Facebook - NT Textual Criticism - 2024 - Jude 1:3 conflations and Harklean Group

[Steven Avery]

C

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/posts/8041451835941746/

Jude 1:3 (AV)
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation,
it was needful for me to write unto you,
and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith
which was once delivered unto the saints.

Mt. Athos and Sinai

א‎
κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας και ζωης
of our common salvation and life

This beautiful verse has some textual variants, and even a conflation (a conflation that challenges our textual narratives!)

common salvation and life.

Tommy Wasserman has written about this in his Commentary on Jude, and some of the pithiest comments came from our James Snapp.

James wrote about it on the TC-Alternate Yahoogroups in 2013 and here in 2014 and his blog in 2021.
)Also 2016 and a Textual encylopedia in 2018)

===========================

How could a 4th-century Sinaiticus conflate two words:

salvation - σωτηρίας
life - ζωης

When there is no evidence that “life” was in any early manuscripts?
James wondered about this in 2013 on the Yahoogroups email forum:

=================

[textualcriticism] Jude v. 3: Old MS w/Young Reading; Young MSS w/Old Reading
James Snapp - March 28, 2013

"an excellent example of a conflation in a flagship Alexandrian manuscript (Sinaiticus)"
"However, there is no evidence that "and life" even existed as a variant until long after Sinaiticus."

================

The key point in this difficulty is that the 4th century dating of Sinaiticus is accepted by a faithful and sacred textual criticism veneration.
When evidence shows up that is difficult for the faith, the anomalies absolutely most be explained in a manner that keeps the faith! The textual heresy of a simple, Ockham-friendly, later Sinaiticus must be rejected.

================================================

There is one uncial, 9th or 10th century, that shares the Sinaiticus text on the Jude 1:3 variant.
If fact, this manuscript is the only uncial that agrees with Sinaiticus in three variants in the Jude verse!

Codex Athous Lavrensis
044 - Psi - Ψ
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Athous_Lavrensis

Where is this manuscript?
** Mount Athos **,
where one account given in the 1860s says that Sinaiticus was produced. And that local Athos manuscripts were used in the production.
Note: two more Athos minuscules agree with Sinaiticus on our “common salvation and life” variant, 1505 and 1611 of the 12th century.
1505 Lavra B' 26
also has a questionable colophon!

https://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Manuscripts1501-2000.html
NT Manuscripts 1501-2000


Manuscript 2138 and Family 2138
(Includes 1611, National Library 94)

https://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Manuscripts2000plus.html
NT Manuscripts 2001 and up

Also weighs in as Andreas in Revelation.

In fact, the Athos-Sinai history is a topic to be studied. It looks like the Athos calligrapher Dionysios (fl. 1820-1860) and the deacon Hilarion (1810-1886) left signatures and notes in the margin of Sinaiticus, “paratextual” features.

And in fact, the Athos ms. 044 has additional unusual textual affinities with Sinaiticus.
Are we allowed to contemplate the possibility that 044 was used in the creation of Sinaiticus?
Or is that too heretical to even ask?

=======

Tomorrow, let’s probe a little deeper.
Thanks for following and thinking!

===========================================
Eric Rowe
//How could a 4th-century Sinaiticus conflate two words:
salvation - σωτηρίας
life - ζωης
When there is no evidence that “life” was in any early manuscripts?//
Sinaiticus itself is evidence for the existence of “life” in early manuscripts.
//The key point in this difficulty is that the 4th century dating of Sinaiticus is accepted by a faithful and sacred textual criticism veneration.
When evidence shows up that is difficult for the faith, the anomalies absolutely most be explained in a manner that keeps the faith!//


Tony Humbert
Eric Rowe if sinaiticus says one thing, and 5,000 other manuscripts say something else, I'm going with the 5000 every time without hesitation. The only thing sinaiticus has going for it is that it's a little bit older than the others but not old enough to convince me it trumps every other manuscript.
What anomalies?


Eric Rowe
Tony Humbert that’s not what either Steven or I were talking about.
Saying that a reading isn’t original is one thing. Saying it didn’t exist in any manuscripts at all at that time, just because we don’t have those manuscripts, is another.
Your own preference for the many later manuscripts over the fewer early ones shows that you accept the premise that lack of a reading in extant early manuscripts is no evidence foe the nonexistence of that reading in the early centuries.
Are you trying to say that the lack of extant earlier witnesses for the reading “life” means that none existed?
Eric Rowe
Tony Humbert also, there aren’t 5,000 manuscripts of Jude. There are about 300.


Steven Avery
Author
Top contributor
Tony Humbert -
“Eric Rowe …The only thing sinaiticus has going for it is that it's a little bit older than the others …”
Tony Humbert - one of the purposes of this thread is to examine this question wirh a tabula rasa.
Next up planned:
Codex Athous Lavrensis
Codex Sinaiticus
side-by-side!

 

[Steven Avery]

Hefin Jones
Admin
Top contributor
Steven Avery well ... Some folk think virtually all significant variations were already in the pool by 200 ish so finding a rare variation in a 4th century ms. is not that surprising. P72 has even more readings that are putatively young or proto-orthodox corruptions. So there's not a lot of weight to the argument. And let's entertain the simonidies in 1840 -ish innocently producing a ms. for the Tsar theory: how many Athonite MSS. would be required to produce its text? With every variant the list gets longer and Occam starts working in the other direction. And there are a heap of questions the Simonidies Sinaticus theory has to answer...


Steven Avery
Hefin Jones -
Yes, any variant that is Greek majority,, or a significant Greek minority, is extremely likely to have been in Greek manuscripts in the Ante-Nicene era, or even 2nd century, and can make a case for authenticity.
However, that does not do much for very lightly attested variants that have no evidence before c. AD 1000.
And the conflation element adds difficulty, as do the additional similar Sinaiticus textual conflations.
Here is a challenge - find one such similar conflations in any papyrus or Great Uncial manuscript. The on;y requirement is that one element of the conflation does not otherwise appear till late.
(Sinaiticus has many, just find one from the papyri or great uncials.)
The issue is NOT “putatively young” but “putatively OLD”. (Late medieval) You are thinking backwards

.


Steven Avery
Hefin Jones - the Benedict-Athos manuscript production narrative given by Simonides, and the various “coincidences” (e.g. the Simonides Hermas, the selective coloring and staining, the Spyridon Lambros catalogue) and impossible knowledge, is usually not well understood.
And I would be abundantly happy to go over those questions, but here on this thread it would be a diversion from the textual discussions of conflation and homoeoteleutons involving specific Athos mss. connected to Sinaiticus.
And the related paratectual Athos-Sinai connections that work to confirm the Simonides narrative.

Hefin Jones
Steven Avery not really. You put the theory on the table.

Steven Avery
Hefin Jones - if you want a general study of the Athos-Benedict narrative of Simonides , it would need its own thread(s).

Hefin Jones
Steven Avery what about answering the fundamental question which is a quite direct response to your claim: how many Athonite manuscripts would need to be assembled to create the text found in 01?

Steven Avery
Hefin Jones - Benedict was a top scholar, known for manuscript skills, working over a decade on the Bible project, with access to resources like the printed LXX editions (Grabe, Breitinger, Baber, Zosima) the Birch Vaticanus apparatus and Montfaucon palaeography as well as Athos manuscripts galore. No real difficulties, Simonides was simply the major scribe of the final, but aborted, tragic edition.
Simonides ended up selling or dumping it on the Patriarch Constantius, and received 25,000 piastres for his cache including Sinaiticus.
Corrections were put on at Athos, Constantinople and Antigonus, and Sinai.
=======
Was there also a hidden Jesuit hand in the mix? It is an interesting question, and there are reasons for suspicion.

Hefin Jones
Steven Avery so upwards of 5 editions/ apparatus + "manuscripts galore"... I.e. Occam's razor now requires 5+galore manuscripts to be taken into account.
It also requires corroboration of your Benedict claim. Are there well attested examples of Benedict making use of varied sources to produce an eclectic text based on whatever principal he might have been following?

Steven Avery
Hefin Jones - I mentioned the 4 LXX editions, they probably used Zosima (which was clearly specified by Simonides) and one earlier one.
There are also direct scholarly indications of other specific sources, such as the Zurich Psalter which matches one Sinaiticus corrector.
The Tischendorf accusations against the Athous Hermas applied to Sinaiticus, so he gave an awkward retraction.
With 10-20 years on the project, Benedict had plenty of time to peruse manuscripts.
This helps account for many Sinaiticus quirks like the conflations, homoeoteleutons, Andreas Revelation, Eusebian canon corruption and conflation, textual conflations with a late Byzantine component and much more.
Hefin Jones - we have Alexander Lycourgas writing of Benedicts superb reputation in Greece in 1856 and the scholarly work today of Nicolas Farmakidis.
We are working on getting manuscripts from Benedict, Dionysios the calligrapher and others and we are studying extras like the “florid phraseology” of Theophylact.
It is a tad difficult to walk into Panteleimon and ask for 180 year-old working papers.

Hefin Jones
Steven Avery so maybes and possiblies and we don't actually have the evidence... Mmm. Demonstrating someone is a good calligrapher is not relevant. Neither is demonstrating they're a good early 19th century scholar. The claim is he formulated a very non-standard eclectic text as a gift for the tzar. It's a big claim. Big claims need substantial warrant. I'm not seeing that.
BTW this is all relevant since you invoked Occam and the Athonite manuscripts.

 

[Steven Avery]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/posts/8041451835941746/?comment_id=8043382785748651&reply_comment_id=8044214648998798

Steven Avery
Heflin Jones
“….so maybes and possiblies and we don't actually have the evidence...”
Here you can see 044 and Sinaiticus agreeing on 3 variants in Jude 1:3 against all other uncials. One a conflation that is especially difficult to explain as an early manuscript.
The three agreements against all uncials is also an indication of textual connection.

Hefin Jones
Steven Avery #1. A genuine thanks. I'm looking for interesting Jude manuscripts and you've fully convinced me that 044 is interesting. I should go and look at it in a couple of weeks time. I'm on holiday and away from my laptop for the next 10 days.
#2. Only more complete collation of Jude in both 01 and 03 will confirm if this is more than random happenstance, and which direction dependence is likely.

Hefin Jones
Steven Avery but the unanswered question remains: how many Athonite MSS. are needed to generate 01?

Steven Avery
Hefin Jones - I’m working on retrieving all of Benedict’s notes from 1820-1840.

 

[Steven Avery]

=============================

David Robert Palmer
ζωης was an early reading, cf. eth, syr, conflated by ℵ Ψ with σωτηριας. Sakae Kubo suggests ζωης was substituted for σωτηριας because the latter did not cover all the topics hereinafter.
Here is my Swanson style Jude in 62 manuscripts and 12 editions:
https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/judewgrkbyz.pdf

=============================

Steven Avery
David Robert Palmer - Hi David,
Let us start with the Syriac, do you have a date for the earliest manuscript with life?
And can you explain the apparatus , considering that most English translations called Peshitta have:
"common salvation"?
As you know Jude was not brought over to the Syriac until about the 500s, making it impossible for it to be involved in a “4th-century” Sinaiticus conflation. And the earliest extant Syriac manuscripts with Jude would be the 700s or later and so far there is no specific manuscript indication that any "early" manuscripts had life.

=============================

David Robert Palmer
The Epistle of Jude is not found in the Peshitta. Quoting the ECM, its "first appearance in the Syriac version is in the so-called Philoxeniana, commissioned in 507/8 by Philoxenus, the Monophysite bishop of Mabbug...The text represented by "Ph" is from the edition of J. Gwynn...Gwynn presumed for good reasons that the text he edited on the basis of 19 manuscripts was that of Phloxeniana. We agree with his assumptions pending further research. Of these 19 manuscripts, the oldest ms is dated 822/823 A.D.
I don't remember what I was thinking in calling ζωης an early reading in Syriac. The reading must have come from somewhere. It sounds like something Tatian would have done. I have no proof.
BTW the witnesses that read ζωης alone are syr-ph mss,h 1505 1611. So some Philoxenian mss read "life" and some read "salvation." My Syriac English translations are as follow: Murdock "life"; Etheridge and Lamsa, "salvation."

David Robert Palmer
Oh yes, I remember why I think the ζωης reading came from Syriac. Because in Acts and the General Epistles, ℵ Ψ 1611 often agree with the Syriac, and if not in agreement, show awareness and influence from Syriac. This is why I would bet that the reading ζωης came from the Syriac.

=============================

Steven Avery
David Robert Palmer -
Thanks! And yes, I agree that the new Syriac translations of Jude in the 500s on likely inaugurated the “life” variant, which was even carried back to some “Harklean” Greek manuscripts. Very sensible.

“ ℵ Ψ 1611 often agree with the Syriac …”.
Fascinating. Amazing. Has there been any collation of their agreements?

=============================

David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
Steven Avery How do you know the Syriac translations of the 500s "inaugurated" the reading? We don't have extant Syriac mss of Jude from before then, but I wouldn't dogmatically say that there was no Syriac translation of Jude earlier.
Antioch, Syria was a very important place for Christianity, to say the least, and I find it difficult to imagine there being no Syriac translation of the General Epistles before the 500s.

Steven Avery By collation of their agreements, I take it you mean where they alone agree with the Syriac. Because they agree with the Syriac very often along with other minority mss. They are discussing a minority reading in another group, Acts 16:7, the "spirit of Jesus" would not let them. There the Syriac agrees with ℵ Ψ 1611 but so do many other witnesses.

Steven Avery Here is a very big agreement of Sinaiticus with Antioch, Syria for you. Victor of Antioch (5th century) in his commentary on the gospel of Mark says that the verses Mark 16:9-20 "do not appear in the existing Gospel with most copies." This comment appears in many minuscules. People need to stop saying Sinaiticus is "Alexandrian" I would say. In my experience, Sinaiticus is very influenced by some early, unknown Syriac translation.

=============================
Steven Avery
By “collation of their agreements” I really am discussing Sinaiticus, 044, and mostly Harklean minuscules like 1505 and 1611.
Yet not other majuscules and not massive numbers of minuscules.
=========
In a larger sense, ir would be good to see the Harklean group variants, where some members of the group agree against Byz.


Hefin Jones
Admin
Top contributor
Steven Avery Barbera Aland and others have fully collated Harkel group. It's important part of their reassessment of the place of the Byz text in the Catholics.


Steven Avery
Hefin Jones -
Why would it cause a reassessment? (Positively or negatively)
Are there any variants where Harklean Group (Syra Harclensis) create a tip to the majority of manuscripts? If not, it would seem to be a relatively unimportant minority Greek group.
Very interesting historically, and for indications of Syriac to Greek transmission, but a small blip on the textual battles.
Can any variants be named where it is important?
Surely not Jude 1:3.
Presumably the reassessment is triggered by the realization that these are late variants, rarely supported by uncials other than 044 (late, at Athos) and at times the quirky Sinaiticus.
Any correction here is most welcome.


Hefin Jones
Steven Avery Harkel Syriac is more Byz than its Syriac predecessors in the gospels. Harkel catholic epistles are translated from an identifiable cluster. That cluster while not fully Byz is partially Byz in character. To the folk in Munster it identifies an early stage of the Byzantianization (my term) of the early text if the Catholics. Can't be more specific. On holidays without my laptop.

Steven Avery
Hefin Jones - ok, but the obvious question remains, if the Harklean group is early Byzintizing, name a bunch of variants that are laterly Byzantized.
I thought the late Byz theory has been discarded, even by Hort. Too many early manuscripts, too much Latin, too much Peshitta, too many ECW (early church writers) support the Byz variants.
How do they revive the concept?

Hefin Jones
Steven Avery actually in Catholics a Byz text (not a Byz reading) prior to 9th cent is hard to find. Harkelensis group is the closest ... They are later MSS but clearly related to Harkels vorlage.


Hefin Jones
Steven Avery actually in Catholics a Byz text (not a Byz reading) prior to 9th cent is hard to find. Harkelensis group is the closest ... They are later MSS but clearly related to Harkels vorlage.

 

[Steven Avery]

James E Snapp Jr
Steven Avery - Yes - from the blog post at
https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/.../seven-interesting...
I present this excerpt:
In Jude verse 3, there is a contest, mainly between κοινῆς σωτηρίας (favored by a majority of manuscripts) and κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας. Although the latter was adopted in Nestle-Aland (and by Tregelles and Souter – but not by Scholz,), it is not easy to discern why any scribe whose exemplar had the longer reading here would omit ἡμῶν. The sentence is easier to understand with ἡμῶν included – which is a point in favor of the shorter reading.
But there are couple of other horses in the race. Κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας has the support of P72, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, 1739, 2200 et al; κοινῆς σωτηρίας is supported by 018 020 025 049 and hundreds of minuscules, but what does À say? Something very different: κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας και ζωης – that is, “our common salvation and life.” (This reading also turns up in 044!) And nestled in the text of some members of the cluster of manuscripts known as the Harklean Group (a.k.a. family 2138 – MSS 206, 429, 522, 614, 630, 1292, 1505, 1611, 1799, 1890, 2138, 2200, 2412, and 2495 – but especially 2138) are the readings κοινῆς ἡμῶν ζωης (1611 2138) and κοινῆς υμῶν ζωης (1505 2495). Putting À’s reading alongside the others, it looks very, very much like a conflation of the readings in B and in family 2138.
In which case, in order for the conflation to have been made in À’s text, the Harklean Group’s text of this passage had to already exist before À was made, even though the Greek manuscripts which attest to it are medieval. This is an instructive demonstration of how precarious it is to assume that the readings in later manuscripts must themselves be later.
Steven Avery
James Snapp
(I missed this one earlier)
Why Codex Sinaiticus Doesn't Say What Its Website Says It Says (2016)
https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/.../why-codex...
.... the text of Codex Sinaiticus refers to “our common salvation and life.” This is a remarkable reading, because it is a conflation, or combination, of two other readings: σωτηρίας (salvation, the reading found in most manuscripts) and ζωης (life, the reading found in a group of medieval manuscripts known as family 2138, also called the Harklean Group because the text in these manuscripts frequently agrees with the Harklean Syriac version).


Steven Avery
“… 044 (at Athos) and Sinaiticus agreeing on 3 variants in Jude 1:3 against all other uncials (and almost all minuscules).
One a conflation that is especially difficult to explain in an early manuscript … an indication of textual connection.”
=========—
It is interesting how disinterested our textual criticism aficionados are in the actual textual evidence!

Especially as this is just the tip of the iceberg.


Steven Avery
What is the earliest reference to Jude by the Syriac early church writers (ECW)?
Allowing that the ms. Itself can be late?


Steven Avery
Author
Top contributor
Here is one more from James Snapp.
===========
James Snapp
Friday, April 27, 2018
Glossary of Textual Criticism: D-M
https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/.../glossary-of...
Harklean Group: A small cluster of manuscripts which display a text of the General Epistles which is related to, and strongly agrees with, the painstakingly literal text of the Harklean Syriac version (which was produced in A.D. 616 by Thomas of Harkel, who made this revision of the already-existing Philoxenian version (which was completed in 508 as a revision/expansion of the Peshitta version) by consulting Greek manuscripts in a monastery near Alexandria, Egypt which he considered especially accurate).
The core members of the Harklean Group are 1505, 1611, 2138, and 2495. Some other manuscripts have a weaker relationship to the main cluster, including minuscules 429, 614, and 2412.
Although the Greek manuscripts in the Harklean Group are all relatively late, they appear to echo a text of the General Epistles which existed in the early 600s, and perhaps earlier, inasmuch as Codex Sinaiticus (produced c. 350) contains in the third verse of the Epistle of Jude a reference to “our common salvation and life,” a reading which appears to be a conflation between an Alexandrian reading (“our common salvation”) and the reading of the Harklean Group (“our” (or “your”) “common life”).
===========
James astutely points out that this is Sinaiticus and Harklean agreement in multiple agreements. (NA 28 has it as 3).
We can also see a common phenomenon, the dubious “consensus” Sinaiticus date forces an awkward textual science theory to “explain”.
Students of Sinaiticus see this phenomenon again … and again … and again.

 

[Steven Avery]

Steven Avery
Author
Top contributor
Hefin Jones - when you say “a Byz text .. is hard to find”.
Do you mean:
a) many variants are split without a clear majority
b) it is hard to find manuscripts that are largely a match to Byz designation on variants
Or something else.

Hefin Jones
Admin
Top contributor
Steven Avery the Byz text is a pattern of readings. The pattern of readings called the Byz text is not found "in the Catholics" until 9th 10th century BUT the pattern is emerging but incomplete in the Harkelensis group. The currently extant examples of this group are late, but that the group existed earlier is demonstrated by the fact Thomas of Harkel used an early example as the basis for his revision of the Syriac in the very early 7th century

Steven Avery
Author
Top contributor
Hefin Jones -
“the Byz text is a pattern of readings. The pattern of readings called the Byz text is not found "in the Catholics" until 9th 10th century BUT the pattern is emerging but incomplete in the Harkelensis group.”
Hefin, I am very skeptical about this explanation.
If we look at the LaParola apparatus on Jude 1:3:
https://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=72&rif2=1:3
We find 6 entries where Byz agrees with the general uncial evidence (and TR).
And then we find 1 reading, a small omission, where Byz agrees with later uncials (and TR).
And I believe this is representative of what you will find everywhere, most Byz readings in the Catholic Epistles have ample early support in some combinations of uncials and early church writers and Latin and Syriac.
This sounds like a circular definition problem, that our German experts are defining the Byz "pattern of readings" as only the small minority of Byz readings that are not well supported by early uncials.
(This in fact is a well-known trick that began with Westcott and Hort involving the floating, fluid and bogus definitions of "distinctly Byzantine").
So we should reject the idea that the Byzantine "pattern of readings" are not found in the Catholic Epistles until a late date, when that is only referring to a small % of Byz readings.
Steven

========================
Hefin Jones
Admin
Top contributor
Steven Avery I've collated the entirety of James a number of times and I think one can safely say there are considerable varieties of texts in Jude. As mentioned I'm on holiday and away from my computer which has data, tools, files. If I were home I'd dig up McCollum's analysis of Wasserman's data.


Steven Avery
Author
Top contributor
Hefin Jones -
Two different claims, barely related:
Hefin
“one can safely say there are considerable varieties of texts in Jude.”
Hefin ? Aland?
“the Byz text is a pattern of readings. The pattern of readings called the Byz text is not found "in the Catholics" until 9th 10th century BUT the pattern is emerging but incomplete in the Harkelensis group.”