Codex Cyprius, designated by Ke or 017 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering of New Testament Manuscripts), ε71 (in the von Soden numbering of New Testament manuscripts), or Codex Colbertinus 5149,[1] is a Greek uncial manuscript of the four Gospels, written on parchment.[1] It is one of the few uncial manuscripts with the complete text of the four Gospels,[2][3]: 136 and it is one of the more important late uncial manuscripts.[4]: 337 It was brought from Cyprus (hence the name of the codex) to Paris.[1][3]: 136
| New Testament manuscript | |
 Gospel of Matthew | |
| Name | Cyprius |
|---|---|
| Sign | Ke |
| Text | Gospels |
| Date | 9th century |
| Script | Greek |
| Found | Cyprus 1673 |
| Now at | National Library of France |
| Size | 26 cm by 19 cm |
| Type | Byzantine text-type |
| Category | V |
The text of the manuscript has been examined by many scholars.[2] It is considered to mainly represent the Byzantine text-type (see Textual character below),[5] but it has numerous peculiar readings.[6] It has been variously dated from the 8th to the 11th centuries,[1]: 100 but using the study of comparative writing styles (palaeography), it is currently dated to the 9th century.[7][8]
Description edit
The manuscript is a codex (precursor to the modern book), containing the complete text of the four Gospels written on 267 parchment leaves (sized 26 cm by 19 cm).[5] The text itself is written in uncial letters of brown ink with one column per page.[4]: 338 [2] Each page contains 16 to 31 lines due to the handwriting being irregular and varying in size, with some pages having letters that are quite large.[6][3] They are also upright, not round, and compressed.[6] There is frequent insertion of an interpunction mark (·), and as it is sometimes in the wrong place for a stop, this has been supposed to occur in an ancient stichometrical style of writing (writing new sentences on new lines as opposed to continuing on the same line),[6] from which this manuscript may have been copied.[3] A dot is always used to denote the end of the phrase/line.[9]: 59 [3] It includes rough and smooth breathing marks (utilised to designate vowel emphasis), with accents (used to indicate voiced pitch changes) likely from the original scribe, but these are often omitted or incorrectly placed.[3] The breathings are indicated by ⊢ and ⊣, these signs were often used in the codices from the 9th and 10th century. Errors of itacism (confusion of similar sounding letters) are very frequent.[10]: 54 It contains lectionary markings (employed to indicate which passage is to read on a certain day in the year) in the margin, the Synaxarion (a list of Saint's days) on pages 1–18, with a Menologion (a list of readings to be read each calendar month), and the Eusebian Canons tables (an early system of dividing the four Gospels into different sections) on pages 19–28.[9]: 56
The nomina sacra (special names/words considered sacred in Christianity, abbreviated usually with the first and last letter, and notified with an overline) are employed throughout. The last letter is dependent upon case; the nominative case abbreviations are as follows: ΑΝΟΣ / ανθρωπος (man), ΔΑΔ / δαυιδ (David), ΘΣ / θεος (God), ΙΣ / Ιησους (Jesus), ΙΛΗΜ / ιερουσαλημ (Jerusalem), ΙΗΛ / ισραηλ (Israel), ΚΣ / κυριος (Lord), ΜΗΡ / μητηρ (mother), ΟΥΝΟΣ / ουρανος (heaven), ΟΥΝΙΟΣ / ουρανιος (heavenly), ΠΗΡ / πατηρ (father), ΠΝΑ / πνευμα (spirit), ΠΝΙΚΟΣ / πνευματικος (spiritual), ΣΡΙΑ / σωτηρια (salvation), ΥΣ / υιος (son), ΧΣ / χριστος (Christ/Messiah).[9]: 59
The text is divided according to the Ammonian Sections (Matthew has 359 sections, Mark 241, Luke 342, and John 232), whose numbers are given in the left margin of the text, and despite containing the Eusebian Canon tables at the beginning of the codex, references to the Eusebian Canons are absent.[3] There was no other division according to the chapters (known as κεφαλαια / kephalaia) in the original codex, though it has their titles (known as τιτλοι / titloi) at the top of the pages, and the chapter tables before each Gospel. The chapter numbers were added by a later hand (Matthew has 68, Mark 48, Luke 83, and John 19).[9]: 57 It contains subscriptions after each of first three Gospels.[9]: 57
| Gospel | Greek Subscription | English |
|---|---|---|
| Matthew |
|
|
| Mark |
|
|
| Luke |
|
|
Colophon edit
Near the end of the manuscript, on the reverse of page 267, there is a colophon (subscription) inserted by a second hand. According to this colophon the manuscript was written by a scribe named Basil, and it was bound by one Theodoulos, who commended themselves to the Virgin and St. Eutychios.[11]: 11 [10]: 55 Some parts of the colophon are uncertain.[12][13]
The full text of the colophon is:
| Greek | English |
|---|---|
|
|
Text edit
Textual character edit
.JPG)
The Greek text of this codex is considered a representative of the Byzantine text-type.[7] The text-types are groups of different New Testament manuscripts which share specific or generally related readings, which then differ from each other group, and thus the conflicting readings can separate out the groups. These are then used to determine the original text as published; there are three main groups with names: Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine.[7]: 205–230 Together with Codex Petropolitanus (Π), the Codex Cyprius belongs to family Π, a group of manuscripts in close relationship to the text seen in Codex Alexandrinus (A). According to biblical scholar Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, it has many good and valuable readings,[6] but according to biblical scholar Frederic Kenyon the text of the codex has no remarkable value, due to the manuscript being of a late date.[2] According to biblical scholar Caspar René Gregory it has many old readings that preceded the Byzantine text-type.[10]: 54 Textual critic Hermann von Soden classified it to the textual family Iκa,[14] and associated the provenance of this text with Jerusalem.[15]
Textual critic Silva Lake considered the text of the codex as a somewhat diluted form of family Π, with a large number of peculiar readings, most of which are either misspellings or careless and ignorant mistakes.[11]: 37 According to her an educated scribe could hardly have produced the variants in Mark 4:1; Mark 6:26; Mark 9:4; Mark 13:3; Mark 14:38; or Mark 16:4.[11]: 37 The readings it does not share with other Family Π representatives are supported outside the family, and they seem to be connected with the late Alexandrian group (C, L, M, N, Δ), but the number of Alexandrian readings is not high, and Silva Lake considered them as a result of accident as opposed to influence from a different text-type.[11]: 37
Textual critic Kurt Aland placed its text in Category V of his New Testament classification system.[5] Category V manuscripts are described as having "a purely or predominantly Byzantine text."[5]: 336 According to the Claremont Profile Method (a specific analysis method of textual data), its text belongs to the textual family Πa in Luke 1, Luke 10, and Luke 20.[15]
Some notable readings edit
Below are some readings of the manuscript which agree or disagree with variant readings in other Greek manuscripts, or with varying ancient translations of the New Testament. See the main article Textual variants in the New Testament.
- οινον (wine) – K א B D L Θ ƒ1 ƒ13 33
- οξος (vinegar) – A W 0250 Byz (see Psalm 69:22). According to textual critic Johann Jakob Wettstein, the reading οινον came from the Latin versions.[16]
- μη αποστερησης (do not defraud)
- Ναραιος (Naraios) – K*
- Ναζωραιος (of Nazareth) – Kc Majority of manuscripts[17]: 169
- στραφεις δε επετιμησεν αυτοις και ειπεν, Ουκ οιδατε ποιου πνευματος εστε υμεις; ο γαρ υιος του ανθρωπου ουκ ηλθεν ψυχας ανθρωπων απολεσαι αλλα σωσαι (but He turned and rebuked them and He said: "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; for the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives but to save them) – K Π 1079 1242 1546 ƒ1 (omit γαρ) Θ ƒ13 (omit υμεις and γαρ)
- omit – Majority of manuscripts[17]: 248
- ὄνος ἢ βοῦς (an ass or an ox) – K א L X Π Ψ ƒ1 ƒ13 33 892 1071, ℓ 547
- υἱὸς ἢ βοῦς (a son or an ox) – Majority of manuscripts[17]: 273
- αυτων πονηρα τα εργα (their works are evil) – K (singular reading)
- πονηρα αυτων τα εργα (evil are their works) – Majority of manuscripts[18]: 25
- εγω ουκ αναβαινω (I am not going) – K א D 1241 f
- εγω ουπω αναβαινω (I am not yet going) – K B L T W Θ Ψ 0105 0180 0250 ƒ1 ƒ13 Majority of manuscripts[19]: 269
- οι δε ακουσαντες και υπο της συνειδησεως ελεγχομενοι εξερχοντο εις καθ εις (They heard this, and being convicted by their conscience, began to leave one by one) – K E G H 1079 1365[17]: 357
History edit
Discovery and further research edit
The early history of the codex is unknown. It was brought from Cyprus to the Colbert Library (no. 5149) in Paris in 1673,[3]: 136 whence it passed into its present locality in the National Library of France.[6]: 201
The manuscript was examined by biblical critic Richard Simon,[20] who made some extracts for textual critic John Mill, who used readings from the codex in his edition of Novum Testamentum Graecum (an edition of the Greek New Testament) in 1710.[21] Palaeographer Bernard de Montfaucon published the first facsimile of a page from the codex containing the text of Matthew 2:19–22 in 1708, and used the manuscript for his palaeographical studies.[22] Wettstein (for works published 1751-1752) employed readings from the codex, but with quite a large number of errors.[6] Biblical scholar Johann M. A. Scholz valued it very highly, and he collated its text and noted its textual variants in 1820,[9]: 53–90 but with so little care and numerous errors that his list is now ignored.[3] Textual critic Constantin von Tischendorf produced a new collation in 1842, with Tregelles producing another independent collation in 1849, and in 1850 they compared their collations in Leipzig, and created a new list.[3] Its textual variants are cited in Tischendorf's Editio Octava Critica maior (a critical edition of the Greek New Testament).[12] Scrivener published a facsimile with the text of John 6:52–53 in 1861.[3]: 153, Plate VII Historian Henri Omont and New Testament scholar William Hatch published some fragments of the codex in separate facsimile samples in 1892 and 1896 respectively.[23][24]
The manuscript was also examined and described by biblical scholar Bianchini in 1749,[25] and Caspar René Gregory, who saw the codex in 1883.[10]: 55
Wettstein believed the text of the codex was altered by influence from Old Latin manuscripts.[16] Hatch stated the manuscript is "one of the more important of the later uncial manuscripts of the four Gospels".[4]: 337
Dating edit
Richard Simon dated the manuscript to the 10th century. According to Montfaucon[22]: 41, 231–233 and Scholz, it was written in the 8th century. According to biblical scholar Leonard Hug it is not older than the ninth century, as several of the letter-forms in the manuscript have not been found in any other manuscript securely dated to before the 9th century.[26]
Tischendorf and Gregory dated the manuscript to the 9th century.[13][10]: 54 Tregelles dated the manuscript to the middle of the ninth century.[6] Kenyon stated the manuscript must be not earlier than the 11th century, due to the formal liturgical hand and on palaeographic grounds. But Kenyon only saw Scrivener's facsimile, and his assessment was made only on the basis of this facsimile text.[11]: 11
Omont advised it is impossible to give a precise date to this manuscript on palaeographical grounds, as there are many manuscripts written in the same style of handwriting, but they are not dated. The 9th century is just as possible as well as the 11th century.[11]: 11
Lake proclaimed it is difficult to prove it was written earlier than the year 1000, and it is perhaps as late as the middle of the eleventh century.[11]: 10 This assessment was based rather on the textual dependency from other manuscript members of family Π, than on palaeographical grounds. According to Lake, Minuscule 1219 represents a text of family Π in its earlier stage as opposed to Codex Cyprius. Cyprius could have been copied from Minuscule 1219, or from a copy of Minuscule 1219 (Silva Lake's hypothetical codex b). Minuscule 1219 can hardly have written before the year 980 or long after 990, and so as a result Codex Cyprius can hardly be dated long before the year 1000.[11]: 36
Hatch argued the letters Β, Δ, Κ, Λ, Μ, Ξ, Π, Υ, Φ, Χ, Ψ, and Ω have forms which are characteristic of the late 10th or the early 11th century CE.[4] Hatch also noted the handwriting of the codex bears a striking general resemblance to that of three Gospel lectionaries of the 10th and 11th centuries: ℓ 3, ℓ 296, and ℓ 1599. On the other hand, no such likeness exists between the codex and uncial manuscripts of the New Testament which were written in the 9th century. As such, Hatch argued the manuscript should be dated to about 1000.[4]
Kenyon,[2] Kurt Aland[5] and biblical scholar Bruce Metzger dated it to the 9th century.[7] The manuscript is now dated by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF) to the 9th century.[8]
The codex is currently located in the National Library of France (Gr. 63) in Paris.[5][8]
See also edit
References edit
- ^ a b c d Horne, Thomas Hartwell (1825). An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. Vol. 2 (4 ed.). Philadelphia: E. Littell. p. 99.
- ^ a b c d e Kenyon, Frederic G. (1901). Handbook to the textual criticism of the New Testament. London: Macmillan. p. 89.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose; Miller, Edward (1894). A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. Vol. 1 (4th ed.). London: George Bell & Sons. p. 137.
- ^ a b c d e Hatch, William Henry Paine (1937). A Redating of Two Important Uncial Manuscripts of the Gospels – Codex Zacynthius and Codex Cyprius. Quantulacumque studies presented to Kirsopp Lake. London: Christophers.
- ^ a b c d e f Aland, Kurt; Aland, Barbara (1995). The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Erroll F. Rhodes (trans.). Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 113. ISBN 978-0-8028-4098-1.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Horne, Thomas Hartwell (1856). Samuel Prideaux Tregelles; Ayre, John (eds.). An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. Vol. 4 (8 ed.). London: Samuel Bagster & Sons. p. 202.
- ^ a b c d Metzger, Bruce Manning; Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 77. ISBN 0-19-516667-1.
- ^ a b c "Liste Handschriften". Münster: Institute for New Testament Textual Research. Retrieved 1 February 2023.
- ^ a b c d e f g Scholz, Johann Martin Augustin (1820). Commentario inaigiralis de Codice Cyprio et familia quam sistit pro summis in theologia honoribus rite impetrandis. Curae criticae in historiam textus Evangeliorum: commentationibus duabus (in Latin). Heidelberg: Apud Mohr et Winter. pp. 53–90.
- ^ a b c d e f Gregory, Caspar René (1900). Textkritik des Neuen Testaments. Vol. 1. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Lake, Silva (1937). Family Π and the Codex Alexandrinus: The Text According to Mark. London: Christophers.
- ^ a b von Tischendorf, Constantin (1884). Novum Testamentum Graece (8 ed.). J.C. Hinrichs. p. 380.
- ^ a b von Tischendorf, Constantin (1859). Novum Testamentum Graece (7 ed.). Leipzig: Sumptibus Adolphi Winter. p. CLVIII.
- ^ Soden, von, Hermann (1902). Die Schriften des neuen Testaments, in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt / hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte (in German). Vol. 1. Berlin: Verlag von Alexander Duncker. p. 128.
- ^ a b Wisse, Frederik (1982). The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence, as Applied to the Continuous Greek Text of the Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 52. ISBN 0-8028-1918-4.
- ^ a b Wettstein, Johann Jakob (1751). Novum Testamentum Graecum editionis receptae cum lectionibus variantibus codicum manuscripts. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Ex Officina Dommeriana. p. 41.
- ^ a b c d e f Aland, Kurt; Black, Matthew; Martini, Carlo M.; Metzger, Bruce M.; Wikgren, Allen, eds. (1983). The Greek New Testament (3rd ed.). Stuttgart: United Bible Societies. (UBS3)
- ^ The Gospel According to John in the Byzantine Tradition (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 2007)
- ^ a b Aland, Kurt; Black, Matthew; Martini, Carlo M.; Metzger, Bruce M.; Wikgren, Allen, eds. (1981). Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (26 ed.). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung. ISBN 3-438-051001. (NA26)
- ^ Simon, Richard (1689). Histoire Critique du texte du Nouveau Testament (in French). Rotterdam: Reinier Leers. pp. 101, 407.
- ^ Mill, John (1710). Novum Testamentum Graecum cum Lectionibus Variantibus. Amsterdam: John Fridericum Gleditsch. p. 166, §1498.
- ^ a b de Montfaucon, Bernard (1708). Palaeoraphia Graeca. Paris. p. 232.
- ^ Omont, Henri (1892). Facsimilés des plus anciens manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale du IVe et XIIIe siècle. Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes (in French). Paris: Ernest Leroux. p. 17/2 (Plate).; Omont, Henri (1896). Très anciens manuscrits grecs bibliques et classiques de la Bibliothèque nationale. Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes (in French). Paris: Impr. Nationale. p. 5 (Plate).
- ^ Hatch, William Henry Paine (1939). The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. LXXV.
- ^ Bianchini, Giuseppe (1749). Evangeliarium quadruplex latinae versionis antiquae seu veteris italicae. Vol. 2. Rome. p. DIII.
- ^ Hug, Leonard (1836). Hug's introduction to the New Testament. David Fosdick Jr (trans.). Andover: Gould and Newman. p. 174.
Further reading edit
- Related articles
- Bousset, Wilhelm (1894). Die Gruppe K Π (M) in den Evangelien. Texte und Untersuchungen (in German). Vol. 11. Leipzig: Heinrichs. pp. 111–135. Retrieved November 14, 2010.
External links edit
- Waltz, Robert. "New Testament Manuscripts Uncials". A Site Inspired By: The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism. Retrieved 2010-11-12.
- Colour images of Codex Cyprius (digital) at the CSNTM.