‡28:31The citation of f35 is based on thirty-five MSS—18, 35, 141, 201, 204, 386, 394, 444, 824, 928, 986, 1072, 1075, 1100, 1249, 1482, 1503, 1548, 1617, 1652, 1732, 1761, 1855, 1856, 1864, 1865, 1876, 1897, 2080, 2261, 2352, 2466, 2554, 2587 and 2723—all of which I collated myself. None of them is a ‘perfect’ representative of f35 in Acts, as it stands [an unreasonable expectation, presumably, for a book this size]. For all that, several come quite close! Of the MSS I have collated [there may be better ones yet to be done], 1864 deviates from the presumed family profile five times, 18 seven times and 2723 eight times. Turning to their exemplars, that of 35 was off by two, that of 18 and 1864 by three, that of 2723 by four, that of 1865 by five, and that of 824, 1503 and 1897 by six. The uniformity is impressive. Since these MSS come from all over the Mediterranean world (Sinai, Jerusalem, Patmos, Constantinople, Bucharest, Aegean, Trikala, Meteora, Athens, Mt. Athos [seven different monasteries], Grottaferrata, Vatican, Kalavryta, 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 used Reuben Swanson’s excellent collations (New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Acts [Ed. Reuben Swanson, Pasadena, CA: William Carey International University Press, 1998]). For Acts Swanson collated 60 MSS, thirteen being fragmentary (for any given variant set there will usually be at least 45 MSS listed), and I occasionally supplemented from 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 Swanson collated considerably fewer MSS for Acts than he did for Paul’s epistles, and since I find TuT to be less trustworthy here than in other books, my guesses as to percentages are more tentative than usual, except that I guarantee the witness of f35. For further information please see the final footnote for Matthew.
επεγνωσαν f35 [95%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ επεγνωμεν ℵA,B,C [4%] NU ¦ two other variants
δε f35 ℵ [92%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ τε A,B,C [8%] NU
αναψαντες f35 [94%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ αψαντες ℵA,B,C [6%] NU
απεσταλη f35 [95%] HF,RP,TR,CP ¦ 1 τουτο ℵA,B [5%] OC,NU (OC is in small print)
whole verse f35 (95.3%) HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ — ℵA,B (4.7%) NU
συζητησιν rell ¦ ζητησιν [1%] CP
εμεινεν f35 A [96%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ ενεμεινεν B [4%] NU ¦ ενεμειναν ℵ
ο παυλος f35 [95%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ — ℵA,B [5%] NU
χριστου rell ¦ — ℵ [12%]
The citation of f35 is based on thirty-five MSS—18, 35, 141, 201, 204, 386, 394, 444, 824, 928, 986, 1072, 1075, 1100, 1249, 1482, 1503, 1548, 1617, 1652, 1732, 1761, 1855, 1856, 1864, 1865, 1876, 1897, 2080, 2261, 2352, 2466, 2554, 2587 and 2723—all of which I collated myself. None of them is a ‘perfect’ representative of f35 in Acts, as it stands [an unreasonable expectation, presumably, for a book this size]. For all that, several come quite close! Of the MSS I have collated [there may be better ones yet to be done], 1864 deviates from the presumed family profile five times, 18 seven times and 2723 eight times. Turning to their exemplars, that of 35 was off by two, that of 18 and 1864 by three, that of 2723 by four, that of 1865 by five, and that of 824, 1503 and 1897 by six. The uniformity is impressive. Since these MSS come from all over the Mediterranean world (Sinai, Jerusalem, Patmos, Constantinople, Bucharest, Aegean, Trikala, Meteora, Athens, Mt. Athos [seven different monasteries], Grottaferrata, Vatican, Kalavryta, 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 used Reuben Swanson’s excellent collations (New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Acts [Ed. Reuben Swanson, Pasadena, CA: William Carey International University Press, 1998]). For Acts Swanson collated 60 MSS, thirteen being fragmentary (for any given variant set there will usually be at least 45 MSS listed), and I occasionally supplemented from 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 Swanson collated considerably fewer MSS for Acts than he did for Paul’s epistles, and since I find TuT to be less trustworthy here than in other books, my guesses as to percentages are more tentative than usual, except that I guarantee the witness of f35. For further information please see the final footnote for Matthew.