June 17, 2010
Scholia on the PA
Excerpts: various texts and translations of marginal notes
The Scholia: - on John 8:1-11: marginal notes
Marginal Notes on the PA
On this page we will collect the text and translation of various 'scholia' or marginal notes found among manuscripts regarding the Pericope de Adultera (PA = John 7:53-8:11). This will be an ongoing project.
Scholia #1: Codex Lambda (Λ/039), 215 262 etc.
F. H. A. Scrivener gives the fullest Greek text for Scholia # 1:
"The kindred copies Codd. Λ, 215 262, &c., have the following scholium at ch 7:53 ( ms. 20 has only an asterisk at the place),
"τα ωβελισμενα εν τισιν αντιγραφοις οι κειται, ουδε Απολλιναριω. εν δε τοις αρχαιοις κειηται μνημονευουσιν της περικοφης ταυς και οι αποστολοι, εν αις εξεθεντο διαταξεσιν εις οικοδμην της εκκλησιας "
The reference is to the Apostolic Constitutions (ii.24. 4) as Tischendorf perceives."
Nicolson tells us this note runs in the margin of "a great many cursives", and offers a partial translation as follows:
"The verses marked doubtful are not contained in some copies nor in Apollinarius, but are contained entire in the ancient ones...'
- Nicolson, Gosp.Heb. (1879)
Hort corrects this translation, by noting that "copies" refers to those of Apollinarius, i.e., either copies of his commentary, or (less likely,) copies of John he used, and not copies available to the author of the note.
"...according to another [scholium] it was not in "the copies of (used by) Apollinarius"
- Hort, Introd. (1896), Notes... p 83
Burkitt gives a slightly different text for the first part, but then (tantalizingly) trails off. He then explains the probable age and significance of such notes:
Λ (saec. ix) 262 (saec. x or xii) : τα ωβελισμενα εν τισιν αντιγραφοις ου κειται, ουδε Απολιναριου. εν δε τοις αρχαιοις ολα κειται... (followed by a reference to the use of the passage in the Apostolic Constitutions).
"...notes of this kind were often not composed by the scribe, but have themselves been copied from an older exemplar. Codex Λ is a MS of the 9th century, but to judge from extant evidence very few MSS. from the 5th to the 8th centuries can have contained the Pericope; therefore the ancient copies referred to in Codex Λ probably belonged to a much older time, viz. the century of confusion between Eusebius and St. Chrysostom." [i.e., the 4th century(!)]
- Burkitt, 1901 Lectures
Burkitt here however exaggerates the antiquity of the note, hoping to secure for it more credit than is perhaps due. The most that can be said with confidence is that the note is older than the 9th century.
Scholia #2: Family 1 (Miniscule 1), (GA-1582), 1 118 131 209 etc.
The Greek text for the (identical) notes in MS 1 and 1582 has been provided by Amy Anderson:
"The situation in Codex 1582 is identical with that in Codex 1. The PA is missing at Jn 7:53-8:11 and added at the end of the gospel after the following statement:
το περι της μοιχαλιδος κεφαλαιον
εν τωι κατα ιωαννην ευαγγελιω
ως εν τοις πλειοσιν αντιγραφοις
μη κειμενον. μη δε παρα των
θειων πρων. των ερμηνευσαν(των)
μνημονευθεν. φημι δη ιω του Χρυ
και Κυριλλου αλεχανδρ(ρειας). ουδε μην
υπο Θεοδωρου μωψουεστιας. και
των λοιπων. παρελειψα κατα
τον τοπον. κειται δε ουτως. με
τ' ολιγα της αρχης του πς κε
φαλαιου. εξης του "ερευνησον
και ιδε. οτι προφητης εκ της
γαλιλαιας. ουκ εγειρηται." (Jn 7:52b)
Then follows the text of the pericope.
Streeter tells us:
The PA (Jn 7:53-8:11) is placed "in 1 and 1582 at the end of the Gospel - with a note that,
'it is found in some copies but not commented upon by the holy Fathers Chrysostom, Cyril Alex., and Theodore of Mopsuestia;' "
In codices 1 and 1582 the note on the Pericope points out that it is not mentioned in the Commentaries of Chrysostom, Cyril, and Theodore of Mopsuestia.
1582, besides having the foregoing note on the PA, also, as we have seen, gives Mk.16:9-20 as a sort of Appendix; but in the margin it has at verse 19 the note,
"Irenaeus, who was near to the apostles (ο των αποστολοων πλησιον), in the third book against heresies quotes this saying as found in Mark."
This is criticism of a high scientific order. Now, whoever was responsible for it, the B text has been edited on the Alexandrian principle."
On the marginal notes in 1 and 1582 on Mark 16:8 fwd, Ms. Anderson gives more detail:
The Ending of Mark
At Mk 16:8 () is a final decoration, and then (identical with Codex 1):
εν τισι μεν των αντιγραφων. εως
ωδε πληρουται ο ευαγγελιστης.
εως ου και ευσεβιος ο παμφιλου
εκανονισεν. εν πολλοις δε και
Then follows 16:9-20.(1582 has the relatively rare reading και εν ταις χερσιν οφεις at 16:18, with Cod. 1.)
In the margin at 16:19, the following is written in a tapering triangular shape:
ειρηναιος ο των
σιον εν τωι προς
τας αιρεσεις τρι
τωι λογωι. τουτο
The [additional] marginal note of 1582 is not found in Codex 1.
Scrivener fills out the picture further with the following additional info:
Codd. 1, 19, 20, 129, 135, 207 4, 215, 301, 347, 478, 604, 629, Evst. 86 also place the whole pericope at the end of the Gospel.
...While Codex 1 pleads its absence from the commentaries of Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, "as in many ancient copies" (ως εν τοις πλειοσιν αντιγραφοις), 135, 301 confess they found the PA "in the ancient copies" (εν αρχαιοις αντιγραφοις).
Of these, only 1 itself appears to belong strictly to Family 1. The newly discovered 1582 however also places the PA at the end of John. Of the other Family 1 MSS, (22 118 131 205 209 872 884 1192 1210 2193 2542, strong members shown in bold) only 22 131 2193 appear to omit the PA, - and none of these are really strong Family 1 texts.
The placement of the PA at the end of John did not originate with Family 1. This was the most natural thing to do when copying MSS that lacked the PA. Only with a policy in place would a copyist be likely to re-insert the PA at its usual point in John. Where custom dictated strict copying, the only sensible placement would be at the end. This is why many unrelated copies place it here.
Anderson assesses the marginal notes as significantly old:
"...the marginalia / text provide rare and ancient readings. More often than not, the less well-attested [reading] is supported by Origen,... [sometimes] Origen discusses both variants, ...the text and margin of 1582 provide a record of early textual variation.
From the evidence of Ephraim [the copyist of 1582 (c. 10th cent.)]...it is unlikely that the marginalia are the result of Ephraim's own gathering of variants. Rather Ephraim preserved marginalia compiled by a much earlier scholar."
However, the mention of Chrysostom (c. 398-407 A.D.), Theodore of Mops. (c. 392-428), & Cyril (c. 412-444) makes it impossible to date the scholia earlier than the mid 5th century, and much later would be more likely, when such notes would actually carry authoritative value for readers.