The Pericope Adulterae and Some Early Manuscripts

          The Greek manuscripts which are often cited as the primary external evidence against the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11 – a passage which some evangelical seminary professors and influential preachers, including John Piper, do not regard as Scripture) are Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, À (01, Sinaiticus), B (03, Vaticanus), A (02, Alexandrinus), C (04, Ephraemi Rescriptus), L (019, Regius), N (022, Petropolitanus Purpureus), W (032, Washingtoniensis), and Δ (038, Sangallensis).  None of these manuscripts has John 7:53-8:11 between 7:52 and 8:12.  However, the testimony of some of these witnesses is significantly nuanced by additional details.

Codex Delta's blank space.
Color page-views are online.

          For example, in Codex Δ (from the 800’s), the copyist provided a clear indication of his recollection of the passage, even though it was absent from his exemplar.  After John 7:52, the copyist wrote the first seven words of 8:12, but then left the rest of the page blank, and resumed writing after leaving three additional blank lines on the following page.  Then he restarted the text of 8:12, and proceeded on from there.  Thus, while Codex Δ attests to the absence of the pericope adulterae in its exemplar, it also attests to the copyist’s memory of the presence of the passage in some other manuscript.

          Similarly, in Codex L (from the 700’s), the copyist left a long blank space between the end of John 7:52, on one page, and the beginning of 8:12, on the following page.  This blank space in Codex L includes more than an entire blank column.  In codices Δ and L, the blank space is not sufficient to include John 7:53-8:11, but the copyists’ intention to leave “memorial space,” acknowledging their awareness of the absent passage, remains obvious.  It therefore seems somewhat selective when commentators such as Metzger, Wallace, and White (among others) mention the absence of John 7:53-8:11, but fail to mention these blank spaces, of equal age, which attest to the presence of the passage in the memories of these manuscripts’ scribes.

Codex Regius' blank space.

          Before we turn to some other interesting features in these manuscripts, it should be pointed out that of the 1,476 manuscripts that contain the pericope adulterae, about 60 manuscripts have it in a location other than between John 7:52 and 8:12.  One particular group of manuscripts, which includes the important minuscules 1 and 1582, has the passage after the end of the Gospel of John, preceded by a note stating that because most manuscripts did not contain the passage, and because it was not commented upon by venerable patristic writers (such as John Chrysostom), it was moved to the end of the book, having been previously found after John 7:52 (the end of which the annotator quotes). 

          Although the minuscules that contain John 7:53-8:11 after John are not particularly early, their agreements are considered to echo an ancestor-manuscript which was produced in the 400’s.  In addition, their distinct readings tend to have an affinity with readings used by Origen, a patristic author who died in 254. 

          The transfer of John 7:53-8:11 from the usual place in chapters 7 and 8 to the end of the Gospel of John thus did not begin when these manuscripts were produced, but centuries earlier, when their shared ancestor was made.  This raises a question:  could some of the manuscripts which have been cited against the pericope adulterae, and which do not have it in chapters 7 and 8, have had it at the end of the Gospel of John? 
          In the case of Codex N (from the 500’s), there is no way to verify if it contained the pericope adulterae after the end of John or not, because the manuscript is damaged; the last extant bit of John 21 is in verse 20, and so there is no way to know if 21:25 was followed by the pericope adulterae when Codex N was in pristine condition or not.

          In Codex W (from about the year 400), the Gospels are arranged in the order Matthew-John-Luke-Mark.  Commentator Wieland Willker has noticed that between the end of John and the beginning of Luke, there is a blank page – blank on both sides.  No such similar feature exists in Codex W between Matthew and John, or between Luke and Mark.  This might be an attempt, by a copyist aware of the existence of the pericope adulterae, to provide space where it could be added.    

          In Codex A (from the early 400’s), the pages containing the text from John 6:50 to 8:52a have been lost.  Thus, we cannot see directly that in Codex A, John 7:52 was followed by 8:12; we have to rely on space-calculations.  Here, again, Willker’s commentary is very helpful:  he notes that the copyist accidentally omitted John 8:52, when his line of sight wandered too far down the page.  When this is accounted for, a reconstruction of the missing text, without John 7:53-8:11, fits the space that would have been on the absent pages, whereas if the pericope adulterae had been present, the space would not be remotely sufficient. 

Codex Alexandrinus -
The end of John,
and a blank column.

          At the end of the Gospel of John, the copyist of Codex A put the closing-title of the book at the end of the first column on the page.  The second column is completely blank.  One might argue that this is to be expected at the end of the Gospels – yet, at the end of Acts, there is no similar blank column; the column in which the book of Acts ends is followed immediately by a column in which the Epistle of James begins.  On the other hand, between the end of Philemon and the beginning of Revelation, there are two blank columns, that is, one side of the page is blank.  There is little way to discern, from this evidence alone, if the blank column at the end of John in Codex A is filler-space, or memorial-space.

          In Codex Sinaiticus (from the mid-300’s), after the Gospel of John concludes in the fourth column of a page, the next four columns are completely blank.  Once again, while it is probable that this is simply filler-space, it is not impossible that this feature represents copyists’ recollection of the presence of the pericope adulterae at the end of the Gospel of John. 

          In Codex Vaticanus (from the early 300’s), John 7:53-8:11 does not appear after 7:52, and there is no unusual blank space after the end of John (on page 1382 of the codex) – just the usual leftover space below the end of the book.  However, in the outer margin alongside that blank space after John 21:25, there is an interesting feature:  an umlaut, also known as a distigme.    Very many of these symbols appear in the margins of the New Testament books in Codex Vaticanus; researcher Philip Payne brought them to the attention of his fellow-researchers in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, and established that they were added to denote the locations of textual variants. 

          It has not been determined beyond reasonable doubt that these symbols were added in ancient times.  Payne has contended that most of the distigmai are contemporary with the production of the manuscript; Peter Head, however, has challenged this position.  My own suspicion is that these marks are all late.  However, because some scholars, including Daniel Wallace, have treated them as if they are ancient, let’s consider their possible significance in the case at hand:  the only known textual variant that would elicit the addition of a distigme in the blank space after the end of the Gospel of John is the presence of the pericope adulterae.   

          If the distigmai are as ancient as the manuscript itself, Codex Vaticanus testifies to a fourth-century copyist’s awareness of the pericope adulterae’s presence at that location in at least one manuscript older than Codex Vaticanus itself.  This would imply that the transfer of the passage to the end of John 21 was not initially due to its lack of use by Chrysostom and other patristic writers, but was caused by some other factor.

          Papyrus 75 (usually assigned a production-date in the early 200’s) is only extant in John up to 15:10, so there is no way to tell whether or not the pericope adulterae was present after the end of chapter 21.          

Papyrus 66 -
not much remains
of John 21:17ff. except
the page-number.

          Similarly, Papyrus 66 (which Robert Waltz describes as “a notably inaccurate copy”), also from the 200’s, is very fragmentary in John 21, and no text can be confidently reconstructed beyond 21:17.  Thus we cannot tell with certainty that Papyrus 66 did not contain the pericope adulterae after John 21. 

          A few things should be clear from this review of the major early witnesses for the non-inclusion of the pericope adulterae.

● First:  the evidence strongly supports the view that the text of John used in Egypt in the 200’s did not contain the passage after John 7:52.  

● Second:  codices L and Δ should be considered witnesses for non-inclusion and for inclusion.  

● Third:  the testimony of most of the major Greek manuscripts that support the non-inclusion of the pericope adulterae in chapters 7 and 8 is not nearly as clear or one-sided when they are asked to testify about the passage’s presence or absence following John 21; on this question, most of the early Greek manuscript-evidence is open to interpretation.   

Matthew 1:25 - Mary's Firstborn Son

      With Christmas approaching, many Bible-readers are likely to encounter the variant-unit in Matthew 1:25 – The Byzantine Text says that Joseph “knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son, and he called his name Jesus.”  The Alexandrian Text says that Joseph “knew her not until she had brought forth a son, and he called his name Jesus.”

          Although there are some other variant-units in this verse, let’s focus today on this one:  “had brought forth a son,” or “had brought forth her firstborn son.”  With some data derived from Jonathan Clark Borland’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament blog, we can obtain some hard figures about the quantities involved in the support for each variant.  These numbers are slightly obsolete but nevertheless they indicate the proportions involved:  τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον (her firstborn son) is supported exactly by 1,446 MSS, and inexactly by 13 MSS; υιον (a son) is supported exactly by 7 MSS, and inexactly by 1 MS. 

           The seven manuscripts which support υιον include Sinaiticus (À) and Vaticanus (B).  Also listed in UBS4 is Z (035), that is, Codex Dublinensis, a palimpsest from the mid/late 500’s.  According to Swanson, 1, 1582*, 33, and 788 (a member of f¹³) also support υιον.  Borland describes this slightly differently, including them all, along with 071^vid (400’s or 500’s, discovered at Oxyrhynchus) and 1192 (a member of f¹), but qualifying Z as Z^vid. 

           The testimony of 071 merits closer investigation.  This was the first item presented in 1910 in Volume 3 of Grenfell & Hunt’s series on the Oxyrhynchus Papyri and therein we find this acknowledgement:  “The vestiges are indecisive between υιον (ÀBZ, W-H.) and τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον (CDEKLM, T-R.), since with either reading the letters αυ would come where they appear to do in l. 14, and there is not enough at the beginning of l. 15 to show whether the word to which ν belongs was abbreviated or not.”  Thus 071 cannot legitimately be regarded as a witness for either reading.  (UBS2 listed 071^vid as a witness for υιον but UBS4 does not.)

Mt. 1:25 in Codex Bezae (D)

          UBS4 lists f¹ and f¹³ as support for υιον although most members of each family display the reading τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον; apparently the UBS compilers assumed that copyists have thoroughly conformed most group-members to the Byzantine reading.

          Willker provides data about the versional evidence (see variant-unit #10 in his Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels); the Old Latin and Palestinian Aramaic are split; the Peshitta and the Vulgate and the Harklean Syriac favor τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον.  (The Vulgate reads:  “Et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum: et vocavit nomen ejus Jesum.”)  The Nubian version, of which only scant remains are extant, favors τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον.  The Armenian and Ethiopic versions also favor τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον, although the Old Georgian supports υιον.  The Sahidic and Bohairic versions favor υιον, the Curetonian Syriac favors υιον, and the Sinaitic Syriac wanders off on its own with a reading that means “to him a son,” which is an aspect of the thorough corruption in the Sinaitic Syriac (shared, to an extent, by Codex Bobbiensis) in Matthean passages pertaining to the relationship between Joseph and Jesus.  The Gothic version is a non-witness here because Codex Argenteus is non-extant in Matthew 1:1-5:14.  The Middle Egyptian manuscript (Schoyen 2650) supports υιον.  

Mt. 1:25 in Codex Regius (L)

           As far as patristic evidence goes, UBS4 lists only Ambrose and Chromatius in support of υιον; however, Jerome, in Against Helvidius, in chapters 3 and 5 (written in 383), uses the reading with υιον, and in chapter 9 he appears to quote Helvidius doing so.  Bengel noticed this, but also noticed that Jerome, in his Commentary on Matthew (composed in 398), quotes the complete passage with the reading “she brought forth her firstborn son.”

           UBS4 lists Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus, Didymus^dub, Epiphanius (in Panarion 78:17), Chrysostom, Proclus, Jerome, and Augustine (Harmony of the Gospels, 2:5) as support for τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον.  Basil of Caesarea (330-379) also clearly utilized a text with τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον in Matthew 1:25. 

           The testimony of the Latin-writing author of Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum regarding Matthew 1:25 has been contested.  This work, from the early 400s, (it is worth mentioning that this composition was edited by Erasmus in 1530) quotes Matthew 1:25 as “Et non cognovit eam, donec peperit filium suum primogenitum” according to Migne’s P.G. vol. 56, col. 635, on lines 37-38 – supporting the Byzantine reading.  However, in the recent edition of Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum translated by James A. Kellerman (in the Ancient Christian Texts series), the quotation of Mt. 1:25 is presented as if it agrees with the Alexandrian reading.  However the content of what immediately follows indicates that the author read τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον:  the author mentions the view of followers of Eunomius and states that “he calls Christ the firstborn because we call him firstborn whom other siblings follow.”

Mt. 1:25 in Codex Sangallensis (Delta)

          The testimony of the Diatessaron is shown in Ephrem of Syrus’ commentary on the Diatessaron; in his comments on the birth and conception of Jesus (See Carmel McCarthy’s Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron, pages 45-65), Ephrem repeatedly cites verse 25:  “He lived with her chastely until she gave birth to her First-born.”

          The reference in UBS4 to Didymus^dub refers to De Trinitate, 3:4, where the author (either Didymus, or someone else in Egypt in the late 300s) states:  “It helps us to understand the terms ‘firstborn’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist states that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born Son;’ for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin.”  Also, in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series, in the volume on Matthew, Chromatius is presented as quoting Matthew 1:25 in support of τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον in his Tractate on Matthew 3:1.  In the same volume on the same page, Chrysostom quotes Matthew 1:25 with υιον. 

Mt. 1:25 in MS 700

With the external evidence described, we now turn to internal considerations.

          Metzger expressed the judgment of the UBS Committee when he dispatched the Byzantine reading in a single sentence:  “The Textus Receptus, following C D* K W Δ Π most minuscules al, inserts τόν before υιον and adds αυτης τόν πρωτότοκον (“her firstborn son”) from Lk 2.7.”  If this appraisal is correct, the words must have been inserted very early so as to appear in witnesses as diverse as D, W, the Vulgate, the Peshitta, the Diatessaron, and 087 (from the 500’s).  Against this consideration, however, one may counter that the reading υιον may be a natural conformation to the wording of Matthew 1:23 (which itself quotes from Isaiah 7:14).  A charge of harmonization can be made against the Byzantine reading, to the effect that a copyist reached into Luke to find the basis for an expansion, but a charge of harmonization can also be made against the Alexandrian reading, to the effect that a copyist reached back two verses to find the basis for an abridgment which yielded a tighter symmetry between the prophecy (in verse 23) and its fulfillment (in verse 25).

Mt. 1:25b in MS 490

          In addition, the theory that the Byzantine reading is a harmonization to Luke 2:7 faces an obstacle:  the popularity of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.  As one can see from Jerome’s response to Helvidius, Luke’s reference to “her firstborn Son” was interpreted as evidence that Mary had subsequent children – the idea being that the existence of a firstborn implies a second-born, and thus that the individuals who are called Jesus’ brothers and sisters in the Gospels were literally the children of Mary, rather than Jesus’ cousins, or the children of Joseph from a previous marriage (as some writers in the early church insisted that they were).  The proposed harmonization thus requires that a copyist deliberately made the passage more difficult, which goes against the general tendencies of scribes.

          One might say, however, “If this was such a problem, why was the passage in Luke 2:7 left untouched?”.  But if we consider data which was unavailable to Westcott and Hort, we can see in Codex W that Luke 2:7 was not left altogether untouched:  although Codex W refers to Christ as “her first-born Son” in Matthew 1:25, in Luke 2:7 (where, as Willker notes, W’s text is predominantly Alexandrian), τόν πρωτότοκον is absent.  This is a fairly clear symptom of a theological concern.  And if it could happen in part of the early Alexandrian text-stream in Luke 2 (as seen in one Greek manuscript), it could happen in another part of the early Alexandrian text-stream in Matthew 1 (as seen in seven manuscripts).

Mt. 1:25 in MS 72

          An important consideration, however, is the question:  how likely is it that both Matthew and Luke would happen to employ the five-word phrase τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον?  This is not as improbable as one might initially assume.  One might similarly ask:  how likely is it that both Matthew and Luke would happen to employ the seven-word phrase υιον καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ιησουν?  Matthew has these exact words in Mt. 1:21; Luke has these exact words in Lk. 1:30 – because this phrase is based on the final phrase of the Septuagint’s text of Isaiah 7:14 (διὰ τοῦτο δώσει Κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον· ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει, καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Εμμανουήλ.)

           Two authors’ use of the same source can give a false impression that one author is dependent upon the other.  Is there an identifiable source which employs the phraseτον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον?  No.  However, it does not seem implausible that two authors could independently use the same common words to make a connection to to Exodus 4:22 – “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, ‘Israel is My son, My firstborn.’” (LXX:   σὺ δὲ ἐρεῖς τῷ Φαραώ· τάδε λέγει Κύριος· υἱὸς πρωτότοκός μου ᾿Ισραήλ.)  An explicit identification of Jesus as “firstborn” is consistent with Matthew’s treatment of Hosea 11:1:  in Mt. 2:15, Matthew rejects the Septuagint’s rendering and follows instead the Hebrew reading of Hosea 11:1 – “Out of Egypt have I called My Son” – so as to construct a parallel between Israel, the anointed people, and Jesus, the anointed Person.

Mt. 1:25 in MS 478

    

          When one considers 

(1) the second-century support for τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον from the Diatessaron,

(2) the wide-ranging patristic support for τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον – from North Africa (Augustine) to Cyprus (Epiphanius) to Egypt (De Trinitate) to Syria (Peshitta) to Constantinople (Proclus),

(3) the likelihood that early scribes could regard τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον as potentially scandalous, drawing the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary into question,

(4) the evidence from Codex W that τον πρωτοτοκον was considered objectionable somewhere in the Alexandrian text-stream,

(5) the close proximity of Mt. 1:21, compared to the relatively distant proximity of Luke 2:7, rendering the former more likely to be the basis for a harmonization,

(6) the relative scope of support for the rival readings:  τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον has the support of approximately 99.4% of the Greek manuscripts, drawn from members of every text-type, whereas the epicenter of the shorter reading appears to be in Egypt, and

(7) the thematic consistency of a description of Jesus as a firstborn son in 1:25, echoing Exodus 4:22 (where Israel is the subject) in a way similar to the way in which Matthew 2:15 treats Hosea 11:1,

the evidence, on balance, favors τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον as the original reading; the Alexandrian reading is a conformation to the wording in Mt. 1:21 and 1:23. 

Manuscripts at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France

     

Remercier-vous et les bénédictions pour les travailleurs
à la Bibliothèque nationale de France.

      The Gallica website has released page-views of some of the most significant manuscripts in the National Library of France (Bibliothèque nationale de France).  Currently the Bibliothèque nationale de France has made available page-views of images (usually from microfilm) of the following 57 continuous-text Greek New Testament manuscripts (in addition to 21 Greek lectionaries and many more versional and patristic resources).

Some manuscripts’ textual affinities are described according to the information in a report at the Center for the Study and Preservation of the Majority Text which brought news of Gallica’s release of manuscript-images to my attention.  The Gregory-Aland identification-number of each manuscript is listed, followed by the library’s catalog-number in parentheses.

MS 04, C (Greek 9) – Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus.   New Testament, substantial but with many parts missing.  Produced in the 400’s. 

MS 019, L (Greek 62) – Codex Regius.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b53045883v/f15.image.r=Grec%2062.langEN

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b53045883v/f148.image.r=Grec%2062.langEN 

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b53045883v/f239.image.r=Grec%2062.langEN  

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b53045883v/f403.image.r=Grec%2062.langEN

            John 7 & 8 with memorial-space:

            http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b53045883v/f446.zoom.r=Grec%2062.langEN

            http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b53045883v/f447.zoom.r=Grec%2062.langEN

MS 6 (Greek 112) k [Π6] 

MS 10 (Greek 91) e [M10] – Produced in the 1200’s.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721956q/f11.image.r=91   

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721956q/f93.image.r=91  

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721956q/f146.image.r=91  

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721956q/f228.image.r=91  

MS 12 (Greek 230) – Produced in the 1300’s.  

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722144q/f32.image.r=230

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722144q/f112.image.r=230 

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722144q/f166.image.r=230  

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722144q/f254.image.r=230  

MS 17 – (Greek 55) e [Cl-17] – Greek-Latin illustrated Gospels from the late 1400’s.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721879h/f9.image.r=55

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721879h/f107.image.r=55

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721879h/f169.image.r=55

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721879h/f276.image.r=55 

MS 18 (Greek 47) eapr [f³⁵] – Entire New Testament, produced (according to a colophon) in 1364.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721796m/f9.image.r=47

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721796m/f58.image.r=47

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721796m/f86.image.r=47

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721796m/f134.image.r=47  

MS 19 (Greek 189) e – Produced in the 1100’s.  Unusual order of books.

           

MS 25 (Greek 191) e – Produced in the 1000’s.

            Mt:  (damaged) http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107220556/f6.image.r=191  

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107220556/f135.image.r=191

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107220556/f253.item.r=191.zoom

MS 27 (Greek 115) e [M27/1424] –  Produced in the 900’s.  Detailed list of lections before Matthew. 

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107221277/f27.image.r=115  

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107221277/f140.image.r=115

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107221277/f222.image.r=115

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107221277/f361.item.r=115

            pericope adulterae:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107221277/f395.item.r=115  

MS 32 (Greek 116) e [1519] – Produced in the 1100’s.           

            Mt:  (damaged)  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107219647/f5.image.r=116  

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107219647/f71.image.r=116    

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107219647/f127.image.r=116  

            Jn:  (damaged)  (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107219647/f203.image.r=116)

MS 91 (Greek 219) – akpr – Produced in the 1000’s.

MS 119 (Greek 85) e [Cl-16] – Produced in the 1200’s.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722049k/f8.image.r=85  

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722049k/f81.image.r=85  

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722049k/f130.image.r=85  

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722049k/f202.image.r=85  

            pericope adulterae:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722049k/f220.image.r=85

MS 260 (Greek 51) e [K^x/Kⁱ-M5] 

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722045s/f6.image.r=51

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722045s/f80.image.r=51

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722045s/f128.image.r=51

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722045s/f208.image.r=51  

MS 261 (Greek 52) e [K^x] – Produced in the 1100’s (with Mt. 1-10 in a later supplement).

            Mt:  (supplement)  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721642c/f6.image.r=52

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721642c/f50.image.r=52

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721642c/f84.image.r=52

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721642c/f141.image.r=52

MS 263 (Greek 61) eakp [K¹] 

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107220467/f10.image.r=61

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107220467/f52.image.r=61

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107220467/f81.image.r=61 

            Jn:   http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107220467/f126.image.r=61

MS 264 (Greek 65) e [K^x] – Damaged in several places.  Foot-indexed.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107219469/f7.image.r=65   

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107219469/f73.image.r=65    

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107219469/f130.image.r=65

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107219469/f226.image.r=65

MS 265 (Greek 66) e [Π^a] – Produced in the 1100’s.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721880w/f7.image.r=66

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721880w/f121.image.r=66  

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721880w/f186.image.r=66   

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721880w/f305.image.r=66   

MS 266 (Greek 67) e [Π 266] – Produced in the 1300’s.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721947r/f9.image.r=67

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721947r/f88.image.r=67   

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721947r/f140.image.r=67

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721947r/f222.image.r=67   

MS 268 (Greek 72) e [Π 268] – Produced in the 1100’s.

            Mt:  (damaged) http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721872c/f5.image.r=72

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721872c/f70.image.r=72     

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721872c/f115.image.r=72

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721872c/f187.image.r=72

MS 269 (Greek 74) e [1519] – Produced in the 1100’s.  Abundantly illustrated.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722121j/f15.image.r=74

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722121j/f130.image.r=74

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722121j/f209.image.r=74

            Illustration:  Angel in Gethsemane 

            Jn:   http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722121j/f332.image.r=74   

MS 270 (Greek 75) e [Π^a] – Produced in the 1100’s.    

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721983m/f8.image.r=75  

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721983m/f101.image.r=75  

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721983m/f159.image.r=75  

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721983m/f264.image.r=75  

            pericope adulterae:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721983m/f291.image.r=75

MS 273 (Greek 79) e [K^mix] – Produced in the 1200’s.  (Sister-MS of MS 4?)  Triple-column genealogy in Luke 3.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722159c/f16.image.r=79  

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722159c/f68.image.r=79    

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722159c/f99.image.r=79

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722159c/f150.image.r=79       

            pericope adulterae:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722159c/f163.image.r=79

MS 278 (Greek 82) e [Π278] 

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721985h/f18.image.r=82   

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721985h/f97.image.r=82   

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721985h/f150.image.r=82   

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721985h/f236.image.r=82

MS 279 (Greek 86) e [K^x] – Produced in the 1100’s. 

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722168b/f18.image.r=86   

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722168b/f83.image.r=86    

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722168b/f128.image.r=86

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722168b/f205.image.r=86   

MS 280 (Greek 87) e [Π^a] – Produced in the 1100’s.  A large chunk of Mark is absent.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722160r/f13.image.r=87

            Mk:  [http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722160r/f61.image.r=87]

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722160r/f64.image.r=87

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722160r/f130.image.r=87    

MS 281 (Greek 88) e [K^x Cl-281] – Produced in the 1100’s.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722169s/f12.image.r=88   

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722169s/f77.image.r=88   

            Lk:  [missing first page] http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722169s/f123.image.r=88   

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722169s/f204.image.r=88     

MS 285 (Greek 95) e [K^r/f³⁵] – Produced in the 1400’s.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722042f/f11.image.r=95   

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722042f/f80.image.r=95  

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722042f/f125.image.r=95

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722042f/f202.image.r=95

            pericope adulterae:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722042f/f222.image.r=95   

MS 286 (Greek 96) e [K^x] – Produced in 1432.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722044b/f10.image.r=96  

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722044b/f85.image.r=96  

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722044b/f127.image.r=96  

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722044b/f202.image.r=96  

MS 287 (Greek 98) e (Cl-17] – Produced in 1478. 

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721836h/f7.image.r=98   

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721836h/f103.image.r=98   

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721836h/f164.image.r=98   

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721836h/f270.image.r=98   

MS 291 (Greek 113) e [Cl-291] – Produced in the 1200’s.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107220109/f43.image.r=113  

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107220109/f121.image.r=113  

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107220109/f167.image.r=113  

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107220109/f248.image.r=113  

MS 292 (Greek 114) e [Π473] – Produced in the 1100’s or 1200’s.  Embedded cross-references (like a foot-index).

            Mt:  (damaged) http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721944d/f8.image.r=114  

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721944d/f87.image.r=114  

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721944d/f145.image.r=114  

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721944d/f247.image.r=114    

MS 293 (Greek 117) e [M1193] – (Palimpsest:  the lower writing is from a lectionary from the 800’s or 900’s.  The upper writing was produced in 1262.)

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107217955/f10.image.r=117  

            Mk:  [suppl.]  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107217955/f116.image.r=117  

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107217955/f176.image.r=117  

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107217955/f280.image.r=117  

MS 294 (Greek 118) e [K^x] – Produced in 1291 or 1391.  May be related to MS 279.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721951g/f6.image.r=118  

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721951g/f76.image.r=118    

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721951g/f125.image.r=118  

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721951g/f202.image.r=118  

MS 295 (Greek 120) e [Π1441] – Produced in the 1200’s. 

            Mt:  (suppl.)  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107219664/f6.image.r=120

                        Primary hand:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107219664/f8.image.r=120  

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107219664/f78.image.r=120   

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107219664/f123.image.r=120

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107219664/f200.image.r=120  

MS 296 (Greek 124) apk – Produced in the 1500’s, apparently from a printed exemplar.

            Acts:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721965p/f6.image.r=124

            Romans:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721965p/f85.item.r=124

MS 303 (Greek 194a) – Produced in 1255.

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721884p/f9.image.r=194

MS 304 (Greek 194) Matthew & Mark – This is the damaged manuscript of Matthew and Mark (interspersed with commentary) that is often cited as support for the ending of Mark at 16:8.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722123f/f6.image.r=194

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722123f/f176.image.r=194  

MS 305 (Greek 195) – Produced in the 1200’s. 

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721888g/f14.item.r=195.zoom

MS 310 (Greek 202) – Produced in the 1100’s.  Fragment of Matthew.

MS 311 (Greek 203) – Produced in the 1100’s.  Fragment of Matthew.

MS 469 (Greek 102a) apkr 

MS 567 (Greek 103a) apk

MS 580 (Greek 119) e [K^x] – Produced in the 1100’s. 

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721789j/f22.image.r=119  

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721789j/f130.image.r=119  

            Lk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721789j/f200.image.r=119  

            Jn:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721789j/f312.item.r=119   

MS 604 (Greek 125) akp – Produced in the 1300’s.

            James:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721882s/f145.item.r=125

            First Peter:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721882s/f155.item.r=125

MS 606 (Greek 217) – Produced in the 1100’s. 

MS 727 (Greek 179) ek  

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107220539/f8.item.r=179   

            Mk:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107220539/f65.item.r=179

           

MS 728 (Greek 181) e 

MS 731 (Greek 184) e – Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721812w/f6.item.r=184   

MS 732 (Greek 185) e – Produced in the 1200’s.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107219486/f19.image.r=185

             

MS 734 (Greek 192) e – Produced in the 1300’s.  No text from Mark.  Book order:  Jn-Mt-Lk-Mk.

MS 740 (Greek 234) Produced in 1318.  Gospels with commentary.

            Mt:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107218854/f16.image.r=234

            

MS 742 (Greek 1775) Produced in the 1400’s.  Gospel of John with commentary.

MS 1932 (Greek 222) 

MS 1934 (Greek 224)  

MS 1935 (Greek 225) 

MS 1938 (Greek 238) – 

            Hebrews:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721929t/f5.image.r=238 

Many thanks to those who made the availability of these manuscript-images possible!