**Contents:** * Introduction *The Categories *What the Categories Mean *Appendix I: How the Alands Classify Leading Minuscules *Appendix II: Testing the Classifications *Appendix III: A Rigorous Classification

In 1981, Kurt and Barbara Aland published *Der Text des NeuenTestaments* (English translation: *The Text of the New Testament,*translated by Erroll F. Rhodes, Second edition, Eerdmans/ E. J. Brill,1989). The most noteworthy feature of this edition was its newclassification of manuscripts. Based primarily on the "ThousandReadings in a Thousand Minuscules" project (the results of whichare now being published in the series *Text und Textwert dergriechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments,* K. Alandet al, 1987 and following), the Alands set out to place the vastmajority of known manuscripts into "Categories."

As a classification scheme, their attempt was at once a successand a failure. A success, in that it has conveniently gathered dataabout how Byzantine the various manuscripts are. A failure, becauseit has not been widely adopted, and in any case does not succeedin moving beyond Byzantine/non-Byzantine classification.

We may briefly outline their classification scheme as follows(excerpted from Aland & Aland, p. 106):

**Category I:**"Manuscripts of a very special quality which should always be considered in establishing the original text." (To this are added all manuscripts prior to the fourth century.)**Category II:**"Manuscripts of a special quality, but distinguished from manuscripts of Category I by the presence of alien influences."**Category III:**"Manuscripts of a distinctive character with an independent text... particularly important for the history of the text."**Category IV:**"Manuscripts of the D text."**Category V:**"Manuscripts with a purely or predominantly Byzantine text."

The Alands base their categorizations on a very simple set of statistics.All of a manuscripts's readings are broken up into "Type 1" readings(Byzantine), "Type 2" readings (readings which agree with GNT, i.e.almost without exception Alexandrian readings; some readings, which are bothAlexandrian and Byzantine, are "Type 1/2"), and "Type S"readings, which belong to neither Type 1 nor Type 2.

It will thus be observed that the Alands have only one way to measurethe nature of a manuscript: By its ratio of Type 1 (Byzantine) to Type 2(Alexandrian) readings. The Type S readings *are completely unclassified;* theymight be "Western," "Cæsarean" -- or anythingelse imaginable (including simple errors).

Thus in practice the Alands' categories become:

**Category I:**Manuscripts which have almost no Byzantine influence, and which often agree with the Alexandrian text (without necessarily being part of it, as in the cases of P^{45}, P^{46}, B, and 1739)**Category II:**Manuscripts with a generally Alexandrian text but with some Byzantine intrusion.**Category III:**Manuscripts with a large Byzantine component but also a significant number of non-Byzantine readings.**Category IV:**D/05 and*only*D/05. (The Alands place four other manuscripts here -- P^{38}, P^{48}, P^{69}, and 0171 -- but all of these are fragments placed here based on casual rather than analytical examination.)**Category V:**The Byzantine text

A handful of examples will demonstrate the imperfections of thissystem (note that these are not defects in the data, merely the resultsof the Alands' simplistic analysis which counts only Type 1 and Type 2 readings,rather than the rates of agreement between manuscripts which they also calculated):

- The Pauline manuscripts 1739and 0243 are sisters or nearly. Yet1739 is entered in Category I and 0243 tentatively in Category II.
- The Pauline manuscripts F/010 and G/012 are also sisters or nearly, withmost scholars considering G to be the more accurate copy of the two.Yet F is listed as Category II and G as Category III. What is more,F, G, and the earlier D/06 are clear relatives, and close to theOld Latin. They form their own text-type, usually (though perhaps oninadequate grounds) associated with Codex Bezae. Yet neither F norG, nor D (category II; corrected to category III) is placed inCategory IV along with Bezae.

The same problem occurs, to an even greater extent, among the CategoryIII manuscripts. While almost every manuscript in this category is mixed,with Byzantine readings combined with other types, the nature of the mixturevaries. We have Byzantine/"Western" mixes (629);Byzantine/"Cæsarean" mixes (family 1, family 13, 28, 565, 700),family 1739/Byzantine mixes (6, 323, 424**, 945, etc.), and a large number ofAlexandrian/Byzantine mixtures (of which 104 and 579 are typical examples).Taking only Paul as an example, there are also at least two family groups whichare heavily Byzantine but highly distinct: Family 1611 (family 2138): 1505, 1611,2495, etc. and Family 330 (330, 451, 2492).

We should also note that the Alands fail to assign a category to many manuscripts.In general these are manuscripts with a small handful of non-Byzantine readings, butnot enough to qualify as Category III. (In effect, one can treat unclassified manuscriptsas another category.) This non-category Category has its own problems, however.For example, the leading manuscripts of the large and well-known FamilyΠ -- Π itself and K -- arelisted as Category V (which is fair enough, since this family is clearly Byzantinethough obviously distinct from K^{x} and K^{r}). Of the minusculemembers of the family, however, most are included among the Uncategorized.

We may also compare the results of the Alands' classifications with theresults of the Claremont Profile Method in Luke. Wisse lists a total of 36groups. Excluding Group B as a text-type rather than a legitimate group,we still find that in 19 of 35 cases the Alands reach no consensus as tothe classification of the members of a group. That is, if we take all the membersof one of Wisse's groups, we find that these members are classified by the Alandsas being members of two categories -- sometimes even three!. In addition, we findin these groups that at least 25% of the membersof the group fall into each of the leading two categories; only sevengroups -- including the members of K^{x} and K^{r} -- aretreated entirely consistently. For details see the entry on theClaremont Profile Method.) In some instances this islikely due to block mixture undetected by Wisse -- but one must also suspectthat the Alands did not rigidly define their categories. This generally willnot matter in practice -- but one should always allow for the possibilitythat a manuscript might need to "shift" a category followingfurther examination.

Thus *as a genealogical description* the Alands' categories fail. A manuscriptsimply cannot be described by the few statistics they use.

However, the Categorization should not be deemed a complete failure. It is,in fact, one of the most important results of recent years. For the first time,we have a nearly-comprehensive and, within its limits, accurate examination ofthe minuscules. If Categories II and III, as well as the unclassifiedmanuscripts, contain an immensediversity of material, Category V is absolutely clear: It *is* the Byzantinetext. Manuscripts found here are Byzantine, and manuscripts found in CategoriesIII and higher are not -- at least not purely. In addition, the manuscripts in Category I(with the exception of the fragmentary early papyri, which are too short toclassify this way, and 1175, whichis block-mixed with the Byzantine textin Paul and the Catholic Epistles)are all very pure representatives of their types. As long as appropriate care istaken to correctly understand the manuscripts in Categories I, II, and III, andthe arbitrary Category IV is ignored, the system can be very useful.

See, however, Appendix II for some tweaks to the system.

The table below lists all the minuscules which are cited as "ConstantWitnesses" in the Nestle-Aland 26th and 27th editions, along with their Alandcategories in each of the five sections of the New Testament. The final column,Comments, shows the categorization I believe should be applied (where it differsfrom the Alands'), or gives further detail on their categorization.

Manuscript | e | a | p | c | r | Comment |

1^{eap} | III | V | V | V | ||

13 | III | |||||

28 | III (Mk) V (MtLk) | |||||

33 | II | I | I | I | ||

81 | II | II | II | described as "at least Category II." | ||

104 | V | III | III | V | ||

323 | III | III | II | Actually probably Category V in Paul; block-mixed and so probably Category III in the Catholics | ||

365 | V | III | V | Member of Family 2127. Most members of this family are listed as Category III, although 2127 itself is Category II. | ||

565 | III | "the average is raised by Mark, with Matthew and Luke far lower." (John appears to be more Byzantine than Mark but less so than the other gospels.) | ||||

579 | II (MkLk) | Although it is not explicitly stated, the manuscript is probably Category II in John and Category III in Matthew. | ||||

614 | III | III | III | Paul should be Category V, not Category III. Listed as a sister to 2412; the pair belong to Family 2138 in the Acts and Catholics but are Byzantine in Paul. | ||

630 | III | III | III | |||

700 | III | |||||

892 | II | Portions of John from a later, much more Byzantine hand | ||||

945 | V | III | V | III | ||

1006 | V | II | ||||

1010 | V | Listed as a possible member of Family 1424, but 1010 is much more Byzantine than the other members of that group and probably does not belong with it. (So also Wisse.) | ||||

1175 | I | I | Probably should be Category I in Acts, II in Paul (except for Romans, which is Byzantine), perhaps III in the Catholics (there are some interesting readings in the earlier letters, but the Johannine Epistles are Byzantine) | |||

1241 | III | V | III | I | Probably should be Category II in Luke, III in the other gospels, V in Acts, I in the Catholics. In Paul, the basic run of the text is Category V. The manuscript has supplements, however (possibly a third of the total) which are clearly Category III | |

1424 | III (Mk) V (MtLk) | V | V | V | V | |

1505 | V | III | III | III | Pair with 2495. Member of Family 1611/Family 2138 in Acts, Catholics, Paul | |

1506 | V | II | Fragment in Paul, but clearly strongly Alexandrian. May be Category I in that corpus (based on unusual text which omits Romans 16!) | |||

1611 | III | III | III | II | Member of Family 1611/Family 2138 in Acts, Catholics, Paul | |

1739 | II | I | I | Text of Acts is more Byzantine than in Paul or Catholics, but still stands at the head of an independent family, implying Category I | ||

1841 | V | V | V | II | ||

1854 | V | V | V | II | ||

1881 | II | II | ||||

2030 | III | Fragment (about six chapters); categorization must be considered tentative | ||||

2050 | II | Fragment (about eight chapters); categorization must be considered tentative | ||||

2053 | V | |||||

2062 | I | Fragment (about nine chapters); categorization must be considered tentative | ||||

2329 | II | |||||

2344 | III | III | I | I | Classification in Catholics perhaps questionable. Manuscript is badly water-damaged and often unreadable | |

2351 | III | Fragment (about thirteen chapters); categorization must be considered tentative | ||||

2377 | III | |||||

2427 | I | Mark only. The evidence is strong that it is a forgery. | ||||

2464 | II | II | II | Classification is too high; probably should be Category III. Romans is Byzantine. | ||

2495 | III | III | III | III | III | Listed as "Category III with reservations, but higher in the Catholic Epistles." In fact a sister or nearly of 1505, and should be classified accordingly. |

2542 | III |

The descriptions above generally cover the intent of the Aland classifications. Butthe result needs to be tested -- we want to know how reliable are the classifications.

In an attempt to investigate this, I re-examined the data for some of the manuscripts.For this purpose, I took every manuscript, uncial and minuscule, whose statisticswere listed in the second edition of *The Text of the New Testament.* I chose touse the gospels section as (I assumed) representative. (I'm not so sure this is true,now; it appears that the fraction of valuable manuscripts is much, much higher inthe Acts and Epistles than in the Gospels.) I took every manuscript for which therewere at least fifty sample readings. In a few cases, where the Aland categorizedbooks individually, I did the same.

It turns out that the Alands gave statistics for 101 manuscripts in the Gospels:ℵ, A, B, C, D, E,F, G, H, K, L, M, N, S, U, V, W, X, Y, Γ, Δ, Θ, Λ, Π,Σ, Φ, Ψ, Ω, 047, 0211, 0233, 1, 5, 6, 13, 28, 33, 61, 69, 157, 180,189, 205, 209, 218, 263, 330, 346, 365, 431, 461, 522, 543, 565, 579, 597, 700, 720,788, 826, 828, 886, 892, 945, 983, 1006, 1010, 1071, 1241, 1243, 1251, 1292, 1319,1342, 1359, 1398, 1409, 1424 (Mark), 1424 (Matthew+Luke), 1448, 1505, 1506,1542b (Mark), 1563, 1573, 1582, 1642, 1678, 1704, 2127, 2147, 2193, 2200, 2374,2400, 2427, 2492, 2495, 2516, 2523, 2542, and 2718.

The statistic I adopted for my analysis is the ratio of distinctly non-Byzantinereadings to Byzantine readings. That is, the Alands classify readings into four groups:Group 1, which is Byzantine, Group 1+2, which are Byzantine readings also found in theUBS edition, Group 2, which are reading of UBS not found in the Byzantine text, andGroup S, which is readings not found in either the Byzantine text or UBS. Generallyspeaking, we may assume that Group 1 readings are uninteresting, Group 1+2 readingsunhelpful, and Group 2 and Group S readings are valuable for classification purposes.So I calculated (Gr2 Rdgs + GrS Rdgs)/(Gr 1 Rdgs).

For a purely Byzantine manusccript, this ratio would work out to 0. Theoretically,a manuscript entirely free of Byzantine influence would have an infinite ratio,since it would have no Byzantine readings. In practice, of course, no manuscript willhave an infinite ratio.

Though it turns out that very few have a ratio of even 1. Of the 102 test cases,only 12 -- B, 2427 (which we now know to be a forgery),ℵ,L, D, Θ, Ψ892, C, W, 1, and 33 -- have ratios of 1 or higher. The following table shows thesemanuscripts, with their Aland categories and their ratios:

MS. | Ratio | Category |

B | 29.78 | I |

2427 | 12.17 | I |

ℵ | 11.52 | I |

L | 3.63 | II |

D | 3.25 | IV |

Θ | 1.91 | II |

Ψ | 1.77 | III |

892 | 1.74 | II |

C | 1.33 | II |

W | 1.2 | III |

1 | 1.08 | III |

33 | 1.03 | II |

At the other extreme, 461, 1251, and 1642 have a ratio of only 0.04. Of themanuscripts listed by the Alands, the sixteen with the lowest ratios are allCategory V. The lowest ratio for a Tier III manuscript is the 0.06 turned in by1448. If we take the extremes for each tier, they are as follows:

Category | Highest Ratio for this category | Manuscript | Lowest Ratio for this category | Manuscript |

I | 29.78 | B | 11.52 | ℵ |

II | 3.63 | L | 0.97 | 579 |

III | 1.77 | Ψ | 0.06 | 2495 |

V | 0.54 | 69 | 0.04 | 1642 |

The graph below shows the range of the ratios in each category:

Thus it will be seen that every category except category I substantially overlaps thenext category down. To some extent, to be sure, there is an explanation (e.g. theAlands call 579 a Category II only in Mark and Luke, so Matthew presumably has ahigher fraction of Byzantine readings) -- but they do not break out thefigures. In any case, the above result shows firmly the danger of relying on the Alands'subjective assessment rather than looking at the actual numbers -- or, better yet, theactual readings of the manuscript.

The median ratio for each category is:

Category I: 12.17

Category II: 1.54

Category III: 0.58

Category V: 0.09

So, in round numbers, a Category I manuscript is expected to be90% non-Byzantine. A Category II is 60% non-Byzantine. A Category III is30% non-Byzantine. And a Category V is 90% Byzantine.

But these are just the typical numbers. What we are interested in is the*range.* For the three categories that have enough manuscripts to allowmeaningful samples (II, III, and V), then, let us look at the manuscriptswithin one (estimated)standard deviation -- i.e., in thiscase, the two-thirds of manuscripts closest to the mean.

Category | Highest ratio among middle 2/3 | MS | Lowest ratio among middle 2/3 | MS |

II | 1.91 | Θ | 1.03 | 33 |

III | 0.93 | 1342 | 0.16 | 0233 |

V | 0.17 | 2200 | 0.05 | Y |

We can graph this data also. The graph at right plots the ratio of Byzantine tonon-Byzantine readings of the manuscripts of Category III and Category V, counting the numberof manuscripts in each block (grouping the manuscripts into blocks of .05, e.g. 0.000 to0.049, 0.050 to 0.099, 0.100 to 0.149, etc.).

Both distributions follow a roughly normal curve,with that for the Category V manuscripts centered in the range 0.05-0.10 and that forthe Category III manuscripts centered at 0.55-0.60, but we notice that the Category III curveis very flat and very spread out, and that there is a very large overlap between Category IIIand Category V -- confirming what we saw above in the graph of the extremes. That was nota fluke; the overlap between Category III and Category V is large; a better classificationsystem would clearly have had a rigorous mathematical definition ("what the Alands think"is *not* a rigorous definition!) that would have drawn a clearer distinction.

Nonetheless, the idea behind distinction between Category III and Category V is clear(and those between Categories I, II, and III even clearer), even if the Alands' actualclassification does not entirely conform to it. But this hazy distinction largely demonstrates the pointI am are trying to make: The Category distinction is agrade distinction, not aclade distinction. That is, the Aland categories tell useffectively nothing about the actual ancestry of the manuscripts; they just tell us,within limits, how large is their Byzantine component. We can't tell if that Byzantinecomponent is the result of direct descent from a Byzantine ancestor, or the result ofmixture via correction, and we can't tell what other components, if any, the manuscriptcontains. This does not make the Categories useless -- but it does need to be keptin mind.

There is an interesting shift as we move into the Acts. In the Gospels, only 40substantial manuscripts were Category III or higher. In Acts, despite a much smallermanuscript base, there are 58 substantial manuscripts of Category III or higher. Thereare 12 manuscripts the Alands call Category I or Category II, compared to nine in the Gospels.And, on the whole, these manuscripts appear to be better -- though this dependson the statistic you use. In the gospels, recall,the median Byzantine/non-Byzantine ratio for a Category II manuscript was 1.54;that for Category III was 0.58. In Acts, the median for Category II isstill only 1.50 (statistically equivalent to the figure in the Gospels),and the median for Category III is 0.61. But if we take the table of extremevalues, we find this:

Category | Highest Ratio for this category | Manuscript | Lowest Ratio for this category | Manuscript |

I | 41.50 | B | 2.19 | 33 |

II | 6.43 | 81 | 1.08 | 1409 |

III | 1.48 | 610 | 0.08 | 1845 |

V | 0.46 | 467 | 0.01 | 1424 |

If we again look at the manuscripts within one (estimated)standard deviation -- i.e., in thiscase, the two-thirds of manuscripts closest to the mean -- we find

Category | Highest ratio among middle 2/3 | MS | Lowest ratio among middle 2/3 | MS |

II | 3.77 | C | 1.22 | E |

III | 1.26 | 1884 | 0.36 | 1838 |

V | 0.26 | 2147 | 0.04 | 254 |

The interesting observation is that the most Byzantine manuscripts of Acts actuallyshow a more extreme fraction of Byzantine readings than those of the Gospels (thoughthis may merely reflect on the readings the Alands chose), but the overall curve is clearlyless Byzantine than in the Gospels.

In Paul, we have an astonishing 88 manuscripts of Category III or higher -- six ofCategory I(ℵA B 33 1175 1739), ten of Category II (C D* F -- but not G! -- 81 256 15061881 1962 2127 2464), and 72 of Category III. However, it turns out that anumber of these Category III manuscripts have very low ratios of non-Byzantinereadings; it appears that the Alands classified them based on Acts and theCatholic Epistles and ignored the weaker text of Paul. Probably between eightand fifteen of them should be demoted.

Once again let's look at the extreme values for the manuscripts of each category:

Category | Highest Ratio for this category | Manuscript | Lowest Ratio for this category | Manuscript |

I | 18.78 | B | 1.32 | 1175 |

II | 4.17 | C | 0.95 | 2464 |

III | 3.50 | G | 0.03 | 2412 |

V | 0.43 | 2400 | 0.00 | 1841 |

Again let's examine standard deviations:

Category | Highest ratio among middle 2/3 | MS | Lowest ratio among middle 2/3 | MS |

I | 10.32 | A | 3.04 | ℵ |

II | 3.70 | F | 1.09 | 256 |

III | 0.73 | 1573 | 0.09 | 1845 |

V | 0.26 | 2147 | 0.04 | 254 |

In the Catholics, we have 76 manuscripts of Category III or above -- nine (!)of Category I, 14 of Category II, and 53 of Category III. Here are the extremevalues for each Category:

Category | Highest Ratio for this category | Manuscript | Lowest Ratio for this category | Manuscript |

I | 90.0 | B | 0.86 | 1175 |

II | 4.00 | 1852 | 1.00 | 1292 |

III | 1.69 | 1505 | 0.04 | 1841 |

V | 0.43 | 1563 | 0.01 | 424* |

And the manuscripts within one standard deviation:

Category | Highest ratio among middle 2/3 | MS | Lowest ratio among middle 2/3 | MS |

I | 4.17 | A | 2.95 | 33 |

II | 3.24 | Ψ | 1.27 | 1067 |

III | 1.00 | 2200 | 0.36 | 94 |

V | 0.14 | 0142 | 0.05 | 049 |

It's worth noting that, although B has the highest ratio of anymanuscript in all four of these sections, the ratio varies by a factor ofmore than four from one section to another. It is unlikely that this isthe result of any change in B; it is simply the nature of the Alands'(non-random) samples.

The idiosyncratic sample base described in the previous appendix,combined with the way the Alands present their numbers, makes it difficult to accuratelyclassify a manuscript based on their data. There are really onlytwo measures we have available to us. We can take the ratio of Type I to Type IIreadings, which is a prejudicial statistic because it assumes the UBS/GNT textis accurate (I flatly would refuse to touch such a statistic), or one whichincludes the Type S readings. The problem with Type S readings is that theyinclude everything from scribal errors to readings of significant manuscriptgroupings. A Type S reading in a badly-copied manuscript like 28 may just bean error; a Type S reading in a good manuscript like 1739 is important forclassification and may well be original. We simply cannot tell.

Still, the Aland data is what we have. We would like to get the best classificationscheme we can based on it. A *rigorous* classification. For this purpose,what I will do is look at the ratio given above -- Byzantine to non-Byzantinereadings -- and attempt a quick classification on this basis. Note that this is*only* a classification of independence from the Byzantine tradition; it makesno attempt to determine the actual nature of the manuscripts involved. What I havetried to do is find a natural gap in the data to roughly separate the fourcategories.

For the gospels, we have five manuscripts with a ratio greater than 3.25, andnone between 1.91 and 3.25, so it seems obvious that manuscripts above 3.25 shouldbe our "Category I." The five manuscripts involved are as follows (thefigures in parenthesis are their Aland category and their ratio):

**Mathematical Category I:** ℵ (I: 11.52), B (I: 29.78), D (IV: 3.25), L (II: 3.63), 2427 (I: 12.17).

The gap between Category II and Category III is less obvious; we have a large gap from1.33 to 1.74, a smaller one from 1.20 to 1.33, another from 1.08 to 1.20, and anotherfrom 0.91 to 0.81. Both the first and last gaps are tempting -- the first because it isso large, the latter because there really are manuscripts clumped above and below it.But if we chose the first gap, we would have only three Category II manuscripts. So Iwill choose a cutoff of 0.9, giving us this list instead:

**Mathematical Category II:**C (II: 1.33), W (III: 1.2), Δ (III: 0.97), Ψ (III: 1.78), Θ (II: 1.91), 1 (III: 1.08), 33 (II: 1.03), 565 (III: 0.91), 579 (II: 0.97), 892 (II: 1.74), 1342 (III: 0.93), 1582 (III: 0.96)

The largest gap below this is from 0.30 to 0.41. This seems to be the obviouscutoff for Category III. So:

**Mathematical Category III:**13 (III: 0.57), 28 (III: 0.58), 69 (V: 0.54), 205 (III: 0.81), 209 (III: 0.78), 346 (III: 0.45), 543 (III: 0.58), 700 (III: 0.61), 788 (III: 0.7), 826 (III: 0.55), 828 (III: 0.61), 983 (III: 0.56), 1241 (III: 0.63), 1424Mark (III: 0.66), 1424MtLk (V: 0.41), 1542bMk (III: 0.61), 2193 (III: 0.54), 2542 (III: 0.71)

We note that every manuscript in this group except 69 and 1424MtLk isshown as Category III by the Alands.It is interesting to observe, however, that some relatively importantmanuscripts -- A N X 157 1071 -- fall below this threshold. It appears thatthe *truly* pure Byzantine manuscripts have a ratio less than about 0.15.So I would suggest that we define a Category IV, unlike the Aland Category IV, ofmanuscriptsclearly Byzantine but with a significant number of interesting readings also:

**Mathematical Category IV:**A (V: 0.22), N (V: 0.26), X (V: 0.17), Σ (V: 0.29), Φ (V: 0.22), 0211 (V: 0.17), 0233 (III: 0.17), 61 (V: 0.2), 157 (III: 0.24), 1071 (III: 0.3), 1243 (III: 0.16), 1506 (V: 0.18), 2200 (V: 0.17)

It perhaps tells us something about how the Aland did their classifications that theuncials in this group are mostly Category V, the minuscules mostly Category III.

Finally, here are the manuscripts for which the Alands give statistics whichare clearly Byzantine, with very little non-Byzantine text -- what the Alandswould call Category V. I will call them Category B, for Byzantine.

**Mathematical Category B:**E (V: 0.05), F (V: 0.07), G (V: 0.14), H (V: 0.05), K (V: 0.12), M (V: 0.09), S (V: 0.08), U (V: 0.11), V (V: 0.13), Y (V: 0.05), Γ (V: 0.07), Λ (V: 0.05), Π (V: 0.15), Ω (V: 0.06), 047 (V: 0.15), 5 (V: 0.09), 6 (V: 0.07), 180 (V: 0.08), 189 (V: 0.05), 218 (V: 0.11), 263 (V: 0.05), 330 (V: 0.08), 365 (V: 0.07), 431 (V: 0.05), 461 (V: 0.04), 522 (V: 0.07), 597 (V: 0.06), 720 (V: 0.09), 886 (V: 0.08), 945 (V: 0.07), 1006 (V: 0.12), 1010 (V: 0.06), 1251 (V: 0.04), 1292 (V: 0.05), 1319 (V: 0.12), 1359 (V: 0.05), 1398 (V: 0.09), 1409 (V: 0.05), 1448 (III: 0.06), 1505 (V: 0.06), 1563 (V: 0.12), 1573 (V: 0.14), 1642 (V: 0.04), 1678 (III: 0.1), 1704 (V: 0.13), 2127 (V: 0.1), 2147 (V: 0.09), 2374 (V: 0.05), 2400 (V: 0.1), 2492 (V: 0.1), 2495 (III: 0.06), 2516 (V: 0.09), 2523 (V: 0.07), 2718 (III: 0.12)

The general soundness of the Aland classification is shown by the fact that,of these 54 manuscripts, 50 are Category V in their system. But four of themmanaged to be classified Category III.

Without going into detail of the process of determining the groups, here arethe equivalent categories for Acts. We might note that the dividing line betweencategories III, IV, and B was much more blurry in this case than in the gospels;the cutoffs I used were somewhat arbitrary (determined in part by what I knewof the manuscripts rather than the numbers. The categories are still determinedsolely by the ratios, but the dividing line were chosen in part to put thelargest fraction of manuscripts in the groups where they seemed to belong).

**Mathematical Category I:**ℵ (I: 7.82), A (I: 7.7), B (I: 41.5), C (II: 3.77), 81 (II: 6.43), 1175 (I: 3.61)

**Mathematical Category II:** D (IV: 2.29), E (II: 1.22), 33 (I: 2.19), 36 (II: 1.5), 181 (III: 1.47), 453 (III: 1.36), 610 (III: 1.48), 945 (III: 1.27), 1678 (III: 1.32), 1739 (II: 1.59), 1884 (III: 1.26), 1891 (II: 1.47), 2344 (III: 1.32)

**Mathematical Category III:**Ψ (III: 0.9), 5 (III: 0.41), 88 (III: 0.57), 94 (III: 0.87), 180 (III: 0.98), 307 (III: 0.52), 322 (III: 0.61), 323 (III: 0.61), 429 (III: 0.61), 431 (III: 0.9), 436 (III: 0.37), 441 (III: 0.65), 467 (V: 0.46), 522 (III: 0.54), 614 (III: 0.45), 621 (III: 0.49), 623 (III: 0.62), 629 (III: 0.89), 630 (III: 0.95), 915 (III: 0.43), 1292 (V: 0.36), 1409 (II: 1.08), 1505 (III: 0.44), 1611 (III: 0.42), 1642 (III: 0.96), 1704 (III: 1.1), 1751 (III: 0.74), 1838 (III: 0.36), 1842 (III: 0.51), 1875 (III: 1.09), 2138 (III: 0.55), 2200 (III: 1.00), 2298 (III: 0.71), 2412 (III: 0.43), 2495 (III: 0.47), 2718 (III: 0.51)

**Mathematical Category IV:** 6 (V: 0.27), 61 (V: 0.23), 69 (V: 0.21), 103 (V: 0.23), 104 (V: 0.28), 189 (V: 0.16), 206 (V: 0.3), 209 (V: 0.15), 218 (V: 0.17), 326 (III: 0.24), 459 (V: 0.22), 1243 (III: 0.18), 1319 (V: 0.27), 1359 (V: 0.17), 1718 (III: 0.23), 1735 (III: 0.31), 1852 (III: 0.33), 1877 (V: 0.18), 2147 (V: 0.26), 2544 (V: 0.19), 2652 (V: 0.28)

**Mathematical Category B:** H (V: 0.06), L (V: 0.06), P (V: 0.03), 049 (V: 0.09), 056 (V: 0.04), 0142 (V: 0.05), 1 (V: 0.03), 205 (V: 0.1), 254 (V: 0.04), 256 (V: 0.06), 263 (V: 0.05), 330 (V: 0.03), 365 (V: 0.1), 378 (V: 0.07), 424* (V: 0.04), 424c (V: 0.11), 451 (V: 0.04), 642 (V: 0.08), 911 (V: 0.04), 917 (V: 0.12), 1241 (V: 0.01), 1251 (V: 0.14), 1398 (V: 0.03), 1424 (V: 0.01), 1448 (V: 0.11), 1524 (V: 0.07), 1563 (V: 0.15), 1573 (V: 0.07), 1841 (V: 0.06), 1845 (III: 0.08), 1854 (V: 0.07), 1874 (V: 0.13), 2127 (V: 0.13), 2400 (V: 0.06), 2492 (V: 0.07), 2516 (V: 0.12), 2523 (V: 0.05), 2541 (V: 0.1)

Turning to Paul, the best cutoffs seemed to give the groups shown below. Note thelarge number of manuscripts with ratios above 3.0, giving us a verylarge class of Category I manuscripts. Nor is there much doubt thatthis is the location where the dividing line should be located, sincethe weakest of these manuscripts (which is, believe it or not,ℵ)has a ratio of 3.04, and the next manuscript (1881) has a ratio of 1.81.Paul probably qualifies as the one section of the New Testament where youcould construct a fairly adequate text by looking only at Category Imanuscripts. The flip side is that Category II is relatively small (andI was tempted to make it even smaller and draw the line at 1.5, whichwould have put only 1881 and 1506 in Category II).

**Mathematical Category I:**ℵ (I: 3.04), A (I: 10.32), B (I: 18.78), C (II: 4.17), D* (II: 3.63), F (II: 3.7), G (III: 3.5), 33 (I: 3.34), 81 (II: 3.86), 1739 (I: 4.6)

**Mathematical Category II:**P (III: 1.44), 256 (II: 1.09), 1175 (I: 1.32), 1506 (II: 1.75), 1881 (II: 1.81), 1962 (II: 1.04), 2127 (II: 1.11)

**Mathematical Category III:** D** (III: 0.57), Ψ (III: 0.58), 0150 (III: 0.87), 6 (III: 0.77), 104 (III: 0.70), 263 (III: 0.82), 365 (III: 0.87), 424** (III: 0.76), 436 (III: 0.60), 441 (III: 0.66), 442 (III: 0.97), 459 (III: 0.63), 467 (III: 0.56), 621 (III: 0.59), 1319 (III: 0.71), 1573 (III: 0.79), 1910 (III: 0.72), 1912 (III: 0.61), 1942 (III: 0.67), 1959 (III: 0.58), 2005 (III: 0.58), 2464 (II: 0.95)

**Mathematical Category IV:** 075 (III: 0.39), 5 (III: 0.22), 61 (III: 0.38), 69 (III: 0.34), 88 (III: 0.32), 103 (V: 0.17), 181 (III: 0.28), 218 (III: 0.35), 326 (III: 0.34), 330 (III: 0.36), 451 (III: 0.46), 623 (III: 0.22), 629 (III: 0.50), 630 (III: 0.49), 886 (V: 0.19), 915 (III: 0.37), 917 (III: 0.24), 1241 (III: 0.42), 1243 (III: 0.17), 1398 (III: 0.44), 1505 (III: 0.37), 1524 (V: 0.17), 1611 (III: 0.35), 1678 (III: 0.16), 1735 (III: 0.17), 1751 (III: 0.22), 1836 (III: 0.28), 1838 (III: 0.49), 1852 (III: 0.25), 1874 (III: 0.35), 1875 (III: 0.28), 1877 (III: 0.37), 1908 (III: 0.38), 2110 (III: 0.43), 2138 (III: 0.20), 2197 (V: 0.19), 2200 (III: 0.49), 2344 (III: 0.20), 2400 (V: 0.43), 2492 (III: 0.50), 2495 (III: 0.25), 2516 (III: 0.34), 2523 (III: 0.33), 2544 (III: 0.31)

**Mathematical Category B:** K (V: 0.12), L (V: 0.05), 049 (V: 0.03), 056 (V: 0.07), 0142 (V: 0.06), 0151 (V: 0.09), 1 (V: 0.03), 94 (III: 0.15), 180 (V: 0.04), 189 (V: 0.03), 205 (V: 0.05), 206 (V: 0.10), 209 (V: 0.06), 254 (V: 0.14), 322 (III: 0.08), 323 (III: 0.08), 378 (V: 0.03), 398 (V: 0.02), 424* (V: 0.04), 429 (V: 0.10), 431 (V: 0.04), 522 (V: 0.04), 614 (III: 0.04), 642 (V: 0.06), 720 (V: 0.12), 911 (V: 0.02), 918 (V: 0.04), 945 (V: 0.04), 1251 (V: 0.11), 1292 (V: 0.04), 1359 (V: 0.10), 1409 (V: 0.04), 1424 (V: 0.05), 1448 (V: 0.04), 1523 (V: 0.15), 1563 (III: 0.15), 1642 (V: 0.08), 1704 (V: 0.03), 1718 (III: 0.14), 1841 (V: 0.00), 1845 (III: 0.09), 1846 (III: 0.08), 1854 (V: 0.03), 1891 (V: 0.04), 2147 (V: 0.04), 2298 (V: 0.05), 2374 (V: 0.04), 2412 (III: 0.03), 2541 (V: 0.03), 2652 (V: 0.02), 2718 (III: 0.08)

We might note, incidentally, the danger that simple categorization causes.An example is 630. For Paul as a whole, e.g., 630 shows up in Category IV. Butin fact it is block mixed (or progressively mixed, or something). In the earlypart of Paul, it is weak Family 1739, which would surely make it Category III.From about Ephesians on, it is purely Byzantine. So, properly, we should listit as III/B. No doubt there are other instances of this as well; we simply cannottell from the Aland numbers.

Finally, here is how things appear to break down for the Catholic Epistles. Weagain have a very large number of Category I witnesses, but there really isn'tmuch doubt about this dividing line, since the weakest of these witnesses, 33,is at 2.95 and the next-best witness, 323, is at 2.37.

It might be worth noting that, even within Category I, there appears to bea bit of a gap: B is at 90.00 (!), 1739 at 5.40, and then the other ninewitnesses I've grouped here are between 4.17 and 2.95. Thus B and 1739 standfar away from the pack. It is worth noting that, although we have about asmany Category I witnesses here as in Paul, they do not represent the fullrange of manuscripts nearly as well. The members of Family 2138 -- a verydistinct and important group -- are allmixed enough that none of them reaches Category I status. Indeed, it isarguable that none of them deserve Category II status. There were twopossible gaps to define Category II: Between 81 (1.97) and 1505 (1.69), orbetween 2138 (1.42) and 1067 (1.27). The former gap is larger, but it wouldleave only four manucripts in Category II (81, 322, 323, 2344), so I chosethe latter gap (which had the secondary effect of putting several Family 2138manuscripts, including 1505, 2138, and 2495, in Category II).But this is arbitrary; if you're willing to allow more thanfour non-Byzantine classses, there could be a cut between 81 and 1505.

**Mathematical Category I:**ℵ (I: 3.43), A (I: 4.17), B (I: 90.00), C (II: 3.44), Ψ (II: 3.24), 33 (I: 2.95), 1241 (I: 4.12), 1243 (I: 3.18), 1739 (I: 5.40), 1852 (II: 4.00), 1881 (II: 3.38)

**Mathematical Category II:**81 (II: 1.97), 322 (II: 2.37), 323 (II: 2.37), 1505 (III: 1.69), 1735 (II: 1.60), 2138 (III: 1.42), 2298 (II: 1.57), 2344 (I: 2.33), 2464 (II: 1.53), 2495 (III: 1.51)

**Mathematical Category III:**5 (III: 0.94), 436 (III: 1.19), 442 (II: 1.19), 614 (III: 0.93), 621 (III: 0.96), 623 (III: 1.04), 630 (III: 1.00), 945 (III: 1.24), 1067 (II: 1.27), 1175 (I: 0.86), 1292 (II: 1.00), 1409 (II: 1.02), 2200 (III: 1.00), 2412 (III: 1.04), 2541 (III: 0.90)

**Mathematical Category IV:**P (III: 0.73), 6 (III: 0.60), 36 (III: 0.48), 61 (III: 0.50), 69 (V: 0.22), 88 (III: 0.42), 94 (III: 0.36), 104 (III: 0.46), 181 (III: 0.24), 206 (III: 0.53), 218 (III: 0.40), 254 (III: 0.47), 307 (III: 0.52), 378 (III: 0.56), 398 (III: 0.28), 424** (III: 0.48), 429 (III: 0.60), 431 (III: 0.29), 453 (III: 0.49), 467 (V: 0.30), 522 (III: 0.70), 629 (III: 0.80), 642 (III: 0.41), 720 (V: 0.32), 915 (III: 0.45), 918 (III: 0.48), 1359 (III: 0.45), 1448 (III: 0.47), 1524 (III: 0.48), 1563 (V: 0.43), 1678 (III: 0.52), 1718 (III: 0.47), 1751 (III: 0.24), 1838 (III: 0.48), 1842 (III: 0.31), 1845 (III: 0.53), 1875 (III: 0.23), 2147 (III: 0.64), 2197 (III: 0.51), 2374 (III: 0.59), 2492 (III: 0.47), 2544 (V: 0.29), 2652 (III: 0.64), 2718 (III: 0.34)

**Mathematical Category B:**K (V: 0.10), L (V: 0.10), 049 (V: 0.05), 056 (V: 0.14), 0142 (V: 0.14), 1 (V: 0.03), 103 (V: 0.11), 180 (V: 0.13), 189 (V: 0.07), 205 (V: 0.06), 209 (V: 0.1), 256 (V: 0.07), 263 (V: 0.06), 330 (V: 0.1), 365 (V: 0.15), 424* (V: 0.01), 451 (V: 0.10), 610 (V: 0.08), 911 (V: 0.04), 917 (V: 0.11), 1251 (V: 0.07), 1319 (V: 0.1), 1398 (V: 0.07), 1424 (V: 0.06), 1573 (V: 0.05), 1642 (V: 0.07), 1704 (V: 0.02), 1841 (III: 0.04), 1854 (V: 0.05), 1874 (V: 0.13), 1877 (V: 0.10), 1891 (V: 0.06), 2127 (V: 0.11), 2400 (V: 0.04), 2516 (V: 0.03), 2523 (V: 0.14)

The lists above, of course, include only the few hundred manuscriptsfor which the Alands supply data. They either do not supply data for theremaining manuscripts, or the manuscripts are too fragmentary for the datato be meaningful. The manuscripts for which they did not supply data aregenerally either unclassified or Category V. The above data shows that thereis some overlap between what should be Category III and Category V (e.g., inthe Catholics, there are thee manuscripts in Category IV which the Alandsmake Category V, and one in Category B which they list as Category III). Buttheir accuracy rate is on the order of 85%, and it is very rare for them tomiss by more than one category (except in the handful of cases where theyapply one category to a manuscript which belongs in different categoriesin different sections). Thus it seems likely that the manuscripts they listin Category V can be safely ignored and represented by a sample. The trickremains to choose between the several hundred manuscripts of Category IV andhigher.

I must stress that this is not the final word. The Aland samples are toosmall to be entirely reliable, especially if a manuscript is block-mixed,and the classifications above are based on only a single statistical measure,which is imperfect because of the difference between meaningful and meaninglessnon-type-1/2 readings. But it is at least a measure of Byzantine-ness based solely onmathematics.

A footnote: Some may object to my seeking gaps to define the differencesbetween categories, pointing out -- correctly -- that I have elsewhere deniedthe existence or significance in gaps of percentage agreements.

The situations, however, are not parallel. It is, yet again, adistinction between grades and clades.A text-type, as I define the term, is a clade, so percentages and gaps arenot relevant.

But two of the bare handful of assured resultsof New Testament TC is the existence of the Byzantine Text and of mixture. Thismakes it meaningful to attempt to assess the degree of Byzantine mixture in amanuscript -- and, while the Aland data does not allow us to really determinegenetic ancestry, it is generally enough to determine degree of Byzantine influence.

This is a grade distinction, nothing more: All we are seeking is percent ofByzantine readings. In *that* context, we need dividing lines betweencategories. We could of course be arbitrary; there is in this case no realproblem with that. But since there are gaps (at least some of them), placingour category divisions within those gaps makes the distinctions betweencategories more distinctive. So I tried to find suitable gaps.