Codex Delta (Δ, GA: 037, Sang. 48), Greek/Latin Interlinear, (9th-10th cent.) p.348-9
Gospel of John
Greek/Latin MS Δ (Gregory/Aland # 037)
= Sankt Gallen Stiftsbibliothek 48
A Greek/Old Latin interlinear text
St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 48
Parchment · 70 pp. · 27 x 18.5 cm · 9th-10th century
Waltz's online Encyclopedia of Textual Criticism offers the following description of Codex Delta:
Location/Catalog Number Saint Gall, where it has been as long as it has been known (hence the title Codex Sangallensis). Catalog number: Stiftsbibliothek 48.
Contents: Contains the gospels almost complete; it lacks John 19:17-35. The Greek is accompanied by an interlinear Latin translation (designated δ). It has been argued that Δ was originally part of the same volume as Gp; for the arguments for and against this (e.g. their similar appearance and identical size), see the entry on that manuscript.
Date/Scribe: Usually dated paleographically to the 9th century. (It can hardly be earlier, as reference is made to the (heretical) opinions of Godeschalk at Luke 13:24, John 12:40. These references appear to be in the original hand, and Godeschalk died in 866.) A few sources prefer a 10th century date.
The hand is quite awkward and stiff, resembling Gp in this as in many other ways. The Latin is written above the Greek, and the scribe seems to have been more comfortable with that than with Greek. (There are many reasons for believing this; one of the more noteworthy is his regular confusion of certain Greek letters.) It has been widely suggested that his native language was (Irish) Gaelic [?].
The form of the manuscript again reminds us of G: It is written in continuous lines, but appears to have been made from a manuscript written in sense lines of some sort; there are enlarged, decorated letters in almost every line. (Though the decorations are very inartistic; Gregory suggests that "[t]he larger letters are rather smeared over than painted with different colours." The enlarged letters do not really correspond with sentences, but rather are quite evenly spaced. Spaces are supplied between words, but these are very inaccurate (more evidence of the scribe's weakness in Greek). There are only a few accents and breathings, not always accurate. Gregory notes that "[t]he titles for the chapters often stand in the middle of the text."
Rettig believed that several scribes worked on the manuscript. This is a difficult question to say the least. The style of the manuscript is very similar throughout. At first glance -- indeed, at any number of glances -- it appears that the scribe is the same throughout. But this is because the hand is so peculiar. The evidence of G indicates that this was more or less the normal style at Saint Gall. So it is possible that there were several scribes -- but the matter really needs to be investigated with modern resources.
Description and Text-type:
For once there is almost universal agreement [?]:
Δ is block-mixed. The usual assessment is that Matthew, Luke, and John are Byzantine, while Mark is Alexandrian.
(Indeed, Δ was the single most important prop in Streeter's argument that manuscripts should be examined first in Mark.)
Interestingly, most formal investigations have not precisely confirmed this division into parts; von Soden listed Δ as H, and the Alands list it as Category III.
Even Wisse does not find it to be purely Byzantine in Luke 1; his assessment is that it is Mixed in Luke 1 and (von Soden's) K x in Luke 10 and 20.
It should be noted, however, that both the Aland and von Soden were listing text-types for the gospels as a whole; they are not book-by-book assessments. (The Alands, at least, did not so much as examine John.)
An examination of the actual readings of the manuscript shows that conventional wisdom is correct at least in general: Δ is Byzantine in Matthew, Luke, and John, and is Alexandrian in Mark. We should however add that it is not purely Alexandrian even in Mark; nowhere does it approach the quality of B (Vaticanus), or even of L.
It is a late Alexandrian/Byzantine mix. It is also my personal impression that Δ has rather more Alexandrian readings in the early part of Mark, and that the Byzantine component increases somewhat in the final chapters -- but I have not formally verified this.
The interlinear Latin version is sometimes listed as an Old Latin version, and designated δ. This is probably at least technically a misnomer; the Latin version was probably prepared after the translation of the Vulgate. But since it has been made to correspond to the text of Δ , it is not a pure vulgate text. Still, it has no real critical value.
Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript:
von Soden: e76
H. Ch. M. Rettig's edition of 1836 remains the only full-fledged edition. Fortunately, this edition is said to be highly accurate (Gregory calls it the best edition of a manuscript prior to Tischendorf).
Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (1 page) [full MS is actually now online]
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since Tischendorf
Codex Δ - Sang. 48
The scribe has begun to copy out verse 8:12 on line 5 of pg 348. This shows that the exemplar he was copying omitted the verses beginning from 7:53-8:11. He then crosses this out, perceiving that the passage is missing. He carefully leaves 19 lines blank, including 2 lines at the top of the next page, and a further spare line at the bottom of that page (p.349), to allow the passage to be restored. The planned recovery was never followed up. The scribe was likely copying out an ancient codex modified for lectionary/ecclesiastical use. Ecclesiastical marks are visible in the margins of the copy.
Full Size Images
Appendix: Waltz's Descriptions of Codex F and G
Codex Boernerianus (G)
MS Gp (polygot) (012)
Dresden, Sächsiche Landesbibliothek A 145b. Codex Boernerianus, so-called because it was formerly owned by C. F. Börner of Leipzig.
Greek/Latin interlinear diglot, lacking Romans 1:1-4, 2:17-24, 1 Cor. 3:8-16, 6:7-14, Col. 2:1-8, Philem. 21-25, Hebrews. These defects were clearly present in the exemplar as well, as all are shared by Fp, which was derived from the same exemplar.
It has been argued that G and the gospel manuscript Δ were originally part of the same volume; they are are similarly written, both are interlinear diglots, and the pages are exactly the same size. We should note, though, that not all commentators are convinced by these arguments. There is at least one counter-argument, though it is textual rather than physical or paleographic: The text of Δ is Byzantine, with Alexandrian elements in Mark; the text of G is purely and simply "Western." And while there are genuine physical similarities between the manuscripts (probably because they both derive from Saint Gall), Δ appears rather finer and fancier (though this may simply be because the Gospels are usually given finer treatment). Date/Scribe
Dated paleographically to the ninth century by all authorities. The manuscript is written without accents or breathings, but with spaces between words (sometimes misplaced), in a stiff, awkward hand; the letterforms do not much resemble other manuscripts of the period (save Δ; while the two may not be part of the same volume, they are almost certainly from the same school as they resemble each other even in small details of preparation). The latin interlinear is written above the Greek, with the Greek lettering fairly large and the Latin extremely small. There is some slight decoration in colour, though not nearly as much as in Δ. A dot and an enlarged letter marks the beginning of phrases. It has been theorized (probably correctly) that the exemplar of G was written in some sort of sense lines, as the separate phrases and enlarged letters are almost evenly spaced.
A peculiar fact about the manuscript is that it contains (on folio 23) some verses in (archaic) Irish Gaelic referring to a pilgrimage to Rome. The writing in these verses appears similar to that of the Latin; the original scribe may have been Irish (many Irish monks settled in Saint Gall). But this point has not, as far as I know, been proved.
Another fact is that the scribe doesn't seem to have been accustomed to the type of text he copied. G (along with F and 629) omits Romans 16:25-27 -- but the scribe of G left room for the verses after 14:23. There is no sign of this in F; the simplest explanation (though by no means sure!) is that the scribe of G was more accustomed to a text containing those verses there.
Description and Text-type:
In the entry on Fp, we noted the similarities between F and G. Not only are they both Greek/Latin diglots, but they have the same lacunae (with the exception of the first part of Romans, where F is defective). The similarity is further confirmed by their texts. Scrivener, who collated both, lists 1,982 differences -- but breaks them down as 578 blunders of the scribe, 967 vowel changes (including itacisms), 166 instances of interchanged consonants, and 71 grammatical or orthographic differences, 32 instances of addition or omission of the article, and 168 instances of clear variants.
Like F, the word division is sometimes peculiar, implying that the two were copied from an exemplar without word divisions. The two do not use identical word divisions, however, meaning that they can hardly have been copied from one another. That neither is a copy of the other is confirmed by much additional evidence. The key fact, perhaps, is that the two are in completely different styles: F has a facing Latin text, G an interlinear, but both are copied without major corrections by the scribes, implying that both Greek and Latin texts were present in their current forms in the exemplars. Nor do the Latin versions match closely.
Of the two, G seems to be the more accurate overall (despite the much uglier writing). One often finds G cited to the exclusion of F. This is unfortunate, since both are needed to reconstruct the exemplar, but certainly G is the one to choose if only one is to be cited.
That F and G belong to the same text-type as Δp and the Old Latin versions need not be doubted. This type is generally called "Western," though no absolutely convincing proof has been offered that this is truly the same type as found in Codex Bezae in the gospels. The relationship between Δ, F, and G is somewhat involved; while F and G are cousins or closer (see the discussion in the entry on F), Δ is much more distant -- not really kin at all, except at the text-type level. (Some manuals show Δ as an uncle, or even a direct ancestor, of F and G, but this is extremely unlikely -- there are too many differences; consider, for instance, their various forms of the ending of Romans.) Examination seems to show that F and G have more minor divergences from the common Alexandrian and Byzantine text than Δ (indeed, F and G may be the most idiosyncratic of all manuscripts in this regard, adding, changing, and omitting articles, pronouns, and other secondary words almost at random). They may actually have fewer large variants than Δ, however (this position was first stated by Corssen in 1889; I came to the conclusion independently). Casual inspection also seems to imply that F and G fall slightly closer to P46 and B than does Δ.
The Latin side of G, known as g (Beuron 77), is less interesting than the Greek. As an interlinear, it has been heavily conformed to the Greek, though there probably was an independent Latin version behind it (and used as a crib). An interesting feature of g is that it sometimes has alternate rendering. Metzger cites an example from 1 Corinthians 3:2; the Greek text reads gala umas epoteisa (NA26 gala umas epotisa). The alternate readings are for umas, where g reads vos vel vobis. It is at least possible that some of these alternate readings are places where the Latin reference edition used to compile g disagreed with the Greek text of G (particularly as there are instances where g does not match G at all).
Most classifications of G, of course, have closely followed the classification of F -- Von Soden, e.g., lists both as Ia1, in the same group as Δ (and, we must note, some unrelated minuscules). The one curiosity is the Alands, who place G in Category III but F in Category II. (For further discussion, see the entry on Fp).
Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript:
von Soden: a1028
Note: As with all the major uncials, no attempt is made to compile a complete bibliography.
Collations: First published by Matthei, in an edition said to be highly accurate but, of course, now nearly inaccessible. Scrivener published a detailed collation against F in F. H. A. Scrivener, An Exact Transcript of Codex Augiensis. One may check this against the Pauline portion of Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus.
Sample Plates: Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (1 plate) Aland & Aland, The Text of the New Testament (1 plate)
Editions which cite: Cited in all editions since Tischendorf, and some before.
German Description of Δ
The description (mostly in German) given by the custodians is as follows:
Date of origin: s. IX und X
Support: auf feinem Pergament
Extent: 395 (394)
Format: 4° (22 ½ X 18 ½ cm)
Writing and hands:
* irischer Schrift
* Die Seiten 5-18 des Codex sind von einem jüngeren Schreiber des X. Jh.
* 1 Hilarius Pictaviensis: Carmen de evangelio >Carmen Hilarii Pictavensis episcopi de evangelio< , 2,8, und 18 Christus hic flos decoris in grober irischer Schrift.
Filiation: Unächtes, in den Opp. Hilarii fehlendes Gedicht.
* S. 5-18 Hieronymus: Ein ächter und ein unächter Prolog; Concordanz und Breves evangel. Ps.-Hieronymus * 19 und ff. Die vier Evangelien Evangelia quatuor
Im Evangelium Joh. VIII fehlen die Verse 1-11 (von der Ehebrecherin); der Raum ist jedoch dafür p. 348 offen gelassen. Am Ende 8 griech. lat. Disticha in irischer Schrift (Grammata graiygeniwn etc.).
Der Text derselben ist am nächsten verwandt mit einem Dresdner Codex C. F. Börners, saec. IX, den C. F. Mathäi, Misnae 1791, 4° mit zwei Probeblättern herausgab. Eigenthümliche Lesarten besitzt sie wenige und bestätigt nur diejenigen der längst bekannten Hss. A. B. C. L. S.; doch ist sie die einzige griech.-lateinische Hs. neben dem Codex Cantuarensis D; und die lat. Uebersetzung begleitet nur hier allein Wort für Wort den Text zwischen den Zeilen. (Vgl. noch die Recension der Rettigschen Ausgabe in der Allg. Litt. Z. Halle 1837 No. 5 und 6, von David Schulz, der Rettig's Annahme von vier oder fünf Schreibern des Codex zweifelhaft findet).
* Diese Hs. wurde bereits 1760 verglichen, aber nicht publicirt von Bibliothekar P. Hauser in Ettenheimmünster (laut Kolb's Briefwechsel Weidm. Gesch. p. 304). * Das Facsimile des ganzen Codex, mit chemischer Dinte auf Strohpapier durchgezeichnet und auf die Steinplatte übergedruckt, erschien u. d. Titel: Codex S. Gall. graeco-lat. interlin. etc. ed. H.C.M Rettig Turici 1836 Fol. mit Einl. p. I-LIV, wo die Hs. genau beschrieben wird; vgl. Theol. Stud. und Kritiken 1836 II, p. 465. * Die erste öffentliche Nachricht über die Hs. gab Calmet Diarium (1756) p. 64; * dann Scholz in s. Ausg. des N.T. (1830); * ausführlicher J. C. Orelli in Epist. ad. Madwig (vor Cicero Orator Tur. 1830. 8°)