appendix 2 Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus: An Underestimated Uncial

In my research into the state of NT textual criticism in the pre-Westcott-and-Hort era, I was struck by the high regard in which Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C04) was held. Griesbach said this manuscript was “rightfully and deservedly leading the whole Alexandrian flock.”1 Tischendorf quoted Griesbach with approval in the introduction of his 1843 edition of Ephraemi Rescriptus, though he wonders whether Codex Vati- canus may not even be better.2 The same position is taken by Tregelles and Holwerda. Tregelles calls C “one of the most valuable codices which we possess, ranking probably, on the whole, next to Codex Vaticanus.”3 In 1855, on the basis of a close investigation of more than two hundred passages, Holwerda defends the superiority of B and C;4 in 1860, he adds the qualification that C is outranked by B.5 From a modern perspective, this high regard for Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus is sur- prising. In the classification of the Alands, Ephraemi is a category II manuscript:

Manuscripts of a special quality, but distinguished from manuscripts of category I by the presence of alien influences (particularly of the Byzantine text), and yet of importance for establishing the original text …6

Bruce Metzger assigns even less importance to C:

Though the document dates from the fifth century, its text is of less importance than one might have assumed from its age. It seems to be compounded from all the major text-types, agreeing frequently with the later Koine or Byzantine type, which most scholars regard as the least valuable type of New Testament text.7

1 “totius alexandrini gregis dux jure meritoque suo” (Griesbach, Symbolae criticae 1 [1785], p. xxvii). 2 Tischendorf, Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus NT (1843), p. 21. 3 Tregelles, “Introduction” (1856), p. 169. 4 Holwerda, Bijdragen (1855), pp. 9–21, 24–45. 5 Holwerda, “Tischendorf” (1860), p. 559. 6 Aland and Aland, Text (21989), p. 160. 7 Metzger, Text (31992), p. 49.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004365568_008 246 appendix 2

This appreciation of C as a manuscript of secondary critical importance is common in the first half of the twentieth century as well8 and ultimately goes back to Hort’s characterisation:

In C the Syrian [= Byzantine] and all three forms of Pre-Syrian text are combined in varying proportions; …9

It has been Ephraemi’s fate that Tischendorf found Codex Sinaiticus, about as old as Codex Vaticanus, and with a NT text very similar to that of Vaticanus. As J. Neville Bird- sall comments:

It was the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus in the same period that enabled scholars to perceive the distinctive form of text that these two majuscules pre- sented distinctively and outstandingly, primarily by reason of their greater age, even amongst the other manuscripts that for Bengel and Griesbach had formed the ‘Alexandrian’ family.10

In Westcott and Hort’s influential theory Ephraemi was replaced by Sinaiticus as the second-best manuscript: “At a long interval after B, but hardly a less interval before Ephraemi then becomes, in the words of Robert 11”.א all other manuscripts, stands W. Lyon, “the neglected member of the family of great uncials.”12 It seemed as if C was only relevant for the text of the Apocalypse, where B is not extant, while Josef Schmid and the third-century 픓47.13 א demonstrated that A and C are better there than

However, in a 1990 (unfortunately) unpublished dissertation Mark R. Dunn concludes, on the basis of a profile analysis involving 551 variation units where C is extant, that C is fully Alexandrian in the Gospel of John. It agrees with NA26 in 80.2% of all variation agrees with א ;units, while only two manuscripts (B: 82.8%; 픓75: 82.2%) score better NA26 in only 59.4% of the places.14

8 See Dunn, Examination (1990), pp. 17–18. 9 Westcott and Hort, NT: Introduction (1a1882), p. 152. The characterisation continues as fol- lows: “… distinctively Syrian readings and such distinctively Western readings as were not much adopted into eclectic texts being however comparatively infrequent.” 10 Birdsal, “Vaticanus” (2003), p. 35. 11 Westcott and Hort, NT: Introduction (1a1882), p. 171. 12 Lyon, “Re-Examination” (1959), p. 260. 13 Schmid, Studien II (1955). 14 See Dunn, Examination (1990), pp. 248, 279, 305–311.