(Xi, 040)
* F (Phi, 043)
* Y (Psi, 044)
* 046
* 047
* 048
* 055
* 056
* 0121 and 0243
* 0122
* 0212
* 0243: see 0121 and 0243 *
Note: In the catalog which follows, bold type indicates a full entry. Plain type indicates a short entry, which may occur under another manuscript.
Contents:
* Dabs
* Hp (015)
* Ke (017)
* Kap (018)
* N (022)
* Q (026)
* R (027)
* S (028)
* T (029)
* X (033)
* Z (035)
* L (Lambda, 039)
* (Xi, 040)
* F (Phi, 043)
* Y (Psi, 044)
* 046
* 047
* 048
* 055
* 056
* 0121 and 0243
* 0122
* 0212
* 0243: see 0121 and 0243 *
There are actually two manuscripts which circulate under the symbol Dabs, correctly designated Dabs1 and Dabs2. Both are Greek/Latin diglots. It is one of the curiosities of textual criticism that almost no manuscripts are known which are copies of other manuscripts. Only two uncials are known to be copies of other uncials -- and both are copies of the Pauline Codex D/06 (Claromontanus). Their descriptions are as follows:
41 folios distributed among eight numbers in seven libraries in six cities: 8 leaves at the Great Lavra on Mount Athos; 3 leaves in Kiev (Nat.-Bibl. Petrov 26); 3 leaves in St. Petersburg (Bibl. Gr. 14); 3 leaves in Moscow (Hist. Mus. 563 and Ross. Gosud. Bibl. Gr. 166,1); 22 leaves in Paris (Bibl. Nat. Suppl. Gr. 1074 and Bibl. Nat. Coislin 202; the latter number also describing 94); 2 leaves at Turin (Bibl. Naz. A.1). Collectively known as Codex Coislinianus.
H presumably originally contained the entire Pauline corpus. At some point it was disassembled and the leaves used to bind other books (the Athos leaves were placed in the binding of a book dated 1218 by a monk named Makarius). The surviving leaves contain 1 Cor. 10:22-29, 11:9-16; 2 Cor. 4:2-7, 10:5-11:8, 11:12-12:4; Gal. 1:1-10, 2:9-17, 4:30-5:5; Col. 1:26-2:8, 2:20-3:11; 1 Thes. 2:9-13, 4:5-11; 1 Tim. 1:7-2:13, 3:7-13, 6:9-13; 2 Tim. 2:1-9; Titus 1:1-3, 1:15-2:5, 3:13-15; Hebrews 1:3-8, 2:11-16, 3:13-18, 4:12-15, 10:1-7, 10:32-38, 12:10-15, 13:24-25.
Dated paleographically to the sixth century. H is written on parchment in extremely large uncials (over 1.5 cm in height), one column per page. The text is written stichometrically. A later hand added accents and breathings to the text although not to the subscriptions of the books.
Aland and Aland list H as Category III; von Soden classifies it among the Alexandrian witnesses. From the stichometric arrangement of the lines, as well as the subscriptions to the various books (written in vermillion), H would appear to be based on the Euthalian edition of Paul -- probably the earliest example of this type.
A footnote to Titus claims that the text was corrected based on a manuscript written by Pamphilius. This is either an error or refers to the exemplar used for H; such corrections as we find in the text are almost always Byzantine (see the entry on correctors).
Overall, the text of H does appear to be Alexandrian, but with much Byzantine mixture. It is probably of more note for the history of the Euthalian text than the biblical text as a whole.
von Soden: a1022
Collations:
Sample Plates:
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since Tischendorf.
Other Works:
M. H. Omont, Notice sur un très ancien manuscrit grec
en onciales des Epîtres de Paul, conservé à la
Bibliothèque Nationale, 1889 (a partial edition, based on
materials available at the time).
Paris -- Bibliothèque Nationale Gr. 63. It was taken to Paris from Cyprus in 1673.
Contains the Gospels complete.
Dated paleographically to the ninth century. K is written on parchment, one column per page. The scribe was named Basil, and the manuscript was bound by one Theodulos. Scrivener says of the writing, "[It has] one column of about twenty-one lines per page, but the handwriting is irregular and varies much in size. A single point being often found where sense does not require it, this codex has been thought to have been copied from an older one arranged in sticoi.... The subscriptions, titloi, the sections, and indices of the kefalia of the last three gospels are believed to be the work of a later hand: the Eusebian canons are absent. The breathings and accents are prima manâ, but are often omitted or incorrectly placed. Itacisms and permutations of consonants are very frequent...."
Recognized from a very early date as Byzantine (so, e.g., Aland and Aland, who list it as Category V). Von Soden classified it as Ika, i.e. Family P. This has been confirmed by all who have investigated the matter, most recently by Wisse (who places K in the Pa group in all three tested chapters of Luke, and calls it a core member of the group).
Wisse distinguishes two groups within Family P -- Pa and Pb. Of these, Pa is more distinct and has more differences from the Byzantine bulk Kx. Among the more important members of this group are K itself, P, 1079, and 1546. A (which is, of course, the earliest substantial Byzantine witness) is a diverging member of this group. The case can thus be made that K belongs to the oldest family of the Byzantine text -- and it is the oldest complete witness to this text.
von Soden: e71
Collations:
Sample Plates:
Editions which cite:
Cited by Tischendorf (who also collated it).
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover.
Cited as a secondary witness in NA26 and NA27,
but not in SQE13
Cited in UBS3 but not UBS4
Other Works:
All of the following pertain to Family P,
and so include information on K as well (although the works of Geerlings are sometimes
guilty of dubious methodology):
Jacob Geerlings, Family P
in John, Studies & Documents 23, 1963
Jacob Geerlings, Family P
in Luke, Studies & Documents 22, 1962
Jacob Geerlings, Family P
in Matthew, Studies & Documents 24, 1964
Silva Lake, Family P
and the Codex Alexandrinus: The Text According to Mark, Studies & Documents 5, 1937
Moscow -- Historical Museum V.93, S.97. Originally from Mount Athos.
Contains the Catholic Epistles complete and Paul almost complete (lacks Romans 10:18-1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 8:8-11). Includes a marginal commentary.
Dated paleographically to the ninth century. K is written on parchment, two columns per page.
Von Soden classifies K as I1 in Paul and Apr1 in the Catholics. This is based, however, on the commentary (being that of John of Damascus in Paul and, according to von Soden, that of Andreas in the Catholics). The text is correctly described by Aland and Aland as Category V (i.e. purely Byzantine).
Within the Byzantine tradition, K forms a pair with 0151. The two may be sisters; certainly they are very closely related. Taking the book of Galatians as an example, we find 279 variants which can count at least two papyri or uncials on each side. K and 0151 agree on 263 of these. (In addition, K has seven singular readings and 0151 has ten.) Of these 263 agreements, seven are found only in these two manuscripts (a very high rate of subsingular agreement for Byzantine manuscripts).
Even their sixteen disagreements are suggestive:
| Verse | K reads | 0151 reads |
| 1:22 | ths | tais |
| 2:4 | katadoulwswntai | katadoulwsontai |
| 3:8 | soi | su |
| 3:19 | w | o |
| 3:22 | - | ta |
| 4:4 | gennomenon ek | genomenon ek vid |
| 4:6 | krazwn | krazon |
| 4:7 | alla | all |
| 5:14 | seauton | eauton |
| 5:26a | ginomeqa | ginwmeqa |
| 5:26b | allhlois | allhlous |
| 6:4 | eautou | autou |
| 6:8 | eautou | autou |
| 6:9 | qerisomen | qeriswmen |
| 6:10 | ergaswmeqa | ergasomeqa |
| 6:13 | kauchswntai | kauchsontai |
Thus every difference between the two is trivial, usually revolving around vowel sounds. In this list there is not one instance of a reading that is clearly of genetic significance. In all likelihood these two commentary manuscripts descend from a common ancestor at a distance of no more than a handful of generations. It is unlikely, however, that one is copied from the other, since both have singular readings.
von Soden: I1 (Paul);
Apr1 (Cath)
Matthei's g
Scholz's 102a, 117p
Collations:
Sample Plates:
Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (1 page)
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since Tischendorf (though Nestle cites it only
silently).
Other Works:
Codex Purpureus. Various libraries: Saint Petersburg, Russ. Nat'l Kibrary Gr. 537 (182 folios); Patmos, Ioannou 67 (33 folios); London, British Library Cotton Titus C. XV (4 folios); Vienna, National Library Gr. 31 (2 folios); Athens, Byz. Museum Frg. 21 (1 folio); Lerma (Spinola Collection) (1 folio); Rome, Bibl. Vat. Gr. 2305 (6 folios) New York, Pierpont Morgan Lib. 874 (1 folio); Salonika, Byz. Museum Ms. 1 (1 folio). (Total of 231 folios, representing roughly half of the original manuscript.)
Contains the Gospels with very many lacunae: Matt. 1:1-24, 2:7-20, 3:4-6:24, 7:15-8:1, 8:24-31, 10:28-11:3, 12:40-13:4, 13:33-41, 14:6-22, 15:14-31, 16:7-18:5, 18:26-19:6, 19:13-20:6, 21:19-26:57, 26:65-27:26, 26:34-end; Mark 1:1-5:20. 7:4-20, 8:32-9:1, 10:43-11:7, 12:19-24:25, 15:23-33, 15:42-16:20; Luke 1:1-2:23, 4:3-19, 4:26-35, 4:42-5:12, 5:33-9:7, 9:21-28, 9:36-58, 10:4-12, 10:35-11:14, 11:23-12:12, 12:21-29, 18:32-19:17, 20:30-21:22, 22:49-57, 23:41-24:13, 24:21-39, 24:49-end; John 1:1-21, 1:39-2:6, 3:30-4:5, 5:3-10, 5:19-26, 6:49-57, 9:33-14:2, 14:11-15:14, 15:22-16:15, 20:23-25, 20:28-30, 21:20-end. It has been thought that it was originally broken up by Crusaders (so Metzger; Scrivener says this of F); certainly its career was exciting (Gregory reports how the Saint Petersburg portion, when it was still in Asia Minor, was stolen -- and recovered by a crowd of angry villagers).
Dated paleographically to the sixth century. N is written on purple parchment in (now badly faded) silver ink, with certain of the nomina sacra in gold. The letters are very large (see the reduced sample in the section on uncial script), and are very regular in form; they seem to have been stamped on the page (though there are multiple stamps for the letters, and they are not uniform in size). There are two columns per page, with the columns containing only a dozen or so letters due to the large size of the print. Scrivener/Miller say of the manuscript, "[T]he punctuation [is] quite as simple [as in A of the fifth century], being a single point (and that usually neglected) level with the top of the letter... and there is no space between words even after stops.... It exhibits strong Alexandrian forms... and not a few such itacisms as the change of i and ei, ai and e."
There is general agreement that N forms a group with the other sixth century purple uncials (O S F). Cronin beieves that N O S are in fact sisters, copied from a single exemplar (F he believes to have some "Western" mixture). There is less agreement about the nature of this group. Von Soden classifies it as Ip, but this really begs the question as it is simply another of those mixed I-K groups, and has no witnesses except the purple uncials. Streeter laid claim to the group as a weak witness to the "Cæsarean" text -- but of course Streeter insisted that everything not otherwise classified was "Cæsarean." In any case, studies of the group have been hindered by the fact that O contains only Matthew, while S F contain only Matthew and Mark. Thus only N represents the type in Luke and John, and passages where all four purple uncials exist are relatively few.
In recent times, Aland and Aland have described N as Category V (Byzantine). Wisse reports that it is mixed in Luke 20; there is, of course, no text of chapter 1 and very little of chapter 10.
All of these claims are slightly imprecise. N is much more Byzantine than anything else (about 80% of its readings seem to belong to that type), but by no means purely. It omits John 7:53-8:11, for instance, as well as Luke 22:43-44. There seems to be no pattern to the non-Byzantine readings, though; certainly they are not "Cæsarean" (N agrees with the Koridethi codex in only 31 of 44 non-Byzantine readings, with Family 1 in 26 of 34, and with Family 13 in 23 of 36; by contrast, it agrees with A in 20 of 24, with K in 16 of 21, and with Psi in 29 of 32). The simplest conclusion is that N is mostly Byzantine with occasional surviving readings of all types.
von Soden: e19
Collations:
Since N came to light in so many pieces, there is no complete collation.
H. S. Cronin published the text as it was known in 1899 (Texts and Studies
volume 4). A few additional
leaves have been published in the Journal of Biblical Literature by
Stanley Rypins (lxxv, 1956).
Sample Plates:
Editions which cite:
Cited in NA26 and NA27 for the Gospels.
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover for the Gospels.
Other Works:
The work of Cronin cited above (and its follow-up in JTS,
July 1901) discusses the relationship between the purple uncials.
B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, 1924,
discusses on pp. 575-577 his perceived relationship between the purple
uncials and the "Cæsarean" text. This discussion shows
at once the strengths and weaknesses of Streeter's method; since he equates
the Textus Receptus entirely with the Byzantine text,
almost any manuscript -- even one purely Byzantine! -- will show
"Cæsarean" readings by this method.
Codex Guelpherbytanus B. Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, (portions of) Weissenburg 64 (folios 194-201, 299, 302, 303, 304, 311). Von Soden's e4. Palimpsest, containing small portions of Luke and John (Luke 4:34-5:4, 6:10-26, 12:6-43, 15:14-31, 17:34-18:15, 18:34-19:11, 19:47-20:17, 20:34-21:8, 22:27-46, 23:30-49; John 12:3-20, 14:3-22, with large parts even of these verses illegible). Dated paleographically to the fifth century. Assessments of the text of Q have varied widely. Von Soden listed it as H (Alexandrian) in John and I' in Luke (I' being a large and disjoint group containing many uncial fragments -- P Q R 074 090 0116 0130 0131 -- plus the Byzantine uncials G 047 and a number of minuscules which generally have not been regarded as noteworthy). The Alands list Q as Category V, and regard it as the first truly Byzantine text (it should be noted, however, that Q exists for only twelve of their sample readings -- too small a number for classification). Wisse reports it as Mixed, though due to lack of text he was only able to examine chapter 20. The real truth seems to fall somewhere between these assessments. Q is much more Byzantine than anything else -- but it is no more a purely Byzantine text than is A or R. It furnishes evidence that the Byzantine type was in existence in the fifth century, but not that it had reached its final form or that it was in any way dominant. Consider the Nestle apparatus: Listing only a limited number of variants, NS27 shows Q departing from the Byzantine text 54 times (in the space of 209 verses, many of them fragmentary) in Luke, and 16 times (in 38 verses) in John. Thus Q is perhaps 80% Byzantine (though even this may be exaggerated; Q seems to be heavily given to harmonization, and some of its agreements with the Byzantine text may be coincidental). The remaining text seems to agree with the later Alexandrian witnesses (L, 33, 579) more than anything else. Physically, Q is part of a large palimpsest containing also the fragments of Pe (025) and the Gothic version; the upper writing consists of Latin treatises of Isodore of Seville. It has the Ammonian Sections, but if the Eusebian Canons were supplied, they must have been written in a coloured ink which has not survived. (This is not impossible; the manuscript seems to have had some writings in vermillion which are now illegible and barely detectable, and the Eusebian numbers were supposed to be written in color.) It has a handful of breathings, though they are not applied in any systematic way.
Codex Nitriensis. London. Catalog Number: British Museum Add. 17211. Originally from Egypt; brought to England in the 1840s from the convent of S. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert.
Contains palismpsest fragments of Luke: Luke 1:1-13, 1:69-2:4, 2:16-27, 4:38-5:5, 5:25-6:8, 6:18-36, 6:39, 6:49-7:22, 7:44, 7:46, 7:47, 7:50, 8:1-3, 8:5-15, 8:25-9:1, 9:12-43, 10:3-16, 11:5-27, 12:4-15, 12:40-52, 13:26-14:1, 14:12-15:1, 15:13-16:16, 17:21-18:10, 18:22-20:20, 20:33-47, 21:12-22:6, 22:8-15, 22:42-56, 22:71-23:11, 23:38-51 (the above list is approximate; in some cases the manuscript is so hard to read that we cannot tell exactly where each portion ends). A second hand adds 15:19-21, but these are not generally cited.
Dated paleographically to the sixth century. R is written on parchment, two columns per page. The hand is very large and clear, though Scrivener calls the letters "somewhat irregular and straggling," and notes that "the punctuation is effected by a single point almost level with the tops of the letters, as in Cod. N. The pseudo-Ammonian sections are there without the Eusebian canons.". In the eighth or ninth century the manuscript was overwritten with a Syriac text of Severus of Antioch against Johannes Grammaticus. (Along with R, a text of the Iliad was used to provide parchment for the upper writing.)
Assessments of R over the years have varied. Hort says of it (§209, p. 153) that it is mixed, but has "a large proportion of Pre-Syrian [i.e. non-Byzantine] readings." Von Soden assigns it to I' (which tells us very little, since this is one of the catchall groups, containing both mixed and purely Byzantine manuscripts). Wisse, based on the fragments available to him, lists it as Kx in Luke 1, Kx in Luke 10, and mixed in Luke 20. The Alands list it as Category V (Byzantine).
Of all these assessments, the most accurate appears to be Hort's. The Alands, in particular, base their opinion on a mere nineteen readings -- too small a sample to tell us anything.
A much more detailed assessment can be made by examining the apparatus of
NA26. The table below classifies readings in the Nestle apparatus
into six categories: Those where R agrees with the Majority text against
B, those where R agrees with B against the Majority Text, those where R
agrees with both 
and B but where at least two important witnesses
have a different reading, readings where R disagrees with both M
and B, and those where the majority text is split but R either agrees or
disagrees with B. The numbers given below are slightly approximate (due mostly
to the readings where the apparatus only cites evidence for one reading),
but these generally affect the third category, which is the least significant
for our purposes.
| R with against B | R with B against
| R with and B | R against and B | R with B against pm | R with pm against B | |
| Luke 1-3 | 13 | 3 | 13 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Luke 4-6 | 32 | 8 | 16 | 3 | 4 | 0 |
| Luke 7-9 | 51 | 13 | 29 | 2 | 6 | 2 |
| Luke 10-12 | 25 | 6 | 20 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Luke 13-15 | 12 | 20 | 9 | 8 | 2 | 0 |
| Luke 16-18 | 33 | 13 | 11 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| Luke 19-21 | 56 | 13 | 19 | 6 | 0 | 2 |
| Luke 22-24 | 28 | 6 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Totals | ||||||
| Readings: 513 | 250 | 82 | 126 | 31 | 16 | 8 |
Thus we see that about 20-25% of R's readings are non-Byzantine everywhere, and that the manuscript is not Byzantine at all in about chapters 13-16. Although it is by no means a primary witness, R should not be completely ignored.
von Soden: e22
Collations:
Sample Plates:
Editions which cite:
Cited by Tischendorf, who also collated it.
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover.
Cited in NA26 but deleted in NA27
Other Works:
Codex Guelpherbytanus B. Rome, Vatican Library Gr. 354. Von Soden's
e1027.
Contains the four gospels complete. Dated by its colophon to 949.
This makes S the only dated uncial (other than
G, which
has a partial date which we cannot interpret with certainty).
It is also one of the four oldest dated New Testament manuscripts
(the oldest being the minuscule 461, from the year 835; this
is followed by 2500, from 891, then by S and the minuscule 1582, both from the year
949). Textually, it is entirely Byzantine. Von Soden classified
it as K1 (along with such other Byzantine uncials as
V and W);
Wisse has made the minor correction of listing S as Kx
Cluster W.
(The other members of this group include E V
W and some
thirty-three minuscules.) The Alands corroborate this by listing
S as Category V. The writing
is large and compressed (see the sample in the
Table of Scripts Used in Various Uncials),
and appears Slavic. Scrivener notes that it "contains
many later corrections... and marginal notes" (both
patristic and textual, e.g. one of them obelizes John 5:4) as well as
the Eusebian apparatus. It also includes neumes.
The scribe was a monk named Michael. Note:
The symbol S is also used in some apparati for
.
(These apparati will usually use 028 as a symbol for the real S.)
One should always be aware of which symbol is used for which
manuscript.
Codex Borgianis. Catalog Number: Rome, Vatican Library Borg. Copt. 109, Borg Copt. 109; New York, Pierpont Morgan Library M. 664A; Paris, National Library Copt. 129.7, 129.8, 129.9, 129.10. The various fragments, when discovered, were designated T (029), 0113, 0125, 0139.
Contains fragments of the gospels of Luke and John, in Greek and Sahidic (Sahidic on the verso), with the Greek containing Luke 6:18-26, 18:2-9, 18:10-16, 18:32-19:8, 21:33-22:3, 22:20-23:20, 24:25-27, 24:29-21; John 1:24-32, 3:10-17, 4:52-5:7, 6:28-67, 7:6-8:31 (with some of these leaves being fragmentary). The following list shows how the various portions are designated:
Dated paleographically to the fifth century (though Giorgi, who first published portions of it), prefers the fourth. T is written on parchment, two columns per page -- but, curiously, the Greek and Sahidic are not in facing columns but on facing pages. Tischendorf thought the scribe was a Copt, as the letters often show Coptic forms. It has a handful of breathings, but they are not supplied consistently. As far as the punctuation goes, Scrivener notes that "a dingle point indicates a break in the sense, but there are no other divisions."
That T stands close to B has been widely observed -- e.g. by Hort; von Soden classified all four parts as H, and the Alands place it in Category II. (Wisse was unable to classify it, as no text exists in his sample chapters.) But few seem to have realized how close the two are. The following tables show the relations between T and thirteen other witnesses in Luke and John. The readings are the variants in NA27 which are supported by at least two of the witnesses cited.
Affinities of T -- Luke
| MS. | P75 |
| A | B | D | K | L | T | G | Q | f1 | f13 |
| P75 | - | 44/64=69% | 17/64=27% | 53/64=83% | 12/64=19% | 24/64=38% | 46/64=72% | 57/64=89% | 15/64=23% | 17/64=27% | 21/62=34% | 19/64=30% |
| 44/64=69% | - | 36/98=37% | 66/98=67% | 33/98=34% | 42/98=43% | 76/98=78% | 69/98=70% | 32/98=33% | 43/98=44% | 44/95=46% | 42/97=43% |
| A | 17/64=27% | 36/98=37% | - | 28/98=29% | 37/98=38% | 73/98=74% | 35/98=36% | 26/98=27% | 82/98=84% | 73/98=74% | 55/95=58% | 60/97=62% |
| B | 53/64=83% | 66/98=67% | 28/98=29% | - | 25/98=26% | 37/98=38% | 72/98=73% | 91/98=93% | 19/98=19% | 32/98=33% | 35/95=37% | 30/97=31% |
| D | 12/64=19% | 33/98=34% | 37/98=38% | 25/98=26% | - | 38/98=39% | 33/98=34% | 23/98=23% | 41/98=42% | 37/98=38% | 44/95=46% | 43/97=44% |
| K | 24/64=38% | 42/98=43% | 73/98=74% | 37/98=38% | 38/98=39% | - | 45/98=46% | 35/98=36% | 73/98=74% | 67/98=68% | 55/95=58% | 65/97=67% |
| L | 46/64=72% | 76/98=78% | 35/98=36% | 72/98=73% | 33/98=34% | 45/98=46% | - | 75/98=77% | 31/98=32% | 42/98=43% | 41/95=43% | 38/97=39% |
| T | 57/64=89% | 69/98=70% | 26/98=27% | 91/98=93% | 23/98=23% | 35/98=36% | 75/98=77% | - | 21/98=21% | 30/98=31% | 31/95=33% | 28/97=29% |
| G | 15/64=23% | 32/98=33% | 82/98=84% | 19/98=19% | 41/98=42% | 73/98=74% | 31/98=32% | 21/98=21% | - | 69/98=70% | 53/95=56% | 62/97=64% |
| Q | 17/64=27% | 43/98=44% | 73/98=74% | 32/98=33% | 37/98=38% | 67/98=68% | 42/98=43% | 30/98=31% | 69/98=70% | - | 61/95=64% | 61/97=63% |
| f1 | 21/62=34% | 44/95=46% | 55/95=58% | 35/95=37% | 44/95=46% | 55/95=58% | 41/95=43% | 31/95=33% | 53/95=56% | 61/95=64% | - | 47/95=49% |
| f13 | 19/63=30% | 42/97=43% | 60/97=62% | 30/97=31% | 43/97=44% | 65/97=67% | 38/97=39% | 28/97=29% | 62/97=64% | 61/97=63% | 47/95=49% | - |
Affinities of T -- John
| MS. | P75 |
| A | B | D | K | L | T | G | Q | f1 | f13 |
| P75 | - | 54/125=43% | 18/52=35% | 103/125=82% | 28/113=25% | 48/125=38% | 80/125=64% | 101/125=81% | 51/125=41% | 56/125=45% | 52/120=43% | 48/125=38% |
| 54/125=43% | - | 20/55=36% | 49/144=34% | 75/132=57% | 55/144=38% | 66/144=46% | 54/144=38% | 52/144=36% | 66/144=46% | 55/139=40% | 56/144=39% |
| A | 18/52=35% | 20/55=36% | 55/55=100% | 22/55=40% | 25/43=58% | 42/55=76% | 33/55=60% | 24/55=44% | 37/55=67% | 31/55=56% | 35/52=67% | 38/55=69% |
| B | 103/125=82% | 49/144=34% | 22/55=40% | - | 35/132=27% | 57/144=40% | 92/144=64% | 114/144=79% | 53/144=37% | 59/144=41% | 59/139=42% | 48/144=33% |
| D | 28/113=25% | 75/132=57% | 25/42=60% | 35/132=27% | - | 56/132=42% | 61/132=46% | 38/132=29% | 54/132=41% | 57/132=43% | 57/127=45% | 60/132=45% |
| K | 48/125=38% | 55/144=38% | 42/55=76% | 57/144=40% | 56/132=42% | - | 76/144=53% | 67/144=47% | 114/144=79% | 83/144=58% | 96/139=69% | 102/144=71% |
| L | 80/125=64% | 66/144=46% | 33/55=60% | 92/144=64% | 61/132=46% | 76/144=53% | - | 103/144=72% | 77/144=53% | 74/144=51% | 81/139=58% | 71/144=49% |
| T | 101/125=81% | 54/144=38% | 24/55=44% | 114/144=79% | 38/132=29% | 67/144=47% | 103/144=72% | - | 63/144=44% | 69/144=48% | 71/139=51% | 67/144=47% |
| G | 51/125=41% | 52/144=36% | 37/55=67% | 53/144=37% | 54/132=41% | 114/144=79% | 77/144=53% | 63/144=44% | - | 85/144=59% | 93/139=67% | 102/144=71% |
| Q | 56/125=45% | 66/144=46% | 31/55=56% | 59/144=41% | 57/132=43% | 83/144=58% | 74/144=51% | 69/144=48% | 85/144=59% | - | 80/139=58% | 100/144=69% |
| f1 | 52/120=43% | 55/139=40% | 35/52=67% | 59/139=42% | 57/127=45% | 96/139=69% | 81/139=58% | 71/139=51% | 93/139=67% | 80/139=58% | - | 86/139=62% |
| f13 | 48/125=38% | 56/144=39% | 38/55=69% | 48/144=33% | 60/132=45% | 102/144=71% | 71/144=49% | 67/144=47% | 102/144=71% | 100/144=69% | 86/139=62% | - |
Examining these numbers, however, tells us that T is not simply close to B in Luke; it is immediate kin -- as close to B as is P75. Indeed, T agrees with these two more than they agree with each other. The difference is not statistically significant given the size of the sample, but if this were true, it would imply that T is actually closer to the group archetype than either P75 or B. In any case, it deserves to be on a footing equal to their.
The matter is not quite as clear in John. T is still very close to P75 B, but not as close as in Luke. In first examining the data, it appeared to me that T had acquired some Byzantine mixture. Full examination of the data, however, makes it appear that instead it had been infected with late Alexandrian readings -- of the sort we find, e.g., in L. Thus in Luke T is a manuscript of the first magnitude, though in John its value is slightly less.
von Soden: e5 (=T), e50 (=0113), e99 (=0125), e1002 (=0139)
Collations:
As this manuscript was recovered in sections, there has been no comprehensive
publication. The first edition, by Giorgi in 1789, includes only the portions
of John then known.
Sample Plates:
Editions which cite:
Cited by Tischendorf as far as known.
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover as far as known.
Cited in NA26 and UBS3 (under four sigla)
and in NA27 and UBS4 under the combined symbol T.
Other Works:
Note: The symbol T was used by Tischendorf and Scrivener for certain other manuscripts: Tb = 083; Tc = 084; Tg = 061; Tk = 085; Twoi = 070.
Codex Monacensis. Munich. Catalog Number: University Library fol. 30. It arrived in Munich in 1827; prior to that it had been in Landshut (from 1803), still earlier in Ingoldstadt; its earliest known home was Rome.
Contains the Gospels in the "Western" order Matthew, John, Luke, Mark (as presently bound, there are actually leaves of Matthew at both beginning and end of the codex, and Scrivener implies that the original order was John, Luke, Mark, Matthew, but this is probably a binding error). It has suffered some damage, and now contains Matt. (5:45 in commentary only), 6:6, 10, 11, 7:1-9:20, 9:34-11:24, 12:9-16:28, 17:14-18:25, 19:22-21:13, 21:28-22:22, 23:27-24:2, 24:23-35, 25:1-3-, 26:69-27:12, John 1:1-13:5 (2:23-6:71 lost but added in a later hand), 13:20-15:25, 16:23-end, Luke 1:1-37, 2:19-3:38, 4:21-10:37, 11:1-18:43, 20:46-end, Mark 6:46-end (with portions of chapters 14-16 illegible and 16:6-8 completely lost). Text with commentary; most of the marginal material is from Chrysostom. The commentary is very full in Matthew and in John; that in Luke contains references to the previous sections as well as new material; Mark has no commentary at all. The commentary is written in minuscules and is contemporary with the uncial text.
Dated paleographically to the tenth or possibly ninth century. X is written on parchment, two columns per page. The hand is described as "very elegant"; Scrivener quotes Tregelles's Horne to the effect that the letters are "small and upright; though some of them are compressed, they seem as if they were partial imitations of those used in the very earliest copies." The text has, apart from the commentary, relatively few guides for the user; there are no lectionary notes or kefalaia.
The most recent assessment of this manuscript, that of the Alands, is stark: they place is in Category V as purely Byzantine. This is, however, much too simple. While it is certainly true that the manuscript is more Byzantine than anything else, it has a number of noteworthy readings not of that type. Wisse, for instance, finds it to be mixed insofar as it exists, with "some relationship to Group B."
Von Soden isn't much help in this matter; he classified X as Io. However, the members of this group, according to Wisse, are a rather mixed lot: U (Kmix/Kx; close to 977 1006), 213 (Mix), 443 (M159), 1071 (Mix; "some relationship to Group B"), 1321(part) 1574 (Mix) 2145 (M1195/Kx). Still, a handful of striking readings will show that X is at least occasionally linked with the Alexandrian text, especially with the B branch:
B X f13 157 579 1216 sin sur sa arm omit "the signs of the times"; in C D K L
W f1 33 565 700 892 1241 Byz it vg pesh
B (D) X 33 700 1241 hark; P75 A L W f1 f13 565 579
892 Byz a b c e f ff2 q r1 sin cur pesh sa bo arm geo omit
Avid
B Cvid L N T W X 33 157 565 1241 al; in D F G H K M U S Byz
B L W X 0218 a aur c
e r1 sa; add o
teqnhkws P66 A D K f1 f13 33 565 700
892 1241 Byz b d f ff2 vg geo arm goth
* B C* D L W X
f1 1071 al; in A K f13 33 565 700 892 Byz
B C* L Q W X 33
579 1071 a bo; P66* A D E K N f1 f13 565 700
892 1241 Byz kai thn odon oidate
It appears that the largest fraction of X's Alexandrian readings is in John; this may explain why the Alands (who did not examine John) classified it as Byzantine.
von Soden: A3
Collations:
Sample Plates:
Editions which cite:
Cited by Tischendorf, who also collated it.
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover.
Cited in UBS3 but deleted in UBS4
Other Works:
Codex Dublinensis Rescriptus. Dublin, Trinity College K.3.4. Von Soden's
e26.
Palimpsest, containing portions of Matthew (Matt. 1:17-2:6, 2:13-20,
4:4-13, 5:45-6:15, 7:16-8:6, 10:40-11:18, 12:43-13:11, 13:57-14:19,
15:13-23, 17:9-17, 17:26-18:6, 19:4-12, 19:21-28, 20:7-21:8, 21:23-30,
22:16-25, 22:37-23:3, 23:15-23, 24:15-25, 25:1-11, 26:21-29, 26:62-71).
The upper writing is a cursive, no earlier than the tenth century,
consisting of works of various church fathers. Of the original 120 or
so leaves, fourteen double leaves and four half-leaves survive.
Dated paleographically to the sixth or possibly fifth century. Written
in a large, attractive, and very precise uncial, with the Ammonian
Sections but seemingly no Eusebian canons. It has spaces at key points,
but very little punctuation, and no breathings or accents. Quotations
are indicated with the > symbol.
Assessments of its text have universally rated it highly; Von Soden
lists it as H (Alexandrian) and the Alands show it as
Category III. The text is
in fact very close to ,
and may be regarded as that manuscript's closest ally.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. T. infr. 1.1. Codex Tischendorfianus III. Von Soden's e77. Dated paleographically to the ninth century (although Scrivener allows the bare possibility of the eighth century). It is a curious manuscript, containing only Luke and John in uncials. The gospels of Matthew and Mark were written in minuscules; this half of the manuscript is numbered 566 (von Soden's e77) and located in Saint Petersburg. It has the Eusebian apparatus and a few comments in the margins. It is also noteworthy for having the "Jerusalem Colophon" after all four gospels. Textually, Von Soden listed it as Ir; other members of this group include 262 (which also has the colophon) 545(part) 1187 1555 1573. Wisse lists it as a member of his Group L (though with some "surplus"); this is his equivalent of Soden's Ir. Other members of the group, according to Wisse, include 161 164 166 173(part) 174 199 211 230 262 709 710(part) 899 1187 1205 1301(part) 1502(part) 1555 1573(part) 2465 2585(part) 2586 2725(part). Wisse notes that the group is fairly close to Kx, falling between This is confirmed by the Alands, who place it in Category V (Byzantine).
(Xi, 040)Cambridge, University Library, British and Foreign Bible Society MS. 24.
Codex Zacynthius. Von Soden's A1.
Palimpsest, with the upper writing being the lectionary
299 (thirteenth
century). Presumably originally contained the entire Gospel of Luke with
a catena (probably the oldest catena surviving, and the only one with
both text and commentary in uncial script; nine Fathers are thought to have
been quoted.), but the remaining leaves
contain only Luke 1:1-9, 1:19-23, 1:27-28, 1:30-32, 1:36-60, 1:77-2:19,
2:21-22, 2:33-3, 3:5-8, 3:11-20, 4:1-2, 4:6-20, 4:32-43, 5:17-36, 6:21-7:6,
7:11-37, 7:39-47, 8:4-21, 8:25-35, 8:43-50, 9:1-28, 9:32-33, 9:35,
9:41-10:18, 10:18,10:21-40, 11:1-4, 11:24-33 (86 full leaves and three
partial leaves, originally quite large in size). Dated by W. P. Hatch and the Alands to the
sixth century, but Scrivener argues that the writing in the catena (which
is interwoven with the text, and clearly contemporary, in a hand so small
as to be all but illegible since its erasure) belongs
to the eight century, and other authorities such as Greenlee have tended toward the later
rather than the earlier date (though the absence of accents and breathings
inclines us against too late a date). Textually,
clearly has Alexandrian influence, probably of a late sort (indeed, it appears
to be closer to L than any other manuscript). Wisse lists it as being Kx
in Luke 1 and Group B (Alexandrian) in Luke 10, but this probably does not indicate
block mixture so much as sporadic Byzantine correction. As a catena, Von Soden
does not really indicate a text-type (listing it simply as one of the witnesses to
Titus of Bostra's commentary), but the Alands assign it to
Category III. Perhaps even more interesting
than the text, however, is the system of chapter division, for
uses the unusual scheme of divisions
found in Codex Vaticanus (B), though it also has the usual
system of titloi.
This serves as additional reason to believe that the text is basically Alexandrian.
First edited by Tregelles in 1861, the text has been re-edited as recently as 1957
(by Greenlee), but probably is due for another examination with the most modern technology.
Tirana, Staatsarchiv Nr. 1. Formerly at Berat, hence the name Codex Beratinus. Von Soden's e17. Dated paleographically to fifth (Scrivener) or sixth (Aland) century (Scrivener reports that it "may probably be placed at the end of the fifth century, a little before the Dioscorides (506 A.D.), and before the Codex Rossanensis." No supporting evidence is offered for this.) Purple parchment. Contains portions of the gospels of Matthew and Mark (the loss of Luke and John may be traced to "the Franks of Champagne."). Matt. 1:1-6:3, 7"26-8:7, 18:23-19:3, and Mark 14:62-end are lacking. Textually, Von Soden classified F as Ip, that is, as part of the group which also contains N O S. This assessment has been all but universally accepted, though assessments of the text of the group itself have varied. The Alands place all four manuscripts of the group (the Purple Uncials) in Category V, and it is certain that they are more Byzantine than anything else. Streeter, however, felt that the group had a "Cæsarean" element (for discussion, see the entry on N), which accords with Von Soden's view that they were members of the I text. Samples do not indicate a clear affiliation with any text other than the Byzantine (it should be noted, however, that their defects have kept the profile method from being applied to any of these manuscripts). Of the four, F is generally regarded as being the most unique -- though this may be based primarily on a single reading, the "Western" addition in Matthew 20:28 about seeking what is greater (shared by D a b c d e ff1 ff2 hubmarg ox theo cur harkmarg?). Scrivener describes the writing as follows: " The pages have the kefalaia marked at the top, and the sections and canons in writing of the eighth century at the side. The letters are in silver, very regular, and clearly written. None are in gold, except the title and the first line in St. Mark, and the words Pathr, Ihsous, and some others in the first six folios. There is no ornamentation, but the first letters of the paragraphs are twice as large as the other letters. The letters have no decoration, except a cross in the middle of the initials O's. The writing is continuous in full line without stichometry. Quotations from the Old Testament are marked with a kind of inverted comma. There are no breathings.... Punctuation is made only with the single comma or double comma... or else with a vacant space, or by passing to the next line.... Abbreviations are of the most ancient kind." Edited by P. Batiffol in 1887.
Mount Athos, where it has been as long as it has been known. Catalog number: Athos Laura B' 52
Y originally contained the entire New Testament except the Apocalypse. All of Matthew, as well as Mark 1:1-9:5, have been lost; in addition, the leaf containing Hebrews 8:11-9:19 is lost. The Catholic Epistles have 1 and 2 Peter before James. Y is written on parchment, 1 column per page. It has been furnished with neumes -- one of the oldest manuscripts to have musical markings.
Usually dated paleographically to the eighth/ninth centuries; the latest editions (e.g. NA27) date it to the ninth/tenth centuries.
Y has an unusually mixed text. Aland and Aland list it as Category III in the Gospels, Acts, and Paul, and Category II in the Catholic Epistles. Von Soden lists it as generally Alexandrian.
In fact the situation is even more complicated than this. In Mark the manuscript is distinctly Alexandrian, of the sort of late, mixed cast we see, e.g., in L; like L, it has the double Markan ending. In Luke the manuscript loses almost all traces of Alexandrian influence and becomes predominantly Byzantine. In John the manuscript is mixed -- more Byzantine than anything else, but with significant numbers of Alexandrian readings.
In Acts Y is largely Byzantine.
In Paul Y is more Byzantine than anything else (it is perhaps the earliest substantial witness to that type), although there are certain Alexandrian readings (which seem to bear a certain similarity to those of P). The Alexandrian element seems to be slightly greater in the later books.
In the Catholics Y is again mostly Alexandrian, though with Byzantine influence. The text seems to be of the type found in A 33 81 436.
von Soden: d6
Collations:
Sample Plates:
Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (1 page)
Editions which cite:
Cited in all editions since von Soden.
Other Works:
Kirsopp Lake, "Texts from Mount Athos," Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica V
(Oxford, 1903), pp. 89-185 discusses this manuscript in some depth
Rome, Vatican Library Greek 2066. Soden's a1070; Tischendorf/Scrivener B(r). Contains the Apocalypse complete, along with much other non-Biblical matter (the Biblical text occupies folios 259-278) including homilies of Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa. It has been variously dated; Scrivener favours the eighth century, Aland the tenth. The text is of the Byzantine type (so von Soden, who listed it as K, and all experts since); 046 is the earliest manuscript of the main Byzantine group ("a"). The Alands therefore classify it as Category V, though early manuscripts of the Apocalypse are so rare that even a Byzantine uncial deserves some attention. Scrivener describes the writing thus: "the uncials being of a peculiar kind, leaning a little to the right; they hold a sort of middle place between square and oblong characters.... The breathings and accents are primâ manu, and pretty correct..." while the punctuation is fairly well evolved.
Princeton, New Jersey, University Library Med. and Ren. Mss. Garrett 1. Soden's
e95;
original Gregory 
.
Contains the Gospels with some mutilations (in Matt. 2-3, 28, Mark 5-6, 8-9, John 12, 14,
and breaking off in John 17). Dated paleographically to the eighth or perhaps the
ninth century. Textually of no great interest; von Soden places it in I' (with
such diverse manuscripts as P Q R
G 064 074 079 090 0106 0116 0130 0131
4 162 251 273 440 472 485 495 660 998 1047 1093 1295 1355 1396 1604 2430),
but the Alands simply list it as
Category V (Byzantine), and Wisse corroborates
this by placing it in Kx throughout.
What interest 047 has is, therefore, derived from its format, for the manuscript
is written in the form of a cross (photo in Aland & Aland and in Metzger,
Manuscripts of the Greek Bible). It is believed that this is the only
continuous-text cruciform manuscript (the lectionaries
233 and
1635 are
also cruciform, and
2135
has some cruciform pages). This format has many drawbacks; it is very wasteful of
writing materials (047 has about 37-38 lines per page; of these typically ten
reach the full width of the page, with about twelve lines above and fifteen below
being slightly less than half the available width. Thus about three-eights of
the usable area of the page is blank), and the format makes it harder to use
the marginalia. These are no doubt among the reason the format is so rarely encountered.
The manuscript has some marginal corrections (including, e.g., one obelizing
John 5:4).
Rome, Vatican Library Greek 2061. Soden's
a1;
Tischendorf/Scrivener
(ap).
Double palimpsest (i.e. the biblical text has been overwritten twice), resulting
in a manuscript very difficult to read even on the leaves which survive (and
the leaves which survive are few -- only 21 of what are believed to have been
originally 316 folios. They constitute folios 198-199, 221-222, 229-230,
293-303, 305-308 of Vatical Gr. 2061). These surviving leaves contain
(according to NA27; other sources give slightly different
contents, no doubt based partly on the illegibility of the manuscript)
Acts 26:6-27:4, 28:3-31; James 4:14-5:20; 1 Pet. 1:1-12; 2 Pet. 2:2-4-8, 2:13-3:15;
1 John 4:6-5:13, 5:17-18, 5:21; 2 John; 3 John; Romans 13:4-15:9;
1 Cor. 2:1-3:11, 3:22, 4:4-6, 5:5-11, 6:3-11, 12:23-15:17, 15:20-27;
2 Cor. 4:7-6:8, 8:9-18, 8:21-10:6; Eph. 5:8-end;
Phil. 1:8-23, 2:1-4, 2:6-8; Col. 1:202:8, 2:11-14, 2:22-23, 3:7-8, 3:12-4:18;
1 Th. 1:1, 1:5-6, 1 Tim. 5:6-6:17, 6:20-21, 2 Tim. 1:4-6, 1:8, 2:2-25;
Titus 3:13-end; Philemon; Heb. 11:32-13:4.
The hand is dated paleographically to the fifth century. The manuscript is one
of the very few to be written with three columns er page. Due to the small amount
of text, the manuscript's type has not been clearly identified. The Alands
classify it as Category II, which is probably
about right, but this is on the basis of a mere 44 readings in Paul. Von Soden
did not classify it at all. Observation shows that it is clearly not Byzantine;
the strongest element is probably Alexandrian, though some of the readings
may be "Western."
Paris, National Library Gr. 201. Tischendorf/Scrivener 309e. Dated paleographically to the very end of the uncial period (e.g. Aland lists XI; Scrivener says X-XII). Despite being numbered among the uncials, it is not a true manuscript, containing rather a commentary with partial text (Chrysostom on Matthew and John, Victor on Mark, Titus of Bostra on Luke). Thus it has not been subjected to textual analysis; Von Soden does not even include it in his catalog (despite listing manuscripts of his A type with even less text), the Alands do not place it in a Category, and Wisse did not profile it. Such minimal evidence as is available indicates, however, that the text is Byzantine. The writing itself, as might be expected of a semi-uncial manuscript variously listed as an uncial and a minuscule, is reported as "very peculiar in its style and beautifully written."
Paris, National Library Coislin Gr. 26. Soden's O7; Tischendorf/Scrivener 16a, 19p. Contains the Acts and Epistles complete. Dated paleographically to the tenth century or even after (Scrivener lists the eleventh century). Commentary manuscript. The commentary is described by Scrivener as "like" that of (the pseudo-)Oecumenius, and of course Soden lists 056 among the Oecumenius manuscripts. The manuscript also includes, according to Scrivener, "a catena of various fathers [and] a life of St. Longinus on two leaves [ix]." Textually, 056 has been little studied; Soden simply listed it as having the Oecumenius text. The Alands correctly place it in Category V (Byzantine). This is elaborated somewhat by Wachtel, who lists it among the manuscripts which are 10-20% non-Byzantine in the Catholic Epistles, pairing it with 0142 (also an Oecumenius manuscript, Soden's O6) and 1066 (another Oecumenius text, though this one exists only in the Acts and Catholic Epistles; Soden's Opr21. That 056 also goes with 0142 in Paul and the Acts is easily demonstrated; indeed, they seem to be closer than we would expect even of Oecumenius texts, and probably go back to a recent common exemplar. In Acts, for instance, the two agree in 184 of 189 test readings (the readings of UBS3 for which both exist, including the subsingular reading epi (056 0142 pesh) in Acts 28:14. (For comparison, 056 agrees with other Byzantine witnesses as follows: L, 127 of 141; P, 172 of 183; 049, 174 of 190, 1241, 170 of 187.) Their five differences in the test readings in Acts are as follows:
| Reading | Text and Supporters of 056 | Text and Supporters of 0142 |
| Acts 5:16 | eis Ierousalhm D E P Byz | Ierousalhm
P74
A B 0189 a gig vg
|
| Acts 10:5 | os
E P 33 Byz
| tina os P74 A B C 81 1739 a vg |
| Acts 11:9 | apekriqh de fwnh ek deuterou ek tou ouranou
P45 P74
A 049 81 1739 gig vg
| apekriqh de moi fwnh ek tou ouranou (singular reading, probably a parablepsis for the reading apekriqh de moi fwnh ek deuterou ek tou ouranou of P Byz) |
| Acts 13:42 | parekaloun ta eqnh eis to P Byz | parekaloun eis to
P74
A C (D) 33 81 1739 al
|
| Acts 27:5 | kathlqomen P74
A B P 33 81 1739
Byz gig
| kathlqomen di emerwn dekapente (singular reading, probably derived from the kathlqomen di dekapente emerwn of 614 1518 2138 2147 2412 a h hark**) |
0121: London. British Museum Harley 5613.
0243 (Corinthian portion): Venice. San Marco Library 983 (II 181)
0243 (Hebrews portion): Hamburg. Univ. Libr. Cod. 50 in scrin.
0121 contains 1 Cor. 15:42-end, 2 Cor. 1:1-15, 10:13-12:5
0243 contains 1 Cor. 13:4-end and all of 2 Cor.; Heb. 1:2-4:3, 12:20-end.
Date/ScribeBoth generally dated to the tenth century (so, e.g. NA27). G. Zuntz, however (The Text of the Epistles, London, 1953, pp. 74, 286-287) states that 0121 "is by no means an 'uncial': its letters are the kind of majuscule which scribes of the tenth and later centuries often used to distinguish marginal scholia from the text. In M [=0121] these majuscules contain a significant admixture of minuscule forms.... I should ascribe M to the twelfth century." (See facsimile at right.) Both are written in red ink on parchment, two columns per page. |
Facsimile of 2 Cor. 1:3-5 in 0121. Colors are exaggerated and manuscript is enlarged. The unaccented text reads PARAKLHSEWS . O PARAKALWN HMAS EPI PASH THI QLIYEI . EIS TO DUNASQAI HMAS PARAKALEIN TOUS EN PASH QLIYEI DIA THS PA RAKLHSEWS HS PAREKALOUME QA AUTOI UPO TOU QU. OTI KAQWS |
Before we can describe these manuscripts, we must describe their recent history. When first two portions of the manuscript (what we now call 0121 and the Hebrews portion of 0243) were discovered, it was observed that both were of about the same date, that both were in red ink, that they had similar texts, and that both were in two columns on parchment. It was naturally assumed that they were the same. In Tischendorf, the fragments were referred to as M. In the Gregory catalog, this became 0121. Then Birdsall observed that the two were in distinct hands. So the Corinthian portion became 0121a and the Hebrews portion 0121b. They were cited in this way in NA26.
At about the same time Birdsall discovered that the two were separate, the larger (Corinthian) portion of 0243 came to light. Some time later, it was realized that this was the same as 0121b. So 0121b was renumbered 0243 and 0121a became 0121.
If this is confusing, maybe this table will help:
| Contents | Tischendorf Symbol | Gregory Symbol | NA26 symbol | NA27 symbol |
| 1 Cor. 15:42-end, 2 Cor. 1:1-15, 10:13-12:5 | M | 0121 | 0121a | 0121 |
| Heb. 1:2-4:3, 12:20-end | M | 0121 | 0121b | 0243 |
| 1 Cor. 13:4-end and all of 2 Cor. | - | - | 0243 | 0243 |
In all this shuffling, one thing remains certain: Both manuscripts are closely affiliated with 1739. 0243 is a probably a first cousin (perhaps even a sister); 0121 is a cousin or descendant.
Several striking examples of agreements between 0243 and 1739 may be cited. Perhaps the most noteworthy is Hebrews 2:9, where 0243, 1739*, and perhaps 424**, alone among Greek manuscripts, read CWRIS QEOU instead of the majority reading CARITI QEOU.
The reader who wishes further details, including a comparison of the readings of 0121 and 1739, is referred to the entry on 1739 and family 1739.
Von Soden lists 0121 as H. Aland and Aland list 0121a as Category III and the Corinthian portion of 0243 as Category II (its sister 1739 is, however, a Category I). 0121b is still in their list, and is Category III (!).
For 0121: von Soden: a1031. Tischendorf: Mp
Bibliography
J.N. Birdsall, A Study of MS. 1739 and its Relationship to MSS.
6, 424, 1908, and M (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 1959)
Collations:
A collation of the Hebrews portion of
0243 is available here.
Sample Plates:
Editions which cite:
Cited in NA26 as 0121a, 0121b, and 0243.
Cited in UBS3 as 0121a, 0121b, and 0243.
Cited in NA27 as 0121 and 0243.
Cited in UBS4 as 0121 and 0243.
Von Soden, Merk, and Bover cite the "M" portions.
Other Works:
Saint Petersburg, Russian Pubic Library Greek 32. Soden's a1030; Tischendorf/Scrivener N(p); Hort's Od Two folios containing small fragments of Paul: Gal. 5:12-6:4, Heb. 5:8-6:10. Dated paleographically to the ninth century. Textually, the Alands have assigned it to Category III, but Von Soden listed it as K (purely Byzantine), and the latter assessment seems to be correct. An examination of its readings in Galatians reveals the following departures from the Byzantine text:
| Verse | Byzantine reading | 0122(*) reads | comment |
| 5:12 | anastatountes | 0122* anastantountes | singular; probable copying error at some stage |
| 5:14 | eauton | 0122* seauton | Byzantine text divided |
| 5:17 | a an | 0122* a ean | also found in A pc
|
| 5:22 | de | 0122c omits | singular reading |
| 5:23 | egkrateia | 0122c egkrateeia upomonh | Singular reading |
| 5:24 | Ihsou Cristou | 01221 Cristou Ihsou | 0122*, 01222 with the Byzantine text |
| 6:1 | prolhfqh | 0122c proslhfqh | singular reading |
| 6:3 | ti | 0122c omits | subsingular, found also in B* 075c |
It will thus be observed that all deviations from the Byzantine text are relatively trivial and generally poorly supported. I have not examined the portion in Hebrews in detail, but the Nestle apparatus makes it appear that 0122 is equally Byzantine there. It will be observed that the manuscript has been fairly heavily corrected (observe the double correction in Gal. 5:24), but the corrections have no more significance than the original text; indeed, in this admittedly tiny sample they seem simply to be more idiosyncratic.
New Haven, Yale University Library P. Dura 10. 0212
is not technically a New Testament manuscript; rather, it
is a fragment of a gospel harmony. It was discovered in
the ruins of Dura Europus in 1933. Since Dura was a
Roman fortress town sacked by Shapur I of Persia in
256/7 C.E., the assumption is that the
manuscript was written in the first half of the third
century, though an earlier date cannot be excluded.
The fragment was found in an earth embankment believed
to have been built for the final defense of the town. It
was fairly close to a small Christian chapel, but far
enough away that it may have come from some other source.
Physically, the surviving fragment (usually regarded as
only a portion of a leaf, though the edges are sharp and
some seem to have been cut with a knife) measures 10.5 cm by
9.5 cm. It is written on only one side, and may well have
come from a scroll. (The most recent study of the manuscript,
D. C. Parker, D. G. K. Taylor,
M. S. Goodacre, "The Dura-Europos
Gospel Harmony," published in Taylot, Studies in the Early
Text of the Gospels and Acts, concludes that it is
definitely a scroll, not a codex, based on observations of
holes along one edge which seemingly correspond to
stitches.) The surviving column
originally contained about 30-35 letters per line (with
the first five or more letters lost, and with additional
damage to certain of the lines). Portions of fourteen
lines survive. As noted, it is a gospel harmony, containing
phrases seemingly from Matt. 27:56-57, Mark 15:40, 42,
Luke 23:49, 50, 51, John 19:38. (So Kraeling, who
first edited the manuscript; for this transcription,
see e.g. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, p.
66. The reconstruction of Parker, Taylor, and Goodacre,
found in the article cited above, differs in only a few
particulars, though some of the differences are significant).
The manuscript has some unusual orthographic features, including
the Nominum Sacrum
sta --
an abbreviation found nowhere else, with uncertain meaning.
0212 has generally been regarded as a fragment of Tatian's
Diatessaron,
though the small size of the fragment meant that this was
never certain. Parker, Taylor, and Goodacre, upon
detailed examination and comparison with recent studies,
are convinced that the fragment is not Tatianic, but
is a fragment of a separate Gospel harmony (perhaps
devoted solely to the passion narrative), compiled in
Greek from Greek sources.
Since 0212 is not a New Testament fragment, the Alands
did not analyse it, and it is too recent to have been
analysed by Von Soden. It appears to contain a unique
reading in Luke 23:49, referring to the wives of Jesus's
disciples. This text is, however, only partly legible.
See: 0121 and 0243