L) THE MANUSCRIPT Fa

 

 

This Symbol Is No Longer Used. This symbol was given by Wettstein to a Manuscript of the Septuagint (M of 6th or 7th Century) in which he found, in the original hand, a marginal text containing Acts 9:24-25.  Uncials of the Acts were few enough that Wettstein included this as an Uncial witness to Acts.

 

Detailed examination later showed it to include several other New Testament passages.  The complete list is:  Mat. 5:48; 12:48; 27:25; Luke 1:42; 2:24; 23:21; John 5:35; 6:53; 55; Acts 4:33-34; 9:24-25; 10:13, 15; 22:22; 1Co. 7:39; 11:29; 2Co. 3:13; 9:7; 11:33; Gal. 4:21-22, Col. 2:16-17; Heb. 10:26.  When Gregory regularized the catalog of Uncials, however, he eliminated Fa on the grounds that it was not a continuous-text Manuscript; it has not been cited since.

 

 

M) THE MANUSCRIPT Fe

 

 

Located in Utrecht, in the University Library, listed under, MS. 1.  It contains the Gospels with significant lacunae, especially in Luke; the damage has been progressive, and some leaves have been lost since Wettstein saw it in 1730 A.D.  Between 1730 and 1830 A.D. It was in private hands, and was unbound, with the leaves becoming disordered and torn.

 

As it stands now, it begins with Mat. 9:1 (though in Wetstein’s time it apparently started at 7:6); it also lacks Mat. 12:1-44; 13:55-14:9; 15:20-31; 20:18-21:5; (24:13-15 according to SQE but not Scrivener), Mark 1:43-2:8; 2:23-3:5; 11:6-26; 14:54-15:5; 15:39-16:19; John 3:5-14; 4:23-38; 5:18-38; 6:39-63; 7:28-8:10; 10:32-11:3; 12:14-25; 13:34-end.  Luke is in even worse shape; Scrivener reports that there are 24 different lacunae, and SQE does not even bother collating the Manuscript in that book.

 

Dated paleographically to about the 9th Century (Tischendorf, Von Soden, Aland; Tregelles preferred the 10th Century).  It has the “Ammonian Sections,” but not the “Eusebian” references; otherwise it has all the features of late Uncials, including accents and breathings.  The text is definitely Byzantine; the Alands list it as Category V; Von Soden lists it as Ki.  Wisse’s classification doesn’t mean much in this case; he lists Fe as Kmix in Luke 1, but it is defective for the other two chapters.  In all likelihood it is actually either Kx or Ki (what Wisse would call Kx Cluster W).

 

The date of the Manuscript makes it potentially important for the history of the Byzantine text, but the large number of lacunae significantly reduce its value; it would have been much better had another Byzantine Manuscript (preferably one of a type other than Kx) been used in the apparatus of SQE and UBS4.

 

 

N) THE MANUSCRIPT Fp (CODEX AUGIENSIS)

 

 

Located in Cambridge, listed under, Trinity College B.XVII.1.  “Codex Augiensis,” so-called because it comes from the monastery of Augia Dives in Lake Constance.

 

It is a Greek/Latin diglot.  The Greek lacks Romans 1:1-3:19; 1Co. 3:8-16; 6:7-14; Col. 2:1-8; Phm. 21-25, and Hebrews.  Save for the lacuna in Romans, all of these defects are supplied in the Latin.  All the omissions save that in Romans are also paralleled in the sister Manuscript Gp.

 

The clear conclusion (also supported, e.g., by the pagination) is that both Fp and Gp were copied from a Manuscript which omitted the passages in First Corinthians through Hebrews, but that the Romans passage (or most of it) was originally present in the Manuscript and has now been lost.  (Note: The general run of the Latin is not the Latin Vulgate, but Hebrews does have a Latin Vulgate text; in addition.  NA26 lists the Latin sections not paralleled in the Greek as being supplements, but this seems to be based not on the nature of the writing but on its relationship with the Greek.

 

The Greek and Latin are in parallel columns on the page, with the Greek in the inner column (closer to the spine of the book) and the Latin in the outer.  Where the Greek fails, the Latin occupies the full width of the page.

 

It is dated paleographically to the 9th Century.  Greek and Latin are both beautifully written, but the Greek quite incompetently; it is clear that the scribe was more comfortable in Latin (the most obvious example of this is word division: the exemplar clearly did not have word divisions, and while the scribe put in points to show divisions, they are very often in error).  Another example is his handling of vowels, “o” and “w.”  These vowels are often confused -- a trait noticed that as a user of the Roman alphabet one can easily see.  The scribe was almost certainly a native speaker of German.

 

The first and most obvious point about Fp is that it is an immediate relative of Gp, which is “Codex Boernianus;” or better, “Codex Boernerianus.”  The resemblances are both textual (they agree almost absolutely) and physical (they have the same lacunae).

 

It is generally conceded that Gp, although less attractive, has the better text.  For this reason, many editions cite Gp and not Fp.  This fact has also led to some rather absurd speculation -- notably that Fp is a copy of Gp.  This is not the case.  The two Manuscripts are not direct descendants of one another; rather, they have a recent common ancestor.  It is not impossible that they are sisters, both derived from a somewhat defective Greek/Latin diglot.  Even this is by no means certain, however.  It is worth noting that Fp and Gp, while they have nearly identical Greek texts, do not have identical Latin texts.

 

The Latin of Gp (known as g) is a strict interlinear translation of the Greek. F, but has a parallel Latin version, and this version is not the same as the Latin of Gp.  Rather, the Latin of Fp (known as f) is a modified Latin Vulgate.  As the Latin version does not exactly match the Greek, it seems likely that it has been conformed to an Old Latin version.

 

It is worth noting that both Gp and Fp are written without heavy correction by the scribes.  This strongly implies that both were copying texts that lay before them, rather than editing their Latin sides to match the Greek.  In other words, there was probably (note the word probably; this is simply logic, and not assured) an ancestor before the scribe of Gp with an interlinear Latin, and an ancestor before the scribe of Fp with a parallel Latin, including the lacunae in the Greek.

 

Since the ancestor of Fp/Gp probably did not contain both an interlinear and a parallel Latin, there is presumably an intermediate Manuscript in one or the other case.  Continuing the logic, it appears more likely that Gp is copied directly from the common exemplar than that Fp is -- had the exemplar resembled Fp, it is likely that Gp’s interlinear Latin would more nearly resembled f.  Thus, the highest likelihood is not that Fp and Gp are sisters, but that they are no closer than aunt and niece, and it is possible that they are merely cousins of some degree.

 

The tendency to cite only Gp in the critical apparatus, ignoring Fp, is to be deplored; there may well be readings where Fp preserves the family text better than Gp, though it seems clear that Gp is overall the better and more complete witness.  The only significant scholars to disagree with this assessment seem to be the Alands, who -- in what can only be labelled an inexplicable classification -- list Fp as Category II, but Gp, and Codex Claromontanus (D) for that matter, as Category III.

 

The relationship with Codex Claromontanus (D) has also been a matter of discussion.  Stemma implys that Fp and Gp are descended from D, and others implying a common ancestor which was the parent of D.  This is quite absurd; there are simply too many major differences between the three (perhaps the best single example of this is the ending of Romans:  D includes 16:25-27 at the end of that book, but Fp and Gp omit it altogether).  No one will deny that these three Manuscripts form a text-type, but they are by no means immediate kin.

 

For the relationship between the “Western” text of Paul (the usual name given to the text of D, Fp, Gp, and the Latin versions) to the “Western” text of Codex Bezae, see the entry on that Manuscript and the entry on Codex Claromontanus.

 

Another symbol used for this Manuscript is from Von Soden, who labels It, a1029.  Other sources are:  F. H. A. Scrivener, An Exact Transcript of Codex Augiensis, and the Pauline portion of Das Neue Testament Auf Papyrus.  Because of its close similarity to Gp, most editions cite Fp only intermittently.  The primary exceptions are Tischendorf and NA26 and NA27.

 

 

O) THE MANUSCRIPT F (Phi, 043) (CODEX BERATINUS)

 

 

Located in Tirana, in Staatsarchiv, Listed under, Nr. 1.  It was formerly at Berat, hence, It got Its name, “Codex Beratinus,” Von Soden’s:  e17.

 

It is dated paleographically to 5th (Scrivener) or 6th (Aland) Century.  Scrivener reports that It “may probably be placed at the end of the fifth Century, a little before the Dioscorides (506 A.D.), and before the Codex Rossanensis.”  No supporting evidence is offered for this however.

 

It is a purple parchment.  It contains portions of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark (the loss of Luke and John may be traced to “the Franks of Champagne.”).  Lacking in the Manuscript are, Mat. 1:1-6:3; 7:26-8:7; 18:23-19:3, and Mark 14:62-end.

 

Textually, Von Soden classified F as Ip, that is, as part of the group which also contains N, O, & S.  This assessment has been all but universally accepted, though assessments of the text of the group itself have varied.  The Alands place all four Manuscripts of the Group (the Purple Uncials) in Category V, and it is certain that they are more Byzantine than anything else.

 

Streeter, however, felt that the Group had a “Caesarean” element (for discussion, see the entry on N), which accords with Von Soden’s view that they were members of the I text.  Samples do not indicate a clear affiliation with any text other than the Byzantine (it should be noted, however, that their defects have kept the profile method from being applied to any of these Manuscripts).

 

Of the four, F is generally regarded as being the most unique -- though this may be based primarily on a single reading, the “Western” addition in Matthew 20:28 about seeking what is greater (is shared by D, a, b, c, d, e, ff1, ff2, hub (Margine), ox, theo, cur, hark (Margine?).  Scrivener describes the writing as follows:  “The pages have the kefalaia marked at the top, and the sections and canons in writing of the eighth Century at the side.  The letters are in silver, very regular, and clearly written.  None are in gold, except the title and the first line in St. Mark, and the words Pathr, Ihsous, and some others in the first six folios.  There is no ornamentation, but the first letters of the paragraphs are twice as large as the other letters.  The letters have no decoration, except a cross in the middle of the initials O’s.  The writing is continuous in full line without stichometry.  Quotations from the Old Testament are marked with a kind of inverted comma.  There are no breathings. . .  Punctuation is made only with the single comma or double comma. . . or else with a vacant space, or by passing to the next line. . . Abbreviations are of the most ancient kind.”

 

It was edited by P. Batiffol in 1887 A.D.

 

 

P) THE MANUSCRIPT G (GAMMA, 036) (CODEX TISCHENDORFIANUS IV)

 

 

Located in Oxford, in the Bodleian Library, listed as, Auct. T. infr. 2.2; also located in Saint Petersburg, in the Russian National Library, listed under, Greek 33. Popularly known as, “Codex Tischendorfianus IV,” or Von Soden’s:  e70.

 

The date of this Manuscript is a mystery:  It gives a date by indiction, and also mentions that (in modern terms) November 27 was a Thursday.  Tischendorf calculated that the only date between 800 and 950 A.D. fits this description is 844 A.D.  But Gardthausen calculated that 979 A.D. also meets the conditions.  Paleographers tend to date the Manuscript to the 10th Century.

 

It is rather sloppily written, with lines ruled badly and irregularly.  A later corrector added additional accents and breathings to those supplied by the original scribe.  Scrivener calls these additions, “very careless,” and describes the later scribe as a “scrawler.”

 

G is a copy of the Gospels, with many lacunae in Matthew (lacking Mat. 5:31-6:16; 6:30-7:26; 8:27-9:6; 21:19-22:25) and one in Mark (lacking Mark 3:34-6:21); Luke and John are complete (there is some damage from dampness to the end of Luke, but this does not render the Manuscript illegible).

 

G was found by Tischendorf in “an eastern monastery” and divided into rather odd portions:  England has part of Matthew, all that survives of Mark, all of Luke, and a few leaves of John; Russia has the rest of Matthew and the larger portion of John.

Assessments of the text of G have varied a great deal.  Scrivener, without being able to examine it fully, remarked that, “Some of its peculiar readings are very notable, and few Uncials of its date deserve more careful study.”  Von Soden also saw some value in it, as he classified it as I’ (in other words, among the miscellaneous members of the I Group.  Most I’ members seem, in fact, to be mostly Byzantine).  But one has to suspect that this classification is actually based on only a single reading:  G is one of the several Manuscripts to exclude Matthew 16:2-3 (others which do so include the text are, Codex Sinaiticus, B, X, f13, 157, 579, and many of the early versions).

 

Recent assessments have been much less kind.  The Alands classify it as Category V (with only one non-Byzantine reading in 286 test passages, though it also has 12 readings which agree neither with the Byzantine nor the UBS text).  Wisse lists it as Kx in all his test chapters.  On the face of it, it would appear that G, rather than being an unusually distinguished Manuscript for its date, is in fact a perfectly typical Byzantine Manuscript with more than its share of singular errors, the work of a somewhat inept scribe.

 

 

Q) THE GA MANUSCRIPTS

 

 

GA 777:  From the 12th Century, this Manuscript contains the complete Tetraevangelion.  The Manuscript features 22 beautiful icons, many of which are from the life of Jesus.

 

GA 792:  From the 13th Century, this is a rare Manuscript in that its New Testament contents include only the Gospels and Revelation.  Also included are selected passages from the Old Greek.

 

GA 798:  From the 11th Century, this Manuscript of the Gospels contains Matthew and Mark.  CSNTM had previously digitized the other portion (containing Luke and John) housed at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF), so digital images are now available for the entire Manuscript.

 

GA 800:  From the 12th or 13th Century, this Manuscript of the Gospels has extensive commentary wrapping around the text on three sides, and some unique textual features.

 

GA 1411:  From the 10th or 11th Century, this Manuscript of the Gospels contains extensive commentary on John and Luke by Chrysostom and Titus of Bostra.

 

GA 1412:  From the 10th or 11th Century, this Manuscript of the Gospels interweaves the Biblical text with commentary by Chrysostom and Titus of Bostra, using a variety of different methods to distinguish the text from the commentary.

 

GA 1973:  From the 13th Century, this Manuscript of Paul’s letters contains commentary from Theophylact of Bulgaria.

 

GA Lect 440:  Paper lectionary dated to 1504, which was damaged and then repaired with other paper texts with script at some later point in its history.

 

GA Lect 1524:  Paper lectionary dated to 1522 A.D., a well-used Manuscript.

 

GA Lect 2007:  Paper lectionary from the 15th Century.

 

 

R) THE MANUSCRIPT Ge (CODEX WOLFII A or CODEX HARLEIANUS)

 

 

Located in London, in the British Museum, and labeled as, Harley 5684.  A single leaf, taken from the Codex by J. C. Wolff and given to Bentley, is in Cambridge, Trinity College, labeled, B.XVII.20.  It contains Mat. 5:29-31; 39-43).

 

Called, “Codex Wolfii A,” after the first important owner (though the Manuscript in fact originated in the east, and was brought to the west by Andrew Erasmus Seidel), or alternately “Codex Harleianus,” after its present location.

 

It contains the Gospels with lacunae; but lacks Mat. 1:1-6:6 (a small part of this, be it noted, being included on the Cambridge leaf), 7:25-8:9; 8:23-9:2; 28:18-Mark 1:13; 14:19-25; Luke 1:1-13; 5:4-7:3; 8:46-9:5; 12:27-41; 24:41-end; John 18:5-19; 19:4-27.  Portions of this damage were rectified by later hands:  One scribe supplied Mat. 28:18-Mark 1:8; and John 18:5-19, and another Luke 12:27-41.

 

Earlier editors, such as Scrivener, dated the Manuscript to the 10th Century, but the Alands have lowered this to the 9th Century.  Part of the problem may be the scribe’s coarse writing, small Uncials drawn with a pen much too large for the chosen size.  Scrivener gives a facsimile showing irregular accents and breathings and demonstrating the ugly writing style.

 

There is more agreement about the text; all would agree that it is Byzantine.  Von Soden classified it as Ki, and the Alands list it as Category V; Wisse describes it as Kx.  There are hints of something more, though; even the Alands’ figures show G as having a relatively high number of non-Byzantine, non-UBS readings (a total of 21, out of 288 readings tested; by way of comparison, E has 9 such “s” readings out of 326 readings examined, H has 7 in 265 test readings; M has 12 in 327; S has 12 in 327).

 

It may be simply that the Manuscript is carelessly written, but in working through the apparatus of SQE, there are many of the non-Byzantine readings and most seem to be “Caesarean.”  Great care, of course, must be taken in dealing with the “Caesarean” text, as its very existence is questionable and the text has never been properly defined -- but this pattern of readings may imply that the handful of non-Byzantine readings, few though they are, are not errors and may have some slight value.  However, that this is based solely on a subjective examination of the SQE critical apparatus; the matter needs to be examined in detail before this is taken as fact.

 

 

S) THE MANUSCRIPT Gp (CODEX BOERNERIANUS)

 

 

Located in Dresden, and listed as, Sachsiche Landesbibliothek A 145b.  Called, “Codex Boernerianus,” because it was formerly owned by C. F. Borner of Leipzig.

 

It is a Greek/Latin interlinear diglot, and lacking Romans 1:1-4; 2:17-24; 1Co. 3:8-16; 6:7-14; Col. 2:1-8; Phm. 21-25, and Hebrews.  These defects were clearly present in the exemplar as well, as all are shared by Fp, which was derived from the same exemplar.

 

It has been argued that Gp and the Gospel Manuscript D were originally part of the same volume; they are similarly written and both are interlinear diglots and the pages are exactly the same size.  We should note, though, that not all commentators are convinced by these arguments.

 

There is at least one counter-argument, though it is textual rather than physical or paleographic.  The text of D is Byzantine, with Alexandrian elements in Mark, while the text of Gp is purely and simply “Western.”  And while there are genuine physical similarities between the Manuscripts (probably because they both derive from Saint Gall), D appears rather finer and fancier (though this may simply be because the Gospels are usually given finer treatment).

 

Dated paleographically to the 9th Century by all authorities, the Manuscript is written without accents or breathings, but with spaces between words (sometimes misplaced), in a stiff, awkward hand.  The letterforms do not much resemble other Manuscripts of the period (save D; while the two may not be part of the same volume, they are almost certainly from the same school as they resemble each other even in small details of preparation).  The Latin interlinear is written above the Greek, with the Greek lettering fairly large and the Latin extremely small.  There is some slight decoration in color, though not nearly as much as in D.  A dot and an enlarged letter marks the beginning of the phrases.  It has been theorized (probably correctly) that the exemplar of Gp was written in some sort of sense lines, as the separate phrases and enlarged letters are almost evenly spaced.

 

A peculiar fact about the Manuscript is that it contains (on Folio 23) some verses in (archaic) Irish Gaelic referring to a pilgrimage to Rome.  The writing in these verses appears similar to that of the Latin; the original scribe may have been Irish (many Irish monks settled in Saint Gall).  But this point has not, as far as is known, been proved.

 

Another fact is that the scribe doesn’t seem to have been accustomed to the type of text he copied.  Gp (along with Fp and 629) omits Romans 16:25-27 -- but the scribe of Gp left room for the verses after 14:23.  There is no sign of this in Fp; the simplest explanation (though by no means sure) is that the scribe of Gp was more accustomed to a text containing those verses there.

 

In the entry on Fp, we can notice the similarities between Fp and Gp.  Not only are they both Greek/Latin diglots, but they have the same lacunae (with the exception of the first part of Romans, where Fp is defective).  The similarity is further confirmed by their texts.  Scrivener, who collated both, lists 1,982 differences -- but breaks them down as 578 blunders of the scribe, 967 vowel changes (including itacisms), 166 instances of interchanged consonants, and 71 grammatical or orthographic differences, 32 instances of addition or omission of the article, and 168 instances of clear variants.

 

Like Fp, the word division is sometimes peculiar, implying that the two were copied from an exemplar without word divisions.  The two do not use identical word divisions, however, meaning that they can hardly have been copied from one another.  That neither is a copy of the other is confirmed by much additional evidence.  The key fact, perhaps, is that the two are in completely different styles:  Fp has a facing Latin text, Gp an interlinear, but both are copied without major corrections by the scribes, implying that both Greek and Latin texts were present in their current forms in the exemplars.  Nor do the Latin versions match closely.

 

Of the two, Gp seems to be the more accurate overall (despite the much uglier writing).  One often finds Gp cited to the exclusion of Fp.  This is unfortunate, since both are needed to reconstruct the exemplar, but certainly Gp is the one to choose if only one is to be cited.

 

That Fp and Gp belong to the same text-type as Dp, and the Old Latin versions, need not be doubted.  This type is generally called “Western,” though no absolutely convincing proof has been offered that this is truly the same type as found in Codex Bezae in the Gospels.

 

The relationship between Dp, Fp, and Gp is somewhat involved.  While Fp and Gp are cousins or closer (see the discussion in the entry on Fp), Dp is much more distant -- not really kin at all, except at the text-type level.  Some manuals show Dp as an uncle, or even a direct ancestor, of Fp and Gp, but this is extremely unlikely -- there are too many differences; consider, for instance, their various forms of the ending of Romans.

 

Examination seems to show that Fp and Gp have more minor divergences from the common Alexandrian and Byzantine text than D (indeed, Fp and Gp may be the most idiosyncratic of all Manuscripts in this regard, adding, changing, and omitting articles, pronouns, and other secondary words almost at random).  They may actually have fewer large variants than D, (this position was first stated by Corssen in 1889; you can come to this conclusion independently).  Casual inspection also seems to imply that Fp and Gp fall slightly closer to P46 and B than does D.

 

The Latin side of Gp, known as g (Beuron 77), is less interesting than the Greek.  As an interlinear, it has been heavily conformed to the Greek, though there probably was an independent Latin version behind It (and used as a crib).  An interesting feature of g is that it sometimes has alternate rendering.  Metzger cites an example from First Corinthians 3:2; the Greek text reads, “gala umas epoteisa (NA26 gala umas epotisa).”  The alternate readings are for “umas,” where g reads, “vos vel vobis.”  It is at least possible that some of these alternate readings are places where the Latin reference edition used to compile g disagreed with the Greek text of Gp (particularly as there are instances where g does not match Gp at all).

 

Most classifications of Gp, of course, have closely followed the classification of Fp -- Von Soden, e.g., lists both as Ia1, in the same group as D (and, we must note, some unrelated Minuscules).  The one curiosity is the Alands, who place G in Category III, but Fp in Category II.  For a further discussion, see the entry on Fp.

 

Other symbols used for this Manuscript is made by Von Soden, as, a1028.  It was first published by Matthei, in an edition said to be highly accurate but, of course, now nearly inaccessible.  Scrivener published a detailed collation against Fp in, F. H. A. Scrivener’s, An Exact Transcript of Codex Augiensis.  One may check this against the Pauline portion of Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus.

 

Sample Plates would be, Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (1 plate); and Aland & Aland, The Text of the New Testament (1 plate).

 

 

T) THE MANUSCRIPT Ha (CODEX MUTINEUSIS)

 

 

Housed in Modena, in the Biblioteca Estense, listed as, G.196 (II.G.3), folios 9-51.  The remaining folios, which contain the Catholic and Pauline Epistles, are now designated 2125.

 

Labeled as, the “Codex Mutinensis.”  The Uncial portion contains Acts only, and is defective for Acts 1:1-5:28; 9:39-10:19; 13:36-14:3; 27:4-28:31.  The first three lacunae have been supplied in a minsucule hand (formerly designated h), the last by an Uncial hand.

 

Overall, the Manuscript is dated to the 9th Century, and Burgon thought the Minuscule supplements to be “scarcely later,” while the Uncial supplement containing Acts 27:4-28:31 has been dated to the 11th Century.  The additional material found in 2125 was dated to the 12th Century by Scrivener, but the Alands give a 10th Century date.

 

There is little to be said about the text, save that it is Byzantine.  The Alands list It as H, and as Category V, while Von Soden (who gave the Manuscript the symbol a6) lists It as K, with some I as having an influence.

 

 

U) THE MANUSCRIPT He (CODEX SEIDELIANUS II or WOLFII B)

 

 

Housed primarily at Hamburg, in the University Library, list as, Cod. 91 in scrin.  One folio (formerly in the possession of Bentley, who never returned it to its rightful owner) is in Cambridge, in the Trinity College Library, listed as, B.XVII.20.

 

Called “Codex Seidelianus II” (after the man who brought it from the east), or Wolfii B, after the first important owner.  It contains the Gospels with major lacunae; lacking Mat. 1:1-15:30; 25:33-26:3; Mark 1:32-2:4; 15:44-16:14; Luke 5:18-32; 6:8-22; 10:2-19; John 9:30-10:25; 18:2-18; 20:12-25.  It may never have been fully finished.  It contains the Ammonian sections but not the Eusebian canons.

 

It is dated by all authorities to the 9th Century.  The text is definitely Byzantine -- though Scrivener reports that some esteemed He as having somewhat greater value than Gp; meaning probably that it was a little less Byzanine.  This does not seem to be borne out by the evidence; the Alands, naturally, list He as Category V, but also show it with a very low number of non-Byzantine readings (only 9 readings in either Category 2 or Category S; Gp, by contrast, has 25).  This is Bourne out because He has very few non-Byzantine readings.

 

Wisse describes He as Kx.  Von Soden (who designated it as e88) listed it as Ki, a group which Wisse considers part of Kx.

 

 

V) THE MANUSCRIPT HP (CODEX COISLINIANUS)

 

 

This Manuscript has 41 folios distributed among eight numbers in seven libraries in six cities:  8 leaves at the Great Lavra, on Mount Athos; 3 leaves in Kiev (Nat.-Bibl., listed as Petrov 26); 3 leaves in St. Petersburg (Bibl., listed as, Greek 14); 3 leaves in Moscow (Hist. Mus. 563 and Ross. Gosud. Bibl., listed as, Greek 166,1); 22 leaves in Paris (Bibl. Nat. Suppl. Greek 1074 and Bibl. Nat., listed as, Coislin 202; the latter number also describing 94); 2 leaves at Turin (Bibl. Naz., listed as, A.1).  Collectively, It is known as “Codex Coislinianus.”

 

HP presumably originally contained the entire Pauline corpus.  At some point it was disassembled and the leaves used to bind other books (the Athos leaves were placed in the binding of a book dated in 1218 A.D. by a monk named Makarius).  The surviving leaves contain 1Co. 10:22-29; 11:9-16; 2Co. 4:2-7; 10:5-11:8; 11:12-12:4; Gal. 1:1-10; 2:9-17; 4:30-5:5; Col. 1:26-2:8; 2:20-3:11; 1Th. 2:9-13; 4:5-11; 1Ti. 1:7-2:13; 3:7-13; 6:9-13; 2Ti. 2:1-9; Tit. 1:1-3; 1:15-2:5; 3:13-15; Heb. 1:3-8; 2:11-16; 3:13-18; 4:12-15; 10:1-7; 10:32-38; 12:10-15; 13:24-25.

 

Dated paleographically to the 6th Century.  Hp is written on parchment in extremely large Uncials (over 1.5 cm in height), one column per page.  The text is written stichometrically.  A later hand added accents and breathings to the text although not to the subscriptions of the books.

 

Aland and Aland list Hp as Category III.  Von Soden classifies it among the Alexandrian witnesses.  From the stichometric arrangement of the lines, as well as the subscriptions to the various books (written in vermillion), Hp would appear to be based on the Euthalian edition of Paul -- probably the earliest example of this type.

 

A footnote to Titus claims that the text was corrected based on a Manuscript written by Pamphilius.  This is either an error or refers to the exemplar used for Hp; such corrections as we find in the text are almost always Byzantine.

 

Overall, the text of Hp does appear to be Alexandrian, but with much Byzantine mixture.  It is probably of more note for the history of the Euthalian text than the Biblical text as a whole.  Von Soden lists this Manuscript as, a1022.  For other commentators, see M. H. Omont, Notice sur un très ancien manuscrit grec en onciales des Epîtres de Paul, conservé à la Bibliothèque Nationale, 1889 (a partial edition, based on materials available at the time).

 

 

W) THE MANUSCRIPT I (CODEX FREERIANUS or CODEX WASHINGTONENSIS)

Note:  See Manuscript W (Listed Under LL).

 

 

Located in Washington D.C., in the Freer Gallery of Art, listed as 06.275.  Called “Codex Freerianus,” or “Codex Washingtonensis.”  It contains fragments of the Pauline Epistles (84 folios).  The extant fragments consists of (portions of) 1Co. 10:29; 11:9-10, 18-19, 26-27; 12:3-4, 27-28; 14:12-13, 22, 32-33; 15:3, 15, 27-28, 38-39, 59-50; 16:1-2, 12-13; 2Co. 1:1, 9, 16-17; 2:3-4, 14; 3:6-7, 16-17; 4:6-7, 16-17; 5:8-10, 17-18; 6:6-8, 16-18; 7:7-8, 13-14; 8:6-7, 14-17; 8:24-9:1; 9:7-8; 9:15-10:1; 10:8-10; 10:17-11:2; 11:9-10, 20-21, 28-29; 12:6-7, 14-15; 13:1-2, 10-11; Gal. 1:1-3, 11-13; 1:22-2:1; 2:8-9, 16-17; 3:6-8, 16-17, 24-28; 4:8-10, 20-23; Eph. 2:15-18; 3:6-8, 18-20; 4:9-11, 17-19, 28-30; 5:6-11, 20-24; 5:32-6:1; 6:10-12, 19-21; Php. 1:1-4, 11-13, 20-23; 2:1-3, 12-14, 25-27; 3:4-6, 14-17; 4:3-6, 13-15; Col. 1:1-4, 10-12, 20-22, 27-29; 2:7-9, 16-19; 3:5-8, 15-17; 3:25-4:2; 4:11-13; 1Th. 1:1-2, 9-10; 2:7-9, 14-16; 3:2-5, 11-13; 4:7-10; 4:16-5:1; 5:9-12, 23-27; 2Th. 1:1-3, 10-11; 2:5-8, 14-17; 3:8-10; 1Ti. 1:1-3, 10-13; 1:19-2:1; 2:9-13; 3:7-9; 4:1-3, 10-13; 5:5-9, 16-19; 6:1-2, 9-11, 17-19; 2Ti. 1:1-3, 10-12; 2:2-5, 14-16, 22-24; 3:6-8; 3:16-4:1; 4:8-10, 18-20; Tit. 1:1-3, 10-11; 2:4-6, 14-15, 3:8-9; Phm. 1-3, 14-16; Heb. 1:1-3, 9-12; 2:4-7, 12-14; 3:4-6, 14-16; 4:3-6, 12-14; 5:5-7; 6:1-3, 10-13; 6:20-7:2; 7:7-11, 18-20; 7:27-8:1; 8:7-9; 9:1-4, 9-11, 16-19, 25-27; 10:5-8, 16-18, 26-29, 35-38; 11:6-7, 12-15, 22-24, 31-33; 11:38-12:1; 12:7-9, 16-18, 25-27; 13:7-9, 16-18, 23-25.  These represent 84 leaves (many fragmentary) out of an original total of about 210; Hebrews followed Second Thessalonians.

 

The Manuscript is generally dated to the 5th Century, though a few have suggested the 6th Century instead.  There is little doubt about the text; it is clearly Alexandrian.  Von Soden (who designated it as a1041) lists it as type H, while the Alands place it in Category II, ascribing It to the Egyptian text.  Their own numbers, however, make this dubious; of the 34 readings of I, only one is purely Byzantine, while 22 agree with UBS against the Byzantine text; six agree with neither.

 

While this is too small a sample to allow for absolute certainty, on its face it implies that I is not Category II but Category I, and Alexandrian, not a member of the later Egyptian text.  By the numbers, I is the most Alexandrian Manuscript of Paul.  It would appear that I is the closest relative of Codex Sinaiticus in existence (and much closer to A, C, & 33, than it is to P46 or B or 1739.  Its fragmentary nature limits its usefulness, but where it exists, I deserves to be treated with all the respect accorded to Codex Sinaiticus or A.

 

 

X) THE MANUSCRIPT Kap

 

 

Located in Moscow, in the Historical Museum, listed as, V.93, S.97.  Originally from Mount Athos.

 

Kap contains the Catholic Epistles complete, and Paul almost complete (lacking Romans 10:18-First Corinthians 6:13; First Corinthians 8:8-11).  It includes a marginal commentary.

 

Dated paleographically to the 9th Century.  Kap is written on parchment, two columns per page.

 

Von Soden classifies Kap as I1 in Paul and Apr1 in the Catholics.  This is based, however, on the commentary (being that of John of Damascus in Paul and, according to Von Soden, that of Andreas in the Catholics).  The text is correctly described by Aland and Aland as Category V (i.e., purely Byzantine).

 

Within the Byzantine tradition, Kap forms a pair with 0151.  The two may be sisters; certainly they are very closely related.  Taking the book of Galatians as an example, we find 279 variants which can count at least two Papyri, or Uncials on each side.  Kap and 0151 agree on 263 of these.  In addition, Kap has seven singular readings and 0151 has ten.  Of these 263 agreements, seven are found only in these two Manuscripts (a very high rate of sub-singular agreement for Byzantine Manuscripts).

 

Thus, every difference between the two is trivial, usually revolving around vowel sounds.  If you were to list it out, there is not one instance of a reading that is clearly of genetic significance.  In all likelihood, these two commentary Manuscripts descend from a common ancestor at a distance of no more than a handful of generations.  It is unlikely, however, that one is copied from the other, since both have singular readings.

 

Other symbols used for this Manuscript are, Von Soden:  I1 (Paul); Apr1 (Cath); Matthei’s:  g; Scholz’s:  102a, 117p.

 

Sample Plates:  Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (1 page).  Cited in all editions since Tischendorf (though Nestle cites it only silently).

 

 

Y) THE MANUSCRIPT Ke

 

 

Located in Paris, in the Bibliothèque Nationale, listed as, Greek 63.  It was taken to Paris from Cyprus in 1673 A.D.  Remarkably, It contains the complete Gospels.

 

Dated paleographically to the 9th Century.  K is written on parchment, one column per page.  The scribe was named Basil, and the Manuscript was bound by one Theodulos.  Scrivener says of the writing, “[It has] one column of about twenty-one lines per page, but the handwriting is irregular and varies much in size.

 

A single point being often found where sense does not require it, this Codex has been thought to have been copied from an older one arranged in sticoi. . .  The subscriptions, titloi, the sections, and indices of the kefalia of the last three Gospels are believed to be the work of a later hand:  the Eusebian canons are absent.  The breathings and accents are prima manu, but are often omitted or incorrectly placed.  Itacisms and permutations of consonants are very frequent. . .”

 

Ke is recognized from a very early date as Byzantine (so, e.g., Aland and Aland, who list it as Category V).  Von Soden classified it as Ika, i.e., Family P.  This has been confirmed by all who have investigated the matter, most recently by Wisse (who places Ke in the Pa group in all three tested Chapters of Luke, and calls it a core member of the group).

 

Wisse distinguishes two groups within Family P -- Pa and Pb.  Of these, Pa is more distinct and has more differences from the Byzantine bulk Kx.  Among the more important members of this group are Ke Itself, P, 1079, and 1546.  A (which is, of course, the earliest substantial Byzantine witness) is a diverging member of this group.  The case can thus be made that Ke belongs to the oldest family of the Byzantine text -- and it is the oldest complete witness to this text.

 

Other symbols used for this Manuscript is from Von Soden, who lists It as, e71.  It has been “Cited” by Tischendorf (who also collated it), Von Soden, Merk, and Bover.  It is “Cited” as a secondary witness in NA26 and NA27, but not in SQE13, UBS3, but not UBS4.

 

Other Works:  All of the following pertain to Family P, and so include information on Ke as well (although the works of Geerlings are sometimes guilty of dubious methodology); Jacob Geerlings, Family P in John, Studies & Documents 23, 1963; Jacob Geerlings, Family P in Luke, Studies & Documents 22, 1962; Jacob Geerlings, Family P in Matthew, Studies & Documents 24, 1964; Silva Lake, Family P and the Codex Alexandrinus:  The Text According to Mark, Studies & Documents 5, 1937.

 

 

Z) THE MANUSCRIPT Lap (CODEX ANGELICUS)

 

 

Located in Rome, in the Biblioteca Angelica, listed as, 39.  Called “Codex Angelicus” after the library.  Von Soden’s calls It, a5.

 

It contains the Acts, Paul, and the Catholics.  Acts lacks 1:1-8:10; the Catholics are complete; Paul lacks Hebrews 13:10-end.  Scrivener says that it is “of a date not earlier than the middle of the 9th Century,” though most modern catalogs date it to the 9th Century.

 

Textually, about the only thing it appears noteworthy for is its complete lack of noteworthiness.  The Alands assign it to Category V (Byzantine).  It appears to be among the most Byzantine of Manuscripts.  Von Soden also classified it as K (Byzantine), though with a few I readings.  If the Manuscript has any real significance, it is simply because It is among the very earliest purely Byzantine Manuscripts of the books it contains.

 

 

AA) MANUSCRIPT L (LAMBDA, 039) (CODEX TISCHENDORFIANUS III)

 

 

Located in Oxford, in the Bodleian Library, listed under, Auct. T. infr. 1.1.  Called, “Codex Tischendorfianus III.”  Von Soden’s:  e77.

 

Dated paleographically to the 9th Century (although Scrivener allows the bare possibility of the 8th Century).  It is a curious Manuscript, containing only Luke and John in Uncials.  The Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written in Minuscules; this half of the Manuscript is numbered 566 (Von Soden’s:  e77) and located in Saint Petersburg.

 

It has the Eusebian apparatus and a few comments in the margins.  It is also noteworthy for having the “Jerusalem Colophon” after all four Gospels.  Textually, Von Soden listed It as Ir.  Other members of this group include 262 (which also has the colophon), 545 (part), 1187, 1555, 1573.  Wisse lists it as a member of his Group L (though with some “surplus”); this is his equivalent of Soden’s Ir.

 

Other members of the group, according to Wisse, include:  161, 164, 166, 173 (part), 174, 199, 211, 230, 262, 709, 710 (part), 899, 1187, 1205, 1301 (part), 1502 (part), 1555, 1573 (part), 2465, 2585 (part), 2586, 2725 (part).  Wisse notes that the group is fairly close to Kx, falling between Group 1216 and Kx.  This is confirmed by the Alands, who place it in Category V (Byzantine).

 

 

BB) MANUSCRIPT Le (CODEX REGIUS)

 

 

Located in Paris, in the National Library, listed as Greek 62, and known as, “Codex Regius.”

 

It contains the four Gospels with small lacunae.  It now lacks (due to difficulty of reading its faded parchment) Mat. 4:22-5:14; 28:17-end, Mark 10:16-30; 15:2-20; John 21:15-end.  Portions of the remainder have been rendered difficult to read by damp.

 

Dated paleographically to the 8th Century; It is, by general consent, the most important Manuscript of that period.

 

The Manuscript is written in a fairly firm, if clearly late, hand, but the scribe was not especially competent.  Errors in the text are common; errors in externals perhaps even more common.  Scrivener notes that, “The breathings and accents are often deficient, often added wrongly, and placed throughout without rule or propriety.  The apostrophus is common, and frequently out of place; the points for stops are quite irregular. . . “

 

The Manuscript contains many ornamentations, but they are not regarded as attractive (Scrivener calls them “in questionable taste”).  In addition, the lectionary apparatus and Eusebian material is included, but the number of errors in the latter may indicate that the scribe did not understand their purpose.  There are also occasional marginal comments on the text (some even stand in the text, such as that on the variant endings of Mark).

 

It seems likely that the scribe was an Egyptian, more used to writing Coptic than Greek.  When Hort [beware of this guy] defined his text-types, he described an “Alexandrian” text which was basically the “neutral” text with some grammatical corrections.  Hort could not point to a single pure witness [there you go again Hort], but the closest he came was Le.

 

“Le” is fascinating because, among all the late Uncials, it is far and away the least Byzantine.  If having an Alexandrian text is taken as a measure of quality, Le is probably the fourth-best substantial Manuscript of the Gospels, trailing only P75, B, and Codex Sinaiticus.

 

Le is not without a Byzantine element; the first half of Matthew agrees almost entirely with the Majority Text.  But this element fades toward the end of Matthew, and the rest is quite different.  The logical conclusion is that the ancestor of L was corrected toward the Byzantine standard, but that the corrector gave up somewhere in Matthew.  This is not unusual; we see something similar in Manuscripts such as 579 and 1241.  From that point on, Le has mostly Alexandrian readings, although there are some readings of other sorts.  Some are Byzantine; others seem to be simply the sorts of readings that crept into the tradition with time.  Hort would call these readings Alexandrian, and the Alands have labelled this late phase of the Alexandrian text “Egyptian,” but there is no real reason to think that this is in any sense a separate text-type.  It’s simply a text-type which has undergone continuous mixture and corruption.

 

Le may fairly be called a “Late Alexandrian Manuscript,” but to call it a member of a “Late Alexandrian” or “Egyptian” text-type goes far beyond the available evidence.  As between B and Codex Sinaiticus, L is clearly closer to the former; Le is obviously descended from a Manuscript in the P75/B phase of the Alexandrian text.

 

The exact point at which Le shifts from primarily Byzantine to primarily Alexandrian has been disputed.  Some have said that all of Matthew is Byzantine; this is clearly false.  Data puts the change around Chapter 20, but that was based on checking blocks of readings; it wasn’t designed to find an exact point of change.  The most detailed examination is probably Vincent Broman’s; he compared Le’s text to the Byzantine and Alexandrian types (using Pierpont/Robinson as the standard for the former and the UBS text as a standard for the latter, while admitting the inadequacy of the latter).  It is his belief that the change comes at Matthew 17:26, and is abrupt:  He finds 14 straight Byzantine readings before the break, and eight straight Alexandrian readings after.

 

The single most significant reading in Le is certainly the ending of Mark.  Le is the first important Greek Manuscript to include both the longer ending (Mark 16:9-20) and the so-called “shorter ending.”  Both, of course, clearly predate Le (the shorter ending is found in k, some Coptic Manuscripts, and the margin of the Harklean Syriac, as well as in the Uncial fragments 083 and 099; the longer ending is obviously ancient), but Le is the earliest Greek Manuscript whose text-type we can exactly fix.  The existence of alternate endings in this Manuscript clearly indicates that the reading is not an original part of the Alexandrian text -- in other words, its omission in B and Codex Sinaiticus is not casual.

 

Le has many other readings which indicate its non-Byzantine nature.  It omits, for instance, Mark 7:16; Luke 11:2b, c; John 5:3b (although it includes 5:4), 7:53-8:11.  These facts all combine to confirm the various classifications of the Manuscript:  Von Soden listed it as H (and listing it as the seventh H witness, implying that he regarded it as one of the better Manuscripts of the type); Wisse lists it as a core member of Group B; the Alands list it as Category II (meaning, in effect, Alexandrian with some Byzantine mixture).

 

Another symbol used for this Manuscript is by Von Soden:  e56.  It was published by Tischendorf in, Monumenta sacra inedita, in 1846 A.D.  There is a strong need for a modern edition using all the current tools of scholarship.

 

Sample Plates:  Aland & Aland, The Text of the New Testament (1 plate).  It was first cited, imperfectly, by Stephanus (as h), and cited in nearly every edition since.

 

 

CC) MANUSCRIPT Me (CODEX CAMPIANUS)

 

 

Located in Paris, in the National Library, listed as, Greek 48.  Called “Codex Campianus” after Abbe François de Camps, who gave it to Louis XIV in 1707 A.D.

 

It contains the Gospels complete.  Dated paleographically to the 9th Century by all authorities.  Both the Manuscript and the writing are small and neat (though the writing would have been more legible had a finer pen been used).  The margins, however, are crowded, with lectionary, notes, Eusebian materials, and more.

 

It is interesting to note the number of languages used in the margins; we observe Greek, Arabic, and Slavonic comments.  The text, in addition to accents and breathings, has neumes for singing.  The text of Me is Byzantine but in an interesting turn, It is definitely not part of Kx.  The Alands classify it (correctly, by their standards) as Category V, but the situation is more complicated than that.  It was Von Soden who first tried to classify Me (though earlier scholars, such as Scrivener, thought Its text interesting and valuable).

 

Von Soden categorized Me as part of his Ifr group; other members of this group include, but are not limited to, 27, 71, 692, & 1194 (several of these only in certain books; these are the witnesses Von Soden cited regularly)  In addition, Von Soden recognized subgroups within this type but did not really distinguish them in his apparatus.  The If groups as a whole are an interesting lot; Ifa is what Streeter calls Family 1424; Ifb has never received much attention; Ifc includes such noteworthy Manuscripts as 945 and 1010.

 

This classification has, however, been heavily modified by Wisse.  Wisse concedes the existence of a Byzantine sub-type including Me and related Manuscripts, but completely redoes the grouping.  Although calling them the “M groups,” Me Itself is listed as a diverging member of Group M27; the other M groups include M10, M106, M350, M609, and M1386, along with a variety of clusters and pairs.  Wisse believes the M Groups have kinship with the P Groups.

 

 

DD) MANUSCRIPT N (CODEX PURPUREUS)

 

 

Called, “Codex Purpureus,” It is located in various libraries:  Saint Petersburg, in the Russian National Library, listed as, Greek 537 (182 folios); in Patmos, listed as Ioannou 67 (33 folios); in London, in the British Library, listed as, Cotton Titus C. XV (4 folios); in Vienna, in the National Library, listed as, Greek 31 (2 folios); in Athens, in the Byz. Museum, listed as, Frg. 21 (1 folio); in Lerma (within the Spinola Collection) (1 folio); in Rome, in the Bibl. Vat., listed as, Greek 2305 (6 folios); in New York, in the Pierpont Morgan Lib., listed as, 874 (1 folio); in Salonika, in the Byz. Museum, listed as, Ms. 1 (1 folio); for a tTotal of 231 folios, representing roughly half of the original Manuscript.

 

It contains the Gospels with very many lacunae:  Mat. 1:1-24; 2:7-20; 3:4-6:24; 7:15-8:1; 8:24-31; 10:28-11:3; 12:40-13:4; 13:33-41; 14:6-22; 15:14-31; 16:7-18:5; 18:26-19:6; 19:13-20:6; 21:19-26:57; 26:65-27:26; 28:34-end; Mark 1:1-5:20; 7:4-20; 8:32-9:1; 10:43-11:7; 12:19-25; 15:23-33; 15:42-16:20; Luke 1:1-2:23; 4:3-19, 26-35; 4:42-5:12; 5:33-9:7; 9:21-28, 36-58; 10:4-12; 10:35-11:14; 11:23-12:12; 12:21-29; 18:32-19:17; 20:30-21:22; 22:49-57; 23:41-24:13; 24:21-39; 24:49-end; John 1:1-21; 1:39-2:6; 3:30-4:5; 5:3-10, 19-26; 6:49-57; 9:33-14:2; 14:11-15:14; 15:22-16:15; 20:23-25; 20:28-30; 21:20-end.

 

 It has been thought that it was originally broken up by Crusaders (so Metzger; Scrivener says this of F); certainly, its career was exciting (Gregory reports how the Saint Petersburg portion, when it was still in Asia Minor, was stolen -- and recovered by a crowd of angry villagers).

 

Dated paleographically to the 6th Century, N is written on purple parchment in (now badly faded) silver ink, with certain of the “nomina sacra” in gold.  The letters are very large, and are very regular in form; they seem to have been stamped on the page (though there are multiple stamps for the letters, and they are not uniform in size).  There are two columns per page, with the columns containing only a dozen or so letters due to the large size of the print.

 

Scrivener/Miller say of the Manuscript, “[T]he punctuation [is] quite as simple [as in A of the 5th Century], being a single point (and that usually neglected) level with the top of the letter. . . and there is no space between words even after stops. . . It exhibits strong Alexandrian forms. . . and not a few such itacisms as the change of I, and ei, ai, and e.”

 

There is general agreement that N forms a group with the other sixth Century purple Uncials (O, S, F).  Cronin believed that N, O, & S, are in fact sisters, copied from a single exemplar (F he believes to have some “Western” mixture).  There is less agreement about the nature of this group.  Von Soden classifies it as Ip, but this really begs the question as it is simply another of those mixed I-K Groups, and has no witnesses except the purple Uncials.

 

Streeter laid claim to the group as a weak witness to the “Caesarean” text -- but of course Streeter insisted that everything not otherwise classified was “Caesarean.”  In any case, studies of the group have been hindered by the fact that O contains only Matthew, while S & F contain only Matthew and Mark.  Thus, only N represents the type in Luke and John, and passages where all four purple Uncials exist are relatively few.

 

In recent times, Aland and Aland have described N as Category V (Byzantine).  Wisse reports that it is mixed in Luke 20; there is, of course, no text of Chapter 1, and very little of Chapter 10.

All of these claims are slightly imprecise.  N is much more Byzantine than anything else (about 80% of its readings seem to belong to that type), but by no means purely.  It omits John 7:53-8:11, for instance, as well as Luke 22:43-44.  There seems to be no pattern to the non-Byzantine readings, though, certainly they are not “Caesarean” (N agrees with the Koridethi Codex in only 31 of 44 non-Byzantine readings tested, with Family 1 in 26 of 34, and with Family 13 in 23 of 36.  By contrast, It agrees with A in 20 of 24, with K in 16 of 21, and with Y in 29 of 32).  The simplest conclusion is that N is mostly Byzantine with occasional surviving readings of all types.

 

Another symbol used for this Manuscript is by Von Soden:  e19.  Since N came to light in so many pieces, there is no complete collation.  H. S. Cronin published the text as it was known in 1899 A.D., in Texts and Studies, volume 4.  A few additional leaves have been published in the Journal of Biblical Literature by Stanley Rypins (lxxv, 1956).

 

It is Cited in NA26 and NA27 for the Gospels, and by Von Soden, Merk, and Bover for the Gospels.  Other works include Cronin, who discusses the relationship between the purple Uncials.  B. H. Streeter, in his, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, 1924, discusses on pp. 575-577 his perceived relationship between the purple Uncials and the “Caesarean” text.  This discussion shows at once the strengths and weaknesses of Streeter’s method; since he equates the Textus Receptus entirely with the Byzantine text, and almost any Manuscript -- even one purely Byzantine -- will show “Caesarean” readings by this method.