευνα.” In Τιµητικο αφιερωµα στον οµοτιµο καθηγητη Κωνσταντινο Δ. Καλοκυρη, 291–327. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University, 1985. Karrer, Martin. “Von den Evangelien bis zur Apk. Die Ordnung der Schriften in der Edition des Neuen Testaments.” In The New Testament in Antiquity and Byzantium: Traditional and Digital Approaches to its Texts and Editing. A Festschrift for Klaus Wachtel, edited by H. A. G. Houghton, David C. Parker and Holger Strutwolf. ANTF 52, 249–64. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Kleovoulos, Mihael, Apostolos Hristodoulou, and Vasileios Antoniades, eds. Η καινη διαθηκη: Eγκρισει της µεγαλης του χριστου εκκλησιας. Constantinople: Ecumenical Patriarchate, 1904. Klimmeck, Karl. “Auf der Suche nach dem byzantinischen Bibeltext: Vom liturgischen Kodex zur Übersetzung.” In The Bible in Byzantium: Appropriation, Adaptation, Interpretation, edited by Claudia Rapp and Andreas Külzer. JAJSup 25,6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019. Kouroupou, Matoula, and Paul Géhin. Catalogue des manuscrits conservés dans la Bibliothèque du Patriarcat Œcuménique. Les manuscrits du monastère de la Panaghia de Chalki. 2 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 2008. Krans, Jan. Beyond What is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament. NTTS 35. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006. Lachmann, Karl. Novum Testamentum Graece. Berlin: Reimer, 1831. Lake, Kirsopp, Robert P. Blake, and Silva New. “The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark.” HTR 21, no. 4 (1928): 207–404. Lampros, Spyridon P. Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900. Layton, Evro. The Sixteenth Century Greek Book in Italy: Printers and Publishers for the Greek World. Venice: Hellenic Institute, 1994. Lembke, Markus, Darius Müller, Ulrich B. Schmid, and Martin Karrer. Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des

194

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Neuen Testaments 6: Die Apokalypse: Teststellenkollation und Auswertungen. ANTF 49. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017. Logotheti, Amaryllis. “The Brotherhood of Theologians Zoe and Its Influence on 20th-century Greece.” Chap. 14 In Orthodox Christian Renewal Movements in Eastern Europe, edited by Aleksandra Djurić Milovanović and Radmila Radić, 285–302. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. Mayer, Reto, and Martin Vogler, eds. Byzantinischer Text Deutsch: Die Evangelien. Biel; Bienne: Schweizerische Bibelgesellschaft, 2018. Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistle of St. James: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Comments. London: Macmillan, 1910. McCartney, Dan G. James. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. McDonald, Grantley. Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma, and Trinitarian Debate. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Metallenos, Georgios D. Το ζητηµα της µεταφρασεως της αγιας γραφης εις την νεοελληνικην: κατα τον ΙΘ΄ αι. Athens: University of Athens, 1977. Metropolitan of Ilioupoli, Gennadios. “Πως οι αµερικανοι θεολογοι εκφραζονται περι της πατριαρχικης εκδοσεως της καινης διαθηκης.” Ορθοδοξια: ηθικοθρησκευτικον περιοδικον του οικουµενικου πατριαρχειου 13 (1938): 74–76. Metzger, Bruce M. “Greek Lectionaries and a Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament.” In Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare: Der gegenwärtige Stand ihrer Erforschung und ihre Bedeutung für die griechische Textgeschichte, edited by Kurt Aland. ANTF 5, 479–97. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972. ———. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2002. Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Moennig, Ulrich. “Η δευτερη εκδοση της καινης διαθηκης σε µεταφραση του Μαξιµου καλλιουπολιτη (Λονδινο 1703):

BIBLIOGRAPHY

195

πληροφοριες για τη χρηµατοδοτηση.” In The Printed Greek Book: 15th–19th Century: Acts of the International Congress: Delphi: 16–20 May 2001, edited by Triantaphyllos E. Sklavenitis and Konstantinos Sp. Staikos, 205–16. Athens: Kotinos 2004. Mpratsiotis, Panagiotis. “Η σκοπιµοτης µιας ελληνικης κριτικης εκδοσεως της καινης διαθηκης.” Εκκλησια: επισηµον δελτιον της εκκλησιας της ελλαδος 4 (1960): 64-67. Mullen, Roderic L. “Photius: A Re-evaluation of the Johannine Evidence in Light of Modern Tools.” In The New Testament in Antiquity and Byzantium: Traditional and Digital Approaches to its Texts and Editing: A Festschrift for Klaus Wachtel, edited by Hugh A. G. Houghton, David C. Parker and Holger Strutwolf, 165–74. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Mullen, Roderic L., Simon Crisp, and David C. Parker, eds. The Gospel According to John in the Byzantine Tradition. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2007. Müller, Darius. “Abschriften des Erasmischen Textes im Handschriftenmaterial der Johannesapokalypse.” In Studien zum Text der Apokalypse, edited by Marcus Sigismund, Martin Karrer and Ulrich Schmid. ANTF 47, 165–268. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Nestle, Eberhard. “Die Patriarchats-Ausgabe des griechischen Neuen Testaments.” ThLBl 26 (1905): 385–87. ———. Einführung in das Griechische Neue Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1909. ———. Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament. Translated by William Edie. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1901. ———, ed. Novum Testamentum Graece. 1st ed. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1898. ———. Vom Textus Receptus des Griechischen Neuen Testaments. Barmen: Wuppertaler Traktatgesellschaft, 1903. ———, ed. Η καινη διαθηκη: Text with Critical Apparatus. London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1904. Nikolakopoulos, Konstantinos. Das Neue Testament in der Orthodoxen Kirche: Grundlegende Fragen einer Einführung in das Neue Testament. Berlin: LIT, 2011.

196

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Omanson, Roger L. A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2012. Osburn, Carroll. “The Greek Lectionaries of the New Testament.” Chap. 4 In The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. NTTSD 42, 93–113. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013. Panella, Theodora. “The Influence of the Catenae on the Most Recent Modern Greek New Testament Translation of the Hellenic Bible Society.” Chap. 9 In Liturgy and the Living Text of the New Testament: Papers from the Tenth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, edited by H. A. G. Houghton, 225–43. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2018. Papadopoulos, Thomas I. Ελληνικη βιβλιογραφια: 1466–1800. Athens: Academy of Athens, 1984. Papageorgiou, Spyridon, ed. Η καινη διαθηκη. Athens: Saliveros, 1902. Parker, David C. The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. ———. “New Testament Textual Traditions in Byzantium.” In The New Testament in Byzantium, edited by Derek Krueger and Robert S. Nelson, 21–32. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2016. Parpulov, Georgi R. “A Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts at the Walters Art Museum.” JWAM 62 (2004): 71–187. Paulson, Gregory S. “A Proposal for a Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament Lectionary.” Chap. 5 In Liturgy and the Living Text of the New Testament: Papers from the Tenth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, edited by H. A. G. Houghton, 121–50. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2018. Riddle, Donald W. “The Use of Lectionaries in Critical Editions and Studies of the New Testament Text.” Chap. 7 In Prolegomen to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels edited by Ernest C. Colwell and Donald W. Riddle, 67–77. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933. Rife, John Merle. “The Antoniades Greek New Testament.” Chap. 6 In Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the

BIBLIOGRAPHY

197

Gospels, edited by Ernest C. Colwell and Donald W. Riddle, 57–66. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933. Ropes, James Hardy. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1916. Sabbio, Giovanni Antonio Nicolini da, ed. Της καινης διαθηκης απανδα. Venice, 1538. Schmid, Ulrich. “Die Apokalypse, überliefert mit anderen neutestamentlichen Schriften–eapr-Handschriften.” In Studien zum Text der Apokalypse, edited by Marcus Sigismund, Martin Karrer and Ulrich Schmid. ANTF 47, 422–41. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Die Johannesbriefe. HTKNT. 7. ed. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1984. Scouteris, Constantine, and Constantine Belezos. “The Bible in the Orthodox Church from the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day.” In The New Cambridge History of the Bible 4: From 1750 to the Present, edited by John Riches, 523–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Simon, Richard. Critical History of the Text of the New Testament: Wherein is Established the Truth of the Acts on Which the Christian Religion is Based. Translated by Andrew Hunwick. NTTSD 43. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013. ———. Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament: Où l’on établit la Verité des Actes sur lesquels la Religion Chrêtienne est fondée. Rotterdam: Leers, 1689. Siotes, Markos A. “Αναγκη νεας ελληνικης εκδοσεως της καινης διαθηκης.” Εκκλησια: επισηµον δελτιον της εκκλησιας της ελλαδος 1–2 (1960): 13–15, 30–33. Soden, Hermann Freiherr von. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt. Second ed. 2 vols. Vol. 1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1911. Soteriou, Georgios A. Κειµηλια του οικουµενικού πατριαρχείου: Πατριαρχικoς ναoς και σκευοφυλακιον. Athens: Estia, 1937. Staikos, Konstantinos Sp., and Triantaphyllos E. Sklavenitis. The Publishing Centres of the Greeks: From the Renaissance to the Neohellenic Enlightenment: Catalogue of Exhibition. Athens: National Book Centre, 2001.

198

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Stine, Philip C. Let the Words be Written: The Lasting Influence of Eugene A. Nida. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2004. Strutwolf, Holger, Georg Gäbel, Annette Hüffmeier, Gerd Mink, and Klaus Wachtel, eds. Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior 3: Acts of the Apostles. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2017. Tilling, John, ed. Reports of the British and Foreign Bible Society for 1814 and 1815. Chelsea: Tilling, 1815. Tischendorf, Constantin von. Novum Testamentum Graece. Editio octava critica maior. 2 vols. Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient, 1869-72. ———. Novum testamentum sinaiticum: sive Novum testamentum cum epistala Barnabae et fragmentis Pastoris. Ex Codice sinaitico auspiciis Alexandri II. omnium Russiarum imperatoris. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1863. ———. Η καινη διαθηκη. Novum Testamentum Graece: Editio stereotypa secunda. 1862. Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. The Greek New Testament. 6 vols. London: Bagster & Sons, 1857–72. Tsakopoulos, Emilianos. Περιγραφικος καταλογος των χειρογραφων

της βιβλιοθηκης του οικουµενικου πατριαρχειου Aʹ: τµηµα χειρογραφων παναγιας καµαριωτισσης. Istanbul: Ecumenical

Patriarchate, 1953. Turnbull, Herbert W., ed. The Correspondence of Isaac Newton 3: 1688–1694. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961. Valsamis, George, ed. The New Testament: Original Greek (Koine) Text. Athens: Elpenor, 2014. Vaporis, Nomikos M. Translating the Scriptures into Modern Greek. Brookline: Holy Cross, 1994. Vasileiadis, Pavlos D. “Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7, 8): A Study on its Interpolation and Removal from the Biblical Text.” Master, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 2013. Vincent, Marvin R. A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. NTHb 1. New York; London: Macmillan, 1899. Vouga, François. Die Johannesbriefe. HNT 15/3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

199

Wachtel, Klaus. Der byzantinische Text der katholischen Briefe: Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Koine des Neuen Testaments. ANTF 24. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. ———. “Early Variants in the Byzantine Text of the Gospels.” In Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies, edited by J. W. Childers and D. C. Parker, 21–47. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2006. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. ———. “The Majority Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique.” In The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. NTTSD 42. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014. Wallraff, Martin, Silvana Seidel Menchi, and Kaspar von Greyerz, eds. Basel 1516: Erasmus’ Edition of the New Testament, SMHR 91. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Weiss, Bernhard. Die Katholischen Briefe: Textkritische Untersuchungen und Textherstellung. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1892. ———. Das Neue Testament. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902. Westcott, Brooke Foss, and Fenton John Anthony Hort. The New Testament in the Original Greek. 2 vols. Cambridge; London: Macmillan, 1881–82. Weymouth, Richard Francis. The Resultant Greek Testament: Exibiting the Text in Which the Majority of Modern Editors Are Agreed and Containing the Readings of Stephens (1550), Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Lightfoot, Ellicott, Alford, Weiss, The Bâle edition (1880), Westcott and Hort, and The Revision Committee. London: Paternoster, 1892. Wikgren, Allen. “Chicago Studies in the Greek Lectionary of the New Testament.” In Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, edited by J. Neville Birdsall and Robert W. Thomson, 96–121. Freiburg: Herder, 1963. ———. “The Lectionary Text of the Pericope, John 8:1–11.” JBL 53 (1934): 188–98. Wilson, Nigel G. From Byzantium to Italy: Greek Studies in the Italian Renaissance. London: Duckworth, 1992.

200

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Woide, Charles Godfrey, and B. Harris Cowper. Codex alexandrinus. Η καινη διαθηκη. Novum Testamentum Graece ex antiquissimo codice alexandrino. London: Williams & Norgate, 1860.

INDICES I NDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES John

8:3–11 Acts 8:37

James 1:5

1:12 1:17 1:19 1:20 1:22 1:25 1:26 2:3 2:4 2:5

2:18

14, 184

2:19

101

2:24

101–102

2:20 3:3

13, 72, 90, 93,

3:8

141, 174

4:4 4:9

97

4:11

97, 154–157, 171,

5:5

176 98

5:7

98

5:11

157, 171, 175

5:9

98

98–99 99,

5:12 157–158,

5:16

171, 176

5:20

99–100 100

1 Peter

100, 158–160, 171 100–101,

160–

161, 171, 175

102

102–103 103,

161–162,

171, 176 103

103–104

162–163, 175

171,

104

104–105 105

163–164, 175 105

105–106

1:22

106

2:21

107

1:23

201

101

106–107

171,

202

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

3:8

107

3:16

108

3:9 4:1 4:3

4:14 5:2 5:5

5:11 2 Peter

108

3:14

109

4:3

109 110 110

110–111

111

1:17

112

1:18 1:21 2:13 2:17 2:20 2:21 3:10 3:11 3:16 3:18 1 John

2:23

5:4

5:21

113 113

2 John

114

5

113–114 114–115 115 115

115–116

117

2:20

4:20

5:13

112

2:10 2:19

4:12

5:7–8

112

116

2:14

3:23

5:6

111

1:7 2:7

3:1

108–109

1:4

1:12

2:28

117

117–118 118

118,

164–165,

172, 175

119,

165–166,

172, 175 119–120 120

120–121, 121 121

121–122 122

14, 72, 89, 122– 123,

167–170,

172, 175, 183 123–124 124

124–125

8

125–126

9

12 13

125 126

126–127 127

5

127–128

8

128

7 12 14 Jude 1

166–

167, 172, 176

3

3 John

116–117

118–119

128

128–129 129

129

INDICES

203

3

129–130

18

131

5

130

24

132

4 15

130 131

23 25

131–132 132–133

I NDEX OF M ANUSCRIPTS

Greek New Testament manuscripts are listed according to their Gregory– Aland number: 01

20, 167

1732

79, 84–85

03

20, 175

1734

79, 84–85

02 992 996 997 999 1003 1022 1041 1069 1149 1353 1490 1626 1704

20, 170, 175 77

77, 86–88, 92,

1733 1739

97–140, 142

78, 86, 88, 92, 97–140, 142

78, 86, 88, 92,

1740 1854 1855

92, 97–140, 142

1856

78, 86, 88, 92,

1857

78, 86, 88, 92,

1859

79

1868

78, 96

97–140 97–140

79, 86–88, 92, 97–140, 142 79, 84–85

79, 80, 84

90, 92–93, 97– 24,

97–140

78, 83, 86, 88,

13, 75, 79, 86– 143, 155, 164 n.

77, 82, 88, 92, 97–140

79, 84–85

1860

1869

166,

170,

174, 184 n. 5 79, 84–85

79, 84, 86, 88, 92, 97–140

79, 86, 88, 92, 97–140, 142

79, 86, 88, 92, 97–140

79, 84, 86, 88, 92, 97–140

79–80, 84, 86 79

40, 79, 86–88, 92, 97–140

12, 75, 79, 86– 89, 92–93, 97– 141, 143, 174

204

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

1870

40, 79, 84, 86–

l 791

82

1871

80, 86, 88, 92,

l 794

82

1872 2076 2084 2258 2667 2923

l 384 l 408 l 437 l 672 l 673

l 680 l 683 l 690 l 698 l 700 l 701 l 717 l 740 l 770 l 772 l 773 l 776 l 780 l 781 l 784 l 785 l 790

88, 92, 97–140 97–140

40, 80, 84, 86, 88, 92, 97–140 80, 84 80, 84 80

l 792 l 795 l 883

l 884

80

79, 84

l 895

80

l 921

80

l 938

140

l 991

81

l 997

66–68, 80 80, 86, 93, 97– 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81

82

40, 63–64, 82, 86, 93, 97–140, 166

11, 40, 63, 72,

75, 82, 86, 89– 91, 93, 97–140,

80 80

82

l 995 l 1004 l 1014 l 1015 l 1022 l 1079 l 1084 l 1086 l 1092 l 1094 l 1096 l 1102 l 1107 l 1109 l 1112

142, 174

40, 82, 86, 93, 97–140, 143

63–64, 82, 86, 93, 97–140

63–64, 82, 86, 93, 97–141 66–68, 82 66–68, 82 82

66–68, 83 83 83 83

83 83

66–68, 83 83 83

66–68, 83 83 83 83 83

INDICES

205

l 1113

83

l 1391

83

l 1153

83, 86, 97–140

l 1552

84

l 1114 l 1154 l 1156 l 1159

83

83, 86, 93, 97– 140

83, 86, 93, 97– 140

83, 70, 86, 93, 97–142

l 1008 l 1779 l 1780 l 1782 l 1783 l 1787

84 84, 96 n. 2 84 84 84 84

I NDEX OF SUBJECTS Andreades, Ioannes, 41–42 Antoniades’ edition and text types, 10–14, 72– 73, 90, 181–184 and Textus Receptus, 3, 6, 14, 58, 72, 86–87, 90, 95, 142–143, 169, 173–174 editorial principles, 3, 12– 13, 143 editorial uncertainty, 13–14 goals, 9, 65, 141 in Western scholarship, 56– 71, 73 its introduction, 9–14, 179– 185 its lectionaries basis, 3, 6, 10–13, 40–41, 72–73 order of books, 86–88 selection of manuscripts, 11–12, 72, 75–86, 93–94, 173–174 smaller type, 13, 14, 59, 72, 90, 169, 184

Authority, 5, 17, 46, 181 British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS), 18–19, 22, 39 Byzantine manuscripts, 20–21 Byzantine text, 1, 3, 5–6, 10– 11, 13 Byzantinischer Text Deutsch, 9, 54 CBGM, 90 nn. 33–34, 142, 154 n. 1, 158–159, 160 nn. 15–16, 164, 167, 170, 175 Chicago Lectionary Project, 59– 61, 73, 174 Chrysostom, see John Chrysostom Cleenewerck, Laurent, 40 Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, see CBGM Collation, ECM and the Antoniades edition, 145–154 Collation, Teststellen, 95–143 Colwell, Ernest C., 59–61

206

ORTHODOX NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP

Comma Johanneum see also 1 John 5:7–8 in index of biblical passages, 16, 20, 39, 52, 59 Constantinopolitan/Ecclesiastical textual family, 9, 141 continuous text/manuscripts, 6, 11–12, 21, 51, 61, 66, 69, 72, 75–77, 93, 174–176, 180, 182 Critical text, 2–4, 15, 47–49, 51, 54, 56, 59, 72, 142, 173, 175 Editio Critica Maior (ECM), 2, 4, 6–7, 53, 64, 87, 145, 153–154, 170, 175–176 Erasmus edition, 15 Ericsson, Dwight E., 57, 62–63 Future orthodox editon, proposed principles and guidelines, 5–6, 153–154, 171–172 Gibson, Samuel, 69–71, 73 Holy Synod, 14, 20, 46, 53, 59, 169–170, 184

Junack, Klaus, 63–64, 73, 77 Karakolis, Christos, 50–53, 56, 170 Karavidopoulos, Ioannes, 40, 46–50 Karrer, Martin, 87 Klimmeck, Karl, 53–54 lectionary text, 130–3, 178–80 living text, 52 majority text, 3, 5–6, 54, 60– 63, 65, 70, 73, 91–92, 175 Metropolitan of Ilioupoli, Gennadios, 42–43 Metzger, Bruce M., 57, 157, 164–166 Mink, Gerd, 65 Mpratsiotis, Panagiotis, 44–46 Nestle, Eberhard, 19, 57–59, 73, 141, 174 Newton, Isaac, 169 Nikolakopoulos, Konstantinos, 50

Illingworth, Alfred Scott, 62 initial text, 6, 90, 142, 170– 172, 175–176

original text, 6, 44–46, 49, 50– 53, 154, 156, 162, 164, 171, 175, 177 orthodox textual scholarship, 40–56 Osburn, Carroll D., 57

John Chrysostom, 5, 10, 44–45, 54–55, 181 Jordan, Christopher R.D., 66– 67, 73

paratexts, 5 Parker, David C., 52, 55 patristic quotations, 4–5, 45 Photius of Constantinople, 5

INDICES printed editions, 15–40 quotations, see patristic quotations Riddle, Donald W., 57, 59 Rife, John Merle, 57, 60–61 Russian Orthodox Church, 20–21 Siotes, Markos A., 43–44 Stephanus’ edition, 7, 89, 95, 97, 141 Synod, see Holy Synod Text und Textwert, 95–96 textual scholarship, Orthodox perspective, 1, 4–6, 40– 56, 173, 176

207 Textus Receptus see also Antoniades’ edition and Textus Receptus 1–3, 6–7, 17, 19–21, 39, 42, 45, 61–62, 70–73, 159 as orthodox edition, 17–21, 39 Valsamis, George, 170 Wachtel, Klaus, 57, 64–65, 73, 76, 157, 164, 166, 179 Westcott–Hort edition, 1, 11 Wikgren, Allen, 61