Codex GA-1582

"..a 15th century hand attributed the copying of Codex 1582 to the monk Ephraim (10th cent.). ... He is the scribe, not only of 2 important NT MSS, but also of significant copies of various classical and scientific works, including Polybius...

Ephraim's work has been compared to the somewhat earlier work of scribes who reproduced MSS for Arethas the Deacon of Constantinople, later archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. 8 MSS copied between 888 and 932 A.D. are extant.

Kirsopp and Silva Lake speculated that Arethas founded a school of calligraphy, criticism and learning in Cappadocia, and that Ephraim belonged to this school about 20 years after Arethas' death. Available photos do not show such a great similarity to those of Ephraim as the Lakes supposed. Closest in appearance is the Euclid copied by Stephanos Clericos...

The Corrector of 1582

Only one corrector has been at work in Codex 1582. This corrector is the same individual who replaced entire pages at 13r, 13v, and 287r (Plate XX, top half). The replacement of folios 13 and 287 has meant a loss of significant portions of text from Codex 1582, yet at the same time these pages are the source of a valuable sample of the penmanship of the corrector.

A statement frequently made by palaeographers is that Greek hands between 1050 and 1300 are difficult to date with certainty. This was a time of remarkable continuity... In addition, one must take into account the possibility that a scribe learned an outdated style from an elderly teacher and that...an individual could work for 50 years without noticeable changes in his penmanship.

In spite of such handicaps, ...a relatively precise date can be advanced. ...a tentative date for the corrector of Codex 1582 is placed between 1100 and 1150 A.D., or 150-200 years after the original writing of the manuscript by the monk Ephraim (c. 950 A.D.).

Replacement Folio 287r, which contains the last lines of the PA, added as an appendix at the end of the Gospel of John: Though the corrector supplemented the lost conclusion of the PA from his Byzantine exemplar, he did not make corrections to the surviving first portion of it, in spite of the fact that it would have deviated from his own text.

Up until the point where Ephraim's text ends (equivalent to Jn 8:7a), Codices 1 and 1582 differ in the PA in only two minor details, so that one can expect Codex 1 to be a good representative of the text that 1582 would have had in the missing section. The following are variations units produced by a full collation of 1 118 209 (from Lake's edition), the corrector of 1582, and RP. The reading of Codex 1 is given on the left:

Of 9 potential variation units, the corrector of 1582 has followed the Byz. text 6 times, and can be shown to have been influenced by it in 2 other instances. IN the remaining variation unit (8:11), brackets around the RP text show that the Byz. witnesses are divided. Thus it is nearly certain that for the ending of the PA the corrector made use of a Byzantine exemplar. ...the correcter has not made corrections to the first part of the PA, though 1582 differs significantly from the Byz. text there as well.

The original situation on the last page of Codex 1582 remains a matter of speculation. Folio 287 is a replacement page containing on the recto the last lines of the PA, below which are two versions of the date colopohon, and that there are other late colophons on the verso.

Generally, a scribe would write his signature colophon immediately following the last portion of the text in a document. This is normally the case with Ephraim. ...

On folio 2867, Ephraim, likely following the example of his exemplar, has varied the format of the document as an indication that the PA is to be seen as an appendix. The width of the single column is considerably less than otherwise in the document, so that 286v has approx. 400 letters in 20 lines.

The remaining text of the PA would have contained more letters than are on 286v, about 420. The eyewitness who wrote the date colophon on the replacement attests that there was a signature in 1582. It is therefore nearly certain that Ephraim's text covered the whole of the original folio 287r, continued on to the verso, and was followed there by Ephraim's signature.

A related question arises at this point. How did someone other than the corrector have access to the original folio 287 in order to note down Ephraim's name and the date of copying some time after the corrector had produced a replacement page? Two scenarios are possible:

(1) THe original folio 287 was probably damaged and either loose or detached when the codex was rebound and corrected in the 12th century. It is conceivable that the original final page was not discarded after the replacement folio was produced by the corrector. It may have been tucked into the back, and thus still available to be read by a 15th cent. librarian, who transcribed the name of the scribe and the date of copying onto the repl. folio. The original last page was subsequently discarded or lost.

(2) On the other hand, one might make an argument for an earlier dating of the top colophon on 287r. Though it does not appear to be the hand of the corrector, it does vary in style from the other colophons found at the beginning and end of the codex. It may therefore be that a contemporary of the corrector, perhaps the person in charge of rebinding, noted the name and date on the newly transcribed repl.pg before discarding the original folio.

In either case, the choice of Byz. Text as the replacement text seems to have been deliberate, since Ephraim's original folio 287 must have been available to the corrector at the time when he replaced it.

- Anderson, The Textual Tradition of the Gospels:
Family 1 in Matthew, (Brill, 2004)

"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.

- Anderson, The Textual Tradition of the Gospels:
Family 1 in Matthew, (Brill, 2004) p.69

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;' "

- Streeter, The Four Gospels, p 89

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,

This is criticism of a high scientific order. Now, whoever was responsible for it, the B text has been edited on the Alexandrian principle."

- Streeter, The Four Gospels, p 123-4

The Ending of Mark

At Mk 16:8 () is a final decoration, and then (identical with Codex 1):

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:

The [additional] marginal note of 1582 is not found in Codex 1.

- Anderson, The Textual Tradition of the Gospels:
Family 1 in Matthew, (Brill, 2004) p.68

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).

"...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."

- Anderson, The Textual Tradition of the Gospels:
Family 1 in Matthew, (Brill, 2004) p.69-70