Hill, The NT Citing the NT (Published)

TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 29 (2024): 45–70 The New Testament Citing the New Testament in (Copies of) the New Testament: Diples and Testimony Lists in Early Manuscripts C. E. Hill, Reformed Theological Seminary (Emeritus) Abstract: This essay considers two scribal projects from antiquity that record a belief that some New Testament authors at times cited the work of other New Testament writers. The scribes of the fourth- or fifth-century pandects, Sinaiticus (01 ‫)א‬, Alexandrinus (A 02), Vaticanus (B 03), and Ephraemi Rescriptus (C 04), sometimes placed diples (>) in left-hand margins to mark where a New Testament writer has cited an Old Testament book. This essay identifies three New Testament passages (Acts 13:25; 1 Tim 5:18b; 2 Pet 1:17) that receive diples in one or more of the pandects and suggests that these diples denote a belief that the authors, Luke, Paul, and Peter, were reliant upon one of the New Testament gospels. The second scribal project is the μαρτύρια lists within the Euthalian Apparatus for Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and the Pauline Epistles, which record testimonies each book is believed to have taken from other sources. Here the sources are named and so are not ambiguous. The lists indicate a view that some New Testament authors cited not only Old Testament but also pagan, apocryphal, and New Testament predecessors. Seven testimonia are identified as deriving from one of the gospels (Acts 1:4–5; 13:25; 2 Pet 1:17; 2:20; 1 John 1:5; 1 Cor 11:24–25; 1 Tim 5:18b), including all three passages that receive diples in one of the pandects, each of the three being attributed to Matthew. The findings of this essay also shed further light on the origins of the Euthalian Apparatus and on the applicability of the term diplae sacrae. Introduction Did any New Testament writer quote another? Some early Christian scribes or scholars thought so. This article will introduce two paratextual phenomena found in the New Testament manuscript tradition that illustrate an exegetical judgment that New Testament authors sometimes made use not simply of earlier Jesus tradition but of earlier New Testament writings. 46 The New Testament Citing the New Testament 1. Diples Used to Mark New Testament Quotations The four great majuscule codices that survive from the fourth and fifth centuries, Sinaiticus (01 ‫)א‬, Alexandrinus (A 02), Vaticanus (B 03), and Ephraemi Rescriptus (C 04), are also the oldest surviving codices that once held both the Christian Old Testament and the New Testament in one physical artifact.1 Another honor they share is that their copies of the New Testament books are among the earliest copies in whose margins the scribes placed diples—marks in the shape of a rightward arrow—next to lines in which the author quoted material from an Old Testament source.2 Because of the preponderant, if not exclusive, early Christian use of these marginal diples for marking quotations of Scripture, in a 2012 study I used the term diplae sacrae for these diples, patterned after nomina sacra, the popular moniker used by scholars to refer to another Christian scribal convention, the abbreviation of sacred names.3 Recently, Patrick Andrist has criticized the notion of diplae sacrae, saying he has not seen “any example that would show that this use was sometimes reserved for texts of a sacred nature, to the detriment of other texts.”4 I take it that he means 1. Martin Karrer and Ulrich Schmid, “Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament and the Textual History of the Bible—the Wuppertal Research Project,” in Von der Septuaginta zum Neuen Testament: Textgeschichtliche Erörterungen, ed. Martin Karrer, Siegfried Kreuzer, and Marcus Sigismund, ANTF 43 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 167. 2. Note that diples are also used in W (late fourth–early fifth century), e.g., at Matt 13:14–15 citing Isa 6:9–10. See online at https://asia.si.edu/object/F1906.274/#object-content. On Codex Bezae, Sean A. Adams and Seth M. Ehorn say, “There is essentially no use of diplai or other paratextual indicators to signal citations of Scripture [in D]. One possible exception is the inclusion of a dot in the left margin to mark the citation of Zech 9:9 and Zeph 3:16 in John 12:15” (Sean A. Adams and Seth M. Ehorn, “Composite Citations in New Testament Greek Manuscripts,” in Studies on the Paratextual Features of Early New Testament Manuscripts: Texts and Editions of the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Chris S. Stevens, and David I. Yoon, TENTS 16 [Leiden: Brill, 2023], 252). More commonly, this scribe used indentation to mark cited texts (e.g., Mat. 21:5; 27:9–19), “although this only occurs in the last third of Matthew, the beginning of Mark, and the first section of Acts” (252). Instead of diplai, Claromontanus (D 06, sixth century) uses red ink and indentation for citations, “although quotations in Hebrews are not in red ink” (254). 3. Charles E. Hill, “Irenaeus, the Scribes, and the Scriptures: Papyrological and Theological Observations from P.Oxy 3.405,” in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, ed. Sara Parvis and Paul Foster (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 119–23, 236–41. 4. Patrick Andrist, “À propos de la citation de Mt 3, 16–17 dans le Papyrus Oxy- The New Testament Citing the New Testament 47 he has not seen this as a practice in non-Christian works, a practice that Christian scribes might then have taken over, and I would agree with this. That is why I found it so interesting that early Christian scribes apparently were sometimes using the quotation diple to mark citations of Scripture “to the detriment of other texts.” I leave the question of diplae sacrae here for the moment. My main purpose in this first section is to draw attention to a few instances in these pandects in which diples sometimes mark not citations of Old Testament Scriptures but what appear to be citations of New Testament Scriptures. First, a brief overview of the individual characteristics of the scribes’ deployment of the diple in each of the four codices. 1.1. The Four Codices 1.1.1. Vaticanus (B 03) No scribe of any of the four pandects was able to produce a full or infallible marking of all of the Old Testament citations in the New Testament books, but the scribe of Vaticanus came the closest. Ulrich Schmid lists 205 citations marked with diples in Vaticanus’s New Testament (all copied, and presumably dipled, by H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat’s5 “Scribe B”), but Vatrhynque 405: Rapports avec le Codex Bezae; diplai marginals,” in Irénée de Lyon et les début de la Bible chrétienne: Acts de la Journée du 1.VII.2014 à Lyon, ed. Agnès Bastit and Joseph Verheyden, Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia/Research on the Inheritance of Early and Medieval Christianity 77 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), 97: “À notre connaissance, nous n’avons conserve aucun exemple qui montrerait que cet usage a été parfois réservé à des textes caractère sacré, au détrement d’autres textes.” Andrist’s conclusion is that, “consequently, in the current state of our knowledge, the idea that the marginal chevrons of the ancient Christian biblical codex should be interpreted as ‘diplai sacrae’ lacks a sufficient objective basis” (98, “En consequence, dans l’état actuel de nos connaissances, l’idée selon laquelle les chevrons marginaux des codex bibliques chréttiens anciens doivent ètre interprétés comes <diplai sacrae> manqué de base objective suffisante”). 5. See H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus (London: British Museum, 1938), 87–90. Jesse Grenz (“The Scribes and Correctors of Codex Vaticanus: A Study on the Codicology, Paleography, and Text of B[03]” [PhD diss., University of Cambridge, October 2021]) has recently argued for the possibility of a third textual scribe who would have copied pages 675–946. For another recent discussion of the scribes who copied Vaticanus and supplied it with marginal chapter numbers, see Charles E. Hill, The First Chapters: Dividing the Text of Scripture in Codex Vaticanus and Its Predecessors (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022). 48 The New Testament Citing the New Testament icanus lacks the last several chapters of Hebrews and all of 1 and 2 Timothy, Philemon, and Revelation. As Schmid says, “The marking of citations with diples in Codex Vaticanus was carried out very extensively and across the entire length of the text.”6 1.1.2. Sinaiticus (01 ‫)א‬ This more comprehensive effort may be contrasted with the product of the scribes of Sinaiticus. There are only forty-two sets of diples marking Old Testament citations in Sinaiticus: fifteen in Matthew; one in Luke; seven in Romans; seventeen in Acts; two in 1 Peter.7 Something unique to Sinaiticus among the four pandects, however, is that a handful of these dipled passages also bear source attributions in the margins. These are concentrated in the opening chapters of each book in which they appear.8 Figure 1. 01 ‫א‬, Q74, f. 1v. Diples and attribution (εν αριθμοις) at Matt 2:15 6. Ulrich Schmid, “Diplés im Codex Vaticanus,” in Karrer, Kreuzer, and Sigismund, Von der Septuaginta zum Neuen, 112: “Die Auszeichnungen der Zitate mit Diplés im Codex Vaticanus wurde sehr umfangreich und über den gesamten Textbestand vorgenommen.” 7. See Ulrich Schmid, “Diplés und Quellenangaben im Codex Sinaiticus,” in Karrer, Kreuzer, and Sigismund, Von der Septuaginta zum Neuen Testament, 83–98. 8. Schmid, “Diples und Quellenangaben,” 94; Adams and Ehorn, “Composite Citations,” 240 n. 40. The New Testament Citing the New Testament 49 1.1.3. Alexandrinus (A 02) In a table created by Marcus Sigismund, I count eighty-three sets of diples marking citations in New Testament books.9 In addition, diples are found in the margins of 1 Clement, though not in those of 2 Clement.10 Distinctive to Alexandrinus is that five different forms of the diple are used (with variations within some of the forms)—probably signifying the work of different scribes.11 1.1.4. Ephraemi Rescriptus (C 04) In his 2010 study, Schmid was not certain whether the diple markings were original or secondary or whether they came from one or more hands.12 Since he wrote, excellent digital images revealing much of the underwritten scriptural content have been made available, which, in my judgment, 9. Marcus Sigismund, “Formen und Verwendung des Diples im Codex Alexandrinus,” in Karrer, Kreuzer, and Sigismund, Von der Septuaginta zum Neuen Testament, 123–32. Only the last one in Matthew is preserved. After that, there are six in Mark, seven in Luke, three in John, seventeen in Acts, two in James, three in 1 Peter, seventeen in Romans, three in 1 Corinthians, six in Galatians, two in Ephesians, fifteen in Hebrews, one in 1 Timothy. 10. The same goes for the eleventh-century Constantinopolitan copy of the Clementines, as shown by Lightfoot’s edition (J. B. Lightfoot, S. Clement of Rome, part 1 of the Apostolic Fathers, 2nd ed., 2 vols. [repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981], 425–74; see also Hill, “Irenaeus, the Scribes, and the Scriptures,” 240 n. 47). 11. Sigismund, “Formen und Verwendung,” 117. Adams and Ehorn say, “These diplai are unlikely to have been copied by the original scribe but were inserted by at least three different hands, thus showing how the text was read in late antiquity” (“Composite Citations,” 249). The main reason for saying this seems to be the sparsity of the diples and their placement by different hands. But these may be the different hands of the textual scribes. 12. Ulrich Schmid, “Diplés im Codex Ephraemi rescriptus—eine Problemanzeige,” in Karrer, Kreuzer, and Sigismund, Von der Septuaginta zum Neuen Testament, 145–47. Marcus Sigismund says there are two forms used (“Die Diplé als Zitatmarkierung in den “grossen” Unzialcodices—Versuch eines Fazits,” in Karrer, Kreuzer, and Sigismund, Von der Septuaginta zum Neuen Testament, 150). Schmid says this, too, but this stems from Tischendorf ’s research. Tischendorf had identified only the other form, like a Cyrillic N. In listing the occurrences of citation markers in C, Schmid notes each form. I submit, however, that these are simply variations of the basic diple form. The variant simply adds a slight, “take-up stroke” to the diple; the same variations are visible in B 03. 50 The New Testament Citing the New Testament indicate that the diples in C are almost certainly original. In what survives of the original pages, Schmid, supplementing the work of Tischendorf, found eleven verifiable (and one unverifiable) dipled passages in Acts, one in Galatians (Gal 4:27),13 six in Hebrews, one in 2 Corinthians (2 Cor 9:9), one from James (Jas 2:2), and two in Romans (Rom 10:15–16; 11:26–27), for a total of twenty-three. In this article, I shall add three more to that list. 1.2. The Dipled Texts 1.2.1. 1 Timothy 5:18: “The laborer deserves his wages.” The first part of 1 Tim 5:18, “for the scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,’ ” is an uncontested citation of Deut 25:4. The second, “ ‘The laborer deserves his wages’ ” (RSV, ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτου), has no Old Testament source; instead, it is what Jesus says in Matt 10:10 and Luke 10:7. The critical text of Matthew has τῆς τροφῆς instead of τοῦ μισθοῦ, though a few manuscripts of Matthew have the latter.14 But the manuscripts of Luke consistently read τοῦ μισθοῦ. Now, how do the four codices treat these words? The scribe of Sinaiticus marks no citations at all in the Pastorals, and 1 Timothy is, unfortunately, missing from Vaticanus. But the scribe of Alexandrinus (02) clearly placed diplai alongside both the words of Deut 25:4 and those of Jesus, apparently from either Matthew or Luke. Figure 2. A 02, 120v. Diples at 1 Timothy 5:18a and b, for each μαρτύριον Was this a conscious marking of words of Jesus from one of the gospels? Or could it have been simply a mistaken, run-on marking? 13. The marginal attribution in GP 012 attributes this to Genesis, when it is really Isa 54:1. 14. K 565 892 al it syhmg; Hegemonius; cf. Did. 13.1–2 apparently alluding to Matt 10:10, ἀξιός ἐστι τῆς τροφῆς αὐτου ... ὁ ἐργάτης τῆς τροφῆς αὐτου. The New Testament Citing the New Testament 51 That it was an accidental mismarking by the scribe seems now all but ruled out by the digital photographs of Codex Ephraemi Rescripus, which show that its scribe did the same, clearly marking both citations.15 Figure 3. C 04, 119v. Diples at 1 Timothy 5:18a and b, diples for each μαρτύριον Despite the closeness of the wording of 1 Tim 5:18b to Jesus’s words in Matthew and Luke, Sigismund, in his treatment of the diples in Alexandrinus, lists 5:18b as a citation of Isa 28:24, “Do those who plow for sowing plow continually? Do they continually open and harrow their ground?”16 1.2.2. 2 Peter 1:17: “This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” In 2 Pet 1:17, the author refers to the transfiguration episode in the gospel story, proclaiming that “Jesus received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased’ ” (NRSV). Vaticanus marks the three lines containing the words of the divine voice in 2 Pet 1:17 as a (scriptural) citation. Figure 4. B 03, 1435. Diples at 2 Peter 1:17 15. GP 012 (ninth century) has diples for both lines, before the Deuteronomy citation and the New Testament citation; only the first has a label in the margin: ῑ δευτερονομιω. 16. μὴ ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν μέλλει ὁ ἀροτριῶν ἀροτριᾶν ἢ σπόρον προετοιμάσει πρὶν ἐργάσασθαι τὴν γῆν (Isa 28:24). See Sigismund, “Formen und Verwendung des Diples im Codex Alexandrinus,” in his chart on p. 131. 52 The New Testament Citing the New Testament Does the scribe perceive these words as a citation from one of the gospels? There is hesitation to say so on the part of Johannes de Vries and Martin Karrer, who say, “Interestingly, the codex Vaticanus may still use the diplé as an inner New Testament reference in one single case, 2 Pet 1:17.… However, Ps 2:7 may also be considered. One must be cautious when reflecting on the genesis of the sign in Christianity.”17 Psalm 2:7, “I will tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you,’ ” is, most agree, alluded to in both the baptismal and transfiguration episodes in the gospels. But 2 Peter refers specifically to the transfiguration episode in the life of Jesus. Schmid, therefore, concludes that this is not an allusion to Ps 2:7 but is indeed a New Testament reference to a New Testament text and that the medium used to mark it is “none other than the medium that also marks the Old Testament citations: the diple.”18 It can now be said that B 03 finds a partner in C 04 (82v), which also definitely has diples in the left margin for the words of the majestic glory in 2 Pet 1:17. Figure 5. C 04, 82v. Diples at 2 Peter 1:17 17. Johannes de Vries and Martin Karrer, “Early Christian Quotations and the Textual History of the Septuagint: A Summary of the Wuppertal Research Project and Introduction to the Volume,” in Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity/Textgeshcichte und Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum, ed. Johannes de Vries and Martin Karrer, SCS 60 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 9–10 n. 16. 18. Schmid, “Diplés im Codex Vaticanus,” 111: “Und das Medium, das diese Referenz markierte ist kein anderes als das Medium, das auch die alt. Zitate hervorhebt: die Diplè,” Schmid, “Diplés im Codex Vaticanus.” He observes that for none of the passages of the gospels where Ps 2:7 is clearly alluded to, concerning the baptism of Jesus or the transfiguration, did the scribe place diples in the margins. But the unambiguous quotation of Ps 2:7 in Acts 4:25–26 is clearly marked. The New Testament Citing the New Testament 53 1.2.3. Acts 13:25: “What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. No, but one is coming after me; I am not worthy to untie the thong of the sandals on his feet.” Of the four pandects, C 04 (91v) alone has diples in the margin beside the four lines that contain the words ascribed to John the Baptist. This at least shows that the scribe regarded these words as attributable to another source. It is difficult to see how that source could be anything other than one of the gospels.19 Figure 6. C 04, 91v. Diples at Acts 13:25 So, here are the three New Testament passages in one or more of the fourth–fifth century pandects in which the scribe has marked what appears to be a citation of a New Testament book or author (though without ascription) by another New Testament author. A 02 has one; B 03 has one.20 C 04 has all three texts marked! Scholars have questioned whether the diples placed at 1 Tim 5:18b and 2 Pet 1:17 could really have been intended to indicate New Testament rather than Old Testament citations. It is very hard to see what Old Testament source could possibly be behind the third. 2. Μαρτύρια Lists in Euthalian Manuscripts of Acts and the Epistles The second data set I want to talk about is the μαρτύρια lists in the Euthalian Manuscripts. The Euthalian Apparatus refers to a set of paratexts of what one could call an ancient “study Bible” found, in various combinations of its elements, in over four hundred medieval copes of Acts and the epistles. It appears that these materials derive from codices constructed by “Euthalius,” probably in the second half of the fourth century, who copied, with changes and augmentations, the apparati built into two codices once held in the famous library of Pamphilus in Caesarea. Though we are uncer19. The reading in C has τίνα με and ἄξιος. See below, §2.1. 20. Though it is missing 1 Tim 5:18b. 54 The New Testament Citing the New Testament tain of their origin, according to Günther Zuntz, Louis Charles Willard, and Vemund Blomkvist (and I agree), there is good reason to believe that some elements of the apparatus originated with Pamphilus himself.21 If so, this would place these elements in the late third or early fourth century. Our earliest extant fragments come from HP 015, a Pauline codex of the sixth century. Merely to describe all the individual paratexts, which include prologues and hypotheses to each book, chapter numbers and titles, and other features, would take more space than we have. Here I write about two of these features, two lists of “Divine Testimonia” (μαρτύρια), which the compiler has determined each New Testament book contains, that is, words in Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and the Pauline epistles that are perceived to be borrowings from earlier sources. 2.1. The Acts of the Apostles There are for each subcorpus (Acts, Catholic Epistles, Pauline epistles) two lists of testimonies (μαρτύρια). The first one for the book of Acts is a table with the heading “Summary of Divine Testimonies [μαρτύρια] the Book of the Acts of the Apostles Contains. It Contains 30 Testimonies [μαρτύρια].”22 This table consists of rows listing each book (source) from which the μαρτύρια are taken, followed by the number of μαρτύρια from that book, written in black ink, followed by the μαρτύρια numbers in red (cinnabar). 21. Günther Zuntz, The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament, The British Academy Supplemental Papers 7 (London: Oxford University Press for The British Academy, 1945); Louis Charles Willard, A Critical Study of the Euthalian Apparatus, ANTF 41 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009); Vemund Blomkvist, Euthalian Traditions: Text, Translation and Commentary; Including the Appendix Parainesis as an Ancient Genre-Designation by David Hellholm and Vemund Blomkvist (Göttingen: De Gruyter, 2012). For a summary of the evidence pointing to Pamphilus, see Hill, First Chapters, 315–17. 22. ἀνακεφαλαίωσις θεῖων μαρτυρίων ἔχει ἡ βίβλος τῶν πράξεων τῶν ἀποστόλων. ἔχει δὲ μαρτυρίας Λ̅. GA 181 and 1874 have thirty-one μαρτύρια instead of thirty. In my opinion, this is the result of scribal confusion somewhere in the tradition, which led to the creation of an extra testimony (attributed to Habakkuk) at Acts 13:40, the introductory words to the testimony of Hab 1:5 at Acts 13:41. In any case, this addition throws the numbering off in the second testimony list (as we shall see below). In figure 7 (GA 619), the erasure of the third line, which listed Deuteronomy, is someone’s attempt to eliminate the cause of confusion, which was the listing of one μαρτύριον twice (no. IE, once as Exodus, once as Deuteronomy). The New Testament Citing the New Testament 55 For example, the first line in figure 7 (GA 619, tenth century), Γενέσεως Γ̅. H I IA, means “Genesis, 3 testimonies, namely, numbers 8, 10, and 11.” Figure 7. GA 619. First μαρτύρια table23 The second testimony list is titled “Summary of the Divine Testimonies [μαρτύρια] of the Book of the Acts,”24 a shorter title but a lengthier list. This list, or catalog, contains the μαρτύρια numbered in the order of their appearance in the continuous biblical text and the attributions, followed by the μαρτύριον itself, written out. Ideally, each μαρτύριον noted in the prefatory lists is signified in the margins of the text of the biblical book by the (red) μαρτύριον number, the source attribution, and often one or more diples, though in many cases the diples are absent. The great majority of these μαρτύρια are, of course, taken from Old Testament books, but not all of them. What I want to focus on are the exceptions, perceived to be μαρτύρια taken by New Testament authors from pagan sources, from apocryphal sources, and from other New Testament sources. There are many fascinating issues surrounding these μαρτύρια—text-critical issues, hermeneutical issues, an so on—each wor- 23. Images of 619 here and elsewhere are from the CSNTM website: https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/Group/GA_619. 24. ἀνακεφαλαίωσις θεῖων μαρτυρίων τῆς βίβλου τῶν πράξεων. 56 The New Testament Citing the New Testament thy of exploration and comment. Here we can do no more than briefly run through each of the non–Old Testament μαρτύρια.25 2.1.1. Acts 1:4–5, Matthew In Acts 1:4–5, Luke reports that Jesus, while staying with his disciples during the forty days after the resurrection, charged them “not to depart from Jerusalem but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ ”26According to the complier, this very first μαρτύριον in the book of Acts is from “Matthew the Evangelist.” Figure 8. GA 619. First μαρτύριον in Acts, Matthew evangelist at Acts 1:5 2.1.2. Acts 13:25, Matthew The twenty-first μαρτύριον (KA) is again attributed to Matthew (ματθαῖου εὐαγγελ). This is Paul’s quotation of John the Baptist in Acts 13:25, “What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. No, but one is coming after me; I am not worthy to untie the thong of the sandals on his feet.” As we saw above, these words are highlighted with marginal diples by the scribe of Ephraemi Rescriptus. 25. Several Euthalian manuscripts were consulted, but in particular GA 619, 1874, and 181, all tenth-century manuscripts of Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and the Pauline epistles. 26. Garrick V. Allen, “Early Textual Scholarship on Acts: Observations from the Euthalian Quotation Lists,” Religions 13 (2022): https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13050435, n. 36, says, “the citation of Matthew is also evidence that, at least according to the complier, Luke had access to Matthew in the process of composing his works.” This indeed seems to be the case, but according to the narrative in Acts it should signify that it was Jesus who had access to Matthew, for it is Jesus who utters the words of this μαρτύριον! Still, in this case the notation may perhaps simply indicate where the words may be found outside the text of Acts—more like a modern cross-reference. The New Testament Citing the New Testament 57 2.1.3. Acts 17:28, Aratus Μαρτύριον twenty-seven (KZ)27 is Paul’s quotation of Aratus, “As even some of your poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring [Τού γαρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν].’ ” The first testimony list gives it as coming from Aratus alone, but the second is more elaborate, saying that it is, “Of Aratus the astronomer and Homer the poet” (Ἀράτοῦ ἀστρονόμ καὶ ὁμήρου ποιητοῦ). Comical side note: GA 1874 (fig. 10) has miscopied the words ὁμήρου ποιητοῦ (fig. 9, GA 619) as μυρουποιητοῦ, resulting in the reading, “Of Aratus, astronomer and maker of perfumes.” Figure 9. GA 619. Attribution for Acts 17:28, Ἀράτοῦ ἀστρονόμ. καὶ ὁμήρου ποιητοῦ Figure 10. GA 1874. Attribution for Acts 17:28, Ἀράτοῦ ἀστρονόμου καὶ μυρουποιητοῦ28 2.1.4. Acts 20:35, Diataxeis Number KH (28) is Acts 20:35, “It is more blessed to give than to receive,” a saying of Jesus famously absent from any of the four gospels. The μαρτύρια lists label it ἐκ των διατάξεων, “From the Constitutions.”29 Something akin to, and no doubt based on, Acts 20:35 is present in the Apos. Con. 4.3, “Since even the Lord said: ‘The giver was happier than the receiver.’ ”30 Marcel Metzger finds strong indications that the Apostolic Constitutions originated in Syria31 and places the final compilation in the year 380. But the Apostolic Constitutions is a compilation of several earlier sources, and 27. This is the numbering in 619 and others. In 181 and 1874, due to an added reference to Habakkuk at Acts 13:40 (ch. ΚΔ), the marturion numbers are one higher. 28. Images of 1874 are from the INTF website: https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/ manuscript-workspace. 29. Willard, Critical Study, 32, says this is Apostolic Constitutions. 30. ANF 7:433. Text from Marcel Metzger, Livres III–VI, vol. 2 of Les Constitutions Apostoliques, SC 329 (Paris: Cerf, 1986), 172; in Metzger’s edition this is 4.3.1, ἐπεὶ καὶ ὁ Κύριος μακάριον εῖπεν εῖναι τὸν διδόντα ὑπὲρ τὸν λαμβάνοντα. 31. Marcel Metzger, Livres I et II, vol. 1 of Les Constitutions Apostoliques, SC 320 (Paris: Cerf, 1985), 55. Metzger (vol. 1, p. 14) says the plan of the Apostolic Constitu- 58 The New Testament Citing the New Testament the first six books are often thought to have emerged sometime in the third century. As far as our present knowledge goes, then, this portion of the Apostolic Constitutions could have been known to Euthalius or to Pamphilus. Whoever was responsible for the attribution apparently believed, as did Epiphanius, that the Apostolic Constitutions (or this portion of them) were authentic to the apostles.32 2.2. Catholic Epistles 2.2.1. 2 Peter 1:17, Matthew The first μαρτύριον in 2 Peter is 2 Pet 1:17, “This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” This, as we have seen above, is a text marked with diples in both Vaticanus and in Ephraemi Rescriptus. The compiler of the Euthalian μαρτύρια lists unambiguously regards it as coming not from Ps 2 but from Matthew the Evangelist. 2.2.2. 2 Peter 2:20, Matthew The second μαρτύριον in 2 Peter is 2 Pet 2:20, where, for those who, having received the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ are again entangled in the defilements of the world, “the last state has become worse for them than the first.” This is regarded as a testimony from Matthew the Evangelist, which would be Matt 12:45 (par. Luke 11:26). Here Jesus warns of the unclean spirit tions corresponds to the grouping of three documents: Didascalia (Apost. Con. 1–6); Didache (Apost. Con. 7.1–32); Diatexeis (Apost. Con. 8.3–45). 32. Epiphanius, Pan. 45.4: “Moreover the apostles as well, in the work called the Constitution, say, ‘The catholic church is God’s plantation and vineyard.’ ” The citation is from Apost. Con. 1.1, which Williams’s edition (p. 375) says comes from Did. apost. 1.1. See Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I (Sects 1–46), 2nd ed., NHMS 63 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 375. Lampe, PGL, also lists Epiphanius, Pan. 70.10; 75.7. William Whiston put forth a similar idea in the eighteenth century. See Paul R. Gilliam III, William Whiston and the Apostolic Constitutions: Completing the Reformation, StudPatr Sup 11 (Leuven: Peeters, 2023). The Apostolic Constitions is apparently also mentioned in a note attached to the pericope adulterae written in the margins of the text of GA 1187, 1424, and a number of others. See Gregory R. Lanier and Moses Han, “The Text and Paratext of Minuscule GA 1424: Initial Observations,” in Studies on the Intersection of Text, Paratext, and Reception: A Festschrif in Honor of Charles E. Hill, ed. Gregory R. Lanier and J. Nicholas Reid (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 54. The New Testament Citing the New Testament 59 who brings seven other spirits more evil than himself back to the man he had left, “and the last state of that person is worse than the first.” 2.2.3. 1 John 1:5, John For the compiler, 1 John 1:5, “This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all,” is considered a μαρτύριον taken from “John the Evangelist.” This probably refers to John 8:12, “Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, ‘I am the light of the world; he who follows me shall not walk in the darkness but shall have the light of life’ ” (cf. 9:5), or to that verse in combination with John 12:46, “I have come as light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain in the darkness.” 2.2.4. Jude 9, Apocryphon of Moses For Jude there are four chapters and two testimonies. “The Lord rebuke you” (ἐπιτιμήση σοι κ̅ς̅) in Jude 9 is said to be from the “Apocryphon of Moses” (Μοϋέσως ἀποκρύφου).33 I note that this attribution was also made by Origen in Princ. 3.2.34 2.2.5. Jude 14–15, Apocryphon of Enoch The famous citation of 1 En. 1.9 in Jude 14–15 is labeled as coming from the “Apocryphon of Enoch” (Ἐνὼχ ἀποκρύφου).35 33. The left margin at Jude 9 in 1874 is not dipled, but the bottom margin carries the notation Β Μωϋσέως ἀποκρύφου. There is no number A. 34. Origen, Princ. 3. 2 (from Rufinus’s Latin): “The serpent in Genesis is represented as deceiving Eve, à propos of which, in the Ascension of Moses (a book mentioned by the Apostle Jude in his Epistle), Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, says that the serpent, inspired by the devil, was the cause of the transgression of Adam and Eve.” 35. The Euthalian manuscripts give a total of twenty-four μαρτύρια in the Catholic Epistles, of which nineteen are Old Testament, three are New Testament, and two— both in Jude—are apocrypha. 60 The New Testament Citing the New Testament 2.3. The Epistles of Paul 2.3.1. 1 Corinthians 2:9, Apocryphon of Elijah The question of what written source is cited by Paul in 1 Cor 2:9, “But, as it is written, ‘What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,’ ” has elicited much puzzlement from interpreters. The compiler of the Euthalian testimonies identified that source as the Apocryphon of Elijah (Ηλιά ἀποκρύφου), an attribution also made by Origen in Comm. Matt. 27.9. 2.3.2. 1 Corinthians 11:24–25, Matthew Jesus’s words instituting the Lord’s Supper, “ ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me’ ” (1 Cor. 11:24), are considered to be taken from the Gospel according to Matthew.36 2.3.3. 1 Corinthians 15:32, Laconian Proverb “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” is said to be from a proverb of the Laconian people (Δημωδης λακωνικῆ παρομίου). 2.3.4. 1 Corinthians 15:33, Menander The saying in the following verse, “Bad company ruins good morals,” is seen as “an opinion of Menander” (Μενάνδρου γνώμη). 2.3.5. Galatians 6:15, Apocryphon of Moses Paul’s seemingly very “Pauline” thought, “For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation,” is said to be taken from the Apocryphon of Moses (Μωυσέως ἀποκρύφου), interestingly, the same source as proposed for Jude 9. 36. Note, not “Matthew the Evangelist,” as previously in Acts and the Catholics, but “The Gospel according to Matthew” (εκ του κατα ματθεου ευαγγ); so also for 1 Tim 5:18b below. The New Testament Citing the New Testament 61 2.3.6. Ephesians 5:14, Apocryphon of Jeremiah The saying in Eph 5:14, “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light” (RSV), is attributed to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah (Ἰερεμίου ἀποκρύφου).37 2.3.7. 1 Timothy 5:18b, Matthew “The laborer deserves his wages,” the scriptural words that, as we saw above, are dipled in both codices A 01 and C 04, are considered by the compiler to have come from the Gospel according to Matthew. 2.3.8. Titus 1:12, Epimenides and Callimachus Finally, our compiler credits Paul’s citation, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons,” as being “An Oracle of Epimenides, Cretan and mantic. And the same, of the poet Callimachus of Cyrene” (Ἐπιμενίδου κρῆτος καὶ μαντεως χρησμὸς. καὶ καλλιμάχου κυριναῖου ποιητοῦ ἡ αὐτῆ). 3. Results 3.1. What the Euthalian Μαρτύρια Tell Us about the New Testament Diples in the Four Pandects Part 1 of this essay showed that the early parchment pandects preserve three places where marginal diples highlight what are arguably New Testament sources: 1 Tim 5:18b in A 02 and C 04; 2 Pet 1:17 in B 03 and C 04; and Acts 13:25 in C 04 alone. Some scholars have been reluctant to entertain the notion that these diples could have signified, in the minds of the scribes who penned them, New Testament sources. The original compiler of the Euthalian lists (probably Pamphilus of Caesarea) believed that New Testament authors cited not only Old Testament but also pagan, apocryphal, and New Testament predecessors. The complier identified seven testimonia as taken from a New Testament gos37. Perhaps the attribution may be related to the material alleged by Justin, Dial. 72, to have been cut out from the canonical prophecy of Jeremiah: “The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation”? 62 The New Testament Citing the New Testament pel: Acts 1:4–5; 13:25; 2 Pet 1:17; 2:20; 1 Cor 11:24–25; and 1 Tim. 5:18b from Matthew; and 1 John 1:5 from John. Each of the three passages marked with diples in the fourth- and fifth-century pandects is represented in the lists. The Euthalian lists thus substantiate the impression that the diples in A 02, B 03, and C 04 signify the notion that Luke in Acts, Peter in his second epistle, and Paul in his first to Timothy had access to Matthew’s Gospel. 3.2. Pamphilian Origins Origen was apparently not greatly bothered by the idea that the apostles occasionally used testimonies from nonscriptural sources to support their arguments, but other writers, Athanasius and Jerome among them, were.38 It is Origen’s point of view that is perpetuated in the Euthalian μαρτύρια. At least two of the specific attributions of the μαρτύρια, 1 Cor 2:9 to the Apocryphon of Elijah and Jude 9 to the Apocryphon of Moses, are found in Origen’s works.39 There is already a strong case for believing that the μαρτύρια lists, in some form, go back to Pamphilus, the scholar of Origen.40 38. James Jeremy Hultin says, “In Athanasius’s view, the heretics had themselves inserted Paul’s words from 1 Corinthians [i.e., 1 Cor 2:9] into their own apocryphal creation to give it an air of legitimacy,” but also “we do not know whether or how Athanasius rationalized his acceptance of Jude, which was in his [New Testament] canon, and his rejection of Enoch” (“Jude’s Citation of 1 Enoch,” in Jewish and Christian Scriptures: The Function of “Canonical” and “Non-canonical” Religious Texts, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Lee M. McDonald [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2010], 117). In Vir. ill. 4, Jerome notes that some rejected Jude because “he therein quotes from the apocryphal book of Enoch” but also attests that, “through age and use, it [Jude] has gained authority and is reckoned among the Holy Scriptures.” In his Comm. on Titus (PL 26:608C), Jerome says Jude sua testimonium posuit (puts forth his [Enoch’s] testimony). He reports that, because of this, some accept Enoch as Scripture. Jerome obviously takes a dim view (this information from Hultin, “Jude’s Citation,” 127 n. 54; see also infra). I add that in his Prologue to Genesis, Jerome charges that the misattribution of some New Testament citations to outside sources is due to a lack of acquaintance with the Hebrew text. “Out of Egypt I have called my son,” he says, is from Hosea; “For he shall be called a Nazarene” is from Isaiah; “they will look on him whom they have pierced” is from Zechariah; “Rivers of living water shall flow from his belly” is from Proverbs; “which no eye has seen,” is from Isaiah; “the follies of apocrypha being followed, preferring Iberian dirges to authentic books.” 39. Though at least in Rufinus’s translation of Princ. 3.2, it is called Ascensione Moysi. 40. See Hill, First Chapters, 315–16. The New Testament Citing the New Testament 63 This case would appear to be enhanced by the Origenian identification of apocryphal μαρτύρια. 3.3. New Data for the Diplai Sacrae Question 3.3.1. The Euthalian Μαρτύρια The dipling in the margins of the New Testament books in some manuscripts with the Euthalian μαρτύρια at least shows that the placement of diples was not always reserved for the marking of scriptural words. Though it is not used consistently, the diple in these manuscripts can mark any source used as a μαρτύριον by New Testament authors. At least for these manuscripts, the diples are not in every instance diplae sacrae as I had originally conceived of the term. That is, they are not strictly being reserved for marking only citations of holy Scripture.41 Almost all of the Euthalian manuscripts are from the tenth century and later. Our earliest physical artifact that preserves any of the Euthalian Apparatus is Coislinianus 202 (HP 015), a Pauline codex dated to the sixth century.42 It uses diples to mark testimonia taken from the Old Testament; unfortunately, in its present state it is missing each page that might show us whether dipling accompanied any of the non–Old Testament μαρτύρια in Paul. 3.3.2. Scribal Practice in the Pandects Be that as it may, the early evidence of the great pandect codices, and much of the literary evidence, suggests that Christian use of the diple at first was applied exclusively, or nearly so, to books of Scripture. Diples are sparsely used in Sinaiticus, and each codex misses some scriptural quotations.43 Yet 41. Some manuscripts, however, such as GA 1836, 1874, and others, may have the marginal attribution to Enoch in Jude but no diples. 42. It contains the Euthalian chapters and the μαρτύρια in the margins of the text of Paul. A few pages survive that contain the Euthalian chapters (preceding the books of Galatians, Hebrews, and 1 Timothy). But no prefatory materials listing the μαρτύρια, if they ever existed in this codex, now survive. The colophon at the end of the Pauline corpus reads, in part, “The book was collated against the copy in Caesarea at the library of the holy Pamphilus, written in his hand.” 43. For instance, an internal reviewer of this essay noted that Mark 1:2–3, the composite citation of Isaiah and Malachi, is nowhere dipled. 01, however, has no diples at 64 The New Testament Citing the New Testament we have enough evidence to say that Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Rescriptus (and arguably Vaticanus) show no interest in, or even that they show a careful avoidance of, marking the testimonia from nonscriptural texts. In both fifth-century codices, there is a complete absence of diples marking any of the ten extrabiblical sources identified by the compiler of the Euthalian μαρτύρια lists. None of the four pandects uses diples for: 1. The Diataxeis in Acts 20:35 (“It is more blessed to give than to receive.”) 2. Apocryphon of Moses in Jude 9 (“The Lord rebuke you.”) 3. Menander in 1 Cor 15:33 (“Bad company …”). 4. The Laconian proverb in 1 Cor 15:32 (“Let us eat and drink …”). 5. The Apocryphon of Moses in Gal 6:15 (“Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision …”). 6. The Apocryphon of Jeremiah in Eph 5:14 (“Awake O sleeper …”). B 03 lacks the Pastorals, but neither A 02 nor C 04 uses the diple for 7. Epimenides of Crete (and Callimachus) at Titus 1:12 (“Cretans are always liars …”).44 Codex Vaticanus Only Vaticanus marks any of the ten non–Old Testament sources. It marks three, though each one is a special case. 8. Aratus in Acts 17:28 (“We are also his offspring.”) Vaticanus marks Acts 17:28 but probably on the assumption that the words marked had an Old Testament origin. This is because the text of 17:28 in B reads “some of our poets” instead of “some of your poets,” making it appear that this μαρτύριον was a Scriptural reference. De Vries and Karrer agree that this reading, which is found in a number of other manuscripts as well, indicates that the scribe did not stop to search the Old all for Mark; 02 has only six for Mark; and 04 is missing this portion of Mark. Bezae D 05 displays this citation by indenting it. 44. C 04 preserves the page but has no diples. The New Testament Citing the New Testament 65 Testament for the source text but accepted at face value that the citation must have had a Jewish origin.45 9. 1 Cor 2:9 (“eye has not seen …”) First Corinthians 2:9 is dipled in Vaticanus.46 While Origen and the complier of the Euthalian μαρτύρια lists ascribed this to the Apocryphon of Elijah, writers such as Athanasius and Jerome ascribed it to Isaiah. The disagreement is documented as late as the Latin and Greek of Codex Boernerianus (GP 012). This ninth-century interlinear diglot at 1 Cor 2:9 has diples47 and a complex attribution written over them in the margin: Figure 11. Boernerianus (GP 012) at 1 Cor 2:9, marginal diples and attributions48 45. “Evidently the scriptorium follows the quotation marker in the text (τινες … [] ειρηκασιν) and does not check the source text. Moreover, B reads τινες των καθ ημας ποιητων (‘some of our poets’) against the hint at the non-Jewish Greek (‘your’ poet) in the main text. The reading of B is underlined by P74. Thus the scriptorium indicates a broader development: Quotation formulas initiate the conviction that the following text is a quotation from one of ‘our’ (Jewish/Christian) scriptures without demanding a check with the source text” (de Vries and Karrer, “Early Christian Quotations,” 10 n. 18). For other manuscript evidence, see P74, 049, 61, 326, 614, 617, 1595, 1642, 1729, 1837, 2412, 2718 (2344 with ἡμᾶς σοφῶν instead of ἡμᾶς ποιητῶν). 46. The first line (plus the introductory formula) and the last line only. See the next section below for more on this phenomenon. 47. The diples are used systematically in 012. See Adams and Ehorn, “Composite Citations,” 260. 48. Image from Ermisch’s Leipzig facsimile online at CSNTM, https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/Group/GA_012. Digital images of the actual manuscript may be seen at https://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/2966/54. The ι̅ that precedes each attribution is an abbreviation for in, as is seen in the attribution at Rom 7:7 (Adams and Ehorn, “Composite Citations,” 260–61). 66 The New Testament Citing the New Testament ι esaia > ι αποκαλι ψι ενοχ > και ηλιας > So, the Latin says “in Isaiah,” but the Greek says “in the Apocalypse of Enoch and of Elijah”!49 “Isaiah” here is not part of a composite attribution but is clearly an alternative attribution. Most marginal attributions in 012 are given in Greek only or in Latin only. That the Isaiah attribution is written in Latin characters is fitting, as it reflects Jerome’s position. For Codex Vaticanus, it is an open question what the source was presumed to be. But the connections between Vaticanus and Alexandria, and with Athanasius in particular,50 at least weigh in favor of the scribe considering that he was marking a μαρτύριον from Isaiah. 10. Enoch in Jude 14–15 What remains is the marking in Vaticanus of the first part of the μαρτύριον from Enoch in Jude 14–15. A peculiar aspect of his marking of Enoch is that the scribe suspends the dipling after the first five lines of what should be (in B) an eleven-line quotation.51 Figure 12. Vaticanus (B 03) at Jude 14–15, dipling suspended after five lines 49. Adams and Ehorn, “Composite Citations,” 263, do not note that the attribution to Isaiah is in Latin and the attribution to Enoch and Elijah is in Greek. 50. See Hill, First Chapters, 68, 70, 124, 159. 51. For instance, in 1175, one of the Euthalian codices, the testimony takes up twelve lines, each marked with a diple. The New Testament Citing the New Testament 67 Schmid asks, “Why does the marking end at this point and not at the end of the syntactical unit, which extends to αμαρτωλοι ασεβεις?”52 Andrist notes that there are other partially marked, long or composite citations in Vaticanus.53 But Jude 14–15 seems to be the first in the codex,54 and the partially marked citations that come later follow a different method. The scribe in these other instances marked only the first and last lines of the citation, as may be seen at Rom 15:21, 1 Cor 2:9, 2 Cor 6:16–18, Eph 4:8, and then for a string of citations in Hebrews at Heb 1:10–12; (then missing the citation in v. 13) 2:6–8, 2:12, 2:13 (the last diple for v. 12 serving as the first for the citation of v.13), 3:7–11, and 4:3.55 It would appear that the scribe, using this method, first marked the beginning of a testimonium, then found and marked the end of it, with the possible intention of coming back and filling the rest in later.56 The suspension of marking at Jude 14–15 in mid-sentence, without any final-line diple, is not this same method. This makes the case of Enoch unusual and, it appears, unique in the codex. I suggested previously that the partial marking in Jude 14–15 could signify the scribe’s momentary inattention to what was being cited and that he stopped marking when he realized what he was doing.57 If this does not seem highly likely, because the author explicitly tells the reader he is citing the words of Enoch,58 what other explanations are available? 52. Schmid, “Diplés im Codex Vaticanus” 111: “Warum endet die Markierung gerade an dieser Stelle und nicht am Ende der syntaktischen Einheit, die bis αμαρτωλοι ασεβεις reicht?” 53. Andrist, “À propos de la citation,” 97, who cites Schmid’s “Diplés im Codex Vaticanus,” 109–10. But see below. 54. There are no abbreviated markings for even the long citations of eight to ten lines in Matthew. Other examples include: all twenty-eight lines of Acts 2:17–21 (Joel 2:28–32) are dipled, as are all eighteen lines of 2:25–28 (Ps 6:8–11), all nineteen lines of 28:26–27 (Isa 6:9–10), and all twenty-three lines of Rom 3:10–18 (medley of verses). 55. Following this, the scribe then missed marking a number of citations before resuming at 8:8–12, where he studiously marked all thirty-eight lines taken from Jer 31:31–34. 56. As Schmid, “Diplés im Codex Vaticanus,” 110, suggests. This may explain why sometimes the last diple in a (full) series will be out of line with the preceding ones. See Alexander Stokowski, “Diplé Auszeichnungen im Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 (B): Liste nebst einigen Beobachtungen,” in de Vries and Karrer, Textual History, 111–12. That is, these instances may reveal a working procedure the scribe often used to mark first and last diples, then go back and fill in the rest. 57. Hill, “Irenaeus, the Scribes, and the Scriptures,” 127. 58. Andrist, “À propos de la citation,” 97. 68 The New Testament Citing the New Testament Could the scribe have considered the book of Enoch to be a scriptural book?59 This would preserve the idea that only scriptural writings received the marginal dipling in this codex, but it seems to be ruled out because Enoch has been excluded from the very copy of Scripture the scribe himself was involved in creating.60 Yet the scribe was clearly not simply using the diple indiscriminately to mark testimonia from just any writing, for he does not use it in a significant number of places where it could have been used if that were the case, including Jude 9, which the complier of the Euthalian μαρτύρια attributed to the Apocryphon of Moses. The scribe may or may not have known “Enoch” as a book. Enoch the seventh from Adam is said to have prophesied, and possibly, as the first lines of the prophetic word sounded much like other scriptural prophecies (cf. the Lord coming with his holy ones in Deut 33:2 and Zech 14:5),61 the scribe here, as with Acts 17:28, did not stop to check for the source text but initially misunderstood the words as coming from a scriptural book. Whatever the real explanation for the terminated marking of Enoch’s prophetic words in Jude, this case creates the only real exception in Vaticanus to what may otherwise be seen as a consistent practice of using the diple to mark only scriptural testimonia. The picture seems even clearer for Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Rescriptus. Codex Alexandrinus The scribes of Alexandrinus did not mark with diples any of the ten pagan or apocryphal testimonies highlighted in the Euthalian μαρτύρια lists. Unlike B 03 and C 04, A 02 in its present condition is a complete New Testament, not missing any canonical books. Its discrimination against nonscriptural books includes places where the New Testament author explicitly tells the reader that he is citing a source: Acts 17:28 (“some of your own poets”); Jude 14–15 (Enoch); Titus 1:12 (“one of them, their very 59. See Tertullian, Cult. fem. 1.3 and those mentioned by Jerome, Comm. on Titus. 60. Andrist, “À propos de la citation,” 97, makes this point. He seems to assume that the annotator was marking the quotations well after the codex was completed. The annotator, however, is almost certainly one of the scribes responsible for producing Codex Vaticanus. See Pietro Versace, I Marginalia del Codex Vaticanus (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2018), 12–13, 75–76, 90; Hill, First Chapters, 135–36. 61. Deut 33:2, καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ἐκ Σινα ἥκει καὶ ἐπέφανεν ἐκ Σηιρ ἡμῖν καὶ κατέσπευσεν ἐξ ὄρους Φαραν σὺν μυριάσιν Καδης ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ ἄγγελοι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ; Zech 14:5, ἥξει κύριος ὁ θεός μου καὶ πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. The New Testament Citing the New Testament 69 own prophet”). The scribe(s) did not draw extra attention to any of these with the marginal diple. To illustrate the point further, use of the diple to mark scriptural testimonia is continued in Alexandrinus’s copy of 1 Clement (though not in 2 Clement). In 1 Clem. 23.3, the author quotes several lines of an unknown prophetic writing, with the citation formula: “Let this Scripture [or writing, ἡ γραφὴ αὓτη] be far from us where he says.…” These lines are unmarked, even though testimonia from Pss 33 and 31 (LXX) on the same page are marked with diples. The intention behind the dipling program of Alexandrinus, implemented by multiple scribes, was evidently to mark only scriptural citations or μαρτύρια.62 This conclusion throws into greater relief the scribe’s choice to accentuate the words “the laborer deserves his wages” in 1 Tim 5:18b, words that the Euthalian μαρτύρια lists attributed to the Gospel according to Matthew.63 Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus Visual examination of the digitized photographs of Ephraemi Rescriptus contributes important additions to this subject. As noted in section 1 above, C 04 adds a second witness to the scribal highlighting of both 1 Tim 5:18b and 2 Pet 1:17 and adds a new New Testament highlighted text, Acts 13:25. All three of these it has in common with the Euthalian μαρτύρια lists, which attribute all three to “Matthew the Evangelist.” This correspondence with the Euthalian New Testament μαρτύρια makes the lack of correspondence with the Euthalian pagan and apocryphal μαρτύρια more telling. While three of the Euthalian nonbiblical μαρτύρια are not extant in the manuscript,64 none of the remaining seven that are extant is marked. Isidore of Seville wrote this about the diple mark in his Etymologies (between 615 and 630 CE): “Our scribes place this in books of churchmen to separate or to make clear the citations [testimonia] of Sacred Scriptures.” Isidore states the discrimination principle plainly. I conclude that, while it may not have been followed by copyists who preserved the Euthalian μαρτύρια, this principle did guide the scribes who drew diples into the 62. See Hill, “Irenaeus, the Scribes, and the Scriptures,” 128. 63. See Hill, “Irenaeus, the Scribes, and the Scriptures,” 241 n. 72. 64. The Laconian proverb in 1 Cor 15:32; Menander in 1 Cor 15:33; and Apocr. Jer. in Eph 5:14. 70 The New Testament Citing the New Testament margins of both Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (and probably Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as well). For them, the marginal diplae evidently were diplae sacrae.