| Matthew |
ColophonNear the end of the manuscript, on the reverse of page 267, there is a colophon inserted by a second hand. According to this colophon the manuscript was written by a scribe named Basil, and it was bound by one Theodoulos, who commended themselves to the Virgin and St. Eutychios. Some parts of the colophon are uncertain.
The full text of the colophon is:
| Greek | English |
TextTextual characterThe Greek text of this codex is considered a representative of the Byzantine text-type. The text-types are groups of different New Testament manuscripts which share specific or generally related readings, which then differ from each other group, and thus the conflicting readings can separate out the groups. These are then used to determine the original text as published; there are three main groups with names: Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine. Together with Codex Petropolitanus (Π), the Codex Cyprius belongs to family Π, a group of manuscripts in close relationship to the text seen in Codex Alexandrinus (A). According to biblical scholar Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, it has many good and valuable readings, but according to biblical scholar Frederic Kenyon the text of the codex has no remarkable value, due to the manuscript being of a late date. According to biblical scholar Caspar René Gregory it has many old readings that preceded the Byzantine text-type. Textual critic Hermann von Soden classified it to the textual family I, and associated the provenance of this text with Jerusalem.
Textual critic Silva Lake considered the text of the codex as a somewhat diluted form of family Π, with a large number of peculiar readings, most of which are either misspellings or careless and ignorant mistakes. According to her an educated scribe could hardly have produced the variants in ; ; ; ; ; or. The readings it does not share with other Family Π representatives are supported outside the family, and they seem to be connected with the late Alexandrian group, but the number of Alexandrian readings is not high, and Silva Lake considered them as a result of accident as opposed to influence from a different text-type.
Textual critic Kurt Aland placed its text in Categories of [New Testament manuscripts#Category V|Category V] of his New Testament classification system. Category V manuscripts are described as having "a purely or predominantly Byzantine text." According to the Claremont Profile Method, its text belongs to the textual family Π in Luke 1, Luke 10, and Luke 20.
Some notable readingsBelow are some readings of the manuscript which agree or disagree with variant readings in other Greek manuscripts, or with varying ancient translations of the New Testament. See the main article Textual variants in the New Testament.
HistoryDiscovery and further researchThe early history of the codex is unknown. It was brought from Cyprus to the Colbert Library in Paris in 1673, whence it passed into its present locality in the National Library of France.
The manuscript was examined by biblical critic Richard Simon, who made some extracts for textual critic John Mill, who used readings from the codex in his edition of Novum Testamentum Graecum in 1710. Palaeographer Bernard de Montfaucon published the first facsimile of a page from the codex containing the text of in 1708, and used the manuscript for his palaeographical studies. Wettstein employed readings from the codex, but with quite a large number of errors. Biblical scholar Johann M. A. Scholz valued it very highly, and he collated its text and noted its textual variants in 1820, but with so little care and numerous errors that his list is now ignored. Textual critic Constantin von Tischendorf produced a new collation in 1842, with Tregelles producing another independent collation in 1849, and in 1850 they compared their collations in Leipzig, and created a new list. Its textual variants are cited in Tischendorf's Editio Octava Critica maior. Scrivener published a facsimile with the text of in 1861.
Historian Henri Omont and New Testament scholar Hatch (theologian)|William Hatch] published some fragments of the codex in separate facsimile samples in 1892 and 1896 respectively.
The manuscript was also examined and described by biblical scholar Bianchini in 1749, and Caspar René Gregory, who saw the codex in 1883.
Wettstein believed the text of the codex was altered by influence from Old Latin manuscripts. Hatch stated the manuscript is "one of the more important of the later uncial manuscripts of the four Gospels".
DatingRichard Simon dated the manuscript to the 10th century. According to Montfaucon and Scholz, it was written in the 8th century. According to biblical scholar Leonard Hug it is not older than the ninth century, as several of the letter-forms in the manuscript have not been found in any other manuscript securely dated to before the 9th century.
Tischendorf and Gregory dated the manuscript to the 9th century. Tregelles dated the manuscript to the middle of the ninth century. Kenyon stated the manuscript must be not earlier than the 11th century, due to the formal liturgical hand and on palaeographic grounds. But Kenyon only saw Scrivener's facsimile, and his assessment was made only on the basis of this facsimile text.
Omont advised it is impossible to give a precise date to this manuscript on palaeographical grounds, as there are many manuscripts written in the same style of handwriting, but they are not dated. The 9th century is just as possible as well as the 11th century.
Lake proclaimed it is difficult to prove it was written earlier than the year 1000, and it is perhaps as late as the middle of the eleventh century. This assessment was based rather on the textual dependency from other manuscript members of family Π, than on palaeographical grounds. According to Lake, Minuscule 1219 represents a text of family Π in its earlier stage as opposed to Codex Cyprius. Cyprius could have been copied from Minuscule 1219, or from a copy of Minuscule 1219. Minuscule 1219 can hardly have written before the year 980 or long after 990, and so as a result Codex Cyprius can hardly be dated long before the year 1000.
Hatch argued the letters Β, Δ, Κ, Λ, Μ, Ξ, Π, Υ, Φ, Χ, Ψ, and Ω have forms which are characteristic of the late 10th or the early 11th century CE. Hatch also noted the handwriting of the codex bears a striking general resemblance to that of three Gospel lectionaries of the 10th and 11th centuries: ℓ 3, ℓ 296, and ℓ 1599. On the other hand, no such likeness exists between the codex and uncial manuscripts of the New Testament which were written in the 9th century. As such, Hatch argued the manuscript should be dated to about 1000.
Kenyon, Kurt Aland and biblical scholar Bruce Metzger dated it to the 9th century. The manuscript is now dated by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF) to the 9th century.
The codex is currently located in the National Library of France in Paris.
|
|