§5:5ομοιως f35 𝕻72A,B [74%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP,NU ¦ 1 δε ℵ [1%] ¦ 1 οι [5%] ¦ 1 δε και [1%] ¦ 1 δε οι [7%] ¦ 1 και οι [5%] ¦ 1 δε και οι [7%] ¦ one other reading
*5:5υποτασσομενοι f35 (94%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ υποταγωμεν (1.4%) ¦ — (𝕻72)ℵA,B (4.2%) NU ¦ two other readings
*5:8περιερχεται f35 [24%] ¦ περιπατει 𝕻72ℵA,B [76%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP,NU (The lion isn’t ambling aimlessly; he is circling the prey, looking for an opening.)
†5:8τινα f35 𝕻72ℵA [99%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP[NU]ECM ¦ — B [1%]
*5:11η δοξα και το κρατος f35 ℵ (59.6%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 125 (31.3%) ¦ ~ 45312 (7%) ¦ το (−το 𝕻72) κρατος 𝕻72A,B (0.8%) NU (Three other readings; the evidence for η δοξα is massive.)
‡5:12εστηκατε f35 [92%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ στητε 𝕻72ℵA,B [8%] NU ¦ two other readings
§5:14ιησου f35 ℵ [95%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — A,B [5%] NU
*5:14αμην f35 ℵ [97%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — A,B [3%] NU (𝕻72 omits the whole last sentence.)
†5:14The citation of f35 is based on forty-three MSS—18, 35, 141, 149, 201, 204, 328, 386, 394, 432, 604, 664, 757, 824, 928, 986, 1072, 1075, 1100, 1248, 1249, 1503, 1548, 1637, 1725, 1732, 1754, 1761, 1768, 1855, 1864, 1865, 1876, 1892, 1897, 2221, 2352, 2431, 2466, 2554, 2587, 2626 and 2723—all of which I collated myself. 1865, 2554 and 2723 are very pure representatives of f35 in 1 Peter, with not a single variant, as were the exemplars of 35 and 824. For 1865, 2554 and 2723 to have no variants after all the centuries of transmission is surely an eloquent demonstration of the faithfulness and accuracy of that transmission. Since these MSS come from all over the Mediterranean world (Sinai, Jerusalem, Patmos, Constantinople, Bucharest, Aegean, Trikala, Athens, Meteora, Sparta, Ochrida, Mt. Athos [nine different monasteries], Grottaferrata, Vatican, etc.) they are certainly representative of the family, giving us the precise family profile—it is reflected in the Text without exception. ECM collated 127 continuous text manuscripts (MSS) for 1 Peter, apart from a few fragments, which number represents about 20% of the extant (known) MSS. By a careful comparison of TuT and ECM I believe we can arrive at some reasonably close extrapolations. Thus I venture to predict, if complete collations ever become available, that for any non-Byzantine variants listed with 5 to 1% support (in my apparatus) the margin of error should not exceed ±1%; for non-Byzantine variants listed with 10 to 6% support the margin of error will hardly exceed ±2%; where there is some division among the Byzantine witnesses the margin of error will rarely exceed ±10%. However, I guarantee the witness of Family 35. Please see the last footnote for Matthew for further information.
τους f35 [78%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ ουν 1 ℵ [17%] ¦ ουν 𝕻72A,B [4%] NU ¦ — [1%]
ο f35 𝕻72ℵA,B [89%] RP,HF,OC,TR,NU ¦ ως [11%] CP ¦ two other readings
αλλ f35 A [97%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP,NU ¦ αλλα 𝕻72ℵB [3%] ECM
εκουσιως f35 B [86%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 1 κατα Θεον 𝕻72ℵA [14%] NU
μηδε f35 𝕻72 [49%] RP,HF,CP ¦ μηδ ℵA [50%] OC,TR,NU (B omits v. 3; two other readings.)
γινομενοι rell ¦ γενομενοι [20%]
ομοιως f35 𝕻72A,B [74%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP,NU ¦ 1 δε ℵ [1%] ¦ 1 οι [5%] ¦ 1 δε και [1%] ¦ 1 δε οι [7%] ¦ 1 και οι [5%] ¦ 1 δε και οι [7%] ¦ one other reading
υποτασσομενοι f35 (94%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ υποταγωμεν (1.4%) ¦ — (𝕻72)ℵA,B (4.2%) NU ¦ two other readings
ο f35 ℵA [99%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP[NU]ECM ¦ — 𝕻72B [1%]
η δοξα και το κρατος f35 ℵ (59.6%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 125 (31.3%) ¦ ~ 45312 (7%) ¦ το (−το 𝕻72) κρατος 𝕻72A,B (0.8%) NU (Three other readings; the evidence for η δοξα is massive.)
των αιωνων f35 ℵA [91%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — 𝕻72B [9%] NU
εστηκατε f35 [92%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ στητε 𝕻72ℵA,B [8%] NU ¦ two other readings
ιησου f35 ℵ [95%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — A,B [5%] NU
αμην f35 ℵ [97%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — A,B [3%] NU (𝕻72 omits the whole last sentence.)
The citation of f35 is based on forty-three MSS—18, 35, 141, 149, 201, 204, 328, 386, 394, 432, 604, 664, 757, 824, 928, 986, 1072, 1075, 1100, 1248, 1249, 1503, 1548, 1637, 1725, 1732, 1754, 1761, 1768, 1855, 1864, 1865, 1876, 1892, 1897, 2221, 2352, 2431, 2466, 2554, 2587, 2626 and 2723—all of which I collated myself. 1865, 2554 and 2723 are very pure representatives of f35 in 1 Peter, with not a single variant, as were the exemplars of 35 and 824. For 1865, 2554 and 2723 to have no variants after all the centuries of transmission is surely an eloquent demonstration of the faithfulness and accuracy of that transmission. Since these MSS come from all over the Mediterranean world (Sinai, Jerusalem, Patmos, Constantinople, Bucharest, Aegean, Trikala, Athens, Meteora, Sparta, Ochrida, Mt. Athos [nine different monasteries], Grottaferrata, Vatican, etc.) they are certainly representative of the family, giving us the precise family profile—it is reflected in the Text without exception. ECM collated 127 continuous text manuscripts (MSS) for 1 Peter, apart from a few fragments, which number represents about 20% of the extant (known) MSS. By a careful comparison of TuT and ECM I believe we can arrive at some reasonably close extrapolations. Thus I venture to predict, if complete collations ever become available, that for any non-Byzantine variants listed with 5 to 1% support (in my apparatus) the margin of error should not exceed ±1%; for non-Byzantine variants listed with 10 to 6% support the margin of error will hardly exceed ±2%; where there is some division among the Byzantine witnesses the margin of error will rarely exceed ±10%. However, I guarantee the witness of Family 35. Please see the last footnote for Matthew for further information.