Abstract
This gospel synopsis not only highlights the similarities and differences between the synoptic gospels, it also complexifies that task by presenting a comparison of synoptic data across two early majuscule manuscripts—Codex Bezae and Codex Vaticanus. This immediately marks a major deviation from most major synopses. Whereas previous synopses are typically based on an eclectic text for each of the gospels, Read-Heimerdinger and Rius-Camps have chosen two early and relatively divergent codices as their database. This allows then not only to compare parallel readings across different synoptic gospels, but also across two significant manuscripts for the same gospel texts. The editors note in relation to previous synopses that ‘the text of the Gospels selected by editors is largely that attested by Codex Vaticanus (B03)’ (p. ix). Therefore, by choosing Vaticanus as one of their base texts they provide an approximation to the classic synopses, such as Kurt Aland’s Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. Perhaps the works that stand closest to this synopsis are the various publications by Reuben Swanson – his three volumes on Matthew, Mark, and Luke that present variant readings from manuscripts arranged in horizontal lines against Vaticanus, and his own synoptic work, A Synopsis of the Gospels from Codex Vaticanus. However, given the complexity of the manuscript data in terms of variant readings and harmonization, having this rich data displayed in a new format highlights further issues surrounding the textual data.
Read-Heimerdinger and Rius-Camps set out to illustrate that it is wrong to adopt easy solutions to the synoptic problem without engaging the complexities of the synoptic texts across various manuscripts. Thus they see a number of advantages of this arrangement for investigating synoptic relations. First they claim that this volume presents ‘a tool for examining with a higher degree of accuracy than has been possible with the current Greek editions the interrelatedness of the Gospel texts’ (p. xvii). Furthermore, by presenting two manuscript traditions for the synoptic gospels in parallel, such an arrangement also facilitates a more-ready appreciation of editorial and scribal activities across manuscripts of the same text.
The synopsis is arranged with three columns on each of two facing pages. On the left hand page the three synoptic parallels for Codex Bezae are displayed, and on the right hand page the three columns display the synoptic parallels for Codex Vaticanus. Thus each two-page opening presents three columns of text—at least for triple tradition passages. First, the gospel of Matthew is presented in the left-hand column of each of the two pages with Markan and Lukan parallels in columns two and three respectively (pp. 1–115), then Mark in the left hand columns with Matthean and Lukan in columns two and three respectively (pp. 117–195), and lastly, Luke in the left hand columns with Matthean and Markan parallels in columns two and three respectively (pp. 197–315). It is worth noting that each opening of two pages in given a single page number, so the textual display is 630 pages not the numbered 315 pages.
Read-Heimerdinger and Rius-Camps have assembled a splendid research tool, and presented fuller insights into what considering multiple gospel manuscripts synoptically might reveal. In many ways, given the size of the dataset and the range of variation, no printed book will be able to accommodate or display the richness of textual information. Perhaps the next step will be to have fully electronic texts of gospel manuscripts and researchers will create the synoptic and textual comparisons that are pertinent to their research questions. However, Read-Heimerdinger and Rius-Camps have not only produced a key reference work, they have highlighted what might be possible in the decades to come.