chapter 4 Summarized Results of the Textual Examination

The analysis for this project is contained in Appendix 1. All the Greek mss. from the second to fifth century plus Claromontanus containing portions of the Pauline corpus are included: 01, 02, 03, 04, 06, P46, and more than three dozen smaller mss. In total, the project examines more than 167,000 words. Given the nature of the examination—especially the tedious calculations—the com- plete analysis is not necessary to read entirely, so this chapter will present the findings in summary form. Before looking at the results of the textual analysis, a brief word on the pri- mary documents. The most important mss. in this project are the five oldest majuscules and P46. Given their size and state of completeness, these mss. form the statistical base for establishing scribal patterns and trajectories used in the ensuing application chapters. First, P46 is the oldest and most important attes- tation of the Pauline texts. P46 is commonly dated to around AD200.1 With varying degrees of lacunae on each of its fifty-two folios, P46 contains Rom 5:17–1Thess 5:28. It serves as the best evidence of early scribal behavior and Pauline circulation since it is dated prior to any supposed major recensions of the corpus.2 Second, turning to the majuscules, 01 is the most complete early con- taining the entire Pauline corpus.3 Along with 03, 01 is possibly part of Emperor

1 In 1935 Wilcken (“Chester Beatty,” 113) is the first to give a definitive date for P46, saying “aber mit einem Ansatz um 200.” The year 200 is frequently cited including the NA28 apparatus, which typically gives centuries for the papyri, but for P46 offers ca. 200. More recently in a critical reexamination of early dating practices, Orsini and Clarysse (“Early ,” 462, 470) contend for the narrow window of AD200–225. In this project, I do not attempt to offer dates of mss., but rather work with commonly held positions. However, since AD200 is approximate, I have chosen to include the possibility of P46 being from the late second century, which is similar to the declaration of Elliott (“Nature of the Evidence,” 10). This inclu- sion is not a recommendation of the date but attempts to allow for date ranges others offer. The most (in)famous dating is Kim (“Palaeographical Dating of P46,” 254) suggesting prior to emperor Domitian of AD81. Alternatively, Jang (“Reconsideration of the Date,” 145) says “the probable date of P46 is between AD75 and 175.” Comfort and Barrett (Earliest New Testament, 206) say the middle of the second century. 2 The number of studies on P46 is expansive. This project makes extensive use of the excellent recent dissertation by Edgar Ebojo, “Scribe and His ,” especially his transcription. Images are available at http://ntvmr.uni‑muenster.de run by the InstitutfürNeutestamentliche Textforschung. 3 Perhaps the most important works used in this study are Milne and Skeat, Scribes and Correc- tors; and Jongkind, Scribal Habits.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004429376_006 summarized results of the textual examination 69

Constantine’s Bible commissioning, but if it is not a directly commissioned codex it still comes from the mid-fourth century.4 The codex was brought to publication by Tischendorf from the library at Saint Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai.5 Multiple quality transcriptions of the codex are available, as well as online high-resolution images, which are frequently consulted for the work in this project.6 The third document is from the fifth century, which has many physical similarities to 01 and 03 in size and majuscule hand.7 Overall, the text has the second-highest degree of uniformity with the majority read- ing at 98.6 percent but is missing about nine percent of the Pauline corpus.8 The fourth document is the famous in the Vatican Library. It is a contemporary of 01, but unlike its contemporary, it contains very few scribal corrections or marginal notes. 03 is an excellent ms., however, it is miss- ing 1Tim–Phm, which is about thirteen percent of the corpus.9 The fifth document is the extremely difficult to read Ephraemi-Rescriptus. The single-column Greek text is from the fifth century. However, it is a palimp- sest erased and reused in the twelfth century as a two-column text recording sermons and treatises of Ephraem. The codex is missing a little more than a third of the corpus.10 The last major ms. used is the diglot Codex Claromon- tanus. Also discovered and transcribed by Tischendorf, Claromontanus is a peculiar text produced by a sloppy scribe.11 Its text is nearly four percent dif- ferent than the majority reading, but unlike Bezae it is not a different version. Rather, Claromontanus regularly conflates old and new readings in a poor man- ner.

4 It is first suggested by Tischendorf (Novum Testamentum, xxix–xxxv) to connect with the Emperor’s commissioning recorded by Eusebius of Caesaera (VitConst IV 36.1–37.1). For a recent discussion see Böttrich, “Codex Sinaiticus,” 471–476. 5 Tischendorf, Our Written? See also Peterson, “Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiti- cus,” 125–139; Porter, Constantine Tischendorf; Porter, “Hero or Thief?” 45–53. 6 Lake and Lake, Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus; Scrivener, Full Collation. Images and Colla- tion available at www.codexsinaiticus.org. While not a transcription there are important notes in Tischendorf, Notitia Editionis. 7 Transcriptions consulted are Kenyon, Codex Alexandrinus; Woide, Codex Alexandrinus. Images are also available at http://ntvmr.uni‑muenster.de. 8 Alexandrinus is missing 2Cor 4:14–12:6. 9 The primary transcription is a digitized form of Cozza-Luzi, Codice Vaticano, along with images at https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209 and http://ntvmr.uni‑muenster.de. 10 The primary transcription used is Tischendorf, Codex Ephraemi. Images of the ms. are at http://ntvmr.uni‑muenster.de. 11 The transcription is Tischendorf, Codex Claromontanus, and images at http://ntvmr.uni ‑muenster.de. Claromontanus is missing Rom 1:1–6 and 1Cor 14:13–22.