§24:50εις f35 A [97.5%] CP,HF,RP,TR,OC ¦ προς 𝕻75ℵB,C,D [1%] NU ¦ — W [1.5%]
*24:53αινουντες και f35 A(D)W [99.6%] CP,HF,RP,TR,OC ¦ — 𝕻75ℵB,C [0.4%] NU
†24:53αμην f35 A,B [98.5%] CP,HF,RP,TR,OC ¦ — 𝕻75ℵC,D,W [1.5%] NU
‡24:53In the colophons, f35 [50%] have, “published fifteen years after the ascension of Christ”. For 50% of the MSS to have this information probably means that the tradition is ancient; and of course, I have demonstrated, to my own satisfaction at least, that f35 goes back at least to the 3rd century. If this information is correct, then Luke was ‘published’ in 45/46 AD. The same sources have Matthew published seven years earlier (38/39) and Mark five years earlier (40/41), while John was ‘published’ thirty-two years after the ascension, or 61/62 AD. Not only were the authors eyewitnesses of the events, but many others were still alive when the Gospels appeared. They could attest to the veracity of the accounts, but could also be the source of textual variants, adding tidbits here and there, or ‘correcting’ something that they remembered differently.
§24:53The citation of f35 is based on the following fifty-one MSS—18, 35, 128, 201, 204, 246, 402, 479, 510, 547, 553, 586, 691, 757, 769, 781, 789, 824, 867, 897, 928, 1072, 1111, 1117, 1147, 1328, 1339, 1384, 1435, 1461, 1493, 1496, 1503, 1548, 1551, 1621, 1637, 1652, 1667, 1694, 1713, 2122, 2253, 2352, 2367, 2382, 2466, 2503, 2554 , 2765 and I.2110, all of which I collated myself. I also took account of 83, 480, 1247, 2322 and 2399 that were collated for the IGNTP Luke, without checking the collation (they also collated 66, a marginal family member, and 2096, out on the fringe). None of them is a ‘perfect’ representative of f35 in Luke, as it stands [an unreasonable expectation, presumably, for a book this size, besides being a Gospel]. But several come very close; the exemplar of 789 probably was. [This refers to the MSS I have collated—there may be even better ones out there. In fact, since I have only collated perhaps 20% of the family representatives for this book, there probably are better ones out there.] The uniformity is impressive. Since these MSS come from all over the Mediterranean world (Sinai, Jerusalem, Patmos, Constantinople, Lesbos, Bucharest, Aegean, Andros, Athens, Tirana, Meteora, Mt. Athos [eight different monasteries], Corinth?, Grottaferrata, Moscow, Modena, Vatican, etc.) they are certainly representative of the family, giving us the precise family profile—it is reflected in the Text without exception.In the statements of evidence I have included the percentage of manuscript attestation for each variant within either ( ) or [ ]. I have used ( ) for the evidence taken from TuT, which I take to be reasonably precise. For the variant sets that are not covered there, I mainly depended on the IGNTP Luke (The Gospel according to St. Luke, ed. the American and British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984 and 1987). I occasionally supplemented from Swanson, Scrivener and von Soden—the percentages offered, I have used [ ] for these, are extrapolations based on a comparison of these sources. 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 ±2%; for non-Byzantine variants listed with 10 to 6% support the margin of error should hardly exceed ±4%; where there is some division among the Byzantine witnesses the margin of error should rarely exceed ±15%—since my sources had collated a lower percentage of the extant MSS than ECM for the General Epistles, for example, my guesses as to percentages are more tentative than they were there, except that I guarantee the witness of f35. Please see the last footnote for Matthew for further information.
βαθεος f35 W [50%] RP,TR,OC ¦ βαθεως 𝕻75ℵA,B,C,D [50%] CP,HF,NU
ηλθον επι το μνημα f35 A,W [97.5%] CP,HF,RP,TR,OC ¦ ~ 2341 (B) [0.3%] NU ¦ 123 μνημειον C [2%] ¦ ~ 23 μνημειον 1 𝕻75(ℵ) ¦ ηρχοντο 234 D
και τινες συν αυταις f35 A(D)W [99.5%] CP,HF,RP,TR,OC ¦ — 𝕻75ℵB,C [0.5%] NU
και εισελθουσαι f35 A,W [98.5%] CP,HF,RP,TR,OC ¦ ~ 2 δε 𝕻75ℵB,C,D [1.5%] NU
εις f35 A [97.5%] CP,HF,RP,TR,OC ¦ προς 𝕻75ℵB,C,D [1%] NU ¦ — W [1.5%]
αινουντες και f35 A(D)W [99.6%] CP,HF,RP,TR,OC ¦ — 𝕻75ℵB,C [0.4%] NU
αμην f35 A,B [98.5%] CP,HF,RP,TR,OC ¦ — 𝕻75ℵC,D,W [1.5%] NU
In the colophons, f35 [50%] have, “published fifteen years after the ascension of Christ”. For 50% of the MSS to have this information probably means that the tradition is ancient; and of course, I have demonstrated, to my own satisfaction at least, that f35 goes back at least to the 3rd century. If this information is correct, then Luke was ‘published’ in 45/46 AD. The same sources have Matthew published seven years earlier (38/39) and Mark five years earlier (40/41), while John was ‘published’ thirty-two years after the ascension, or 61/62 AD. Not only were the authors eyewitnesses of the events, but many others were still alive when the Gospels appeared. They could attest to the veracity of the accounts, but could also be the source of textual variants, adding tidbits here and there, or ‘correcting’ something that they remembered differently.
The citation of f35 is based on the following fifty-one MSS—18, 35, 128, 201, 204, 246, 402, 479, 510, 547, 553, 586, 691, 757, 769, 781, 789, 824, 867, 897, 928, 1072, 1111, 1117, 1147, 1328, 1339, 1384, 1435, 1461, 1493, 1496, 1503, 1548, 1551, 1621, 1637, 1652, 1667, 1694, 1713, 2122, 2253, 2352, 2367, 2382, 2466, 2503, 2554 , 2765 and I.2110, all of which I collated myself. I also took account of 83, 480, 1247, 2322 and 2399 that were collated for the IGNTP Luke, without checking the collation (they also collated 66, a marginal family member, and 2096, out on the fringe). None of them is a ‘perfect’ representative of f35 in Luke, as it stands [an unreasonable expectation, presumably, for a book this size, besides being a Gospel]. But several come very close; the exemplar of 789 probably was. [This refers to the MSS I have collated—there may be even better ones out there. In fact, since I have only collated perhaps 20% of the family representatives for this book, there probably are better ones out there.] The uniformity is impressive. Since these MSS come from all over the Mediterranean world (Sinai, Jerusalem, Patmos, Constantinople, Lesbos, Bucharest, Aegean, Andros, Athens, Tirana, Meteora, Mt. Athos [eight different monasteries], Corinth?, Grottaferrata, Moscow, Modena, Vatican, etc.) they are certainly representative of the family, giving us the precise family profile—it is reflected in the Text without exception.In the statements of evidence I have included the percentage of manuscript attestation for each variant within either ( ) or [ ]. I have used ( ) for the evidence taken from TuT, which I take to be reasonably precise. For the variant sets that are not covered there, I mainly depended on the IGNTP Luke (The Gospel according to St. Luke, ed. the American and British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984 and 1987). I occasionally supplemented from Swanson, Scrivener and von Soden—the percentages offered, I have used [ ] for these, are extrapolations based on a comparison of these sources. 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 ±2%; for non-Byzantine variants listed with 10 to 6% support the margin of error should hardly exceed ±4%; where there is some division among the Byzantine witnesses the margin of error should rarely exceed ±15%—since my sources had collated a lower percentage of the extant MSS than ECM for the General Epistles, for example, my guesses as to percentages are more tentative than they were there, except that I guarantee the witness of f35. Please see the last footnote for Matthew for further information.