Manuscript Collation

Contents: Introduction *Samples of Collations *Long and Short Collations *What we learn from collations *Collations in Other Languages *The physical task of collating

Introduction

The manuscript collation is perhaps the most fundamental of all thetool of textual criticism -- the essential source of the data of thediscipline.

The purpose of a collation is to transmit all basic information aboutthe text of a manuscript without publishing the text of the manuscript in full.It does this by comparing a manuscript against a standard printed edition(usually the Textus Receptus) and noting all "significant"differences. The amount of space this can save is tremendous. The collation of 1739by Lake and New, for instance, requires 24 pages to cover all of Paul, when printedin large print. The Nestle-Aland edition, printed in small print, requires 179 pagesfor the same books. Even allowing for the space required for the the critical apparatusof the Nestle text, this is a savings of at least a factor of five. And this for amanuscript with a relatively large number of deviations from the Textus Receptus! AByzantine manuscript of the same books would result in a much shorter collation.

There is, unfortunately, no universally recognized standard method of collation evenfor Greek New Testament manuscripts, let alone for texts of other works.Different transcribers use different base editions, and have different stylesof collation. The problem of base editions is probably beyond solution; theedition generally regarded as standard (the 1873 Oxford edition of theTextus Receptus for the Greek New Testament) has been out of print for a very longtime, and no new standard is emerging. (Latin scholars are slightly better off;the Clementine Vulgate is the sort-of standard.) Some have proposed collatingGreek manuscripts against theUnited Bible Societies text, but thiswould mean that older and newer collations would be based on differenttexts -- a notion unfortunate enough that collations against the TRwill probably continue for the foreseeable future. The TR also has theadvantage of being a relatively Byzantine text, so that it takes relativelylittle space to collate Byzantine manuscripts against it (which also reducesthe effort needed for the collation, which in turn probably reduces thenumber of errors). Ideally, we would like to see an electronic versionof the Oxford edition made available online at no cost, but this does notappear likely at this time.

The form of collations is somewhat more standardized, though notperfectly so. In general, a collation consists of a series of variationsrecorded in the following form: Chapter and verse number, lemma (thetext of the proof edition), and the variant (the text of the manuscript).The text of the lemma and the variant are normally separated by a squarebracket, thus: ]

So, for instance, the first variation in the Nestle-Aland apparatus occursin Matthew 1:3. Here the majority of witnesses, including the Textus Receptus,read Ζαρα. In B, however, we read insteadΖΑΡΕ.So the collation of B against the Textus Receptus would read

1:1 Ζαρα ] ΖΑΡΕ

There are, of course, variations on this; see the section onSamples of Collations. The most common variationinvolves omissions. For instance, in Mark 1:1, 28 (and several other manuscripts)omit the wordsυιου θεου.This may be noted in several ways, e.g.

1:1 υιου θεου ] OM. (the standardway), or
1:1 OM. υιου θεου

It is also quite common to see changes in word order marked ~. Ideally (toprevent ambiguity) both the word order of the collation base and the readingof the manuscript should be noted. You may also see "+" or "add"for additions to the text and "-" for omissions.

If a manuscript has been corrected, these readings should be noted. The readingof the original hand should, of course, be marked with the asterisk (*). If thereare multiple correctors, care should be taken to distinguish them. Some collationswill include readings of the correctors in the body of the collation; others addthem as comments. Which is more effective may depend on the frequency and natureof the corrections.

Editors disagree about the exact amount of detail to be recorded in acollation. Some, e.g., would include variations involving nu movable, while others would omitit. Most would exclude punctuation, since this is known not to be original.Itacisms are also frequently excluded (although if they are very frequent, it shouldprobably be noted in a comment on the collation). The use of NominaSacra normally is not noted unless an abnormal form is used or in some wayit affects the interpretation. But there are no hard and fast rules --except two: First, a collation should announce what features it does anddoes not include, and second, if a reading may or may not have textualsignificance (e.g. in the case of an itacism), it must be noted. To put it anotherway: When in doubt, note the variant.

In general, one should try to collate "whole variants" -- that is,if two consecutive words form a logical entity, one should record changes toboth together, but if they are unrelated, treat them as two different variants.

Another difficulty arises with damaged texts. One needs a way to indicateboth completely illegible letters (e.g. where there is a hole in thepage containing a whole letter) and partially legible letters. Thenotation for the former is usually a dot (e.g."Λ . ΓΕΙ"indicates a λ followed by a defect large enough for one letter, thenγει If the defect islarge enough for two letters, one uses two dots, etc (e.g."Λ . ΓΕΙ" isΛΕΓΕΙ with one lettermissing, while "Λ . . ΕΙ"would be the same word with a gap of two letters, etc.). Gaps of more thana few letters are often marked in the margin (e.g. if a manuscript weredefective for the first verse of John's gospel, we would say somethinglike "N.B. MS. defective for "εν... ην oλογος").

A notation is also needed for a partially legible letter (and such are common; supposea page has lost a margin, and the last thing at the edge of the page is a verticalstroke |. Depending on how the scribe wrote, this could be a portion ofany number of letters, e.g. Γ Η Ι Κ Μ Ν Π Ρ. Thestandard notation in such cases has been for the collator to guess what theletter probably was, then mark it with a dot below the letter. As this isdifficult to do in electronic formats, other solutions have been devised,such as placing the letter in parenthesis or in some sort of symbolicnotation (the COLLATE program uses a tag pair, [ut]...[/ut]). This shouldbe made clear in the introduction to the collation. (And it should be repeatedthat this information must be provided. Printing a reconstructed textwithout noting this fact is purely inexcusable. Indeed, if there is anyreal doubt about the letter in the manuscript, and multiple readings arepossible, these should probably be noted in the margin.)

A good collation should probably also be prefaced by information about themanuscript -- e.g. a list of lacunae (even though these will also be noted inthe body of the collations), characteristics of the scribe, description ofnon-Biblical materials included in the volume. This information may not beof significance for the text, but it may well indicate something about thehistory of the volume -- which, in turn, may provide clues about the text inthe book.

It is possible to collate multiple manuscripts in one collation -- indeed,very many collations follow this format, as it saves space. One simply notes whichmanuscripts have which readings by listing them after the variant. So, forexample, the first few lines of Clark's collations of 223, 876, 1022, 1799, 1960,2401, 2412, and 2423 in 1 Thessalonians reads:

1:1 θεσσαλονικαιων 223, θεσσαλονικεων1022     θεω + και 876

1:5 υμας(1) ] ημας1960     -εν (3) 1022 2423**

Thus we see that, in 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 223 and 1022 have various misspellings forθεσσαλονικεων;the other manuscripts (876, 1960, 2401, 2412, and 2423; 1799 is defective here) agreewith the reading of the Textus Receptus. Later in the verse, 876 hasθεω και πατρι for theθεω πατρι of the other manuscriptsand the TR. From there on, all the manuscripts agree with the TR until 1:5, where1960 reads εις ημας for the ειω υμας of the other manuscripts andthe TR. Finally, where most of the manuscripts readκαι εν πνευματι αγιου, 1022 and the corrector of 2423 omit εν.

Beyond this, the only way to get a feeling for collations is to work withthem. The following samples provide a very brief introduction to this process....

Samples of Collations

The table below shows several samples of collations, all taken directly from publishedand relatively widely available editions of manuscripts. The first column of the tableshows the text of Ephesians 1:1-6 as found in the Textus Receptus. The next threecolumns show the texts of manuscripts 330, 1739, and 1799 (taken, respectively,from the collations published by Davies, Lake and New, and Clark). The differencesfrom the TR text are shown in bold (with omissions being marked [--], in orderto make the omissions obvious). This is followed by the actual text of the collations(sometimes with some extraneous material about other manuscripts removed), so thatthe reader can see how each of these three collators approached their task. (Ofthe three, the collation of 330 by Davies is much the most idiosyncratic.)

TR33017391799
Eph. 11 Παυλος αποστολος Ιησου Χριστου δια θεληματος θεου, τοις αγιοις τοις ουσιν εν Εφεσωκαι πιστοις εν Χριστου Ιησου • 2  χαρις υμιν καιειρηνη απο θεου πατρος ημων και κυριου Ιησου Χριστου.Eph. 11 Παυλος αποστολος Χριστου Ιησου δια θεληματος θεου, τοις αγιοις τοις ουσιν εν Εφεσωκαι πιστοις εν Χριστου [--] 2  χαρις υμιν καιειρηνη απο θεου πατρος ημων και κυριου Ιησου Χριστου.Εph. 11 Παυλοσαποστολος Ιησου Χριστου δια θεληματος θεου, τοις αγιοις τοις ουσιν [--]και πιστοις εν Χριστου Ιησου. 2 [--]Eph. 11 Παυλοςαποστολος Ιησου χριστου δια θεληματος θεου, τοις αγιοις τοις ουσιν εν Εφεσω καιπιστοις εν χριστοω Ιησου. 2 χαριςυμιν και ειρηνη απο θεου πατρος ημων και κυριου Ιησου χριστου.
3 Ευλογητος ο θεος καιπατηρ του κυριου ημων Ιησου Χριστου, ο ευλογησας ημας εν παση ευλογια πνευματικηεν τοις επουρανιοις χριστω, 4 καθωςεξελεξατο ημας εν αυτ προ καταβολης κοσμου, ειναι ημας αγιους και αμωμους κατενωπιον αυτουεν αγαπη, 5 προορισαςημας εις υιοθεσιαν δει Ιησου χριστου εις αυτον, κατα την ευδοκιαν τουθεληματος αυτου 6 ειςεπαινον δοξης της χαριτος αυτου, εν η εχαριτωσεν ημας εν τω ηγαπημενω....3 Ευλογητος ο θεος καιπατηρ του κυριου ημων Ιησου Χριστου, ο ευλογησας ημας εν παση ευλογια πνευματικηεν τοις επουρανιοις χριστω, 4 καθωςεξελεξατο ημας εν αυτ προ καταβολης κοσμου, ειναι ημας αγιους και αμωμους κατενωπιον αυτουεν αγαπη, 5 προορισαςημας εις υιοθεσιαν δει Ιησου χριστου εις αυτον, κατα την ευδοκιαν τουθεληματος αυτου 6 ειςεπαινον δοξης της χαριτος αυτου, ης εχαριτωσεν ημας εν τω ηγαπημενω υιωαυτου....3 Ευλογητος ο θεος καιπατηρ του κυριου ημων Ιησου Χριστου, ο ευλογησας ημας εν παση ευλογια πνευματικηεν τοις επουρανιοις εν χριστω, 4 καθωςεξελεξατο ημας εν αυτ προ καταβολης κοσμου, ειναι ημας αγιους και αμωμους κατενωπιον αυτουεν αγαπη, 5 προορισαςημας εις υιοθεσιαν δει Ιησου χριστου εις αυτον, κατα την ευδοκιαν τουθεληματος αυτου 6 ειςεπαινον δοξης της χαριτος αυτου, ης εχαριτωσεν ημας εν τω ηγαπημενω....3 αδελφοι ευλογητος ο θεος καιπατηρ του κυριου ημων Ιησου Χριστου, ο ευλογησας ημας εν παση ευλογια πνευματικηεν τοις επουρανιοις χριστω, 4 καθωςεξελεξατο ημας εν αυτ προ καταβολης κοσμου, ειναι ημας αγιους και αμωμους κατενωπιον αυτουεν αγαπη, 5 προορισαςημας εις υιοθεσιαν δει Ιησου χριστου εις αυτον, κατα την ευδοκιαν τουθεληματος αυτου 6 [--]εν η εχαριτωσεν ημας εν τω ηγαπημενω....

Davies's collation of 330 (without the collations of 436, 462, 2344):
1. ~ χριστου α. ιησου.
   OM. ιησου2.
6. ης / εν η.
   + υιω αυτου ρ. ηγαπμενω
N.B.: In this collation, / replaces ] and lemma appears after rather than before the slash. (This takes a great deal of getting used to!) Also, the abbreviation α. is used for "before" ρ. stands for "after." The symbol "~" is used here (as often elsewhere) for a change in word order.

Lake and New's collation of 1739:
i.1. om εν εφεσω
  2 om χαρις .... χριστου
  3 χριστω praem εν
  6 εν η ] ης
N.B.: The notation praem means "add before the lemma" or "is prefixed by." Similar Latin notations may be encountered elsewhere.

Clark's collation of 1799:
3. +αδελφοι [ ευλογητος
6 - εις επαινον δοξης της χαριτος αυτου
N.B.: This collation uses both [ and ]. [ indicates an insertion before the word listed in the lemma. Note also the use of + to indicate an addition and - for an omission

For a fuller sample of a collation, one is invited to examine the author's owncollation (or, rather, a collation I combined from various sources)of 0243 and fourteen other manuscripts ofHebrews (in Adobe Acrobat form; you must have Acrobat or the Acrobat plug-into read).

Long and Short Collations

The descriptions above are of simple text collations. That is, all they containis the comparison of two sources (usually a manuscript and a printed text). Thiswe might label a short collation.

To fully describe a manuscript calls for some additional information --data about the form of the manuscript, in addition to its textual content.Montague Rhodes James, who did an amazing job of cataloging most of themanuscripts in Cambridge University, its colleges, and some other libraries,lists the following information which should also be supplied:

  1. Material -- i.e. papyrus, parchment, paper, or a mixture. It is alsoworth noting the arrangement of the material. Paper and parchment, if mixedat all, were generally mixed in a regular pattern, and parchment, if usedthroughout, will usually be arranged so hair side faces hair side and fleshfaces flesh. If there is a disruption of this pattern, it may indicate missingmaterial.
    If the material is paper, and the paper is recent enough to have watermarks(rare but not unknown for NT manuscripts), the watermarks should be listed, asthey are indications of date and provenance. Note that every page needs to bechecked for watermarks, as the paper may well come from different lots.
  2. Description of the page -- the size (height and width), the manner of ruling,and the number of lines per page. Also the method used for ruling: a dry point(which leaves grooves but no marks) or a plummet, which leaves a faint brown line.
  3. Binding -- both the modern binding and any indications of an earlier binding(e.g. if a book was once chained, but is so no longer, there will likely be tracesof rust on the outer pages. If a book has been rebound and trimmed, marginal materialmay be cut off).
  4. Number of (surviving) leaves. Also, if the leaves are numbered, the number whichappear to have been initially present.
  5. Arrangement of quires. Although most books use a four-sheet standard (meaningeach quire has eight leaves of 16 sheets), it is the opinion of James that themajority of books have at least some irregularity -- leaves cut out, or an extraleaf inserted into a quire at some point other than the middle. In counting the sizeof quires, the first thing to look for is of course the string used to bind the quiresinto a volume. There may also be catch phrases in the extreme margin, showing the lastword on the page and/or the first on the next page, to help the binder organize thequires -- but these are often cut off after binding, so they are not to be reliedupon.
    The standard notation for a quire of a given length is xn, where xis a letter denoting the quire, and n is the number of leaves (not pages or sheets)in the quire. So a description a8b6 means that we have a codexwhich now has two quires, the first of eight leaves (four sheets) and the second ofsix leaves (three sheets). If a quire is described as "(wants n)," it meansthat leaf n has gone; if it has afterward "(+n* text)" it means thata leaf has been added after leaf m.
    So here might be a typical example of this sort of collation:
    a8(wants 1) b8 c8 d8(wants 3)e8(+6* εαν) f4
    The above means that we have a codex of six quires, the first five of which (numbereda, b, c, d, e) originally had had eight leaves (four sheets, 16 pages) and the last ofwhich (f) had four leaves (2 sheets, 8 pages). The first quire has lost its first leaf(not a rare occurrence). In other words, it has lost pages 1 and 2.Quires b and c are intact. Quire d has lost its third leaf -- in other words, the fifthand sixth pages of this quire (which would be pages 53 and 54 of the manuscript as awhole). The fifth quire, e, also originally had eight sheets, but after the sixthsheet, an additional leaf has been inserted, which begins with the wordεαν. The final quire, f, is apparently intact but has only four leaves(two sheets). Thus the total manuscript started with 44 leaves (22 sheets, 88 pages),but two leaves have been lost and one additional leaf added.
  6. History. Any indications of ownership or past location. This of course includesscribal colophons -- but also information in the binding or leaves at the front. Manyowners will have written at least their name in the manuscript, often with a date andperhaps a place. These will generally be reliable (unlike colophons, which may befake), and will give a latest possible date for a manuscript, as well as perhapshinting at the place where the manuscript was written. It is suggested that all suchinformation be recorded even if it does not appear to have much use; later scholars mighthave access to historical data the collator does not.
  7. Contents. Although some manuscripts contain nothing more than the Gospels orEpistles or whatnot, most will contain at least some additional material -- prologues,Eusebian tables, something. All such elements should be listed even if they are notcollated.
  8. Illustrations. To truly catalog the illustrations in a manuscript requires aspecialist, but some information should be given: The dimensions of the illustration(not necessarily in inches or centimeters, but as a fraction of the page -- e.g.full width, half height). The general subject of the illustration should be describedif it can be determined, as well as characters in the picture and their clothing.Also, many illustrations will have some sort of background(white, red and white squares, blue and green lozenges). This is often characteristicof a particular school, and should be mentioned. If any lettering is found in theillustration, it should be noted.
    In New Testament manuscripts, the most common illustrations are of course of theEvangelists. But several things should still be noted -- e.g. whether they are shownin company with their symbolic representations (man, ox, lion, eagle), whether theyare shown in contemporary garb or in what a scribe might think was Palestinian clothing,how they are writing (sitting or standing, at a desk or somewhere else), and whetherthey are alone or in company (e.g. since John is sometimes said to have dictatedhis gospel to Prochorus, it is not unusual to see him alongside another person).It seems to me in addition that halos are more common in late illustrations than early,although I have not tested this formally.
    Non-Biblical manuscripts have a greater variety of illustrations -- e.g. ouronly illustrations of Chaucer are in Chaucerian manuscripts, but generally he doesnot take up the whole width of the page; the image is shown in a sort of a sidebar,perhaps with the poet pointing to a particularly interesting passage. Informationabout non-stereotyped illustrations of this sort can be particularly helpful.

In addition, in describing a printed book, one should supply a completedescription of the title page -- ideally including a photograph, but it shouldalso include a complete version of the text, with formatting descriptions,to allow electronic searching. This is because it was not uncommon to see abook printed by one printer but published by several publishers, with no changesexcept to the title page. To properly sort through the editions, proper titlepage data is vital.

Description of the binding is also important. Sadly, many important volumeshave lost their original bindings and even had their pages trimmed by re-binders,but if an ancient binding survives, it should be described in detail (includingmaterial (both type, such as leather, and source, such as the type of animal,if it can be determined), color, any tooling, clasps, inlays, ties, ornaments,gold leaf, and anything else that is in any way unusual).

What we learn from collations

It may seem that working with collations is a rather specialized task,and that the use of a critical apparatus is enough for the ordinary student.This is true in some instances, but much oversimplified. A collation canteach us a great deal about a manuscript that cannot be learned from theapparatus criticus.

The collation, unlike the apparatus, teaches us something about thenature of the manuscript itself. If we examine the collation of Hebrews,for instance, we observe that Codex Claromontanus (D) regularly confusesthe endings -θε and -θαι, even whenthere is no variation in the other manuscripts. We learn, therefore,that Claromontanus has no authority when there are genuine variants ofthis type.

Most manuscripts have some such idiosyncrasies.ℵ, for instance,regularly confounds ΕΙ and Ι, while 056 and 0142have a habit (derived probably from their common ancestor) of adding extra iotas.1799 regularly inserts αδελφοι into texts(probably based on the lectionary), and so is unreliable for the handful of legitimatevariants involving this word. And so forth. None of these facts can be learnedfrom a critical apparatus, and most are quickly obvious in a collation.

In addition, a collation is a complete catalog of the readings ofa manuscript, whereas a critical apparatus is always limited. As an example,consider the collation of Hebrews alreadycited above. This collation includes fifteen manuscripts, and shows61 variants in Hebrews 1. The Nestle-Aland text, by contrast, cites only21 variants, despite having 23 so-called "constant witnesses."Most of the extra variants in the collation are, of course, trivial -- spellingmistakes and the like -- but by working with the critical apparatus ratherthan the collations, one forfeits the ability to decide which variants areimportant. In addition, most critical apparatus have an associated criticaltext. This critical text will, almost inevitably, bias the user toward itsreadings. Whereas a collation, since it is based on a non-critical text (theTextus Receptus), should not result in any pre-judgementof the readings.

Collations in Other Languages

Greek is not the only language for which we need collations, of course.Any text existing in multiple copies calls for collation of these copies. Andthey may show the same sort of variety as we see in the Greek witnesses.

Let's take a couple of examples from the Vulgate. The following is aproper collation of Matthew 6:7-15. The text on the left is the ClementineVulgate; that on the right is the text of Codex Lichfeldensis (as givenby Hopkins-James). Divergences are shown in bold. The collation follows thetext.

Clementine

Lichfeldensis

67Orantes autem nolite multum loqui sicut ethnici; putant enim quod in multiloquio suo exaudiantur. 8 Nolite ergo assimilari eis; scit enim Pater vester, quid opus sit vobis, antequam petatis eum. 9 Sic ergo vos orabitis: Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum, 10 adveniat regnum tuum, fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo, et in terra. 11 Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie, 12 et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris, 13 et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen. 14 Si enim dimiseritis hominibus peccata eorum, dimittet et vobis Pater vester caelestis delicta vestra. 15 Si autem non dimiseritis hominibus, nec Pater vester dimittet vobis peccata vestra.

 

67Orantes autem multum loqui sicut ci putant enim qui inmulti loquiosuo exaudiantur 8 nolite ergo adsimillare eis scit enim pater uester, quibus opus sit uobis ante quam petatis eum , 9 Sic ergo uos orabitis / tur nomentuu Pater noster quies incaelis, scifice nomen tuum, 10  et ueniet regnum tuum fiat uoluntas tua sicut incaelo et interra 11 panem nostrum cotidianum danobis odie 12 et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos demittimus debitoribus nostris 13 et ne nos inducas intemptemtationem sedlibera nos amalo 14 Si enim demisseritis hominibus peccata eorum demittet et uobis Pater uester caelestis delicta uestra. 15 Si autem nondemisseritis hominibus nec Pater uester caelestis dimittet uobis peccata uestra

Collation of Lichfeldensis against the Clementine Vulgate:

6:7 nolite ] omit    ethnici ] ci (sic.)    quod ] qui6:8 assimilari ] adsimillare    quid ] quibus (scribe initially wrote quid then corrected it)6:9 orabitis ] orabitis tur nomentuu    sanctificetur ] scifice (i.e. sanctifice)6:10 adveniat ] et ueniet6:11 supersubstantialem ] cotidianum     hodie ] odie6:12 dimittimus ] demittimus6:13 in tentationem ] intemptemtationem     Amen ] omit6:14 dimiseritis ] demisseritis     dimittet ] demittet6:15 non dimiseritis ] nondemisseritis     vester] uester [i.e. vester] caelestis     dimittet ] demittet

This is a fairly standard collation format. That doesn't mean it'salways followed! Just to show the possible variations, here are samplesof the marginalia to this passage in several Latin editions. I have in my library onepublication of a Latin Gospel manuscript (Lemuel J. Hopkins-James, TheCeltic Gospels, an edition of Codex Lichfeldensis, used to create theabove collation of that manuscript) and three criticaleditions: The smaller Wordsworth-White, Merk, and the Nestle Greek/Latin/Englishtriglot. Let's show a handful of variants to show how Latin collations andcritical editions are sometimes done (for the symbols usedfor the manuscripts, see the section on theVulgate in the article on theVersions). As a sample, let's reproduce the textand apparatus of all four volumes for Matthew 6:7-13, then do comparisons sideby side for several readings.

Hopkins-James

Text Apparatus

67Orantes autem multumloqui sicut ci putant enim qui inmulti loquiosuo exaudiantur 8 nolite ergo adsimillare eis scit enim pater uester, quibus opus sit uobis ante quam petatis eum :, 9 Sic ergo uos orabitis : / tur nomentuu Pater noster quies incaelis, scifice nomen tuum, 10  et ueniet regnum tuum fiat uoluntas tua sicut incaelo et interra 11 panem nostrum cotidianum danobis odie 12 et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos demittimus debitoribus nostris 13 et ne nos inducas intemptemtationem sedlibera nos amalo

 

   7 -nolite after autem.   qui Y for quia
   8 adsimillare (gat adsimilari) with the first l erased for assimilari
   The Hereford text is resumed here from the leaf (misplaced) inserted at viii.4 containing v.28 to vi.8. There is also a break here in the text of d from vi.8 to viii.27.
   quibus is what the scribe wrote and is VO's reading, but the us has been erased not without leaving its traces. Enough of b was left to become part of an ugly d. It was thus corrected to quid which has the support of a b f ff1 h q Aug her gat MT D Q R C T W O V Z vg. In opus the us is in ligature. At the end of the verse is an example of the corrector's stop, a comma in addition to the scribe's stop viz. :,.
   10 et ueniet (ff1 ueniat) foradueniat
   11 cotidianum. This is the O.L text found ina f ff1 g1 h q and others though with some it hasthe tt, her lam IL mgD E C T W (gat has quotidianum with uel supersubstantialem between the lines). InSt. Matthew, St. Jerome substituted supersubstantialem in its place but went back to theold word in St. Luke. The O.L. form, however, has not been displaced in public andprivate prayer. In our text the Lord's Prayer was transcribed again at the end of St.Mark with the reading sub stantialem showing the process whereby the O.L. textwas corrected to the Vulgate standard.    odie for hodie.
   12 demittimus MT O K V X for dimittimus
   13 nos inducas MT E R W M Θ K vg for inducas nos.    temptemtationem (temptationem b k f h Σ) for temtationem.

Merk

Text Apparatus

67Orantes autem nolite multum loqui sicut ethnici; putant enim quod in multiloquio suo exaudiantur. 8 Nolite ergo assimilari eis; scit enim Pater vester, quid opus sit vobis, antequam petatis eum. 9 Sic ergo vos orabitis: Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum, 10 adveniat regnum tuum, fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo, et in terra. 11 Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie, 12 et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris, 13 et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.

 8 quid OZJMaDQRKVCTW] quibus rel.
11 supersubst.]cotidianum SmDssCTW
12 dimisimus Ep*Z*B*JD
13 amen > codd.

Nestle

Text Apparatus

67Orantes autem nolite multum loqui sicut ethnici; putant enim quod in multiloquio suo exaudiantur. 8 Nolite ergo assimilari eis; scit enim Pater vester, quid opus sit vobis, antequam petatis eum. 9 Sic ergo vos orabitis: Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum, 10 adveniat regnum tuum, fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo, et in terra. 11 Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie, 12 et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris, 13 et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.

 8 quid ] quibus    13 > inducas nos | - amen

Wordsworth/White (editio minor)

Text Apparatus

67Orantes autem nolite multum loqui sicut ethnici: putant enim quia in multiloquio suo exaudiantur. 8 Nolite ergo adsimilari eis: scit enim Pater uester quibus opus sit uobis ante quam petatis eum. 9 Sic ergo uos orabitis: Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum, 10 adueniat regnum tuum: fiat uoluntas tua sicut in caelo et in terra. 11 Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie: 12 et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris: 13 et ne inducas nos in temtationem, sed libera nos a malo.

 7 ethnici + faciuntS   quia: quod S C
8 quibus: quid S C
11 supersubstantialem AHMVZ al. S C : cotidianum CD al. ; supersubstantialem cotidianum F
12 dimisimus DZ*
13 >nos inducas S C; patiaris nos induci D (cf. Tert. 'de Orat.' viii)   malo + amen S C

Other examples of the various styles:

Mark 12:29. The Clementine text reads Dominus Deus tuus;this has the support of Dublinensis, Sangermanensis, Vallicellanus, and others;Amiatinus and other early manuscripts read Dominus Deus noster (comparethe Greek). Our authorities describe the variant as follows:

TextApparatus
Hopkins-James
text: dns ds tuus
(not cited in apparatus)
Merk
text: Dominus Deus tuus
tuus X*IGDLVThW ] noster rel. vl pl.
Nestle
text: Dominus Deus tuus
tuus ] noster (i.e. A F both read noster for the tuus found in the text)
Wordsworth-White
text: Dominus Deus noster
noster: tuus DGV S C:

Luke 2:2. The Clementine text reads Cyrino,supported by the large majority of manuscripts. The Wordsworth/Whitetext reads Quirino on the basis of harleianus (and the historicalname Quirinius). Our authorities describe the variant as follows:

TextApparatus
Hopkins-James
text: quirno
quirno (her cirino) for Cyrino
Merk
text: Cyrino
Quirino ZsL Hier
(i.e. Z Ep* L Jerome)
Nestle
text: Cyrino
quirino
(no supporing evidence cited)
Wordsworth-White
text: Quirino
Quirino Z: Cyrino ACDFHMV S C

At least Latin is widely read and has relatively stong standards. In less-commonlanguages, things can get even more difficult. The following shows the opening oftwo editions of the Old English poem The Dream ofthe Rood. Both are basedon the same manuscript (the Vercelli Book),though with different orthographic styles. I parallel the first ten lines ofthe poem as presented by (1) Bruce Dickens and Alan S. C. Ross, The Dreamof the Rood, Methuen's Old English Library, 1963; and (2) John C. Pope, SevenOld English Poems, Norton, 1981.

Dickens/RossPope
(1)Hþæt, ic sþefna cyst,     secȝan þylle,Hwæt, ic swefna cyst     secgan wille,
(2) hþæt me ȝemætte     to midre nihte, hwæt me gemætte     to midre nihte,
(3) syðÞan reordberend     reste þunedon. siÞÞan reord-berend     reste wunodon.
(4) Þuhte me Þæt ic ȝesaþe     syllicre treoþ Þuhte me Þæt ic gesawe     seldlicre treo
(5) on lyft lædan     leohte beþunden, on lyft lædan    leohte bewunden,
(6) beama beorhtost.    Eall Þæt beacen þæs beama beorhtost.    Eall Þæt beacen wæs
(7) beȝoten mid ȝolde;     ȝimmas stodon begoten mid golde;    gimmas stodon
(8) fæȝere æt foldan sceatum,     sþylce Þær fife þæron fægere æt foldan sceatum     swelce Þær fife wæron
(9) uppe on Þam eaxlȝespanne.     Beheoldon Þær enȝeldryhte, uppe on Þam eaxl-gespanne.     Beheoldon Þær engel-dryhta fela,
(10) fæȝere Þurh forðȝesceaft;     ne þæs Þær huru fracodes ȝealȝa. fægere Þurh forð-gesceaft;     ne wæs Þær huru fracuðes gealga,
------
(1) Hþæt: MS Hþæt with large h enclosing capital þ (2) hþæt Grein1: MS hæt. (9) eaxlȝespanne Sweet: MS eaxle ȝe spanne.   enȝeldryhte: MS enȝel dryht|nes ealle.

Emendations: 2 hwæt ] MS hæt   9 eaxl] MS. eaxle.   engel-sryhta fela] MS engel dryhtnes ealle.

Variant spellings in the MS: 1 wylle.   3 syðþan.   wunedon.   4 syllicre.   treow.   8 swylce.   10 fracodes.

The physical task of collating

For the reasons described above, it is strongly suggested that every studentundertake a collation or two. It need not be of an actual manuscript (thoughthis is best). Simply take one printed or electronic text and compare it againstanother. (Printed texts are probably better than electronic, since a true collationwill normally involve a physical manuscript.) Ideally itshould be an actual manuscript text, but if worst comes to worst, one can(say) collate the UBS text against the Textus Receptus.

The results can be educational and humbling, especially if you are ableto compare the result with an existing collation of the manuscript. Collationis a difficult and stressful occupation, even with the best manuscripts(generally the easiest are the better-preserved uncials). When dealing witha more difficult manuscript (e.g. 6, which is written in such a small handthat some people need to magnify it to read it; or 33 or 2344, damagedby damp; or a palimpsest; or any of the hundreds of manuscripts written by scribes withbad handwriting), the task becomes even more daunting. To give a personalexample: The collation of Hebrews mentioned above was basedentirely on already-extant transcriptions, so eyestrain was not a factor.(Fortunately for me, as I have very weak eyes!) It was not, for obviousreasons, checked by anyone else, and I myself checked only the non-orthographicvariants. The result is only about a dozen pages long, even in large print. And evenso, it took me dozens of hours (spread over several months) to compile. And thereare doubtless several errors even so.

At that, the task is easier than it used to be. Today, we can collate with acomputer, either in a word processor or using a program such as COLLATE. Oldercollations were done on paper or other non-electronic form. Moorman, for instance,suggested index cards, with the lemma typed at the top of each card and the lineson the card representing the various manuscripts to be collated. For example, hereis my collation of several texts of an old folk song, "Boney on the Isle ofSaint Helena." Moorman's cards would look like

1.1AOh,Bonyhasgone   
 
W--he has
R--he has
HBonaparteis
SNowNapoleonhe hasdone

1.1Bfromhiswarsandhisfighting
 
Walla-fighting
Rofall
Hfightings
Swith

One important point to remember in preparing a collation is that, if you arecollating a classical manuscript, your collation will likely be used in preparinga stemma, and it may be so used even if it is a Biblical manuscript (if the manuscriptbelongs to a family such as Family 13 or Kr). You should operate on thisbasis, e.g. by highlighting readings which are likely to have genealogical significance.

The task being what it is, careful preparation is required to create a goodcollation. Experts make the following recommendations for accurate collations:

Another suggestion, this one personal: Don't start with a collationin a foreign language! Start by comparing two texts in your own language.A good place for this is in collections of old folk songs or modernizededitions of an ancient text. This lets you practice the physical task ofcollation without having to worry about understanding a foreign languageas well.

Charles Moorman, Editing the Middle English Manuscript, p. 46, givesanother warning: "The editor cannot afford to become himself a scribe if he canavoid it." Moorman was writing in the 1970s, before personal computers, so someof his reasons are rather irrelevant. But the basic argument is sound: If you aretranscribing the manuscript in full, you are not collating, and you are making errorsof your own. If there already exists an edition of the work you are collating, collateagainst that, no matter how obscure, just to reduce the error rate. This is notalways possible for classical documents, but in the New Testament, most importantsources have been printed by someone. So take advantage.

For those who wish to have something to work from, and whose nativelanguage is English, here are twotranscriptions of a fifteenth century English text, "The AgincourtCarol." (This should, incidentally, put to rest the notion that"carols" are Christmas songs; they are a particular formof religious ballad.) The first is from Chappell's Popular Music of theOlden Time (also variously known as Old English PopularMusic, etc.); the second is from Percy's Reliques. The Percytext was transcribed from a manuscript copied from the manuscript used byChappell. That is, the genealogy is this:

      Archetype          |    ---------------    |             |Chappell        [Copy]                  |                Percy

The Chappell Text
Deo gracias anglia,Redde pro victoria1 Owre kynge went forth to normandy,  With grace and myght of chyvalry:  Ther god for him wrought mervelusly.  Wherfore englonde may calle and cry                        Deo gracias....2 He sette a sege the sothe for to say,  to harflu toune with ryal aray;  that toune he wan, and made afray,  that fraunce shal rywe tyl domesday.                        Deo gracias....3 Than went owre Kynge with alle his oste,  thorwe fraunce for all the frenshe boste:  he spared no drede of leste ne most,  tyl he come to agincourt coste.                        Deo gracias....4 Than forsoth that knyght comely,  in agincourt feld he faught manly:  thorw grace of god most myghty,  he had bothe the felde and the victory.                        Deo gracias....5 Ther dukys and erlys, lorde and barone,  were take and slayne, and that wel sone,  and some were ladde into Lundone  with ioye and merthe and grete renone                        Deo gracias....6 Now gracious god he save owre Kynge,  his peple, and all his wel wyllynge:  gef him gode lyfe and gode endynge,  that we with merth mowe savely synge,                        Deo gracias....
 The Percy Text
Deo gratias Anglia redde pro victoria!1 Owre kynge went forth to Normandy,  With grace and myyt of chivalry;  The God for hym wrouyt marvelously,  Wherfore Englonde may calle, and cry                        Deo gratias:  Deo gratias Anglia redde pro victoria.2 He sette a sege, the sothe for to say,  To Harflue toune with ryal aray;  That toune he wan, and made a fray,  That Fraunce shall rywe tyl domes day.                        Deo gratias &c.3 Than went owre kynge, with alle his oste,  Thorowe Fraunce for all the Frenshe boste;  He spared 'for' drede of leste, ne most,  Tyl he come to Agincourt coste.                        Deo gratias &c.4 Than for sothe that knyyt comely  In Agincourt feld he faught manly:  Thorow grace of God most myyty  He had bothe the felde and the victory.                        Deo gratias &c.5 Ther dukys, and erlys, lorde and barone,  Were take, and slayne, and that wel sone,  And some were ledde in to Lundone  With joye, and merthe, and grete renone.                        Deo gratias &c.6 Now gracious God he save owre kynge,  His peple, and all his wel wyllynge,  Gef him gode lyfe, and gode endynge,  That we with merth mowe savely synge                        Deo gratias &c.

(We note incidentally that, using these texts, we candetect the loss of an obsolete letter, just as Homericscholars can detect the fact that Homer used the digamma.The Middle English text of this song clearly used theyogh, ȝ.In Chappell, this was replaced -- as is now fairly normal --by gh; the Percy text substitutes y.)