New Testament Manuscripts

Numbers 1-500

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: 1^eap and Family 1 * 1^r * 2^ap * 4^e * 5 * 6 * 7^e * 13 and Family 13 * 16 * 18 * 21 * 22 * 27 * 28 * 33 * 35 * 38 * 42 * 43 * 44 * 59 * 60 * 61 * 63 * 66 * 69 * 71 * 81 * 82 * 83 * 91 * 93 * 94 * 104 * 109 * 110 * 115 * 118 * 124: see under 13 and Family 13 * 131: see under 1 and Family 1 * 138 * 141 * 157 * 160 * 162 * 174 * 175 * 177 * 179 * 180 * 181 * 185 * 189 * 201 * 202 * 203 * 205 * 206 * 209: see under 1 and Family 1 * 213 * 223 * 225 * 229 * 230: see under 13 and Family 13 * 234 * 235 * 245 * 249 * 251 * 256: see under 365 and Family 2127 * 262 * 263 * 265 * 267 * 270 * 272 * 273 * 280 * 291 * 304 * 307 * 312 * 314 * 317 * 319 * 322 * 323 * 330 and Family 330 * 346: see under 13 and Family 13 * 348 * 349 * 356 * 365 and Family 2127 * 372 * 383 * 423 * 424 * 429 * 430 * 431 * 436 * 438 * 439 * 442 * 443 * 449 * 451 * 453 and Family 453 * 470 * 472 * 473 * 474 * 475 * 476 * 477 * 478 * 482 * 485 * 489 * 490 * 491 * 492 * 493 * 495 * 496

Manuscript 1^eap and Family 1

Location/Catalog Number

Basel. Catalog number: University Library A. N. IV. 2.

1 contains the entire New Testament except the Apocalypse. It is written on parchment, one column per page.

Date/Scribe

Usually dated paleographically to the twelfth century. (Scrivener, however, gives the date as the tenth century while noting that Burgon dated it to the twelfth or thirteenth.) Originally contained a set of illuminations, but most of these were extracted by 1862. One of the illustrations is thought to be of the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI (reigned 886-911) and his son Constantine Porphyrogenitus (reigned 911-959), which seems to be the basis for the tenth century date. Scrivener notes that Hebrews is the last book in Paul, and that as bound the gospels appear at the end of the volume. The writing style is described as "elegant and minute," and "fully furnished with breathings, accents, and ι adscript. The initial letters are gilt, and on the first page of each gospel the full point is a large gilt ball." Hatch reports, "Words written continuously and without separation; accents and breathings; ruling with a sharp point; letters pendents; high, middle, and low points, comma, and interrogation point...." It has the Ammonian sections and lectionary notes but not the Eusebian canons.

Description and Text-type

That 1 has a not-entirely-Byzantine text has been known at least since 1516, when Erasmus consulted it to compile the Textus Receptus. For the Gospels, Erasmus worked primarily from 1, 2^e, and the vulgate, but he preferred the latter two as 1's text appeared to be aberrant.

In recent centuries, this "aberrant" text came to be recognized as valuable; 1 was, for instance, one of the very few minuscules cited by Tregelles, and Hort mentions it as having a relatively high number of pre-Syrian readings. (All of this, it should be noted, applies only in the gospels; elsewhere 1 appears to be an entirely ordinary Byzantine text.)

A crucial discovery came in 1902, when Kirsopp Lake published Codex 1 of the Gospels and its Allies. This work established the existence of the textual family known as "Family 1" or "the Lake Group" (symbolized in NA²⁶ as f¹ and in earlier editions as λ; von Soden calls the group I^η). In addition to these basic four (1, 118, 131, 209), we now consider 205, 205^abs, 872 (Mark only), 884 (in part), 1582, 2193, and 2542 (in part) to be members of the family. Within the type, 1 and 1582 form a close pair (they also seem to be the best representatives of the family). 205 goes with 209; in fact, Lake thought 205 a descendent of 209; although Wisse disagrees, the only differences between the two seem to be Byzantine corruptions, usually if not always in 205.

The most obvious characteristic of the Lake Group is that these manuscripts place John 7:53-8:11 after John 21:25. In addition, 1 and 1582 contain a scholion questioning the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20.

Aland and Aland list 1 as Category III in the Gospels. Wisse lists it, not surprisingly, as a core member of Family 1, and "close to 1582." Von Soden classifies 1 as I^ηa (i.e. Family 1) in the Gospels

This does not settle the question of what sort of text is found in Family 1. Here the name of B. H. Streeter is most important. Streeter, working largely on the basis of data supplied by Lake, proposed that Family 1, along with the Koridethi Codex (Θ), Family 13, the minuscules 28, 565, 700, and the Armenian and Georgian versions, were the remnants of what he labelled the "Cæsarean Text." Streeter's theory, however, has become controversial in recent years, and cannot be discussed here. See the article on Text-Types and Textual Kinship; also the very brief mention in the entry on 13 and Family 13. It might be noted that even Streeter concedes Family 1 to be somewhat more Alexandrian than the other "Cæsarean Text" witnesses.

In fact the relationship between Family 1 and the other "Cæsarean" witnesses is somewhat uncertain. While the other members of the type often do show some sort of special relationship to each other, that of Family 1 to the others is slightly weaker. Streeter would define the "Cæsarean" witnesses in terms of non-Byzantine agreements. The following table shows the percentages of non-Byzantine agreements for certain leading "Cæsarean" witnesses (with B, D, and E thrown in for controls). The table is based on a set of 990 sample readings:

	Θ	Family 1	Family 13
B	145/224=65%	181/249=73%	102/166=61%
D	140/211=66%	110/192=57%	75/141=53%
E	2/5=40%	0/3=0%	4/6=67%
Θ	-	125/156=80%	115/145=79%
Family 1	125/156=80%	-	92/121=76%
Family 13	115/145=79%	92/121=76%	-
28 (Mark)	37/50=74%	34/45=76%	37/39=95%
565	109/127=86%	100/122=82%	63/83=76%
700	87/104=84%	74/98=76%	60/78=77%
arm	135/168=80%	131/167=78%	89/118=75%
geo¹	117/156=75%	119/153=78%	81/111=73%

The interpretation of these results is left as an exercise for the reader.

The following offers a brief summary of information about the various members of Family 1:

MS	Date	Location	Catalog Number	Soden descrip.	Wisse descrip.	Cited in	Comment
1	XII	Basel	University Library A. N. IV. 2	I^ηa	1 core; close to 1582	SQE¹³, Soden, Merk, Bover, Huck-Greeven	Gospels, Acts, Epistles complete.
118	XIII	Oxford	Bodl. Libr. Auct. D. infr. 2. 17	I^ηb	1 core	Soden, Merk, Bover, Huck-Greeven	Gospels with lacunae; Matt. 1:1-6:2, Luke 13:35-14:20, 18:8-19:9, John 16:25-end from later hands. Many of the leaves are palimpsest, with 118 being the upper writing.
131	XIV?	Rome	Vatican Library Gr. 360	I^η	1	Soden, Merk, Bover, Huck-Greeven	Gospels, Acts, Epistles complete. Dated to the eleventh century by Birch. "This copy contains many itacisms, and corrections primâ manu" (Scrivener).
205 (+205^abs)	XV	Venice	San Marco Library 420 (Fondo Ant. 5)	I^η	1; pair with 209	SQE¹³	Old and New Testaments complete. Thought by Lake, and earlier Rinck, to be copied from 209. This is probably not true (Burgon considers 205 and 209 to be descended from the same uncial ancestor, presumably at some removes), but the two are very close. 205 was copied for Cardinal Bessarion, probably by his librarian John Rhosen.
209	XIV	Venice	San Marco Library 394 (Fondo Ant. 10)	I^ηb	1; pair with 205	SQE¹³, Soden, Merk, Bover, Huck-Greeven	New Testament complete (gospels, acts, epistles are XIV century; r is XV century). Like 205, once belonged to Cardinal Bessarion, who used it at the Council of Florence in 1429. Many marginal notes in vermillion from the first hand. Writing style resembles 1 (Scrivener).
1582	948	Athos	Vatopediu 949	I^ηa	1; close to 1	SQE¹³, Soden, Merk, Bover, Huck-Greeven	Gospels complete. The colophon says it was written by Ephraim, the same scribe as 1739 -- although it has been suggested that the colophon is from a later hand. The (incomplete) Eusebian tables have light writing on a colored background. The evangelist portraits aren't nearly as good as the text; Mark in particular looks like he needs a prescription for an antidepressant. John is actually copying his own gospel: the drawing shows him reading a book that reads ΕΝ ΑΡ ΧΗ ΗΝ ΟΛ ΟΓοϹ ΚΑΙ ΟΛο. Black-and-white scans (from a microfilm) are available at https://www.loc.gov/item/00271052406-ma/.
2193	X			I^ηa		Soden, Merk, Bover	Lost.

Note: Von Soden also classified 22 as a member of the Lake Group; however, Wisse considers 22 to be the head of a different group. 872 is considered by von Soden to be part of I^ηb, but Wisse finds it to be K^x. Two additional Family 1 witnesses found by Wisse, 884 and 2542, are only weak and partial members of the family. These four witnesses are therefore omitted.

Von Soden says that 1 is I^a3 in the Acts and Epistles. Aland and Aland list it as Category V outside the gospels. In Acts, the Text und Textwert volume shows it with only one reading (out of 104 examined) that agrees with UBS against the Byzantine text (Acts 21:10, where it has a reading that, although not the majority, is still common and could arise accidentally), and one other reading that agrees with neither (Acts 21:25, where it agrees exactly only with 226* although several other minuscules have similar texts). This raises the slight possibility that it is a little less Byzantine somewhere around Acts 21, but the sample is small and most of its text is clearly very Byzantine.

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

von Soden: δ254.

Bibliography

Collations:
Kirsopp Lake, Codex 1 of the Gospels and its Allies, Texts and Studies, volume vii, Cambridge, 1902, prints a text of 1 collated with 118, 131, and 209.

Sample Plates:
Aland & Aland (1 plate)

Editions which cite:
Cited in NA²⁶ and NA²⁷ for the Gospels (usually as part of f¹)
Cited, along with 205, 209, 1582, and 2542, in SQE¹³.
Family 1 is cited in all the UBS editions.
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover.

Other Works:
Harvard Theological Review, July 1923, offers an article by R. P. Blake and K. Lake on the Koridethi Codex and related manuscripts.
B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (MacMillan, 1924) devotes considerable space to the relations between the various "Cæsarean" witnesses.

Manuscript 1^r

Augsburg, University Library Codex I. 1.4.1. Labelled 1 in all previous catalogs, but now renumbered 2814 in the new Aland list. Soden's Αν²⁰. Contains the Apocalypse only. Twelfth century. Has the Andreas commentary. Noteworthy primarily as the single Greek manuscript used by Erasmus to prepare the Apocalypse of his 1516 New Testament. It now ends (as it did in 1516) with 22:16, δαδ, forcing Erasmus to compile the remaining verses by retranslating the Vulgate. Erasmus borrowed the manuscript from Reuchlin, but it was lost for many years until rediscovered in 1861 by Delitzsch. Hort said of it, "it is by no means... of the common sort. On the one hand it has many individualisms and readings with small and evidently unimportant attestation: on the other it has a large and good ancient element." Hort associates it with 38 [=2020]. Other scholars have not placed it so high, however; the text (which often cannot be distinguished from the commentary) seems to be fairly typical of the Andreas manuscripts. Hodges and Farstad, following Schmid, place it in their "M^e" group, a subset of the Andreas text containing such manuscripts as 181, 598, 2026, 2028, 2029, 2031, 2033, 2038, 2044, 2052, 2054, 2056, 2057, 2059, 2060, 2065, 2068, 2069, 2081, 2083, 2186, 2286, and 2302.

Manuscript 2^ap

Basel, University Library A. N. IV.4. Labelled 2 in all previous catalogs, but now renumbered 2815 in the new Aland list. Soden's α253. Contains the Acts and Epistles complete. Generally dated to the twelfth century, although Scrivener and Burgon list XIII/XIV. Classified as I^b1 by von Soden, but in Paul (the only section in which Von Soden cites it), this group (which includes such manuscripts as 206, 429, 522, and 1891) is mostly Byzantine. That 2 is mostly Byzantine is confirmed by the Alands, who place the manuscript in Category V. Scrivener notes that it has "short introductions to the books," but these have no more critical value than those found in any other manuscript. Thus the only real interest in 2 is historical; it is the manuscript Erasmus used as the primary basis for his 1516 edition of the Acts and Epistles. (This, at least, is reported by most experts; Gary S. Dykes, however, claims that the Textus Receptus does not contain any of 2's distinctive readings. The Alands in Text und Textwert note only one singular reading in Acts, at 10:12, and one reading which is entirely non-Byzantine, at 23:20; Dykes is right that the TR doesn't agree with 2 in either place -- although, curiously, it doesn't agree with 1 in the latter place either.) Scrivener quotes Hoskier to the effect that his (Erasmus's) binder cut off significant portions of the margin.

Manuscript 4^e

Paris, National Library Greek 84. Soden's ε371. Contains the Gospels with minor mutilations (Matt. 2:9-20, John 1:49-3:11). Generally dated to the thirteenth century (so von Soden, the Alands, and the Paris Library site), although Scrivener and Burgon list the twelfth. Classified as I' by von Soden, but this group (containing among others P Q R Γ 047 064 074 079 090 0106 0116 0130 0131 and a number of undistinguished minuscules) is amorphous; most of its members are heavily if not purely Byzantine. That 4 is mostly Byzantine seems to be confirmed by Wisse; who classifies it as K^mix/K^x/K^x. The Alands do not assign 4 to a Category; this often means that the manuscript is heavily but not quite purely Byzantine. In the past, Mill considered 4 to have some relationship to the Latin versions and the Complutensian Polyglot; this may, however, be simply an indication that it agreed with the Byzantine text where the latter differs from the Textus Receptus. The manuscript was included in the editions of Stephanus as γ'. It is described as "clumsily written" and has extensive lectionary apparatus. Black and white scans, from a microfilm, are available at the Paris Library site at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107230259.

Manuscript 5

Paris, National Library Greek 106. Soden's δ453. Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles complete. Usually dated to the thirteenth century; Scrivener gives twelfth century or later; the Paris Library site says XIV.

In the Gospels, Soden lists it as A^k; other members of this group include 15, 32, 53, 169, 225, 269, 292, 297, 416, 431, 448, 470, 490, 496, 499, 534, 546, 558, 573, 715, 752, 760, 860, 902, 946, 968, 976, 987, 1011, 1015, 1058, 1091, 1163, 1167, 1171, 1211, 1227, 1291, 1299, 1321, 1439, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1566, 1800, 2142, and 2176 -- an undistinguished group of manuscripts which Wisse generally classifies with K^x or its related groups (Wisse classifies 5 itself as Mix/K^mix/1519; seven other A^k manuscripts also go with 1519, but many of the other A^k manuscripts go with 1167 or have unique texts). That 5 is largely Byzantine is confirmed by the Alands, who in the Gospels place it in Category V.

Outside the gospels, 5 is much more interesting. The Alands promote it to Category III, and Von Soden places it in I^a2 (along with such manuscripts as 467 489 623 927 1827 1838 1873 2143). Some support for this is offered by Richards, as 623 is 5's closest relative in his tests of the Johannine Epistles (so close that they might almost be sisters). The kinship of 5 with 489 927 1827 2143, however, is not notable in Richards's lists; 5 agrees with all of these in the 60% range, which is fairly typical of its agreement with Byzantine manuscripts. Richards classifies 5 and 623 as members of his Group A³ (family 1739); even by his numbers, however, they are weak members, and should be discarded. Wachtel classified 5 as a distinctly non-Byzantine (40+) manuscript, but without distinguishing its kinship. The Alands in Acts find it to be closest to 1101 among manuscripts with at least twenty readings; among those which contain the whole book or nearly, it is closest to 623 (81%), 2201 (81%), 1893 (80%), 1595 (80%), and 1598 (79%). They list it with two singular readings and 13 readings that agree neither with UBS nor the Byzantine text. In four of these it has nine or fewer allies. Its allies in these readings are:
Acts 21:25 -- 5 623
Acts 23:20 -- singular (but the variants here are forms of μελλοντα; I'd regard this as merely a copying error of no genetic significance)
Acts 24:15 -- 5 436 437 623 2464
Acts 18:16 -- (a special case; 5 is the only MS. with its reading, but ten others have very similar readings)
Thus, in Acts, the Aland data seems to indicate a fairly typical late Alexandrian manuscript with very few special readings; it probably is close to 623, but it is not really a distinctive text.

Scrivener notes that it is "carefully written and full of flourishes" -- although these seem far more common in the Gospels than elsewhere. The sources of Old Testament quotations are often indicated in the margin. Colossians precedes Philippians. Interestingly, the gospels follow the Acts, Catholics, and Paul -- and the bottom of the last page of Paul has been cut out, presumably taking a colophon with it; this is followed by a pair of blank pages, and then the gospels. It seems not unlikely that the Gospels and Apostolos were originally separate books that came to be bound together; this would also help to explain the different in textual quality.

The manuscript was included in the editions of Stephanus as δ'. It is cited in NA²⁸ for the Catholic Epistles, but was not cited in earlier Nestle editions.

Black and white scans, from a microfilm, are available at the Paris Library site at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b110002532.

Manuscript 6

Location/Catalog Number

Paris. Catalog number: Bibl. Nat. Gr. 112.

6 contains the entire New Testament except the Apocalypse. It also has certain writings of Chrysostom at the end, plus lectionary information. It is written on parchment, one column per page.

Date/Scribe

Dated paleographically to the thirteenth century. Scrivener writes of it, "This exquisite manuscript is written in characters so small that some pages require a glass to read them." Decoration is minimal; even the start of a book often is marked only by an in-line title, without so much as a single line gap in the text.

Description and Text-type

The quality of 6 varies in the various parts of the New Testament. Aland and Aland list 6 as Category V in the Gospels and Acts and Category III in Paul and the Catholics.

Von Soden lists 6 as I^k (family Π) in the Gospels and as H in the Acts and Epistles. Wisse's classification as Π6 in Luke makes it a part of a subgroup of Π^b also containing 515 and 1310. Still, this make it Byzantine overall.

In Acts it is also primarily Byzantine, although perhaps not so bad as the Alands imply -- they show 14 readings which agree with neither the UBS nor the Byzantine text:
Acts 2:23 -- singular (probably a mis-copying of the Byzantine reading)
Acts 2:38 -- with 460 629 1409* 1722 (an omission of τον from the reading of ℵ A B 81 181 467 1409^c 2774)
Acts 2:47-3:1 -- with 103 522 606 629^c 630 641 945 1509* 1642 1739 1891 2200 2400
Acts 3:11 -- with 608 1744 2576 (but this is actually a complex variant with many sub-variants and perhaps should not be used for classification)
Acts 9:25 -- with 69 81* 468 915 935 1501 1548 1752 1874 1877 2143 2774
Acts 10:12 -- with 69 1857 2816 (but here again we have a complex variant)
Acts 10:29 -- with 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A (C) 69 81 94 180 181 307 431 453 610 1175 1642 1678 1875 2818
Acts 10:47 -- with E^c and 32 other minuscules including 181 307 322 323 429 431 453 522 630 945 1739 1891 2200 2298
Acts 17:25 -- with 𝔓⁷⁴ A 33 38 256 459 547 1319 1573 2127 2344 2544 2675 2737 2772 (and an easy mental slip from a reading supported by D Ψ and more than fifty minuscules including 181 307 436 441 453 614 623 1611 2138 2412)
Acts 15:34 -- with 87 other minuscules including 5 33 88 (181) 307 (322) 323 (326) 383 441 453 614 623 1175 (1611) 1739 1891 2298 2344 2412
Acts 23:20 -- with 85 other witnesses including ℵ² Ψ 307 424^c 436 441 483 614 629^c 876 945 1175 1505 1611 1739 2138 2298 2412 2495
Acts 23:30 -- with 1409 2147 2541 2652
Acts 24:6-8 -- with 69 (and very close to 181 1875) (but this is an even more complex variant than 9:25 or 10:12)
Acts 25:5 -- with 68 other witnesses including Ψ 69 206 307 429 441 453 522 614 623^c 1505 1611 1852 2138 2412 2495

It will presumably be evident that 6 isn't conspicuously close to anything in Acts (and it perhaps isn't as unusual as its high number of non-Byzantine/UBS readings would imply). Among manuscripts with which it shares at least thirty readings, the Alands list as its closest relatives 1526 (86%), 172 (85%), 1867 (82%), 483 (81%), 2080 (80%), 69 (80%), 1022 (80%), 1835 (80%), 1277 (80%). Those are pretty low agreement rates -- and, strangely, most of the higher percentages are from manuscripts which, although substantial, also have substantial gaps, which (given the Alands' too-small, biased sample) might seriously affect the results; I simply don't trust those percentages. I think 6 in Acts needs more examination, but I don't see much evidence that it will really show us much.

The situation changes in Paul and the Catholic Epistles. 6 still possesses many readings characteristic of the late phases of the Byzantine text, but it also has many distinct readings, many of which it shares with 1739 and (especially) 424**. Noteworthy among these are:

Rom. 3:12 omit ουκ εστιν [B 6 424** 1739]
1 Cor. 1:14 omit τω θεω [ℵ* B 6 424** 1739]
Gal 1:15 omit και καλεσας δια της χαριτος αυτου [𝔓⁴⁶ 6 424** 1739 1881]
Eph. 1:1 omit εν εφεσω [𝔓⁴⁶ ℵ B 6 424** 1739]
Eph. 4:28 omit ταις (ιδιαις) χερσιν [P 6 424** 1739 1881]
Eph. 5:31 omit και προσκολλησεται προς την γυναικα αυτου [6 1739* Origen Jerome]
1 Tim. 3:14 omit προς σε (εν) [(F G) 6 263 424** 1739 1881]
2 Tim. 4:8 omit πασι [D** 6 424** (1739) 1881 lat Ambrst]
Heb. 5:12 omit τινα [075 6 424** 1739 1881]

It will be observed that 6 shares all of these readings with 1739 -- and does not consistently agree with anything else. This pattern continues elsewhere; where 6 is non-Byzantine, it agrees with 1739 over 90% of the time. (The connection of 1739 and 6 has been known almost since the discovery of the former, and recently was reaffirmed by Birdsall.)

6 also has a peculiar affinity with 424**; although these manuscripts actually have fewer special agreements with each other than with 1739, this is because they are more Byzantine than 1739. 6 and 424** seem to form their own subgroup within family 1739 (note, e.g., their unique reading ευωχιαις in Jude 12).

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

von Soden: δ356. Tischendorf: 6^e; 6^a; 6^p. Cited in Stephanus as ε'.

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:

Sample Plates:
Black-and-white scans, from a microfilm, are now available from the Paris library at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722052v

Editions which cite:
Cited frequently in NA²⁶ and NA²⁷.
Cited in UBS⁴ for Paul.
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover.

Other Works:

Manuscript 7^e

Paris, National Library Greek 71. Soden's ε287. Contains the Gospels compete. Generally dated to the twelfth century; Scrivener quotes the eleventh. Classified as I^φb by von Soden; other members of this group include 115 179 267 659 827 and parts of 185 1082 1391 1402 1606. It is associated with Family 1424 (I^φa). Wisse classified 7 as "Cluster 7." This group contains 7, 267 (Soden: I^φb), 1651 (Soden: K^x), and 1654 (Soden: I^α). Wisse describes the group as "close to K^x in Luke 1 and 10, but... quite distinct in Luke 20." The Alands do not assign 7 to a Category; this is not inconsistent with Wisse's classification of the manuscript as often but not universally close to K^x. Physically, Scrivener describes 7 as having a "very full [lectionary apparatus]" and a metrical paraphrase. It is said to be "[i]n style not unlike Cod. 4, but neater." It is Stephanus's ς'.

Manuscript 13 and Family 13

Location/Catalog Number

Paris. Catalog number: Bibl. Natl. Gr. 50.

13 contains the Gospels with lacunae: lacking Matthew 1:1-2:20 (two leaves lost), 26:33-52 (one leaf), 27:26-28:9 (two leaves), Mark 1:20-45 (one leaf), John 16:19-17:11 (one leaf), 21:2-end. There is a fragment of a lectionary list at the end. 13 is written on parchment, two columns per page.

Date/Scribe

Dated paleographically to the thirteenth century. Scrivener says of its appearance simply "it is not correctly written." Griesbach called it "inelegant," and Ferrer/Abbott admit that there are numerous orthographic errors (though not exceptionally numerous). They say that the number of itacisms is especially noteworthy (the introduction, p. xii, counts 1523!). On page xiii, they add that the scribe "was somewhat prone to the omission of words, from carelessnes, sometimes even a part of a word being dropped...."

Description and Text-type

It was W. H. Ferrar who first brought widespread attention to 13. In a posthumous work published by T. K. Abbott in 1877, he pointed out the relationship between 13, 69, 124, and 346. For this reason, the group Family 13 (f¹³) is often called the Ferrar Group (symbolized φ; von Soden calls the group I^ι).

The most obvious characteristic of the Ferrar Group is that these manuscripts place John 7:53-8:11 after Luke 21:38.

Since the time of Ferrar, many more manuscripts have been added to the Ferrar Group. The list as given in Nestle-Aland consists of 13, 69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689, and 1709. Von Soden broke the group up into three subgroups, the a subgroup containing 983 and 1689; the b subgroup consisting of 69, (124), 174, and 788; and the c subgroup containing 13, 230, 346, 543, 826, and 828.

The Lakes offered a similar scheme (with slightly different nomenclature, essentially reversing the names of the a and c groups). In Colwell's opinion, this means that Family 13 is not a true "family"; it is a "tribe" within which the Lakes' Group a is a family. The Lakes' groups are as follows:

a consists of 13, 346, 543, 826, and 828. These manuscripts are generally very close, and also have on the whole the best text, nearly identical to 826.
b consists of 69, 124, and 788. This group is much more mixed than the a group; and cannot be represented by a single exemplar.
c consists only of 983 (and perhaps the lost 1689), which is very distinct from the other groups.

Wisse makes various adjustments to von Soden's list, associating 174 and 230 with the uncial Λ rather than with Family 13, describing 983 as "weak" in Luke 1, and listing 124 as "weak" in all chapters profiled. Wisse denies the existence of subgroups (p. 106 -- although we should note that conclusions based on just three chapters don't prove much), and claims that either 543 or 828 can represent the group as a whole. The studies of Geerlings, and the unpublished work of Geoffrey Farthing, also indicate that 826 stands near the center of the group.

It is widely believed that the Ferrar group is derived from a lost uncial ancestor once located in southern Italy or Sicily (possibly Calabria; see, e.g., the notes on 124, 174, and 346).

In the decades after the Ferrar Group was discovered, it was found to have certain textual affinities with the Lake Group, the Koridethi Codex, and a handful of other minuscules. In 1924, B. H. Streeter suggested that the two groups, plus the Koridethi Codex, the minuscules 28, 565, and 700, and the Armenian and Georgian versions, were the remnants of a "Cæsarean" text-type.

In the following decades, the "Cæsarean" type was further subdivided. Ayuso, for instance, split it into a "pre-Cæsarean" group, containing 𝔓⁴⁵ W (Mark) f¹ f¹³ 28, and the "Cæsarean" text proper, consisting of Θ 565 700 Origen Eusebius and the early forms of the Armenian, Georgian, and Syriac versions.

This was, in fact, the first step toward what appears to be an unraveling of the "Cæsarean" text. Hurtado has shown, for instance, that 𝔓⁴⁵ and W are not as close to the other "Cæsarean" witnesses as Streeter and Kenyon claimed. (It should be noted, however, that Hurtado at no point addresses Streeter's definition of the "Cæsarean" text; only his own. For a comparison of the non-Byzantine readings of Family 13 with those of other "Cæsarean" witnesses, see the item on 1^eap and Family 1.)

For whatever value the information may have, Aland and Aland (who are not enthusiastic about the "Cæsarean" text) rate 13 (and most of the other members of its type) as Category III. The classifications of von Soden and Wisse have, of course, already been covered.

The following offers a brief summary of information about the various members of Family 13:

MS	Date	Location	Catalog Number	Soden descrip.	Wisse descrip.	Lake descrip.	Cited in	Comment
13	XIII	Paris	Nat. Libr. 50	I^ιc	13	a	SQE¹³, Soden, Merk, Bover, Huck-Greeven	Gospels with several lacunae. Said to be "not correctly written."
69	XV	Leicester	Records Office 6 D	I^ιb	13	b	SQE¹³, Soden, Merk, Bover, Huck-Greeven	New Testament with lacunae. Lacks Matt. 1:1-18:15. Rapidly and poorly written on bad materials. See separate entry
124	XI	Vienna	Austrian Nat. Libr. Theol. Gr. 188	I^ιb	weak 13	b	Soden, Merk, Bover, Huck-Greeven	Gospels. Missing Like 23:31-24:28. Written on parchment, one column per page. Ferrer/Abbott considers it to be more carefully written than the other manuscripts of the family they studied (p. xvii). Scrivener reports, "The manuscript was written in Calabria, where it belonged to a certain Leo, and was brought to Vienna probably in 1564."
174	1052	Rome	Vatican Libr. Gr. 2002	I^ιb	Λ		Soden, Merk, Bover, Huck-Greeven	Gospels with several lacunae, including John 8:47-end. Written by a monk named Constantine, and associated with "Georgilas dux Calabriae."
230	1013?	Escorial	Gr. 328 (Y. III. 5)	I^ιc	Λ		Soden, Merk, Bover, Huck-Greeven	Gospels complete, written by a monk/priest named Luke (who miscalculated or miswrote the indiction)
346	XII	Milan	Ambrosian Libr. S. 23 sup	I^ιc	13 core	a	SQE¹³, Soden, Merk, Bover, Huck-Greeven	Gospels. Missing John 3:26-7:52. Bought in 1606 in Gallipoli. That is not, note, Gallipoli in Turkey, the site of the World War I battle, but the one in Apulia in Italy. Dr. Ceriani of the Ambrosian Library, who of course had much occasion to examine the volume, thought it was written in Calabria. It is written in a single column of 13 lines per page; some of the writing is badly faded. Ferrer and Abbott, p. xv, report that it shares very many of the scribal peculiarities of 13. It has a peculiar tendency to split compound verbs into a preposition and a simple verb.
543	XII	Ann Arbor	Univ. of Mich. MS. 13	I^ιc	13 core	a	SQE¹³, Soden, Merk, Bover, Huck-Greeven	Gospels with several lacunae. Scrivener's 556
788	XI	Athens	Nat. Libr. 74	I^ιb	13 core	b	SQE¹³, Soden, Merk, Bover, Huck-Greeven	Gospels. Missing John 21:20-end
826	XII	Grottaferrata	della badia Libr. A a 3	I^ιc	13 core	a	Soden, Merk, Bover, Huck-Greeven	Gospels complete. "A beautiful codex: written probably at Rhegium" (Scrivener)
828	XII	Grottaferrata	della badia Libr. A a 5	I^ιc	13	a	Soden, Merk, Bover, Huck-Greeven	Gospels complete
983	XII	Athos	Esphigmenu 31	I^ιa	13	c	SQE¹³, Soden, Merk, Bover, Huck-Greeven	Gospels. Missing John 11:34-19:9
1689	1200?			I^ιa			Soden, Merk, Bover, Huck-Greeven	Gospels (complete?). Lost. Sample plate in Edward Maunde Thompson, An Introduction to Greek and Latin Paleography (plate 73).
1709	XII	Tirana	Staatsarchiv Koder-Trapp 15 fol. 141-194	K^x				(John only)

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

von Soden: ε368.

Bibliography

Collations:
W. H. Ferrar and T. K Abbott, Collation of Four Important Manuscripts of the Gospels by the late William Hugh Ferrar, 1877, collated 13, 69, 124, and 346, establishing the Ferrar Group.

Sample Plates:
Black-and-white scans (from a microfilm) are available from the Paris Library web site at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722158x.
Aland & Aland (1 plate)

Editions which cite:
Family 13 is cited in NA²⁶ and NA²⁷ for the Gospels
Cited, along with 69, 346, 543, 788, and 983, in SQE¹³.
Family 13 is cited in all the UBS editions.
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover.

Other Works:
B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (MacMillan, 1924) devotes considerable space to the relations between the various "Cæsarean" witnesses.
Kirsopp Lake & Silva Lake, Family 13 (The Ferrar Group): The Text According to Mark, Studies & Documents 11, 1941
Jacob Geerlings, Family 13 -- The Ferrar Group: The Text According to Matthew, Studies & Documents 19, 1961
Jacob Geerlings, Family 13 -- The Ferrar Group: The Text According to Luke, Studies & Documents 20, 1961
Jacob Geerlings, Family 13 -- The Ferrar Group: The Text According to John, Studies & Documents 21, 1962 (It should be noted that the Geerlings volumes suffer from significant methodological problems.)
E. C. Colwell, "Genealogical Method: Its Achievements and its Limitations," 1947, reprinted in Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament, New Testament Tools and Studies IX, 1969, summarizes an attempt to apply Quentin's "Rule of Iron" to Family 13.
E. C. Colwell, "Method in Grouping New Testament Manuscripts," 1958, reprinted in Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament, New Testament Tools and Studies IX, 1969, illustrates the various sorts of textual groupings based on Family 13 among others.
Larry W. Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W in the Gospel of Mark, Studies and Documents 43, 1981

Manuscript 16

Paris, National Library Greek 54. Soden's ε449. The manuscript was once owned by the Medicis; it was acquired by the French National Library in 1599 along with the rest of Catherine de Medici's collection. Before that, it had been in the collection of Cardinal Niccolò Ridolfi, who may have brought it to the west. (His number 34 may still be seen in the MS.) Its 364 folios contain the Gospels with minor mutilations (Mark 16:6-20 are lost and the manuscript was "never quite finished" -- hardly surprising given the complexity of the copying process, as we will see below. The Ammonian Sections, for instance, are supplied only in Matthew and Mark, though the lectionary apparatus extends farther.). It has a Latin parallel, but this is much less complete than the Greek, and they are not printed in sense lines or synchronized; the Latin, which seems to be based on the Vulgate but with many differences, lacks much of the second half of Mark and almost all of Luke and John. (The beginning of John was eventually added, but by a presumably-later scribe who didn't try to match the colors of the Greek text.) Even in the parts of the Latin that are otherwise complete, the decorated initials are often lacking. It is ironic, then, that the only Eusebian tables are in Latin (with space left for a Greek parallel which was never supplied); the tables were a later addition to the text. In the Greek, the writing was continuous, with the scribe changing inks when it came time to write in another color. But it is clear, from the way the Latin was written, that the colors in that part of the text were written at different times -- that is, the text in each color was written in order (in the parts where multiple colors are used, obviously), and when the scribe finished with one color, he set that ink aside, moved back to the top of the section, and started writing in the next color. (It appears the paint colors were also done this way in at least some of the illustrations.) What is more, there are many errors in the Latin ink colors.
Artistic quality seem to have been given more weight than textual; when the Latin is too short to match the Greek, the text is filled out with minims (mmmmm or the like) rather than simply left blank or using fewer words on the line.
Interestingly, there are relatively few captions on the illustrations -- perhaps a side effect of the fact that few at this time read both Greek and Latin, so how would one choose which one to use for a caption?
The format is fairly large, although not large enough to qualify as an Atlantic Bible; it is 335 by 250 mm. The parchment is very fine, and the margins large; the text is unusually easy to read. The quires are generally of ten folios rather than the usual eight. It was set up so that each synoptic gospel begins at the start of a new quire, and -- most unusually -- both Mark and Luke are preceded by bifolios with the evangelist portraits on the second recto, meaning that it does not face the gospels. This may also have been the format of Matthew, since that portrait was a separate insertion. This implies (to me, at least) that this is another instance of the manuscript being incomplete -- in addition to the missing Latin text, the missing portraits, and the missing canon tables, there was some other feature intended for those bifolia which was never even begun.
The text was classified as I^β;b by von Soden; other members of this group include 1216 1579 1588. Von Soden considered this group to be weaker than I^αb (348 477 1279), but in fact both groups are largely Byzantine. Wisse, in evaluating 16, assigns it to its own group. Of this "Group 16" he remarks, "This group consists mainly of MSS. classified by von Soden as the weak group of I^β. However, the group is not simply a weakened form of Gr. 1216 [=152 184 348 477 513(part) 555 752 829 977 1216 1243 1279 1579 2174 2726], though it stands closer to K^x. If there is a relationship between Grs 16 and 1216 in Luke, it is a rather distant one." Other members of Group 16 include 119 217 330 491 578(part) 693 1528 (which Wisse pairs with 16) 1588. In Matthew, the Alands link it with 61 152 184 348 555 829 1148 1216 1279 1528 1579 2394 2726 -- although they have only seven group readings, meaning that they don't have enough data to group manuscripts (and the only one to agree with 16 in all of them is 1528. 61 184 555 1579 agree in five of seven; others agree less than that). In Mark, where the Alands have 26 group readings, the Alands list as 16's relatives 61 152 184 348 829 1216 1243 1279 1528 1579 2174 2726 (i.e. adding 1243 and 2174 but dropping 555 1148 2394) -- although none of these agree with 16 in more than 21 of 26 readings (that being the figure for 1279 and 1528), and 184 and 348 agree in only 16 of 26. In Luke, the Alands do not find 16's text un-Byzantine enough to seek its relatives, although given their small and biased sample size, this doesn't mean much. In John, they grouped it with 182 and 1528, but again, the sample of special readings is very small. Still, it is noteworthy that both Wisse and the Alands link 16 firmly with 1528.
Interestingly, none of the other manuscripts grouped with 16 is bilingual.
We can now go well beyond pairing 1528 and 16. James Dowden pointed out to me Kathleen Maxwell's 2014 book on this manuscript, Between Constantinople and Rome, which offers proof that 16 is a copy of 1528 (Princeton University Library, Garrett 3). Their texts, as we have already seen, are very close (including, e.g., a number of long omissions not found in most Byzantine texts -- although there is a curious and rare addition in 16's text of Matthew 10:29, του πατρος η μωνη του εν τοις ανθρωποις, not found in 1528), but the strongest single argument for kinship is that there are marginal markings in 1528 corresponding to where spaces were left for illustrations in 16. These marks are red crosses -- some now much faded or rubbed, but it appears that almost every drawing in 16 corresponds to a mark in 1528, (Maxwell, p. 5, 80-81, suggests that the lead scribe of 16 added these markings in 1528 to tell the copyists of 16 where they would be inserting drawings.) Formally, this probably argues that 16 should be renumbered as 1528^abs, but given the elaborate work that went into it, and the bilingual text, I doubt this will happen.
Despite Wisse's comments, Group 16 is much more Byzantine than anything else, though the Alands do not place 16 in any Category.
Much more interesting than 16's actual text is the appearance of the text. Scrivener calls it "gorgeous and 'right royal,'" and the reason is not hard to see, for the manuscript is written in four colours (as well as being illustrated). With the exception of a short section that uses gold ink, narrative is copied in vermillion; the words of Jesus and of angels, along with the genealogy of Jesus, are in crimson; blue is used for Old Testament quotations (except that words of God in those quotations are in crimson) and for the speeches of those who might be regarded as sympathetic to Christianity: the disciples, Mary, Zechariah, Elizabeth, Simeon, John the Baptist; the words of evildoers (Pharisees, Judas, the Devil; also the mob) are in black (actually dark brown), as are the words of the centurion and the shepherds (it is possible that these are by mistake, or perhaps a change of plans; Maxwell thinks the lead scribe changed his approach as the work proceeded. Certainly this happened at the beginning, where the first few sections of text written in blue were written over erasures of red; clearly the idea of writing them in blue was not in the scribe's mind at first). The colors were very carefully executed; Maxwell counts only two significant errors in their assignment in the first 150 folia. [For the the description of the colors, see the note at the end.]
Gregory believes that an Armenian had a hand in 16's preparation, as it has Armenian as well as Greek quire numbers, and the Armenian numbering is more complete than the Greek.
The appearance of the manuscript is striking (there are many photographs, mostly black and white but some in color, in Maxwell). The Greek is a flowing cursive, obviously late, in a single wide column. The Latin column is much narrower, using an equally late script, but much darker, clearly written with a different sort of pen. Even more curious is the fact that it is written by different scribes with different writing styles. Maxwell shows a page (folio 121r) where both exist on the same page, but the differences are so dramatic that I saw them simply glancing at pages in the two hands. My first thought is that the earlier was thirteenth century and the later at least a century more recent.
Also noteworthy is that the colors of the two texts are not always coordinated; much of the Latin text in Matthew matches the color of the Greek, but the opening of John is in red in the Greek and black in the Latin.
Space was left for 52 drawings in the text, plus portraits of the evangelists, but only 22 were completed and five more started but not finished. In several cases the initial sketch was complete but the painting only partially done. It is widely believed that the illustrations are based on those in Athos, Iviron 5 (Gregory/Aland 990) -- all of 16's paintings which also appear in 990 are found at exactly the same place in both documents; what's more, in at least one case (the portrait of John), it appears that the portrait in 16 was intended to be a precise scaling-up of that in 990 (since 16 used a larger page) -- but that the various parts were scaled unevenly, resulting in some peculiarities in the final image (Maxwell, p. 107). Several other manuscripts have illustrations associated with this school, but since they are not textual relatives, I doubt this matters much. Curiously, although space was set aside in 16 for new illustrations (in addition to those found in 990) in all four gospels, the plan seems to have been to add far more to Luke than the other gospels. Maxwell, p. 103, suggests that the added portraits were associated with the great festivals in the lectionary, which strikes me as not improbable although Maxwell's knowledge of the lectionary is based on rather inadequate sources. The added pictures have a strong tendency to involve Peter (Maxwell, p. 143, etc.) -- which makes sense for a Byzantine manuscript being made to appeal to the Roman church which associated itself with Peter.
According to Maxwell, there were three artists involved, and that A and B, who did the Evangelist portraits and the illustrations for Matthew and Mark, based their work on 990, but that C, who did Luke and John, was more independent. (I will admit that I'm not entirely convinced that A and B are different artists; Maxwell's argument is based in part on the palette of colors used -- but the main difference is in the blues, and blue paints and pigments were rare and expensive, so there may have been a problem with supply of some of the colors. Artist C's style is so distinct that I don't think there is much doubt that these paintings are by a different artist.) Maxwell believes (p. 37) that the extant drawings were made before the Latin text (but obviously after the Greek). Curiously, they do not seem to have been executed in order, even in Luke where only one artist was involved; in that book, excluding the portrait of the evangelist, #1 is finished, #2 and #3 started, #4, #6, and #7 complete, #8 and #9 started, #10 complete, #11 started, and the other ten not even begun. Maxwell notes that the illustrations in 16 were not allotted the same format as those in 990 (those in 16 are often short, very wide rectangles; those in 990, although also wider than they are tall, are more square -- they approach the "golden ratio" that is widely regarded as the most desirable shape for a drawing. This change of dimensions often caused difficulties for the artists who worked on 16, because they had to somehow make their drawings fit in a strange shape). What's more, many of 16's illustrations have no parallel in 990. Maxwell, p. 119, calls artists A and B inept in their copying of the originals in 990 (while pointing out that it makes it easier to show that the manuscripts are related).
The manuscript is dated by the Kurzgefasste Liste to the fourteenth century, but as I noted above, the Latin looks more like thirteenth century writing to me, and several other art historians apparently also preferred a thirteenth century date. Maxwell, p. 25, speaking of the Greek "pearl" script style, says that it is a revival script based on an eleventh century style, with only a few later elements. Manuscripts of this era are hard to date anyway, and an archaizing script would obviously make it even harder! Two scribes were involved in the Greek text, but the primary scribe seems to have written almost the entire text except for quire 23. Several writers have associated the scribe with a copy of the Octateuch, Athos, Vatopedi 602 -- another ornate manuscript attractive enough to have been published in facsimile, but one with no textual significance that I've ever heard of.
Maxwell, p. 145, believes on the basis of elements other than the form of the writing that the manuscript must date from c. 1275-1295. On pp. 8-9 she suggests that the manuscript was prepared during the Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Paleologos's attempt to promote a reunion of the Greek and Latin churches, which ended with his death in 1282. (Michael, having forced out the Latins who had sacked Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade, wanted desperately to make sure they didn't come back, and thought that reuniting the churches would deny the Latins any excuse for attacking him. But his people hated the idea so much that when he died, the Orthodox church wouldn't even give him Christian burial.) Thus a strong case can be made that the manuscript was written in the thirteenth century -- and the reason that it is incomplete is that it was not finished when Michael died. No one would want to finish the Latin side once the whole idea of the union was dead! This would also explain the seeming attempt, later on, to restart the project (when the Latin text of the Gospel of John was started but not carried on very far): Michael's successor Andronikos II briefly flirted with the Latin church in 1311 and the 1320s. This would explain why a different scribe did the work and did not follow the color scheme of the original writing.
(Maxwell does allow other possibilities; one that she mentions on pp. 202-204 is that it was made for a Catholic princess who married a Byzantine ruler or other high lord for political reasons: Such a princess would likely have her own priest, or at least confessor, and a bilingual manuscript might make conversion, or at least communication, easier. I must say that this idea strikes me as quite likely, given the number of such marriages.)
Maxwell, p. 29, suggests that the Latin scribes had little familiarity with Greek, which helps explain the poor alignment between the two texts.
A full reproduction of the illustrations in the manuscript, although in black and white, can be found in Henri Omont's Miniatures des plus anciens manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale do VIe au XIVe siècle (1929); Maxwell has reproductions of many but not all, many of them in color.
[Note: Scrivener reported that 16 was written in "vermillion, lake, blue and black." This is very bad terminology -- lake is neither a color nor an ink. Indeed, it isn't even actually a pigment; lake is a substrate into which pigments are added; it stabilizes them and changes the way they reflect. But lakes themselves are essentially neutral in hue, although they are often used with red shades. But they are used in painting, not writing, and had their greatest popularity after the manuscript era anyway. So Scrivener's description really should not be followed.]
[Additional footnote: I have cited Maxwell's book repeatedly, but unless you are interested in the history of Byzantine art, it isn't much use. In reading the early pages, I kept wondering why she never cited anyone I'd ever heard of -- and why she never cited manuscripts by Gregory numbers. The section on the text of 16 does cite a few familiar sources, and does use Gregory numbers, but it is clear that her knowledge of textual criticism is limited and secondary, and not particularly helpful; on p. 71, she admits that she had not studied textual criticism before, and she got into it as part of her other research. Her field is art and art history, and it shows. The book includes neither a diplomatic edition of the text of 16 nor a proper collation; she compares the text with 990 and 1528 for Matthew, and cites the "Nestle-Aland" text -- without even saying which edition! (if you dig through the footnotes enough, it appears it was the 27th edition, so she means the standard UBS3 text) -- but unless you already know the text of either 990 or 1528, this non-collation is no help for determining the text of 16. I frankly don't see why she bothered.]

Manuscript 18

Paris, National Library Greek 47. Soden's δ411; Tischendorf/Scrivener 18^e, 113^a, 132^p, 51^r. Contains the New Testament complete, followed by the Psalms and Odes. Dated by a colophon to 1364. Textually it is not noteworthy; the Alands list it as Category V (Byzantine) throughout. This agrees with Von Soden, who lists it as K^r, and Wisse, who also describes it as K^r in Luke. In Acts, it is one of the most thoroughly Byzantine of all manuscripts of Acts, according to the Alands' data, with 98 Byzantine readings, four readings that agree with UBS against the Byzantine text, two singular readings (5:24 and 12:25), and no other readings at all which go against the Byzantine text. Wachtel lists it as K^r in the Catholics. In the Apocalypse, Schmid places it in the dominant or "a" group of the Byzantine text headed by 046. In Merk's apparatus, it is part of the K¹ group, most closely associated with 1835 2039 2138 2200. According to Scrivener, the manuscript has two synaxaria between the Pauline Epistles and Apocalypse, and otherwise full lectionary equipment, but (typically of K^r manuscripts) does not have the Eusebian apparatus. It was written at Constantinople. Black and white scans (from a microfilm) can be found at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721796m. There appear to be several corrections, mostly by over-writing.

Manuscript 21

Paris, National Library Greek 68. Soden's ε286. Contains the Gospels with slight mutilations plus a synaxarion. Dated paleographically to the twelfth century (so Aland and the Paris Library web site; Scrivener says tenth). Classified as I^α by Von Soden -- that is, he regarded it as a mainstream "Western" or "Cæsarean" witness. More recent studies have not supported this classification. Wisse finds the manuscript to be K^x, and the Alands affirm this by placing 21 in Category V. The manuscript has pictures of the evangelists (lacking Matthew) and most of the usual marginalia; the synaxarion was added by a later hand. The portraits seem to have much finer details than most Biblical manuscripts; the hair is particularly impressive. Black and white scans (from a microfilm) can be found at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107236674.

Manuscript 22

Paris, National Library Greek 72. Soden's ε288. Contains the Gospels with some mutilations (lacking Matt. 1:1-2:2 4:20-5:25, John 14:22-16:27) and dislocated leaves. Dated paleographically to the twelfth century (so Aland, Gregory, Von Soden, and the Paris Library web site; Scrivener and Scholz preferred the eleventh). Classified as I^ηb by Von Soden. I^η is what we now refer to as family 1; the b group contains the poorer witnesses to the type (118 131 209 872). This view has received partial -- but only partial -- support from later scholars; Sanders (who published a "New Collation of Codex 22" in Journal of Biblical Studies xxxiii, p. 91) noted that Von Soden's collation is inaccurate, but in general supported the classification, and Streeter, while he believed 22 to be "Cæsarean," was not certain it was part of Family 1.
The Alands do not place 22 in any Category, implying that they do not regard it as purely Byzantine but also do not regard it as a member of Family 1 or any other noteworthy type. Wisse's conclusion is more interesting; he makes it a core member of the b subgroup of Group 22. Wisse does not analyse the nature of Group 22, but lists 660, 697, 791, 924, 1005, 1278, 1365, 2372, and 2670 (part) as members of 22a while listing 22, 134, 149, 351 (part), 1192, and 1210 as members of 22b.
A noteworthy feature of the manuscript is that it has a comment about the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (inline in the text but in a different writing style); it is somewhat similar to, but distinctly shorter than, that in 1 (in a semi-uncial hand clearly distinct from the main minuscule hand):
ΕΝ ΤΙϹΙ ΤΩΝ ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑΦΩΝ.
ΕΩϹ ΩΔΕ ΠΛΗΡΟΥΤΑΙ Ο ΕΥ-
ΑΓΓΕΛΙϹΤΗϹ: ΕΝ ΠΟΛΛΟΙϹ
ΔΕ. ΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΕΤΑΙ ᛭
I cannot verify the texts of 134, 149, or 351, but 1192 and 1210 have the same preface to Mark 16:9-20 (with minor orthographic differences). This is strong evidence that Group 22b is a real group, and that this comment on Mark 16:9 is one of its characteristics. (Interestingly, 1192 and 1210 are both are at Sinai. Is Group 22b a Sinai group?)
Describing 22 itself, Scrivener reports that it is a "beautiful copy, singularly free from itacisms and errors from homoeoteleuton, and very carefully accentuated, with slight illuminated headings to the gospels." The Eusebian apparatus is incomplete, and it lacks lectionary equipment. The bottom of the page containing the ending of Matthew has been cut out; I would speculate that this was to remove an illustration. Illustrations are few, but there are beautiful geometric designs at the beginning of each gospel. Black and white scans (from a microfilm) can be found at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721872c.

Manuscript 27

Paris, National Library Greek 115. Soden's ε1023. Contains the Gospels with slight mutilations; in addition, the text has been lost from John 18:3, being replaced by a supplement (on paper) which Scrivener dates to the fourteenth century. (The transition is extremely noticeable, the script going from narrow, fine, and very thin to wider, darker, and blobby; there are 19 lines per page in the main text, 17 in the supplement.) The main run of the text is dated paleographically to the tenth century (so Gregory, the Paris Library web site, and Aland; Scrivener says the eleventh). Classified by von Soden as I^φr; this is part of the amorphous group containing also Family 1424 (I^φa) as well as the groups headed by 7 and 1010. This classification is largely affirmed by Wisse, who lists 27 as a member of M27 (Wisse lists two basic M groups, M27 and M1386, along with a number of subgroups). Wisse lists M, 27, 71, 248 (part), 447 (part), 518, 569, 692, 750, 830 (part), 1914 (part), 1032 (part), 1170, 1222, 1228 (part), 1413, 1415, 1458, 1626, 1663 (part), and 2705 as members of M27. (Note that few of the members of Soden's other I^φ groups go here; Von Soden's I^φr, corresponding to Wisse's M groups, stands distinct). It should be emphasized that the M groups are still Byzantine; the Alands place 27 in Category V. Physically, 27 has pictures scattered around the margins (often not very relevant to the text, and mostly confined to Matthew) and most of the usual marginalia including the Eusebian apparatus; the lectionary tables were added later, and Scrivener reports that it has been heavily corrected. It is preceded by a list of lections, which appears to have been added later; it is in a very different hand. This list has been damaged by water -- which, curiously, affects the inner margin more than the outer; it looks as if water was dumped on the inner edge when it was un-bound. Black and white scans (from a microfilm) can be found at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107221277.

Manuscript 28

Location/Catalog Number

Paris. Catalog number: Bibl. Nat. Gr. 379.

28 contains the gospels with lacunae (missing Matt. 7:19-9:22, 14:33-16:10, 26:70-27:48, Luke 20:19-22:46, John 12:40-13:1; 15:24-16:12, 18:16-28, 20:19-21:4, 21:19-end). John 19:11-20:20, 21:5-18 are from a later hand. Some of the pages toward the end are damaged by water, with text lost and some parchment eaten away.

Date/Scribe

Dated paleographically to the eleventh century (the added leaves are from the fifteenth century). 28 is written on parchment, one column per page. Scrivener says it was "most carelessly written by an ignorant scribe;" Streeter too calls the writer "ill-educated." Hatch comments, "Words written continuously without separation; accents and breathings; ruling with a sharp point, letters pendent; high and middle points, comma, colon (:), and interogation point; initials red; initials at the beginning of books ornamented with red, blue, green, and brown...." It has a synaxarion, but the lectionary indications are from a later hand. The Eusebian apparatus appears original. There are a few small illustrations, e.g. at the beginning of Matthew (not portraits, just drawings); they are not particularly attractive.

Description and Text-type

Von Soden classifies 28 as I^α -- i.e. among the primary "Western/Cæsarean" witnesses. However, Aland and Aland remark that it is "Category III in Mark only; elsewhere V." Wisse generally agrees; although he labels 28 "mixed" in Luke 1, he puts it with K^x in Luke 10 and 20.

There is little doubt that most of 28's non-Byzantine readings are in Mark (there are a few in John); in my sample of 889 test readings for which 28 exists, only 150 are non-Byzantine, and 92 of these are in Mark.

But what is this relatively non-Byzantine text of Mark? Streeter proposed that it was "Cæsarean;" Ayuso further classified it as "pre-Cæsarean" (along with 𝔓⁴⁵ W (Mark) f¹ f¹³). The "Cæsarean;" text has, however, come under severe attack in recent decades (though the crucial study, that of Hurtado, does not cite 28). Therefore it is perhaps useful to cite the agreement rates of 28 -- in both overall and non-Byzantine agreements -- for Mark (the data set is the same as that cited above. In Mark, 28 exists for 211 of the readings).

	Overall Agreements	Non-Byzantine Agreements	Near-singular agreements
ℵ	87/211=41%	30/52=58%	3
A	117/211=55%	[4/5=80%]	0
B	88/211=42%	29/49=59%	1
C	84/167=50%	14/23=61%	1
D	79/211=37%	31/50=62%	3
E	125/211=59%	[0/0=--]	0
K	121/210=58%	[2/3=67%]	0
L	93/203=46%	26/47=55%	0
W	110/204=54%	41/55=75%	7
Γ	108/187=58%	[1/2=50%]	0
Δ	103/211=49%	23/44=52%	1
Θ	117/211=55%	37/50=74%	6
f¹	145/210=69%	34/45=76%	4
f¹³	147/211=70%	37/39=95%	4
33	83/158=53%	11/20=55%	1
565	126/210=60%	46/55=84%	4
700	124/211=59%	28/36=78%	5
892	97/211=46%	19/35=54%	0
1071	122/210=58%	12/17=71%	1
1342	111/209=53%	22/32=69%	0
1424	129/211=61%	11/14=79%	1
a	74/172=43%	29/42=69%	1
b	64/160=40%	25/44=57%	1
f	65/154=42%	10/14=71%	0
ff²	78/185=42%	23/40=58%	0
k	37/99=37%	15/22=68%	0
vg^ww	92/188=49%	10/19=53%	0
sin	86/163=53%	30/42=71%	3
sa	80/165=48%	23/35=66%	0
bo	90/178=51%	25/42=60%	0
arm	92/178=52%	28/40=70%	1
geo¹	95/167=57%	34/49=69%	2

I would draw attention particularly to all three rates of agreement with f¹³, and also to the rate of near-singular agreements with 565. Whatever the type is called, there does appear to be kinship here. On the face of it, a common ancestral type between 28 and f¹³ seems nearly certain. Whether this was related to Θ, etc. is less clear, though the data does seem to lean that way.

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

von Soden: ε168.

Bibliography

Collations:
Kirsopp Lake & Silva Lake, Family 13 (The Ferrar Group): The Text According to Mark, Studies & Documents 11, 1941 (Mark only)

Sample Plates:
Hatch (1 plate)
Black-and-white scans (from a microfilm) are available on the Paris Library web site at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10723103z.

Editions which cite:
Cited in NA²⁶ for all four gospels, but in NA²⁷ and NA²⁸ only for Mark.
Cited by Von Soden, Merk, and Bover for the gospels.

Manuscript 33

Location/Catalog Number

Paris. Catalog number: Bibl. Nat. Gr. 14.

33 originally contained the entire New Testament except the Apocalypse (as well as the LXX prophets, not including Daniel; one might suspect that it is the second volume of a two-volume complete Bible). Mark 9:31-11:11, 13:11-14:60, Luke 21:38-23:26 have been lost. In addition, the manuscript has suffered severely from damp; Tregelles said that, of all the manuscripts he collated (presumably excluding palimpsests), it was the hardest to read. The damage is worst in Acts, where some readings must be determined by reading the offprint on the facing page. (In the Text und Textwert volume on Acts, the Alands list eighteen out of 104 sample readings -- a sixth of the total! -- as illegible.) In addition, Luke 13:7-19:44 are on damaged leaves and contain significant lacunae. Some pages have lost their bottom lower corners; the losses are mostly in the margin, but there is some loss of text as well. 33 is written on parchment, one column per page.

Date/Scribe

Dated paleographically to the ninth century (so Omont, Von Soden, Aland; Scrivener suggests the eleventh, while Gregory thought the prophets and gospels to come from the ninth century and the rest from the tenth). Several scribes seem to have been involved; Von Soden suggests that one wrote the Prophets and Gospels, another the Acts, Catholic Epistles, and Romans, and a third the remainder of Paul. Hatch supports this conclusion. The text supports this opinion in part; the manuscript changes type dramatically between Romans and 1 Corinthians. Hatch notes, "Words written continuously without separation; accents and breathings; ruling with a sharp point; letters pendent; high, middle, and low points and comma; initials brown... O.T. quotations sometimes indicated; numbers and titles of chapters; no Ammonian sections or Eusebian canons...." The Gospels have superscriptions and subscriptions; the Acts and Epistles have superscriptions but only occasional subscriptions and no στιχοι. The pages are relatively large at 375x248 mm.; this certainly doesn't make it an Atlantic Bible, but it's quite rare to see a minuscule so large (e.g. of the first hundred minuscules in the Kurzgefasste Liste, only 69 is larger); the large size explains how so much content could be crammed into just 143 folios.

Description and Text-type

33 was christened "the queen of the cursives" in the nineteenth century. At that time, it was without doubt the most Alexandrian minuscule text of the New Testament. Today its title as "best minuscule" may perhaps have been usurped for individual sections (892 is perhaps slightly more Alexandrian in the Gospels; 81 and 1175 rival it in Acts; in the Epistles, 1739 is at least as good and more interesting). But overall there is no minuscule with such a good text over so many books.

In the Gospels, 33 is mostly Alexandrian, of a late type, with a heavy Byzantine mixture (the extent of which varies from section to section). Wieland Willker, following a detailed analysis, is of the opinion that it has most of the major Byzantine variants but few of the minor, which he believes means that it an ancestor started with an Alexandrian text but was corrected very casually toward the Byzantine text (the corrector changing only those readings he noticed on casual inspection to be incorrect). This matches my own unstatistical impression.

In Acts, it is Alexandrian, though with a significant mixture of Byzantine readings. It appears closer to A than to ℵ or B. It is very close to 2344; the two almost certainly have a common ancestor. (Based on Text und Textwert, among manuscripts which exist for thirty or more readings in common with 33, 2344 agrees with 33 82% of the time, with 2718 agreeing 62% of the time and nothing else agreeing as much as 60% of the time! However, this average is perhaps pulled up by Romans.) One might almost suspect 33 of being the ancestor of 2344 if it weren't for their differences elsewhere. It is noteworthy that the Alands list 33 as agreeing with the UBS text 49 times, and with the Byzantine text 38 times (including 17 places where it agrees with both) -- but as having twenty readings not found in either. This is an extremely high rate (B, for comparison, has 11 readings not found in UBS or Byz, ℵ 17, 1739 17), indicating a somewhat unusual text.

In Paul the manuscript falls into two parts. Romans, which is not in the same hand as the other books, is mostly Byzantine; here again, Davies believes it to be akin to 2344. Elsewhere in Paul, 33 is purely Alexandrian, with almost no Byzantine influence. My results find that it is, in fact, the closest relative of ℵ, agreeing with that manuscript even more than A does, and Stephen Carlson's more detailed examination of smaller sections of the text affirms this; 33 goes with ℵ at the top of the branch of his stemma which we would probably call the "Alexandrian Text."

In the Catholics, 33 is again purely Alexandrian; here it aligns most closely with A. These two are the main representatives of the main phase of the Alexandrian text, which also includes (in more dilute form) 81, 436, Ψ, bo, etc.

Von Soden lists 33 as H. Wisse lists it as Group B ("weak in [chapter] 1"). Aland and Aland list 33 as Category II in the Gospels and Category I elsewhere.

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

von Soden:δ48. Tischendorf: 33^e; 13^a; 17^p

Bibliography

Collations:
Frequently collated in the nineteenth century (e.g. by Grisbach, Scholz, Tregelles); given the state of the manuscript, there is a real need for a modern collation using present-day resources.

Sample Plates:
Aland & Aland (1 page -- but this is of the ending of Romans, which is from the less valuable hand)
Hatch (1 page)
Facsmile in Scrivener
The Paris Library now has black-and-white scans, from a microfilm, at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10723181c; one can only hope they will soon do a full color scan, and possibly scans in other spectra. It deserves it.

Editions which cite:
Cited in all critical editions since Von Soden, and frequently in Tischendorf.

Other Works:
M. Davies, The Text of the Pauline Epistles in MS. 2344 (Studies & Documents 38, 1968) briefly discusses the relationship of 33 with 2344.

Manuscript 35

Paris, National Library Coislin Greek 199. Soden's δ309; Tischendorf/Scrivener 35^e, 14^a, 18^p, 17^r. Dated paleographically to the eleventh century. Contains the entire New Testament, without lacunae but with fairly heavy corrections. Also has writings from Demetrius, Euthalius, and some works dubiously attributed to Chrysostom. The lectionary follows the gospels and precedes the Acts. Von Soden classifies it as K^r in the Gospels (based probably on the marginalia), and Wisse confirms that it belongs to this group. Wisse places it (or, more specifically, the first hand) in subgroup 35 along with 141, 170, 204, 394, 402, 516^c, 521, 553, 660^c, 758*, 769, 797, 928, 1250, 1482, 1487, 1493, 1559, 1572, 1600, 1694*, 2204, 2261, 2554. (It is slightly peculiar to note that Wisse attributes the K^r recension to the twelfth century while accepting the eleventh century date for 35.) In the Acts and Epistles, Von Soden lists 35 as part to I^b2, though he cites it only in Paul (where the members of I^b2 include 43 216 323 336 440 491 823 1149 1872 2298). This more or less corresponds to the judgement of the Alands, who do not place the manuscript in a Category (which usually implies a manuscript very strongly but not quite purely Byzantine).
In Acts, the Alands' detailed statistics show 35 having only 6 readings which agree with UBS against the Majority Text, and 69 which agree with the Majority Text against UBS, plus five readings which agree with neither:
Acts 3:22 -- with Ψ 429 522 630 876 945 1611 1739 1891 2138 2200 2298 and twelve others
Acts 5:24 -- with 18 928 1107 1754 (but this is actually the Byzantine except for the omission of τε, which could easily happen by accident)
Acts 12:25 -- 35* with 41 other manuscripts including E 322 323 424^c 630 1175
Acts 13:33a -- with 601 629 1175 2147^c 2705 (but here again we have the Byzantine text minus a single short word, in this case ημιν)
Acts 24:6-8 -- (but this is a case where, although the Alands claim there is a majority text, there really isn't; it appears that slightly more than 40% of the manuscripts have a long text here, although the precise text varies greatly; somewhat less than 60% have the short text found in UBS which the Alands treat as the the majority text. 35 has the most common version of the long form. There is every reason to think that its text comes from the Byzantine tradition; it's just that that tradition is divided).
Thus I think the Alands are right to regard 35, in Acts at least, as not quite purely Byzantine but of very little independent value.
In Paul (which follows the Catholics; Hebrews follows Philemon) the books have the Euthalian prologues; the text may be a degenerate Euthalian text.
In the Apocalypse Von Soden places 35 in I^a3; Schmid places it in the "c" or Complutensian branch of the Byzantine text with manuscripts such as 432 757 824 986 1075 1740 1957 2061 2352 (compare Merk's K^c group). Physically, like most K^r manuscripts, it has extensive marginalia, including extensive lectionary equipment.
Scans (made from a black-and-white microfilm) are available at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b11000133v.r=coislin%20199?rk=21459;2.

Manuscript 38

Paris, National Library Coislin Greek 200. Soden's δ355; Tischendorf 38^e, 19^a, 377^p; Scrivener 38^e, 19^a, 341^p. Dated paleographically to the thirteenth century. It was copied by the same scribe as 1505 and 2400; see in particular the entry on the latter. Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles with lacunae (lacking Matt. 14:15-15:30, 20:14-21:27, Mark 12:3-13:4). Von Soden classifies it as I^k in the Gospels, but Wisse lists it as K^x (Cluster 1053 in chapters 1 and 20; other members of this group include 31, 113(part), 298, 407(part), 435, 552(part), 1053, 1186(part), 1288(part), 1578(part), 2141(part), and 2724(part)). The Alands have little to add to this; they do not place 38 in a Category (which generally means that it is heavily but not purely Byzantine), but we are not told whether it is non-Byzantine in some areas or in all (Wachtel classifies it as 10-20% non-Byzantine in the Catholics, but tells us no more). In the Acts and Epistles, von Soden lists the manuscript as a member of I^a3 (the largest and most amorphous of the I groups, consisting largely of late Alexandrian witnesses with moderate to heavy Byzantine overlay). In Paul, it is cited after 1319 2127 256 263, implying that it may be a weak member of Family 2127 (Family 1319; see the entry on 365), and my own casual examination of the data in Acts and Paul seems to imply that this is correct although I do not have the collations to be certain. In the Acts and Catholic Epistles, it still is listed with 1319 and 256; this group of manuscripts, however, has much less value outside Paul. And, in Acts at least, the Alands list it as having no readings at all that agree with UBS against the Byzantine text, although it does have seven readings which agree with neither:
Acts 2:30 (where it has a singular minor variant on the Byzantine text)
Acts 2:43-44 (where it agrees with 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A C 88 365 460 915 1175 1319 1573 1642 2127 2242, so it appears that it goes along with Family 2127 in agreeing with the actual Alexandrian text; it's just that B goes with the Byzantine text, and UBS followed B).
Acts 2:47, 3:1 (agrees with 1319 1573 2127, so again, it matches Family 2127)
Acts 10:10 (agrees with 38 other minuscules including 365 383 462 1243 1319 2127 2492, so this again appears to be a Family 2127 reading)
Acts 12:25 (with 𝔓⁷⁴ A 6 33 256 459 547 1319 1573 2127 2344 2544 2675 2737 2772, so here again we have a Family 2127 reading that agrees with part of the Alexandrian text against B)
Acts 15:17-18 (with 256 365 1319 1573 2772 -- another clear Family 2127 reading, although 2127 itself defects here)
Acts 23:20 (with 24 other minuscules including 88 1319 1573 2127)
Thus it appears von Soden was right in putting it close to Family 2127; in Acts at least it appears to go with that family, although the family isn't worth much.
The manuscript has an interesting history; it was written for the Byzantine Emperor Michael Paleologus (reigned 1259-1282), and was given to the French King Louis IX (St. Louis, reigned 1226-1270, who died of the plague while on his way to lead what would be the Eighth Crusade). Scrivener calls it "beautiful"; it is illustrated, but has only limited marginal equipment (Ammonian sections but no Eusebian apparatus or lectionary data). The colors of the illustrations have not held.
Scans (made from a black-and-white microfilm) are available at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b11000076g; these show the main text well enough, but the marginalia (and of course the illustrations) are hard to make out. It is not easy to locate pages on the scan; there are no page headings, and book headings are not very easily seen in the black-and-white scans.

Manuscript 42

Lost. Formerly Frankfurt on the Oder, Gymnasium MS. 17. α107; Tischendorf/Scrivener 42^a, 48^p, 13^r. A single leaf of a lectionary is also bound in this manuscript; this is Gregory 𝓁⁹²³; Tischendorf/Scrivener 287^evl, 56^apl. Dated paleographically to the eleventh century. Contained the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation with lacunae; Acts 2:3-34, 2 Pet. 1:1-2, 1 Jo. 5:11-21, Rev. 18:3-13 were lost before the rest of the manuscript was catalogued. Acts 27:19-34 were a supplement from another hand. Von Soden classified 42 as K^c in the Acts and Paul; K in the Catholic Epistles, and I^o2 in the Apocalypse. Schmid placed it in the in the main or "a" group of Apocalypse manuscripts -- the chief Byzantine group, headed by 046. It was missing for a time, which caused me to say that the Alands did not assign it to any Category. However, it was tested for the Text und Textwert volumes, and it appears the reason the Alands don't categorize it is that it is mostly but not entirely Byzantine -- it has no readings which agree with UBS against the Byzantine text, but in nine of its 99 test readings it agrees with neither UBS nor Byz. Scrivener describes it as "carelessly written, with some rare readings." Its text is said to resemble that of 51 and the Complutensian Polyglot; this appears to confirm Von Soden's classification in part, as 51 is also a K^c manuscript. If we look at the nine non UBS/Byz readings identified by the Alands, they are:
Acts 4:33 -- with 73 other manuscripts including D E 51 223 322 323 429 436 522 945 1739 1891 2200 2298 2495
Acts 12:25 -- with 60 other manuscripts including 51 206 223 429 522 876 945 1739 1891 2200 2298
Acts 13:42 -- with 101 other manuscripts including L 049 5 51 88 223 623^c 2298 2492
Acts 15:17-18 -- with 16 other manuscripts including 51 223
Acts 15:34 -- singular reading (but it could arise from a single-word omission from the reading of 51 223 429 522 630 2200 etc.)
Acts 20:24b -- with 431 901 945 (but this reading is the Byzantine reading with one unnecessary word omitted)
Acts 24:6-8 -- with 51 223 234 912^c 1003 1250 1405 1594 1753 1861 1863 2279 2511 2675 (there are many variations here)
Acts 25:5 -- with 68 other manuscripts including Ψ 6 51 69 206 223 307 429 441 453 522 614 623^c 1505 1611 1852 2138 2412 2495
Acts 25:17 -- with 33 other manuscripts including B 056 51 181
The Aland statistics show that, among manuscripts which exist for at least thirty of the readings found in 42, its closest relatives (95% agreement) are 51 1594 2279; it agrees 94% with 234 1753 912, 93% with 390 1861 1863 2511, 92% with 223 1250. Thus there is every reason to believe that von Soden was right and that it belongs to K^c.

Manuscript 43

Paris, Arsenal 8409, 840. Soden's ε107, α270; Tischendorf/Scrivener 43^e, 54^a, 130^p. Variously dated; Scrivener lists the whole as eleventh century, Soden lists the gospels as eleventh and the rest as twelfth; Aland lists both parts as twelfth century. Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles (in two volumes with slightly different formats). Von Soden classifies it as K^x in the Gospels. Wisse concurs, specifying that it is part of Cluster 43 (15, 43, 680, 1163, 1350, 1364, 1592, 2195(part), 2420, 2539) and pairs with 2420. The Alands do not explicitly concur, as they do not place the manuscript in any Category -- but this is probably based on the text of the epistles, not the gospels. In the Acts and Epistles, von Soden classifies 43 as I^b (and cites it with I^b2 in Paul; the members of this group, however, are not particularly distinguished). In Acts, the Alands' statistics show only two readings which agree with UBS against Byz, and only three others that agree with neither. This I would regard as a basically Byzantine text. Wachtel lists it as having between 10% and 20% non-Byzantine readings in the Catholics. Scrivener reports that, in the Gospels, the Eusebian apparatus is from the first hand but the lectionary notes are later; he speculates that it was written at Ephesus.

Manuscript 44

London, British Library Additional 4949. Soden's ε239. Contains the gospels complete. Dated paleographically to the twelfth century. Classified as Kⁱ by Von Soden, corrected by Wisse to K^x, and the Alands concur by placing it in Category V. Written on parchment, with a single column per page. Red ink is used for the first letter of paragraphs. There are miniatures of the four evangelists, now slightly chipped (John is in particularly bad shape), that are painted with excellent technique (I am amazed at the range of tones for a manuscript of this era), although the anatomy of the figures is a little dubious. César de Missy took it from Athos in the eighteenth century; it was bought by the British library in 1776 after de Missy died.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_4949

Manuscript 59

Cambridge (England), Gonville and Caius College MS. 403. Von Soden's ε272. Gregory gave the date as XIII; Scrivener says XII; James lists it as "Cent. xii, xiii, finely written." Scrivener, while noting that Tischendorf considered it to contain a "textu notabili," says that it is carelessly written; he counts 81 instances of homoioteleuton. Contains the Gospels complete, although the pages (according to James) are misnumbered. The manuscript seems not to have been finished; although the first pages (with the prologue to Matthew) are missing, the first surviving page appears to have left a space for an illustration, and this was never supplied. (Illustrations of Mark and Luke are in the text; that of John seems to have been removed.) There are 237 surviving pages (plus an added page); there are 23 lines per page. The first surviving page was written in red ink. The manuscript appears to have had an interesting history. James says that it was "Doubtless one of the books left by Robert Grosseteste to the Franciscans of Oxford," (Grosseteste being the famous and controversial Bishop of Lincoln who died in 1253). James believes that at least one of the comments in the margin was written by Grosseteste himself -- e.g. on page 2 we find the Latin names "Ioram and Ioatham" added to Matthew's genealogy of Jesus, followed by a note in Greek. It seems likely this comment is by Grossteste -- who else in medieval England knew Greek?
James notes that "Throughout the book are headlines in Latin, and chapter numbers, of cent. xiii. There are also interlineations in a similar hand in Latin." Thus the manuscript was probably copied in the West, and certainly came to England at an early date. It was given to Cambridge by Thomas Hatcher in 1567.
In addition to Grosseteste's marginal scribbling, there are several other marginal addenda, some quite interesting -- Rendel Harris thought that the writer of some of the interlinear comments also wrote commented on a Greek psalter in the Corpus Christi library. Scrivener published a collation in 1893 in Adversaria Critica Sacra.
Von Soden classifies 59 as K^x, which Wisse amends slightly to K^mix/K^x/K^x. The Alands do not classify it, implying that it is not purely Byzantine but clearly heavily influenced by the Byzantine text. It is perhaps not of great value to New Testament scholars, but might well be worthy of more examination by church historians.
Scans are available at https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-GONVILLE-AND-CAIUS-00403-00412/1

Manuscript 60

Cambridge, University Library Dd. IX. 69. Soden's ε1321, α1594; Tischendorf/Scrivener 60^e, 10^r. Contains the Gospels and Apocalypse complete, though probably written separately (Scrivener reports that "[t]he Gospels appear to have been written in the East, the Apocalypse in the West of Europe".) A colophon dates it to 1297, but this probably applies only to the Gospels; the Apocalypse appears more recent. Von Soden classifies it as K^x in the Gospels, but Wisse elaborates this to Cluster 1685, "consisting of MSS 60, 1454, and 1685, [and] closely related to Cl 7 and K^x Cl 1084." Thus, although the manuscript is perhaps not purely K^x, it is strongly Byzantine, which the Alands support by classifying it as Category V. In the Apocalypse it is also Byzantine; Von Soden places it in I^a7, with manuscripts such as 432 2067; Schmid places it in the "c" or Complutensian branch of the Byzantine text with manuscripts such as 35 432 757 824 986 1075 1740 1957 2061 2352 (compare Merk's K^c group). Physically, Scrivener reports that it is an elegant copy, that it has lectionary apparatus (added later), and that it has the Ammonian but not the Eusebian apparatus. In the Apocalypse, "[it] has a few scholia from Arethas about it."

Manuscript 61

Dublin, Trinity College A 4.21 (now usually listed as MS. TCD 30). Soden's δ603; Tischendorf/Scrivener 61^e, 34^a, 40^p, 92^r. Called "Codex Montfortianus" after Thomas Montfort, who owned it c. 1600 although he was not the earliest known owner (it contains many marginal readings by William Chark, who owned it before Montfort and may have added the Apocalypse to the volume). Presented to Trinity College by Archbishop Ussher. Contains the New Testament complete. Generally dated to the sixteenth century, though Scrivener admits that a fifteenth century date is possible on paleographic grounds, and an early scholar by the name of Adam Clarke suggested the thirteenth century. Someone named Martin who worked in the seventeenth century in fact suggested an eleventh century date (which is pretty early for a paper manuscript!). But these early dates are surely ruled out by the fact that it uses the Latin chapter numbering (in Arabic rather than Roman numerals!) as well as the Greek.
The manuscript was carelessly copied; there are many corrections, often crossed out rather than erased or properly corrected. In other places, it looks as if someone used a sponge with just enough water to blur the letters without fully erasing them. And it was clearly not complete; it appears that there were plans for decorated initials, but they often aren't there -- e.g. there is a gap at the beginning of Romans and 1 Corinthians for Π the of Παυλος, and in the Apocalypse, the Α of the initial Αποκαλυψις is missing, and there are similar gaps in other books. The writing also appears quite hurried. Book names are supplied in the upper margin of Paul in red ink, much more faded in some places than others; I wonder if two different ink types were used.
Its text has not attracted much interest; Von Soden classifies it as K^x, though Wisse did not profile it due to its late date. The Alands place it in Category V in the Gospels and Acts (reinforcing that it is at least Byzantine if not a member of K^x); in the Epistles and the Apocalypse they raise it to Category III. That it is non-Byzantine in the Apocalypse is confirmed by Schmid (though Von Soden listed it as a Koine witness); it is close to 69 (though not, as Dobbin thought, a copy of that manuscript).
James Dowden, however, tells me that Roger Omanson's Ph.D. thesis places it in Group 1216 in Mark -- still Byzantine, but not K^x.
It is possible that it is under-rated by the Alands in Acts; it has seven readings which agree with UBS against the Byzantine text, and a dozen others which agree with neither:
Acts 2:30 -- with 33 88 181 637 915 917 1874 1877 2737
Acts 2:31 -- with 876 1611 1718 1765 2138
Acts 2:43-44 -- singular, but very close to 181^c and fairly close to several other manuscripts including 326 1837; this is a fractured variant that arguably should be considered more than one
Acts 3:22 -- with D 5 88 326 915 1827 1844 2344 2377
Acts 4:8 -- with 326
Acts 10:12 -- with 326 1837
Acts 10:25 -- 61* is formally singular here, but it is close to the Byzantine text and was corrected to the text of another Byzantine subgroup
Acts 12:3 -- technically singular, but the reading appears to be an error for the Byzantine text
Acts 15:17-18 -- 61* is formally singular here, but it is close to the Byzantine text and was corrected to the text of another Byzantine subgroup
Acts 18:21-22 -- singular reading which looks to me like a scribal error
Acts 18:27 -- with 326 1837
Acts 26:14 -- with 34 other manuscripts including H 049 322 323 326 629 1837
In all seven places where it agrees with UBS against Byz, 61 is in company with 326 and 1837; it will be seen that it agrees with the latter pair in most of its readings which agree with neither UBS nor Byz. Indeed, of manuscripts which are extant for at least half the readings of 61 in Acts, the Alands show 326 as 61's closest ally (88% agreement), followed by 1837 (84%). It seems pretty clear that these three form some sort of group, primarily Byzantine but with an overlay of something else, perhaps late Alexandrian; the group probably shouldn't just be written off as Category V.
According to Peter Malik, although the original text of the Apocalypse is the standard K text, the corrections are not. In chapters 1-4, there are some sixty corrections, most of which move it toward the Andreas text; Darius Müller suggested that 61 was corrected toward the printed text of Erasmus.
What is noteworthy about this manuscript, however, is not its text (which is at best mildly interesting) but the historical use to which it was put. 61 is the manuscript which was presented to Erasmus to force him to include the "three heavenly witnesses" passage (1 John 5:7-8) in his third edition of the Textus Receptus. It is believed that the codex was written for this express purpose, and in some haste; at least three and possibly four scribes were involved in the project (the gospels having quite likely been written before Erasmus's edition was published, then the Acts and Epistles added to confute him; the Apocalypse may be later still; a date of around 1580 has been conjectured for it). Dobbin thought the Acts and Epistles might have been copied from 326, although the latter manuscript seems somewhat more interesting than 61. It has also been supposed that the gospels were taken from 56, but as 56 is a K^r manuscript, it is possible that another copy of that text was used; K^r manuscripts are almost indistinguishable. The haste with which 61 was written is perhaps evidenced by its lack of lectionary apparatus (though it has the κεφαλαια and Ammonian/Eusebian apparatus) and by the number of later corrections it required. It has been said that the only page of the manuscript to be glazed is that containing 1 John 5:7-8, but in fact the paper is glazed throughout; it is simply that so many readers have turned directly to that passage that the wear and tear has caused the glazing to be visible on that page as on no other. The evidence of the photographs is stunning; folios 438v and 439r are much darker and moldier than any others in the boo, including 439r and 439v. Those wishing to see these pages (or any other pages of the codex) can find them at https://digitalcollections.tcd.ie/home/#folder_id=105&pidtopage=MS30_005&entry_point=5.

Manuscript 63

Dublin, Trinity College MS. 31 (A.1.8); also Codex Ussher 1, after Archbishop Ussher. Soden's A¹¹⁸. Gospels, with commentary; Soden files it as type A^c. Most of it is dated paleographically to the tenth century; a few early pages are thought to be later (perhaps XIV; one leaf, folio v, is paper, and was probably added at that time; it contains prefatory material rather than gospel text). The main text and catena look slightly different but are believed to be from the same scribe. The evangelist portraits are badly damaged. John 21:25 is missing. The Alands classify it as Category V, and I have no reason to doubt this. Scans are available at https://digitalcollections.tcd.ie/home/#folder_id=106&pidtopage=MS31_372&entry_point=372.

Manuscript 66

Cambridge, Trinity College O.viii.3. Soden's ε519. Contains the Gospels complete. Estimates of its date vary widely; Scrivener offers the twelfth century, the Alands the fourteenth, von Soden the fifteenth. M. R. James in his catalog of the Trinity manuscripts of class O says "Cent. xv. late, with neat but not good pictures and ornaments. The hand is very good." Textually, Von Soden classifies it as K^r, and Wisse concurs though he notes that it has a "large surplus." The Alands, unsurprisingly, place it in Category V. It is unusual for a K^r manuscript in that it has the Ammonian and Eusebian apparatus. It contains ten blank pages, on five consecutive leaves (for some additional material which was not supplied?). They follow the Eusebian tables. Scrivener believes that two later hands have worked on it, the earlier making some corrections in the text while the later added some scholia in the margin. Frankly it seems a thoroughly unexceptional manuscript.

Manuscript 69

Location/Catalog Number

Leicester. Catalog number: Town Museum Cod. 6 D 32/1

69 contains the entire New Testament with many lacunae. Missing Matt. 1:1-18:15, Acts 10:45-14:17 (the manuscript skips from Acts 10:45 to 14:17 without break; it would appear the scribe did not realize there was a defect in his exemplar here!), Jude 7-25, Rev. 19:10-22:21; Rev. 18:7-19:10 are fragmentary. The manuscript also contains five pages of assorted information about church history and doctrine.

Date/Scribe

Dated paleographically to the fifteenth century, probably to the period 1465-1472, since it was presented to George Neville, Archbishop of York, England during those years. The scribe is known from his other writings to have been Emmanuel, a former resident of Constantinople who spent the second half of the fifteenth century in England copying Biblical and classical texts. His writing style is absolutely peculiar; epsilons closely resemble alphas, and accents are often placed over consonants rather than vowels. Acute and grave accents are confused and hard to distinguish. Errors are also common; Scrivener counted 74 omissions of various sorts, and many words interrupted in the middle. The scribe also used the Nomina Sacra in peculiar ways; Ιησους is consistently spelled out until John 21:15, when contractions begin to be used sporadically. The manuscript appears to have been written with a reed. Scrivener also remarks, "Though none of the ordinary divisions into sections, and scarcely any liturgical marks, occur throughout, there is evidently a close connection between Cod. 69 and the church service books, as well in the interpolations of proper names, particles of time, or whole passages (e.g. Luke xxii. 43, 44 placed after Matt. xxvi.39) which are common to both...." Ferrer/Abbott amplifies: "besides [a strange list of sections], there is no liturgical matter whatever, no division into sections, or Eusebian canons, or notes about lessons, except a marginal mark or two, and a few words, which are often illegible, scribbled at the foot of the first page of each leaf."

Ferrer/Abbott adds, "Many of the changes met with in this MS. arise from inversion of order, the substitution of simple for compound words, and vice versâ. 'A corrector's hand,' adds Dr. Scrivener, 'has been busy throughout this copy, whom Dr. Dobbin considers to have been the original scribe. I have deemed the changes to be secundâ manu, but nearly as old as the first."

A number of marginal notes ("too many," Scrivener acidly remarks) are written in the hand of William Chark, who owned the manuscript probably in the late sixteenth century.

69 is written on a mix of paper and parchment. Abbott/Ferrer, probably based on Scrivener, speculate that the scribe had a limited supply of parchment and estimated how much paper would have to be added to allow enough material for a whole codex. As a result, the quires are usually of five sheets rather than four, with two parchment and three paper sheets per quire, the parchment leaves being on the outside of the quire. The paper is very poor -- so bad that one side of four of the paper leaves had to be left blank. The manuscript has one column per page. The books seem to have originally been in the order Paul (with Hebrews last), non-Biblical materials, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, Gospels.

Description and Text-type

The text of 69 varies significantly. In the Gospels it was identified by Ferrar with Family 13, and this has been affirmed by everyone since (Wisse classifies it as 13, and von Soden put it in I^ib). However, some have thought it one of the best Family 13 manuscripts, and others count it one of the poorer. Probably the peculiar readings generated by scribal errors had something to do with this. Within the Ferrar group, it has been placed in the "b" group (along with 174 and 788) by scholars from von Soden and Lake to Colwell. The Alands, interestingly, classify 69 as Category V (Byzantine) -- despite the fact that its profile (134¹ 63^1/2 22² 50^s) seems to be fairly typical for the Ferrar Group (e.g. 13 is 150¹ 71^1/2 31² 54^s; 346 is 172¹ 82^1/2 24² 53^s).

In the Acts even Scrivener concedes the text to be "less valuable." Von Soden classes it as I^a3, but places it among the lower members of the group. The Alands classify it as Category V. If all we look at is the basic statistics, that classification is not justified; 69 has too many non-Byzantine readings in Acts. The Alands find only four readings in Acts where 69 agrees with UBS against the Byzantine text -- but fourteen readings which agree with neither:
Acts 1:14 -- (singular, but close to the Byzantine reading; probably an error by the scribe)
Acts 2:23 -- (singular, but again close to the Byzantine reading)
Acts 4:33 -- with 321 1448* (but this could be the result of a misunderstood correction to the word order)
Acts 9:25 -- with 6 81* 468 915 935 1501 1548 1752 1874 1877 2143 2774
Acts 10:11 -- (singular, but a minor variant on the Byzatine reading)
Acts 10:12 -- with 6 1857 2816
Acts 10:19 -- with 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A 6 81 94 180 181 307 431 453 610 1175 1642 1678 1875 2818
Acts 15:7 -- with 102 189 1102 1360 1736* 2492
Acts 16:33 -- with 451 (but this reading differs by just one letter and a stroke from the Byzantine reading)
Acts 19:14 -- (singular, but an easy error for several other readings)
Acts 20:15 -- with 45 other manuscripts including D* 2412 but no other manuscripts thought to be of note; this looks like the reading of a Byzantine subgroup.
Acts 24:6-8 -- with 6 (but there are many, many fairly similar readings; this is a very fractured reading)
Acts 25:5 -- with 68 other manuscripts including Ψ 6 206 441 453 522 614 623^c 1505 1611 1852 2138 --98 2412 2495 (although this is the reading of Family 2138, it is also the K^c reading, so this probably counts as Byzantine despite being listed by the Alands as a special reading)
Acts 28:16 -- singular but very close to the Byzantine reading
This data requires some examination. To begin with, the four readings that agree with UBS against Byz are perhaps misclassified; in those four readings, 69 agrees with 104, 71, 99, and 22 other manuscripts (and, in the last case, is a minor variant on 42 more); 69 agrees with UBS against the majority, but it appears it is Byzantine even so. As for its 14 readings that agree with neither, we observe that 69 doesn't seem to agree with anything very often. (In the Alands' list, its closest relative among manuscripts with substantial texts are 6 and 172, and they agree only 80% of the time -- extremely low rates for a manuscript which agrees with the majority text itself about 80% of the time! I do note a certain tendency for the non-Byzantine readings to clump. My first thought, before I examined the readings, was that 69 might be block mixed. But the more likely conclusion is that 69 was very poorly copied -- and that the copyist had better and worse patches, probably due to sleep and/or lighting issues. Most of 69's non-Byzantine readings do not appear genetically significant; it just has readings from lesser branches of the Byzantine text, copied by a not-very-good scribe. So the Aland Category V classification is probably correct even though their numbers don't really support it. (Which shows why the classification based on just four numbers isn't much good.)

It is generally agreed that 69 and 462 are closely akin in the Pauline Epistles. Their combined text is, however, only slightly removed from the Byzantine. The Alands classify 69 as Category III in Paul (they do not categorize 462). Von Soden places 69 and 462 next to each other in I^a3. Davies links 462 (and so by implication 69) with 330, 436, and 2344; her technique, however, makes these results questionable. There is as yet no clear evidence that 69 and 462 should go with any of the stronger members of the I^a3 group, such as Family 330 or 365 and Family 2127.

In the Catholics the Alands again classify 69 as Category V, and von Soden again classifies it as I^a3. Wachtel lists it as having 10-20% non-Byzantine readings. Richards classifies it as M^w, which makes it a mixed manuscript that does not seem to have any close relatives. This seems to conform with the results of Wachtel.

In the Apocalypse, the Alands classify 69 as Category V. Von Soden lists it as I', grouping it with 61 and 046.

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

von Soden: δ505. Tischendorf: 31^a, 37^p, 14^r

Bibliography

Collations:
W. H. Ferrar and T. K Abbott, Collation of Four Important Manuscripts of the Gospels by the late William Hugh Ferrar, 1877, collates 13, 69, 124, and 346 in the Gospels. Much of the material in the introduction, and the collation are based on Scrivener's collation.
F. H. A. Scrivener, An Exact Transcription of Codex Augiensis, 1859, collates and discusses the manuscript.

Sample Plates:
Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (1 page)

Editions which cite:
Cited in SQE¹³ where it differs from Family 13 and the Majority Text.
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover.

Other Works:"Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament, 1887.
M. R. James, "The Scribe of the Leicester Codex," Journal of Theological Studies, v (1903/4).

Manuscript 71

London, Lambeth Palace 528. Soden's ε253. Generally dated to the twelfth century; Scrivener offers the exact date 1160 C.E. based on the colophon which dates it ετει απο Χριστου ᾳρξ. Scrivener's Introduction reports that "This elegant copy, which once belonged to an Archbishop of Ephesus, was brought to England in 1675 by Philip Traheron, English Chaplain at Smyrna." Gospels; the Liste says it is complete, but Scrivener reports the loss of Matthew 14:13-15:16. The loss is recent, since Traheron collated it. Classified by Von Soden as I^φr, along with M 27(part) 692(part) 1194; I^φ as a whole is what Streeter calls Family 1424. Wisse partly corroborates Von Soden, making 71 a core member of the M27 group (while pointing out that M is not really a good example of the M type). Other members of M27 include M 27 71 248(part) 447(part) 518(part) 569 692 750 830(part) 1014(part) 1032(part) 1170 1222 1228(part) 1413 1415 1458 1626 1663(part) 2705. The Alands give this their usual half-hearted endorsement by refusing to place 71 in a Category; this generally means that the manuscript belongs to the Byzantine text but not one of the mainstream Byzantine groups. It has a lectionary apparatus, and is said to have "many" later corrections. Scrivener also notes that "this copy presents a text full of interest, and much superior to that of the mass of manuscripts of its age." Mill thought its text similar to that of 29, though Wisse's analysis does not confirm this in Luke. Scrivener collated it under the letter g in A Full and Exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels. Despite Wisse giving it a relatively low rating, it is cited in IGNTP Luke. Legg also cited it for Mark, although from Scrivener rather than collating it himself.
Given the disagreements about the manuscript's quality, I thought I would look at the readings in a few chapters (excluding minor things such as συν/συμ in Luke 2:5).
In Luke 2-3, I find:

2:3 απογραφεσθαι ] απογραψασθαι 27 71 700 892 1194 1458
2:11 χριστος κυριος ] χριστος 27 71 1458
2:12 τη φατνη ] φατνη ℵ A B D E F* G H L M P S U V W Y Γ Δ Θ Λ Ξ Ψ 047 pm; this appears to be a case where 71 agrees with the Byzantine text against the Textus Receptus
2:15 omit εις τον ουρανον 71 565 1241 aur plus a few lectionaries and other minuscules
2:15 το ρημα τουτο ] τουτο το ρημα 71 1458 and most of the Latins
2:16 ανευρον ] ευρον D W 1 13 22 27 69 71 124 131 346 543 565 579 788 826 828 892 1365 1582 and at least a dozen other minuscules; this appears to be a Byzantine sub-group text
2:20 επεστρεψαν ] υπεστρεψαν ℵ A B D E F G H K L M P R S U V W X Y Γ Δ Θ Λ Π* Ψ Ω 047 1 13 22 28 33 69 71 157 565 543 579 700 826 828 892 1071 1241 1582 and more than sixty other minuscules and the lectionary; this is a place where the TR does not reflect the Byzantine text
2:21 τη κοιλια ] κοιλια 71 2643 (D omits τη but has κοιλια μητρος)
2:25 αγιον ην επ αυτον ] ην αγιον επ αυτον ℵ A B E G H K L M R S U V W X Y^c Γ Δ Θ Λ Π Ψ Ω 047 13 22 28 33 69 71 157 543 565 826 828 892 1424 and dozens of other minuscules; it appears Erasmus here followed 1 against 2 and the Byzantine text
2:28 εδεξατο αυτο ] εδεξατο αυτον M U Γ Λ Π Ψ Ω 13 28 69 71 157 543 826 828 1071 1342 1424 plus several dozen minuscules and the lectionary; this appears to be a place where the Byzantine text divides
2:40 επ αυτο ] επ αυτω K U X Y Θ 13 28 69 157 209 579 700* 1071 1241 1424 1582 plus several dozen minuscules; this again appears to be a place where the Byzantine text splits
2:43 και η μητηρ ] ουδε η μητηρ 27 72 1194 1458
2:45 εις Ιερουσαλημ ] εις την Ιερουσαλεμ 71
2:46 και ακουοντα ] omit και D 27 71 1458 1630 𝓁⁸⁵⁹* OL vg sa arm
2:52 ταυτα ] ταυτα συμβαλλουσα ℵ^c (X) 27^c 71 213 903 1071 1194 1438 𝓁³² 𝓁¹⁶²⁷ 𝓁¹⁶⁶³ 𝓁¹⁷⁶¹
3:1 ετει δε ] omit δε ℵ^c H K* N X Ψ 13 27 28 71 543 565 579 1071 and several dozen other minuscules
3:2 επ αρχιερεων ] επι αρψιερεως ℵ A B C D E F G H K L M N S U V W X Y Γ Δ Θ Λ Π Ψ Ω 047 1 22 28 33 69 71 157 565 579 700 828 892 1071 1241 1342 1424 1582 and more than eighty other minuscules and the lectionary; this is a place where the TR does not reflect the Byzantine text
3:3 του Ιορδανου ] omit του 71 157* 1458
3:10 ποιησομεν ] ποιησωμεν ℵ B C D F H L M N S V W X Y Γ Δ Λ Π Ψ Ω 13 28 33 69 543 565 579 700 826 828 892 1071 1241 1424 and about fifty other minuscules; if this isn't the Byzantine reading, it's at least one of them
3:12 ποιησομεν ] ποιησωμεν 𝔓⁴ ℵ A B C F H K L M N S V W X Y Γ Δ Λ Ξ Π Ψ Ω 13 28 33 69 71 543 565 579 700 826 828 892 1071 1241 1424 and about fifty other minuscules; as in 3:10, if this isn't the Byzantine reading, it's at least a Byzantine reading
3:14 ποιησομεν ] ποιησωμεν ℵ B C* D F H L M N S V W X Y Γ Δ Θ Λ Ξ Π Ψ 1 13 28 33 69 71 543 565 579 700 826 828 892 1071 1241 1582 and about fifty other minuscules; as in 3:10 and 3:12, if this isn't the Byzantine reading, it's at least a Byzantine reading
3:16 ο Ιωαννης ] omit ο E 27 69 71 174 544 1009 1194 1242 1342 1458 𝓁¹¹²⁷* (D 124 788 1241* 𝓁⁵⁴⁷ omit the whole name)
3:18 και ετερα ] και αλλα 27 69* 71 892 1194 1195* 1342 1458 2737 𝓁¹⁰⁷⁴
3:19 φιλιππου ] omit 𝔓⁴ 𝔓^75-vid ℵ B D E F G H L M N S U V Y Γ Δ Θ Λ Ξ Ω 1 13 22 28 69 71 157 543 700 826 828 892 1582 latt sin bo arm plus more than sixty minuscules and the lectionary; this is a place where the TR does not reflect the Byzantine text
3:20 ωσει ] ως 𝔓⁴ ℵ B D L W 27 33 71 579 1012 1194 1241 1458
3:20 ηυδοκησα ] ευδοκησα 𝔓⁴ ℵ B D K M N S U Y Θ Λ Π Ω 1 13 22 33 69 71 543 565 700 826 828 892 1342 1424 1582 plus more than sixty minuscules and the lectionary; this appears to be a place where the Byzantine text splits
3:24 ματθατ ] ματθαν K L M* N U X Γ Δ 1 13 28 69 71 543 700 826 828 1241 1424 1582 plus more than thirty minuscules and most lectionaries; this is clearly a Byzantine reading
3:24 ιαννα ] ιωνα 71 1187 𝓁² 𝓁⁷⁰ 𝓁⁸⁰ 𝓁⁹⁵⁰
3:25 ματταθιου ] ματθιου Θ 33 6071 118 472 669 716 1010 1194 1220 1223 1229 1295 1319 1458 1654 2542 ff² hark Arm and several lectionaries
3:25 ναγγαι ] αγγαι 16 (66) 71 115 348 477 892 1194 1216 1424 1452 1458 1579 1691 2643 𝓁⁸⁵⁴ 𝓁⁹⁵⁰
3:26 σεμει ] σεμεει A E G H M N S X Y Γ Λ Ψ Ω 1 13 22 28 69 71 157 543 826 828 1241 1424^c 1582 and more than sixty other minuscules; this is probably the Majority reading
3:26 ιωσεφ ] ιωσεχ 𝔓⁴ ℵ B L Γ Θ 1 13 33 69 71^c 543 700 826 828 1342 1582^c c e g¹ vg Arm plus several other minuscules and the lectionary
3:26 ιουδα ] ιωδα 𝔓⁴ ℵ B L (X) Γ 13 22 33 69 71 543 826 828 1241 a aur g¹ plus several other minuscules and the lectionary
3:27 ιωαννα ] ιωανναν L S V X Γ Ω 1 13 28 69 71 543 826 8921071 1582 plus more than thirty other minuscules; 𝔓⁴ ℵ^c A B etc. have ιωαναν; this appears to be a place where the Byzantine text divides
3:30 συμεων ] σιμεων 71* e r¹
3:31 ματταθα ] ματταθ 71 1458
3:32 ωβηδ ] ιωβηδ ℵ^c A L M U X Γ Δ Ψ 13 33 69 71 543 826 828 892 1241 1424 c sa bo and about thirty other minuscules; this appears to be a place where the Byzantine text divides
3:32 του ναασ(σ)ων ] omit 71* 157 1458
3:35 σαρουχ ] σερουχ 𝔓^4-vid ℵ A B E G H K L M N S U V X Y Γ Δ Θ Λ Π Ψ Ω 1 13 22 28 33 69 71 157 543 565 700 826 828 892 1071 1342 1424 1582 a c f ff² g¹ q r¹ sa bo plus more than one hundred other minuscules and the lectionary; this is a place where the TR does not reflect the Byzantine text

That's 39 differences from the TR, which sounds like a lot, but 17 of these are places where the Byzantine text divides or the TR does not represent the Byzantine reading. About a dozen appear to be non-genetic. Take those out and 71 no longer appears particularly interesting.

But what about Mark? Here are the readings I know of which disagree with the Textus Receptus:

2:7 ουτω(ς) ] omit 71 346 472 482 484 565 692* b q r¹ pesh
2:8 διαλογιζονται al ] αυτοι διαλογιζονται A C K Γ Δ π Σ Φ 71 pm
2:9 σοι] σου 71 𝔐
2:21 επιρραπτει or similar ] ραπτει 71*
2:26 του αρχιερεως ] αρχιερεως ℵ B L Δ 71 892 al (D W omit επι αβιαθαρ αρχιερεως)

Not much there; even when it has an unusual reading, it's likely that it's just an error. Hard to see 71 as a particularly noteworthy witness.

Manuscript 81

Location/Catalog Number

57 folios are in the British Library in London (Catalog number: Add. 20003); 225 folios are in Alexandria (Patriarchal Library MS. 59). The British Museum portions were taken from Egypt, where Tischendorf "discovered" the manuscript.

81 contains the Acts and Epistles. Acts 4:8-7:17, 17:28-23:9 have been lost. It is written on parchment, one column per page.

Date/Scribe

Dated by its colophon to April 20, 1044, and written by a scribe named John. The ink is still dark and easy to read, and the writing at its best quite legible. There are modern folio numbers, in Arabic numerals, in the British Library portion, starting with folio 3. The British Library binding also has a semi-legible modern scrawl, I think in pencil, alluding to its Tischendorf number 61 and to the publications by Tischendorf and Scrivener; another page notes the presence of the rest in the Patriarchal library and gives the Gregory number 81. Yet another scribble says that it was purchased by Tischendorf in 1854. The British binding is very simple, in red, with no distinguishing marks on the cover although there is an identification on the spine.

Description and Text-type

81 has been called "the best minuscule witness to Acts." It is consistently Alexandrian (although with some Byzantine corruptions). Von Soden lists 81 as H. Aland and Aland describe it as "at least Category II."

Curiously, although 81 has been highly praised, at least in Acts, few seem to have attempted to classify it beyond calling it Alexandrian. Based on the Alands' percentage agreements, it doesn't have any particularly close relatives -- among substantial manuscripts, it is listed as closest to 𝔓⁷⁴ and ℵ, but it agrees with those two only 73% of the time. It agrees with both A and B 71%. It agrees 66% with 1175, 65% with C, 60% with 1739, and with no other substantial manuscript as much as 60%. The sample sizes here are small, and the Aland samples are imperfect, but it appears 81 has a fairly independent text.

In Paul, 81 is clearly closer to ℵ A C 33 than to 𝔓⁴⁶ B or 1739. Its text seems to fall somewhere between the early and late forms of the Alexandrian text, and may represent a transitional phase in the evolution of that text (most late Alexandrian witnesses -- e.g. 436, 1175, family 2127, 2464 -- seem to be closer to 81 than they are to each other). In the Catholics it is again Alexandrian with some Byzantine mixture; it seems to be a slightly less pure form of the A/33 text.

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

von Soden: α162. Tischendorf: 61^a; also lo^ti and p^scr (the latter after Scrivener's symbol p)

Bibliography

Collations:

Sample Plates:
The entire British Library portion is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?Source=BrowseScribes&letter=A&ref=Add_MS_20003

Editions which cite:
Cited for the Acts and Epistles by all editions since Von Soden.

Other Works:

Manuscript 82

Paris, National Library Gr. 237. Soden's O¹; Tischendorf/Scrivener 10^a, 12^p, 2^r. Contains the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse complete. Universally dated to the tenth century. Includes a commentary (listed by Von Soden as that of Oecumenius, i.e. the pseudo-Oecumenius; Scrivener describes it simply as "scholia and other matter.") Von Soden did not classify it beyond listing it among the Oecumenius manuscripts, but Scrivener believed that "its value in the Apocalypse is considerable." This has not been confirmed by further research; Schmid places it in the main or "a" group of Apocalypse manuscripts -- the chief Byzantine group, headed by 046. This is confirmed by the Alands, who place 82 in Category V in all sections. (Indeed, their data shows that, in Acts, it has only two readings not supported by the plurality of manuscripts, and even those two have dozens of supporters; it appears to be about as Byzantine as a manuscript can be.) Scrivener describes 82 as "neatly written," and notes that it contains non-Biblical matter (including the treatise of Dorotheus of Tyre mentioned in the entry on 177). The manuscript was included in the editions of Stephanus as ιε'.

Manuscript 83

Munich, Bavarian State Library Gr. 518. Soden's ε1218; Contains the Gospels complete. Dated by both Scrivener and Aland to the eleventh century; Von Soden prefers the twelfth. Von Soden classifies it as K^r, and Wisse concurs, listing it as a perfect member of the type. The Alands list it as Category V (Byzantine). Scrivener describes it as "beautifully written." It has all the marginalia expected of a K^r manuscript, even though (or perhaps because) it is one of the earliest examples of this type.

Manuscript 91

Paris, National Library Gr. 219. Von Soden's O¹⁴; Tischendorf/Scrivener 12^a, 16^p, 4^r. Contains the Epistles, and Apocalypse, with commentary. (Some sources say it contains Acts also, but that text is no longer extant.) Dated paleographically to the eleventh century. The commentary on the Acts and Epistles is that of the (pseudo-)Oecumenius; that on the Apocalypse is that of Arethas. As an Oecumenius manuscript, Von Soden does not really classify the text (beyond listing it as K^o in the Apocalyse), but the Alands do not list it in any Category. This implies that it is largely but not quite purely Byzantine -- but it may simply be that their data is imperfect; . In the Apocalypse, Schmid places it in the dominant or "a" group of the Byzantine text headed by 046. Scrivener describes it as "neat," with lectionary tables but no apparatus. It once belonged to the Medicis.

Manuscript 93

Paris, National Library Coislin Gr. 205. Von Soden's α51; Tischendorf/Scrivener 17^a, 21^p, 19^r. Contains the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse with lacunae (lacking 1 Cor. 16:17-2 Cor. 1:7; Heb. 13:15-25; Rev. 1:1-2:5 is an addition by a later hand). There are also a few minor later works. The colophon, written by a monk named Anthony, dates it to the year 1079 -- though for some reason the Kurzgefasste Liste simply gives the manuscript's date as XI, as does the Paris National Library site. Possibly this is because there are multiple hands involved; the lectionary table at the beginning is in a much more rectangular, regular hand than hypotheses that follow. The text is described by Von Soden as a mix of I and K types in the Acts, and as purely K (Byzantine) elsewhere. The Alands do not place 93 in any Category, but this implicitly supports Von Soden, as uncategorized manuscripts are usually very heavily but not quite purely Byzantine. Indeed, in Acts, they find only three readings which agree with UBS against Byz, plus one singular reading (Acts 28:16) and one reading which agrees with neither (Acts 19:3, where it may belong to a Byzantine subgroup; 23 other minuscules, none of them well known, also have its reading). I do find it interesting that its three readings which agree with UBS against Byz are close together (readings 96, 98, 99=Acts 25:16, 26:14, 26:28; it agrees with both UBS and Byz in readings 97 100 = Acts 25:17, 27:5). Thus there would appear to be a possibility that it is block-mixed, with a purely Byzantine text in the first 24 or so chapters, but with a different sort of text for some part of chapters 25-28. Possibly this extends to the Catholics; Wachtel lists it as being between 20% and 30% non-Byzantine in the Catholic Epistles. In the Apocalypse, Schmid places 93 in the dominant or "a" group of the Byzantine text headed by 046. If there is any part that is interesting, it is probably Paul, since it appears to have the Euthalian apparatus although perhaps not the text. Hebrews follows Philemon. The manuscript has the usual lectionary equipment, prologues, etc. There is much decoration in vermillion, azure, and gold -- rare for a manuscript that does not contain the Gospels. Sadly, although the Paris library has scans (at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b11004943p), they are black-and-white, from a microfilm, and do not do the manuscript justice.

Manuscript 94

Paris, National Library Coislin Gr. 202 (folios 27-328; this number also includes a portion of H^p). Von Soden's O³¹ and Αν²⁴; Tischendorf/Scrivener 18^a, 22^p, 18^r. Contains the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse complete and with commentary. The Apocalypse is dated paleographically to the twelfth century; the Acts and Epistles to the thirteenth (so the Kurzgefasste Liste; Scrivener lists eleventh and twelfth, respectively. The change in script corresponds to a change in writing material; the first portion is on parchment, the rest on paper). The commentary on the Apocalypse is that of Andreas; Von Soden lists the rest as having the commentary of the (pseudo-)Oecumenius, though Scrivener describes it simply as "scholia to the Acts and Catholic Epistles... [prologues] to St. Paul's Epistles." Von Soden, as usual, classifies the text by its commentary; the Alands list it as Category III in the Acts and Catholic Epistles "but clearly lower for Paul and Revelation." In the Catholic Epistles, Wachtel lists it as having from 30% to 40% non-Byzantine readings. Its numbers in Acts are also quite high -- perhaps high enough to imply a status above Category III. The Alands list it as having 40 readings that go with the Byzantine text against UBS, and only 22 which go with UBS against Byz -- but what is really noteworthy is its 23 readings that agree with neither. That's more than a fifth of all its readings! (And only three of them are singular.) They include:
Acts 2:7b -- singular (but close to the Byzantine reading)
Acts 2:30 -- with 307 453 610 2818
Acts 2:31 -- with 94 other manuscripts including C³ E 5 51 104 223 307 322 323326 429 453 522 629^c 630 945 1739 1891 2200 2344 2412
Acts 2:43-44 -- with 180 307 453 610 1501 1678 2818
Acts 3:21 -- with ℵ² B² E 363 610 945 1106 1409 1678 1884 2818
Acts 4:25 -- singular
Acts 4:33 -- with 94 180 307 453 610 629 1678 2818
Acts 8:37 -- with 29 other manuscripts including 429* 630 876 945 1678 1735 1739 1891 2200 2298 and very close to 323 429^c 180 307 453 610 2818
Acts 8:39 -- with 30 other manuscripts including A^c 180 307 322 323 453 610 876 945 1678 1739 1891 2298 2818
Acts 9:25 -- with 049 209* 307 429 453 522 610 628* 630 636* 1066 1490 1642 1721 1749 1751 1758 1831 2200 2511 2818
Acts 10:12 -- singular (but a minor variant on the readings of C* 5 33 322 323 424^c 623 2298 etc. and that of 180 307 453 1678 2818)
Acts 10:19 -- with 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A 6 69 81 180 181 307 431 453 610 1175 1642 1678 1875 2818
Acts 10:47 -- with 33 other manuscripts including E^c 6 180 181 307 322 323 429 453 522 610 630 945 1678 17391891 2200 2298 2818
Acts 12:25 -- with 53 other manuscripts including D Ψ 180 181 307 436 441 453 610 614 623 1611 1678 2138 2412 2828
Acts 15:34 -- with 87 other manuscripts including 5 6 33 88 180 307 323 383 441 453 610 614 623 1175 1678 1739 1868 2298 2344 2412 2818
Acts 16:28 -- with 180 307 431 468 489 610 629 927 1319^supp 1678 1729 1780 1868 2242 2502 2818
Acts 18:17 -- with 180 307 431 453 610 1319^supp 1678 2818
Acts 19:3 -- with D Ψ 180 206 429 522 630 945 1490 1509 1704 1739 1751 1758 1831 1891 2080 2200 2298 2718
Acts 19:14 -- with 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A B 33 206 429 522 945 1175 1490 1704 1735 1758 2298 2344
Acts 20:15 -- with 94 206 630 1175 1891 2200
Acts 23:20 -- with 85 other manuscripts including ℵ² Ψ 6 180 307 424^c 436 441 483 610 945 1175 1505 1611 1678 1739 2138 2298 2412 2495 2818
Acts 24:6-8 -- with 46 other manuscripts including Ψ 5 33 88 307 436 610 623 630 945 1319^c 1739 1891 2200 2298 2818
Acts 25:5 -- with 68 other manuscripts including Ψ 6 69 180 206 307 429 441 453 522 610 614 623^c 1505 1611 1678 1852 2138 2412 2495 2818
A tendency to agree with the members of Family 453 (=180 307 453 610 1678 2818=36^a) will surely be obvious, and the Alands' overall data affirms this; among substantial manuscripts, 94 agrees most closely with 610 (76%), then 36 1678 (74%), 307 (73%), 180 (72%), 453 (71%). This might explain also why 94 is less valuable in Paul -- it might retain the Family 453 text, but in Paul, Family 453 isn't worth much.
I do note that in the last few chapters of Acts, 94 seems to shift away from the 453 group to be slightly closer to Families 1739 and 2138 -- two families which, in Acts, seem to have an odd kinship. This might well reward further investigation.
Scans of the uncial portion of H is available in color at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8577515k, but as of this writing, 94 has not been digitized.

Manuscript 104

Location/Catalog Number

British Library, London. Catalog number: Harley 5537.

104 contains the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation complete. It is written on parchment, one column per page. The last five folios of the original are a lexicon in Greek, in black and red, badly preserved; this is followed by a lexicon in an eighteenth century hand on (relatively) modern paper. The binding is recent.

Date/Scribe

Dated by its colophon to 1087 (the seventh year of Alexius Comnenus). The hand is clear and easy to read, although the ink has flaked on some pages; most of the text is in black, but there are many decorations in red, including the first letters of paragraphs, which are enlarged uncials placed in the margins. There are scholia (or something) in red in the margin, but these have suffered much more than the main text or the red initials; many are very hard to read. Corrections to the text also appear in red. The folios in the middle appear to me to be generally better preserved than the earlier or later; the last page is in very bad shape.

Description and Text-type

Generally listed as an Alexandrian witness, and it does have Alexandrian readings in the Epistles, although it is more Byzantine than anything else. There are also hints of other text-types -- e.g. 104 shares a certain number of readings with family 1611. On the whole, the best description of the manuscript is probably "mixed."

Von Soden lists 104 as H in the Acts and Epistles; he lists is at I^b2 in the Apocalypse. Merk places it in the An^r group (a sub-group of the Andreas text). Schmid associated it particularly with 336. Aland and Aland describe it as Category III in Paul and the Catholics, Category V in Acts and the Apocalypse. As regards the Apocalypse, this classification is probably accurate, but seems unfair in Acts. The Alands' own data for that book shows 104 as having eight readings which agree with UBS against Byz, and ten which agree with neither (out of 102 readings tested); none of the ten special readings is singular. That is surely a high enough rate to justify a Category III rating. Of course, that doesn't tell us what sort of text 104 has. If we look at the ten non-UBS-or-Byz readings, we find:
Acts 2:30 -- 104 with Ψ 296 429 457 460 467 617 876 1251 1490 1501 1611 1718 1758 1765 1780 2138
Acts 2:31 -- 104 with 94 other manuscripts including C³ E 5 94 180 307 322 323 326 429 453 459 460 467 522 610 617 629^c 630 945 1251 1490 1501 1722 1739 1891 2200 2344 2412 (and close to several more including 1838)
Acts 2:43-44 -- 104 with E 33 181* 459 1409 1722^c 1838 1842^c 1844 2344 2774
Acts 12:25 -- 104 with 680^c 1352 (but probably an error for a very common reading; this variant is probably not genetically significant)
Acts 18:20 -- 104 with 459 1838 (1839 also similar)
Acts 20:4 -- 104 with D 1838
Acts 21:8 -- 104 with 459
Acts 24:1 -- 104 with 256 459 1704 1838 2143
Acts 24:6-8 -- 104 with 254 308 322 323 398 400 424^c 459 464^c 489 592 621 910^c 927 1521 1524 1609 1702 1727 1729 1842 1843 1852 1868 1873 2086 2143 2201 (and close to about a dozen others include 1838)
Acts 28:29 -- 104 with 256 365 996 1405 1719 2243 2625 (and close to several others including 459)
It will be evident that 104's readings in these variants are not very distinguished -- they are not, e.g., Alexandrian readings that the UBS editors ignored. But there are interesting hints of kinship, especially with 459 and 1838. And, indeed, among substantial manuscripts it is closest to 459 (90% agreement), followed by 172 (84%, but 172, although substantial, is far from complete), 1526 (83%, but again, 1526 is incomplete), and 1838 (82%). These manuscripts might reward further investigation.

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

von Soden: α103. Tischendorf: 25^a; 31^p; 7^r

Bibliography

Collations:

Sample Plates:
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans on the British Library web site at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?Source=BrowseScribes&letter=A&ref=Harley_MS_5537

Editions which cite:
Cited by NA²⁶ for Paul.
Cited by NA²⁷ for Paul.
Cited by UBS³ for Acts, Paul, and the Catholics.
Cited by UBS⁴ for Paul.
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover.

Other Works:

Manuscript 109

London, British Library Additional 5117. Soden's ε431. Gospels complete, plus Eusebius's Epistula ad Carpianum, lectionary lists, and a few other short reference works; the document concludes with a record of a land donation. Dated by its colophon to the year 1326. Classified as K^x by Von Soden, although Wisse calls it K^x only in Luke 1, classifying it as Kmix elsewhere. It is still Byzantine enough that the Alands place it in Category V. Both red and brown/black ink are in evidence. (Interestingly, the red ink is not used for the first initials of paragraphs; the text in the margin is in the usual black.) The Gospel of Matthew opens with a quite attractive but austere geometric motif, in ink, without color, although there are many uses of red in the manuscript itself, and the less elaborate band that opens Mark uses red as well as black. Luke again has a monochromatic ornament -- but a big red opening letter. The decoration preceding John resembles that of Luke, but it has an even more elaborate opening letter, in red and black both. All this makes it an interesting manuscript to look at, but I don't think it has much textual significance.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_5117.

Manuscript 110

London, British Museum Harley 5778. Soden's α204; Tischendorf/Scrivener 28^a, 34^p, 8^r. Contains the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse with some mutilations: Acts 1:1-20, Rev. 6:14-8:1, 22:19-21 "and perhaps elsewhere" (so Scrivener, who collated the Apocalypse). Dated paleographically to the twelfth century. Classified as K by Von Soden, and the Alands concur by placing it in Category V. In the Apocalypse, Schmid places it in the dominant or "a" group of the Byzantine text headed by 046. Scrivener describes it as being in "wretched condition, and often illegible." This is if anything an understatement; the inner margin of many of the pages is horribly damaged (it looks like it has been burned), with large portions of some pages simply gone. Even where the parchment survives, the ink is often badly decayed and smudged. Much is simply gone; the Aland sample shows 110 as having a large lacuna in Acts 6-7 and as having seven other readings where it was unreadable. Not that we have necessarily lost much -- e.g. of the 94 legible readings noted by the Alands in Acts, only three disagreed with the majority text. The hand, where it survives, is neat and regular, with a few notations in red, as well as red letters marking the beginnings of paragraphs.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Harley_MS_5778

Manuscript 115

London, British Museum Harley 5559. Soden's ε1096. Contains the Gospels with extensive mutilations: Matt. 1:1-8:10, Mark 5:23-36, Luke 1:78-2:9, 6:4-15, John 11:2-end are all lost, though a few additional words of John survive on a very damaged folio. Generally dated to the tenth century; though Scrivener gives a twelfth century date. Classified as I^φb by von Soden; other members of this group include 7 179 267 659 827 and parts of 185 1082 1391 1402 1606. Wisse, however, does not concur; he finds the manuscript to be Kmix/K^x/Kmix. The Alands do not assign 115 to a Category; this is not surprising for a manuscript with a text close to but not identical to K^x. The manuscript has only a limited set of reader aids; according to Scrivener, it offers κεφαλαια, "some" τιτλοι, the Ammonian sections, and "frequently" the Eusebian apparatus; Scrivener speculates that the manuscript was "never quite finished." This makes sense, since the margins are large (as if the scribe intended to add marginalia) but the manuscript is basically bare. Where it survives at all, it is generally in good shape and easily read. It came from Smyrna in 1724.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Harley_MS_5559

Manuscript 118

Oxford, Bodleian Library Auct. D. infr. 2.17 (was Bodleian Misc. Gr. 13). Soden's ε346. Contains the Gospels with some defects; later hands supplied Matt. 1:1-6:2; Luke 13:15-14:20, 18:8-19:9, John 16:25-end. The binding also contains portions of the Psalms on paper. Dated paleographically to the thirteenth century. 118 is one of the manuscripts found by Lake to belong to Family 1; every examination since has confirmed this. Von Soden listed it as I^ηb, i.e. part of the b subgroup of Family 1; other manuscripts he places in this group include 22, 131 (in Mark and Luke), 209, and 872 (in Mark). Wisse concurs with the assignment to the Lake Group, listing 118 as a core member of Family 1 although he splits off 22. The Alands, interestingly, do not place 118 in any Category, but do list it with Family 1. Most seem to agree with Von Soden in placing 118 closer to 209 than to 1 and 1582. Scrivener reports the manuscript to be a palimpsest, but with the gospel text uppermost. It has the full set of scribal aids, though the lectionary tables were added later. For more details on the text, see the entry on Family 1.

Manuscript 138

Rome, Vatican Library Greek 757. Soden's A²⁰¹ and C^ι24. Contains the Gospels with a commentary and minor lacunae. Universally dated to the twelfth century. The commentary on Mark is that of Victor; elsewhere Scrivener lists it as being primarily from Origen, though Von Soden considers it to be the "Antiochene commentary" (Chrysostom on Matthew, Victor on Mark, Titus of Bostra in Luke) in the Synoptic Gospels while John is listed as having the "Anonymous Catena." The text itself Von Soden places in the A^c group -- a generally undistinguished group containing such manuscripts as 127, 129, 137, 139, 143, 151, 374, 377, 391, 747, 989, 1312, 1313, 1392. In any case Wisse's classifications do not accord with von Soden's; the manuscripts von Soden lists as A^c appear to belong to almost every Byzantine subgroup. 138 itself was profiled only in Luke 1, but there Wisse lists it as K^x This is supported by the Alands, who classify 138 as Category V. Scrivener summarizes Burgon's report on the manuscript by saying that the commentary is "mixed up with the text, both in a slovenly hand."
James Dowden, however, tells me that, in John at least, 138 may be more interesting than this. Bruce Morrill in his Ph.D. thesis found that 138 357 994 2575 2684 seem to form a group which may be a subgroup of the Lake Group (Family 1). This probably deserves deeper investigation.

Manuscript 141

Rome, Vatican Library Greek 1160. Soden's δ408; Tischendorf 141^e, 75^a, 86^p, 40^r. Contains the New Testament complete. Dated paleographically to the thirteenth cetury by Gregory, Aland, Scrivener; von Soden prefers the fourteenth. The text of the manuscript is not noteworthy; both Von Soden and Wisse declare it to belong to K^r in the Gospels, and the Alands classify 141 as Category V throughout (and their data supports this; in Acts, e.g., it has only five readings which disagree with the Byzantine text). In the Apocalypse Schmid places it in the dominant or "a" group of the Byzantine text headed by 046. It is in two volumes, with the two volumes numbered separately. In the Acts and Epistles it has the Euthalian apparatus, though it does not appear to have the text. The full lectionary equipment is supplied, and it has pictures, but like most K^r manuscripts it lacks the Eusebian apparatus.

Manuscript 157

Rome, Vatican Library Urbin Gr. 2. Soden's ε207. Contains the Gospels complete. Universally dated to the twelfth century, based both on the writing and on a pair of pictures, of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus (Byzantine Emperor 1081-1118) and his son John (II) Comnenus (1118-1143). It was apparently written for John Comnenus, and was was brought to Rome by Pope Clement VII (1523-1534). Classified as I^σ by von Soden, the other members of this group being 235(part) 245 291 713 1012. Wisse's data, however, paints a completely different picture; he finds 157 to be a member of K^x in Luke 1, mixed with some relationship to the Alexandrian text ("Group B") in Luke 10, and Alexandrian in Luke 20. The other manuscripts of I^σ do not share this profile, and in fact do not seem to be related to each other at all. That 157 is mixed is confirmed by the Alands, who list it as Category III, and by Hort, who considered it mixed but still the most important minuscule of the gospels other than 33. Streeter thought it Alexandrian with "Cæsarean" influence -- but it should be noted that Streeter thought everything had "Cæsarean" influence. Zahn thought it might have had Marcionite influence. Hoskier, who collated it (J.T.S. xiv, 1913), thought there were points of contact with the Palestinian Syriac. 157 is noteworthy for having the Jerusalem Colophon after each gospel. Scrivener observes that 157 is "very beautifully written... [with] certain chronicles and rich ornaments in vermillion and gold." It has other pictures in addition to the portraits of the Emperors, as well as lectionary apparatus.
Sample plate in Edward Maunde Thompson, An Introduction to Greek and Latin Paleography (plate 68).

Manuscript 160

Rome, Vatican Library Barb. Gr. 445. Soden's ε213. Contains the Gospels complete. Dated by its colophon to the year 1123. Classified as I^φc by von Soden, the other members of this group being 945 990 1010 1207(part) 1223 1293. I^φ is Streeter's Family 1424, but the c branch, if it is part of the family at all, is very weak. Wisse lists 160 as Mixed in Luke 1 and K^x Cluster 160 in Luke 10 and 20. It is interesting to note, however, that all three manuscripts which Wisse lists in Cluster 160 (160, 1010, and 1293) were called I^φc by von Soden; this would seem to imply at least some unique traits to that group. Given the connection of this group with K^x, it is surprising to note that the Alands do not list a Category for 160, implying that they find it to be somewhat less than purely Byzantine. The manuscript itself has the full lectionary equipment and the Ammonian Sections, but no Eusebian apparatus.

Manuscript 162

Rome, Vatican Library Barb. Gr. 449. Soden's ε214. Contains the Gospels complete. Dated by its colophon to May 13, 1153. Classified as I by von Soden, but with no subgroup specified; it is not one of his regularly cited manuscripts. It would appear that this was a casual classification -- based, perhaps, on the manuscript's reading in Luke 11:2, where it has ελθετω σου το πνευμα το αγιον και καθαρισατω ημας for ελθετω η βασιλεια σου -- a reading shared, in its essentials, by 700, Marcion (or Tertullian in talking about Marcion), Maximus, and Gregory of Nyssa but no other known witnesses. In any case, Wisse does not concur with von Soden's classification of 162 as an I witness (which would make it Western or "Cæsarean"); he lists 162 as K^x/Kmix/K^x, and the Alands confirm its Byzantine nature by placing it in Category V. The manuscript, written by one Manuel, has the Eusebian apparatus but no lectionary equipment at all.

Manuscript 174

Rome, Vatican Library Gr. 2002. Soden's ε109. Contains the Gospels complete with major lacunae; Matt. 1:1-2:1, John 1:1-27, 8:47-end are gone. Dated by its colophon to September 7, 1052. Classified as I^ιb -- that is, as part of Family 13 -- by von Soden, but only in Matthew is it cited. Wisse confirms that its text shifts, for he places it in Group Λ in Luke. The Alands seem to confirm this as well; although they list 174 as a member of Family 13 in NA²⁷, they do not assign it to a Category (most members of Family 13 are Category III; the fact that 174 is not implies that it is weaker than other members of the family). For more details on Family 13, see the entry on that manuscript. 174 itself was written by a monk named Constantine under the authority of "Georgilas dux Calabriae" [Scholz]. It has the full Ammonian and Eusebian apparatus, plus lectionary indications, but the lists of readings, if it had any, have not survived.

Manuscript 175

Rome, Vatican Library Gr. 2080. Soden's δ95; Tischendorf/Scrivener 175^e, 41^a, 194^p, 20^r. Contains the entire New Testament except for Matt. 1:1-4:17. Dated paleographically to the tenth century (so Gregory, Aland, von Soden; Scrivener would allow any date between the tenth and twelfth). Von Soden classifies the Gospels as K^x, but Wisse lists them as weak Π^a. The Alands seem to agree with the latter judgement, as they do not place 175 in any Category (which usually means that the manuscript is strongly Byzantine but not a member of K^x or K^r). In the Acts and Epistles, Von Soden lists the text as K (Byzantine), and there is no reason to doubt this. In the Apocalypse Schmid places it in the dominant or "a" group of the Byzantine text headed by 046. The Alands again don't list a category, but their data for Acts shows it as having only four readings which do not agree with the Majority Text; in that book, at least, we can surely regard it as Byzantine. The arrangement of the sections is unusual; Scrivener notes that the book places them in the order Gospels, Acts (with scholia), Apocalypse, Catholic Epistles, Paul. The book has "some" marginal corrections from the first hand. Paul has the Euthalian subscriptions, but otherwise the marginal equipment is limited.

Manuscript 177

Munich, Bavarian State Library Gr. 211. Soden's α106; Tischendorf/Scrivener 179^a, 128^p, 82^r. Contains the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse complete. Dated paleographically to the eleventh century (so Soden, Scrivener, and the Liste; Delitzsch suggested the thirteenth century). Von Soden classifies it as I^a3 in the Acts and Paul; in the Catholic Epistles he lists it as K. If it is a member of I^a3 (a group consisting mostly of late Alexandrian witnesses with greater or lesser degrees of Byzantine mixture), it must be a weak one, as the Alands list 177 as Category V (Byzantine) throughout, and this seems likely, given that it has only five readings which disagree with the Byzantine text -- and only one of those agrees with UBS; two are sub-singular (Acts 2:43-44, 5:24) and the other two, although they are not the majority reading, are clearly the reading of a Byzantine subgroup (Acts 10:10, 13:42). In the Apocalypse Schmid places 177 in the dominant or "a" group of the Byzantine text headed by 046. In addition to the New Testament material, it contains the treatise by Dorotheus of Tyre (fl. c. 360) on the Twelve and the Seventy (found also in 82, 459, etc.). Scrivener reports that the text is "very near that commonly received." It also contains fragments of Eusebius's canon tables (perhaps implying that it was once a complete New Testament); there are marginal scholia on Paul from a later hand.

Manuscript 179

Rome, Angelicus Library 11. Soden's ε211. Contains the gospels with lacunae. Dated paleographically to the twelfth century. Classified as I^φb; other manuscripts of this group include 7 115 179 185(part) 267 659 827 1082(part) 1391(part) 1402(part) 1606(part). This classification is not confirmed by Wisse, who lists 179 as Mix/K^x/K^x and seems to dissolve the I^φ groups (except for I^φr). The Alands do not place 179 in any Category, implying that they agree with Wisse's classification as mostly but not purely Byzantine. The lectionary lists in 179 are in a later hand (fifteenth or sixteenth century) on supplied leaves. Seven other leaves (five at the end) are also from later hands.

Manuscript 180

Rome, Vatican Library Borgiae Gr. 18. Soden's ε1498, α300; Tischendorf/Scrivener 180^e, 82^a, 92^p, 44^r.
Now renumbered: the Gospels portion is designated 180; the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse are 2918. (Thanks to Graham Thomason for pointing this out to me.) However, I'm going to continue to call it 180, because everything that actually refers to the manuscript calls it 180!
This volume, in the Vatican library, contains the New Testament complete, even though it is now given two numbers. Includes lectionary apparatus. The gospels (i.e. 180 proper), which were written by one Andreas, are dated paleographically to the twelfth century (so Aland; Scrivener says XI, and Gregory proposed XIV). The remainder of the New Testament (with some additional material), now 2918, was written by John, evidently in November 1273. The manuscript was split because the two sections were written separately.
The gospels are classified as K^x by von Soden (this seems to have been the only section he examined), and this is confirmed by Wisse, who places it in K^x Cluster 180 in the two chapters profiled. Other members of Cluster 180 are 998 and 1580. The Alands also confirm that 180 is Byzantine in the Gospels, where they place it in Category V. They also classify it as Category V in Paul, the Catholic Epistles, and the Apocalypse (in the latter it goes with the largest "a" Koine group headed by 046); in the Acts, however, they raise it to Category III.
If anything, that figure is low. In the Aland sample, 180 has 24 readings which agree with UBS against the Majority Text, as opposed to 38 readings which agree with the Majority against UBS -- by itself, a ratio high enough to probably indicate Category II. But 180 has fully 21 readings (four of them singular) which agree with neither. Thus 180 has 45 non-Majority readings, only 38 Majority readings. Those 21 readings that agree with neither are surely worth examining.
Acts 2:30 -- singular (but very close to 94 307 453 610 2818)
Acts 2:31 -- with 94 other manuscripts including C³ E 5 94 104 307 322 323 326 429 453 522 610 629^c 630 945 1739 1891 2200 2344 2412 2818
Acts 2:43-44 -- with 94 180 307 453 610 1501 1678 2818
Acts 3:21 -- singular (but close to ℵ^c B^c E 94 363 610 945 1106 1409 1678 1884 2818 and not too far from the Alexandrian reading, which is also that of 453 1739 etc.)
Acts 4:33 -- with 94 307 453 610 629 1678 2818
Acts 8:37 -- has the longer reading, using the specific form found also in 307 453 610 2818
Acts 8:39 -- with 30 other manuscripts including A^c 94 307 322 323 453 610 876 945 1678 1704 1739 1891 2298 2818
Acts 10:12 -- with 307 453 1678 2818 and close to about 30 others including C* 5 33 94 322 323 424^c 623 2298
Acts 10:19 -- with 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A 6 69 81 94 181 307 431 453 610 1175 1642 1678 1875 2818
Acts 10:47 -- with 33 other manuscripts including E^c 6 94 181 307 322 323 429 453 522 610 630 945 1678 1704 1739 1891 2200 2298 2818
Acts 12:25 -- with 53 other manuscripts including D Ψ 94 181 307 436 441 453 610 614 623 1611 1678 2138 2412 2818
Acts 15:34 -- with 87 other manuscripts including 5 6 33 88 94 307 323 383 44 453 610 614 623 1175 1678 1739 1891 2298 2344 2412 2818
Acts 16:28 -- with 94 180 307 431 468 489 610 629 927 1319^supp 1678 1729 1780 1868 2242 2502 2818
Acts 18:17 -- with 94 180 307 431 453 610 1319^supp 1678 2818
Acts 19:3 -- with D Ψ 94 180 206 429 522 630 945 1490 1509 1704 1739 1751 1758 1831 1891 2080 2200 2298 2718
Acts 20:24a -- singular (adding one or two short words to various common readings)
Acts 23:20 -- with 85 other manuscripts including ℵ² Ψ 6 94 307 424^c 436 441 610 614629^c 876 945 1175 1505 1611 1678 1704 1739 2138 2298 2412 2495 2818
Acts 23:30 -- singular
Acts 24:6-8 -- with E 628 1161 1409 1884 2541 (but similar to a great many other readings; the agreements here probably aren't genetic)
Acts 25:5 -- with 68 other manuscripts including Ψ 6 69 94 206 307 429 441 453 522 610 614 623^c 1505 1611 1678 1852 2138 2412 2495 2818
Acts 25:17 -- with C 307 431 453 610 614 1292 1505 1611 1678 1890 2138 2147 2412 2495 2652 2818
Looking at this, and at the Alands' overall agreement rates, it seems pretty clear that 180 is a member of family 453 along with such manuscripts as 36 (the Alands' 2818) 94 307 453 1678.

Manuscript 181

Rome, Vatican Library Reg. Gr. 179. Soden's α101, α1578; Tischendorf/Scrivener 40^a, 46^p, 12^r. Contains the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse. The basic run of the text, containing the Acts and Catholic Epistles, plus Paul through Titus 3:3, is dated to the eleventh century. The remainder of the text (Titus 3:3-end, Philemon, and the Apocalypse) was supplied in the fifteenth century. The text is arranged according to the Euthalian edition, and so is classified by Von Soden as I^a1 -- most of the other members of this group (which contains 88 917 1898 throughout the Acts and Epistles, plus in the Acts and Catholics 36/2818 307 431 610 453 915 1829 1874, in Paul and the Catholics 1838, and 1912 in Paul alone) are also Euthalian (see Von Soden i.674). In Paul, however, 181 does not seem to be a good representative of the type; samples indicate that its text is about 80% Byzantine, and there are hints of block mixture with the Byzantine text. In the Acts the text is noticeably better, and has a number of Alexandrian readings. The Alands place 181 in Category III in the Acts and Epistles, V in the Apocalypse (though their numbers in the Catholics barely qualify it for that category, and it does not appear in Wachtel's lists. Clearly 181 is better in the Acts than elsewhere). The later additions to the manuscript are classified as I^a2 by Von Soden; in the Apocalypse it has an Andreas type of text, forming part of the group which also contains 1 598 2026 2028 2029 2031 2033 2038 2044 2052 2054 2056 2057 2059 2060 2065 2068 2069 2081 2083 2186 2286 2302. 181 itself, however, does not have the text of the commentary. It does have lectionary apparatus but no synaxarion. We first hear of the manuscript during the papacy of Alexander VIII (1689-1691), when Christina presented it to that pope.
I question von Soden's association of the manuscript with I^a1, even in Acts. Glancing at the Alands' agreement numbers, the only substantial manuscript it agrees with more than 55% of the time is 1875 (with which it agrees a still-low 81% of the time). 181's statistics are fascinating: it has 34 agreements with UBS against Byz, 18 readings which agree with both, just 28 readings that go with Byz against UBS -- and 24 readings which agree with neither (four of them singular); this is usually a sign of an interesting manuscript. They can also be a fast way to look for relatives. The 24 readings are as follows:
Acts 2:23 -- singular (probably a copyist's error)
Acts 2:30 -- with 33 61 88 637 915 917 1874 1877 2737
Acts 2:31 -- with 88 296 390 431 432 614 915 1162 1292 1751 1827 1831 1838 2718 2805 2815
Acts 2:43-44 -- 181* with E 33 104 459 1409 1722^c 1838 1842^c 1884 2344 2774 (181^c singular)
Acts 2:46 -- with 1319
Acts 2:47-3:1 -- with 914 1398
Acts 5:24 -- singular but close to Byz
Acts 10:19 -- with 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A 6 69 81 94 180 307 431 453 610 1175 1642 1678 1875 2818
Acts 10:25 -- with 1875 (but the reading is essentially that of the Byzantine text except for a small portion of a long expansion found also in D and only D)
Acts 10:39 -- singular but close to 1875
Acts 10:47 -- with 43 other manuscripts including E^c 6 94 180 307 322 323 429 453 522 610 630 945 1678 1704 1739 1891 2200 2298 2818
Acts 12:25 -- with 53 other manuscripts including D Ψ 94 180 307 436 441 453 610 623 1611 1678 2138 2412 2818
Acts 15:17-18 -- with 1877
Acts 15:34 -- with 1875 (but close to the readings of at least 89 other manuscripts including most notably 33 453 614 1175 1739 2344 2412)
Acts 16:28 -- singular (but most of the variants here are just changes in word order and may not be genetic)
Acts 16:33 -- with 1875
Acts 19:3 -- with 1875
Acts 19:14 -- with E Ψ 629 1319^supp 1409 1875
Acts 20:24a -- with ℵ² A 1735^c 1875 2344
Acts 21:25 -- with C E Ψ 103 307 453 606 641 913 919^c 1162 1505 1611 1830 1853 1884 2138 2473 2495 2544
Acts 23:30 -- with ℵ A E 81 206 429 436 441 522 621 1175 1505 1509* 1739 1751 1842* 1852 1875 1884 1890* 1891 1894 2138 2200 2495
Acts 24:6-8 -- with 1875 and close to 6 69; this is a very fractured reading where exact agreements probably have limited genetic significance
Acts 25:17 -- with 33 other manuscripts including B 056 and a lot of minuscules with no known significance; it appears to be an accidental omission picked up by some Byzantine subgroups
Acts 27:14 -- with B^c 256 365 676 1405 1829* 1875
It should be said that the Alands' readings are not a good classification tool in Acts -- too many of the readings fracture in non-genetic ways, and there is no good way to test the strands of the Byzantine text. But the impression I get of 181 is of a badly-copied manuscript (although the errors might be in 181's exemplar, not 181 itself) with block mixture -- it seems to be close to 1875 in the middle chapters of Acts, but not in the early (although 1875 is defective for some of those). Certainly 181 does not belong to any established group, whether Alexandrian, Western, 1739-type, 614-type, 453-type, or other. Its lack of agreements with ℵ and (especially) B in its non-UBS/Byz is particularly noteworthy, but I suspect that's an artifact of the Alands' biased sample.

Manuscript 185

Florence, Laurentian Library (Plutei) VI.16. Soden's ε410. Contains the gospels complete. Dated paleographically to the fourteenth century by many authorities; Scrivener and the Laurentian web site say twelfth. Classified by von Soden as I^φb (but in John only); other manuscripts of this group include 7 115 179 185(part) 267 659 827 1082(part) 1391(part) 1402(part) 1606(part). This classification is not confirmed by Wisse, who lists 185 as Cluster 1531 along with such manuscripts as 1531, 2291, 2387, and 2771. The Alands list 185 as Category V (Byzantine). It should be noted, however, that neither Wisse nor the Alands examined readings in John; thus its text has not been fully examined. It is at least possible that it is block mixed, with a better text in John than elsewhere. Physically 185 is not noteworthy; it has lectionary indications (in very faded red that appears to use a different ink than that used for the red initials that mark paragraphs) and the Ammonian Sections but not the Eusebian apparatus.
Scans are available on the Laurentian Library web site at http://mss.bmlonline.it/s.aspx?Id=AWODkFyxI1A4r7GxL9mb&c=Evangelia#/book.

Manuscript 189

Florence, Laurentian Library (Plutei) VI.27. Soden's ε1401, α269; Tischendorf/Scrivener 189^e, 141^a, 239^p. Contains the Acts and Epistles complete and the gospels with lacunae (lacking John 19:38-end). The Acts and Epistles are dated paleographically to the twelfth century, and the Gospels to the fourteenth (except that Scrivener dates the whole to the twelfth century, as does the Laurentian Library site). The gospels are classified as K^r by Von Soden, and this is confirmed by Wisse (who further classifies 189 as Cluster 189 along with 1236, 1625, and perhaps 825). This is consistent with the marginal apparatus of 189, which lacks the Ammonian/Eusebian material. The Alands also concur in regarding it as unremarkable, describing 189 as Category V (Byzantine). Outside the gospels, the Alands still list 189 as Category V, agreeing with Von Soden's "K" classification. Even among Category V texts, it seems very un-notable; it has only one reading which agrees with UBS against the majority, and nine readings which agree with neither -- but in six of the nine cases it agrees a major fraction of the Byzantine text against the majority, and the others are mostly readings where there are many very similar readings. So those allegedly "non-Majority/non-UBS" readings are mostly Byzantine. The manuscript has the Euthalian apparatus (though not the arrangement or text). Scrivener describes the manuscript itself as "minute [certainly true; it measures 12 cm. x 7 cm.] and beautifully written." Initials and markings of lectionary passages are in red.
Scans are available on the Laurentian Library web site at http://mss.bmlonline.it/s.aspx?Id=AWODj42gI1A4r7GxL9gv&c=Evangelia#/book.

Manuscript 201

London, British Museum Add. 11837. Soden's δ403; Tischendorf/Scrivener 201^e, 91^a, 104^p, 94^r; also m^scr (Gospels); p^scr (Acts/Paul); b^scr (Apocalypse). Contains the compete New Testament. Dated by a colophon to 1357 (interestingly, the date colophon precedes the Apocalypse, and a recent note on that page calculates the date as 1359, not 1357). It was written in Constantinople by a scribe named Methodius. The gospels are classified as K^r by Von Soden, and this is confirmed by Wisse (who notes that it is a "perfect member" of the group). The Alands also concur, listing 201 as Category V in all sections, and their data for Acts seems to confirm this -- it has only four non-majority readings -- and in those four, it has 110, 162, 87, and 181 allies, meaning that although it sometimes lacks the majority reading, it always has the reading of at least one large Byzantine subgroup; clearly it is entirely Byzantine. Wachtel lists it as a member of K^r in the Catholics. In the Apocalypse, Schmid places it in the dominant or "a" group of the Byzantine text headed by 046. Scrivener says of it that it has "many changes by a later hand;" it also has a very full marginal apparatus, including prologues, subscriptions, and stichoi lists, plus "some foreign matter." Rather curiously for a K^r manuscript, it has the Ammonian Sections and "some" of the Eusebian numbers.
Textually valueless it may be, but it is very attractive; each book opens with an elaborate headpiece in blue, black, red, and what appears to be gold ink; there are also multi-colored initial letters (some, including that in Matthew, drawn partly in green). The inks must have been a significant expense.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_11837.

Manuscript 202

London, British Library Additional 14774. Soden's ε242. Contains the Gospels complete, followed by a synaxarion. Dated paleographically to the twelfth century. Von Soden put it in K^x. Wisse also puts it there but lists it as part of a Cluster 202 (although the members of this group are never listed). The Alands unsurprisingly put it in Category V. There are coloured headpieces and elaborate initial letters at the beginning of each gospel, with that for Matthew being the finest. The main text is in a single column, the synaxarion in two. In the absence of any knowledge of what makes Cluster 202 what it is, I have to admit to finding the manuscript unremarkable, both for looks and text.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_14774.

Manuscript 203

London, British Museum Add. 28816. Soden's α203; Tischendorf/Original Gregory 203^a, 477^p, 181^r; Scrivener 232^a, 271^p (Acts/Paul), 107^r. Contains the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse with lacunae (lacking 1 Cor. 16:15-end plus the prologue to 2 Corinthians; Eph. 5:3-6:16 is supplied in a fifteenth century hand). At the end of the volume are ten pages of non-Biblical material (in the original hand). These include a list of the errors condemned by the seven ecumenical councils; Scrivener says that this resemble the exposition in 69. Dated by a colophon to 1111. Von Soden classifies the manuscript as I^c2 in the Acts and Epistles (though he cites it only in Paul, where the other members of the group include 221 257 378 383 385 506 639 876 913 1610 1867 2147). This group is of some interest in the Catholic Epistles (where many of its members are part of Family 2138), but in Paul they seem generally to be of limited value. In addition, 203 at least has very limited value in Acts; according to the Aland statistics, it has only three non-Byzantine five non-Byzantine readings -- three that agree with UBS and two that do not. In all but one of these five readings (Acts 25:5), 203 has at least 80 manuscript allies (meaning that it belongs to with a Byzantine subgroup even if its reading is not that of the majority of manuscripts) -- and even the one exception, in 25:5, is a mere change in word order. Its Byzantine nature is confirmed by the Alands, who place 203 in Category V. In the Apocalypse, Schmid places it in the dominant or "a" group of the Byzantine text headed by 046. Scrivener says of it that it is "a splendid copy," with "many marginal glosses in a very minute hand." It has the κεφαλαια numbers in red in the margins and the entries themselves before each epistle. It has the Euthalian apparatus, and Arethas's prologue and tables on the Apocalypse. It has lectionary indications but no τιτλοι. The scribe was named Andreas.
Sample plate in Edward Maunde Thompson, An Introduction to Greek and Latin Paleography (plate 67).

Manuscript 205

Venice, Bibl. San Marco 420 (Fondo ant. 5). Soden's δ500; Tischendorf/Scrivener 205^e, 93^a, 106^p 88^r. Contains the complete New Testament and the Greek Old Testament. Dated paleographically to the fifteenth century. The text of 205 has long been recognized as being very close kin to the earlier 209 (at least in the Gospels). The two are such close kin that several scholars, starting with Rinck, have believed that 205 is a copy of 209. Burgon offered the theory that both were copied from the same uncial ancestor. While the manner has not been definitively settled, the modern opinion seems to be that 205 is not copied from 209, but that they have a close common ancestor. 209, of course, is known to be a member of Family 1; it therefore follows that 205 must also be part of this group. Von Soden acknowledges this by placing 205 in the I^η group (Family 1; 209 is a member of the "b" subgroup), and Wisse concurs, going so far as to say "Pair with 209." (Curiously, the Alands do not list 205 as a member of Family 1, and even insist on citing 205 separately in SQE¹³. They do list both manuscripts in the same Categories: Category III in the Gospels and Apocalypse; Category V in the Acts and Epistles.) In the Acts and Epistles, 205 is listed by Von Soden as I^a (again agreeing with 209, which is I^a3). The data of the Alands, however, clearly implies that 205 is Byzantine (rather than late/mixed Alexandrian, as Von Soden's classification would imply). This also means that we cannot determine the manuscript's relationship with 209 without detailed examination.
Looking at the Aland data in Acts, we find that 205 and 209 each has only two readings which agree with UBS against the majority text, and 205 and 209 share only one of these:
* 209* agrees with UBS against the majority in Acts 10:32, but 209^c 205 agree with the majority
* in Acts 15:7, 205 and 209 both go against the majority reading, but 161 other manuscripts share this reading, so while it is not the Majority reading; it is clearly the reading of a substantial subgroup of the Byzantine text
* 205 agrees with UBS against the 209* and majority in Acts 21:8 -- but here 209^c with 205, and in any case 180 other manuscripts against the majority, so again, it is a Byzantine reading even if not the majority reading.
If we look at the readings of 205 and 209 which agree neither with UBS nor the majority, they are as follows:
Acts 2:46 -- 205 209 with 3 582 796* 914 1240 1767 2494 (but there are many minor variants in this text; it probably has limited genetic significance)
Acts 3:21 -- 205 209 with 3 450 582 592 914 1240 1886
Acts 9:25 -- 209* with 049 94 307 429 453 522 610 628* 630 636 1066 1490 1642 1721 1749 1751 1758 1831 2200 2511 2818; 205 209^c with Byz etc.
Acts 10:47 -- 209 agrees with only 2501; this is a word order inversion of the reading of 205 and 33 other manuscripts including E^c 6 94 180 181 307 322 323 429 453 522 610 945 1490 1739 1758 1891 2200 2298 2818
Acts 15:34 -- 205 209 with 86 other manuscripts including 5 6 33 88 94 180 307 323 383 441 453 610 614 623 1739 1891 2298 2344 2412 2818; this is probably another case where the Byzantine text splits and 205 209 derive their reading from a Byzantine source that just didn't end up being the majority text
Acts 20:15 -- 209 with the Majority Text; 205 with 45 other manuscripts including D* 69 582 796^c 2412; it looks as if 205 agrees with a Byzantine subtype against the majority.
Acts 20:24a -- 209 with the Majority Text; 205 is singular
Acts 21:20 -- 205 209^c with the Majority Text; 209* with ℵ 3 97* 457* 1409 1642 1717 2243 2816*
Acts 23:20 -- the Byzantine text here splits into two strands, with 209 agreeing with one of the two and 205 not, but the two differ by only one letter μελλοντες versus μελλοντας, and 205 has 24 allies which read the latter; I doubt this reading has genetic significance.
Acts 25:17 -- 205 209^c with the majority text; 209* with 33 other manuscripts including B 056 3 42 181 1642 1886
This isn't much to go on, but it gives me the feeling that 205 and 209 were both Byzantine texts, but of slightly different types, with one of 205's ancestors corrected toward the same type that was used to correct 209, and that this involved a slightly unusual Byzantine group that might have involved such manuscripts as 3 582 1642 1886. But this is very tentative, and in any case, both 205 and 209 are too Byzantine in Acts to be of much importance for criticism. 97
In the Apocalypse, Von Soden lists 205 as an Andreas manuscript, even though it lacks the commentary. Physically, 205 is a rather large volume but with limited marginalia; it lacks the entire Eusebian apparatus (209, by contrast, has the Ammonian sections but not the Eusebian canons) as well as all lectionary data. It has the κεφαλαια in both Greek and Latin, subscriptions, and prologues to the Pauline and Catholic Epistles. It was written for Cardinal Bessarion, probably by his librarian John Rhosen. A copy of 205 exists; now designated 205^abs, it is Tischendorf/Scrivener 206^e, 94^a, 107^p, 101^r. (Note: It is the opinion of most examiners that 205 is the original and 205^abs the copy; Maurice Robinson, however, based on the text in the story of the Adulteress, believes that 205^abs is the original and 205 the copy.) For more details on the text of 205, see the entry on 1 and Family 1.

Manuscript 206

London, Lambeth Palace 1182. Soden's α365; original Gregory 214^a, 270^p; Scrivener 182^a, 252^p, a^scr; Hort 110. Contains the Acts and Epistles with minor lacunae and many later supplements; Acts 1:1-12:3, 13:5-15, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude are from a later (fourteenth century) hand. Dated paleographically to the thirteenth century (except that Scrivener, who probably examined it most fully, says twelfth). Scrivener reports that the readings in Acts "strongly resemble those of [429], and [81] hardly less, especially in [chapters 13-17]." Von Soden lists the text of 206 as I^b1, placing it with 242 429 491 522 536 1758 1831 1891 in Acts (1739 2298 323, it should be noted, are key members of I^b2, so von Soden is placing 206 and its relatives in a group similar the the 1739 text); in Paul the group members include 2 242 429 522 635 941 1099 1758 1831 1891; in the Catholics 206 is listed along with 216 242 429 440 522 1758 1831 1891.
This classification (rather typically of Von Soden's groups) is indicative but probably not entirely accurate.
More recently, Thomas C. Geer, Jr., in Family 1739 in Acts, studies 206 (among others), and finds that 206 is a member of Family 1739 (along with 323 429 522 1739 1891; Geer does not examine the other members of von Soden's I^b group). Within Family 1739, the closest relatives of 206 are 429 and 522. (This is confirmed by the Alands, who list 429 and 522 as the closest relatives of 206, agreeing fully 95% of the time; nothing else agrees as much as 90%). Geer does not compare the first hand of 206 with 206^supp, but he does compile separate statistics for the first and second halves of Acts. It is worth noting that, in chapters 1-14, 206 agrees only 81% of the time with 429, and 75% of the time with 1739 (Geer, p. 69), while in Acts 15-28, it agrees with 429 fully 93% of the time (though still only 77% of the time with 1739). Thus it appears quite likely that the supplement in 206, while having perhaps some kinship with the family text, has been heavily influenced by the Byzantine text. The original hand, by contrast, clearly goes with 429 522 630 2200.
To this we can add that 206 429 522 630 2200 are also akin in the Catholic Epistles. But in the Catholic Epistles, instead of being members of Family 1739 (which, it should be noted, is even more distinctive in the Catholics than in Acts), the 206-group are members of Family 2138. This kinship has been confirmed by all who have investigated the matter; Wachtel places 206 in his group Hk^gr along with 429 522 630 2200 (plus such important manuscripts as 614 1505 1611 1799 2138 2412 2495, which are not related to the 206-429-522-630-2200 group in Acts). Similarly, Richards places 206 in his A¹ group along with 614 1611 1799 2138 2412 (in 1 John; the supplements in 2 and 3 John Richards finds to be Byzantine). And Amphoux places 206 in Family 2138 (along with nearly all the above manuscripts, plus such others as 1108 and 1518).
Knowing that, we need to step back from Geer's conclusion, because in Acts, however, there is a kinship between Family 1739 and Family 2138. They are not the same family, but there is some overlap. This relationship definitely need more examination than it has gotten. The result mostly shows a methodological defect in Geer -- because he compared 206 (and 429 522 etc) to 1739 etc., but not to 614 1505 1611 2138 2412 etc., he came to a false result.
In Paul, 206 has not been as heavily studied; our best information comes from the Alands, who list 206 as Category V (they list it as Category III in the Catholics -- along with all the other members of Family 2138; in Acts, they list 206 as Category V, but here we see their prejudices -- or the effects of the supplement, which in their sample is almost purely Byzantine -- affecting them; what survives of the original text of 206 has only five readings which agree with UBS against the Majority Text, but of its 61 readings, fully 13 agree with neither UBS nor the majority; clearly it deserved better than to be branded Byzantine). 429 and 522 are also Category V in Paul; it thus appears likely that these three manuscripts are related throughout. (630 and 2200 are not wholely Byzantine in Paul; in the latter books, they are Byzantine, but in Romans through Galatians they are weak members of Family 1739. In addition, they appear to be closer to 1739 in Acts. Thus 630 and 2200 might possibly represent a forerunner of the 206-429-522 text, but are not actually part of it.) Physically, Scrivener reports of 206 that it has Paul before the Catholic Epistles, that it is illustrated, that it has full lectionary apparatus, and that it includes antiphons for Easter and "other foreign matter." It is said to have come from a Greek island. See also the discussion on 429 or on 522.

Manuscript 213

Venice, Bibl. San Marco 542 (Fondo ant. 544). Soden's ε129. Contains the Gospels with mutilations (John 18:40-end have been lost). Universally dated to the eleventh century. Classified by Von Soden as I⁰ -- a group which contains a very mixed bag of manuscripts: U X 443 1071 1321(part) 1574 2145. Wisse classifies 213 as mixed throughout. The Alands do not assign it to any Category. Some of the confusion may be due to a poor scribe; 213 has many strange properties. Scrivener notes "heroic verses as colophons to the Gospels," "[l]arge full stops in impossible places," the Ammonian/Eusebian apparatus "most irregularly inserted," and only scattered lectionary indications.

Manuscript 223

Location/Catalog Number

Ann Arbor. Catalog number: University of Michigan MS. 34. Formerly Burdette-Coutts III 1; the University acquired it from the Burdette-Coutts estate in 1922. It was originally acquired at Janina in Epirus.

223 contains the Acts and Epistles, with some minor defects (in Paul, 2 Corinthians 1:1-3, Eph. 1:1-4, Hebrews 1:1-6 are missing; Scrivener believes they were cut out for the sake of the illuminations). Philemon precedes Hebrews. It has κεφαλια for Acts only, but υποθεσις (often more than one) for all books, and concludes with a lectionary table. It is written on parchment, 1 column per page. The parchment is of excellent quality, and the manuscript has many colorful illuminations (apparently before every book except 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Hebrews, all of which, we note, have had their first leaves removed), implying that unusual effort and expense was devoted to its preparation. According to Clark, the book titles are in gold. Scrivener says of it, "This is one of the most superb copies extant of the latter part of the N.T., on which so much cost was seldom bestowed as on the gospels."

Date/Scribe

Dated paleographically to the fourteenth century. A colophon at the end of Jude states that it was written by Antonios of Malaka, who is also credited with writing 1305 (dated by its colophon to 1244) and ℓ²⁷⁹ (dated paleographically to the twelfth century). The dating of the manuscript is thus problematic. Gregory, perhaps on the basis of the colophon, gave a date of the eleventh or twelfth century. It is noteworthy, however, that the colophon of 223, although in gold, is not in the hand of the original scribe. Clark, after considering multiple explanations, tentatively suggests on p. 9 of Eight American Praxaposoloi that the explanation is that the colophon was copied in its entirety from some other manuscript (possibly but not certainly the exemplar) but suggests that there is a need to compare 223, its colophon, 1305, and ℓ²⁷⁹ in detail.

Description and Text-type

Von Soden lists 223 as K^c. Clark and his collaborators questioned this, since von Soden's collation was highly inaccurate. However, spot checks indicate that 223 possesses about 70% of the characteristic readings of K^c. Thus it is likely that it is at least a weak K^c witness. Indeed, looking at the Acts data, I think it is a good witness of the type and the problem is von Soden, not 223.

Aland and Aland list 223 as Category V, i.e. Byzantine. This is clearly correct (at least if one accepts K^c as Byzantine); in Acts, for instance, it has no readings at all that agree with UBS against the Majority text -- although it has nine readings which agree with neither. However, in six of these, it belongs has many allies although they do not represent the majority (Acts 2:31, 94 allies; Accts 4:33, 73 allies; Acts 12:25, 60 allies; Acts 13:42, 101 allies; Acts 15:34, 33 allies; Acts 25:5, 68 allies); the other three readings (Acts 10:11, 15:17-18, 24:6-8) represent places where it either differs trivially from the majority or where the tradition is very fractured. It is the picture of a manuscript belonging to a Byzantine subgroup, in this case surely K^c.

Richards lists 223 as belonging to his B³ group in the Johannine Epistles, having all nine of the characteristic readings in 1 John. Other members of this group, with von Soden's classification of them, are 97 (K), 177 (rather weakly, K), 1597 (K^x), 1872 (I^b2, but K^c in r), and 2423.

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript
von Soden: α186. Scrivener: 220^a; 264^p. Tischendorf: 223^a; 278^p

Bibliography

Collations:
K.W. Clark, Eight American Praxapostoloi (1941).
F. H. A. Scrivener, Adverseria Cristica Sacra (1893); cited as "a"

Sample Plates:
Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (1 page)

Editions which cite:

Other Works:
Kenneth W. Clark, A Descriptive Catalogue of Greek New Testament Manuscripts in America (1937), pp. 312-313 (description of form and contents)

Manuscript 225

Naples, Bibl. Naz., Cod. Vein. 9. Soden's ε1210. Contains the Gospels complete. Dated by its colophon to 1192. The manuscript is among the smallest known, measuring less than 14 cm. by 10 cm. Perhaps to accommodate such a pocket edition, the Eusebian and Ammonian apparatus are omitted, as are most other reader helps except the lectionary markings (the manuscript is supplied with pictures, however). Classified by Von Soden as A^k -- a group which also contains 5, 15, 32, 53, 169, 269, 292, 297, 416, 431, 448, 470, 490, 496, 499, 534, 546, 558, 573, 715, 752, 760, 860, 902, 946, 968, 976, 987, 1011, 1015, 1058, 1091, 1163, 1167, 1171, 1211, 1227, 1291, 1299, 1321, 1439, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1566, 1800, 2142, and 2176. These manuscripts are, however, mostly Byzantine, and Wisse largely disregards this group. 225 itself he classifies as Kmix/1167/1167; other members of Group 1167 include 75 116(part) 245(part) 431 496 546 578(part) 843 896 951 1015 1167 1242(part) 1438 1479(part) 1511(part) 1570 2095(part) 2229 2604. The Alands more or less confirm that 225 is Byzantine but not a mainstream witness to the type by refusing to assign it to a Category. The most noteworthy thing about 225's text, however, is where it places the story of the Adulteress (John 7:53-8:11). Alone among all known witnesses, it places the story after John 7:36.

Manuscript 229

Escorial X.IV.21. Soden's ε1206. Contains the Gospels with lacunae (lacking Mark 16:15-20, John 1:1-11). Dated by its colophon to 1140. Classified by Von Soden as I^kc -- i.e. as a offshoot of Family Π; other members of this group include 280 473 482 1354. Wisse, however, reports that 229 is block mixed; it is Π^a in Luke 1, K^x in Luke 10 and 20. The Alands do not assign it to a Category; this perhaps implies that the Family Π element predominates, as they usually classify K^x witnesses as Category V but leave Family Π witnesses unclassified. Scrivener notes that it was written by "Basil Argyropolus, a notary." It includes pictures. A later hand has added lectionary indications and retraced parts of the text, as well as correcting various readings (apparently correcting the Family Π text toward the Byzantine mainstream, as Scrivener reports that the original readings resemble those of A and K, both of which are associated with that family.)

Manuscript 234

Copenhagen, Kgl. Bibl. GkS 1322, 4⁰. Soden's δ365; Tischendorf's 234^e, 57^a, 72^p. Gospels, Acts, Catholics, Paul, apparently complete. Written in 1278 by Theodore of Hagiopetros, who was responsible for several other New Testament manuscripts, and reportedly purchased in Venice in 1699. In the gospels, it has the Eusebian apparatus and lectionary indications. The books are in the order Acts, Paul, Catholics, Gospels, but it is not clear whether this is the work of the scribe or the binder. Von Soden didn't really classify the type in the Gospels; he put it in K^c in the Acts and Epistles. Wisse lists it as K^x Cluster 74 in Luke; many members of this group were copied by Theodore of Hagiopetros. The Alands, interestingly, do not put it in any Category, but the Gospels surely should be Category V. I know of no attempts to classify it outside the Gospels.
Thus there is little reason to think 234 has an exceptional text, but it does have a bit of historical interest: Franz Delitzsch thought it was the main text for the New Testament of the Complutensian Polyglot -- an opinion he based on several unusual readings in the Polyglot that resemble those of 234. However, Michael Welte has shown that much of this material is typical of Theodore of Hagiopetros, so while the Polyglot likely consulted a Theodore manuscript, Welte does not think it was 234.

Manuscript 235

Copenhagen, Kgl. Bibl. GkS 1323, 4⁰. Soden's ε456. Described by Scrivener as "written by the ιερομοναχος Philotheus, though very incorrectly; the text agrees much with Codd. DK. i. 33 and the Harkleian Syriac.... [T]he words are often ill-divided and the stops misplaced." The kinship with these manuscripts is, however, at best very weak; Von Soden lists it as I^σ (along with 157 245 291 713 1012), but cites it only for John. Wisse lists it as Kmix/K^x/K^x, and the Alands also regard it as Byzantine, listing it as Category V.

Manuscript 245

Moscow, Historical Museum V.16, S.278. Soden's ε1226. Dated by its colophon to the the 1199. Written by "John, a priest" and formerly kept at the monastery of Batopedion. Von Soden categorizes its text as I^σ; other manuscripts of this type include 157 235(John) 291 713 1012. Wisse lists the text as Kmix/1167/1167. The members of Group 1167 do not correspond to those of Von Soden's group. Whatever its exact type, it seems certain that the manuscript is primarily Byzantine, and this is reflected by the Alands, who list it as Category V.

Manuscript 249

Moscow, Historical Museum V. 90, S.93. Soden's N^ι10. Contains the Gospel of John (only), with a catena. Its dating varies wildly; Aland says XIV, Scrivener XI. Von Soden's number implies that he agrees with Scrivener. Von Soden lists it as having Nicetas's commentary on John, assigning its symbol on this basis (other manuscripts with this commentary include 317 333 423 430 743). Merk lists the text-type as K (Byzantine). Little else can be said of it; the Alands do not assign it to a Category (presumably because it contains only John, and they tested only Matthew through Luke), and Wisse of course does not profile it. Originally from Mount Athos.

Manuscript 251

Moscow, Russian Gosud. Library Greek 9. Von Soden's ε192. Contains the gospels complete. Dated paleographically to the eleventh (Scrivener, von Soden) or twelfth (Aland) century. Von Soden lists it as a member of I' (the vaguest of all the I groups, containing a handful of Byzantine uncials, assorted uncial fragments -- not all of which are Byzantine -- and many mostly-Byzantine minuscules). Wisse lists 251 as a member of Cluster 1229, the other members of this group being 1229 (which, like 251, von Soden lists as I') and 2487. The Alands do not assign 251 to a Category, implying that it contains at least some readings (though not many) which are not purely Byzantine. Physically, 251 has the Eusebian tables and Ammonian sections, but not the Eusebian marginalia; these perhaps were never finished. 251 has illustrations, but no lectionary equipment.

Manuscript 262

Paris, National Library Greek 53. Soden's ε1020. Contains the Gospels complete, though the marginalia seem not to have been completed; Scrivener reports that it has "some" τιτλοι. The Ammonian and Eusebian apparatus (including harmonizations) are complete in Matthew and Mark, but only partial, and in a later hand, in Luke and John. 262 is universally dated to the tenth century. Scrivener observed a similarity to Λ, and this is confirmed both by Von Soden (who places it in the I^r group with Λ 545 1187 1555 1573) and Wisse (who makes it a core member of Group Λ). The Alands assign it to Category V as Byzantine.

Manuscript 263

Paris, National Library Greek 61. Soden's δ372. Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles complete. Dated paleographically to the thirteenth century. The text is generally uninteresting; in the Gospels, von Soden listed it as K¹, which Wisse corrects minimally to K^x, and the Alands list it as Category V (Byzantine). The Alands also place it in Category V in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, though Von Soden listed it as I^a3, based probably on the text of Paul. The Alands appear to be right about Acts, though; in that book, 263 has only two readings which agree with UBS against the Majority Text, and three others which agree with neither (one of them singular). The one exception to this trend of ordinariness is in Paul. Here the Alands promote it to Category III, and Von Soden's I^a3 classification makes somewhat more sense. Bover, in particular, specifies it as a member of "Family 1319" (for which see the entry on 365 and Family 2127) -- and while 263 does not seem as good as the leading members of the family (256, 365, 1319, 2127), there does seem to be kinship. Scrivener believed the manuscript came from Asia Minor, and this is perhaps reasonable for a text somewhat related to the Armenian version (256 has an Armenian text as well as the Greek). In the Gospels, 263 has Ammonian Sections but not the Eusebian equipment (the tables were drawn but the data not filled in), and lectionary indications but no tables. There are small pictures of the authors before many of the books; these are mostly severely scuffed, although that of James isn't too badly damaged. Black and white scans, from a microfilm (very pale and hard to read), are on the Paris library site at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107220467.

Manuscript 265

Paris, National Library Greek 66. Soden's ε285. Contains the Gospels complete. Generally dated to the twelfth century, though Scrivener lists the tenth. Classified by Von Soden as I^ka, i.e. as a member of the main Family Π group, along with such manuscripts as A K Y Π This is confirmed by Wisse, who lists it as a core member of the main Π^a group. The Alands do not place it in any Category; this is fairly typical for Family Π manuscripts. Physically, the manuscript has the Eusebian apparatus but not much else; lectionary equipment is lacking.

Manuscript 267

Paris, National Library Greek 69. Soden's ε1289. Contains the Gospels with minor lacunae (missing Matt. 1:1-8, Mark 1:1-7, Luke 1:1-8, Luke 24:50-John 1:12 -- perhaps cut out for the sake of illustrations or the like?). Generally dated to the twelfth century, though Scrivener lists the tenth. Classified by Von Soden as I^φb along with such manuscripts as 7 115 179 185(part) 659 827 1082(part) 1391(part) 1402(part) 1606(part). That it is close to 7, at least, is confirmed by Wisse, who places 267 in Cluster 7 along with 7, 1651, and 1654. The Alands place 267 in Category V (Byzantine). The manuscript is slightly unusual in having the Ammonian and Eusebian numbers in the same line.

Manuscript 270

Paris, National Library Greek 75. Soden's ε291. Contains the Gospels complete. Generally dated to the twelfth century, though Scrivener lists the eleventh. Classified by Von Soden as I^kb (i.e. as a member of one of the weaker subgroups of Family Π) along with such manuscripts as 726 1200 1375. Wisse confirms its kinship with the Π groups, listing it as part of the b subgroup in Luke 1 and the a subgroup in Luke 10 and 20. The Alands place 270 in Category V (Byzantine). Curiously, Scrivener reports that the manuscript has both synaxarion and menologion (along with illustrations and the Eusebian apparatus), but no lectionary indications in the text.

Manuscript 272

London, British Library Additional 15581. Soden's ε1182. Contains the Gospels complete. Dated paleographically to the eleeventh century. Von Soden put it in K¹. Wisse, who does not consider K¹ a valid group, moves it to K^x and pairs it with 419. The Alands naturally put it in Category V. Curiously, it is title ἡ νέα (not καινη) διαθήκη -- but this is from a later hand. The manuscript is very unadorned, except that the first letters of paragraphs are in red. The margins are very small, which combined with the lack of ornamentation hints that this was a manuscript intended to be inexpensive. Even the gospel headings (in red) are small and only minimally ornamented. There is a recent foliation, in Arabic numbers (in a blacker in than the brownish main run of the text). I would guess that this is the same hand who wrote in occasional paragraph marks (showing where the paragraph actually begins as opposed to out-denting the first letters of the next line); it has also inked over occasional letters and marked the paragraphs with section numbers.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_15581.

Manuscript 273

Paris, National Library Greek 79. Soden's ε370. Contains the Gospels with some slight damage, most of it made good by a supplement. Dated paleographically to the thirteenth century by Aland and von Soden; Scrivener lists the twelfth century and dates the supplements (which are on paper; the rest of the manuscript is vellum) to the fourteenth century. Classified by Von Soden as I', i.e. as one of the miscellaneous weak "Western" witnesses. Wisse, however, finds it to be mostly Byzantine; he lists it as Kmix/K^x/Kmix. The Alands do not place 273 in any Category, which usually means it is strongly but not quite purely Byzantine; this perhaps supports Wisse's analysis. Scrivener lists it as having a very full marginalia (though some of the lectionary material is from the later hand), and says of it that is "contains also some scholia, extracts from Sererianus's commentary, annals of the Gospels, a list of gospel parallels, with a mixed text."

Manuscript 280

Paris, National Library Greek 87. Soden's ε294. Contains the Gospels with some damage (Mark 8:3-15:36 are missing). Dated paleographically to the twelfth century. Classified by Von Soden as I^kc (i.e. as a member of one of the weaker subgroups of Family Π) along with such manuscripts as 229 473 482 1354. Wisse confirms its kinship with the Π groups, but lists it as a core member of the primary group Π^a. The Alands place 280 in Category V (Byzantine); this may indicate that it it less pure in the other gospels than it is in Luke (since the Alands usually do not assign Π^a manuscripts to any category). However, it could also be an indication of the Alands' lack of control of their Categories.

Manuscript 291

Paris, National Library Greek 113. Soden's ε377. Contains the Gospels complete. Dated paleographically to the twelfth (Scrivener) or thirteenth (Aland, von Soden) century. Written with silver ink, but with relatively few reader aids (lectionary markings but no tables; no Ammonian or Eusebian apparatus). Classified by Von Soden as I^σ -- a strange mixed group containing also 157 235(part) 245 713 1012. Wisse however places 291 in its own Group 291, which he associates loosely with the Π groups; other members of this group are 139 371 449 597 1235 1340 2346 2603 2728. The Alands place 280 in Category V (Byzantine).

Manuscript 304

Paris, National Library Greek 194. Soden's C^μ23, A²¹⁵. Contains the gospels of Matthew and Mark (only), with commentary interspersed with the text. Dated paleographically to the twelfth (von Soden, Aland) or thirteenth (Scrivener) century. Classified by von Soden based on the commentary: He lists it as having the "Anonymous Catena" on Matthew (one of only three manuscripts to have this commentary, the others being 366 and 2482) and the "Antiochene Commentary" of Victor on Mark. (Scrivener quotes Burgon to the effect that the commentary on Mark is a "modification of Victor's," however.) The Alands list 304 as Category V (Byzantine). Since the manuscript does not include Luke, it has not been studied by Wisse, but there is no particular reason to doubt the Alands' judgement. Thus there is no reason to consider 304 particularly unusual -- except for the fact that it is commonly cited in critical apparati (NA²⁷, UBS⁴, etc.) as omitting the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20). Maurice Robinson has examined a microfilm of the end of the manuscript, however, and offers these observations: "[T]he primary matter [in 304] is the commentary. The gospel text is merely interspersed between the blocks of commentary material, and should not be considered the same as a 'normal' continuous-text MS. Also, it is often very difficult to discern the text in contrast to the comments....
"Following γαρ² at the close of [16:8], the MS has a mark like a filled-in 'o,' followed by many pages of commentary, all of which summarize the endings of the other gospels and even quote portions of them.
"Following this, the commentary then begins to summarize the ετερον δε τα παρα του Μαρκου, presumably to cover the non-duplicated portions germane to that gospel in contrast to the others. There remain quotes and references to the other gospels in regard to Mary Magdalene, Peter, Galilee, the fear of the women, etc. But at this point the commentary abruptly ends, without completing the remainder of the narrative or the parallels. I suspect that the commentary (which contains only Mt and Mk) originally continued the discussion and that a final page or pages at the end of this volume likely were lost.... I would suggest that MS 304 should not be claimed as a witness to the shortest ending...."

Manuscript 307

Paris, National Library Coislin Greek 25. Soden's A^πρ11; Tischendorf/Scrivener 15^a. Contains the Acts and Catholic Epistles complete. Dated paleographically to the tenth (Aland) or eleventh (Scrivener) century. Commentary manuscript, described by both Von Soden and Scrivener as that of Andreas the Presbyter (with a very high ratio of commentary to text; it is not rare to see only a singe sentence of text on a particular page). Also includes a short list of Paul's voyages, plus some later marginal writings in contemporary Greek such as a note on the death of the Hegemon Constantine in March 1478. Some gold lettering at the beginnings of the books, in a more formal style than the main text. There is some wrinkling of the parchment, and several pages in the Johannine Epistles have been affected by water. Von Soden classified it as I^a1 (along with 36^ac 88 181 307 431 453 610 915 917 1829 1836(caths only) 1874 1898). Some of these manuscripts probably are not allies of 307, but at least some are; an examination of the data in the UBS⁴ apparatus to Acts shows that 36, 307, 453, 610, and 1678 (all Andreas manuscripts) agree over 90% of the time (and 100% or nearly in non-Byzantine readings; for details, see the entry on 453). Geer, based on the data compiled by the Alands (who classify 307 as Category III), notes a very high agreement of 307 with 453 and 2818 (the new number for 36). The Alands' numbers show that 307's closest ally among substantial manuscripts is another Family 453 manuscript, 610 (94% agreement), followed by 36=2818 (93%), 453 (92%), and 1678 (88%); no other substantial manuscript agrees more than 80% of the time in their sample. Thus there appears no doubt that 307 is a member of the 453 group. The situation is slightly more complicated in the Catholic Epistles; here Wachtel identifies a group containing 36 94 307 453 720 918 1678 2197, but does not place 307 in the same subgroup as 453. The text of 307 itself is said to have been "compared with Pamphilius'[s] revision" [Scrivener]. It is cited in NA²⁸ for the Catholic Epistles, but was not cited in earlier Nestle editions. Black-and-white scans (from a microfilm) are available at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b11000126s.r=coislin%2025?rk=21459;2

Manuscript 312

London, British Library Additional 5115 and 5116. Soden's α187; Scrivener/old Gregory 22^a, 75^p (the two apparently were not regarded as part of the same volume by whoever assigned the numbers). Contains the Acts and Epistles with lacunae. Additional 5115 contains the Acts and Catholic Epistles plus the prefatory material to Romans. Additional 5116 contains Paul. There are two main lacunae, Acts 1:1-11 and Hebrews 6:7-7:1; the Alands also list one in Acts 3 (there are many badly faded pages in this section). There is also some damage at the beginning of Hebrews, where some sort of noxious substance got into the manuscript. The damage is worst on the very first folio, but it extends through many more. Hebrews follows Philemon. There is also a short set of medical recipes; too bad there wasn't anything for the damage to the manuscript, which makes it look like most of the pages of Hebrews have leprosy! The main text is in black, but there are many small ornate designs near the beginnings of the books, as well as summaries in red. There are a few comments in the margin, but not many. A modern hand has added folio numbers in Arabic numerals. Dated paleographically to the eleventh century. Classified as K^x by Von Soden, but the Alands apparently don't agree, since they don't put it in any Category. However, their list shows only three non-Byzantine readings in Acts: 13:42 (where it agrees with 101 other manuscripts), 18:21-22 (where it agrees with 21 other Byzantine manuscripts in a passage where the witnesses are very fractured), 23:20 (where it agrees with 25 other manuscripts in a reading which is close to the Byzantine text). In Acts at least, it certainly looks Byzantine to me. Although there seems to be no colophon specific to Additional 5115, Additional 5116 at least was from Mount Athos; in the eighteenth century it was in the library of Anthony Askew.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_5115 and http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_5115.

Manuscript 314

Oxford, Bodleian Library Barocci 3. Soden's O¹¹; Tischendorf/Scrivener 23^a, 28^p, 6^r. Contains the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse with severe mutilations. Losses include Acts 1:1-11:12 (with 1:1-3:10 replaced by a later hand; the early leaves of the supplement are in bad shape), 14:6-17:19, 20:28-24:12, 1 Pet. 2:2-16, 3:7-21, 2 Cor. 9:15-11:9, Gal. 1:1-18, Eph. 6:1-19, Phil 4:18-23, Rev. 1:10-17, 9:12-18, 17:10-18:11. Dated paleographically to the eleventh century. The Bodleian site believes it to be from Constantinople. Commentary manuscript (although the supplement at the beginning of Acts does not have commentary); Scrivener describes it as having "scholia on the Epistles" (identified by Von Soden as the commentary of (the pseudo-)Oecumenius) and "a full and unique commentary on the Apocalypse." As usual, Von Soden simply describes it as an Oecumenius manuscript; in the Apocalypse he lists it as being of type K⁰, but Merk modifies this to place it among the Arethas manuscripts. Schmid grouped it with the "a" or primary Byzantine group (headed by 046) in the Apocalypse. The Alands simply list it as Category V (i.e. Byzantine), though one wonders if they really had enough text of Acts for the determination to be reliable there (they have only nineteen test readings, although it is true that every one of these agrees with the Byzantine text). Scrivener calls it "a beautiful little book," and it certainly is small (13 cm. x 10 cm.), and in a small hand (especially the commentary). Many leaves are damaged in the margins; this affects the commentary more than the text. Apart from the commentary, the only marginal equipment are the κεφαλαια; it also has prologues and τιτλοι but no lectionary or other apparatus.
Complete scans can now be found at the Bodleian site at https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/inquire/p/1d945b6d-a07e-4efc-b41d-7f7332efb922.

Manuscript 317

Paris, National Library Greek 212. Soden's N^ι31. Contains somewhat more than half of John (10:9-end), with a commentary reported by von Soden to be that of Nicetas. Dated paleographically to the twelfth century. Textually, relatively little is known about the manuscript. Wisse did not examine it, as it does not contain Luke, and von Soden simply listed it among the Nicetas manuscripts (the other manuscripts with the Johannine portion of this commentary include 249 333 423 430 743). The Alands do not assign 317 to any Category, because they examined test readings only from the Synoptic Gospels. Thus 317 has never been subjected to any systematic textual evaluation.

Manuscript 319

Cambridge, England, Christ's College MS. Dd.1.9 (so the first edition of the Kurzgefasste Liste) or Gg.1.9 [MS. 9] (so the Acts volume of Text und Textwert) or F.1.13 (James, Scrivener). Checking the online Cambridge catalog (if I understand it correctly), it appears that neither Aland citation is right; Dd.1.9 is "A Collection of Medical Recipes" and Gg.1.9 is "The Register Book of the City of Westminster." Soden's α256; Tischendorf 24^a, 29^p. Collated by Scrivener and cited as l in his Codex Augiensis. 313 pages with 22 lines per page. James describes it as "Cent. xii, in a fine clear hand, hanging from lines ruled with the dry point." The Liste and Scrivener agree with the twelfth century date although Scrivener notes that there are many later corrections. James observes that the quires are "wrongly numbered by old hand," adding "There are a good many errors in the numbering of the quires." There are several cancels. Several leaves have been lost; Acts 18.20-20.14, James 5.14-1 Peter 1.4 are lacking. The order of the books is Acts, Catholics, Paul. Hebrews follows Philemon. Two leaves in 2 Timothy are out of order. The Alands list it as Category V (Byzantine). Based on an examination of Scrivener's collation of 319 in Galatians, this appears correct. There are only 35 differences from the Textus Receptus. One of these is corrected, and in one the corrector has messed up a Byzantine reading. Of the remaining 33, 17 are places where 319 is in fact Byzantine and the TR is not, or places where the Byzantine text divides and 319 follows one of the strands. Of the remaining 16 readings, about half are differences of spelling or accent. Almost all the remainder appear to be simple scribal slips. The situation appears to be similar in Acts; of the 95 readings tested by the Alands, 94 agree with the Majority text -- and even in the one exception, Acts 10:10, 319 has 48 allies, all minuscules, most if not all of them Byzantine; it appears this is the reading of a Byzantine subgroup that is not the majority.

Manuscript 322

London, England, British Library MS. Harley 5620. Soden'sα550 ; Tischendorf 27^a, 33^p. Dated paleographically to the fifteenth century. It doesn't seem to have been properly examined by von Soden; he listed it as I^b?, based presumably on its extremely close kinship with the older manuscript 323 -- a kinship acknowledged by almost all authorities, who seem to follow von Soden in largely ignoring 322. Aland and Aland list it as Category II in the Catholics and Category III elsewhere and explicitly note that it is the same category as 323, which they call a sister manuscript. The kinship is easily confirmed for Acts based on the Aland data; the two have only four disagreements out of 102 tested, which is by far the highest rate of agreements for either manuscript; they disagree only for Acts 2:30 (where both have singular readings which differ by just one letter; their ancestor surely had the same reading, although it's not clear which it was), 3:11 (where 323 goes with ℵ B and 322 has a minor variant), 8:37 (both add the verse, but in slightly different forms, both singular), 15:34 (where both add the verse, but 322 has a minor singular variant). Thus even the Alands' figure of 96% agreement probably understates their similarity; if 323 is not the ancestor of 322, they must come from a recent common ancestor, with 322 perhaps having varied from it slightly more (not surprising, given that it must have had several centuries of time to add errors). For a British manuscript, Scrivener's description is surprisingly short: 134 folios; fifteenth century; paper; "of some weight: there are no chapter divisions primâ manu; the writing is small and abbreviated." See also 1739 and Family 1739 and 323.

Manuscript 323

Location/Catalog Number

Geneva. Catalog number: Bibliothèque Publique et Universitaire, Gr. 20.

323 contains the Acts and Epistles. Acts 1:1-8, 2:36-45 are from a later hand; there are a few other minor defects. It is written on parchment, one column per page.

Date/Scribe

Dated paleographically to the eleventh century. Scrivener calls it "beautifully but carelessly written, without subscriptions."

Description and Text-type

323 is very closely related to the fifteenth century minuscule 322; the two are evidently sisters. Beyond that, 323's closest affinity is with the members of Family 1739 and with the Byzantine text.

323 stands closest to 1739 in the Catholic Epistles, particularly in 2 Peter-Jude. In those books it might almost be a copy of 1739 with some corruptions. In James and 1 Peter it still has affinities with family 1739, but the ties are weaker and the Byzantine text more prominent.

The situation is similar in Acts. 323 appears to belong with family 1739, but the Byzantine element is very strong. (So strong that Geer tried to classify it as a Byzantine member of family 1739!) For details on Geer's analysis, see the entry on 1739. The Aland sample numbers are similar: 1739 has 53 non-Byzantine readings out of 104 total readings in the sample, but 323 has only 32 non-Byzantine readings. 323, in the Aland sample, agrees with 322 in 96% of the sample readings, but doesn't agree with any other substantial manuscript more than 80% of the time -- its next closest relative among manuscripts extant for at least fifty readings is a 76% agreement with 2289. Among manuscripts generally regarded as valuable, it is closest to 1852 (68%); its rate of agreements with 1739 is so low that 1739 does not even show up in the Alands' list of its relatives. In other words, Geer is right that the text is more Byzantine than anything else. But it is not purely Byzantine; it is Byzantine mixed with something else -- and the something else is quite clearly Family 1739. If we look at those 54 readings where 1739 is non-Byzantine, we find that 323 is Byzantine in 23 of them (and approximates the Byzantine text in a 24th), but of the other 29 readings, it agrees exactly with 1739 in 21, and approximates it in four more; three readings are so fractured and complex that differences are probably due to imperfect corrections; only once (Acts 3:11) does 323 have a non-Byzantine reading clearly distinct from 1739's -- and even there, the difference is slight enough that a careless scribe might have missed it. Since 1739 exists, 323 has little independent value, but it does at least serve to confirm that there is a Family 1739 text.

In Paul, 323 is almost entirely Byzantine. The few non-Byzantine readings hint at a family 1739 text (perhaps related to 945), but they are so few that no definite conclusions can be reached.

Von Soden lists 323 as I^b2. Aland and Aland list it as Category II in the Catholics and Category III elsewhere. Richards lists 323 as a member of Group A³ (Family 1739). Amphoux also associated it with 1739.

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript
von Soden: α157. Tischendorf: 29^a; 35^p

Bibliography

Collations:

Sample Plates:
Aland & Aland (1 page)

Editions which cite:
Cited in NA²⁶ for the Acts and Catholic Epistles.
Cited in NA²⁷ for the Acts and Catholic Epistles.
Cited in NA²⁸ for the Acts and Catholic Epistles.
Cited in UBS⁴ for the Catholic Epistles.
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover, but very rather sketchily (especially in Paul).

Other Works:
Thomas C. Geer, Jr., Family 1739 in Acts (Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, 1994). Consists mostly of tables comparing manuscripts 206, 322, 323, 429, 453, 522, 630, 945, 1704, 1739, 1891, 2200. The analysis is flawed, but the results are generally valid.

Manuscript 330 and Family 330

Location/Catalog Number

Saint Petersburg. Catalog number: Public Library Gr. 101.

330 originally contained the entire New Testament except the Apocalypse. It is now slightly damaged. 330 is written on parchment, one column per page.

Date/Scribe

Dated paleographically to the twelfth century.

Description and Text-type

For the most part, 330 is a quite ordinary Byzantine manuscript. In the Gospels, for instance, Von Soden listed it as K^x and Wisse specifies it as Group 16 (a group close to K^x). Colwell describes 330 as part of Family 574 (=330 574 [Mix/K^xCluster 585 according to Wisse] and 1815+2127 [Π473 according to Wisse]) in the Gospels. The Alands classify it as Category V (Byzantine). Although there is obviously some doubt about the exact Byzantine group to which 330 belongs, there is no question but that it is Byzantine.

The same is true in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, where the Alands again list 330 as Category V; their data shows only four readings which go against the Majority text: it agrees with UBS in Acts 10:10 (where, however, it has 67 allies; this is pretty definitely a Byzantine reading although not the majority reading), 16:14 (where it has 64 allies or near-allies, so again, the reading of a Byzantine subgroup although not the majority group) and has singular readings in Acts 16:33 (where it differs from the majority only in having αι for οι, so it's probably just an error), 17:41 (a simple mis-spelling, καματων for κυματων). Thus, there is no reason to think any of its ancestors was anything other than Byzantine in Acts.

In the Johnannine Epistles, Richards lists 330 as Byzantine, assigning it specifically to Group B¹ (which also contains 319, 479, 483, 635, 1829, and 1891).

The situation is entirely different in Paul. Here the Alands upgrade the manuscript to Category III. But 330's content is, perhaps, even more interesting than the typical manuscript of that category.

330 has a unique type of text shared by only three other known manuscripts: 451, which outside of Hebrews is almost close enough to 330 to be a sister; 2400 (according to Gary S. Dykes); and 2492, which seems to have a slightly more Alexandrian-influenced version of the same text. The text of family 330, as we have it, is largely Byzantine, but the remaining readings do not belong purely to either the Alexandrian or "Western" texts. The following list shows some of the unique or nearly unique readings of 330:

Rom. 15:19 πνευματος θεου αγιου [330 451]
1 Cor. 2:14 πνευματος (omit του θεου) [330 451 1506 pc pesh]
1 Cor. 15:5 τοις ενδεκα [D* F G 330 451 latt hark^marg]
2 Cor. 4:5 δια χριστον [326 330 451 1241 1984 1985 2492]
2 Cor. 9:4 τη υποστασει ταυτη της καυχεσεως ημων [330 2492]
2 Cor. 11:6 φανερωσαντες εαυτους [0121a 0243 330 451 630 1739 1881 2492]
2 Cor. 12:12 σημειοις και [A (D*) 330 451 2492 it am ful]
Phil. 2:5 τουτο ουν φρονειτε [330 451 2492]
Col. 4:8 γνω τα περι ημων [330 451 𝓁⁵⁹⁸ 𝓁¹³⁵⁶]
Philem. 12 αναπεμψα συ δε αυτον προσλαβου τουτ εστιν τα εμα σπλαγχνα [330^c 451 2492]

Von Soden lists 330 as I^a3 in the Acts and Epistles. This is interesting, since I^a3 also contains 462 and 436, which Davies links to 330. Even Davies, however, admits that the strength of the link "varies," and 436 and 462 do not belong to Family 330. Von Soden appears to be correct, however, in believing the family to be linked, very loosely, with Family 2127 (often called Family 1319). The link probably comes via the Euthalian recension; 330 has the Euthalian apparatus.

There are also hints, although only very slight ones (due to 1506's fragmentary nature), that Family 330 should be linked to the text of 1506. Given 1506's extraordinary text, the matter deserves examination.

330 is not the best of the Family 330 texts. It is almost purely Byzantine in Hebrews. However, it is the only member of family 330 to have been published, and deserves fuller study.

The other members of Family 330 are as follows:

451. (Tischendorf/Scrivener 79^a, 90^p; von Soden α178). Contains the Acts and Epistles. Dated paleographically to the eleventh century, making it the oldest member of Family 330. (It is also probably the best.) Catalog number: Vatican Library (Rome) Urbin. Gr. 3. Classified by von Soden as K (Byzantine). This is probably accurate in the Acts and Catholics (though even here it probably pairs with 330). In Paul, of course, it is not true. The Alands more accurately list it as Category III in Paul, V in the Acts and Catholic Epistles.
2400. (Reported by Gary S. Dykes; I have not been able to personally verify this.) Catalog number: University of Chicago Ms. 965. Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles with lacunae. Dated by the Alands to the thirteenth century, but Dykes prefers the twelfth. He also reports that it was written by the same scribe as 1505. The Alands list it as "obviously Category V," and their figures support this in the Gospels, Acts, and Catholic Epistles, but with 74 non-Byzantine of 264 readings in Paul, it clearly deserves to be listed higher. In the Gospels, Wisse lists it as a weak member of Π^a.
2492. Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. Dated paleographically to the thirteenth century. Catalog number: St. Catherine's Monastery (Sinai) Gr. 1342. Listed by the Alands as "Clearly" Category III in Paul, Category III in the Catholics "with reservations," and Category V in the Gospels and Acts. Wisse lists it as a weak member of Π^b in the Gospels. Amphoux claims it can be linked to Family 1739 in the Catholics. All of these claims except the last appear to be true; while 2492 shares assorted readings with members of Family 1739, there are simply not enough such readings to imply kinship. 2492 in the Catholics seems simply to be a mostly Byzantine manuscript with scattered readings of all other types.
In Paul, of course, it goes with 330 451, though it is not as close as the other two. It seems to have slightly more Alexandrian readings. Dykes reports that it is block-mixed, with a text purely of the 330 type in parts of Paul and an unrelated text elsewhere.

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript
von Soden: δ259. Tischendorf: 330^e; 132^a; 131^p. Also cited as 8^pe

Bibliography

Collations:
M. Davies, The Text of the Pauline Epistles in MS. 2344 (Studies & Documents 38, 1968) collates 330 for Paul, and discusses its relationship with 436, 462, and especially 2344.

Sample Plates:

Editions which cite:
Cited in UBS³ for the Acts, Paul, and the Catholic Epistles, but omitted from UBS⁴.
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover for Paul, but this collation is very bad.

Other Works:
E. C. Colwell, The Four Gospels of Karahissar I, History and Text, Chicago, 1936, examines assorted manuscripts in the gospels, placing 330 in Family 547

Manuscript 348

Milan, Ambrosian Library Barb. B. 56 Sup. Soden's ε121. Contains the Gospels complete. Dated by its colophon to December 29, 1022. Classified as I^βa by von Soden, the other members of this group being 477 1279. Wisse lists it as a core member of Group 1216 (which corresponds to Von Soden's I^β), and though Wisse expels many of Soden's family members from the group (and lists no subgroups), he shows all three of the I^βa manuscripts as part of Group 1216. Colwell also affirmed the existence of I^β. The Alands do not place 348 in any Category; this is fairly typical for manuscripts with a largely but not purely Byzantine text. Scrivener notes that it is in two columns, with Old Testament citations marked with an asterisk (a somewhat unusual notation). It has full lectionary and Eusebian equipment.
Sample plate in Edward Maunde Thompson, An Introduction to Greek and Latin Paleography (plate 62).

Manuscript 349

Milan, Ambrosian Library F. 61 Sup. Soden's ε413. Contains the Gospels complete. Dated by its colophon to 1322. Classified as I^φa by von Soden, i.e. as a member of Family 1424 (the other members of this group are 517 954 1188(part) 1424 1675). Wisse does not quite agree; rather than placing 349 in Cluster 1675 (the approximate equivalent of Family 1424), he places 349 in M349, pairing it with 2388. (The M groups are roughly equivalent to von Soden's I^φr). The Alands do not place 349 in any Category; this is fairly typical for manuscripts of this type. Physically, 349 has relatively little equipment: Ammonian sections but no Eusebian apparatus; lectionary tables but no indications in the text. It was taken from Corfu.

Manuscript 356

Cambridge (England), Emmanuelle College I.4.35. Soden's α255. Tischendorf's 53^a, 30^p (but note that it does not contain the Acts). It is n in Scrivener's Codex Augiensis. M. R. James says of it "Cent. x, xi (Gregory says xii), in a most beautiful minute hand, hanging from lines ruled with a dry point." It needed to be in a minute hand; it is a tiny codex, 3-5/8" by 3-1/8" or 9.2 cm. x 7.8 cm. Despite this tiny size, there are 24 lines to the page. Not too surprisingly, it uses a very large number of abbreviations. There are 144 regular pages and one added page. According to an inscription, it was given to the college in 1598 by Samuel Wright. It contains the Catholic and Pauline Epistles, with several lacunae and disarrangements. The Catholic Epistles open the manuscript, but pages have been lost at the beginning. The first extant page probably begins with 2 Peter 2:1, but is so illegible that the first really readable verse is 2 Peter 2:4. Many other portions of the manuscript are also very hard to read. The text continues to 1 John 3:20, then breaks off, to resume in the middle of the prologue to Romans (which is from Oecumenius). There is another lacuna from 1 Cor. 11:7-15:56. A second hand, "not quite so good," takes up the writing at 1 Tim. 6:5, and is responsible for the rest of the surviving text, which breaks off at Hebrews 11:27. There are pencilled notations in Latin from about century xiii. This obviously implies that it was brought into the Roman Catholic regions by that century. Scrivener, despite collating it, says nothing about its text, and von Soden did not classify it. The Alands put it in Category V (Byzantine).

Manuscript 365 and Family 2127

Location/Catalog Number

Florence. Catalog number: Laurentian Library (Plutei) VI.36

365 originally contained the entire New Testament except the Apocalypse, plus the Psalms. Rom. 1:18, 7:18-21, 8:3-31 have been lost. It is written on parchment, one column per page. Several pages at the beginning have suffered damage to their top outer margin; the parchment is intact, but the text almost obliterated (although it is possible it could still be read under ideal light); the worst-affected pages have lost about a third of their text. There are evangelist portraits and other illustrations, with some gold, although they are pretty badly scuffed. It is possible that the intent was to add more paintings; there are blank pages, e.g., before Acts and James (and other blank pages with have no obvious explanation at all); Paul is the one section without illustration.

Date/Scribe

Dated paleographically to the thirteenth century by most authorities; the Laurentian web site prefers the eleventh.

Description and Text-type

365 first examined by Scholz, then declared "lost" by Burgon when a librarian assured him there was no such manuscript. It was "rediscovered" by Gregory.

365 is primarily Byzantine in the Gospels, Acts, and Catholics. Aland and Aland list 365 as Category V everywhere except Paul, where they upgrade it to Category III. Von Soden lists 365 as I^k in the Gospels and K in the Acts and Epistles. Wisse lists it as Π^b in Luke. 1319 and 2127, which are associated with 365 in Paul, also belong to Family Π.

In Paul 365's text is significantly different from the text in other areas. Although it still has more Byzantine readings than anything else, there are a number of non-Byzantine readings as well, most of which would probably be regarded as Alexandrian. The vast majority of these readings are shared with 2127 and other texts of what Bover, following the lead of von Soden, calls "family 1319" (a subgroup of the I^a3 text, containing 1319, 2127, 256, 263, etc.; also evidently 1573. A better name would probably be Family 2127, as 2127 is probably the best manuscript of the type. There are hints of a connection with the Armenian; 256 is a Greek/Armenian diglot). 365 agrees with 2127 about 85% of the time (90% of the time in non-Byzantine readings), including such noteworthy readings as

Rom. 11:31 αυτοι υστερον [33 256 263 365 1319 1573 1852 1912 1962 2127 sa]
1 Cor. 12:9 omit εν τω ενι πνευματι [C* 256 365 1319 1573 2127]
Gal. 5:1 τη ελευθερια χριστος ημας ηλευθερωσεν στητε ουν [H 256 365 1175 (1319) 1573 1962 (2127)]
Heb. 7:14 περι ιερωσυνην μωυσης ουδεν ελαλησεν [104 256 263 365 442 1573 2127 2344]

Other important agreements with family 2127 (although not with 2127 itself) include:

Ending of Romans in the order 16:23, 16:25-27, 16:24 [P 33 104 256 263 436 459 1319 1573 1852 arm]
1 Cor. 15:14 add ετι εστε εν ταις αμαρτιαις υμων [365 1319 1573]

Von Soden, as noted, considered family 1319 to belong to the I type. However, it has many more Alexandrian than "Western" readings. 365 seems to be a slightly mixed member of the group (it is more Byzantine than, e.g., 2127), perhaps closest to 1573.

The situation for Acts is a bit complicated. The Alands' data for 365 in Acts shows no readings at all which agree with UBS against the Majority Text -- but eight readings which agree with neither:
Acts 2:43-44 -- with 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A C 38 88 460 916 1175 1319 1573 1642 2127 2242 (obviously this is the Alexandrian reading; it's just that B doesn't have it and UBS doesn't follow it).
Acts 2:47-3:1 -- with 218 1359 1409 1505 2718 (but this is a very fractured reading and 365 agrees with 38 1319 1573 2127 for part of it)
Acts 10:10 -- with 48 other witnesses, all minuscules, including 38 383 462 1243 1319 1735 2127 2492 (presumably this is the reading of a Byzantine subgroup)
Acts 15:17-18 -- with 38 256 1319 1573 2772 (and cf. the reading of 2127 below)
Acts 16:28 -- with 621 (but this differs from the Majority text only in a matter of word order)
Acts 18:27 -- with 29 other manuscripts, all minuscules, of which only 876 seems to be of any note at all; this again looks like a Byzantine subgroup reading
Acts 27:14 -- 365* with B^c 181 256 676 1405 1829* 1875; 365^c with Byz, and the readings are similar enough that this could be a simple mis-reading
Acts 28:29 -- with 104 256 996 1405 1719 2243 2625

Similarly 2127 has 95 Byzantine readings (25 of which are also found in UBS), two readings which agree with UBS against the majority, and seven readings (two of them singular) which agree with neither:
Acts 2:43-44 -- with 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A C 38 88 365 460 916 1175 1319 1573 1642 2242
Acts 2:47-3:1 -- 38 1319 1573 2127 (but this is a very fractured reading and 365 agrees with 38 1319 1573 2127 for part of it)
Acts 3:22 -- with 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A B C 81 94 180 307 453 610 629 886 1175 1678 1895 2818 (256 is defective and 38 365 1319 1573 Byzantine)
Acts 10:10 -- with 48 other witnesses, all minuscules, including 38 365 383 462 1243 1319 1735 2492 (presumably this is the reading of a Byzantine subgroup)
Acts 12:25 -- with 𝔓⁷⁴ A 6 33 38 256 459 547 1319* 1573 2344 2544 2765 2737 2772 (365 Byzantine)
Acts 15:17-18 -- singular, but the reading is an h.t. error for the reading of 38 256 1319 1573 2772
Acts 22:20 -- with 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A B C E 181 629* 1409 1875 1884 (38 256 1319(*) 1573 Byzantine and 365 defective)
Acts 23:20 -- with 38 88 205 254 312 385 467 469 567 641 914 996 1240 1319 1524 1573 1721 1742 1757 1842 1886 2085 2712 2716 (365 defective; 256 has a minor variant similar to the Byzantine text)
Acts 28:16 -- singular (but this is another fractured reading)

Looking at this, it appears clear to me that the 365/1319/2127 type still exists in Acts (and possibly in the Gospels also, since the three manuscripts are grouped together by Wisse); it's just that the type has so few non-Byzantine readings that no one has noticed it. But it might be worth a detailed study of 38 256 365 1319 1573 2127 in Acts.

The following offers a brief summary of information about the various members of Family 2127 (note: Citations are for Paul, although von Soden, Merk, and Bover generally cite the same manuscripts in the Acts and Catholics):

MS	Date	Location	Catalog Number	Soden descrip.	Aland Category	Cited in	Comment
256	XI/XII	Paris	National Libr. Armen. 9	I^a3	II	Soden, Merk, Bover, UBS⁴	Contains the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse with lacunae. Greek/Armenian diglot. The Alands list it as Category II in Paul only; V elsewhere. This classification appears to be correct in Acts at least; the Alands list only one reading which agrees with UBS against the Majority text and five which agree with neither.
263	XIII	Paris	National Libr. Gr. 61	I^a3	III	Soden, Merk, Bover, UBS⁴	Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. The Alands list it as Category III in Paul only; V elsewhere. Von Soden lists as K¹ in the Gospels; Wisse lists it as K^x. "Probably from Asia Minor" (Scrivener). It appears not quite finished; the Eusebian tables have been drawn in but not completed. There are paintings before many of the books. Black and white scans (from a microfilm) are available on the Paris web site at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107220467.r=grec%2061?rk=21459;2. Many of the pages in the Gospels have writing in the upper and lower margins, probably in red although it's hard to tell from the microfilms; I can't read it.
365	XIII	Florence	Laurentiana Libr. VI.36.	K	III	NA²⁶, NA²⁷, NA²⁸, UBS⁴	Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles with lacunae. Valuable only in Paul.
1319	XII	Jerusalem	Panagios Taphos 47.	I^a3	III	Soden, Merk, Bover, UBS⁴	Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. The Alands list it as Category III in Paul only; V elsewhere. Von Soden lists as I^k in the Gospels; Wisse describes it as Π^b. A large section of Acts (from roughly the middle of chapter 16 to the middle of chapter 21) is a supplement, and this seems to my casual inspection to be a more interesting text than the rest of Acts; it looks as if it may be associated with family 453. In Paul, Bover calls the family after 1319, but 2127 really does seem to be a better representative of the family. Black and white scans (from a microfilm) are available at https://www.loc.gov/resource/amedmonastery.00279389645-jo/?sp=1&r=-0.061,0.074,1.308,0.648,0.
1573	XII/XIII	Athos	Vatopediu 939		III	UBS⁴	Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. The Alands list it as Category III in Paul only; V elsewhere. Von Soden lists as I^r in the Gospels; Wisse describes it as Mix in Luke 1 and Group Λ in Luke 10 and 20. Mostly on parchment, but 47 of 359 folios are paper supplements in a later hand, with much paler ink. There are portraits of the evangelists and apostles (most in relatively good shape although that of Paul is badly scuffed), and some other illustrations. Some pages at the ends of books are cruciform. Black and white scans (from a microfilm) are available at https://www.loc.gov/item/00271052431-ma/.
2127	XII	Palermo	National Libr. Sep. Mus. 4; also Philadelphia, Free Library, Lewis Collection	I^a3	II	Soden, Merk, Bover, UBS³, UBS⁴	Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. The Alands list it as Category II in Paul only; V elsewhere. Von Soden lists as I^B in the Gospels and K in the Catholics; Wisse describes it as Π⁴⁷³. The number 1815 was also assigned to this manuscript. Probably the best manuscript of the family, although it seems to be prone to occasional short omissions.

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript
von Soden: δ367. Tischendorf: 145^a; 181^p

Bibliography

Collations:
M. Davies, The Text of the Pauline Epistles in MS. 2344 (Studies & Documents 38, 1968) collates 365 for Galatians (only).

Sample Plates:
Full scans are now available on the Laurentian Library site at http://mss.bmlonline.it/s.aspx?Id=AWODj3nPI1A4r7GxL9gT&c=Canones%20Eusebiani#/book.

Editions which cite:
Cited in NA²⁶ and above for Paul.
Cited in UBS⁴ for Paul.

Other Works:

Manuscript 372

Rome, Vatican Library Greek 1161. Soden's ε600. Contains the Gospels, breaking off at John 3:1. Dated to the fifteenth century by Scrivener, the sixteenth century by von Soden and Aland. Classified as I^a by von Soden, which would make it "Western" or "Cæsarean." Wisse does not find a relationship to the major manuscripts of either group, but concedes that it has a mixed text, which he describes as "very strange." The Alands do not assign 372 to any Category; this at least seems to confirm that it is not purely Byzantine. Scrivener describes it as "beautifully written," but lists it as having almost no marginal equipment (e.g. no lectionary information or Eusebian apparatus), and what it has is in Latin. One wonders if the Latin did not somehow influence the Greek.

Manuscript 383

Oxford, Bodleian Library E. D. Clarke 9. Soden's α353; Tischendorf's and Scrivener's 58^a, 224^p. Contains the Acts and Epistles (Heb. 13:7-end have been lost). Universally dated to the thirteenth century. Classified as I^c2 by von Soden. In Acts, this places 383 with manuscripts such as 614 2147, with 1108 1245 1518 1611 2138 (I^c1) at a greater distance. This corresponds with conventional wisdom that makes 383 a secondary witness to the "Western" text of Acts. (Though it should be noted that it has not clearly been demonstrated that Family 2138, to which 383 evidently belongs, is actually "Western.") However, the Alands declined to place 383 in a Category, which often indicates a manuscript largely but not purely Byzantine.
The Aland data makes it clear that 383, if a member of Family 2138, is a weak one; they show only nine non-Byzantine readings (three of which agree with UBS, six which agree with neither UBS nor the majority). It's so Byzantine that the Alands did not even list its closest relatives. The readings where it does not agree with the majority are an interesting list:
Acts 2:7B (with 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A B C* 81 321 1175 1409 2400 2508 and UBS; not with Family 2138)
Acts 10:10 (with 48 other minuscules; not with Family 2138)
Acts 15:23 (with 614 1292 1501 2147 2412)
Acts 15:34 (with 87 other minuscules including 614 2412 although not 1611 1505 2138 2495; also 33 323 623 1175 1739 1891)
Acts 17:13 (with 104 other manuscripts including 206 429 453 522 614 630 1505 1611 2138 2412 2495; also 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A B D¹ Ψ 33 81 436 945 1739 1891 2298 and UBS)
Acts 18:21-22 (with 2147 2401^c and close to several others but not to any Family 2138 texts)
Acts 18:27 (with 2147 and close to several others, but not to any Family 2138 texts)
Acts 20:32 (with 2147 2652)
Acts 21:8 (with 181 other manuscripts including almost all Alexandrian texts, Family 2138, and 2147; clearly 383 has a Byzantine reading here although not the majority reading)
This is not the picture of a Family 2138 witness; the manuscript may need further examination, but based on this, it looks very close to 2147. Beyond that, I would label it an almost purely Byzantine manuscript with a few independent readings of no clear type.
I would add that, looking at the Valentine-Richards collation of Acts 15, I count 44 differences between 614 and the Textus Receptus. 383 agrees with 614 in 19 of these, with the TR in 25; it has 11 readings which agree with neither. But I also note that most of the differences with the TR are early in the chapter, and most of the disagreements with 614 are toward the end. This led me to check chapter 13, where 58 has 18 readings with 614, 27 with the TR, and 21 that stand alone. In chapter 14, it's 17 readings with 614, 12 with the TR, and 12 that stand alone. The general conclusion: 383 is probably block-mixed, with some parts that are not as Byzantine as the Aland numbers would imply, but probably not a primary Family 2138 witness -- indeed, I would regard it as an open question whether it goes with Family 2138 at all. It might, but the collation data isn't very indicative.
In Paul, 383 and its I^c2 allies appear to be much more Byzantine. In the Catholics, 383 is again grouped with 614 2147 etc. by Von Soden, but neither Wachtel nor Amphoux lists it as a member of Family 2138. It seems likely that it is again Byzantine in these books. Collated by August Pott in Der abendlädische Text der Apostelgeschichte und die Wir-Wuelle, and has been used by many others such as Clark and Ropes in determining the "Western" text of Acts.
The text of Acts 13-22 is collated in A. V. Valentine-Richards, The Text of Acts in Codex 614 (Tisch. 137) and its allies which gives a complete text of 614 along with collations of 383 431 1518. However, although this book was published in 1934 (and reissued in paperback in 2014), the work was done long enough ago that the collations use Tischendorf numbers rather than New Gregory numbers.
According to the notes in the Valentine-Richards book, 383 belongs with Family 2138only in Acts 13-22, with the rest being Byzantine, which is why it is collated only for those books.

Manuscript 423

Munich, Bavarian State Library 36, 37. Soden's N^μ60, N^ι60; Tischendorf/Scrivener 423^e+425^e. Two volumes, the first containing Matthew (complete) with the catena of Nicetas (this is Tischendorf 423^e) and the second John (also complete and with what Scrivener calls a "very full" catena of Nicetas). The first volume contains a colophon dating it to 1566. The scribe is unnamed, but wrote two manuscripts which were in the Tischendorf list (424^e, a commentary on Luke, and 432^e, a commentary on Mark) which Gregory deleted from the catalog. It is not certain that the manuscript was ever intended to include Mark or Luke; the Matthew volume is marked Tomos A and the John volume is Tomos B. Little is known of the text; Von Soden simply listed it as a Nicetas manuscript, and of course it did not contain Luke, so Wisse could not classify it. The Alands do not place it in any Category, but it is not clear whether this is because of its text or because of the limited sample size.

Manuscript 424

Location/Catalog Number

Vienna. Catalog number: Nat. Bibl. Theol. Gr. 302, folios 1-353.

424 contains the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation (the latter missing 15:6-17:3, 18:10-19:9, 20:8-22:21). It is written on parchment, one column per page.

Date/Scribe

Dated paleographically to the eleventh century. The original run of the text does not contain an unusual number of obvious errors, but the manuscript has been heavily corrected (see below).

Description and Text-type

The original text of 424 is of the ordinary Byzantine type of the period, and is in no way worthy of note. However, the manuscript has been subjected to a complete revision in the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, constituting many hundreds of alterations (with three hands reportedly involved; see also the entry on correctors). Some noteworthy examples in Paul include:

1 Cor. 1:14 omit ο θεω [ℵ* B 6 424** 1739]
Gal 1:15 omit και καλεσας δια της χαριτος αυτου [𝔓⁴⁶ 6 424** 1739 1881]
Eph. 1:1 omit εν εφεσω [𝔓⁴⁶ ℵ B 6 424** 1739]
Eph. 4:28 omit ταις (ιδιαις) χερσιν [P 6 424** 1739 1881]
1 Tim. 3:14 omit προς σε (εν) [(F G) 6 263 424** 1739 1881]
2 Tim. 4:8 omit πασι [D** 6 424** (1739) 1881 lat Ambrst]
Heb. 2:9 χωρις θεου [0121b/0243 424** 1739* Origen^mss]
Heb. 5:12 omit τινα [075 6 424** 1739 1881]

It will be observed that 424** shares all of these readings with 1739. This pattern continues in the uncited readings; apart from trivial corrections, the corrections agree with 1739 over 90% of the time -- and even where they do not agree with 1739, other members of family 1739 (e.g. 6, 1881) can be found which agree with 424**. (The connection of 1739 and 424** has been known almost since the former was discovered, and more recently was reaffirmed by Birdsall.)

Within family 1739, 424** is perhaps closest to 6 (see, e.g., their unique readings χαριτος for πιστεως in Rom. 12:3 and ευωχιαις in Jude 12). The two are by no means identical (as the list above shows), but 6 424** appear to me to form a subfamily within family 1739.

The situation in the Catholics is not quite as straightforward as in Paul, where 424** is closely affiliated in 1739. For one thing, the corrections aren't as regular. The Münster Text und Textwert der Griechischen Handschriften volume for the Catholic Epistles has a catalog of how many corrections each manuscript has in the 98 sampled readings. 424^c2 (the hand we usually mean when referring to 424^c) has 31 corrections. This is almost twice the next-most-corrected manuscript (720 has 17 corrections, ℵ has 13, 629 has 12, 326 has 11; no other MSS. have more than ten). This is intriguing enough by itself, but of these 31 corrections, only two are in James and 1 Peter (and one of those is a a correction from one form of the Byzantine reading to another). This means that 424 has 29 corrections in the 60 sample readings in 2 Peter-Jude. Read that again: In 2 Peter-Jude, (almost) half the readings have been corrected. So: 424 was not corrected (in practical terms) in James and 1 Peter, but was corrected as heavily in 2 Peter-Jude as it was in Paul. And, once again, the corrections are very close to 1739; 25 of 29 agree with 1739 (compared to 22 that agree with B, 19 that agree with ℵ, 19 that agree with A, 8 that agree with 2138, and just two that agree with K. Only one agrees with the majority text when it is not supported by the bulk of the non-Byzantine witnesses).

This does not mean that the corrected text of 424 is as important a text as 1739. It remains more Byzantine than anything else. But where 424** presents us with a non-Byzantine reading, it should be treated as very important, especially when supported by some other member of family 1739 such as 6, 1739, 1881, or 0243.

Von Soden lists 424** as H in the Acts and Epistles (with the (pseudo-)Oecumenius commentary on the Praxapostolos); in the Apocalypse he describes it as I^o1. Aland and Aland list 424* as Category V and 424** as Category III (in Paul and the Catholics). Richards lists 424* as belonging to group B⁶ and 424 as corrected as belonging to group M² in 1 John and M^W in 2 and 3 John. (This, of course, ignores the obvious facts that 2 John and 3 John are too short to allow textual classification, the fact that "mixed" is not a text-type, and the fact that we should treat the corrections in 424 as distinct from 424 as corrected; Richards simply doesn't understand manuscript classification). In the Apocalypse, Schmid placed it in the "b" group of the K type.

Although the Alands value 424^c only in Paul and the Catholics (and don't cite it very often even in those books), the situation in Acts is, at minimum, more interesting than they would imply. It is true that 424* agrees with UBS against the Majority text only twice (Acts 10:10 and 23:20, and in the former it still has 51 allies and in the latter it has 44 immediate allies and the reading is very fractured) Further, it has 74 readings that agree with the Majority against UBS, and the number of corrections in Acts is smaller than in Paul. Still, there are seven corrections in Acts:
10:12 -- with 29 other manuscripts including C* 5 33 322 323 623 2298
12:25 -- with 41 other manuscripts including E 322 323 630 1175
13:42 -- with 76 other manuscripts including 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A B C D E Ψ 097 81 94 104 181 206 307 322 323 326 429 436 441 453 522 610 614 623* 629 630 876 945 1175 1611 1739 1891 2138 2344 2412 2818; also UBS
21:25 -- with 206 322 323 429 547 630 1040 1490 1509 1751 1758 1831 1891 2200 2298 2464
23:20 -- with 86 other manuscripts including ℵ^c Ψ 6 94 180 307 436 441 610 614 629^c 876 945 1175 1409 1505 1610 1611 1739 2138 2298 2412 2495 2818
24:6-8 -- with 28 other manuscripts including 104 322 323 (but this is a very fractured meeting)
24:14 -- with 99 other manuscripts including 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ* B E Ψ 6 69 81 94 104 181 307 322 323 436 453 610 614 623 630 876 945 1505 1610 1611 1739 1852 1891 2138 2200 2298 2412 2464 2818

Note that all but one of these agrees with 322 323, and that one exception (23:20) is a case where 424 probably agreed with one strand of the Byzantine text. Interestingly, 424^c does not agree with 1739 particularly often. Still, 322 323 are weak members of Family 1739. It looks as if 424 in Acts was again corrected toward a text of the same sort as in Paul and the Catholics; it's just that that text had been more thoroughly conformed to the Byzantine text.

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript
von Soden: O¹². Tischendorf: 66^a; 67^p; 34^r

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:

Sample Plates:
Aland & Aland (1 page)

Editions which cite:
Cited in UBS⁴ for Paul.
Cited by von Soden, Merk, and Bover, but very imperfectly.
Also cited frequently by Souter.

Other Works:

Manuscript 429

Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek 16.7 A⁰. Soden's α398 (Acts and Epistles), α1471 (Apocalypse); Tischendorf/Scrivener 69^a, 74^p, 30^r. Contains the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse complete. The Acts and Epistles were written by a monk named George in the thirteenth (Scrivener) or fourteenth (Aland) century. The Apocalypse was added later in a fourteenth (Scrivener) or fifteenth (Aland) century hand. The manuscript has relatively little in the way of reader aids, but has "many marginal readings." The text is an interesting mix; Von Soden classifies it as I^b1 in the Acts and Epistles (grouping it with 206 522 1758 1831 1891 etc.) and as K in the Apocalypse, but in fact the matter is much more complicated. The Alands correctly assess it as Category III in the Acts and Catholic Epistles and as Category V in Paul and the Apocalypse. In Acts, the Alands list its closest substantial relatives as 206 (95% agreement, although 206 has only part of Acts), 522 (92%), 1758 (875), 1509 (84%), and 1490 (83%). Also in Acts, Geer has argued that 429 belongs with with Family 1739 (206 322 323 429 522 630 945 1704 1739 1891 2200), being closest to 206 522. This is somewhat dubious, and shows the dangers of not having control over one's methodology; the Alands show 429 agreeing with 1739 just 65% of the time -- less than its agreement with some Byzantine manuscripts. Like 206 and 522 -- and also 630 and 2200, with which 429 seems to form a group -- 429 definitely belongs to Family 2138 in the Catholic Epistles (where its classification has been confirmed by both Amphoux and Wachtel). There is an odd kinship between Family 1739 and Family 2138 in Acts; it is likely that 429 goes with the latter, and it is the kinship between the 1739 and 2138 types that Geer detected.

Contrary to Von Soden, the manuscript (again like 206 522, but unlike 630 2200) loses almost all value in Paul; the Alands correctly assess it as Byzantine. In the Apocalypse, 429 falls within the main or "a" Byzantine group headed by 046. See also under 2138 and Family 2138 and 1739 and Family 1739 as well at the extensive discussion under 206.

Manuscript 430

Munich, Bavarian State Library 437. Soden's N^ι11. Contains only a fragment of the Gospel of John (1:1-8:14), with the commentary of Nicetas. Dated to the eleventh century by all authorities. Its text, unfortunately, has never been properly assessed; Von Soden simply lists it as a Nicetas manuscript, and Wisse and the Alands did not profile the text of John.

Manuscript 431

Stasbourg, Seminary 1. Soden's δ268; Tischendorf/Scrivener 431², 180^a, 238^p. Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. Dated to the eleventh century by Scrivener, to the twelfth by von Soden and Aland. Kenyon dated it around 1200. It has a curious non-history: Gregory thought it had perished in a fire in Strasbourg in 1870, but later discovered that it had been moved before the fire. Valentine-Richards declares it to be "a beautiful little book, measuring only 13½ x 10 centimetres. The writing, which is small and regular, occupies a space of about 9½ x 6½ centimetres. The number of lines on a page varies in different parts, but in Acts is usually twenty-eight."
In the Gospels, von Soden lists 431 as A^k and Wisse as 1167 (indicating rough agreement, as six of Von Soden's A^k witnesses are listed by Wisse as part of 1167). The Alands list it as Category V, i.e. Byzantine. In the Acts and Catholic Epistles, the text is more interesting; here the Alands raise it to Category III, and von Soden lists it as I^a1 (which in Acts includes the "Western" text, but clearly von Soden is actually placing it with the rather amorphous but interesting group of minuscules 36 88 181 307 453 610 915 917 1829 1874 1898 -- many but not all of which are members of Family 453. Apparently, though, he based this on the text of Acts 13 only). The Alands' data bears this out only in part -- the closest substantial relative of 431, in their list, is 610, but the agreement is a mere 76%. 2818 (i.e. 36) is next, but that agreement is only 74%. On the face of it, 431 looks like a mixed member of the 453 type, but what it is mixed with is not clear.
Amphoux mentions it as a member of Family 2138 (though this is perhaps on the basis of its affinities in the Catholic Epistles). This is not supported by Wachtel, who lists it simply as a manuscript with 20-30% non-Byzantine readings -- and indeed, his evidence makes it highly unlikely that it is a member of Family 2138.
In Paul, von Soden still reports the manuscript to be I^a1, but the Alands return it to Category V. Scrivener simply says that the manuscript has "many unusual readings," but it is not clear which part of the manuscript he is referring to.
A. V. Valentine-Richards, The Text of Acts in Codex 614 (Tisch. 137) and its allies, gives a complete text of 614 in Acts along with collations of parts of 383 431 1518. (Note, however, that although this book was published in 1934 (and reissued in paperback in 2014), the work was done long enough ago that the collations use Tischendorf numbers rather than New Gregory numbers.) 431 (cited as 180) is collated only for Acts 1-9. In spot-checking this collation, I found 431's relationship with 614 rather dubious. In Acts 2, there are twelve places where 614 disagrees with the Textus Receptus (not a perfect representative of the Majority Text, but close enough to have some value); 431 agrees with 614 in six of these, with the TR in six. It also has two readings not found in either. In Acts 5, 431 agrees with 614 in 17 instances, with the TC in 13, and had two independent readings. In Acts 8, it has 20 readings with 614, nine with the TR, seven that agree with neither. Clearly 431 is not closely akin to 614, although there might be a distant relationship. Since Family 453 bears some kinship to both the 1739 and 2138 types, this would account for 431's relationship to 614.

Manuscript 436

Location/Catalog Number

Rome. Catalog number: Vatican Library Gr. 367.

436 contains the Acts and Epistles. It is written on parchment, one column per page.

Date/Scribe

Usually dated paleographically to the eleventh century; NA²⁷ moves it up to the tenth century.

Description and Text-type

436 is generally regarded as a mixed Alexandrian manuscript (so, e.g. the Alands place it in Category III). Wachtel lists it in the least Byzantine (40%) category in the Catholic Epistles, pairing it with 1067.

Von Soden classifies 436 as I^a3, but this group in fact consists mostly of mixed Alexandrian witnesses. Thus von Soden's classification implicitly agrees with that of the Alands.

Detailed investigation seems generally to support Wachtel's conclusions in the Catholics. It is one of the better minuscules, and agrees most strongly with A, 33, and the Bohairic Coptic, making it a primary witness to the dominant form of the Alexandrian text. It has very few unique readings.

In Paul the manuscript is somewhat less good; it agrees with the Byzantine text more than anything else. Apart perhaps from 1067, it seems to fall closest to 104. Even this kinship is rather distant. Overall, the ancestry of the text seems to belong with 1962, family 2127, and the other late Alexandrian manuscripts (this agrees generally with von Soden's results).

As far back as the nineteenth century, 436 was linked with 69, and Davies extends this group to include 462 (known to be very closely related to 69), 330, and 2344. The link to 330 appears false; their similarities lie simply in late Alexandrian readings. The tie to 69 and 462 appears stronger; 436 and 462 have high rates of agreement where both are non-Byzantine. However, they are not immediate kin; an examination of Davies's collations shows that they do not share many special readings, and that they have each suffered distinct patterns of Byzantine corruptions (with 462 being much the more Byzantine of the two; it is closer to the Byzantine text than to 436).

In Acts, 436 is clearly more Byzantine than anything else; in the Aland sample set, it agrees with the Majority text in 80 of 104 readings and with UBS in just 36 (22 of these being readings that agree with both; it has ten readings which agree with neither (two of which are singular). It is interesting to find that it doesn't agree with any other manuscripts very closely; among manuscripts which have at least fifty test readings, its closest ally is 1856, with which it agrees 84% of the time. Next on the list are 142 and 1103, with which it agrees 78% of the time.

There is, however, an interesting pattern to its readings. Of its ten special readings, eight are in the second half of Acts, and six are in the last quarter. All of its 14 readings that agree with UBS against the Majority are in the last 60% of the book. This strongly suggests either block mixture or imperfect correction (that is, the tendency that we see in manuscripts such as L 579 of the Gospels and 33 in Paul for the first part of a corpus to be carefully corrected but the rest much more poorly handled). The question then becomes what we find if we look at 436's non-Byzantine readings.
Acts 4:33 -- with 73 manuscripts including D E 322 323 429 522 945 1739 1891 2298 2495 (but this has support from so many manuscripts that 436's reading might be from a Byzantine subgroup)
Acts 12:25 -- with 53 other manuscripts including D Ψ 94 180 181 307 441 453 610 623 1611 2138 2412 2818 (here again, 436 might have gotten its reading from a Byzantine source)
Acts 15:34 -- singular reading although somewhat similar to C
Acts 19:3 -- with 𝔓⁴¹ 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A E 5 33 623 1409 1642 1735 1873 1884 2344 2374
Acts 23:1 -- with 42 other manuscripts including B 307 453 610 614 623* 1505 1611 2138 2412 2464 24952818
Acts 23:20 -- with 85 other manuscripts including ℵ^c Ψ 94 180 307 424^c 441 614 629^c 876 945 1175 1505 1611 1739 2138 2298 2412 2495 2818 (this variant again probably is not meaningful)
Acts 23:30 -- with ℵ A E 81 181 206 429 441 522 621 1175 1505 1509* 1739 1751 1842* 1852 1875 1884 1890* 1891 1894 2138 2200 2495
Acts 24:6-8 -- with 46 other manuscripts including Ψ 5 33 88 94 307 610 623 630 945 1739 1891 2200 2298 2818
Acts 24:15 -- with 5 437 623 2464
Acts 24:22 -- singular reading, but this is a very fractured reading
This perhaps hints at a kinship with 5 623, but the sample is too small and too vague for any certainty. The only real conclusion seems to be that we should look at 436's relationships only for Acts 15-28.

I can't do this for every manuscript, but here are the percentages of agreement for key manuscripts, as well as the weighted agreements (that is, giving extra value to agreements where few other manuscripts agree. The result is not a percentage; it's just a number, the higher, the more significantly the manuscripts agree). The three closest relatives of 436 in each list are shown in red; the closest relative of each is in bold red.

Manuscript	% agreement	Weighted agreement
ℵ	40.35%	0.027
A	45.61%	0.030
B	38.60%	0.025
C	57.14%	0.051
D	45.45%	0.034
E	60.38%	0.043
L	59.65%	0.045
Ψ	57.89%	0.039
33	48.08%	0.031
81	56.25%	0.033
181	49.12%	0.031
307	67.86%	0.048
453	64.91%	0.045
614	64.91%	0.054
623	73.68%	0.063
945	66.67%	0.044
1175	50.88%	0.032
1241	67.86%	0.052
1505	71.93%	0.052
1739	64.91%	0.042
1891	66.67%	0.044
2344	52.63%	0.034
Byz	66.67%	0.052

Thus there does seem to be a special relationship with 623, but it's rather weak; there is also perhaps an even fainter relationship to Family 2138, but that is't much closer than to the Byzantine text, which is the next-closest relative.

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript
von Soden: α172. Tischendorf: 73^a; 80^p.

Bibliography

Collations:
M. Davies, The Text of the Pauline Epistles in MS. 2344 (Studies & Documents 38, 1968) collates 436 for Paul, and discusses its relationship with 330, 462, and especially 2344.

Sample Plates:

Editions which cite:
Cited in NA²⁸ for the Catholic Epistles.
Cited in UBS³ for the Acts and Epistles, and in UBS⁴ for Paul and the Catholics.
Cited in von Soden, Merk, and Bover for the Acts and Epistles.

Other Works:

Manuscript 438

London, British Library Additional 5111 and 5112. Soden's ε241. Contains the gospels complete. Dated by its colophon to the year 1159. Classified as K¹ by Von Soden, which Wisse as usual converts to K^x, and the Alands, as, put it in Category V. The manuscript has portraits of three of the four evangelists (Mark is apparently missing), drawn in excellent style, with a gold leaf background, and mostly well preserved. The text, in black ink, is in a single column, although the prefatory material to the gospels is in red ink and in two columns. The pages are unusually attractive, with the text following the rules very closely; it is almost geometrically precise. The scribe was named Gregory; the British Library site says he died 1189, although I'm not sure how they determined that. Its history apparently has not been traced beyond the mid-eighteenth century, when it was in the library of Anthony Askew.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?Source=BrowseScribes&letter=A&ref=Add_MS_5111 and http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?Source=BrowseScribes&letter=A&ref=Add_MS_5112; the portrait of Matthew is at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_5111!2_f012r

Manuscript 439

London, British Library Additional 5107. Soden's ε240. Contains the gospels complete. Dated by its colophon to the year 1159. Classified as K^x by Von Soden, and Wisse concurs, pairing it with 877. The Alands, unsurprisingly, put it in Category V. The scribe's name was Νήφων. It has Eusebius's Epistle explaining his numbering system in an elaborate figure surrounded by peacocks. There are much-worn portraits of the Evangelists, all involving significant amount of gold leaf (which has burned through to the other side of the parchment), plus and other decorations in ink. The main text is in black, but the list of capitula to each gospel is in red. Rather unusually for a minuscule, it is in two columns. Some of the pages have been affected by damp, although most are still quite readable. Its history apparently has not been traced beyond the mid-eighteenth century, when it was in the library of Anthony Askew.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_5107.

Manuscript 442

Uppsala, University Library Greek 1. Soden's O¹⁸; Tischendorf's 73^p, 68^c. A very curious manuscript, because it is really two manuscripts in one volume, designated 441 and 442. The most likely explanation is that the two manuscripts were both damaged and so were bound together -- even though this resulted in some overlap. 441 includes leaves 3-182 (with Acts 8:14-end plus Romans and 1 Corinthians 1:1-15:38); 442, which consists of leaves 183-440, contains 1 Corinthians 13:6-end (thus overlapping 441 for two and a half chapters), all the rest of Paul from 2 Corinthians on, and the Catholic Epistles. Both are commentary manuscripts, listed by von Soden as Oecumenius's commentary. Thus they are a logical pair of manuscripts to bundle together -- but their texts are not the same. What is more, their texts are not at all typical of most of the other manuscripts von Sodden lists as Oecumenius commentary manuscripts, most of which (e.g. 056 and 0142) are essentially Byzantine. According to Scrivener, it was purchased in 1673 at Venice by Sparvenfeldt; this perhaps implies that it was taken to Venice from the east, but there is no clear indication of its source. Scrivener says that it resembled 33 in Paul, and it is one of the minuscules most often cited by Tischendorf in that corpus. But the similarity to 33 seems exaggerated to me; based on the readings cited by Tischendorf, it seems closer to the Euthalian group as represented, e.g., by 365 and Family 2127. The Alands rate 442 as Category II (while rating 441 as Category III). Thus the decision to cite it for the Catholic Epistles in NA²⁸ was appropriate.

Manuscript 443

Cambridge, University Library Nn.ii.36. Soden's ε270. Contains the Gospels complete. Dated paleographically to the twelfth century by all authorities. Classified by von Soden as I^o; this amorphous group also contains U X 213 1071 1321(part) 1574 2145. This is not confirmed by Wisse (who dissolves I^o, and evidently with good reason); he reports 443 as a memberof M159 (along with 159 and part of 1557). The Alands list 443 as Category V. Scrivener reports that the ordinary κεφαλαια have been subdivided in this manuscript. It has the Eusebian apparatus, but the lectionary data is partial, coming from another, apparently later hand.

Manuscript 449

London, British Museum Additional 4950 (Matthew, Mark) and 4951 (Luke, John). Soden's ε330. Contains the gospels complete. Dated paleographically to the thirteenth century. Classified as I^κ by Von Soden, corrected by Wisse to 291 and paired by Wisse with 2603. This still means that it is primarily Byzantine, and the Alands agree with this, placing it in Category V. A tiny manuscript (just 125 by 90 mm.), on parchment. There are paintings of the evangelists, but flaked so badly as to be almost unrecognizable. Additional illustrations at the beginning of each gospel have survived better (based on the photos, I suspect the pigments were applied as inks, not paints, which might explain why they lasted better). The main text is in black ink, as is an introductory summary, but a list of pericopes which fall beween the summary and the portrait of Matthew appears to have been written in red or brown ink, in uncials, and are badly faded. Marginal notes and initials in this same ink are also hard to read. The main text is mostly well-preserved, and the hand easily read. Its colophon says it was written by a monk named Γερασίμος. A more recent hand started to add book names, in Latin letters, at the top, but soon quit; a foliation in Arabic numerals extends much deeper into the book. The two volumes are foliated separately. César de Missy took it from somewhere in the east in the eighteenth century; it was bought by the British library in 1776 after de Missy died.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_4950 and http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_4951

Manuscript 451

Rome, Vatican Library Urbin. Gr. 3. Soden's α178; Tischendorf/Scrivener 79^a, 90^p. Contains the Acts and Epistles complete. Universally dated to the eleventh century. Von Soden lists it as a K witness, and this appears to be true in the Acts and Catholic Epistles. Certainly the Alands concur, placing 451 in Category V in those books, with only three non-Byzantine readings (out of 105) in Acts (one of them a subsingular reading that is an easy error for the Byzantine reading); the others are Acts 21:10 (where it agrees with 67 other manuscripts, so even this is the reading of a Byzantine subgroup) and 26:14 (where it has 22 immediate allies, including E 5 69 330 441 623 1175 1243 2464, and many others that are not far different). It has 8 non-Byzantine readings (out of 98) in the Catholics. Matters change entirely in Paul, and the Alands reflect this by upgrading the manuscript to Category III. Here 451 is a clear and obvious member of family 330; the two agree in fully 436 of 464 test readings, including 75 of 77 readings where both are non-Byzantine. Over a third of their 28 differences are in Hebrews, where 330 is largely Byzantine. (The third member of this family, 2492, is by no means this close to the other two.) It is possible that 451 and 330 are sisters, with the common exemplar having some corrections between the time 451 and 330 were copied. Certainly the two have a common ancestor not far back in their ancestry. It is conceivable that 451 is the ancestor of 330, but this seems somewhat unlikely, as the following readings from the apparatus of GNT³ demonstrate:

Rom. 4:11 -- 451 λογισθηναι αυτον; 330 (+ℵ* A B 81 630 1739 1881) λογισθηναι και; 2492 Byz λογισθηναι
Eph. 5:9 -- 451 (+𝔓⁴⁶ D^c Byz) πνευματος; 330 (+𝔓⁴⁹ ℵ A B D* F G 33 81 1738* 1881 al) φωτος
2 Tim. 4:22 -- 451 η χαρις μεθ υμων. αμην (supported by all other Greek manuscripts, with variants); 330 sa^mss Ambrosiaster? Pelagius? omit

For more about family 330, see the notes on 330.

Manuscript 453 and Family 453

Location/Catalog Number

Rome. Catalog number: Vatican Library Barb. Greek 582.

453 contains the Acts and Catholic Epistles complete, with a commentary (reported by Von Soden to be that of Andreas).

Date/Scribe

Dated by the Kurzgefasste Liste, following Gregory, to the fourteenth century. Scrivener, however, listed an eleventh century date. (We should note that Scrivener's information was incomplete. Scholz was unable to see the manuscript, and Scrivener's list says that the manuscript "contains but one chapter of the Acts and the Catholic Epistles.")

Description and Text-type

Von Soden lists 453 as a member of I^a1 in Acts, a diverse group containing, e.g., D 88 181 431 915 917 1829 1874 1898. But this group also contains 36 (now renumbered 2818) 307 453 610. All of these manuscripts, according to Von Soden, have the Andreas commentary, and they are certainly closely related. The following shows the percentage agreements of these manuscripts, and certain control manuscripts, in the variants noted in UBS⁴. Agreements over 90% are highlighted:

ms	36	307	453	610	1678
𝔓⁷⁴	59%	60%	59%	60%	57%
ℵ*	55%	57%	55%	57%	55%
A	60%	58%	58%	58%	57%
B	47%	48%	49%	47%	46%
C	75%	75%	72%	73%	72%
D	26%	27%	28%	28%	28%
E	66%	65%	66%	66%	65%
L	64%	64%	65%	64%	64%
P	64%	65%	66%	65%	65%
Y	70%	69%	68%	71%	70%
33	70%	71%	70%	72%	69%
36	100%	96%	94%	97%	94%
81	62%	63%	63%	63%	62%
181	67%	70%	69%	72%	70%
307	96%	100%	97%	98%	95%
323	71%	71%	73%	73%	74%
453	94%	97%	100%	96%	95%
610	97%	98%	96%	100%	97%
614	60%	61%	62%	62%	62%
945	78%	78%	78%	80%	78%
1175	70%	71%	71%	72%	68%
1409	68%	68%	70%	71%	69%
1505	71%	72%	72%	71%	70%
1678	94%	95%	95%	97%	100%
1739	75%	76%	76%	76%	73%
1891	78%	79%	79%	80%	78%
2344	68%	69%	69%	70%	68%

(We should note that Von Soden lists several other Andreas manuscripts: K/018, 437, 832, 886, 1895, 2186. K, however, does not contain the Acts -- and is Byzantine in any case. 832 2186 also lack Acts. 437 887 1895 contain Acts, but based on the information compiled by the Alands, they cannot be true members of Family 453; either they are severely mixed or they belong to another text-type.)

These numbers demonstrate clearly that there is a group consisting of these five manuscripts. The question then becomes, what is the nature of the Family 453 text? The Alands esteem it highly; in Acts, they list 36 as Category II and 307 453 610 1678 as Category III (we should note, however, that there is no reason, based on their numbers, to separate 36 from the other four; all have almost exactly the same ratio of Byzantine readings to UBS readings). Also, they fail to note that 94 appears to be a member of the group. But the Alands' classification does not characterize text-types; it simply tells us how non-Byzantine a manuscript is. If we look at the above list, it would appear that the members of Family 36 fall closer to 1739 than to any of the other primary manuscripts (e.g. ℵ A B D L P 614). And indeed, we find Thomas C. Geer, Jr., who studied Family 1739 in Acts, labelling 453 as a weak member: it is "somewhat significantly related to [the leading manuscripts of Family 1739]" -- but he adds that it "does not have a strong enough relationship to be considered a leading member of the family... it is already clear that it is a 'cousin' at best" (Family 1739 in Acts, p. 100). Geer did not study the other members of Family 453, but there is every reason to believe that he would have regarded the other members similarly. The evidence listed in the table above is also inconclusive; while 453 and its relatives agree with 1739 on the order of 75% of the time in the sample (which those who follow the Colwell Definition would regard as close enough to belong to a text-type), it should be noted that the above sample is biased; it contains many readings where D opposes the entire Greek tradition -- readings which should not be counted under the Colwell definition. If these are omitted, the agreement between 1739 and Family 453 falls well below the 70% threshhold (on the order of 65%). It's also noteworthy that 453 agrees more with 1739's more Byzantine relatives (945 1891) than with 1739 itself. Finally, if we examine the number of non-Byzantine agreements in the above sample, 453 does not stand all that close to 1739; it has 37 such agreements with 1739, but 37 also with 𝔓⁷⁴ and B (even though 𝔓⁷⁴ is not complete), 36 with ℵ -- and, by comparison, 53 non-Byzantine agreements with 36, 57 with 307, 50 with 610, and 53 with 1678. Thus it would seem likely that 453 and Family 453, while they may share common influences with Family 1739, are not truly members of the same text-type (though a fuller study would be needed to make this certain; Geer's work, even if one ignores several methodological problems, did not examine Family 453 as a whole, and the data for Acts given above is based on too small a sample).

In the Catholic Epistles, the situation changes somewhat. The Alands' data implies that 453 and its relatives are much more Byzantine in the Catholic Epistles than in Acts. Wachtel elaborates this analysis of the data considerably. 453 and its relatives are listed among the manuscripts with a text 30-40% non-Byzantine. Within this class (not really a text-type), we find 453 heading a group of eight manuscripts: 36, 94, 307, 453, 918, 920, 1678, 2197. 36, 307, and 1678 we of course recognize as members of Family 453 in Acts. 94 is reported by Von Soden to have Oecumenius's commentary on the Acts and Epistles, but has Andreas on the Apocalypse. 918 is listed as another Oecumenius manuscript by Von Soden (though the Kurzgefasste Liste does not show it as having a commentary); it does not contain Acts. 920 is not a commentary manuscript, but Von Soden lists it as another I^a manuscript (although von Soden assigns it to the I^a3 group rather than I^a1). 2197 contains only Paul and Catholic Epistles, and Von Soden does not seem to have classified it outside Paul (since he lists it simply as a Theophylact/Paul manuscript).

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

von Soden: A^πρ40
Tischendorf/Scrivener: 453^a

Bibliography

Collations:

Sample Plates:

Editions which cite:
Cited in UBS⁴ for Acts.

Other Works:
Thomas C. Geer, Jr., Family 1739 in Acts, Scholars Press, 1994, discusses 453 in the context of Family 1739.

Manuscript 470

London, Lambeth Palace 1175. Soden's ε136. The recent examiners seem to agree on an eleventh century date; Burney would have allowed the tenth century. Scrivener calls it "beautifully written." Contains the gospels almost complete; it begins at Matthew 1:13. The original hand omitted John 7:53-8:11, which was added by a later hand (probably at Constantinople) at the end of the book -- a curiosity, since Scrivener says that it otherwise has a typical (i.e. Byzantine) text. Classified as A^k by von Soden. Wisse makes it Cluster 490 (which does't really disagree with Scrivener, since Cluster 490 is described as close to K^x). The Alands make it Category V. Scrivener collates it as a in A Full and Exact Collation of About Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels.

Manuscript 471

London, Lambeth Palace 1176. Soden's ε254. Dated paleographically to the twelfth century (Burney thought eleventh, Todd the thirteenth). Scrivener describes it as being in "a very minute but graceful hand." It is a complete copy of the gospels in 417 pages, supplemented by some lectionary materials and a list of Jesus's appearances to the Apostles through the time of Peter's martyrdom, presumably from a non-canonical source. Scrivener describes a high rate of itastic errors and of incorrect accents and breathings; one suspects the scribe was either not very good at Greek or came from a place with an unusual dialect. Classified as A^k by von Soden. Wisse makes it K^x Cluster Ω -- disagreeing with von Soden, since K^x Cluster Ω is basically Soden's K¹. The Alands make it Category V. Despite this, it omits John 7:53-8:11. Scrivener collates it as b in A Full and Exact Collation of About Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels.

Manuscript 472

London, Lambeth Palace 1177. Soden's ε1386; Scrivener's 511^e. Contains the Gospels with extensive lacunae (lacking Matt. 4:1-7:6, 20:21-21:12, Luke 4:29-5:1, 16:24-17:13, 20:19-41, John 6:51-8:2, 12:20-40, 14:27-15:13, 17:6-18:2, 18:37-19:14). Dated paleographically to the thirteenth century by Aland and von Soden; Scrivener says eleventh or twelfth; the latter is the date preferred by Todd. Classified by von Soden as I', that is, among the miscellaneous "Western"/Byzantine mixed manuscripts. Wisse's data would seem to at least allow the possibility that it is mixed with something not quite Byzantine; he lists it as "Mix/Kmix/Mix; pair with 1009." This is given some additional support by the Alands, who do not assign 472 to any Category. It has rather incomplete equipment: Ammonian sections but no Eusebian data; lectionary markings and Synaxarion but no Menologion; partial κεφαλια. Scrivener's Introduction declares that it is "for valuable readings by far the most important at Lambeth [presumably of the gospel minuscules], shamefully ill written, torn and much mutilated." He collated it as his c in A Full and Exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels, where he adds some history: It was first examined by Burney, who gave up on it because it was so strange and ill-written. Scrivener himself agrees that he "certainly never met with a copy of the gospels written with such irreverent and scandalous negligence" but adds that it abounds with "novel and remarkable readings, which (in spite of its unpromising appearance) would have amply repaid all the diligence [Burney] could have bestowed upon it." In particular, it obelizes Luke 23:39-41 and John 6:4. The writing is a "miserable scrawl on the coarsest parchment"; Scrivener suspects but is not certain that two hands were involved. Given the number of errors in endings, as well as the writing and the parchment, I rather suspect it was a private copy made by someone who didn't know Greek very well. But Scrivener also sees some potentia kinship to 474 and the lectionaries 𝓁¹⁸³ and 𝓁¹⁸⁴; might the readings Scrivener calls interesting be simply lectionary readings?

Manuscript 473

London, Lambeth Palace 1178. Soden's ε1390; Scrivener's 512^e. Contains the Gospels, now complete (the first few leaves, containing introductory matter and Matt. 1:1-8, were lost for a time and are missing from Scrivener's collation). Dated paleographically to the thirteenth century by the Liste and von Soden; Scrivener's Introduction offers the curious dating "xi or xiv" although A Full and Exact Collation of about Twenty Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels claims x or xi. Classified by von Soden as I^kc, that is, as part of the third group of Family Π witnesses, along with such manuscripts as 229 280 482 1354. Wisse's results generally confirm this; 473 is listed as a member of Π473 -- although it should be noted that none of von Soden's other I^kc witnesses are part of Π473. The Alands classify 473 as Category V. Scrivener reports that it obelizes Luke 22:43-44, John 5:4. Physically, Scrivener's Introduction describes the manuscript as "A noble-looking copy" and written "in a fine hand, splendidly illuminated, and with much curious matter in the subscriptions;" the Full Collation calls it "one of the most splendid manuscripts extant." The one exception is Luke 5:30-6:4, where the original page has been lost and replaced by a paper page that is far less imposing. It has the usual Eusebian apparatus and lectionary equipment. Scrivener's Full Collation... cites it as d (with the paper supplement being d, in italics). Scrivener considers most of its non-TR readings to be unique. That, at least, we can test, by looking at the readings. I'll look at Mark and Luke, testing the readings against Legg for Mark and the IGNTP apparatus for Luke. Scrivener's unique readings list is:

Mark 5:5 νυκτος και ημερας ] ημερας και νυκτος (also in 11 435)
Mark 6:1 omit εκειθεν (seemingly unique, but there is much variation in this passage)
Mark 6:2 εξεπλησσοντο ] add επι τη διδαχη αυτου
Mark 6:18 γυναικα ] γυναικσ Φιλιππου (hardly unique; found in 𝔓⁴⁵ D φ 118 565 700 al)
Mark 6:56 του ιματιου ] των ιματιων (also in 485, but rare)
Mark 16:19 εκ δεξιων ] εν δεξια (also in C Δ 482)
Luke 4:7 εαν ] εαν πεσων (hardly unique; IGNTP lists 31 minuscules, including much of family 1, 22, 157, 700, and 1342)
Luke 5:22 Ιησους ] θεος Ιησους (unique)
Luke 6:9 add at end οι δε επιωπων (hardly unique; IGNTP lists D Λ and 28 minuscules)
Luke 9:46 το τις ] omit το (also omitted by family 1 and by 28)
Luke 11:50 απο ] μεχρι (Scrivener is not clear which instance of απο is meant, but the reading is unique in either case)
Luke 11:52 εισηλθετε ] εισερχεσθε (there is a lot of variation in the form of the verb, but this form seems to be found only in a few Latin texts)
Luke 13:25 omit ποθεν εστε (unique except for a patristic citation)
Luke 4:32 πρεσβειαν ] εις πρεσβειαν (unique)
Luke 16:3 αισχυνομαι ] ου δυναμει (unique)
Luke 16:8 κυριος ] κυριος αυτου (unique)
Luke 16:25 οδε ] omit (unique, but there is much variation here, and many mss. read ωδε; it would be easy to misread a correction as a deletion indicator)
Luke 17:17 δεκα ] δεκα ουται (also in A W Π 0211 157 al; probably the Family Π reading)
Luke 19:11 παραχρημα ] omit (appears to be in all Greek manuscripts but omitted by e of the Old Latin)
Luke 19:38 εν ουρανω ] επι γης (appears to be unique among Greek manuscripts although one Vulgate manuscript has it)
Luke 21:14 εις ] omit (unique)

I must say that I am not particularly impressed. Yes, many of these readings are rare or even singular, but most of them look like scribal slips to me. THe IGNTP didn't cite it, and I have no disagreement with that decision.

Manuscript 474

London, Lambeth Palace 1179. Soden's ε137. Gospels "in a very dilapidated state," according to Scrivener, who collates it as e in A Full and Exact Collation of About Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels. It lacks Matthew up to 13:53, with the pages that follow badly damaged, plus Matthew 16:28-17:18, 2439-25:9, 26:71-27;14, Mark 8:32-9:9, John 11:8-30, 13:8-end. Burney dated it to the tenth century, and Scrivener is inclined to agree; Todd said twelfth century; most moderns say eleventh century. Scrivener calls it "no common manuscript," and von Soden put it in I^κ. This assessment does not seem to hold up; Wisse relegates it to K^x, and similarly the Alands place it in Category V. We can perhaps test this claim by looking at some of the readings Scrivener claims as unusual and seeing what support they have from the manuscripts in the IGNTP apparatus. In Luke, these readings are:

Luke 2:37 αφιστατο ] αφιστατει (unique; 1443 has αφισταται)
Luke 2:42 αναβαντων/αναβησαν/αναβαιντων αυτων ] omit αυτων (many Latin versions; the verb form varies, and D rewrites)
Luke 3:7 omit οχλοις (also lacking in 1 22 1582* and a handful of others)
Luke 4:24 omit ειπε δε (𝓁⁸⁵⁹ 𝓁¹⁰⁷⁴ 𝓁¹²³¹ also omit)
Luke 5:10 ομοιως δε και Ιακωβον... κοινςνοι τω σιμωνι ] ~ και Ιακωβον... κοινςνοι τω σιμωνι ομοιως δε (unique)
Luke 7:25 ενδοξη ] και δοξη (𝓁¹⁷⁶¹ has both readings; otherwise unique)
Luke 11:7 omit εσωθεν (also lacking in 131 1223)
Luke 11:51 μεταξυ ] μεταξυ του ναου (2487 μεταξυ του ναο και; otherwise unique)
Luke 12:14 omit ανθρωπε (also lacking in 69)
Luke 18:29 add οτι υμεις οι ακολουθηασαντες μοι before οτι ουδεις
Luke 20:10 δωσω ] δωσει (unique, but there are may other variants in the verb form)
Luke 20:38 αυτω ] αυτων (also in 13 1351 1542)
Luke 21:12 επιβαλουσιν ] επιβαλουσιν γαρ (also in Γ 0102^c 22^c 1241 and some lesser mss.)
Luke 22:14 αναπεσε ] ανεπεσον (also in 𝓁¹⁰¹⁶ and perhaps the Sinai Syriac)
Luke 23:15 και ιδου ουδεν ] omit ιδου (also omitted by D S* 1342 a few other minuscules and several versions)
Luke 23:32 δε ] δε συν τω ιησου (also in C^c E^c Ω^c 0117 33 69 827 (1071) 1241)

As with 473, these readings look more like a handful of odd corrections than anything ancient and valuable.

Manuscript 475

London, Lambeth Palace 1192; originally taken from Syria. Soden's ε138. Classified as K^x by von Soden, with which Wisse largely agrees (putting it in K^x in Luke 1 and in Cluster 475, which is close to K^x, elsewhere), and similarly the Alands place it in Category V . Gospels with lacunae. Dated paleographically to the eleventh century by most recent authorities; Scrivener and most of those he cites preferred the thirteenth. Now has 272 leaves, with nine leaves lost, which formerly contained Mark 3:6-21, Luke 12:48-13:2, John 16:8-22 and 18:37-end. All the gaps except John 16:8-22 have been supplied by a later (fourteenth century?) hand. The original hand is quite attractive, but has been heavily corrected by a later hand with very peculiar orthographic habits. Not even Scrivener (who in A Full and Exact Collation of About Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels cites the main run of the text as f and the supplements as f) considers it to have any value except for in the later half of Luke, where it has some unusual readings.

Manuscript 476

London, British Museum, Arundel 524. Soden's ε1126; Scrivener's 566^e. Contains the Gospels complete. Gospels, lacking John 11:18-41. Dated paleographically to the eleventh century by all authorities since Forney, who suggested the tenth. It is said to be on coarse vellum, now discolored, with pale ink; the handwriting is (with some exceptions) neat and clear, but it is probably not easy to read. Classified by von Soden as K¹. Wisse almost agrees, listing the manuscript as K^x (to Wisse, K¹ is part of K^x). As one would expect, the Alands classify 476 as Category V. Scrivener claims unique readings at Mark 2:8 (γνους), 3:10 (τουτου for αυτου), Luke 2:51 (ηλθον), 13:11 (omit ασθενειας), 17:27 (και εγαμ...), 21:29 (παλιν before παραβολην), John 19:12 (πας ουν), and it obelizes Matt. 6:13. Most of these readings are indeed very rare, but many might well be just errors in 476 or one of its ancestors; I doubt they give it much value. Scrivener calls it "somewhat partial to glosses." Physically, 476 is rather small (just more than 17x13 cm), but otherwise un-noteworthy; it has the usual Eusebian and lectionary apparatus. Collated by Scrivener as h in A Full and Exact Collation of about Twenty Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels.

Manuscript 477

Cambridge, Trinity College B.X.17. Soden's ε350; Scrivener's 508^e, which he included in his collations as i. Contains the Gospels, on vellum with some leaves of paper. The Kurzgefasste Liste says it is complete, but M. R. James notes that quire IH* has lost its fourth leaf, and quires ΛH and M have lost their eighth leaves. In addition, there are twelve leaves which have been replaced by cancels. Despite the cancels. James calls it "well written." Dated paleographically to the thirteenth century by all recent authorities (Bentley, who gave it to Trinity College -- it was originally from the monastery of Pantocrator on Athos -- dated it xi). Classified by von Soden as I^βa; other members of this group include 348 and 1279; and the "b" group of this type contains 16 1216 1579 1588(part). Wisse gives a similar classification, placing 477 in Group 1216 (one of two groups Wisse associated with I^β, Group 16 being the other). Wisse calls Group 1216 clearly distinct from K^x, but the Alands classify 477 as Category V.
It appears, however, that the manuscript is block mixed; James Dowden tells me that Roger Omanson finds it to be K^x in Mark.
477 has only limited marginalia: Ammonian Sections but no Eusebian apparatus, and while the lectionary information is present, there is no menologion. Even the synaxarion may be an afterthought, as it (and the hypotheses to Matthew) are on six paper leaves at the beginning while the remainder of the manuscript (including the list of readings at the end) is parchment.

Manuscript 478

London, British Library Additional 11300. Soden's ε1082; Scrivener's 575 of k^scr. Gospels complete, plus Eusebius's Epistula ad Carpianum (the latter in red ink enclosed in the outline of a golden cross). Dated paleographically to the tenth century. The canon tables themselves are in black ink with blue headlines and outlined in red and gold; the chapter titles are in red with some blue. The gospel headpieces are also in three colors, and the first words of each gospel are in red; there are red, and some blue, marginalia as well; it appears to have been an elaborate product. Classified as K^ak by Von Soden, but Wisse makes it K^x; the Alands place it in Category V. Despite its beauty, it seems to have little value.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_11300.

Manuscript 482

British Library Burney 20. Soden's ε329; Scrivener's 570^e. Contains the Gospels complete. Dated by its colophon to 1285 -- although, in an interesting but clumsy forgery, this has been altered to read 985 (the two have the same indiction; the change was from ψ to υ). Classified by von Soden as I^kc, that is, as part of the third group of Family Π witnesses, along with such manuscripts as 229 280 473 1354. Wisse's results partly confirm this; he lists 482 as K^x/Π^a/Π^a. Scrivener's Introduction comments that it is "quite equal in value to Cod. c^scr [472, which shows in Wisse's list as primarily mixed]... and often agrees closely with w^scr [489, which is listed by Wisse as pure Π^a]." Scrivener's list of readings which agree with the uncials is long, and include texts of many Byzantine types, but A and K are very often cited, which would also support the affiliation with Family Π. The Alands, however, assign 482 to Category V. As members of Family Π more often than not are uncategorized in their lists, they would seem to supply some faint support for the Wisse's contention that 482 has some K^x. The manuscript was written by a monk named Theophilus, who was not very good; there are many transpositions and substitutions of forms, and not a few singular readings; Scrivener reports that it has "many corrections" from a later hand, which also added the lectionary lists (though the lectionary markings in the text, like the Eusebian apparatus, are from the first hand). Scrivener's A Full and Exact Collation of about Twenty Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels calls the writing clear but inelegant, and often faded. Collated by Scrivener as p in A Full and Exact Collation....

Manuscript 485

London, British Library Burney 23. Soden's ε1386; Scrivener's 572^e. Contains the Gospels with major lacunae (lacking Luke 5:22-9:32, 11:31-12:25, 27:24-28:4, John 8:14-end) and a few disordered leaves. Dated paleographically to the thirteenth century by von Soden and Aland; Scrivener suggests the twelfth. Classified by von Soden as I', i.e. in the miscellaneous vaguely "Western" witnesses. Wisse classifies it as K^x, and this is supported by the Alands, who list it as Category V. Von Soden may have been confused by the way it was written; Scrivener's Introduction describes the manuscript as "boldly but carelessly written" -- though he also comments "with many later changes and weighty readings." In A Full and Exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels Scrivener says it is "carelessly written in a bold unequal hand" and that the vellum is now soiled. Accents and breathings are inaccurate. It has been fairly heavily corrected, no doubt because the first hand is so inaccurate; Scrivener considers both hands to be interesting and worthwhile. It has illustrations before each gospel, which Scrivener considers "poor." It has full lectionary equipment and the Ammonian Sections, but not the Eusebian apparatus. Scrivener collated it as s in A Full and Exact Collation....

Manuscript 489

Cambridge, Trinity College B.X.16. Soden's δ459; Tischendorf's 489^e, 195^a, 252^p. Scrivener's 507^e, 224^a, 260^p; he collates it in Codex Augiensis,, using the symbol w in the Gospels and k in the Epistles. Hort used the number 102 for it. Contains the entire New Testament except the Apocalypse, plus much additional material. The order is Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Paul, with Hebrews at the end. It has just about every reader help ever invented -- lectionary lists, prologues (although some of these are slightly disarranged), Eusebian apparatus, you name it. At the end, it also has the Pseudo-Dorotheus's treatise on the 72 disciples, a brief vita Jacobi, and some other odds and ends (all this, including the synaxarion and calendar of readings, occupies only a couple of dozen pages, although there are lacunae and the end seems to be lost). The colophon credits it to Jacobus, on Mount Sinai, and dates it to 1316. Scrivener describes it as "inelegantly written." It is notable that there are fully a dozen cancels in the last several quires (although no fewer than nine of these are in quire κα, so it may just be that this quire was messed up beyond fixing). Classified by von Soden as I^κa in the gospels and I^a2 in the Acts and epistles. The former assessment is confirmed by Wisse, who describes 489 as Π^a in all chapters of Luke. He pairs it with 1219 -- an interesting assessment, since 1216 (which is dated XI century) remains at Sinai. The relationship between the two might be worth examining. Scrivener also mentions a similarity to his 570^e, i.e. 482 (XII century). This relationship may not be genetic; 482 is listed by Wisse as Π^a in Luke 10 and 20, but K^x in Luke 1; probably what Scrivener noticed was simply the Family Π readings. The Alands do not place 489 in any Category; this is fairly typical of their treatment of Family Π manuscripts. The text of the Acts and Epistles might warrant further examination -- in Acts, it has eight readings which agree with UBS against the majority text, and eleven which agree with neither. In Acts at least, it appears to pair with 927.

Manuscript 490

London, British Library Additional 7141. Soden's ε106; Scrivener's 574^e. Gospels, said by the Alands to have lacunae although no other list mentions them, plus Eusebius's Epistula ad Carpianum. Dated paleographically to the eleventh century (Scrivener says XIII). The scribe does not give a name, but it is ἐκ τῶν τοῦ οἰκονόμου τοῦ ἁγίου Δημητρίου. Classified as A^k by Von Soden; Wisse puts it in Cluster 490, which is fairly close to K^x; the Alands place it in Category V. It is relatively unusual for a minuscule in that it is written in two columns per page. Eusebius's letter takes several pages, because each page is inscribed in an interesting geometric shape, a sort of four-lobed flower with a swirling outline. These are in red, as are the tables themselves, and the tables of sections of the book, and the ornamental headpieces of each gospel. The gospel text itself is in black with a few red initials and such, but the ornamentation is slight. The manuscript is mostly quite readable but not, I think, very noteworthy.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_7141.

Manuscript 491

London, British Library Additional 11836. Soden's δ152; Scrivener's 576^e, 226^a, 268^p. Gospels, Acts, Catholics, Paul (with Hebrews after Philemon), plus Psalms and Odes, with minor lacunae (lacks Mark 1:1-29, Acts 1:1-23, Psalms 1-3 -- possibly the headpieces were cut out for their art?), plus other pieces (which the British Library does not identify) between Psalms and Odes. The beginning includes elaborate art for the Eusebian tables, but the tables themselves were never copied into it. Drawings of Luke and John survive, and Matthew is preceded by an elaborate frame with an image but not a proper painting; the portrait of Mark is missing. There are a few other paintings. Dated paleographically to the eleventh century. Von Soden put it in I^b2 in the Acts and Epistles, I^β in the Gospels; Wisse moves it to Group 16 in the Gospels (many members of which von Soden placed in I^β). The Alands, however, placed it in Category V. This low assessment is probably justified in the Gospels; the question is the Acts and Epistles. It certainly must be admitted that the members of I^b2 do not have particularly good texts. In Acts, the Alands show only three readings which go against the Byzantine text -- two agreeing with UBS and one with neither (and that one possibly just the accidental omission of a single word). So while the manuscript might be worthy of further investigation, odds are that the Alands' dismissal is justified. The manuscript is in a single column, mostly in black ink although with red initials; there is some other use of red in the gospels, and the superscriptions of the Psalms are in red. The writing remains very clear and easy to read. The Psalms are written continuously, without divisions into sense lines.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_11836.

Manuscript 492

London, British Library Additional 11838. Soden's ε433. Contains the Gospels complete. Dated by its colophon to 1325/1326. Von Soden put it in K^x, and Wisse concurs; the Alands put it in Category V. A synaxarion precedes the gospels, in black and red; the first several leaves appear to have been affected by damp, which has damaged the red more than the black. This is followed by a note in a much sloppier hand which is now quite hard to read, then by red chapter headings for Matthew. Each gospel opens with a portrait of the evangelist, with gold leaf, and an elaborate multi-colored headpiece, all now somewhat abraded. It appears some of the artwork was left unfinished -- Matthew, for instance, has a headpiece, but no text in it. Luke has an initial letter that has not been filled in. But the text is intact, in a good hand and very black ink, except for a few water spots. The manuscript must have been quite beautiful when new.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_11838.

Manuscript 493

London, British Library Additional 11839. Soden's ε501. Contains the Gospels; the Alands say there are lacunae, but the British Library site lists none. Dated paleographically to the fifteenth century. Von Soden put it in K^x, Wisse agrees, and the Alands put it in Category V. There were two scribes; the primary one was named Ἰμμανουήλ Ῥουσωτᾶς. The mansucript is about as plain as it can possibly be; no Eusebian apparatus, almost no marginalia of any kind, not even titles to the Gospels (although some space was left, so perhaps the plan was to include them); there is a simple red drawing at the end of John. Even the handwriting is pretty ugly, although legible once one is used to it. If I had to give an award for "most meh copy of the Gospels," this would be a strong candidate.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_11839.

Manuscript 495

London, British Library Add. 16183. Soden's ε243; Scrivener's 581^e. Contains the Gospels complete, though some of the introductory material has been lost. Dated paleographically to the twelfth century. Classified by von Soden as I', i.e. in the miscellaneous vaguely "Western" witnesses. Wisse classifies it as Kmix, while the Alands do not list it as belonging to any Category. All of these descriptions, diverse as they sound, imply much the same thing: A manuscript clearly Byzantine, but with some readings not associated with K^x. Whether these readings have any real value must await a more detailed study. It has a full apparatus (Eusebian materials, lectionary equipment, etc.), though the Eusebian tables were not finished -- they were merely sketched in, not ruled, and no numbers were inserted (I'm not sure there was enough space anyway). Folio 1v, the end of Eusebius's letter, has a strange table of symbols on it; they are smudged enough that not all of them can be read, but they are not in the same ink as the regular run of the manuscript (the ink of the table is blacker than the brown of the manuscript and is written with a thicker pen). The hand is described by Scrivener as "minute." The manuscript is thought to have been taken from Sinai.
The manuscript is now in pretty bad shape -- mostly legible, but with badly discoloured edges (probably due to water, based on the smudges on some of the pages, but a few look as if they might have been burnt as well). There are pictures of three of the evangelists (Matthew is missing), but they are badly abraded and discoloured; that of John is completely unrecognizable. The manuscript actually has a note at the beginning that attempts to read the colophon but asks that if anyone can read anything else, to inform someone! The scribe is thought to have been one Θεόδωρος Ζαγορινός. There is a Latin note at the end beginning Dei Gratia Dux Vene[tia?]. I suspect that modern ultraviolet and infrared photography might tell us a good bit more about the manuscript, but I'm not sure it's worth it.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_16183.

Manuscript 496

London, British Library Add. 16184. Soden's δ360. Contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles complete, plus much other material -- about twenty folia of miscellaneous items at the beginning, a synaxarion and four folia of mostly unidentified writings at the end. Many of these other materials have been damaged, and some of the New Testament text is also pretty battered although all the pages are present. The order is Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Paul, with Hebrews last. The main text is in a single column, but the synaxarion and what follows it are in three. The Gospels have red or brown headpieces, now badly faded; the rest is in black ink, usually still quite legible except on the most battered pages. The text of the rest has very little decoration -- the various epistles don't even really have book titles! Finding particular readings in this volume must have been very hard. Dated paleographically to the thirteenth century. Classified by von Soden as A^k in the Gospels, I^b elsewhere. Wisse corrects the Gospels to 1167, which seems to be loosely the same as von Soden's A^k; in any case, it's a mostly Byzantine group -- and indeed, the Alands classify it as Category V throughout. I think this is pretty clearly correct for the Gospels; the question is whether it is the same in the Acts and Epistles. I^b (which includes weak members of Families 1611 and 1739) has most of its value in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, but in Acts at least, the Aland register shows only eight non-Byzantine readings, two of which agree with UBS and six of which don't: 10:12 (with 29 other mss. including C* 5 33 (307) 322 323 (453) 424^c 623 2298), 12:25 (with 41 other mss. including E 322 323 424^c 630 1175), 13:42 (with 101 other mss. including L 049 5 88 623^c; this is obviously a case where it goes with a Byzantine subgroup), 15:7 (this is a case where the Byzantine text is split, but 496 goes with the smaller group that includes 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A B C 5 33 81 88 181 307 429 441 453 623 630 945 1175 1739 1891 2200 2298 UBS), 15:34 (496 has 87 allies here, including 5 6 33 88 307 323 453 614 623 1175 1739 1891 2298 2344 2412), 24:6-8 (496 agrees exactly with only three manuscripts, 142 216 440, but this is a fractured reading with limited genetic significance; it's close to all sorts of things), 24:14 (another case where the Byzantine text is split, but 496 goes with the smaller group that includes 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ* B E Ψ 5 6 69 81 104 180 181 307 322 323 424^c 436 453 614 623 630 876 945 1505 1611 1739 1852 1891 2138 2200 2298 2412 2464), 25:5 (with 13 other manuscripts including 322 323, but differing only by transposition from the majority text). That's not a lot of non-Byzantine readings, but it is striking how many go with either the 1611 or the 1739 type. I think von Soden right and the Alands wrong; 496 is a weak member of a valuable type, perhaps related to 453, although more examination would be needed to make the matter sure.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_16184.

Manuscript 497

London, British Library Add. 16943. Soden's ε1125. Contains the Gospels complete. Dated paleographically to the eleventh century. Classified by von Soden as K^ak in the Gospels, but Wisse thinks it's plain old K^x; in any case, it's mostly Byzantine, sand the Alands classify it as Category V. The manuscript opens with the Eusebian letter and canon tables (the first page somewhat damaged by damp), then a colophon mentioning Maximos, a monk, then the gospels, followed by Cosmas's genealogy of Jesus and the Virgin Mary. All the Gospels are preceded by elaborate headpieces; those of Mark, Luke, and John also have evangelist portraits -- though all three are so scuffed as to be almost unrecognizable. Another, presumably later, hand, has scribbled something below the portrait of Luke which someone tried to obliterate in part. The ink is brown/black, with some red highlights and corrections; the ink has often penetrated through the parchment, especially when there are enlarged letters or other large collections of ink.
The entire manuscript is now available in high resolution scans at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_16943.

New Testament Manuscripts

Numbers 1-500

Manuscript 1eap and Family 1

Location/Catalog Number

Contents

Date/Scribe

Description and Text-type

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

Manuscript 1r

Manuscript 2ap

Manuscript 4e

Manuscript 5

Manuscript 6

Location/Catalog Number

Contents

Date/Scribe

Description and Text-type

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

Manuscript 7e

Manuscript 13 and Family 13

Location/Catalog Number

Contents

Date/Scribe

Description and Text-type

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

Manuscript 16

Manuscript 18

Manuscript 21

Manuscript 22

Manuscript 27

Manuscript 28

Location/Catalog Number

Contents

Date/Scribe

Description and Text-type

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

Manuscript 33

Location/Catalog Number

Contents

Date/Scribe

Description and Text-type

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

Manuscript 35

Manuscript 38

Manuscript 42

Manuscript 43

Manuscript 44

Manuscript 59

Manuscript 60

Manuscript 61

Manuscript 63

Manuscript 66

Manuscript 69

Location/Catalog Number

Contents

Date/Scribe

Description and Text-type

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

Manuscript 71

Manuscript 81

Location/Catalog Number

Contents

Date/Scribe

Description and Text-type

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

Manuscript 82

Manuscript 83

Manuscript 91

Manuscript 93

Manuscript 94

Manuscript 104

Location/Catalog Number

Contents

Date/Scribe

Description and Text-type

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

Manuscript 109

Manuscript 110

Manuscript 115

Manuscript 118

Manuscript 1^eap and Family 1

Manuscript 1^r

Manuscript 2^ap

Manuscript 4^e

Manuscript 7^e