Managing the Kurzgefasste Liste often entails unraveling mysteries from the past. Such was recently the case with GA 0320 (formerly D^abs2) also known as Codex Waldeccensis. This case involves six leaves of a 10th century Greek-Latin majuscule thought to be have been lost, and two lost leaves that we didn’t seem to know were missing!

Image 1: New Images of GA 0320 (Signatur HStAM Best. 147 Nr. Hr 2/2) courtesy of the Hessisches Staatsarchiv in Marburg

 

Let’s start at the beginning.

 

In 1902 Victor Schultze, Professor in Greifswald, was thrilled to discover in the city archives of Mengeringhausen (Hessen) two leaves of a previously unknown New Testament diglot. The 10th century folios of Ephesians 1:5–13; 2:3–11 (Latin) and 1:13–19; 2:11–18 (Greek) had been repurposed as an envelope, folded over into quarto format to house 17th century paperwork for the local shooting club. Schultze’s 1904 editio princeps, Codex Waldeccensis: unbekannte Fragmente einer Griechisch-Lateinischen Bibelhandschrift, described the leaves, offering a full transcription of the Greek and Latin text.

 

Image 2: Here the inscription “Schützen ordenung” on 1r above the Latin text of Eph 1:5–13. (Photo Schultze, pg. 6)

 

That same year Caspar René Gregory drew attention to this new discovery and then added Codex Waldeccensis to his Textkritik des Neuen Testaments, vol. 3 (the pre-cursor to the Liste) in 1909 as D^abschrift , meaning it was a copy of D 06, Codex Claromontanus in Paris.

 

Image 3: Entry for D^abschrift in Gregory, Textkritik

 

Skipping ahead several decades, the INTF—four years after it was founded—published its first edition of the Kurzgefasste Liste in 1963, recording the uncial leaves in Mengeringhausen as a D^abs2, one of two Abschriften (copies) of D 06.

 

Image 4: Entry for D^abs2 in the 1963 Liste

 

Image 5: The footnote in the 1963 Liste describes the Latin and Greek contents, exactly as Schulze did in 1904.

 

In 1969 the INTF published a report with updates and additions to the Liste, noting the discovery of 6 new leaves in the Hessisches Staatsarchiv in Marburg that belong to D^abs2. The newly added Greek leaves contain 2 Cor 12:7-12 and Titus 1:1-3:3.[1]

 

Image 6: Update to D^abs2 in the 1969 Liste supplement

 

Here’s where the events become difficult to trace. In the 1963 Liste and the 1969 supplement, no mention is made that the leaves of D^abs2 in Mengeringhausen have gone missing. But sometime between the 1969 supplement and the printing of the 1994 Liste, it seems the INTF was informed that these leaves were no longer at Mengeringhausen. The only clue is on the INTF’s info folder for D^abs1 and D^abs2 where the location of Mengeringhausen is crossed off in pencil.

 

Image 7: The hanging folder for D^abs1 and D^abs2 at the INTF

 

Perhaps the INTF was alerted by Hartmut Hoffmann, who wrote the Mengeringhausen city archive in 1984 to inquire about the whereabouts of these leaves. He received the following response:

 

Image 8: Mengeringhausen to Hoffmann, Aug. 6, 1984

 

A month later Hoffmann received another reply that the Mengeringhausen folios weren’t at the Pfarrerkirche nor the city archives.[2] While correspondence from Hoffmann wasn’t found in the INTF archives, it does seem probable he would have alerted the institute that the Mengeringhausen leaves were missing since he was working in nearby Göttingen.

 

Curiously, the 1994 Liste recorded only the 6 folios in Marburg and completely omitted the 2 fragments at Mengeringhausen. We know the INTF was aware that this manuscript was split between two institutions, because next to the Marburg shelf number, the indication of “6 fol.” is given, which is only offered for manuscripts with multiple parts. The contents in the Liste entry itself still indicate only Ephesians. The footnote, however, was updated to include the contents of all 8 leaves (which would lead to more problems later!).

 

Image 9: Entry for D^abs2 in the 1994 Liste

Thus, it seems from 1994 onward that the Mengeringhausen leaves were forgotten, although remnants of them remained in the Liste.

 

In 2009 the INTF published online a new update to the Liste, giving the Abschriften new numbers. D^abs2 was thus renamed 0320.

 

Image 10: Entry for 0320 in the 2009 online Liste update

 

Just like the 1994 Liste, this update did not list the two Mengeringhausen folios.

 

In 2015 Alan Taylor Farnes, who was writing his dissertation on 0320, inquired on the NTVMR Forum if the Ephesians leaves also belonged to 0320. Because the biblical contents were already entered for 8 folios, including Ephesians, the entry was updated from 6 folios to 8 folios, which seemed only logical. The contents were updated to reflect the footnote: pP: E2KTt

Image 11: Entry for 0320 in the 2015 online Liste update

 

Later that same year, Farnes wrote again on the Forum to say he'd received word that 0320 is now lost. He attached a letter from the Staatsarchiv that reported: “I am very sorry to tell you that the original of Codex Waldeccensis went lost at an unknown point of time after 1999.”

Image 12: NTVMR Forum

 

Hereafter, the NTVMR was updated to note that 0320 had gone missing. The news of 0320 being missing was reflected in other publications well, such as the 2023 Oxford Handbook of the Latin Bible.

 

Earlier this month in updating manuscript information in Germany for our ongoing work on the Liste, we wrote to the Hessisches Staatsarchiv in Marburg to see if there were any updates. Imagine our surprise to discover that Codex Waldeccensis was still there and always had been! It seems that Best. 147 Nr. Hr 2/2 was separated and repacked around 2015, which could be the reason why they thought that the fragments had been lost. It’s also likely they were looking for a full codex, not a few leaves.

 

We were happy to be able to update the Liste accordingly and were kindly sent high quality digital images of the Marburg portion of 0320 for use in the NTVMR. These have just been uploaded today!

 

It seemed like a happy ending. But last week, while looking over the new images, we quickly realized that the two Ephesians folios were missing from what Marburg gave us.

 

When we inquired about the absent leaves, they were perplexed, replying they had no record of any additional leaves with Ephesians! Only after more investigating did we realize the two leaves of Ephesians had never been in Marburg. Although the INTF had once recorded the contents of the Mengeringhausen folios and had microfilm of them, the information that these folios were at a separate location (i.e., Mengeringhausen) seemed to have been lost. Somehow over the years, it seems the INTF thought all of 0320 was in Marburg.

 

So where are the missing fragments of Ephesians?

 

According to Bredehorn, the last traces we have of the fragments in Mengeringhausen were in 1938 when they were recorded as being displayed in a museum in the sacristy of a church; since then, there has been no word of their whereabouts. Likewise, the 2002 catalogue Kostbare Handschriften aus dem Stadt- und Kirchenarchiv Mengeringhausen confirms nothing is known about the missing leaves since the Second World War.[3]

 

The two forgotten Ephesians leaves have now been entered in the Liste under “location unknown (formerly Mengeringhausen).” The number of leaves in Marburg has been changed back to 6 fol. and the total number of folios for 0320 remains 8 folios.

 

Now that we know the 2 Ephesians leaves are missing, we can begin keeping an eye out for them. Because they never had a proper shelf number and have been missing for years, finding them again won’t be easy.

 

 There’s one more vexing piece of this Liste mystery that still needs to be solved.

 

We noticed the INTF has microfilm of the missing Ephesians leaves of 0320. It seems this microfilm was taken in Münster, as indicated by the receipt included in the microfilm image! If, as it is claimed, the Mengeringhausen leaves have been missing since the 1930s/40s, where did this microfilm come from? Were these leaves ever really in Münster as the receipt seems to indicate?

 

Image 14: Page ID 51 of 0320 in the NTVMR

This is the same leaf above of Eph 1:5–13, but clearly photographed decades later.

 

This is the next part of the puzzle we’re working to solve. In case anyone has any tips or theories, we’re most happy to hear them.