The Washington Manuscript of the Fourth Gospel: The New Testament Manuscript in the Freer Collection, Part I (Ancient Texts and Translations) 9781606082065, 160608206X

Citation preview

About the pagination of this eBook Due to the unique page numbering scheme of this book, the electronic pagination of the eBook does not match the pagination of the printed version. To navigate the text, please use the electronic Table of Contents that appears alongside the eBook or the Search function. For citation purposes, use the page numbers that appear in the text.

The Washington Manuscript of the Four Gospels

Ancient Texts and Translations Series Editor K. C. Hanson Robert William Rogers Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament D. Winton Thomas, editor Documents from Old Testament Times Hugo Radau Early Babylonian History Henry Frederick Lutz Early Babylonian Letters from Larsa Albert T. Clay Babylonian Epics, Hymns, Omens, and Other Texts Daniel David Luckenbill The Annals of Sennacherib A. E. Cowley Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. G. R. Driver Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C., rev. ed. Adolf Neubauer The Book of Tobit August Dillman The Ethiopic Text of 1 Enoch R. H. Charles The Apocalypse of Baruch The Book of Enoch The Book of Jubilees The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

H. B. Swete The Gospel of Peter Richard Adelbert Lipsius and Max Bonnet Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (3 vols.) Charles W. Hedrick The Apocalypse of Adam

The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection —————————— Part I

The Washington Manuscript of the Four Gospels Henry A. Sanders

New Foreword and Bibliography by K. C. Hanson

WIPF & STOCK•

Eugene,

Oregon

THE WASHINGTON MANUSCRIPT OF THE FOUR GOSPELS Ancient Texts and Translations Copyright © 2009 Wipf & Stock Publishers. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf & Stock, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401. Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401. www.wipfandstock.com isbn 13: 978-1-60608-206-5

Cataloguing-in-Publication data: Sanders, Henry A. (Henry Arthur), 1868–1956. The Washington manuscript of the four gospels / by Henry A. Sanders, with new Foreword and Bibliography by K. C. Hanson. Ancient Texts and Translations At head of title: The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer collection, part I. isbn 13: 978-1-60608-206-5 Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock xx + 247 p., 5 p. of plates ; 26 cm. 1. Bible. Manuscripts. Greek—N.T. Gospels. 2. Bible. Criticism, Textual. 3. Freer Gallery of Art—Mss. (Greek). I. Hanson, K. C. (Kenneth C.). II. Title. III. Series.

bs2551 f7 s3 2009

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

Series Foreword

T

he discoveries of documents from the ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean worlds have altered our modern understanding of those worlds in both breadth and depth. Especially since the mid-nineteenth century, chance discoveries as well as archaeological excavations have brought to light thousands of clay tablets, stone inscriptions and stelae, leather scrolls, codices, papyri, seals, and ostraca. The genres of these written documents are quite diverse: receipts, tax lists, inventories, letters, prophecies, blessings and curses, dowry documents, deeds, laws, instructions, collections of proverbs, philosophical treatises, state propaganda, myths and legends, hymns and prayers, liturgies and rituals, and many more. Some of them came to light in long-famous cities—such as Ur, Babylon, Nineveh, and Jerusalem—while others came from locations that were previously little-known or unknown—such as Ebla, Ugarit, Elephantine, Qumran, and Nag Hammadi. But what good are these remnants from the distant past? Why should anyone bother with what are often fragmentary, obscure, or long-forgotten scraps of ancient cultures? Each person will answer those questions for herself or himself, depending upon interests and commitments. But the documents have influenced scholarly research in several areas. It must first be said that the documents are of interest and importance in their own right, whatever their connections—or lack of them—to modern ethnic, religious, or ideological concerns. Many of them provide windows on how real people lived in the ancient world—what they grew and ate; how they related to their families, business associates, and states; how they were taxed; how and whom they worshiped; how they organized their communities; their hopes and fears; and how they understood and portrayed their own group’s story. They are of intense interest at the linguistic level. They provide us with previously unknown or undeciphered languages and dialects, broaden our range of vocabularies and meanings, assist us in mapping the relationships and developments of languages, and provide examples of loan-words and linguistic

Series Foreword influences between languages. A monumental project such as The Assyrian Dictionary, produced by the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago, would have been unthinkable without the broad range of Akkadian resources today.1 And our study of Coptic and early gospels would be impoverished without the Nag Hammadi codices.2 The variety of genres also attracts our interest in terms of the history of literature. Such stories as Athra-hasis, Enumma Elish, and Gilgamesh have become important to the study of world literature. While modern readers may be most intrigued by something with obvious political or religious content, we often learn a great deal from a tax receipt or a dowry document. Hermann Gunkel influenced biblical studies not only because of his keen insights into the biblical books, but because he studied the biblical genres in the light of ancient Near Eastern texts. As he examined the genres in the Psalms, for example, he compared them to the poetic passages throughout the rest of the Bible, the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, Akkadian sources, and Egyptian sources.3 While the Akkadian and Egyptian resources were much more limited in the 1920s and 1930s when he was working on the Psalms, his methodology and insights have had an on-going significance. History is also a significant interest. Many of these texts mention kingdoms, ethnic and tribal groups, rulers, diplomats, generals, locations, or events that assist in establishing chronologies, give us different perspectives on previously known events, or fill in gaps in our knowledge. Historians can never have too many sources. The Amarna letters, for example, provide us with the names of local rulers in Canaan during the fourteenth century BCE, their relationship with the pharaoh, as well as the military issues of the period.4 Social analysis is another area of fertile research. A deed can reveal economic structures, production, land tenure, kinship relations, scribal conventions, calendars, and social hierarchies. Both the Elephantine papyri from Egypt (fifth century BCE) and the Babatha archive from the Judean desert (second century CE) include personal legal documents and letters relating to dowries, inheritance, and property transfers that provide glimpses of complex kinship 1.  I. J. Gelb et al., editors, The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1956–). 2.  James M. Robinson, editor, The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 3d ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990). 3.  Hermann Gunkel, Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen der religiösen Lyrik Israels, completed by Joachim Begrich, HAT (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933). ET = Introduction to the Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel, trans. James D. Nogalski, Mercer Library of Biblical Studies (Macon, Ga.: Mercer Univ. Press, 1998). 4.  William L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1992).

Series Foreword relations, networking, and legal witnesses.5 And the Elephantine documents also include letters to the high priest in Jerusalem from the priests of Elephantine regarding the rebuilding of the Elephantine temple. Religion in the ancient world was usually embedded in either political or kinship structures. That is, it was normally a function of either the political group or kin-group to which one belonged. We are fortunate to have numerous texts of epic literature, liturgies, and rituals. These include such things as creation stories, purification rituals, and the interpretation of sheep livers for omens. The Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, provide us with biblical books, texts of biblical interpretation, community regulations, and liturgical texts from the second temple period.6 Another key element has been the study of law. A variety of legal principles, laws, and collections of regulations provide windows on social structures, economics, governance, property rights, and punishments. The stele of Hammurabi of Babylon (c. 1700 BCE) is certainly the most famous. But we have many more, for example: Ur-Nammu (c. 2100 BCE), Lipit-Ishtar (c. 1850 BCE), and the Middle Assyrian Laws (c. 1150 BCE). The intention of Ancient Texts and Translations (ATT) is to make available a variety of ancient documents and document collections to a broad range of readers. The series will include reprints of long out-of-print volumes, revisions of earlier editions, and completely new volumes. The understanding of ancient societies depends upon our close reading of the documents, however fragmentary, that have survived. —K. C. Hanson Series Editor

5.  Bezalel Porten et al., editors, The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of CrossCultural Continuity and Change, Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 22 (Leiden: Brill, 1996); Yigael Yadin et al., The Finds from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters, 3 vols., Judean Desert Studies (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1963–2002) [NB: vols. 2 and 3 are titled Documents instead of Finds]. 6.  Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, 2d ed., trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).

Foreword

H

enry Arthur Sanders was a classicist and papyrologist who taught at the University of Michigan. He wrote his dissertation on Livy manuscripts at the University of Munich in 1897. Among Sanders’ most important publications are: Editor. Roman Historical Sources and Institutions. New York: Macmillan, 1904. Editor. Roman History and Mythology. New York: Macmillan, 1910. The Washington Manuscript of Deuteronomy and Joshua. Old Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, Part I. University of Michigan Studies. Humanistic Series 8. New York: Macmillan, 1910. Facsimile of the Washington Manuscript of Deuteronomy and Joshua in the Freer Collection. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1910. Facsimile of the Washington Manuscript of the Four Gospels in the Freer Collection. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1912. The Washington Manuscript of the Psalms. Old Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, Part II. University of Michigan Studies. Humanistic Series 8. New York: Macmillan, 1917. The Washington Manuscript of the Epistles of Paul. New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, Part 2. University of Michigan Studies. Humanistic Series 9.2. New York: Macmillan, 1918. Editor, with Francis W. Kelsey and Eugene Stock McCartney. Latin and Greek in American Education, with Symposia on the Value of Humanistic Studies. Rev. ed. New York: Macmillan, 1927. With Carl Schmidt. The Minor Prophets in the Freer Collection and the Berlin Fragment of Genesis. University of Michigan Studies. Humanistic Series 21. New York: Macmillan, 1927. Facsimile of the Washington Manuscript of the Minor Prophets in the Freer Collection, and the Berlin Fragment of Genesis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1927. Editor. Beauti in Apocalipsin Libri Duodecim. Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 7. Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1930.

Foreword Editor. A Third-Century Papyrus Codex of the Epistles of Paul. University of Michigan Studies. Humanistic Series 38. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1935. Editor. Latin Papyri in the University of Michigan Collections. University of Michigan Studies. Humanistic Series 48. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1947.

—K. C. Hanson

Select Bibliography Clarke, Kent D. “Paleography and Philanthropy: Charles Lang Freer and His Acquisition of the ‘Freer Biblical Manuscripts.’” In The Freer Biblical Manuscripts: Fresh Studies of an American Treasure Trove, edited by Larry W. Hurtado, 17–73. Comfort, Philip Wesley. Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament. 1990. Reprinted, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001. Ehrman, Bart D., and Michael W. Holmes, editors. The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. 1995. Reprinted, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001. Epp, Eldon Jay, and Gordon D. Fee, editors. New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis. Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981. Gunter, Ann C. A Collector’s Journey: Charles Lang Freer and Egypt. Washington, DC: Freer Gallery of Art, Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, 2002. Haugh, Dennis. “Was Codex Washingtonianus a Copy or a New Text?” In The Freer Biblical Manuscripts: Fresh Studies of an American Treasure Trove, edited by Larry W. Hurtado, 167–84. Hurtado, Larry W., editor. The Freer Biblical Manuscripts: Fresh Studies of an American Treasure Trove. Text-critical Studies 6. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. McKendrick, Scot, and Orlaith A. O’Sullivan, editors. The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text. London: British Library, 2003. Metzger, Bruce M. Annotated Bibliography of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 1914–1939. Studies and Documents 16. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1955. ———. Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963. ———. Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Palaeography. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. Prior, J. Bruce. “The Use and Nonuse of Nomina Sacra in the Freer Gospel of Matthew.” In The Freer Biblical Manuscripts: Fresh Studies of an American Treasure Trove, edited by Larry W. Hurtado, 147–66. Racine, Jean-Fracois. “The Text of Matthew in the Freer Gospels: A Quantitative and Qualitative Appraisal.” In The Freer Biblical Manuscripts: Fresh Studies of an American Treasure Trove, edited by Larry W. Hurtado, 123–46. Royse, James R. “The Corrections in the Freer Gospels Codex.” In The Freer Biblical Manuscripts: Fresh Studies of an American Treasure Trove, edited by Larry W. Hurtado, 185–226. Schmid, Ulrich. “Reassessing the Palaeography and Codicology of the Freer Gospel Manuscript.” In The Freer Biblical Manuscripts: Fresh Studies of an American Treasure Trove, edited by Larry W. Hurtado, 227–50.

CONTENTS PAGE

I. II.

HISTORY

PALAEOGRAPHY 1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

III.

2.

THE

MANUSCRIPT

I

:

Parchment, quires, ruling, writing Abbreviations Punctuation Paragraphs . Diacritical and other marks . Spelling, grammatical forms, scribal errors

CONTENTS 1.

IV.

OF THE

5 8 12

:

Order, omissions, crowded writing Corrections . (1) First hand (2) Second hand (3) Third hand (4) Other hands

PROBLEM

OF THE

TEXT:

x. Matthew 2. Mark . (a) Mark 1 - 5, 30 (b) Mark 5, 30 to end 3. Luke (a) Luke 1 -8, 12. (b) Luke 8, 13 to end 4. John 5, 12 to end 5. The first quire of John . 6. Summary

v. VI.

DATE THE

TEXT 1.

OF

w

AND THE

EARLY

CHURCH

FATHERS:

W and Clement of Alexandria

2. W and Origen 3. W and other early Fathers

VII.

COLLATION:

Secundum Secundum 3. Secundum 4. Secundum 1.

2.

Matthaeum . Ioannem Lucam Marcum

1 45

166 192 218

vii

PREFACE OvER two years have elapsed since the publication of the first of the Biblical Mss in the Freer Collection, though it was then hoped that the remaining MSSwould appear with less delay. My excuse is the great importance of the MSof the Gospels now published and the difficulty of gathering parallels to its remarkable readings so as to put a proper estimate and interpretation on the MS. Furthermore the great importance of the early Versions was soon discovered and necessitated a working knowledge of Syriac, Coptic, and Gothic. For Armenian and Ethiopic I have had to rely on secondary sources. It is hardly necessary to state that the admirable editions of the Old Syriac Gospels by Burkitt and of the Bohairic and Sahidic by Horner were of the utmost assistance. In gathering the parallels to the special readings shown in the various lists the main object was to learn the degree of relationship to other Mss. Absolute completeness was th~refore not necessary, nor was it attainable with the books accessible to me. In many cases reasons of space prevented printing all the parallels gathered ; thus the conclusions are based on somewhat fuller material than is given the reader. On the other hand some parallels were inserted in proof, which had not been considered in the summaries. I am under obligation to so many Biblical scholars that space will hardly permit the mention of all here; yet without belittling the assistance received from others, I wish to give special thanks to Professors Caspar Rene Gregory, Kirsopp Lake, and William H. Worrell, Dr. J. Rendel Harris, Sir Frederick Kenyon, and Mr. Herman C. Hoskier. To Mr. Hoskier I am also indebted for many suggestions and additions made in reading the proof, as well as for the loan of valuable books not elsewhere accessible to me. The libraries of Harvard University, Oberlin College, Hartford V

PREFACE

vi

Theological Seminary, and the Theological Department of the University of Chicago have been most kind in the loan of books and in gran,ting ·special privileges for work. My most earnest thanks are likewise extended to Mr. Charles L. Freer for his interest in the work and his generous support of the publication. HENRY A. SANDERS. ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN, November 22, 1912,

l'L\IT

·'

1.oy~;,ir.i-r;o~#Ia'

'#7»YP.)94flr~

,·;i'r,,,m-p,.H'NTPICPJ'+TAM,~~6J["~ .'_#llcT-f?\'A·t,frPINAlrrP-A -4-NUIJ.YJ(}l,,().Npl/l'L''-V

-_~:,.,, yc.oy t;·. tJC-.ly

_:1

YT.-IA41,A.C.l.

t:'ritlf€"JJ,TA(-~,TJ'

nA r:,... f A.f6Ar .Ji:n:A.;i-i~ l:'E1' >

:.,·

.: . 'NA.G-rw M, ·,£--..X~T AUJ,~ftt, ~ ,._ :,/'"' .,.,. ,,,-'fJH:AA4','IJll✓CWMOY:_:o/crAcn"1f-'~~;

if~fACAY.CAr7t1H{A--~~71

\

!i,,~:;j'

l.0eiv (Luke 14, 18) and even et\'>-rov ~vpavov (Luke 15, 2 I); ovK regularly attaches itself to the neighboring words; cf. ov!K 7J8vvavTo Luke 8, 19 and often; even a>.!>..' ovK John 3, 8. The writing is a graceful, sloping uncial of small size. It was evidently written with ease and rapidity. The ordinary letter is about 2.5 mm. in height, but aAYJ; John 1, 35, 'Ira.A,; Matthew 27, 41, cf,ap,ua.,ru; 12, 12, ov for ov11. Rather more common are single consonants for double: ep,mua.11, Matthew 26, 68; 8,Ep71fa,, Matthew 26, 65 ( = E>b); Ept'ITTE, Luke 1 7, 2 ( = TI*); 1TpouEp71fEv,Luke 6, 48 ( = B D L) ; ..op,eov, Luke 6, 14; /3 for X: Ta.{3,0a.,Mark 5, 41 (=D, 157,225,259, and 0. L.

PALAEOGRAPHY

23

Mss); A for p: tcaA..oµwv-roc;, John IO, 23; the spellings probably indicate age, as the best MSS support. 8ave,S, vouuovc;, a'>..a(for a'>..as),owwc;, evOvs, ava1reipovc; (Luke 14, 13-21), E£AKWJJ,EVO..ava.v IO, 13, ova for ovai; these errors probably reflect careless pronunciation of the diphthong and are paralleled in Ptolemaic papyri, cf. Thackeray, p. 77. There are two cases of {a1v for {w11v: John 3, 15 (corr. man. 2) and 4, 36. They may well be due to an error in writing, caus~d by the similarity of 71and 11. for a.'>..'>..' is very frequent and occurs before all vowels; A'>..'>..a. as Coptic uses only the full form the influence is apparent. \V regularly has v eby the first hand agrees with D d Syr S Diatess Cyr. All others agree with the second hand in adding w',.

WASHINGTON

MANUSCRIPT

III

John 16, 22 Ete-rai of the first hand is supported by NeA D L 1. 15, I. 184, ab de r 'V 33, 42, 122, 131, 145,157,249,254,481,482, Vulg Cop Chrys, etc. EXETEof the second hand occurs in N* B C Y r A A II unc. (7), etc. Analyzing these cases we get results similar to those obtained for the first hand changes. In Matthew all of the second hand corrections agree with the Antioch recension, sometimes but not al ways supported by other MS groups. The first hand generally has weak support, but it always includes Mss, versions, or Church The same relationship Fathers related to the version tradition. to the Antioch recension prevails in the second hand corrections in Luke 8, 13 to end, though one case out of the seventeen points to a different influence. The first hand here also is always related to the version tradition. There is but one example in the first two quires of Luke and this gives a correction from the version tradiIn Mark we find tion to the Antioch and Hesychian recensions. six cases of correction to the Hesychian recension, but usually supported by some branches of the version tradition, while one case is just the opposite. The fact that representatives of the version tradition are found on both sides in all except one case hinders us from assuming a definite accommodation to either of the In John there are but three cases and all show great recensions. corrections from the version form to the Hesychian supported by the Antioch recension. The remaining 33 cases of second hand are mostly corrections of simple errors. All are found in the collation. (3) Third Hand

I have noted only the following eleven cases of correction by the third hand: Matthew 24, 32 ev0v'> for eyyv'>; v0 is in an erasure and by a later, rougher hand ; there is no variant recorded for the passage. Possibly the first hand wrote eyyv'>. Mark 5, 1 omitted v of T'YJV before xwpav was added by the third hand. of the first hand, corrected at once Mark 10, 35 npoo-E'A.0ov-rE'> was further corrected by the second hand, who to 1rpoo-E'A.0ov-re'>, crossed out E'>. The third hand again crossed out these two letters, erased the first e and wrote 'Y/· All other Greek MSS have 1rpocr1ropevovTat. The perfect tense of the Old Latin MSSc d f ff

2

CONTENTS

37

r aur, Syr S Sah Bo gives some warrant for the first hand reading. Mark 11, 33 01.8op.ev of the first hand was corrected to oi8ap.ev.

Luke 4,

the third hand corrected re0prup.evov', to the spellis the regular reading. ing, re0pavp.evov'>, of D•; re0pav-..eJyru omitted by first hand is added by erasing yru, writing yw 8, at end of previous line and an in the erasure. John 11, 7 omitted a of ayrup.ev is added by third hand. These are all natural corrections made by an intelligent reader. The corrections at Matthew 24, 32 and Mark IO, 35 almost forbid our thinking that he had another text to use for comparison, while + 81.:z.n,John 8, 46, seems to imply knowledge of a corrected text. It is possible that this correction was made by the Swp0ruT1Ji and that the awkwardness of the writing is due to the depth and roughness of the erasure. The omission of S,an is supported only by 28, (87), 250, Bo (two Mss), Syr g (nine Mss). The third hand is written with large, awkward letters. Ornamental dots are heavier, especially on the middle stroke of e and the cross stroke of 0; also v and v are ornamented. The ink is brown but rather darker than the regular hand. It is decidedly later than the original writing, but may be dated as early as the sixth century, possibly the end of the fifth. 19

(4) Other Hands

Of the fourth hand there are but four instances: Luke 17, 1 ov for ova1.is corrected to ove. John 6, 53 omitted p.TJis added. John 9, 6 omitted o of rov is added a little below and smaller. is changed to emav. John 9, 2 3 e1.1Tov These are all corrections by a reader and were not drawn from acquaintance with another MS. The letters are very awkward in

WASHINGTON

MANUSCRIPT

III

shape : Coptic p. is used. The ink is jet black. The corrector was certainly not in the habit of writing in uncials, so it would be useless to attempt to date him on the basis of the forms of these few letters. We have, however, seen that black ink was used in the Deuteronomy-Joshua MS in the sixth century and later; so we may safely date this hand later than the third hand. The first quire of John I have excluded from the discussion th us far, as the hands are all different. To a void confusion I name them a, b, and c, instead of first, second, and third. In this quire there are four cases of letters crossed out. The following three were certainly deleted by hand a: 2, I 6 o between µ. and T/ of JJ-TJ;2, 24 o before eavrov; 4, 10 a between r and o of awov. In 4, 22 ooK for ovK is corrected by crossing out the second o and writing v above it. This is surely not hand a. In I, 33 the same hand corrected OTo-, to owo33, 471, OL Vulg Syr cu Cyp Hier Hilar Lup; 7, 25 11'pO..0ovcra; £am I omits the following ev Tru ox'>..ru; perhaps the errors are related; 5, 27 - Tov tp.anov; cf. Luke 8, 45-47, harmonistic? 5, 28 av-rov transposed after alf,wp.at; either Syriac influence or wrongly inserted correction. Some of these variations are rather remarkable and seem to indicate intentional changes, as already noted. The cases are not, however, numerous enough to prove a definite editorial revision. 5, 3

a.wov transferred

(b) Mark 5, 31 to end In the second part of Mark there is still a decidedly close relationship between W and the Old Latin Mss, but the special Latinisms and the peculiar agreements with MS e have mostly disappeared. To illustrate the characteristics of the text, I have made a study of all (490) the readings weakly supported by other Greek MSS or lacking that support. In these 490 readings W agrees the following number of times with the various versions, MSS, or groups of MSS: Old Latin, 186; £am 1 3, 1 70; £am 1, 122 ; Sah, IOI; Bo, 71; MS 565, 120; MS 28, II8; D, II5; Syr S, IOI; MS 700, 70; Arm, 58; Syr g, 55; MS 299, 38; MS 472, 32; L, 30; N, 24; Eth, 19; lect. 184, 18; C, 18; B, 16; Goth., 16; A, 15. The most interesting feature of this table is the increase in the number of agreements with fam 13 (Ferrar group) and the other Syriacising MSS, £am 1, 565, and 28. With this naturally goes the closer alliance with Syr S, while the close bond of union · of all the early versions is shown by Sahidic also maintaining an equal relationship. The larger number of agreements with Old Latin is in a measure deceptive, for we have far better evidence for Old Latin than for early Syriac or Coptic. If we confine our

74

WASHINGTON

MANUSCRIPT

III

comparison to a single Old Latin MS,we find that k now stands nearest, with just under 75 agreements or partial agreements; MSS ff and c stand next in order of relationship. In the case of fam 13 it is interesting to note that of the 170 agreements 43 are with MS124 against the rest of the family; in like manner 13 are with MS69 alone, 7 with MS 346, and 5 with MS 1 3. Thus only 102 out of the 170 agreements are attested by a fair proportion of the group; yet we may, I think, on the evidence of W assign the remaining agreements to the ancestor of the group; therefore the often expressed opinion that sometimes MS 124 alone preserves the original reading may now be considered as established. A comparison with von Soden's classification shows that the Mss and groups of MSSmost closely affiliated with W are placed by him in different sub-groups of the I recension. D, 565, 28, and 700 all belong to the oldest branch, Ia, while £am 1 3 is the sub-group J, fam I is the sub-group Hr, Ms 472 is related to the sub-group ,and to sub-group i are assigned cursives 157 and 245 ; with these two W has several notable agreements, though the number does not run high. 1 The general conclusion that W stands back of all these groups is easily made but deceptive, if we leave out of consideration the equally remarkable relationship to the versions, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and even Armenian, Ethiopic, and Gothic. The only adequate explanation, it seems to me, is to refer all to the version tradition. W will then represent the Greek column of a trilingual, which had come to Egypt in the form Greek-Latin-Syriac, but the Syriac column had then been replaced by a Coptic (Sahidic) version. Under such circumstances we might expect the Sahidic influence to be even stronger, as W was evidently written in Coptic territory, and so under Coptic influence, if not by a Coptic scribe. We must, however, remember that both Sahidic and Bohairic have been accommodated to the Hesychian recension, so that only the remnants of the original Coptic version are preserved. At the risk of being wearisome, I append a list of the more notable readings of W as illustrative of the conclusions reached. Readings supported by not more than two MS groups or versions have been chosen. . 2

1 Mr. Hoskier writes me that his new collation of MS I 57 shows the former publication quite inadequate; the relationship to Wis probably nearer than my comparisons show.

THE

5, 5, 5, 5,

31 32 32 33

PROBLEM

OF THE TEXT

75

- atrrov = Arm ; - i8nv= 259 (in Vulgate Q videre stands in an erasure); 1re1roi17Kviavfor. 1roi17.,JJ,q .against «a.ntt>..,.(J,q of Hesych. + D _X £am. 1, Epiph;

WASHINGTON

94

MANUSCRIPT

III

7, 39 - >..eywv= D X 38, 69, 76, ro6, d e r Syr h Arm Sah Or

Amphil Aug; O LS=$ Syr S cu; 7, 40 EL'JTEJ,I ..eia.s= 50*, 258, 579, ff.; cf. I Corinth. 4, 1; Just. dial. 121; Epiph. ad diogn. 11, 2. -Tov

E1TL

In this list the agreements with W number as follows: Old Latin, 58; D, 35; Syr cu S, 31; Sahidic, 28; Bohairic, 19; £am 13, Arm, N, 17; Eth, 11; £am 1, 472, 579, 9 each; MS 157, 11-; Goth, 6; MSS 700 and X, 7 each. To the Syriac testimony we can add six cases supported by the other Syriac recensions, but not by Syr cu S, so that the two nearest relatives to the uncorrected base of W were the two earliest versions. N, as well as D and £am 13, is found closely related to this tradition in places. Mss 472 and 157 (von Soden's l:) are nearer here than they have been found elsewhere. There remain to be noted the 32 variants, for which no other authority has been found; as usual, scribal errors previously treated are not included. 1, 1,

20 -'Y}s; D and OL-transpose; 32 8w of Latin MSS; ; influence of a version. 8, 4 Etu1ropevop.evwvfor E1r,1ropevop.Evwv These readings as a whole are not very important, but they are of the same general character as the variants which have previously

WASHINGTON

MANUSCRIPT

III

been assigned to the version tradition ; they consist in the main of slight omissions or additions, synonyms, and changes in number and tense. Harmonistic changes are few. (b) Luke 8, 13 to end As suggested by the relationship to codex A, this part of Luke belongs to the Antioch recension. Out of 1399 readings considered, 1112 agree with that recension. Furthermore, while W differs often from the derived forms of the Antioch recension (noted by von Soden as Ka, K\ etc.), it does not agree with these against the original type of the recension, as shown in the Mss S V n, etc. (K 1 of von Soden). There remain 287 special readings of W to be accounted for; these are in the main to be referred to the original base, as it has been shown above (pp. 31 ff.) that in Luke just as in Matthew the corrections by first and second hands indicate that the parent MS had been revised from the version tradition form to the Antioch recension. Of these special readings in W the following 189 may be definitely assigned to the version tradition, though a few have been adopted by later Antioch types also: 8, 17 -yap= Bo (F while C and H have Se), Aug Hier; 8, 20 a1T"'f/yyeX.0'Y/ for a1T"YJryeA.YJ = 47, 56, 58, 61, 476, Eras; 8, 22 +To before 1r>..owv=H M V fam 13, 71, 242, 253, 47 2 ; 8, 28 (mrev) + aww= l. 47; 8, 32 -e,m= Basil-Seleuc (Migne, 85, p. 277); 8, 33 ei