Irish Scribal Habits: Scriptio Continua And The Need For Space

A fourth century Latin codex with Scriptio Continua

Early Latin and Greek manuscripts employed Scriptio Continuo, i.e. sentences were written as a continuous line of text without spaces between the words. Tothemodernreaderthisseemsdifficult. Early biblical manuscripts in Greek (and in Latin) were also written in Scriptio Continua. As Greek is a heavily inflected language it is normally easy to know when a word ends and a new one begins, even without spaces. However, on rare occasions Scriptio Continua did cause textual problems. For example at Mark 10:40 ἄλλοις could be read as ("for others"), or it could be divided into two words ἀλλʼ οἷς ("but for those"). Syntactical concord favors the second reading.

As Ireland was never part of the Roman Empire, Latin was a foreign language to the Irish. Their desire to learn and master Latin was driven by primarily theological and pastoral motives. Latin was the language of the western church, in her liturgy, theology, creeds, and scripture. The public reading of scripture in the early Irish church was an important part of theological training and also for the spiritual life of a monastic community.

According to Frederick G. Kilgour,  "For the Irish monk who did not have Latin as a native tongue and was not intimately familiar with its varying forms of declension, conjugation, and inflection, reading an unbroken string of Latin words out loud to others was a formidable task. To facilitate oral reading the Irish scribes used space between words to make them more readily visible. Irish monasteries introduced word separation to continental monasteries, but it was not until the eleventh century that the practice was generally accepted on the continent."

This Irish scribal habit, the use of spaces between words, is probably the most obvious influence of the Irish Scriptoria still in vogue today.

Detail from an Irish manuscript (Book of Kells) showing word division in the Latin text

For more see,

Guglielmo Cavallo and Roger Chartier, eds. A History of Reading in the West. UMP, 1999.

Frederick G. Kilgour. The Evolution of the Book. OUP, 1998.

Edward M. Thompson. An Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography. OUP, 1912.

1 John 5:7 and Irish Exegesis

Several Early Church Fathers commented on various verses from the Catholic Epistles but none ventured to write a verse by verse commentary on them. That was until the seventh century when a remarkable Biblical commentary was written in Ireland.

This Latin commentary on the Catholic Epistles was composed by an anonymous Irish scholar (c. AD 680) and is now preserved in a single ninth century codex in Karlsruhe Germany (Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek Cod. Aug. 233). This single remaining codex, of a once popular commentary, can tell us several important things about the early Irish church.

Prior to the discovery of codex 233 the earliest Latin commentary on the Catholic Epsitles was thought to be Bede’s Expositio in epistolas catholicas which was written in the eighth century. However, the Irish commentary predates Bede's work and as McNally has shown Bede availed of the earlier Irish work. This shows us the benefit that the English church drew from availing of Irish exegetical sources. Bede had great praise for Irish scholarship. Furthermore, the ninth century Karlsruhe manuscript was not copied by an Irish scribe (the paleographical evidence points to a German scribe), this shows us that European Christians were copying and studying theological works produced by the Irish.

Our anonymous Irish theologian (Scotti Anonymi) cites from several well-known early church fathers in his commentary (e.g. Jerome, Augustine etc.) as well as several Irish theologians not known outside of Ireland (Manchianus, Bercannus, Bannbannus, Lodcen, and Brecannus). This shows our writer as remarkably confident in his own native theological tradition, citing homegrown talent along side the traditional Latin heavy weights.

Most of the Irish theologians that he cites come from the southern part of Ireland, particularly the areas of the Dési, viz. Lismore. He cites Manchianus as doctor noster (our teacher), which has led McNally to postulate that our writer may have been the brilliant Irish theologian known as the Augustinus Hibernicus, or the Irish Augustine. Augustinus' most famous work, De mirabilibus sacrae scripturae (On the miraculous things in sacred scripture), was widely read in Europe and was so good that it was assumed to be the work of Augustine of Hippo (it was printed by Migne in the 19^th century as part of Augustine of Hippo’s works). The Irish Augustine in his work on miracles refers in passing to Manchianus as his pater. If this commentary on the Catholic Epistles really is the work of the Irish Augustine remains to be seen, what we can at least say, is that both the commentary and De mirabilibus emerged from the same scholarly circles, viz. the south of Ireland in the seventh century.

Looking at the commentary itself we can say that the Biblical text cited is typically Irish; predominantly Vulgate with numerous Vetus Latina interpolations. I was most interested to see if the comma Johanneum was present in his text, it wasn’t. It doesn’t appear in the Book of Armagh either. His commentary for 1 John 5.6-8 is an excellent example of early Irish exegesis and is worth taking a look at.

The water and blood of verse 6 are interpreted as referring to the passion of Christ, John 19:34 is cited as support. The three that testify in verse 7 are identified in verse 8 as Aqua, Sanguis [et] Spiritus, i.e. water, blood and Spirit. This clearly shows us that he was using an ESV rather than a KJV! He then offers two interpretations for these three witnesses, a moral interpretation and an anagogical interpretation. This multi layered hermeneutic was very common in Irish exegesis as it was in the western church as a whole.

The moral interpretation interpreted the three witnesses as baptism (water) martyrdom (blood) and the Spirit filled life (Spirit). Christ’s incarnation is presented as the prime example for this moral interpretation. The anagogical interpretation is Trinitarian. Water is said to speak of the Father (ingeniously Jeremiah 2:13 is cited as support). Blood speaks of Christ, especially His passion on the cross, and the Spirit is the Holy Spirit.

How do these Three bear witnesses and to what do they bear witness? Our anonymous Irishman explains that the Father bears witness to the Son when He speaks at Christ’s baptism (Matt 3:17 is cited). Christ bore witness of Himself with the Father (John 8:18 is cited) and the Holy Spirit also bore witness of Christ (John 15:26 is cited). So we can see that according to our commentator the witness of the Trinity is to Christ. Finally he interprets the closing clause of verse 8, et tres unum sunt as referring to the oneness of nature and power of the Trinity.

A fascinating glimpse into early Irish exegesis!

The Suspended Nun

In the book of Judges chapter eighteen verse thirty an idolatrous Levite who participated in idol worship is named as Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of Moses. The NJKV and NASB read ‘son of Manasseh’ here instead of ‘son of Moses’ (ESV, NIV). Which is it? This is the interesting case of ‘the suspended nun’. The nun in question is not a woman who is part of a religious order but the fourteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

The base text used in the OT for the NKJV, NASB, ESV and NIV is the same, namely the Masoretic Text as preserved in Codex Leningradensis B19a. So why do some versions read Manasseh and some Moses? The reason is that the name Manasseh is written in Hebrew as (מְנַשֶּׁה) and Moses is written as (מֹשֶׁה), the only difference in the consonantal text being the letter nun. In the Leningrad manuscript the name in question is written as Moses (מֹשֶׁה) but with the letter nun suspended between the mem and the shin letters. Several Masoretic manuscripts have this peculiar orthography as can be seen in this picture from the Aleppo Codex (which is even older than the Leningrad manuscript). Thus Moses can be re-read as Manasseh using the suspended nun.

If one looks to the Septuagint (LXX) we also get a diversity of scribal opinion. For example Codex Alexandrinus reads Moses (Μωυσῆς) and Codex Vaticanus reads Manasseh (Μανασση), so clearly both variant readings were in existence prior to the later medieval Masoretic Text. Incidentally, the Vulgate reads Moses (Mosi) here.

The reason for the suspension of the nun is explained in the Talmud, (Baba Bathra f. 109b) observes: “Was he a son of Gershom, or was he not rather a son of Moses? As it is written, the sons of Moses were Gershom and Eliezer, but because he did the deeds of Manasseh, the Scripture assigns him to the family of Manasseh.”

The shame that a grandson of Moses could be an apostate was hard to read and so the scribes added the consonant nun to theologically show that Jonathan was spiritually the son of the chief apostate in the OT, the wicked Manasseh. Such euphemistic interaction with the text was characteristic of Jewish scribes. The suspension of the nun allows the text to be read without bringing reproach on Moses, yet at the same time preserving the name Moses in the text. That it originally read Moses is clear, as is the high regard the Jewish scribes held Moses.

The Book of Armagh - A Bible from the Early Irish Church

The Book of Armagh is the earliest surviving complete NT manuscript produced in Ireland. It dates from the beginning of the 9th century, offering a fascinating glimpse into the early Irish Church. The Manuscript contains the entire NT (plus the pseudepigraphical Epistle to the Laodiceans), the Confession of St. Patrick, several early histories (Vitae) concerning St. Patrick, the Life of St. Martin, and Jerome’s letter to Pope Damasus (concerning his revision of the Vetus Latina). Like modern study Bibles, the Book of Armagh has introductions to the Biblical books, and a cross reference system (the Eusebian Canons).

As with all Irish Bibles (prior to the 17th century) it is written in Latin. The Biblical text itself reflects predominately the Vulgate, with Vetus Latina influences. This conflated textual basis is typical in Irish manuscripts. In terms of textual criticism the textual variants are largely insignificant. It contains the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) and omits the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7). The Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:13 does not contain the addition, for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen. The account of the angel stirring the water in John 5:4 is absent. Colossians 1:14 omits the clause through his blood. 1 Timothy 3:16 reads he who was manifest. It includes the longer ending to Mark.

The main scribe of this important manuscript was a scholar named Ferdomnach (d. AD 845), who was described in the Annals of Ulster as Sapiens et scriba optimus, i.e. a wise and excellent scribe. His penmanship is careful yet beautiful. At the foot of folio 79r he proudly wrote in the margin that he had completed the two preceding columns dipping his quill only three times. Several other scribes helped with the writing, with some adding Irish commentary in the margins to help explain the Latin text. For example in Acts the Latin phrase, contra stimulum, is explained in the margin with an old Irish gloss, frisin tomaltid, i.e. against the goads.

Over time the book itself was venerated as supposedly written by St. Patrick himself. An official keeper (in old Irish Maor) was entrusted with safekeeping the manuscript on behalf of the church of Armagh. This guardianship was passed down on a hereditary basis. The MacMaor clan (literally, son of the Keeper) guarded this manuscript until the 17th century when they pawned it for £5! It then passed into private ownership and eventually the possession of Trinity College Dublin, where it can be seen today.

What this manuscript contains is the early influences on Christianity in Ireland. The British certainly influenced Ireland; men like Patrick (and countless others) introduced the Christian faith to the pagan Irish. Roman culture and theology also played a major role in shaping early Christian Ireland. Men like St. Jerome were seen as authoritative voices in matters of theological dispute. The language of Rome, Latin, permeates the manuscript, from Patrick’s Confession to the NT text itself, and it was the language of the early Irish Church. By no means least, we must remember the profound influence the Bible itself had on Irish Christianity. The Irish studied it, memorized it, copied it, and illuminated it. It became the focal point of Irish artistic and theological expression.

However, as time passed some of these influences became stumbling blocks. Men like Patrick, who called the Irish to faith in Christ, became the object of veneration and worship. Men like Muirchú (fl. 697) wrote that Patrick was given the right to save the Irish on the day of judgement, the book of Armagh preserves his Vita Patricii. Prayer to Patrick and the saints became the norm. The Latin Bible gradually became irrelevant and incomprehensible to the Irish as Latin learning waned. No attempt was made to translate the Bible into Irish. The Bible became venerated as an object while its message became suffused with extra-Biblical tradition. Today the average Irishman probably knows less about the Bible than in the early medieval period. We need once more to open the Scriptures to the Irish. Patrick is sometimes disparagingly called by scholars, homo unius libri (a man of one book), because his writings were packed with extensive Biblical quotations and little else. That’s the kind of teaching we need, that is the correct use of the Bible. We must like Philip, open our mouths, and beginning with this Scripture tell the good news about Jesus (cf. Acts 8.35).

Mark(s) of the Beast: 666, 616 or 665?

Many of us are familiar with ‘the mark of the Beast’ as being '666'. The majority of NT manuscripts (mss) give the ‘number of the Beast’ in Revelation 13:18 as 'six hundred and sixty six'. I used to read '666' as 'six, six, six', but this is actually incorrect, as the number '666' is abbreviated with three Greek characters for six hundred χ, sixty ξ, and six ς, thus χξς, not six, six, six ςςς.

Interestingly, there is a minor textual variant at this point, some manuscripts give the number not as '666' but as '616', others as '665'. These two variant readings (v.r.) aren’t serious contenders, UBS4 gives the '666' reading as category {A}, i.e. they are certain it represents the original. Here’s why.

'666' is found in P47 (part of the Chester Beatty collection in Dublin), Codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus (in the British Library), plus all uncials of Revelation and other important witnesses, including the Byzantine/Majority Text . This shows '666' as having early, wide, and strong support. It is also found in the Old Latin version (in Codex Gigas, probably the biggest codex in the world!) and the Vulgate. Plus the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. Thus it has widespread versional support. Early Church Fathers like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Andrew and others quote the passage as '666'. Irenaeus (II cent.) states that Christians who knew John quoted the passage as '666', he also states that the good and ancient copies of Revelation read '666' (Book V, Chapter XXX. Adversus Haereses). Irenaeus made these comments as he was aware of manuscripts which read not '666' but '616'.

'616' is found in Codex C (V cent.) and P115 (III cent.) as well as a Vulgate manuscript. P115 writes the number of the Beast using its abbreviated form χις (this is the papyrus pictured), Codex C writes out the full number six hundred and sixteen. A possible reason for the change from '666' to '616' in these two codices is given by Metzger. He states that it revolves around the name Nero Caesar. The Greek form of Nero’s name in Hebrew characters קסר נרון has the numerical value '666'.
(נ = 50, ר = 200, ו = 6, ן = 50, ק =100, ס = 60, ר = 200). Just to clarify, the letter nun in Hebrew is written נ unless it is the last letter of a word, then it is written ן. The Latin form of Nero’s name in Hebrew characters קסר נרו has the value '616'.

Thus both textual variants are actually a play on Nero’s name! Applying numerical values to people’s names is known as gematria.

Finally, there is another variant, '665'. This appears only in one manuscript from the eleventh century (ms 2344). It is thought that perhaps this scribe was trying to apply gematria to a mis-transliteration of Nero’s name from Hebrew. Misspelling it קסר נרה, which would have the value '665'.

So there we have it. The textual evidence strongly supports the 'number of the Beast' as six hundred and sixty six, χξς.

What the Dead Sea Scrolls teach us - Part 3

In the 1960s a fragment from a first century scroll of the Psalms was discovered in a Zealot hideout at Nahal Hever in the Judean wilderness. The scroll fragment was found along with letters from Zealot leader Simon bar Kochba. Tov notes that scrolls from Nahal Hever, because of their association to the Zealots, were probably representative of 'main-stream' Jewish scribal texts. Interestingly this fragment preserves the text from Psalm 22:16(17). This scroll is of great interest to textual critics as the majority of Masoretic manuscripts read differently to the text normally followed by English translations of Psalm 22.

Most English Bibles read at verse 16(17 in the Hebrew), “They have pierced my hands and my feet”. While the Masoretic text in the Hebrew Bible reads, “like a lion [are] my hands and my feet”. The difference between ‘like a lion’ (כארי) and ‘they have pierced (כארו) is quite tiny visually. The reading, “they have pierced”, is attested in several medieval Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts. BHS lists כארו as supported by pauci manuscripti (i.e. a few, Kenicott gives seven), it also lists כרו (also pierce) as supported by two manuscripts, (Kenicott adds that it is also found in the margin of three other manuscripts). Thus the variant ‘pierced’ was attested (though slimly) in later Masoretic manuscripts. Textual criticism does not follow democratic principles, according to Tov, so a minority reading should not be ruled out straight away. Furthermore the Septuagint reads ὤρυξαν (pierced) as did the ancient Syriac and Vulgate translations. The vorlage for the Syriac and Vulgate was the proto-Masoretic Text; thereby we have indirect evidence for the variant reading via translation.

Midrash commentary for כארי in Psalm 22 mark ‘like a lion’ as a verb, and the Masoretic notes for verse 17 (in Heb) note that this word כארי occurs also in Isaiah 38.13, but it informs the reader that the two occurrences are not identical. Thus there was an early tradition that כארי in Psalm 22 meant something different to the occurrence in Isaiah.

Finally to the scroll from Nahal Hever! I quote here from The DSS Bible, translated with commentary by M. Abegg and P. Flint (Directors of the DSS Institute) and E. Ulrich (professor of Hebrew at Notre Dame University and one of the chief editors of the Qumran Biblical texts).
“Psalm 22 is a favourite among Christians since it is often linked to the NT with the suffering and death of Jesus. A well known and controversial reading is found in verse 16, where the Masoretic Text reads, ‘Like a lion are my hands and feet,’ whereas the Septuagint has ‘They have pierced my hands and my feet.’ Among the scrolls the reading in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Nahal Hever (abbreviated as 5/6HevPs), which reads ‘They have pierced my hands and feet’!”

What the Dead Sea Scrolls teach us - part 2

The majority of what we now call the DSS came from a religious community at Qumran. Several other important scrolls and fragments were discovered at other locations in the Judean desert, such as Masada and Nahal Hever. The DSS at Qumran date from the third century BC to roughly AD 70. Thus they allow us to view the Biblical text as it stood in the Second Temple period. The scrolls at Qumran fall into four families of texts. Broadly speaking there is the proto-Masoretic text, Septuagint aligned, proto-Samaritan and non-aligned.
The majority of the scrolls at Qumran reflected the proto-Masoretic text (MT), which is extremely close to the modern Masoretic Text which is the basis for most English Old Testaments. The texts found outside of Qumran in the Judean Desert almost entirely reflect the proto-MT. As Emmanuel Tov points out, “When one compares early Qumran Masoretic manuscripts with [codex] L (AD 1009) one realizes how close they are to medieval sources. The combined evidence shows that the consonantal framework of the MT changed very little, if at all, in the course of more than one thousand years. Even more striking is the fact that the texts from the other sites in the Judean desert are virtually identical with the medieval texts.”
Qumran was a breakaway group from mainstream Judaism. Several of their scrolls reflect poor scribal habits. The Qumran community was a far cry from the professional sopherim in the Temple and thus not necessarily a reflection of the best or most accurate textual witnesses. Yet, with that said, even the scrolls from Qumran testify to the stability of the proto-MT. Scrolls from outside Qumran, especially those associated with the Zealots reflect even better texts. This is not surprising since the Zealots were supported in their uprising in AD 132 by the Rabbis and religious leaders. The Temple circles, with access to the Temple scrolls, are seen to be preservers of the MT. The plurality of textual streams from Qumran is testimony to popular editions, and non-professional copies.
Next we will examine a fragment from Nahal Hever of Psalm 22. Psalm 22.16(17) in the modern Hebrew Bible doesn't read 'they pierced my hands and my feet', instead it reads 'like a lion my hands and my feet', it will be interesting to see how this Psalm read in the first century.

What the Dead Sea Scrolls teach us - Part 1

This advert appeared in the Wall Street Journal on July 1, 1954. Among the scrolls for sale from Qumran was the famous Isaiah scroll, a complete copy of the book of Isaiah (with minor lacunae) from c. 120BC. The Israeli government succeeded in purchasing the scroll and it now resides in the Shrine of the Book Museum in Jerusalem, well worth a visit if you’re ever in Jerusalem. The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) have shed invaluable light on the textual transmission of the Hebrew Bible.

One curious lesson drawn from the DSS, however, was mentioned in a Soviet Newspaper
Комсомoльская прaвда, (Komsomolskaya Pravda), Комсомoльская is an abbreviation for the Union of Communist Youth, and прaвда means the Truth). It concluded, in a 1958 article, that the primary lesson to be drawn from the DSS was that it conclusively proved that Jesus never existed! Fortunately, as F. F. Bruce noted in his book ‘Second Thoughts on the DSS’, “more objective Qumran studies than this one have been published in Russia.”

There are certainly many lessons we can learn from the DSS and I hope to mention a few of them over the next few days, this one, however, is probably not one of them.

Codex Boernerianus and Irish Scribal Mischief

Codex Boernerianus is a ninth century Greek-Latin diglot manuscript of the Pauline Epistles. The Latin translation is written above the Greek text and follows it word for word. It was probably produced in modern day Switzerland by Irish monks. It’s so strange to think of some lads from the west of Ireland fluent in Latin and Greek, producing Biblical manuscripts somewhere in central Europe over a thousand years ago!

At the foot of folio 23(r) there is an Irish poem about a pilgrimage to Rome.

Téicht do róim [téicht do róim]
Mór saido becic torbai
Inrí chondaigi hifoss
Manimbera latt ni fog bai.

To come to Rome, to come to Rome,
Much of trouble, little of profit,
The thing you seek for here,
If you don't bring it with you,
you won't find it.

One gets the impression that the Irish scribe’s trip to Rome wasn’t all he had hoped it would be. I visited the Eternal City with Katie in March. Had a great time! Irish scribes were notorious for defacing Biblical manuscripts with poems or notes to the scribe sitting next to them.

Metzger mentions a ninth century Latin manuscript of Cassiodorus’ commentary on the Psalms which has several Irish notes written in the margins. Such as, ‘tis cold today!’, ‘no kidding; it is winter!’ ‘this lamp gives a bad light’, ‘this vellum is certainly thick!’ ‘huh?, I would say it’s thin!’ ‘I feel quite dull today, don’t know what’s wrong with me.’

Metzger wondered, “How did it happen that the head of the scriptorium allowed his monks to disfigure a manuscript with such trivialities? One may perhaps conjecture that the manuscript was written in a continental monastery, where the authorities knew no Irish and therefore the scribes from Ireland felt they could play pranks with impunity. When asked what he had written, the scribe might point to some pious sentences in Latin in the top margins of preceding pages and say, ‘merely Irish equivalents of sentences like these!’"

Sure we’ve all used the cúpla focail to our advantage when abroad at one time or another!