Codex Bezae

Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and Its Text

By
David C. Parker

Introduction

This book sets out to provide all the evidence which formed the basis for my conclusions. Since a great deal of this evidence consists in lists of things, parts of it may seem to be rather less than deathless prose. (4)

Chapter One

The Codex and the Hand

The Codex

Bilingual Greek and Latin 406 extant leaves 9th C. Supplementary material Matt., John, Luke, Mark, 3 John 11-15 (Latin only), Acts Original length unknown (~535 leaves) Original contents are inconclusive Space b/w Mark and Acts for Johannine writings (1,2,3 John and Revelation) Large square parchment codex Shape indicates origin in a Latin Scriptorium

The Hand

The scribe was definitely Latin Scribe was chosen because he had the necessary linguistic skills He attempted to provide a visual unity between the columns on separate pages Copied by his eye rather than dictation Copied sometime b/w late 4th and early 5th C. (400)

Chapter Two

THE PUNCTUATION!!!

Eight Phenomena
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6.
7. 8.

A line projecting into left margin A double point (:) within line; occasionally followed by enlarged initial letter A medial point within line A large space; occasionally followed by enlarged initial letter A small space A large space with a medial point in it A high point An indented OT quote

Characteristics
Punctuation not consistent throughout
Acts different from Gospels (uses high point) Matt., favors medial point John uses medial point half way and then space Luke favors space Mark returns to point

Small space seems to correspond to medial point and large space to double point Most punctuation in Matt., and least in Acts Roughly same amount of punctuation in Greek and Latin but distributed differently

Chapter Four

Towards the Codicology of a Bilingual Codex

Are there patterns in the bilingual tradition?

There does not appear to be any sustained tradition
Evidence of experimentation in Carolingian mss.

Early on scribes copied both columns

Copying small portions of each was most successful method of reproduction Some copied Greek in entirety then Latin

None of NT mss. written in sense lines The early bilinguals were likely occasional, and the scribe employed was one that had the necessary competence

Chapter Five

The Sense-Lines

Characteristics
Help scribe keep text in parallel In Bezae, the scribe appears to have altered his practice twice
Possibly recognized need to save space and then later no longer needed to

The changes in the sense lines correspond to the changes in punctuation from the medial point to the space and back

Sense Lines and Punctuation

Medial points and small spaces indicate a line division in the exemplar Double point and large space may indicate a new paragraph or section The punctuation in Acts is different than the Gospels. The punctuation in the Gospels was likely used by the scribe, but the punctuation in Acts was likely adopted from the exemplar

Upon which column was the scribe concentrating?

Likely alternated copying short blocks of each column Double point and large space may indicate a new paragraph or section The punctuation in Acts is different than the Gospels. The punctuation in the Gospels was likely used by the scribe, but the punctuation in Acts was likely adopted from the exemplar The sense lines also indicate that the scribe had an easier time copying Acts than the Gospels
Fewer casual errors in Acts Text of Acts was a product of different bilingual tradition

Sensible Conclusions
The exemplar of Bezae had 2 columns per page in short sense lines for the Gospels and 1 column with longer lines in Acts. When copying Acts, the scribe followed the layout of the exemplar When copying the Gospels, he altered the layout to match that of Acts The scribe of D was more careful than often assumed. He was not free with his copying; he was passing down a specialized tradition

Chapter Six

The Nomina Sacra

Nomina Sacra in Bezae

Greek

Qeoj Ihsous Kurioj Pathr Pneuma Stauroj; -row Xristoj

Latin Christus Deus Dominus Iesus Pseudochristus Spiritus

Greek usage

Qeoj always n.s. in singular and full in plural Ihsouj always n.s. except Acts 7:45 (Joshua son of Nun Kurioj n.s. in singular. Not just for divine name Pathr mostly in full (few n.s. mostly in John) Pneuma No standard practice

Matt., Mark, and Acts almost always n.s. John mostly n.s. Luke more full than n.s. (15/13) Stauroj; -row full in Matt., Luke, and Acts; mostly n.s. in Mark Xristoj always n.s. throughout

Latin usage

Christus uniformly n.s. Deus in Matt., John, Luke and first part of Mark (-9:47) n.s. for direct cases and full form with linea superscripta for oblique cases; End of Mark is uniformly n.s. Two scribes? Incomplete revision? Dominus full form only for secular references Completely successful only in Acts Acts has DNS form Matt., and Mark have older DMS form John and Luke have DMS form (Acc. Uses DOM vs. DMN) Iesus always n.s. except Acts 7:45 Pseudochristus PSEUDOXRI at Mt. 24:24 where Greek is full Spiritus uniformly n.s. except in Luke Acts prefers SPO to SPU in dative

Sacred Conclusions

Greek text very close to early stage when only 4 n.s. were used (God, Jesus, Lord, Christ), even though some 15 were common at the time of copying (400). The other 4 used in Bezae appear to be moving toward standard practice with Spirit being the closest. The Latin text appears to be at about the same stage as the Greek as evidenced by the usage of n.s. for Spirit. In actuality, the Latin text displays a much greater diversity of n.s. The Greek text has no hint of more common later abbreviations (XS vs XPS etc.) The Greek text preserves archaic form, but the Latin text adopts contemporary usage.

Sacred Conclusions 2

Luke is the most primitive of the books (full Spirit) Acts is the least primitive (n.s. Spirit/DNS form Matthew appears to have undergone the greatest attempt to introduce new usage before the scribes settled with copying their exemplar exactly Mark appears to have been carefully revised The texts have been subject to varying degrees of revision according to various sets of rules. The evidence of various systems of abbreviation signals a scribe who was concerned with preservation of his exemplar The Scribe appears to have been familiar with contemporary Latin practice but not Greek practice

Chapter Seven

The Orthography

Characteristics

D was more systematic in its orthography than P75 or B Latin spelling has been more influenced by contemporary pronunciation than the Greek text Based on evidence from the usage of Johns name (Iwanhj vs. Iwannhj) Luke is seen to be different from the other Gospels and from Acts
In Luke, there is a single n in both columns; in Acts, the Greek column has the single and the Latin the double The scribe was a native Latin speaker who wrote the Latin how he heard it and the Greek how he saw it

The scribe does not appear to have preserved the order of books as found in a Vorlage

Chapter Eight

The Codex Bezae and Its Ancestors

Characteristics

The change of spelling in Johns name occurs about the same time as the change in punctuation. Ds exemplar for the Gospels was likely in the order Matt., Mark, John, Luke and was the work of two copyists
One scribe copied Matt., Mark, and half of John and the other wrote the rest

A separate exemplar was used for Acts The text of the Gospels was likely more ancient than that of Acts The Latin text did not derive from a bilingual tradition The bilingual tradition was at least a few generations removed from Bezae Bezae was not a creation; it was part of a tradition. The

Ancestry of Codex Bezae

Chapter Nine

The Secondary Hands

The Corrections

Nearly half of the corrections are in Acts

A higher proportion are significant also (1/4) The Eight earliest correctors focused on Acts showing that they had as much problem with it as we do today.

Very few corrections made to both columns at the same time. The correctors almost always focused on one column
How often was Bezae actually used as a bilingual?

Correctors in the order: G A C B D E H F J1 L K s.m.

Corrector G
Made almost all of the corrections to the Latin Likely had the exemplar of D to work from Generally removes differences b/w columns He was likely Latin but knew Greek well Makes corrections with the assured hand of a scholar He was contemporary with the original copying of D (400)

Corrector A
Corrected the Greek and ignored the Latin Made corrections on grammatical principles rather than in comparison to another Greek text Can be dated to the 5th C.

Corrector C
His method is spasmodic of his corrections are in Acts Appeared to make corrections based on his own opinion rather for stylistic reasons He likely was influenced by some Koine text Possibly influenced by a Latin text Likely in the 5th C.

Corrector B

Most significant alteration to the character of the text Careless in his work Generally causes variation b/w the columns Had access to a Greek text similar to the Greek Vorlage of d Had access to a text similar to 01 and its c correctors Either he had 2 mss or 1 with 2 textual traditions With this corrector, Bezae appears to have moved out of its original environment where the text was accepted as tradition Dated to the 5th C.

Corrector D
Most corrections done in Greek column of Acts Changes relationship b/w columns Most corrections agree with most other mss. Following 01 and 03 line Was likely a scholar not far removed from corrector B around 450

Corrector E
Focuses primarily on Greek column of Acts Used an unknown text but used it carefully Was likely a scholar from the third quarter of the 5th C.

Corrector F
Focused on Greek column of Acts Almost all corrections are extensive and none are orthographic May have known several textual traditions Moves text furthest away from Latin Milieu of Bezae now appears to be that of the standard Byzantine text Dated b/w 450-500

Chapter Ten

The Supplementary Leaves

The Supplementary Leaves

Correction of the text ended at end of 7th C. By 9th C. the ms. was incomplete D finds itself in Lyons in the 9th where it is restored at a Latin scriptorium No attempt to bring Greek and Latin text into conformity Possibly Ms. Lyons 431 was the source of the supplementary leaves

Chapter Eleven
The Development of the Corrected Text

Main Phases
Bilingual; corrections against the exemplar (G) Transitional text not wildly different (A); vestiges of Latin influence (C) Exposure to a quite different text (B-01c-and D-01 and 03) Growing influence of Byzantine text (E & H) Correction to the standard Byzantine text (F) Renewed interest in the original form in Lyons in the 9th C.

Chapter Thirteen

A Comparison of the Columns

What Constitutes a Difference?

What is Eliminated? Translational errors Divergent word orders Itacism Nonsense readings

What is Left? Criteria as Rigid as possible Text can be shown to be divergent 800 significant differences

Matthew
Transposition of paired words in Latin column More synoptic harmonization in Latin 1/3 where there is other support for both reading, or Latin is founded on different Greek reading

John
Less harmonization Far more transpositions

~1/2 shared with other Latin mss Most can be attributed to the Old Latin translations of Johannine style Transpositions unique to d equivalent to Matt.

30 readings where Latin arose from different Greek text

Luke

Several places where d has been partially assimilated to D

If D has a unique reading, then d has something b/w D and a more common reading In these places, where d differs from D it represents an older form of text

Mark

Significantly more potential differences

# reduced due to careless and corrupt form of parallel texts

Latin translation seems less precise than in other Gospels Partial assimilation lower than in Luke

Acts

Latin version significantly different than that found in the Gospels Like John, a higher proportion of Latin transpositions may be translational Most of the significant differences occur in places where D has unique reading Often d does not follow D in changes to beginning of sentences or phrases Corrector more concerned with congruity of shape than precise conformity Evidence clearly shows the accommodation of an existing Latin text to D. High number of places where d follows different text Particularly divergent within longer readings Longer readings placed alongside shorter with no attempt to make grammatical connection Agreement among the columns generally done by altering the Latin

Comparison Conclusions
High # of differences in Mark and Acts are due to earlier textual histories of these books Main cause in Mark due to high degree of harmonization Acts caused by different base of d Each book has its own character. No sweeping statement can be made of all of them d contains translations from several Greek texts Only Matt. and John may be same text in both Luke and Mark is more forced alignment of texts Acts clearly was adapted from separate Latin text Low # of differences b/w columns in Acts suggests a Latin version derived from a shorter version of D text. Likely a Greek text of the same character from which D derived

Chapter Fourteen

The Character of the Tradition

The Bilingual Tradition

Language appears to move toward a more homespun Greek style in an attempt to explain obscurities Some aspects of Latinization, but not any wholesale change to try to find a pure D text is a useless undertaking. Its existence has only ever been assumed by analogy with the carefully preserved Alexandrian and the ecclesiastically approved Byzantine texts. The kind of text presented in D will, by its nature, never have existed in a controlled and definable form. Such a text contains many hybrids, but no speciesThe relation of Codex Bezae to some of its supposed allies may be an affinity of this kind rather than blood relations, they are kindred spirits. (258)

Shaping Characteristics
Tendency

to recast in vernacular mold Harmonization in the Gospels Influence of the context (in multiple settings) Introduction of material from other sources Interaction between columns A freedom to transmit the text loosely

Chapter Fifteen

The Origins of the Codex Bezae

Origins of Bezae
Somewhere in the East where Latin was spoken Associated with a place where the advanced study of Law was practiced Possibly Berytus

Main Latin center of the East Best law school in the world Evidence of Greek schools Destruction of city in 551 may have led to the removal of the mss. to another place. Possibly to Sidon where law school moved (Syrian influence seen in corrector L)

If Berytus, the tradition could not have begun prior to AD 200 when the law school was formed.

Important Points

Copied around 400 by Latin scribe in the East The Gospels and Acts had different exemplars Bezae was a careful copy of an earlier tradition; it was not a creation The tradition of both the Greek and Latin (though initially separate) goes back to a very early period Texts like Bezae are not blood relatives but kindred spirits