A Greek Lectionary Manuscript at Southwestern Seminary

Introduction

The recent unearthing of a late Medieval Greek lectionary manuscript in the library at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary¹ has prompted this brief evaluation of a document which, though previously recorded, has to my knowledge never been fully assessed.² The manuscript is listed in Kurt Aland’s Kurzgefasste Liste with the Gregory-Aland number 𝑙2282.³ The purpose of this paper is threefold: (1) to examine the text of the manuscript, (2) to attempt to establish its date, and (3) to consider its use in historical and ecclesial context.

The provenance of the manuscript is uncertain. The folder which held the manuscript only has a notation in pencil that it is a Byzantine “gospel book,” and the absence of a notation referencing its character as a lectionary manuscript may suggest that whoever wrote the note was not fully aware of its contents.

Lectionary Studies

Lectionaries have understandably not received the same level of attention given to biblical manuscripts. Modern textual studies of lectionaries only began in earnest in 1929 at the University of Chicago.⁴ One of the instigators of that movement complained in 1933, “All but a few textual scholars seem to feel it below their dignity to work upon lectionary manuscripts.”⁵ That negative assessment no longer holds to the same degree, particularly after the International Greek New Testament Project used lectionary evidence in its edition of Luke,⁶ and the fourth edition of the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament included the testimony of thirty manuscripts for the gospels, and forty for the epistles. Even so, for some text critics, though the lectionaries have value as witnesses to the evolution of the text, they have little value in the attempt to establish the text as close as possible to the original. This is because of the late date of most lectionaries, because the majority of lectionary manuscripts are thought to reflect the Byzantine tradition—which itself is often discounted in text-critical studies—and despite the efforts of the Chicago scholars who considered that the lectionary text was in many places of Caesarean character.⁷ Colwell in 1932 suggested the possibility of delineating a standard lectionary text of the gospels,⁸ but although he showed that a majority of lectionaries followed a similar text, such an undertaking has proved impossible so far, because of the differences between the more than 2,400 lectionary manuscripts known to exist. There has only been a trickle of studies of individual lectionaries,⁹ and this study of what is only a brief manuscript hopes in some small measure to stimulate further investigation.

Description and Contents

The manuscript consists of a single sheet of paper, written on both sides, 30.5 cm in height and 21.7 cm in width. The text is in two columns and there are 23 lines of text on the page. The text consists of a portion of the Byzantine Greek lectionary. In this case, as was common, it is a lectionary with readings for Saturdays and Sundays only. All this is already recorded by Aland.¹⁰ It is a miniscule, written in black ink. Notations in the top and bottom margin on the first page, and in the bottom margin on the second page, inform the reader when to read the selections. The passages included are from the synaxarion, that part of lectionary with readings for the year, starting with Easter.¹¹ Because the date of Easter varied, so would the dates for the reading of these passages.

The lections included on these two pages are from the Lukan portion of the lectionary. The first, Luke 19:8b–10, is the concluding portion of the Zacchaeus passage (Luke 19:1–10) which would be read on the fifteenth Sunday (κυριακῆ ιεʹ)¹² of the Lukan section of the lectionary. The next two passages, Luke 18:2–8 (the parable of the unjust judge), and Luke 18:10–14 (the parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee) were read on the sixteenth Saturday (σαββάτῳ ιϛʹ) and Sunday (κυριακῆ ιϛʹ) respectively. Α note in a different hand from that of the scribe, in the right lower margin below the beginning of the reading from Luke 18:10–14, states του τελωνου και του φαρισαιου, “of the tax collector and the pharisee.” This was the name given in most lectionaries to this Sunday of the Lukan readings, and indeed to the whole week following. The last lection, Luke 20:46–21:1, is incomplete in this manuscript. It is a portion of the reading which normally includes 20:46–21:4, and consists of a warning against the scribes and the story of the widow’s mite. This would be read on the seventeenth Saturday (σαββάτῳ ιζʹ) of the Lukan cycle.

The three passages for which this manuscript has the beginning are presented in similar fashion. Above each reading is written ἐκ του κατὰ λουκαν, “from the [Gospel] according to Luke,” using red ink with stylization and abbreviation. An elaborate decorative letter begins the reading itself; in each case it is the letter epsilon, the first letter of εἶπεν. Each reading is introduced with an incipit, one of six standard introductory formulae.¹³

Collation of the Lectionary 𝑙2282

Although lectionaries have been traditionally collated against the Textus Receptus, it has become the scholarly practice to collate against the eclectic text of the NA27. This paper will collate the lectionary against both texts. No account has been taken of breathing marks or accents, but moveable ν has been included, as have itacisms and scribal errors. It has become increasingly apparent that collations need to take account of every variation practicable, if relationships between manuscripts are to be explored.

Collation against the NA27:¹⁴

κυρ. ιεʹ (Luke 19:8–10)
19:9    ειπεν] ειπε
19:10 ηλθεν] ηλθε

σαβ. ιϛʹ (Luke 18:2–8)
18:2    Inc VI κριτης
18:4    ηθελεν] ηθελησεν ουδὲ ανθρωπον] και ανθρωπον ουκ
18:5    το] το + μη
χηραν] χειραν
18:6    ειπεν] ειπε
18:7    ποιηση] ποιησει¹⁵
αυτω] προς αυτον
μακροθυμει] μακροθυμων

κυρ. ιϛʹ (Luke 18:10–14)
18:10 Inc VI ανθρωποι
18:12 οσα] ωσα
18:13 επαραι εις τον ουρανον] εις τον ουρανον επαραι ιλασθητι] ηλασθητι
18:14 παρ᾽ εκεινον] η γαρ εκεινος

σαβ. ιζʹ (Luke 20:46–21:1)
20:46 Inc II προσεχετε
21:1    ειδεν] ειδε
εις το γαζοφυλακιον τα δωρα αυτων] τα δωρα αυτων εις το γαζοφυλακιον

Collation against the Textus Receptus:

σαβ. ιϛʹ (Luke 18:2–8)
18:1    Inc VI κριτης
18:5    το] το + μη     𝑙80 𝑙1579¹⁶
χηραν] χειραν

κυρ. ιϛʹ (Luke 18:9–14)
18:10 Inc VI ανθρωποι
18:12 οσα] ωσα
18:13 ιλασθητι] ηλασθητι
18:14 η εκεινος] η γαρ εκεινος

σαβ. ιζʹ (Luke 20:45–21:1)
20:46 Inc II προσεχετε

Text Variants

It is clear from this procedure that far fewer variants are found when the collation is done against the Textus Receptus. This is unsurprising in that the lectionary text was, according to Metzger, “gradually brought into conformity with the prevailing Byzantine text,”¹⁷ and this movement would be likely to affect a late medieval manuscript such as this one. The following discussion will focus on variations from the Textus Receptus, or where the lectionary textual tradition is significantly divided.¹⁸

Luke 18:2: Inc VI κριτης. The use of Incipit VI (εἷπεν ὁ κύριος τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην) is standard in the lectionaries, and to be expected because of Luke’s own introduction in 18:1 which includes the words ἔλεγεν . . . παραβολὴν.

Luke 18:4: ηθελεν] ηθελησεν. The reading of the aorist verb ηθελησεν instead of the imperfect is late, supported in uncials by 036 and 037 (ninth or tenth century), and in lectionaries by 𝑙1963 (eleventh or twelfth century). This variant is not mentioned in the apparatus of the NA27.

Luke 18:5: το] το + μη. The variant itself is curious, the addition of μή amounting to a negation of the infinitive verb παρέχειν, so that the unjust judge says, “because this widow has not caused trouble to me, I will give her justice.” This seems to be in contradiction to the point of the parable, through which the disciples are encouraged always to pray, and to cry out to God day and night. Perhaps, because of the parallels drawn in the parable between the judge and God, a scribe felt reluctant to allow a parallel also between the widow’s “causing trouble” and the prayers of the church. Perhaps, with an attitude of medieval quietism,¹⁹ a scribe wanted to de-emphasize the idea of insistent prayer. Or perhaps a scribe felt that Jesus’ point was that prayer was not a trouble to God, and wanted to smooth out an apparent discrepancy in the text.

This rare reading is also found in lectionaries 𝑙80 (twelfth century) and 𝑙1579 (fourteenth century). The various manuscripts or their exemplars may of course have independently inserted μή. But it seems more likely that there is a relationship; perhaps all three manuscripts trace their Saturday readings to a common ancestor. Bray’s work in the weekday lessons from Luke in the lectionary claimed that 𝑙80 and 𝑙1579 were not strongly related, with 𝑙80 being unrepresentative of the main lectionary text.²⁰ But the appearance of such an unusual variant in both, plus this evidence from 𝑙2282 could indicate that the two manuscripts are more closely related. Or perhaps the weekday lections were transmitted separately from the weekend lections.²¹ This is quite likely given that Saturday-Sunday lectionaries were used at an earlier date than complete lectionaries, and that their separate use continued, as evidenced by manuscripts such as 𝑙2282.

Luke 18:5: χηραν] χειραν. This substitution is most likely simple itacism, in which spelling is confused because certain letters and diphthongs sound alike. But in this instance the misleading result is the reading χείρα, “hand,” instead of χήρα, “widow.”

Luke 18:10: Inc VI ανθρωποι. The lectionaries are divided over the correct way to introduce this passage. The majority use incipit VI (εἷπεν ὁ κύριος τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην), and this has the advantage of similarity to the beginning and end of the text of Luke 18:9 (εἷπεν . . . τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην). Some lectionaries use incipit V (εἷπεν ὁ κύριος), and one (𝑙524) uses incipit I (τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ). This indicates a divergence of opinion over whether the account of the tax collector and the Pharisee was a parable or a true story.

Luke 18:12: οσα] ωσα. This is most likely due to itacism.

Luke 18:13: ιλασθητι] ηλασθητι. This is most likely due to itacism.

Luke 18:14: η εκεινος] η γαρ εκεινος. Here 𝑙2282 agrees with a number of uncials which are Byzantine in the gospels, though not in other portions, including A, E, G, and H, as well as Δ, Ψ, f ¹³, and a large number of miniscules and lectionaries. The reading η εκεινος is found in W and Θ, and a few other manuscripts.

Luke 20:46: Inc II προσεχετε. The use of incipit II (εἷπεν ὁ κύριος τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μαθηταῖς) is widespread for this reading in the lectionary tradition, as would be expected from its similarity to 20:45b (εἷπεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ), particularly when the text is a speech of Jesus. Metzger suggested in his work on the Saturday-Sunday lectionary in Luke that there is evidence of influence from the lectionary text on non-lectionary manuscripts. He names nineteen places in Luke where such “contamination” occurs.²² But he fails to mention Luke 20:45, where manuscripts Γ (036), 179 and 669 have εαυτου μαθηταις for μαθηταις αυτου, quite likely under the influence of the use of incipit II in the lectionary reading.

Because what is available of lectionary 𝑙2282 is so short, it is impossible to determine whether the original manuscript as a whole would have adhered to one or another of the standard text types. What evidence is available however is clearly not Alexandrian, nor Western, but broadly in line with the lectionary tradition and the Byzantine text.

Text of the Lectionary

To facilitate discussion of scribal tendencies, the text of the lectionary is presented below, with an English translation for convenience. Spelling, punctuation marks, breathing marks and accents have been kept as close as possible to those in the manuscript, though in the original there are few if any spaces between words, and modern font used cannot represent the varieties of ligatures, and uncial and cursive letter forms found in the original. Accents over diphthongs have been placed according to the manuscript. Where the accent is placed over both letters in the manuscript it is placed over the first letter of the diphthong in the table. Where it is over a diphthong written as a ligature or combination, such that the position of the accent in relation to to the individual letter is unclear, it is placed after the second letter in the table.

Luke 19:8–10

𝑙 2282	Translation
[καὶ εἴ τινός τι ἐσυκοφάν-] τησα ἀποδίδωμι τετραπλοῦν· εἷπε δὲ πρὸς ἀυτὸν ὁ ἰς· ὅτϊ σήμερον σρία τῶ ὄικω τόυτω ἐγένετο, καθότι καὶ ἀυτὸς υἱὸς ἁβραάμ ἐστιν· ἦλθε γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνου ζητῆσαι κὰι σῶσαι τὸ ἀπολωλός :	[and if anything from anyone I have de-] frauded, I will give back fourfold.” 9And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he is a son of Abraham. 10For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Luke 18:2–8

εἷπεν ὁ κς́ τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην· κριτῆς τίς ῆν ἔν τινι πόλει, τὸν θν̀ μὴ φοβούμενος ϗ` ἄνον μὴ ἐντρεπόμενος· χήρα δὲ ἦν ἐν τῇ πόλει ἐκείνη κὰι ἤρχετο πρὸς αὐτὸν· λέγουσα, ἐκδίκησόν με ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀντιδίκου μου. καὶ ὀυκ ἠθέλησεν ἐπὶ χρόνον· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα εἷιπεν ἐν ἑαυτῶ· εἰ κὰι τὸν θν̀ οὐ φοβοῦμαι καὶ ἄνον οὐκ ἐντρέπομαι, διά γε τὸ μὴ παρέχειν μοι κόπον τὴν χεῖραν τάυτην ἐκ δικήσω αὐτήν, ἵνα μὴ εἰς τέλος ἐρχομένη ὑπωπιάζη με· εἷπε δὲ` ὁ κς́· ἀκόυσατε τί ὁ κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας λέγει· ὁ δὲ θς̀ οὐ μὴ` ποιήσει τὴν ἐκδίκησιν τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ τῶν βοώντων πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡμέρας κὰι νυκτὸς, ϗ` μακροθυμῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς, λέγω ὑμῖν· ὅτι ποιήσει τὴν ἐκδίκησιν αὐτῶν ἐν τάχει :

The Lord spoke this parable: 2 “In a certain city was a certain judge who did not fear God and did not respect man. 3 But a widow was in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, ‘Give me justice over my accuser.’ 4 And for some time he was unwilling; but after these things he said to himself, ‘Even if I do not fear God and I do not respect man, 5 yet because this widow does not cause me trouble, I will give her justice, so that she might not wear me out by continually coming.’” 6 And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says; 7 But will not God bring about justice for his elect who cry to him day and night, and though having patience on them? 8 I say to you that he will bring about justice for them quickly.”

Luke 18:10–14

εἷπεν ὁ κς́ τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην· ἄνοι δύο ἀνέβησαν ἐις τὸ ἱερὸν προσεύξασθαι· ὁ εἰς Φαρισαῖος καὶ ὁ ἕτερος τελώνης· ὁ Φαρισαῖος σταθεὶς πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ταῦτα προσηύχετο· ὁ θς̀ εὐχαριστῶ σοι ὅτι ὀυκ εἰμὶ ὥσπερ ὁι λοιπὸι τῶν ἀνών· ἅρπαγες, ἄδικοι, μοιχοὶ, ἣ κὰι ὡς ὁῦτος ὁ τελώνης· νηστεύω δὶς τοῦ σαββάτου· ἀποδεκατῶ πάντα ὥσα κτῶμαι· κὰι ὁ τελώνης μακρόθεν ἐστὼς, ὀυκ ἤθελεν ὀυδὲ τὸυς ὀφθαλμὸυς ἐις τὸν ὀυνὸν ἐπάραι· ἀλλ᾽ ἕτυπτεν ἐις τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ λέγων· ὁ θς̀ ἡλάσθητί μοι τῶ ἁμαρτωλῶ· λέγω ὑμῖν· κατέβη ὁῦτος δεδικαιωμένος εἰς τὸν οἶκον ἀυτοῦ, ἡ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος· ὅτι πᾶς23 ὁ ὑψῶν ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ταπεινῆν ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται :

The Lord spoke this parable: “Two men went up into the temple to pray. One was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing, was praying these things to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like the rest of men: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I tithe all that I receive.’ 13And the tax collector, standing far off, was not even willing to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating upon his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me—to this sinner!’ 14 I say to you, this man went to his house justified rather than that one; because everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Luke 20:46–21:1

εἷπεν ὁ κς́ τοῖς ἑἀυτοῦ μαθηταῖς· προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν γραμματέων τῶν θελόντων περιπατεῖν ἐν στολαῖς, κὰι φϊλόυντων ἀσπασμὸυς ἐν τοῖς ἀγορᾶις κὰι πρωτοκαθεδρίας ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς κὰι πρωτοκλισίας ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις· ὁὶ κατεσθίουσι τὰς οἰκίας τῶν χηρῶν, κὰι προφάσει μακρὰ προσεύχονται ὁῦτοι λήμψονται περισσότερον κρίμα· ἀναβλέψας δὲ εἷδε τὸυς βάλλοντας τὰ δῶρα αὐτῶν ἐις τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον πλουσίους·

46 The Lord spoke to his own disciples: “Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk around in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets. 47 They devour the houses of widows, and in pretense they pray lengthy prayers. These will receive greater judgment.” 21:1 And looking up he saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury.

Scribal Tendencies

Moveable Ν

This manuscript uses the moveable ν in each of the three incipits (εἷπεν), and in the biblical text four times: in ἠθέλησεν and εἷπεν (Luke 18:4), and in ἤθελεν and ἔτυπτεν (18:13). It is absent five times: in εἷπε (19:9), ῆλθε (18:10), εἷπε (18:6), κατεσθίουσι (20:47), and εἷδε (21:1).

Nomina Sacra

As was standard practice in Christian Greek texts, abbreviated nomina sacra forms are used for divine names and other common theologically significant terms. At least the first and last letters of a word were used, with a horizontal line placed above the text to indicate the abbreviation. The last letter indicates the case. Sometimes the abbreviation included some other letters from the word. In this lectionary manuscript, nomina sacra forms are used for Ἰησοῦς (ἰς́), κύριος (κς́), θεός (θς̀ or θν̀), οὐρανός (ὀυνὸν), ἄνθρωπος (ἀνόυ or ἄνον) and σωτηρία (σρία). This latter was not one of the standard fifteen nomina sacra found in Byzantine manuscripts,²⁴ but it is probably used by extension from the common abbreviation of σωτήρ. Somewhat unusually, there is no abbreviation of υἱός in 19:10.

Accents, Breathing Marks, and Punctuation

This manuscript uses accents and breathing marks throughout. The double dot (diæresis) is used once in ὅτι (19:9), and in φιλούντων (20:46). The grave accent is doubled for both δέ and μή in 18:6–7. This is unusual in that this doubling was normally used to point out the contrast to the reader of δέ with the correlative conjunction μεν.²⁵ Only twice do the accents connect to the letters.²⁶

In five places there are errors in breathing marks. The name ἁβραάμ (Abraham) in Luke 19:9 should be ἀβραάμ. In 18:13 ἐστώς (“standing”) has smooth breathing where rough would be expected. The conjunction ἤ in 18:11 and 18:14 is rendered with ἣ and ἡ respectively, making it into the feminine definite article, a nonsensical reading in context. In 18:14 the imperfect ἔτυπτεν is written ἕτυπτεν.

The scribe frequently places the accent over the first letter of a diphthong, instead of the customary second. Of ninety-three diphthongs with accents or breathing marks, forty-one (44%) have the accents and/or breathing marks over the first letter. In fourteen instances (15%) the accents are spread over both letters. In ten instances (11%) the diphthong is a ligature or superposition, with the accents over the combination. Five diphthongs (5%) have the breathing mark over the first letter, and the accent over the second. In only twenty-three instances (25%) are both the accents and/ or breathing marks clearly placed over the second letter in the diphthong. This is unusual, though the placing of accents and breathing marks on the first letter of a diphthong occurs occasionally in miniscule manuscripts, especially where the first letter of the pair is uncial or oversize.

Punctuation consists of the high point, middle point and comma. The question in 18:7 appears to be concluded with a comma. Each reading is concluded with a colon or double dot in black ink followed by a larger red dot in the middle position.

The presence of unusual itacisms, the number of errors in breathing marks, and the variation in placement of accents may indicate that the scribe was copying by ear and not by sight, or at least was not careful with details.

Dating

External Evidence

The manuscript 𝑙2282 is listed as sixteenth century by Aland.²⁷ On the folder in which it was kept in the Southwestern Seminary library is a penciled note which indicates a date of AD 1390. There are no other external indicators of the date of production.

Paleographic Evidence

The manuscript is nicely written in the standard and rather formal miniscule script common during the medieval period. The script is written continuously; it may appear that words are separated, but the spaces between letters in the same word that are not joined are just as large. There is little evidence of the move to a more relaxed or straggly cursive style that characterized cursives of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The manuscript uses multiple forms of many letters, sometimes depending on what letters are adjacent. Final sigma is written as ς, σ, or ϲ. A number of letters are enlarged, in uncial fashion, including gamma, epsilon, chi, lambda and tau. Long strokes and loops are found on some instances of alpha, delta and zeta. Uncial epsilon had appeared in miniscule manuscripts from the early tenth century.²⁸ There are numerous ligatures (combinations of letters which share strokes) and some superposition (one letter written above another), particularly towards the end of a line. Καί is twice abbreviated with the standard symbol (ϗ).

There is very little in the script that is not evidenced elsewhere as early as the twelfth century; in this regard the manuscript could be dated earlier than expected. However, it is well known that liturgical and biblical texts were written very conservatively, and what seems like an early style could easily have been written several centuries later.²⁹ There is no use of iota subscript or adscript, but this was common in manuscripts from 1200 onwards.³⁰ Breathing marks are rounded, not squared. Both types were in use between 1000 and 1300, but after 1300 round breathing marks were the norm.³¹ Accents are used over nomina sacra, but this was the norm from the mid-eleventh century.³² But the circumflex accent is written mostly in the tilde style (◌̃) rather than the inverted-breve style (◌̑) which prevailed for centuries. It was not until the fifteenth century that large numbers of documents appeared with a predominance of tilde-shaped circumflex accents.³³ Of sixty-one circumflex accents in the text of the manuscript, forty-seven are tilde-shaped, while fourteen are of the inverted-breve shape. This suggests an earliest possible date of around 1400, with a greater likelihood that it is from the second half of the fifteenth century.

Material

The manuscript is on paper, whereas most early medieval manuscripts are on vellum. Paper had been used for codices as early as the eighth century,³⁴ but was not in widespread use for manuscripts until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.³⁵ In the Byzantine empire, paper of Arab manufacture was used at first, but from the mid-thirteenth century paper was imported from Italy.³⁶

What provides evidence for the date and provenance of the paper in the manuscript is the existence of a watermark. It was common for Western European paper manufacturers to make a design of wire, and tie or sew it onto the mold used to press the paper, thus creating an impression visible when the light is shined through the paper. The designs of the watermarks are used to date the production of the paper. The standard work is by Briquet.³⁷ Lectionary 𝑙2282 has a watermark which displays a set of scales within a circle, suspended by a rope or chain incorporating two circles from a six-pointed star. Papers with a similar design range from 1485 (Briquet No. 2455) to 1512 (Briquet No. 2599), but the closest match is to paper No. 2601, dated at 1494–1497, and used in Venice.³⁸ It is possible, of course, that paper was not always used immediately after it was produced, and so the date of the manufacture of the paper could pre-date its use by some time. Additionally, there are no other sheets of this manuscript available. If the whole manuscript was produced from the same paper it would heighten the possibility that it was written somewhere near the date of manufacture.

One issue to consider is where the lectionary was written. Constantinople had fallen in 1453, but the Greek churches were still in operation. There was also a large Greek-speaking community in southern Italy. It may have taken time for the paper to travel to its final destination. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to deduce that this manuscript was most likely written in the late fifteenth century, or early sixteenth, within the period 1490–1510—about the time when use of the printing press was becoming more widespread.

Ecclesial Use

Historical Setting

We now turn to a brief reflection upon the use of this lectionary in its historical context. The document was written especially for use in the Saturday and Sunday services of worship of the Byzantine church. Bible manuscripts of the same era were used frequently for the lectionary readings, and often have instructions for readers indicating the date on which a passage was to be read, and also the beginning and end of the selection. So why was a Saturday-Sunday lectionary necessary? The Byzantine lectionary readings were entirely from the New Testament,³⁹ but it would still have been cheaper and quicker to write such a document than to copy a full New Testament. This manuscript was possibly written for a church that had no full copy of the New Testament. The passages it contained may have been the only Scripture many participants ever heard. In that case, the selection of passages, and the manner in which they were presented, was highly significant.

Although some churches required the Scriptures to be read in continuous fashion (the so-called lectio continua),⁴⁰ the Byzantine church, among others, developed a hybrid system where the requirements of special celebrations and the church calendar competed with the impulse to read through the Biblical books in order. The Saturday-Sunday lections appear to be disordered, but it has been noted that the Saturday readings and the Sunday readings, taken separately, follow a sequence quite close to the biblical order.⁴¹

The Lukan section of the Saturday-Sunday lectionary begins with Luke 4:31–36 (concerning the man with an unclean spirit in the synagogue) and ends with Luke 20:46–21:4 (concerning the widow’s mite). Only selections from Luke were read in this period, but many of the gaps were filled by readings at weekday services, for churches and monasteries which had them. After this Lukan and Matthean readings are mixed as far as Lent. The Lukan passion narrative is read just before Lent. The birth narratives were reserved for the advent period. The examination of the selection of passages for the lectionary is a task beyond the scope of this paper. It has been noted that there is “an emphasis on miracle stories,” perhaps “at the expense of the teaching and parable sections.”⁴²

The Saturday-Sunday readings from Luke were used during the regular Byzantine mass or Eucharist, in a service which followed the so-called Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which was the standard form.⁴³ The service having begun with prayer and song, the lectionary or book of the Gospels was brought in, with solemn procession and candles—sometimes it had to be taken out first, if the book was kept in the church. This was called the “Little Entrance.”⁴⁴ Immediately before the reading of the Gospel the priest called to the congregation, Σοφία. Ὀρθοί. Ἀκούσωμεν τοῦ ἁγίου εὐαγγελίου. (“Wisdom. Stand up. Let us hear the holy Gospel.”) Then after the name of the Gospel was announced by the deacon, the priest said, Πρόσχωμεν (“Pay attention”). The passage was read by the deacon, after which the priest said to him, Εἰρήνη σοι (“Peace be with you”). The deacon then gave the book to the priest, who placed it on the altar. This was followed by intercessory prayers, starting with Κύριε, ἐλέησον (“Lord, have mercy”).⁴⁵

This brief description covers only a small portion of a lengthy liturgy. It is clear that the reading was accompanied by the utmost solemnity and ceremony, with the congregation standing, and much prayer. The call of “wisdom” heightened the sense that the words about to be read were worthy of full attention, and the prayer for mercy afterwards could be thought of as a response. The gospel reading was given particular honor, as witness to Christ. But the purpose of all this was to prepare the people and the priest for the Eucharist. Even the designation “Little Entrance” indicates the priority: Christ is revealed in the Gospel “in a more perfect manifestation” than in the epistle, and then again in the “perfect and supreme manifestation” of the sacrifice of the mass which points to the cross.⁴⁶

In the veneration of the Gospel book or lectionary, the ceremony and prayer, and in the key place the reading is given in the liturgy, the Byzantine rite gave the readings symbolic value as much as or more than instructional value. Thus the fact of the reading is as important as its content. The content itself was recontextualized both through its place in the liturgy, and through the use of the lectionary form. It is quite possible that the New Testament writers expected their works to be read out in public worship, but it is unlikely that they expected such elaborate ceremony, nor for their writings to be broken up and read in a nonsequential fashion.

There is evidence also, in the way that the Byzantine lectionary selected and defined the limits of readings, that meaning was lost in the process. Examination of a number of the selections used in the Lukan portion of Saturday-Sunday lectionaries shows that passages were often removed from their immediate literary context with unfortunate consequences. It is obvious that passages read out of sequence lose their literary and historical context. But narrow introductory information too is often missing in the lectionary, and replaced with a standard incipit. Luke is very deliberate and careful to delineate who was present when Jesus was speaking, or to whom a teaching was addressed, in what circumstances a particular event happened, or what happened as a result of the event or teaching. All this is important for the interpretation of a passage, and much of the time it is lost in the lectionary. A full examination and presentation of this phenomenon is beyond the scope of this paper, but some examples will be given from the first part of the Lukan portion of the lectionary, and then from the passages in the manuscript under examination, 𝑙2282.

The first passage, Luke 4:31–36 (σαβ. αʹ), is begun in the lectionaries with Inc. I (τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ) and adds ἤλθεν ὁ Ἱησοῦς (“Jesus went”) in place of καὶ κατῆλθεν (“and He went down.”) At this stage little has changed. But the lectionary text omits verse 37, which indicates that after the expulsion of the demon, a report went out to the surrounding territory about Jesus. Luke includes this to further emphasize the astonishment that Jesus caused in the synagogue, and to set the stage for the contrast to be drawn later when Jesus faces powerful opposition.

The second, 5:1–11 (κυρ. αʹ), also starts with Inc. I, followed by the text of 5:1b, with a couple of adjustments for grammatical coherence. But the lectionary omits 5:1a: ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ τὸν ὄχλον ἐπικεῖσθαι αὐτῷ καὶ ἀκούειν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ (“And it happened, when the crowd was pressing around Him and hearing the Word of God.”) This introductory remark sets the stage for the account of the call of Peter. That is, Jesus called Peter to be a fisher of men in the context of a mass of people who wanted to hear the word.

The reading for σαβ. δʹ (6:1–10) consists of a pair of accounts which describe Jesus’ confrontations over the Sabbath. The lectionaries omit 6:11, the ominous conclusion: αὐτοὶ δὲ ἐπλήσθησαν ἀνοίας καὶ διελάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους τί ἂν ποιήσαιεν τῷ Ἰησοῦ (“But they were filled with fury, and were discussing with one another what they might do to Jesus.”) This is again a narrative element which helps make sense of later passages in Luke. But it also tells the reader that Jesus’ act of healing on the Sabbath was not well accepted. Perhaps there was some reluctance to read passages where people are shown opposing Jesus.

The reading for κυρ. ϛʹ (8:26–35, 38–39) omits verses 36–37. In this portion the people of the Gadarene region⁴⁷ hear of the healing (ἐσώθη) of the demonized man, and out of fear ask Jesus to leave. Again the lectionary text omits a passage where Jesus is opposed.

There are two passages in the manuscript under discussion which have similar omissions which lead to interpretive problems. Luke 18:2–8 (for σαβ. ιϛʹ) is introduced by Inc. VI (εἷπεν ὁ κύριος τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην). But Luke’s introduction is found in 18:1: ἔλεγεν δὲ παραβολὴν αὐτοὺς πρὸς τὸ δεῖν πάντοτε προσεύχεσθαι αὐτοὺς καὶ μὴ ἐγκακεῖν (“Now He was telling them a parable so that they should always pray and not lose heart.”) Thus in the lectionary text the biblical interpretation of the passage is missing. Furthermore, the lectionary omits the end of the pericope, Luke 18:8b: πλὴν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐλθὼν ἆρα εὑρήσει τὴν πίστιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; (“But the Son of Man, when He comes—will He find faith on the earth?”) Luke’s presentation of the parable finishes not on the high point of 18:8a, but on the sobering comment of Jesus as He looks to his return.

Finally, the passage for κυρ. ιϛʹ (Luke 18:10–14), also introduced in the lectionary by Inc. VI, recounts the parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee. But Luke’s introduction in 18:9 is intended to shape its interpretation: Εἷπεν δὲ καὶ πρός τινας τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς ὅτι εἰσὶν δίκαιοι καὶ ἐξουθενοῦντας τοὺς λοιποὺς τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην (“Now He also spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised the rest.”) The lectionary version is missing this key to its understanding. The passage has been decontextualized in the process of adapting it to the liturgical context.

Conclusion

This examination of the short lectionary manuscript 𝑙2282 has shown that the text conforms largely to other lectionary texts, though one unusual variant is only found in two other lectionaries, both much earlier than this one. It is uncertain whether there is a direct relationship with those manuscripts. The presence of itacistic variants, and mistakes with breathing marks and accents suggest a certain lack of scribal care, but the manuscript as a whole is well presented with a pleasing miniscule hand. An investigation of the handwriting and of the paper used strongly suggests a date in the late fifteenth century, or possibly the early sixteenth century. A brief reflection upon the historical use of this lectionary has shown that it would have been used liturgically by a church, possibly under pressure after the fall of Constantinople and the rise of an Islamic empire, who read the Scriptures with respect in every service, and honored the reading of the Gospel as a true revelation of Christ. But it has also shown that the recontextualizing process of selecting and delimiting readings for use in the liturgy resulted in a decontextualizing loss of meaning unintended by the biblical authors.

1. ¹I would like to express appreciation for the knowledgeable and friendly assistance of the curator of the Charles C. Tandy Archeological Museum, Heather Reichstadt, and the staff of the archives at the Roberts Library. ↩︎
2. ²There is no record of publication for this manuscript in J.K. Elliott, A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts, 2^nd ed., Society for New Testament Studies Monograph series (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1989),nor in the two supplements published since (“Supplement I to J.K. Elliott, A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts,” Novum Testamentum 46, no. 4 [2004]; “Supplement II to J.K. Elliott, A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts,” Novum Testamentum 49, no. 4 [2007]). ↩︎
3. ³Kurt Aland et al., Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, 2^nd ed., Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994), 361. ↩︎
4. ⁴Allen Wikgren, “Chicago Studies in the Greek Lectionary of the New Testament,” in Biblical and Patristic Studies: In Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, ed. J. Neville Birdsall and Robert W. Thomson (New York: Herder, 1963), 96. ↩︎
5. ⁵Donald W. Riddle, “The Character of the Lectionary Text of Mark in the Weekdays of Matthew and Luke,” in Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels, ed. Ernest Cadman Colwell and Donald W. Riddle, Studies in the Lectionary Text of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933), 25. ↩︎
6. ⁶The American and British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP), The Gospel According to St. Luke, 2 vols., The New Testament in Greek (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984). ↩︎
7. ⁷James Rodney Branton, The Common Text of the Gospel Lectionary in the Lenten Lections, Studies in the Lectionary Text of the Greek New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934); William Davenport Bray, The Weekday Lessons from Luke in the Greek Gospel Lectionary, Studies in the Lectionary Text of the Greek New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959); Ernest Cadman Colwell, “Is There a Lectionary Text of the Gospels?” Harvard Theological Review 25 (1932); Bruce M. Metzger, The Saturday and Sunday Lessons from Luke in the Greek Gospel Lectionary, Studies in the Lectionary Text of the Greek New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944); Riddle, “Character.” The very existence of a Caesarean text-type is now disputed, however. ↩︎
8. ⁸Colwell, “Lectionary Text.” ↩︎
9. ⁹For details see Elliott, Bibliography, and the supplements cited in note 2 above. ↩︎
10. ¹⁰Aland et al., Kurzgefasste Liste, 361. ↩︎
11. ¹¹See Carroll D. Osburn, “The Greek Lectionaries of the New Testament,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, Studies and Documents 46 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 62. The other portion, the menologium, consisted of readings for feasts and saints’ days which had fixed dates. ↩︎
12. 12The Greek numbering system used letters of the alphabet, starting with α (alpha) for the number one. After the number, a keraia (ʹ) was added, a mark something like an acute accent, to indicate that the letter or letters should be read as a number. The number ten is represented by the letter ι (iota). Numbers after ten use iota followed by the appropriate letter from alpha to theta for one to nine. The number six was indicated in medieval times by the otherwise obsolete letter stigma (ϛ), which when used as a letter was a ligature which combined the sounds of σ (sigma) and τ (tau), the approximate equivalent of the English “st”. ↩︎
13. 13The six commonly used incipits in Greek gospel lectionaries are: Inc I: τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ (“at that time”); Inc II: εἷπεν ὁ κύριος τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μαθηταῖς (“The Lord said to his own disciples”); Inc III: εἷπεν ὁ κύριος πρὸς ἐληλυθότας πρὸς αὐτὸν Ἰουδαίους (“The Lord said to the Jews who had come to him”); Inc IV: εἷπεν ὁ κύριος πρὸς τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ Ἰουδαίους (“The Lord said to the Jews who had believed in him”); Inc V: εἷπεν ὁ κύριος (“The Lord said”); and Inc VI: εἷπεν ὁ κύριος τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην (“The Lord told this parable”). There were others used in the epistles, such as ἀδελφοί (“Brothers”). ↩︎
14. ¹⁴The collations follow the standard form in which the base text (in this case the NA27) is presented first, followed by a parenthesis, and then the reading from the lectionary manuscript under discussion. The incipit which begins each reading in the manuscript is named, followed by the word which begins the biblical portion in the manuscript text. Thus it will be seen that for the reading for σαβ. ιϛʹ, after the incipit (in this case incipit VI), the text of the lectionary reading begins with κριτης, leaving out the first word in other manuscripts of the verse, λέγων (“saying”). ↩︎
15. 15A correction, probably in a different hand, indicates that ποιηση (aorist subjunctive) should be read instead of ποιησει (future indicative). ↩︎
16. ¹⁶This indicates that the variant reading in 18:5 is shared also by the other lectionaries named. ↩︎
17. ¹⁷Metzger, Saturday and Sunday Lessons, 66. The Textus Receptus is reasonably close to the Byzantine text tradition. The modern eclectic text of the NA27 is substantially informed by the Alexandrian text tradition. ↩︎
18. ¹⁸Evidence taken from IGNTP, Gospel According to St. Luke, vol. 2; from the collation in Metzger, Saturday and Sunday Lessons, 86; and from the NA27. ↩︎
19. ¹⁹A thought suggested to me by my colleague at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Robert Caldwell. ↩︎
20. ²⁰Bray, Weekday Lessons from Luke, 20–25. ↩︎
21. ²¹Either possibility would need to be established by work which is beyond the scope of this paper. ↩︎
22. ²²Metzger, Saturday and Sunday Lessons, 14-16. Osburn has called for further investigation into the influence of lectionaries on non-lectionary manuscripts. Osburn, “Greek Lectionaries,” 71. ↩︎
23. Transcriber’s note: The phrase “πᾶς” is written with a tilde-style circumflex accent in the original text of this article. The inverted-breve circumflex accent is used here due to limitations of the digital medium. ↩︎
24. ²³See the list in Bruce M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), 36. ↩︎
25. ²⁴B.A. van Groningen, Short Manual of Greek Palaeography, 4^th print. ed. (Leyden: A.W. Sijthoff, 1967), 53; Edward M. Thompson, An Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography (New York: Burt Franklin, 1912), 62. ↩︎
26. ²⁵The joining of accents to their letters was increasingly frequent in late miniscules. ↩︎
27. ²⁶Aland et al., Kurzgefasste Liste, 361. ↩︎
28. ²⁷V. Gardthausen, Griechische Paleographie, 2^nd ed., 2 vols. (Leipzig: Veit & Co., 1913), 220. ↩︎
29. ²⁸“Certain classes, especially sacred and liturgical MSS, which custom had retained for special uses, were less tolerant of change.” Thompson, Palaeography, 220. See also Groningen, Short Manual of Greek Palaeography, 38. ↩︎
30. ²⁹William Henry Paine Hatch, Facsimiles and Descriptions of Minuscule Manuscripts of the New Testament (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951), 20–21. ↩︎
31. ³⁰Metzger, Manuscripts, 49. ↩︎
32. ³¹Ruth Barbour, Greek Literary Hands A.D. 400–1600, Oxford Palaeographical Handbooks, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), xxviii. ↩︎
33. ³²See for example manuscripts Vatic. gr. 1007 and Rav. 210 in Jean Irigoin, “Papiers Orientaux et Papers Occidenteaux,” in La Paléographie Grecque et Byzantine, Paris, 21-25 Octobre 1974: Actes du Colloque International sur la Paléographie Grecque et Byzantine, ed. Jacques Bompaire and Jean Glenisson (Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1977), 347-49; and Codex 17 in Hatch, Minuscule Manuscripts, 263. The shape may have developed from the larger circumflex accents used over breathing marks. See Gardthausen, Griechische Paleographie, 393. ↩︎
34. ³³Thompson, Palaeography, 34–35. ↩︎
35. ³⁴Metzger, Manuscripts, 15. ↩︎
36. ³⁵Irigoin, “Papiers Orientaux et Papers Occidenteaux,” 45. See also Groningen, Greek Palaeography, 22. ↩︎
37. ³⁶C.M. Briquet and Allan Stevenson, Les Filigranes, 4 vols. (Amsterdam: Paper Publications Society, 1968). ↩︎
38. ³⁷Ibid., vol 1., 184. A similar, though not identical watermark is recorded in a manuscript dated 1483 (Cod. 327) found in the Augustiner-Chorherrenstift in Klosterneuburg, Austria, Reference WMZA AT5000-327-171, in Wasserzeichen des Mittelalters, http://www.ksbm.oeaw.ac.at/wz/wzma.php (accessed July 15, 2009). ↩︎
39. ³⁸There is some evidence that Old Testament passages may have been read in the liturgy during Lent (David M. Petras, “The Gospel Lectionary of the Byzantine Church,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 41.2-3 [1997]: 115). In addition some Old Testament passages, especially psalms, were sung. A cynic might add that many modern churches have solved the issue of balancing Old and New Testament readings by omitting the public reading of the New Testament as well as the Old. ↩︎
40. ³⁹See John Reumann, “A History of Lectionaries: From the Synagogue at Nazareth to Post-Vatican II,” Interpretation 31.2 (1977): 124. ↩︎
41. ⁴⁰Metzger, Saturday and Sunday Lessons, 9–10. ↩︎
42. ⁴¹Petras, “Gospel Lectionary,” 136. ↩︎
43. ⁴²The Liturgy of St. Basil and the Liturgy of the Presanctified were used on certain special occasions. ↩︎
44. ⁴³The “Great Entrance” involved the entry of the elements for the Eucharist. ↩︎
45. ⁴⁴Here I am following the sixteenth century version of the liturgy of St. Chrysostom, as found in C.A. Swainson, The Greek Liturgies: Chiefly from Original Authorities (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1971). ↩︎
46. ⁴⁵According to the fourteenth-century Byzantine theologian Nicholas Cabasilas, A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, trans. J.M. Hussey and P.A. McNulty (London: S.P.C.K., 1960), 62, 53. ↩︎
47. 46The NA27 reads τῶν Γερασηνῶν (“of the Gerasenes”) in Luke 8:26, with א, L, Θ and Ξ, but the lectionaries have τῶν Γαδαρηνῶν (“of the Gadarenes”), with A, W, Ψ, ƒ¹³ and 𝔐. ↩︎