John 7:46 - Neither Shortest Nor Longest

In his obsolete Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, regarding the end of John 7:46 Bruce Metzger briefly stated, "The crisp brevity of the reading supported by p^{66c, 75} B L T W copt^bo al was expanded for the sake of greater explicitness in various ways, none of which, if original, would account for the rise of the others."  

Let's test that.

Following ἄνθρωπος, we see the following variety: 

ὡς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος - Byz K M N U Γ Δ Θ Λ Π Ψ  f¹ f¹³ 2 28 33 69 124 157 565 579 1071 1424 1505

ὡς οὗτος λαλει ὁ ἄνθρωπος  - P66* 01* (There is an itacism in 01 and P66*, and 01 has a singular reading at the beginning of the verse, pictured.)

ὡς οὗτος λαλει (after ἄνθρωπος ἐλάλησεν) - 05

That's not a lot of variety.   03 P66^c 019 T and 032 appear to be the only manuscripts which support the reading adopted in UBS4.

Meanwhile, support for a longer reading comes not only from all other Greek manuscripts (with GA 13 dissenting due to a scribal error, initially failing to include ἐλάλησεν earlier in the verse, and with a transposition - ἐλάλησεν οὗτως - in N Ψ 33 1071 1241) but also from the Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, and Syriac (Sinaitic, Curetonian, Peshitta, and Harklean) versions, as well as the Palestinian Aramaic and the Vulgate.  A very impressive array.

While some commentators point out that the Byzantine text displays a tendency to clarify via embellishment, one should also be aware of the opposite tendency in the Alexandrian text to economize via abbreviation - i.e., to attempt to express the same idea using fewer words.  

If one were to treat the reading supported by the vast majority of manuscripts and versions as original here, the reading of 03 and allies is readily explained as either the result of a parableptic leap from the first ἄνθρωπος to the second ἄνθρωπος., or as an intentional attempt to eliminate superfluity.  

An early scribe could conceivably consider the Alexandrian reading in need of embellishment, and add "like this" or "like this man."  On the other hand, the addition of "like this" and "like this man" adds nothing that anyone could not figure out in a moment.  If John wrote ὡς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, his reason for doing so would be obvious:  that is what he overheard the soldiers say.  In addition, the reading in P66* and 01 is accounted for as a conflation of the Byzantine reading and the reading in 05.

Instead of defending the Alexandrian reading by assigning to scribes a desire to make a frivolous embellishment, it is better in this case to regard the reading of 03 and allies as an accidental or intentional truncation of what John wrote.

One medieval scribe - the copyist of 2483(2866) - illustrated that a scribe in the Middle Ages could commit dittography while copying John 7:46-47.  And where dittography is possible, parablepsis tends to be possible too.

For those who may be interesting in how English versions treat this variant:  KJV NKJV MEV RSV Message NASB95 NET NIV EHV EOB all support the longer reading, demolishing any  assumption that those who reject Metzger’s premise here must harbor a pro-Byzantine prejudice.    

(Thanks to Ben Crawford for sharing this photo of GA 2483 from the Benjamin Crawford Collection, Alabama.)

0    

John 13:2 - When's Suppertime?

“It’s a Frankentext.” That’s one of the objections made against the UBS/Nestle-Aland compilation:  in hundreds of verses, if the UBS compilation is correct, no scribe of any extant manuscript anywhere preserved the original contents.  The Tyndale House GNT’s form of John 13:2 agrees with 03 except for its minor orthographic reading δίπνου.  

 

John 13:2 is a case in point.  In Swanson’s volume on the Gospel of John the UBS compilation stands alone, the exact array of the 16 words in the UBS/N-A compilation is not found in any extant witness.  The Tyndale House GNT’s form of John 13:2 agrees with 03 except for its minor orthographic reading δίπνου.  Let’s walk through the verse just to get the lay of the land.

 

Byz : UBS

 

καὶ : καὶ

δείπνου : δείπνου

γενομένου : γινομένου

τοῦ : τοῦ

διαβόλου : διαβόλου

ηδη : ηδη

βεβληκότος : βεβληκότος

εἰς : εἰς

τὴν : τὴν

καρδίαν :  καρδίαν

Ἰούδα : Ἰούδα                         ἳνα                              

Σίμωνος : Σίμωνος                  παραδοι

Ἰσκαριώτου :                           αὐτὸν

ἳνα :                                         Ἰούδας

αὐτὸν :                                     Σίμωνος

παραδω :                                 Ἰσκαριώτης

 

Aside from the transposition at the end of the verse, γενομενου versus γινομενου near the beginning separates the Byzantine Text from the Alexandrian Text – did the footwashing occur while supper was taking place or when supper had ended?   The majority of popular English versions favors “during supper” –

 

KJV, NKJV:  “supper being ended”

MEV:  “supper being concluded.” 

ASV, AMP, EOB, ESV, NASB, NRSV, WEB:  “during supper”

NIV:  “The evening meal was in progress”

CSB:  “time for supper”

CEV:  “before the evening meal started”

Rheims:  “when supper was done”

EHV: “By the time the supper took place”

NLT: “It was time for supper”

It was not my goal today to settle this textual contest - Jordan Shollenbarger is looking into it, and may share his finding in a future post.  I just wanted to bring the variation, and the varying English echoes, to your attention.

Lectionary 1043

Lectionary 1043 is a fragment assigned to the 400s, making it among the earliest lectionaries in existence.  It resides in Vienna at the Austrian National Library (P.Vindob. G 2324).  It contains, in whole or in part, ten lections from the Gospels:  (1) from the end of Mt. 7:16-7:20  (2) Mt. 10:39  to the end of 10:43 (2) Mt 10:37-42 (3) from Mt. 3:7-3:12 (end of Sect 12) (4) Mt 3:13-17, (5) Mt 7:13 - (6) Mk. 6:(18)-6:29 (7) Lk. 2:1-20 (8) Lk. 11:27-32 (9) Lk. 24:36 - ??? (10) Jn. 20:2-13.

(1)  MATTHEW 7

1.  Mt 7:19 – OUN

X.  Mt 10:37 – uncontracted UION

2.  Mt 10:41 – LHMPSETAI

3.  Mt 10:41 – LHMPSETAI

4.  Mt 10:42 – EAN 

In this lection we see Alexandrian orthography in 10:41, an agreement with the Byzantine text (and 01 and 019) in 10:42, and an agreement with 019 in verse 19.

(2)  MATTHEW 3

5.  Mt. 3:7 - AUTOU is absent, as in 01 and 03.

6.  Mt. 3:10 - begins HDH DE KAI H as in the Byzantine Text, disagreeing with 01 03 05 032) 

7.  Mt 3:10 - the very rare reading TO before PUR

8.  Mt 3:11 - UMAS BAPTISMA, agreeing with 01 032 and family 1.

9.  Mt 3:11 - AUTOU after UPODHMATA 

10.  Mt 3:11 - includes KAI PURI

11.  Mt 3:14 - IWANNHS is absent after O DE, agreeing with 01 and 03. 

12.  Mt 3:16 - BAPTISQEIS DE, agreeing with 01 and 03 instead of the Byzantine KAI BAPTISQEIS

13.  Mt 3:16 - agrees with 01 and 03 in the word-order of EUTHUS ANEBH

14.  Mt 3:16 - HNEWCHQHSAN before OI OURANOI, agreeing with 03. 

15, 16.  Mt 3:16 - TO PNA TOU, agreeing with the Byzantine text in both the inclusion of TO and the inclusion of TOU

X.  Mt 3:17 - UION is not contracted

17. - Mt 3:17 - HUDOKHSA, agreeing with C L P W 118 and a correction in 01.

(3)  MATTHEW 4:23-5:12

18. - 4:23 – EN OLH TH GALILAIA

19. - 4:24 – includes KAI before DAIMONIZOMENOUS

20.  5:1 – PROSHLQON

21.  5:2 – E before TO STOMA

22.  5:2 – ENDIDASKEN (?)

23.  5:3 – AUTON

24.  5:6 – PINWNTES

X.  5:8 – uncontracted QEON

25.  5:9 – does not have AUTOI after OTI

26.  5:10 – has THS after ENEKEN (agreeing with Codex C)

27.  5:11 – does not have RHMA

28.  5:11 –only has PSEUDOMENOI after ENEKEN EMOU

(5) MATTHEW 7 

29.  7:13 –DIERCHOMENOI

30.  7:14 – OTI [no DE]

31.  7:15 – DE

32.  7:16 – STAPHULAS

Up to this point Lectionary 1043 is roughly twice as Alexandrian as it is Byzantine:  seven readings are Byzantine, eleven are Alexandrian, and thirteen favor neither the Alexandrian nor the Byzantine text.   But in Mark 6 we see a startling shift in favor of the Alexandrian text:

(6)  MARK 6

33.  6:20 – HPOREI (not EPOIEI) (with 01 03 019)

34.  6:21 – EPOIHSEN (not EPOIEI) (with 01 03 019)

35.  6:22 –AUTHS after QUGATROS (with 032)

36.  6:22 –HRESEN (P45 and Byz: αρεσάσης) (with 01 03 019)

37.  6:23 – AUTH (not POLLA) – (notice the conflation in UBS)

38.  6:23 – AN (not EAN) (with 05)

39.  6:23 – O DE BASILEUS EIPEN (Byz & P45: ειπεν ο βασιλευς) (with 01 03 019)

40.  6:24 –AITHSWMAI (with 01 03 019)

41.  6:24 –BAPTIZONTOS (with 01 03 019)

42.  6:25–EUQUS (with 01 03)

43.  6:25 –ECHAUTHS DWS MOI (with 01 03 019)

44.  :26 –SUNANAKEIMENOUS (with 05 Byz)

45.  6:27 –EUQUS (with 01 03 019)

46.  6:27 –KAIPHALHN

47.  6:28 –KAI (not O DE) (with 03)

48.  6:28–TW before KORASION

(8)  LUKE 11

49.  27 – FWNHN GUNH

50.  28 –MENOUN GE

51.  29 – ZHTEI

52.  29 – does not have TOU PROFHTOU

53.  30 –TOIS NINEUITAIS SHMEION

(9) LUKE 24

54.  36 – LOUNTWN (missing LA-)

55.  36 – does not include O IHSOUS

(10) JOHN 20

56.  6 – KAI after OUN

57.  10 – TOUS after PROS (instead of AUTOUS or EAUTOUS)

58.  11 – MNHMEIW (instead of MNHMEION)

59.  11 – EXW KLAIOUSA

Out of 59 notable readings, when the 18 miscellaneous readings that are not supported by the flagship MSS of any text-type are set aside, the remaining 41 variation-units produce these simple ratios: 29/41 Alexandrian (70.7%) and 8/41 (19.5%) Byzantine.

Alexandrian dominance is particularly stunning in Mark 6.  A future post zooming in on Mark Mk. 6:19-6:29 is planned.  In the meantime, the strong affinity of Lectionary 1043 with the Alexandrian text should be noted, as well as two remarkable readings:  AUTHS in Mark 6:22 and EUDOKIA in Luke 2:14 - diverging from 01 and 03!  

The non-contraction of UION and QEON in Lectionary 1043 suggests an extraordinarily ancient production-date for its exemplar.

Lectionary 1043 should be treated as a witness of the first order in future compilations of the text of the Gospels.

This post is dedicated to the memory of James Roth.

 

How (And How Not) to Define a Text-type

 In the ninth lecture in my online introduction to New Testament textual criticism, I describe text-types.  There has been a recent wave of resistance in academia to affirm the reality of text-types, on the grounds that only the Byzantine text has an archetype capable of confident reconstruction.  This resistance is due to a failure to acknowledge the proper way to define a text-type.  Instead of profiling entire collections of readings in separate genres of the New Testament (Gospels, Acts, General Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Revelation) , a constellation of 50 or less distinct readings is all that is needed to separate manuscripts into the traditionally recognized text-types (Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western, Caesarean).  

Because of pervasive mixture and each manuscript's scribe's uniqueness, once each text-type's distinct variants - the stars in the constellation, so to speak - are identified, 45 out of 50 variants, rather than 50 out of 50, sufficiently shows the type of text a manuscript contains.

This approach is applicable to the full text across a genre; it does not apply to small fragmentary manuscripts, the classification of which should be made and which should also be considered provisional.   Why provisional?  Because block-mixture is real.  It was once proposed that a small sample is sufficient to show the text-type of a manuscript:  the text-type of the extant sample was extrapolated to apply hypothetically to the non-extant portion.   The logic seemed sound:  if you open a jar and stick a spoon inside and pull it out full of grape jelly, it's reasonable to conclude that the whole jar is full of grape jelly.

But sometimes there's a jar like Smucker's Goober-Grape.  One small spoon is an insufficient basis to ascertain the jar's contents.  Some manuscript are like that.  The textual character of Codex Washingtoniensis, 032, varies widely in different segments of text.  Codex Regius, 019, shifts from being predominantly Byzantine at the beginning of Matthew to being mainly Alexandrian by the end of John.  The large manuscripts that only survive as small fragments might have been like that too.  

When we have the text of a full genre preserved in a manuscript, its text can be validly assigned to a type.  Over a century ago, Edward Ardron Hutton, assisted by F. C. Burkitt,  helpfully wrote An Atlas of Textual Criticism in which he presented (or re-presented) a valid basis for dividing groups of manuscripts' text into families.  Hutton affirmed that "The test of antiquity is decidedly against the Syrian," i.e., against the Byzantine text.  Built into his statement is the assumption that we can identify what the Byzantine text is.

Hutton observed that the same kind of close relationship seen in family 13 (see the diagram here) can exists - at a lesser degree of magnification - between larger groups of manuscripts.  He proceeded to list "Triple readings" - variation-units which are so to speak a three-horse race and the three horses are Byzantine ("S"), Alexandrian ("A"), and Western (W").

The text of a non-fragmentary manuscript can easily be assigned to a text-type, or be recognized as mixed, on the basis of Hutton's Triple Readings.  There is no need to add comets and fireflies to the constellation while the stars are blazing bright.

Meet GA 0206

GA 0206 was found and catalogued by Grenfell and Hunt and was featured in Volume XI of their series  Oxyrhynchus Papyri.  Its text of from First Peter 5 has been assigned to the 300s, and when Don Barker re-read its page-number as 829 instead of 229 (the second digit is basically a toss-up between 10 and 20 (Ι and Κ), it became clear that 0206 is what remains of quite a hefty volume; possibly a pandect like Codex Sinaiticus.  

 
At Wikipedia one can read details about its text.  

 ● 5:8a – 0206 reads ο before διαβολος along with p72 and 33, disagreeing with NA27 and the Byzantine Text.

● 5:8b – after ζητων 0206 lacks τινα, agreeing with Codex Vaticanus, and disagreeing with the Byzantine Text.   NA 27 has τινα in brackets.

 ●5:9b – 0206 lacks τω, agreeing with the Byzantine text and disagreeing with Papyrus 72 and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  Again the NA27 uselessly resorted to brackets.

 ● 5:9c – 0206 reads επιτελεισθαι (to be experiencing) along with the majority,  disagreeing with Papyrus 72 (επειτελειται) and with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus and  (επιτελεισθε) (you are experiencing).

● 5:10 – 0206 lacks τω agreeing with the Byzantine Text, disagreeing with Papyrus 72 and Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

 ● 5:10 – 0206 lacks the nomina sacra for “Jesus” agreeing with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  NA27 resorts to brackets.

 ● 5:10 – 0206 reads καταρτιει (an orthographic error, probably elicited by the scribe's line of sight drifting ahead in the text of his exemplar.  The word υμας is not included, disagreeing with the Byzantine text.

 ● 5:10 – the final word of the verse θεμελιώσει is absent, a parableptic error elicited by homoeoteleuton.  

 ● 5:11a – 0206 reads αυτω κρατος (to whom [is to be attributed] dominion), agreeing with NA27 and Papyrus 72 02 03, disagreeing with the longer Byzantine reading αυτω η δοξα και το κρατος.   (A liturgical flourish appears to be have been added to the Byzantine text here.)

 ● 5:11b – 0206 reads εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων αμην (to the ages of the ages, Amen), agreeing with the Byzantine text and disagreeing with the more economical Papyrus 72 and Vaticanus and NA27 (εις τους αιωνας αμην) (to the ages Amen).  Simple parablepsis accounts for the shorter reading.

 ● 5:12 – 0206 lacks the του after χαριν, agreeing with Papyrus and disagreeing with the Byzantine text and NA27.

Not only does this fragment excavated in Egypt show that Byzantine readings were floating around in Egypt in the 300s in a large multi-book manuscript, but this analysis shows that the editors of NA27 were, in this particular passage. seem to have been timidly averse to doing their job.

John 14:14 - Praying to the Son?

          In John 14:14 there is an interesting translation-impacting textual puzzle:  did Jesus tell his followers to pray to him?

ESV:   If you ask me^[a] anything in my name, I will do it. [footnote:  Some manuscripts omit me]

NIV:  You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
CSB:  If you ask me^[a] anything in my name, I will do it.^[b]  [footnotes:  Other mss omit me - Other mss omit all of v. 14
NASB:   If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.
NLT:  Yes, ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it!
EHV:  If you ask me^[a] for anything in my name, I will do it. [footnote:  Some witnesses to the text omit me.]

WEB:  If you will ask anything in my name, I will do it.

KJV:   If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

EOB:  “If you will ask anything in my name, I will accomplish it.”  [footnote:  Several ancient authorities (P66, ﬡ, B, W, D, Q read: “whatever you ask me in my Name”]

          The Byzantine Text is not uniform.  2005 Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform has με in the text and non-inclusion noted in the side-margin.  The Hodges-Farstad 1982 Majority Text does not have με in the text; inclusion is noted in the apparatus.  Antoniades’ 1904 compilation does not have με.

          What’s the external evidence say?  Did John write εάν τι αἰτήσητέ με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω, or  εάν τι αἰτήσητέ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω?

          A, D, G, K, L, M, P, Ψ, 69, 157, 706 866 100 114 129 164 177 184 200 204 205 236 237 238 239 260 275 276 298 299 1071 1241 and 1424 and Coptic versions do not have με.

          In addition, X, L*, 0141, f¹, 565, pc, b, vg^ms, the Sinaitic Syriac and the  Palestinian Aramaic and Armenian versions omit the entire verse – which I regard as an effect of simple parablepsis.

Old Latin witnesses suporting non-inclusion:  a, aur, b, d, e, q, r1 vg^mss .

A smattering of witnesses replace με with a reference to the Father, mimicing John 16:23.  GA 167 uniquely reads, after μου, ἐγω ποιήσω ἵνα δοξάσθη ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ υίῷ.

After μου Codex M/021 (Campianus) has the conflate reading ἐγὼ τοῦτο.

P66c reads τοῦτο ἐγὼ (a different conflate reading).  

Witnesses supporting με include p⁶⁶ א B E H S U W Δ Θ 060 f¹³ 28 33 579 700 892 1006 1230^vid 1242 1342 1646 some lectionaries (including 64, 284, 329, 514, 547, 672, 813, 1231)  and it^c it^f vg syr^p syr^h and the Gothic version and Fulgentius.

          There is an issue regarding the testimony of P75.  A sizeable lacuna prevents the firm establishment of the testimony of P75 for either inclusion or non-inclusion.

          Considering that in John 15:16, Jesus says plainly “The Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name,” and the meaning of this passage is uniform in all transmission-streams, it is unlikely that John would represent Jesus saying both things – with the Father, and himself, as the person to whom the apostles were to address their prayers.  (John 16:23 affirms the same point.)   The possibility exists that με originated deliberately, due to a desire to enhance the deity of Christ – augmenting the Son’s role in answering prayer.  An alternative explanation is that με originated as an error of dittography – a careless repetition of the final syllable of αἰτήσητέ – and instead of correcting via the simple removal of the extra τέ, it was changed to με.  However this early error arose, it managed to affect Byzantine and Alexandrian witnesses.

          Some people may accuse those who use versions without “me” in John 14:14 of downplaying the Trinity.  However, historically both forms of the verse have been used by champions of orthodoxy.  Chrysostom, in Homily 74 on the Gospel of John, utilized a text without με.  

Revelation 20:9 - Concluding the Final Battle

 

          Revelation 20 related the culmination of rebellion against God – and a concise description of the consequences of such rebellion:  the final defeat of Satan and his demonic allies and the commencing of Judgment Day.  Today we shall consider a small variant in verse 9:  does the fire that destroys the forces of Satan fall explicitly come from God (ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ) or not?  The Byzantine text includes ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ.  Codex Alexandrinus and about 25 minuscules, as Metzger stated in his Textual Commentary on the GNT, do not; nor did a text read by Tyconius, Augustine, and Primasius.  The Vulgate as represented by Novum Testamentum Latine (1906 Stuttgart) includes “a Deo,” supporting ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Metzger granted that about 120 minuscules support ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, as do Jerome, Aspringius and Beatus.  Codex Gigas also supports the inclusion of ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ although there is inconsistency about whether it should appear before or after ἐκ τοῦ ὸὐρανοῦ.  Augustine’s testimony is inconsistent; he apparently read “a Deo” on one occasion. 

          Versional evidence favoring the inclusion of ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ includes the Old Latin represented by Codex Gigas, the Sahidic version, Harklean Syriac, the Armenian version, and some Ethiopic copies.  

          The testimony of Codex Sinaiticus is somewhat diminished by the scribe’s initial omission of much of Revelation 20:9-10; in the margin a corrector has added the missing passage including ἀπὸ τοῦ Θῦ.

          Our modern English versions are not consistent.  The KJV, Living Oracles (1826), Living Bible, MEV, NKJV, WEB, and EHV include “from God.”  The 1881 Revised Version, ESV, CEV, CSB, NASB, NET, NIV, NLT, and NRSV do not include “from God.”

          Metzger argued for the non-inclusion of ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ on the grounds that it originated as an “imitation of 21.2 and 21.10.”  On the other hand, a scribe could consider it superfluous, or simply omit it accidentally when his line of sight drifted from the end of the contracted ουνου to the end of Θῦ.

           My view is that ἀπὸ τοῦ Θῦ should be retained after εκ τοῦ ουνου.  Readers who can provide additional thoughts are welcome to share them in the comments.

Meet GA 200 - A Definitive Byzantine Gospels Manuscript

          GA 200 never gets cited individually in the Nestle-Aland apparatus, or any other modern textual apparatus as far as I know.  Housed at the Laurentian Library in Florence, Italy (Conv. Sopp. 159), the text of this fine thousand-year-old Gospels manuscript could practically serve as the definitive medieval text of the Gospels.  Its text is Byzantine – but it is not a member of family 35.

The beginning of Mark in GA 200

          Eusebius’ letter to Carpian precedes the five-page Canon-tables, with a pair of peacocks above the epistle in a quadrefoil frame.  The Gospels- text is written in dark brown ink; assorted comments in red occassionally frame the main text on up to three sides.

          Let’s take a closer look at 200’s text of Matthew.

 

Mt. 5:38 – σου σιαγόνα

Mt. 5:45 – includes τοις

Mt. 9:4 – reads ιδον before ο ις

Mt. 9:5 – σου after αφέωνται

Mt. 9:27 – υιε  

Mt. 10:28 – has την before ψυχην

Mt. 10:28 – has και before το σωμα

Mt. 11:16 – reads αγοραις

Mt. 11:16 – reads ετεροις

Mt. 11:21 – reads βεθσαιδα

Mt. 11:23 – reads υψωθεισα

Mt. 13:3 – reads σπειρειν

Mt. 13:15 – reads ιασομαι

Mt. 13:28 – reads συλλεξοεν

Mt. 13:33 – reads εκρυψεν

Mt. 15:39 – reads ανεβη

Mt. 17:2 – reads εγενετο

Mt. 17:27 – αναβαινοντα

Mt. 19:5 – does not have αυτου after ρπα

Mt. 19:5 – reads προσκολληθήσεται

Mt. 19:26 – does not have εστιν after δυνατα

Mt. 21:1 – reads βηθφαγη

Mt. 21:22 – reads εαν

Mt. 21:30 – reads ετέρω

Mt. 21:33 – reads τις after ανος

Mt. 22:9 – reads αν

Mt. 22:13 – reads χειρα και ποδας

Mt. 22:23 – does not read οι after σαδδουκαιοι

Mt. 22:32 – reads αυτῃ

Mt. 23:36 – reads ταυτα (no παντα)

Mt. 24:2 – reads ταυτα παντα  

Mt. 24:33 – reads ταυτα παντα  

Mt. 26:9 – has τοις before πτωχοις 

Mt. 26:11 – begins τουσ πτωχους γαρ παντοτε 

Mt.  26:15 – reads και εγω 

Mt. 26:17 – reads ετοιμάσομεν 

Mt. 26:33 – reads δε ουδέποτε   

Mt. 26:35 – reads απαρνήσομαι 

Mt. 28:11 – reads και εκει

 

In John, the pericope adulterae appears at the usual place after 7:52 and begins και απηλθεν εκαστος εις τον οικον αυτου.

Jn 8:2 – βαθεως

Jn 8:3 – includes προς αυτον

Jn 8:4 – αυτοφώρω

Jn 8:5 – μωσης

Jn 8:5 – does not read περι αυτης after λεγεις

Jn 8:9 –  after γυναι:  ουδεις σε κατέκρινεν

 

After the end of the text of John, the subscription reads τελος του ια εωθινου και του αποστολ[ου].   There follow five and a half pages of Gregory Nazianzus' composition Against the Arians, and then a long list of lectionary-related material.

 

The entire manuscript is very well executed and is in excellent condition.  GA 200 is fully indexed at the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.