The Patmos Family of New Testament MSS and Its Allies in the Pericope of the Adulteress and Beyond

Tommy Wasserman

Department of Theology and Religious Studies
Lund University
Sweden

Abstract

This article examines the genetic relationships among 34 MSS suspected of being related because of a peculiar shared reading in John 8:8b-9a: "he wrote on the ground the sins of each..." A quantitative analysis detected several independent families, including new family P members and a dozen MSS forming "family Patmos/M;" this family, in turn, includes the original Patmos family discovered by Silva New in 1932. The results show that whereas there may be overlap, the history of readings is not synonymous with the history of MSS. The more genetically significant a reading, the more potential it has to affect unrelated MSS.

1 Introduction

1. In 1927, Kirsopp Lake, Silva New (who later married Lake), and Robert P. Blake made an expedition to monasteries at Sinai, on Patmos, and in Jerusalem.¹ Their intention was to examine the holdings of New Testament manuscripts in these three monasteries and their expectation was to find that the MSS in each library would show many cases of direct copying--these three ancient collections were not like modern ones that are brought together from diverse locations.²

2. Strangely enough, after collating the many MSS in a sample chapter (Mark 11), the results proved by and large to be negative. There were practically no direct genealogical relationships to be detected among the MSS, with one notable exception--"A Patmos Family of Gospel Manuscripts," so named in the title of a subsequent article by Silva New.³ The existence, characteristics, and extent of this supposed Patmos family, originally consisting of the four manuscripts 1169, 1173, 1204, and 1385 (1204 from Sinai, the others from Patmos), will be the main subject of this study.

3. After returning to Sinai and Patmos in 1932, and building on the preliminary results from 1927, Silva New was allowed to collate the four MSS in the Patmos family in the gospel of Mark. The collation revealed an even closer relation between the three Patmos MSS than was expected. MS 1385 was considered the archetype since in the whole gospel it departed in only three readings from the text supported by either of 1169 and 1173.⁴ MS 1204 had evidently been copied from two archetypes since it shifted alignment after Mark 7:19. New concluded that the latter part of the gospel may have been copied from 1385, but is more likely to have been copied from a sibling MS that is no longer extant, possibly in the scriptorium at Sinai (this being the oldest monastery).⁵

4. Let us now consider the negative result of the initial collations mentioned above, since it has significant implications when applied to the complete NT manuscript tradition. Apart from the so-called Lake and Ferrar groups (f1 and f13) and family 1424 or family P, it has been difficult to connect any MS to an archetype or even to a sister MS in the stream of tradition, although cognate groups have been found--families of distant cousins, so to speak.

5. After the discovery of the Patmos family some 70 years ago, little was written about it until 1999 when Maurice A. Robinson, in his collations of all available continuous-text MSS of the pericope of the adulteress (PA), found that three out of New's four Patmos MSS showed the same affinity of text in the PA as they do in Mark 11. This confirms that the family holds together across Gospel lines. (The same is not certain for MS 1169, which has a lacuna after John 7:29.) Moreover, Robinson's collations revealed a large group of 35 MSS that shared the same family readings. For the sake of convenience, this article designates these as the "Patmos family," even though a significant number of these minuscules are located at Mount Athos.

6. It was now time to make another expedition--not to Sinai or Patmos, or the 24 other places where the 36 MSS (including 1169) are kept (see the list below)--but to the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF) in M�nster, Germany. The Institute, founded by Kurt Aland and directed by Barbara Aland since 1984, maintains the official registry of Greek NT MSS and assigns each a "Gregory-Aland" number. It also holds a comprehensive collection of Greek NT MS images on microfilm. The collection is accessible to any serious researcher through the hospitality of the M�nster staff. Thus, in the summer of 2000, the present writer set out on a three week journey, aiming to make sample collations of these 36 MSS, preferably in one pericope for each of the Gospels, and then to conduct a quantitative analysis of the MSS. The purpose of this exercise was to examine the genetic relationship of the MSS and, ultimately, to fit the conclusions drawn from the surviving source material into the broader history of transmission of the Greek NT.

2 Selecting MSS for Examination

7. As mentioned in the introduction, the selection of 36 MSS was based on Maurice Robinson's collation data in the PA (John 7:53-8:11 plus adjacent verses 7:52 and 8:12-13a). The results of his extensive collations will be presented in a multi-volume collation and analysis of all available MSS containing the PA.⁶ Although a full analysis has not yet been conducted, some peculiar readings in the PA are already evident; they are difficult to explain apart from dependence on a common source. Recognizing this kind of variation is in accord with Gordon Fee's recommendation of not only counting but "weighing" variants when considering their genetic significance. Among the basic data from which to deduct textual relationships, Fee recognizes major rewritings, some large addition/omission variants, certain kinds of substitutions, and several kinds of word order variants.⁷ This of course involves a degree of subjectivity on the part of the textual critic and makes valid Bruce Metzger's statement,

To teach another how to become a textual critic is like teaching another how to become a poet. The fundamental principles and criteria can be set forth ..., but the appropriate application of these in individual cases rests upon the student's own sagacity and insight.⁸

8. In the case of the PA, there are several distinctive variants, but two variation units stand out in John 8:8b-9a. Practically all of the MSS in our study align in these two readings, although two of them share only one of these readings. The Textus Receptus (Oxford 1873 ed.) reads kai palin katw kuyaj egrafen eij thn ghn oi de akousantej kai upo thj suneidhsewj elegxomenoi echrxonto ... whereas the Patmos MSS add enoj ekastou taj amartiaj after ghn. A quick glance in Metzger's "A Textual Commentary" reveals that enoj ekastou autwn taj amartiaj is considered to be an expansion "in order to satisfy pious curiosity concerning what it was that Jesus wrote upon the ground [ghn]--'the sins of every one of them'."⁹ According to Robinson, this reading is extant in only 68 MSS, not including the Patmos MSS.¹⁰ In addition, the 35 Patmos MSS (not counting 1169, which is not extant in the PA) omit autwn ("of them"). This omission of the partitive genitive autwn seems to be a corruption introduced in the Patmos line following the original expansion.¹¹

9. Metzger continues to say that the reading upo thj suneidhsewj elegxomenoi ("convicted by the conscience") found in the Textus Receptus is again an amplification "by addition of explanatory glosses."¹² However, instead of the preceding oi de akousantej ("and they hearing"), 33 of the Patmos MSS (i.e. not MSS 1179 and 2608) read oi de anaginwskontej ("and they reading"). This is a unique and significant substitution which points to the editorial creativity of a particular scribe; it also points to the existence of a "Patmos archetype."

10. These preliminary data from the PA, combined with New's collation in 1932, provided the incentive for a closer examination of the 36 MSS of the present study. These MSS are listed with short descriptions in the following tables. Three of them, namely 978, 1068, and lectionary 694, were corrected to the "Patmos" readings of the PA by a later hand. Due to time constraints upon the actual collation process in M�nster, it was decided to concentrate on the continuous-text minuscules and to suspend the time-consuming collation of the two 14th century lectionary MSS listed below.

Table 1: Descriptive List of MSS¹³

MS totals by century: IX: 0; X: 0; XI: 2; XII: 9; XIII: 9; XIV: 9; XV: 3; XVI: 3

Notes

1. Column 1 (MS) lists the 35 MSS with the Patmos key reading in John 8:8-9, plus MS 1169 which ends at John 7:29 but, according to Silva New (1932), belongs to the Patmos family. P signifies that the PA is obelized.
2. Column 2 (Date) gives date of origin. Roman numerals indicate an approximate date.
3. Column 3 (Contents) gives the content of each MS (e=Gospels; a=Acts; K=Catholic or General Epistles; p=Epistles of Paul; r=Revelation). (Vac.) signifies a lacuna. The abbreviation l-wkdy signifies a lectionary in which the weekday readings are present.¹⁴
4. Column 4 (Material) indicates writing material, which is either parchment (Pg) or paper (Pap).
5. Column 9 (Location) shows present location. All locations in Greece except Athens are in italics. Collections so signified are ancient--the present location of a MS in such a collection is likely to be the place of origin as well. Although we do not want to make a case based on mere geographical proximity, location in a common ancient collection indicates a likelihood of relatedness among so limited a group as the MSS with distinctive readings in the PA.¹⁵ Locations in Athens (e.g. the National Library of Greece) have only modern collections from no earlier than the 19th century. (See also note 2.)

3 Selection of Pericopes

11. Since this project would be a trial in preparation for further investigation, it was decided to choose two pericopes in John that surround the PA, and one pericope for each of the other Gospels. The latter were included to see whether any textual affinity detected in the PA would continue to hold across Gospel lines.

12. Test passages in John 6:60-7:1 and 10:1-9 were eventually selected on the basis of the following considerations. Firstly, it is well-known that scribes sometimes changed their exemplars during the copying process, thereby producing "block-mixture;"¹⁶ these test passages have the advantage of not being too remote from the PA in John 8.¹⁷ Another factor was the presence of textual variation. For statistical reasons, the more known variants in a passage the better, and especially so at points where the Byzantine tradition is divided.¹⁸ Unfortunately, it later became evident that the test passage in John 10 would not contribute much to the genealogical analysis since it contained very few deviations from the mainstream Byzantine text.

13. Then there was the consideration of what had already been done by others. It was decided to choose a passage in Mark 11, allowing for comparison against Blake, Lake, and New's collations. The Lukan passage should not be in chapters 1, 10, or 20 since the MSS had probably been collated in those chapters for the IGNTP.¹⁹ The passage in John 6 could be compared to a major textcritical study by Ren� Kieffer; his collations in the same passage would provide control MSS for a quantitative analysis and help in the selection of genetically significant variants.²⁰ It was also decided to collate John 7:1, which was not covered by Kieffer. This was because the verse seems to be a closing statement to chapter 6, with a new episode commencing at 7:2 (cf. 7:53-8:2).

14. One advantage of using these passages was that Hermann von Soden had probably used test passages ("Stichkapitel") in Mark 10-11 and John 6-7 to establish his textual groupings. Both his classifications and collations, if consulted, could be expected to be more trustworthy in these places.²¹ Moreover, Maurice Robinson kindly provided copies of his collation sheets for the Patmos MSS in the PA for a preliminary evaluation. Since the project is based on his findings, it seemed right to include a preliminary and condensed apparatus based on his collations.

15. In summary, this study is based on new collations in Matt 19:13-26 ("The Little Children Blessed" and "The Rich Young Man"), Mark 11:15-26 ("The Cleansing of the Temple"), Luke 13:34-14:11 ("The Lament over Jerusalem" and "The Healing of the Man with Dropsy"), and John 6:60-7:1 ("The Words of Eternal Life").²² In addition, we provide data from Maurice Robinson's collation in the PA.

16. The 34 MSS were collated in these sample pericopes with the following exceptions: MSS 1306 and 2679 were not extant and MS 1627 was illegible in Matt 19; MS 2679 was not extant in Mark; in Luke 13, only eleven MSS (651, 1169, 1173, 1204, 1385, 1402, 1549, 1676, 2146, 2295, and 2315) were collated because of time limitations and the possibility of using the collation data of Wisse and McReynolds collected in connection with the IGNTP²³; in John, MS 1627 was illegible. The collation data is not included in this article, but is available from the author in electronic format.

4 Method of Analysis and Classification

17. The main question in this limited study is whether the 36 MSS show evidence of descent from a common archetype when investigated beyond their obvious connection in the PA. If so, a subsequent and equally important question is how to place this family within the history of transmission. A quantitative analysis will suffice to answer the first question²⁴--or at least to prove stemmatic proximity. We will only touch upon an answer to the second question by drawing up a tentative stemma. A complete answer requires further study: a larger sample (more comprehensive collations of at least several chapters), testing several stemmatic models using a genealogical method, as well as weighing every variant (a local genealogical method).

18. Before performing a quantitative analysis, it is necessary to select genetically significant variation units and variant sets. Approximately 40 variant sets for each of the four test passages outside the PA, and 57 in the PA, were selected. Annotated textual apparatuses were produced displaying the character of each variant and its respective MS support. These are available from the author in PDF format.

19. The quantitative analysis consists of four parts:

1. measuring overall percentage agreements among the 34 MSS (where extant) and a number of control MSS
2. indicating how far a MS is removed from the Byzantine Majority²⁵
3. counting agreements in non-Majority readings²⁶, and
4. indicating unique family readings and agreements in obvious scribal error and orthographic variation among those MSS that prove to form a close family after the first three steps have been performed.

20. The quantitative analyses were not performed in canonical order. The first and most exhaustive analysis was of John 6:60-7:1a, for which we could make use of a text-critical study of Ren� Kieffer for the control witnesses.²⁷ The number of control MSS was then decreased and the selection slightly altered, partly on experimental grounds, partly for practical reasons such as time constraints and the availability of relevant critical apparatuses. Nevertheless, apart from the ad hoc preliminary analysis of the PA based on M. A. Robinson's collations, the analyses always included a broad range of witnesses from all known text types. Some control MSS from the P and M groups were also included for all of the pericopes, using Frederik Wisse's data from extensive Claremont Profile Method (CPM) analyses in Luke, where several of our MSS had been classified as belonging to these groups.²⁸

21. The quantitative analysis calculations were performed with Microsoft Excel and a specially designed add-on named QAnalys.²⁹ The full results are presented in the tables of appendix one. There are two tables for each pericope: one displaying overall agreement and the other showing the number of agreements in non-Majority readings. The conclusions of the analysis are based upon subjective assessments of the two measurements, made necessary by the absence of an objective means to combine them.

5 Results of the Quantitative Analysis

22. Building on these results, we will here present the most significant data, establishing first the stemmatic proximity of MSS in several groups. We will not treat the control MSS since they are already well-known.³⁰ The measurement of agreement in non-Majority readings is based upon a smaller sample--the non-Majority readings of a MS. Additional data in the form of unique readings, errors, and orthographic variation is indicated. Orthographic variation and scribal errors resulting in nonsense readings were not counted in the quantitative analysis even though they become important within the established groups.

5.1 Matthew 19:13-26 (42 test passages)

• Group 1: 651, 1549, and 2146 are identical; 191 is in 95% agreement with them.
• Group 2: 1169, 1173, and 1385 are identical; 1033 is in 95% agreement with them.
• Group 3: 1402 and 2295 are in 97% agreement.
• Group 4: 1204 and 2315 are in 95% agreement and are close to group 3.
• Group 5: 581, 992, 1571, 1690, 2463 belong to family P. Of these, MSS 1571 and 2463 are identical and are closest to the reconstructed family text.³¹
• Group 6: 1065 and 1068 are identical.
• Group 7: 1089 and 1218 are identical but are close to the Majority text (92%).

5.1.1 Unique Readings, Errors, and Orthographic Variants

• Group 1: neaniskoj proshlqe tw i8u8 gonupetwn autw kai legwn (19:16; attested also in MS 2608 and with slight variation in MS 191).
• Group 2: -
• Group 3: add tw i8u8 (19:16)
• Group 4: om. autw (19:16)
• Group 5: eipen (19:26)
• Group 6: epetimoun auta (19:13); mi (for mh in 19:17)
• Group 7: -

5.2 Mark 11:15-26 (38 test passages)

• Group 1: 651 and 2146 are identical; MS 1549 is in 96% agreement with them; MS 2295 is close to the group.
• Group 2: 1169, 1173, and 1385 are identical and close to 1402 and 2315. MS 1204 seems to be related to the group through MS 2315.
• Group 3: 581, 992, 1272, 1690, 2463, and the weaker 1306 are members of family P.
• Group 4: 1065 and 1068 are identical but close to the Majority text (94%).
• Group 5: 725 and 2608 are identical but close to the Majority text (94%).

5.2.1 Unique Readings, etc.

• Group 1: elqwn (11:15; attested also in MS 1676).
• Group 2: autoij legwn (11:17); om. ta paraptwmata umin (11:25; MS 1204 and 2315).
• Group 3: auton epoihsate (11:17; family P reading, attested also in M); om. auton (11:18); echramenhn (11:20; attested in 581, 992, 1272, and 1690, also 725); o en ou8nioj (11:26; this misspelling is attested in 992, 1272, and 2463).
• Group 4: -
• Group 5: -

23. We may add that all members of groups 1 and 2 share the peculiar spelling kolubistwn (also MSS 1089 and 1676).

5.3 Luke 13:34-14:11 (40 test passages)

24. As mentioned before, a quantitative analysis was only performed for MSS 651, 1169, 1173, 1204, 1385, 1402, 1549, 1676, 2146, 2295, and 2315 due to time constraints and the existence of Wisse's data for Luke.

• Group 1: 651 and 2146 are identical; MS 1549 is in 97% agreement with them.
• Group 2: 1173 and 1385 are identical.³²
• Group 3: 1402 and 2295 are identical and close to 2315; MS 1204 is closest to 2295 and 1402 but in this sample it seems more like a distant cousin.

5.3.1 Unique Readings, etc.

• Group 1: touj gamouj (14:8)
• Group 2: pterugaj authj (13:34); udropikoj (14:2; attested also in MS 1204); uioj umwn (14:5); om. thn (14:8).
• Group 3: Farissaiwn (14:1); Farissaiouj (14:3); touj Faris. (14:3; also in 1204); autwn (14:2; attested in 2295 and 1402).

25. In addition, the variant o de for kai o in 14:11 is attested by groups 1 and 2, along with MS 1204.

5.4 John 6:60-7:1a (40 test passages)

• Group 1: 651 and 2146 are identical; MS 1549 is in 97% agreement with them.
• Group 2: 1173 and 1385 are identical and close to group 1.
• Group 3: 1402 and 2295 are identical; MS 725 is in 97% agreement with them.
• Group 4: 581, 992, 1272, 1306, 1571, 1690, 1699, and 2463 are members of family P; MS 2405 is on the fringe, being closest to 581 (92%).
• Group 5: 1065 and 1068 are identical.

26. Groups 2 and 3 both seem to be related to group 1 but are not as close to each other. We may also note that MSS 191 and 1204 are close to groups 1 and 2 without being close to each other, and MS 2315, though weakened toward the Majority text, is related to 1204.

5.4.1 Unique Readings, etc.

• Group 1: -
• Group 2: om. autou (6:60); dedomenwn (6:65; attested also in 1549); paradounai (6:71).
• Group 3: -
• Group 4: om. oti (6:65); egnwkamen kai pepisteukamen (6:69; also attested in 1676 but not in K or P).
• Group 5: om. ek (6:60); eperiepatoun (6:66); Iouda (6:71).

27. We also note that MSS 1204 and 2315 share the omission of en eautw (6:61).

5.5 The PA in the Gospel of John (including adjacent verses; 57 test passages)

• Group 1: 2146 is in 98% agreement with 651 and 1549; the last two are in 96% agreement.
• Group 2: 2315 is in 98% agreement with 1385 and 94% agreement with MSS 725, 1173, 1204, 1402, and 2295; Considering non-Majority variants, MSS 808 and 2679 are distantly related to the group.
• Group 3: 581, 1272, 1306, 1571, 1627, 1690, 1699, and 2463 are all members of family P.
• Group 4: 1179 and 2608 are in 96% agreement; MS 1676 might be related to the group.
• Group 5: 1065 and 1068 are in 94% agreement.
• Group 6: 1089, 1218, and 2550 are in 96% agreement.

28. This pericope is a special case in the NT textual tradition. There are several lines of transmission and no unified Byzantine text. Therefore, the percentages of agreement in non-Majority readings cannot be as significant as in the other test pericopes. Given the special character of the PA and the fact that we have only four control representatives, we do well not to attempt to indicate unique readings for this passage. The group readings may be deduced from the apparatus. We will only note the repeated misspelling of Farissaioi in MS 2315 (as in Luke).

5.6 Observations in John 10:1-13

29. As noted before, a collation was also performed in John 10 but the pericope displayed few deviations from the Majority text and, consequently, it was not subjected to further analysis. Nevertheless, the following points deserve mention:

30. MSS 651, 725, 1402, 1549, 2146, and 2295 all have the same reading in John 10:4: a neuter plural subject with plural verb: akolouqousin for akolouqei.³³ In addition, MSS 725, 1402, and 2146 have the less common future indicative ou mh akolouqhsousin, also preferred in NA²⁷,³⁴ instead of the aorist subjunctive ou mh akolouqhswsin.

31. Of the MSS examined, only 581, 992, 1272, 1306, 1571, 1627, 1690, 1699, and 2463 share the reading otan de for kai otan in John 10:4, and autoij palin for palin autoij in 10:7. Both readings are in accord with the reconstructed text of family P.³⁵

6 Conclusions from the Quantitative Analysis

6.1 A "Patmos/M" Family?

32. We have found a number of different groups that are directly related within the respective group--they are exemplar and descendants, or sister MSS copied from the same exemplar.

• Group 1: 651, 1549, 2146 (2295 in Mark).
• Group 2: 1385, 1173, 1169 (1169 is not a member in Luke).
• Group 3: 1204 and 2315 (the relationship is weaker in Luke).
• Group 4: 1402, 2295 (practically identical, but not in Mark), and 725 (grouping only detected in John).

33. Our hypothesis is that these represent distant cousins among MS groups (groups 3 and 4 are closer cousins). We would need a larger sample of test readings to construct a plausible stemma, including more manuscripts from the immediate vicinity. This would be necessary both to discover the gaps as well as the links between the groups, with links preferably expressed in terms of obvious errors that are unlikely to survive beyond the family.

34. Some of the above MSS were classified as belonging to various M groups (see table 2 below) by Wisse and McReynolds using the CPM. M (021) was classified as a divergent member of one of the groups, but "certainly not the archetype of the M groups."³⁶ However, MS 2295 and 725 were classified as K^x in Luke, and the CPM detected no close relationship between members of the above group 2 and the M groups. This is probably due to the influence of the later Byzantine text, especially on group 2. A large sample of non-Majority readings is needed to examine the relationship, which is more distinct in Mark and John. In the PA, however, groups 2 to 4 seem to preserve the text of a common ancestor so faithfully that one is tempted to believe that they have been copied from the same exemplar. This may only hold true for the pericope in question, which may have been omitted from the exemplar of group 2 so that a scribe would have been forced to consult the exemplar of groups 3 and 4 at this place.

35. Since the original family consisting of 1385, 1173, 1169, and parts of 1204, was named "A Patmos Family" by Silva New, we suggest the name "family Patmos/M", as being appropriate for the supposed larger family, which, however, will need further analysis to be established. This analysis would have to be complemented with other methods such as the weighing of internal criteria, which results should correspond to the external evidence and would have to be fitted into a stemma. The quantitative analysis used in this study is limited to proving similarity of text and does not convey the details of genealogical descent. Nevertheless, we have attempted to construct a working model of a stemma for the whole group (fig. 1 below) after considering Text und Textwert data along with the CPM results.

6.2 New Members of Family P

36. Our quantitative analysis also found a number of members of family P, some previously unknown (none of the MSS below were collated in Luke):

37. MSS 581, 992 (not in the PA), 1272 (not in Matt), 1306 (not collated in Matt), 1571 (not in Mark), 1627 (only in the PA; not collated in Matt and John 6:60f), 1690, 1699 (only in John), and 2463. MS 2405 relates to the group only in John 6:60ff.

38. We will not attempt to draw up a stemma for these MSS--the textual data should be compared to the other known MSS belonging to the family and placed into the established stemmas. Ideally, in the light of newly discovered members--notably, with the CPM--and recent improvements in methodology, the whole family should be re-examined.³⁷ However, on the basis of Wisse's data (see table 2), we may suspect that most of these MSS belong to the same cluster within the larger family P, labeled by Wisse as P^a Cl 1272 in Luke.³⁸

39. Family P was known to von Soden as K^a (or I^k in his apparatus), and MSS 581, 992, 1272, 1306, 1690, and 1699 were classified as having the K^a type of text.³⁹ Comparing this data with Wisse's classifications of the MSS in the Gospel of Luke, we may conclude that MSS 1571 and 1627 have never before been identified as members of family P.

6.3 Other Previously Unknown Pairs and Families

40. We have also found that MSS 1065 and 1068 form a pair; if their datings are correct (1576 and 1562) then MS 1068 is the exemplar of 1065. Since they are practically identical (also in terms of external characteristics and present location), it is difficult to confirm this on the basis of textual data.

41. MSS 1089 and 1218 are practically identical in all test pericopes. Their proximity to the Majority text makes it difficult to confirm their identity. In the PA, however, they are clearly identifiable, and joined by MS 2550. MS 1218 from the 12th century may possibly be the exemplar of 1089, dated 1329 (although we note their different present locations--Sinai and Xiropotamu respectively).

42. MSS 1179 and 2608 are extremely close in the PA and were probably copied from the same exemplar in that passage only. We note that they were the only two MSS in this examination that did not have the reading anaginwskontej in John 8:9. Outside the PA, both MSS are to a large degree mixed with the late Byzantine text; however, MS 2608 seems to be related to the M groups, at least in Matthew.

6.4 Kinship of the P and M Groups

43. Wilhelm Bousset opened his 1894 text-critical study of the group KP(M) by stating:

Aus den obigen Zusammenstellungen schon geht es deutlich hervor, dass ausser h [i.e. Alexandrian witnesses] und den gegen�berstehenden Kodices noch eine Gruppe von Hndschrn. zum mindesten vorhanden ist, die sich bestimmt von den andern abhebt. Das ist die Gruppe KPM. Sie steht sehr oft auf Seiten von h, �fter noch geht sie mit der engegenstehenden Gruppe zusammen, oft auch steht sie ganz allein und tritt dann deutlich hervor.⁴⁰

44. In connection with the CPM classification and the discovery of several M groups, Wisse continues to describe this relationship:

The M groups formed with the P groups the main challenge to the K^x text from the ninth to the twelfth century. Their origin and textual history before the ninth century is unclear but deserves further study. There is an obvious relationship between the M and P groups.⁴¹

45. In our analysis we can but confirm this relationship. By observing agreement in non-Majority readings we may clearly infer the kinship of these large groups. For example, the statistics for Matt 19:13-26 relating to MS 1571 (a member of family P) show that this MS shares five non-Majority readings with MSS 1204, 1402, and 2295 (members of the M groups). We may also consult data from Text und Textwert for the same gospel, and compare the close relationship between MS 191 (affiliated with the M groups) and MS 1571 or, better, MS 2463--the latter two belonging to family P.

7 MS Classification

46. Table 2 displays MS classifications of von Soden, the CPM, and the present author.⁴² It will be noted that the latter classifications (in contrast to the classifications of von Soden and the CPM) are family designations, i.e. the smallest identifiable group. Moreover, these classifications are based on the most conclusive data from our analyses in the five test passages. Even if MSS like 1065 and 1068 exhibit an almost identical text and form a family, we have not assigned such pairs a new family name. As mentioned before, only MSS 651, 1169, 1173, 1204, 1385, 1402, 1549, 1676, 2146, 2295, and 2315 were collated in Luke 13:34-14:11.

Table 2: MS Classifications of von Soden, the CPM, and Wasserman

8 Text und Textwert Data

47. The six volumes of Text und Textwert have been consulted for each of the 36 MSS (where extant) in Matthew, Mark and Luke.⁴³ We can here only offer a brief and somewhat arbitrary summary of the most significant data. This presentation is admittedly technical, and these fragments of data are used only to corroborate what has already been established above (this is especially true for MSS classified as "Byz"). We have tried to organize the data in order to display the main groupings.

8.1 The Gospel of Matthew (64 test passages)

• All MSS except 191, 2315, and 1204 were classified as "Byz" (2679 not collated, 1627 only collated in three passages).
• Textwert for MS 191: 39¹ 17^1/ 1² 7^s ; MS 1204: 40¹ 17^1/ 0² 7^s; MS 2315 38¹ 17^1/ 1² 7^s.
• In the "Supplementary List" we see that MS 191 agrees 92% with 2463 (33/36); and 90% with 1571 (17/19). More significantly (statistically safer), MS 191 agrees 89% with 776 and 2613 (57/64), 88% with 1455 (53/60), and 88% with 515 (56/64), which are all listed in the "Main List" (based on non-Byzantine Teststellen). These four MSS are very close to 2315 (see below) and categorized by Wisse in Luke as M106 (776, 1455, and 2613) and P473/P6 (MS 515).
• MSS 2315 and 1204 form a pair with 60 readings in common (of which 6/7 are non-Byzantine). Other MSS in the same group are: 1058 (59/63 in common with 2315); 515 (58/63 in common with 2315); 1455 (57/63 in common with 2315); 2613 (56/63 in common with 2315) and 776 (56/63 in common with 2315). 2315 shares 53/64 readings (two Sonderlesarten) with MS 191.
• For those MSS classified as "Byzantine", we have only examined readings of category "2" (agreement with the "original text"), category "S" (distinctive readings), and subvariants (slightly altered from a main variant) as these categories represent agreements in non-Byzantine readings. It would be possible, albeit time consuming, to examine each test passage to deduce each manuscript's support for a reading. However, the information gathered from Text und Textwert is used here only to corroborate the results of our own analysis.
• MS 2295 shares 4/5 readings with 2315, and 5/5 with the above group. (MS 1402 shares 1/3 with 2315.)
• MSS 1549 and 2146 share 5/5 readings with each other, and 4/5 with 651.
• MSS 1173 and 1385 share 4/4 readings with each other, and 4/5 with 1169.
• The other MSS reveal little because of their small numbers of non-Byzantine readings.

8.2 The Gospel of Mark (196 test passages)

• All MSS except 191 were classified as "Byz".⁴⁴
• Textwert for MS 191: 98¹ 60^1/ 7² 31^s. (MS 191 is quite independent according to both the "Main List" and "Supplementary List").
• MS 1549 shares 3/4 readings with 2295 and 2146. (651 is divergent.)
• MS 1385 shares 10/10 readings with 1169, 9/10 with 1173, 6/10 with 1402, and 5/10 with 1204.
• MS 2315 shares 4/7 readings with 1402, and 3/7 with 1204. (MS 725 is divergent.)
• MS 2463 shares 8/8 readings with 1306 and 1690, 7/8 with P and 992, 6/8 with 581 and 1272, and 4/8 with 808. (1571 is divergent.)
• MS 2550 shares 5/6 readings with 1218. (1089 shares 1/2 with 2550 and 1218.)
• MS 1068 shares 6/6 readings with 1065, which has an additional three Sonderlesarten.

8.3 The Gospel of Luke (54 test passages)

• All MSS except MS 1204 and 1627 were classified as "Byz".
• Textwert for MS 1204: 2¹ 8^1/ 40² 4^s; MS 1627: 35¹ 17^1/ 8² 3^s. (MS 1627 is not clearly related to any of the other MSS in Luke).⁴⁵
• In the "Supplementary List" we see that MS 1204 agrees 87% with a large number of MSS including 2295 and 2315 (47/54), and 1402 (45/52). None of these appears in the "Main List" which is based on a very small sample of five non-Byzantine readings.
• MS 1549 has 5/5 readings in common with 651; 2146 shares 4/4 readings with these two.
• MS 2295 shares 7/7 readings with 1402, 6/7 with 2315, 5/7 with 1204, and 4/8 with 651.
• MS 725 shares 5/8 readings with 1402, and 4/8 with 651 and 1549.
• MS 1385 shares 6/6 readings with 1173, and 3/6 with 1204, 2295, 1402, and 2315. (MS 1169 is divergent.)
• MS 2463 shares 4/6 readings with 581, 992, and 1699.
• Since uncial P (041) was classified as non-Byzantine, we were able to see that it shared 47/52 readings with MS 581 (4/7 non-Byz readings), 46/52 with 992, 45/52 with 2463, 42/50 with 1690, and 43/52 with 1272.

9 Conclusions

9.1 The History of a Reading

48. We have now come full circle, and it is time to attempt to answer the initial question whether the 36 MSS--or, better, the 34 MSS examined--are related beyond the shared peculiar readings of John 8:8-9a. The answer must be in the negative, i.e. they do not all belong to the same family with a common reconstructable archetype. Yet, our initial assumption that there are genealogical ties between the MSS was not altogether wrong, since we have detected a number of distinct families that do depend on common archetypes. This outcome has to do with the fact that the history of readings is not synonymous with the history of manuscripts, although the two categories surely overlap.

49. As we have mentioned, von Soden used the Pericope of the Adulteress to classify a great number of minuscules. He identified seven basic forms of the Pericope "m" (moixalij, Gr. for adulteress).⁴⁶ However, in many cases, these forms did not correspond well to his Iota and Kappa groups. In a study of Codex 1386 and the Iota P^r group, Geerlings states:

Von Soden relied far too heavily on the evidence of the pericope adulterae ..., and conclusions regarding its textual variants in MSS are applicable only to this lection and not to those in the canonical Gospels. What seems obvious to us is that the variants in this lection are more numerous than in the other lections of John's Gospel. Among other factors, observed by textual critics, is that the copyist of MSS felt more free to alter the text to suit personal predilections or to reproduce the lectionary text current in a particular locality.⁴⁷

50. Geerlings is certainly correct to say that the textual tradition of the PA exhibits an extraordinary number of variant readings (cf. the number of test passages in our study). Yet we must consider the fact that the divided testimony of the various lines of transmission in the PA (with no unitary Byzantine text present) would naturally encourage more diversity than in those places where the lines of transmission are more unified. Concerning the peculiar readings in John 8:8-9a among our examined MSS, enoj ekastou (autwn) taj amartiaj ... oi de anaginwskontej, we are inclined to agree with Geerlings that they have arisen to "suit personal predilections" (cf. Metzger's commentary). However, considering the slim lectionary support for this addition (two witnesses, one being a corrector), or even the 68 MSS of the U-group addition of "the sins of each one of them,"⁴⁸ a lectionary-based origin seems extremely unlikely.⁴⁹

51. Instead we may suspect that popular theology created the reading from a legendary explanation which is in fact reflected in a patristic comment in Jerome's Dialogue Against the Pelagians:

None of the accusers of the woman taken in adultery were without sin. Christ wrote their names [i.e. the names of the sins] in the earth."⁵⁰

52. Taking Jerome's comment into account, it might even be surprising that the expansion did not influence transmissional history beyond the one hundred MSS mentioned. The fact that the expansion was popular for dramatization, preaching, or commentary purposes is reflected in the British Mystery Plays of the late medieval and early renaissance era. In practically every case where the PA is dramatized, the text reflects the writing of the sins of each accuser.⁵¹

53. Concerning this textual expansion we may suspect that it developed through three different stages. Thirty-three of the MSS introduced the alteration from an exemplar which had the U-type addition but which already omitted autwn. This intermediate stage is reflected in MSS 1179 and 2608. The quantitative analysis data of MS 1179 seems to support this--we observe in the tables that MS1179 is close to MS 1780 and uncial U, with both exhibiting the original expansion alone.

54. Thus we end up with 35 MSS depending on the same exemplar in this peculiar expansion but elsewhere (even in the same pericope) not belonging to the same family. The only way to explain this is to appeal in part to Geerlings--the scribes reproduced the popular text rather than the lectionary text of a particular locality. When considering the present location of our examined MSS, we have already noted that a dozen of them are located in various monasteries on Mount Athos. In addition 21 out of the 68 other MSS sharing the original expansion are located in Athos monasteries. This leads us to the conclusion that the expansion in John 8:8-9a was widespread among the monasteries of Mount Athos, and it possibly even originated there.⁵²

55. Concerning the above-mentioned overlap, we have in fact found that several of the examined MSS are closely related beyond this particular reading. This indicates that the expansion was copied into the respective archetypes of the families. We have mentioned the kinship between the P and M groups, but we can preclude the possibility that the expansion was in a P/M archetype, since a very small minority of its members share this peculiarity, the earliest and only uncial being U, which is not even a member.

9.2 Variants Should Be Weighed and Counted

56. This study was based on the recognition that certain kinds of variation are highly significant when constructing a stemma of textual relationships. We have already mentioned Gordon D. Fee's postulate that variants should be "weighed" as well as counted. This is because some agreements, as Fee writes, "seem to demand textual relatedness, either by immediate ancestry or by ultimate relationship with a text type parent or the original text itself."⁵³ However, this study implies a fourth possibility that Fee did not mention, namely that significant variants such as the peculiar Patmos-addition in John 8:8-9 have the potential to gain influence on their own and to find their way into otherwise unrelated MSS. Such processess would be facilitated in places like the monasteries of Mount Athos, where there was plenty of contact between scribes and MSS. This adds another dimension to the problem of what should be given priority, whether 'weighing' or 'counting'. The more genetically significant a reading, the more potential it has to affect unrelated MSS. Therefore weighing and counting remain complementary methods when determining genetic relationships among MSS.

9.3 Tentative Stemma of the "Family Patmos/M"

Fig. 1: Stemma

57. This stemma is only a working model. Wisse's classification of most of these MSS as belonging to "M-groups" (see above) is the rationale for including the name of the uncial M (021) in the family designation. However, M is clearly not the archetype of the M-groups, so the genetic relationship in this respect remains unclear (hence the broken line to M). The groups at the base level have been clearly established through the quantitative analysis, but their mutual genealogy remains uncertain. It is possible that the Pericope of the Adulteress is a special case in which a scribe changed exemplar (perhaps the scribe of MS 1385). Yet, we must remember that there is less influence from other text-types in the PA (without a Majority text present) and this may in part explain a higher degree of agreement. If only the data in our analysis was taken into account we would have been led to believe that MS 651 was the ancestor of MSS 2146 and 1549 (only once did they agree against MS 651, but in that instance there was a correction in MS 651, which could have been made by the scribe himself). However, the data in Text und Textwert showed the divergence of MS 651 in a number of non-Majority readings in the Gospel of Mark which were in fact shared by MSS 1549, 2146, and 2295.

9.4 Future Investigation

58. As we have mentioned above, further analysis is required both for the hypothetical "family Patmos/M" and the surrounding M groups. A problem with the above stemma is a close group labeled by Wisse as M106.⁵⁴ On the basis of the CPM results for Luke and the Text und Textwert data for Matthew, we know that it must be closely related to our alleged family. It will be very interesting to see the Text und Textwert data for these MSS in John when the volume is published in the near future. However, after consulting Maurice Robinson concerning the textual character of MSS 515, 776, 1455, and 2613 (M106 in Luke), we received the preliminary information that MS 515 omits the passage altogether and that MS 2613 transposes it to the end of the Gospel and has an unrelated text. It is quite possible that the scribe of the common exemplar of the M106 group omitted the passage, regarding it as spurious, and that some of the descendants (apparently not MS 515) copied it from another exemplar. This, however, remains purely speculative.

59. Concerning family P, we have suggested a re-examination of the whole group in the light of new discoveries and recent methodological advances. A very limited preliminary study in connection with the family members examined in this study could be a collation in a sample chapter for each Gospel. This would help determine the faithfulness of the MSS to the family texts, and their places in the family stemmata.⁵⁵

Appendix 1: Quantitative Analysis Results

Matthew (overall agreement)

Matthew (agreement in non-Majority readings)

Mark (overall agreement)

Mark (agreement in non-Majority readings)

Luke (overall agreement)

Luke (agreement in non-Majority readings)

John (overall agreement)

John (agreement in non-Majority readings)

PA (overall agreement)

PA (agreement in non-Majority readings)

Endnotes

Bibliography

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. The Greek New Testament. 4th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993.

_______ Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993.

Aland, Kurt

_______ ed. Materialien zur neutestamentlichen Handschriftenkunde I. ANTF 3. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969.

Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. 2d ed. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

_______ eds. in collaboration with Klaus Wachtel and Klaus Witte. Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. IV: Die Synoptischen Evangelien. Vol. 1: Das Markusevangelium. Band 1,1: Handschriftenliste und vergleichende Beschreibung. Band 2,2: Resultate der Kollation und Hauptliste; Erg�nzungsliste (suppl.). ANTF 26-27. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998

Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, and Klaus Wachtel eds., in collaboration with Klaus Witte. Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. IV: Die Synoptischen Evangelien. Vol. 2: Das Matth�usevangelium. Band 2,1: Handschriftenliste und vergleichende Beschreibung. Band 1,2: Resultate der Kollation und Hauptliste sowie Erg�nzungen; Erg�nzungsliste (suppl.). ANTF 28-29. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999.

_______ eds., in collaboration with Klaus Witte, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. IV: Die Synoptischen Evangelien. Vol. 3: Das Lukasevangelium. Band 3,1: Handschriftenliste und vergleichende Beschreibung. Band 3,2: Resultate der Kollation und Hauptliste sowie Erg�nzungen; Erg�nzungsliste (suppl.). ANTF 30-31. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999.

Bousset, Wilhelm. Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament: Die Gruppe KP(M) in den Evangelien. TU 11/4: 111-135. Leipzig: Heinrichs, 1894.

Champlin, Russell N. Family P in Matthew. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1964.

Colwell, Ernest Cadman. Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament. NTTS 9. Leiden: Brill, 1969.

Colwell, Ernest Cadman and Ernest W. Tune. "The Quantitative Relationships Between MS Text-Types," pp. 25-32 in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey. Ed. J.N. Birdsall and R.W. Thomson. Freiburg: Herder, 1963.

_______ "Variant Readings: Classification and Use." JBL 83 (1964): 253-61.

Duplacy, Jean. "Classification des �tats d'un texte, math�matiques et informatique: Repères historiques et recherches m�thodologiques." Revue d'Historie des Textes 5 (1975): 249-309.

Elliott, J. Keith, ed. Studies in New Testament Language and Text: Essays in Honour of George D. Kilpatrick on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday. Novum Testamentum Supplements 44. Leiden: Brill, 1976.

Epp, Eldon J. and Gordon D. Fee. Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Studies and Documents 45. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Geerlings, Jacob. Family P in John. Studies and Documents 23. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1963.

Gregory, Caspar Ren�. Textkritik des Neuen Testaments. Vol 3. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1909.

Karakatianis, Athanasios A., ed. Treasures of Mount Athos. Thessaloniki: Holy Community of Mount Athos, 1997.

Kieffer, Ren�. Au delà des Recensions? L'evolution de la tradition textuelle dans Jean VI, 52-71. Coniectania biblica: New Testament Series 3. Lund: Gleerup, 1968.

Lake, Kirsopp, Robert P. Blake, and Silva New. "The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark." HTR 21 (1928): 207-404.

Lake, Silva. Family P and the Codex Alexandrinus: The Text according to Mark. Studies and Documents 5. London: Christophers, 1936.

Lumiansky, R.M. and David Mills, eds. The Chester Mystery Cycle. Vol. 1. London: Oxford University Press, 1974.

Metzger, Bruce Manning. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

_______ Textual Commentary on The Greek New Testament. 2d ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994.

Migne, J.-P., ed. Patrologia latina. 217 vols. Paris: Garnier, 1844-1864.

New, Silva. "A Patmos Family of Gospel Manuscripts." HTR 25 (1932): 85-92.

Robinson, Maurice A. and William G. Pierpont, eds. The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform. Atlanta: The Original Word Publishers, 1991.

von Soden, Hermann. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte. 4 vols. G�ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911-1913.

Voss, David C. "The Sins of Each One of Them." ATR 15 (1933): 321-23.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Wisse, Frederik. The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence as Applied to the Continuous Greek Text of the Gospel of Luke. Studies and Documents 44. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

© 2002 TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism