2427 and Buttmann 1860
(I'll take this as a sign that it's okay now to discuss your idea
that 2427 is based on the 1860 text of Philip Buttmann's NTG.)
It's a bit suspicious-looking that 2427 and Buttmann omit EIS- in
It's question-raising that 2427 and Buttmann omit KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS
It's highly suggestive that 2427 omits the material between KAI and
KAI in 6:2; each KAI occurring in Buttmann's text at the ends of
It's extremely suggestive that 2427 omits the equivalent of exactly
one line of Buttmann's text -- the omission begins at the beginning
of a line (EIPATE), and ends at the end of a line (ESTIN) in 14:14.
But what impresses me even more is that 2427 omits "O ANAGINWSKWN
NOIEITW" in 13:14, which is within parentheses in Buttmann's NTG, and
that 2427 omits all of 7:3-4, which is within parentheses in
Still . . . the collation by Mitchell & Duncan listed something like
489 variants between the NA-27 text and 2427. Of those, 29 involve
double-letters. Of the remaining 460, one is not clearly different
due to an abbreviation in 2427, one involves an unclear reading, and
two involve a bracketed word in NA-27 (at 7:35 and 16:14). So let's
say we have something like 456 variant-units to compare. Out of
those 456 variant-units, the text of Buttmann agrees with 2427
against NA-27 71 or so times. Buttmann has something like 16
readings that don't agree with NA-27 or with 2427. So, out of 457
places where 2427 disagrees with NA-27, Buttmann agrees with NA-27
(and disagrees with 2427) 369 times.
Where did all these readings that are in 2427, but which are not in
Buttmann's 1860 NTG, come from? They can't all be red herrings, can
they? Did you check 2427 against the 1854 NT (Greek/Latin/German) of
And why are there omissions ~ all about the same length ~ in 2427 in
14:47, 14:58, and 14:72? I can understand how a forger might want to
pepper his text with itacisms, and make the manuscript intriguing by
giving it an unusual feature (the abbreviations). But what would
cause a forger to do things like omit "PERIQEIS KALAMW" (or "PERIQEIS
TE KALAMW") in 15:36, skip James's name twice (1:29, 5:37), and write
"UPODHMATWN" in 6:11?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Curtisville Christian Church
There has been a similar forgery, which has been detected by similar scribal errors,
namely, the so-called Codex Ravianus. It was written to have a further witness of the Johannine
Comma, and was convicted as a clever forgery by Georg Gottlieb Pappelbaum: Codicis Manuscripti N.T. Graeci Rauiani …, Berlin 1785/1796;
by the same: Untersuchung der Rauischen Handschrift des neuen Testaments, Berlin 1785.
The scribe of this ms copied the Complutensian Polyglott, but inserted readings from Stephens 3rd edition at certain instances
to mislead the reader. It was detected as a forgery by homoioteleuta, consisting just of one or two lines in the Complutensia,
by scribal errors / typos repeated in the codex, etc. History repeats itself...
K. Martin Heide
Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
I hope listers won't mind too much if I should point out
that my SBL Forum article on 2427 is now online at:
http://www.sbl- site.org/ Article.aspx? ArticleId= 577
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring .com
Weblog: http://www.hypotypo seis.org/ weblog/
Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon. com/exec/ obidos/ASIN/ 1932792481
- For those of you who might not want to wade through the more detailed account of the findings from my recent dissertation on Clement's text of the Gospels, you can skip to the conclusions listed in the final two paragraphs.
Clement's use of the NT has baffled text-critical scholars for over a hundred years.
Attempts to classify his text of the gospels have resulted in little agreement (Barnard and Burkitt  claimed his gospel text was Western; Reuben Swanson  later argued it was Egyptian in Matthew and John, but predominantly "Western" in Luke; Gerassime Zaphiris  claimed it was "Western" in Matthew; and Michael Mees  argued it was an early form of the Egyptian text. While many have relied on Mees' study has definitive, his results, as with all the previous studies on Clement, suffered from several methodological weaknesses.
In light of this situation, and the recent methodological advancements in text critical analysis, I decided to reevaluate Clement's text of the gospels. After gathering all his quotations, adaptations, and allusions, I collated his text against the major leading textual witnesses. Since I also had access to the recent analysis of several other Alexandrian Fathers (Origen, Athanasius, Didymus, and Cyril), I included them as a separate group in the collation. The genetically significant variants were then subject to both a definitive quantitative analysis and a group profile analysis.
The analysis yielded several intriguing results. First, Clement's text failed to reach a level of 65% agreement with any of the major textual groups. In addition, his textual affinities varied considerably among the individual Gospels. For example, it switched from being predominantly Byzantine in Matthew (53.8%) and Mark (62.5%), to Western in Luke (57.1%), and then to Alexandrian in John (60%). Why are the levels of Clement's textual agreement so low, whereas the most recent findings from other church Fathers were more definitive? Part of the reason seems to stem from the fact that the overwhelming majority of the readings that determined his textual classification were shared among the text-types—that is they were not distinctive or exclusive to any of the established textual groups. There was also no indication that block mixture contributed to the varying affinities.
In an attempt to make sense of the data, I next subjected Clement's readings to a typological analysis (similar to that used by Zuntz and Racine) to determine if his readings were genuinely representative of the Byzantine text-type in Matthew and Mark, and the Western text in Luke. The results were surprising. In every case, I found that a number of the readings that suggested a Byzantine or Western affinity were far from definitive—in fact, not one of the readings identified as Byzantine in Mark preserved a distinctive enough character to confidently classify it as Byzantine. Thus the initial level of agreement with the Byzantine and Western readings in the Synoptics appears to be due to Clement's own loose citations habits—and not evidence of textual dependence.
My analysis of Clement's gospel text produced the following conclusions: 1) Clement's text does not testify to an early dominance of the Western textual tradition in Alexandria. While he supports "some "Western readings, time and time again he failed to support the key readings representative of the Western text; 2) Clement also does not appear to be an early representative of the Byzantine text-type. While he does support a number of Byzantine readings, especially in Matthew, many of these agreements are merely coincidental, the result of his own tendency for harmonization; 3) Clement shares virtually no agreements with the Caesarean readings. This is, of course, no real surprise, since the Caesarean text-type was a later development; and 4) Clement's text of John appears to be Alexandrian. Though it only reaches a 60% level of agreement, an Alexandrian classification appears best since the next highest level of agreement is a distant 35.7% (Western). Unfortunately, Clement's tendency for harmonization in the Synoptics makes an Alexandrian classification beyond the reach of the available evidence.
While Clement's textual evidence is not as clear-cut as one would have hoped, his connection with the so-called Alexandrian text-type may be found in his unusually high degree of textual confluence with later Alexandrian Fathers. Among the variants in Matthew, Clement's top highest levels of agreement were with Athanasius (72.2%), Origen (61.4%), and then Didymus (56.9%). Origen also ranked first in Mark, agreeing with Clement 66.7%. Clement's highest level of agreement in Luke was again with Origen at 68.2%, Didymus came in third at 60.5%, and Athanasius 18th at 50%. The results were again similar in John where Origen ranked 2nd at 68.3%, and Cyril and Athanasius both tied for 5th at 66.7%. This level of agreement is especially significant since the inconsistent citation practices and varying preferences among the Alexandrian Fathers for different passages would lead one to expect the opposite.
This took longer than I expected, but I hope I've included enough information to give you a sense of study.
Carl P. Cosaert, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, New Testament and Early Christianity
School of Theology
Walla Walla College
204 S. College Avenue
College Place, WA 99324
>>> <email@example.com> 10/08/06 5:41 AM >>>There is 1 message in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Clement of Alexandria
1. Clement of Alexandria
Posted by: "sarban" sarban@... andrewcriddle
Date: Sun Oct 8, 2006 12:15 am (PDT)
Clement of Alexandria is usually cited as a witness to the Western
text of the Gospels, a claim going back to Barnard in 1899.
However I was studying the text of the 'rich young ruler' passage
quoted in 'The Rich Mans Salvation' and noted that it seemed to
agree with the Caesarean text as much as the Western.
Barnard of course was writing before the Caesarean text was
discover/postulated. Has any work been done specifically to
investigate whether Clement in the Gospels is closer to the
Western or Caesarean text ?
Messages in this topic (1)
Yahoo! Groups Links
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Carl Cosaert" <cosaca@...>
>advancements in text critical analysis, I decided to reevaluate
> In light of this situation, and the recent methodological
Clement's text of the gospels. After gathering all his quotations,
adaptations, and allusions, I collated his text against the major
leading textual witnesses.
Mr. Dykes asks:
Thanks for your contribution. I am curious, what materials did you use
to access or evaluate Clement's TEXT? Did you you use collations of
his writings? or did you use films of his surviving MSS or citations?
--What were the major manuscripts you accessed?-- Did you view the MSS
directly or via films or photos?
thank you for responding,
Mr. Gary S. Dykes