Thursday, October 21, 2021

Rodenbiker on the Canon List in Claromontanus


Kelsie Rodenbiker has a helpful article clarifying some issues about the odd canon list in Codex Claromontanus (the so-called Catalogus Claromontanus). The pre-pub was uploaded back in March and is available here but it looks like the JSNT version isn’t out yet.

For context, here is the NT list of books with stichometry (copied from here).

Evangelia .IIII.Four Gospels:
Mattheum ver.ĪĪDCMatthew2600
Iohannes ver.ĪĪJohn2000
Marcus ver.ĪDCMark1600
Lucam ver.ĪĪDCCCCLuke2900
Epistulas PauliEpistles of Paul:
ad Romanos ver.ĪXLTo Romans1040
ad Chorintios .I. ver.ĪLXTo Corinthians 11060
ad Chorintios .II. ver.LXXTo Corinthians 270
ad Galatas ver.CCCLTo Galatians350
ad Efesios ver.CCCLXVTo Ephesians365
ad Timotheum .I. ver.CCVIIITo Timothy 1209
ad Timotheum .II. ver.CCLXXXVIIIITo Timothy 2289
ad Titum ver.CXLTo Titus140
ad Colosenses ver.CCLITo Colossians251
ad Filimonem ver.LTo Philemon50
—ad Petrum primaCC—To Peter 1200
ad Petrum .II. ver.CXLTo Peter 2140
Jacobi ver.CCXXOf James220
Pr. Iohanni Epist.CCXXOf John220
Iohanni Epistula .II.XXOf John 220
Iohanni Epistula .III.XXOf John 320
Iudae Epistula ver.LXOf Jude60
—Barnabae Epist. ver.DCCCL—Of Barnabas850
Iohannis RevelatioĪCCRevelation of John1200
Actus ApostolorumĪĪDCActs of the Apostles2600
—Pastoris versiĪĪĪĪ—Shepherd4000
—Actus Pauli ver.ĪĪĪDLX—Acts of Paul3560
—Revelatio PetriCCLXX—Revelation of Peter270

And here are images from the BnF.

She clarifies a few things that seem to have been missed or forgotten thanks, in part, to Tischendorf’s original transcription. In particular, she argues that (1) the lines (obeli?) before the four NT books (there is also one before Judith too that is often missed) are probably later than the original hand; (2) the line before 1 Peter is not a paragraphos (contra Metzger) but marks the odd title to 1 Peter which she (rightly in my view) accounts for as a scribe’s mistake due to the repetition of ad in the Pauline letters just before; (3) following Metzger, the omission of Philippians, 1–2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews is best explained by homoioteleuton from Ephesians (εφεσιους) to Hebrews (εβραιους) if the list was originally in Greek.

From this she concludes that we shouldn’t see the original list as equivalent to our current NT. Instead, it’s a witness to “the continuing elasticity of the New Testament canon” in the 6th century. Of course, we don’t know how much later the lines (obeli?) are from the original scribe and the fact that the NT list doesn’t match the very books in Claromontanus raises questions for me about the purpose (and weight) of the list in its current form. 

In any case, Rodenbiker’s main contribution is to remind us of the line at Judith, to argue that the lines are later, and to offer a better explanation for the line at 1 Peter. On all three points, I think she’s right.

Update: Meade reminds me that he covered some of this ground in his Myths and Mistakes chapter.

Wednesday, October 13, 2021

Codex Ravianus and 5 lost manuscripts, now found


after Unknown artist,
line engraving, 1645
NPG D29240
© National Portrait Gallery, CC
In addition to the manuscripts I described here, a lot of (especially older or KJV-preferred) works will refer to another manuscript with the Comma Johanneum: one Codex Ravianus (named for it's former owner, Christian Ravis). E.F. Hills is honest enough to qualify his mention of Codex Ravianus: "The Johannine comma is also found in Codex Ravianus, in the margin of 88, and in 629. The evidence of these three manuscripts, however, is not regarded as very weighty, since the first two are thought to have taken this disputed reading from early printed Greek texts and the latter (like 61) from the Vulgate" (The King James Version Defended [1973 ed.]), pp. 204–205).

Still, it's worth looking into. Given how little Greek manuscript support there is for the Comma Johanneum, we might as well try to track down what we can.

A quick Google of Codex Ravianus reveals that it was once numbered 110 by Wettstein (not to be confused with GA 110), but it was later excluded from the list of Greek NT manuscripts because it is considered to be a copy of the Complutensian Polyglot. A part of me wants to poke at that a bit more, but on this, Tregelles writes:

The Codex Ravianus at Berlin certainly contains this passage; but the MS. itself is nothing whatever but a modern transcript taken almost entirely from the Complutensian Polyglott with a few readings introduced from the text of Erasmus. The very handwriting is an imitation of the Complutensian Greek types. The real character of this MS., which some in the last century were so incautious as to quote as though it possessed authority, was very fully shown by Griesbach and Pappelbaum. This MS. is now preserved at Berlin simply as a literary forgery, and not as the precious monument of the sacred text which it was once described as being. It is uncertain who formed this MS., and whether Rav[is] himself took a part in the fraud, or whether he was himself the dupe of others. A learned man who had not made MSS. his study might be thus misled. 
(Horne, Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures [10th ed.], vol. 4: Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament; "the critical part re-written and the remainder revised and edited" by Tregelles, p. 218)

That last sentence is relevant for more than just Codex Ravianus; let the reader understand. Still, Codex Ravianus doesn't turn up easily in a quick search. What can we know about it?

As Wikipedia can be a decent place to start (if never a good place to finish), I checked the Wikipedia page for Codex Ravianus.  According to it, the manuscript is (was!) in Berlin (Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Gr. fol. 1, 2). It is a 2-volume manuscript.

Tuesday, October 12, 2021

The New CSB Note at 2 Peter 3.10


Last night in class, the students and I were talking about how changes in the NA28 might affect English translations. So I pulled up 2 Peter 3.10 in the CSB as an example. I wrote about this note before and criticized it for being misleading. Lo and behold, the CSB has updated the note with what appears to be perhaps the first Bible footnote taken from an ETC blog post! I can’t be sure, of course, but the evidence looks compelling.

The old note at 2 Peter 3.10 said “Or will not be found” which read as if it was saying “some Greek mss read...” which is, of course, not the case. Now it says “Some Syriac and Coptic mss read will not be found.” That’s much better.

Here’s my ETC post.

And here’s the new CSB note.

Curiously, this change is not noted in the official list of changes in the CSB 2020 revision. But it certainly is a change from what I found in 2017.

Saturday, October 09, 2021

PhDs and Post-Docs in Textual Criticism at Leuven


 From an email: 

KU Leuven, Belgium, offers 2 full-time post-doctoral (2 years) and 3 PhD positions (4 years) for suitably qualified candidates to form part of the research team of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) funded Odysseus project “1Cor – Text, Transmission and Translation of 1 Corinthians in the First Millennium”. The project’s main goal is to produce full scholarly editions and textual analyses of 1 Corinthians with a multilingual perspective.

The successful post-doctoral candidates will work on the Greek and Coptic transmission of the text respectively. The doctoral studies will focus on citations of 1 Corinthians in Early Christian writers, the text in liturgical manuscripts, the textual developments in the Latin tradition or other versional evidence.

Further information about each position and application details can be obtained through the following links. The deadline for applications is 25th November 2021, the project will start on 1st March 2022.


Postdoctoral Position (Coptic):

Postdoctoral Position (Greek):

3 PhD Positions:


Please feel free to circulate this information more widely and to alert colleagues and students who you think may be interested and suited.

Informal enquiries may be addressed to

Friday, September 24, 2021

Hebrew Scribes at the End of the Line

Composing a text by hand demands an awareness of certain details that we can ignore when using a word processor. One of these details is if the next written word corresponds to the available space. At times, the space didn’t for Hebrew scribes, and when this happened, they had several ways to navigate this situation. Let’s review some of these. For more information on these practices, see Tov’s discussion in chapters 4 and 5 of his book Scribal Practices. This list depends on and derives in part from his helpful discussions.

First, scribes could utilize the margin to finish the word. This practice is not uncommon. Here is a portion of column 2 of 1QIsaa illustrating this practice.

Second, a scribe could fill in the remaining line with space fillers. The scribe of 1QIsaa resorts to using dots in 1QIsaa Col 3:6.


Third, a scribe at times began a word at the end of a line but didn’t finish it. Instead, the word was written in full at the beginning of the next line. Here is an example from 1QIsaa Col 2:11.


Fourth, it is possible that the scribe of 1QIsaa began a word and simply failed to finish it. See 1QIsaa Col 6:3.


Fifth, a scribe might begin a word at the end of the line and complete it on the next line. Tov states that this was a practice of scrolls written in paleo-Hebrew. 11Q1 Col 3:5, 6, 7 are examples of this.


Sixth, a scribe might resort to a smaller “font-size” to fit the word in the available space. See 1QIsaa Col 16:30 (the first line in the photo below).

Seventh, a scribe might write part of the word above the line. Here are some examples from 4QPsx.


Eighth, a scribe might cram words together leaving little space between the words. This tendency is common in 4QPsx and here in 1QIsaa Col 16:24.

Ninth, a scribe might leave bigger spaces between letters as here in 4QDeuth 1:5–7. Tov labels this device “proportional” spacing. 


These pictures were taken from photos found at the Leon Levy DSS Digital Library and the DSS Digital Project.

Monday, September 20, 2021

More NT Textual Criticism Guest Lecture Videos


I’m teaching NTTC again at the seminary and that means having guest lecturers visit to share their work. The first two videos are now up at the TCI YouTube channel. If you subscribe there, you’ll get new videos when they’re posted. Thanks to Mike and Edgar for letting me share these.

Ebojo on P46 and the Pastoral Epistles


Holmes on Editing and Translating the NT for Church and Academy

Thursday, September 16, 2021

Richard Porson’s Famous Handwriting

Although he published little, the Cambridge classicist Richard Porson (1759–1808) is best known for his insight into Greek meter, accentuation, and orthography. He was apparently skeptical of Granville Sharp’s rule about the use of the Greek article that has been so important to New Testament studies. he was even suspected by some of having written a tract against it under the pseudonym “Gregory Blunt” (pun intended). More popularly, he was known for “an astonishing memory, a turn for satire and badinage, beautiful penmanship, personal slovenliness, and alcoholism” (Naiditch, xxi). But Porson denied having written it and his biographer agrees (Watson, 267270). His greatest legacy, as far as I am concerned, is his Greek handwriting that was turned into what I consider the best Greek typeface ever designed in Britain. 

The original characters were cut by Richard Austin and cast by Caslon and Catherwood. Austin was paid 22 pounds and 7 shillings. It was first used in 1809 in E. D. Clarke’s Greek Marbles brought from the shores of the Euxine. Its simplicity and lack of ligatures made it easy to read so that it was quickly copied and by the mid 19th century it was “almost universal in Britain” (Bowman, 2). You can see it in all sorts of books from Metzger’s Lexical Aids to Westcott and Hort’s GNT to Loeb Classical Library. One reviewer at the time compared the new type to the “disgustingly luxuriant” types of Bodoni and said that, in contrast, “the eye of the scholar now peruses, with a satisfaction bordering on delight, the porsonic type” (Bowman, 2). 

Porson’s Book Notes from c. 1800 (source)

Porson’s handwriting

The original type specimen from Cambridge University Press (from Bowman)

It was also used for the early editions of the UBS Greek New Testament but this changed—to Metzger’s chagrin. He says that he was not happy about the change to the “less attractive and harder to read [type] than the beautiful Porson font of Greek type that I had recommended for the earlier editions” (Reminiscences, 73). Kurt Aland admits as much in the intro to the NA26 (p. 43*) when he says “the font used [for NA26] is certainly lacking in the simplicity and clarity of that used for The Greek New Testament.” Given its ties to Cambridge, I tried to get the THGNT editors to use it but they went with Adobe Text instead (not a bad choice).

Westcott and Hort’s GNT (1881)

You can download a digital version of Porson from the Greek Font Society.

Further reading

Wednesday, September 15, 2021

GA 048 and the Text of Ephesians 5:22


Some years ago, I wrote a blog post on the text of Ephesians 5:22. There I suggested that the neglected longer reading (ὑποτασσέσθωσαν) seemed to me to be the more difficult reading while noting a simple transcriptional explanation for the shorter reading.

Since then, I have fleshed out my argument in much more detail and the result is a new article in NTS. (For those without access, here’s the pre-pub version.) If my textual argument is sound, the upshot is a resolution to the longstanding debate about where Paul starts his instructions to the household. Beginning with the RSV, English translations started to reflect the uncertainty by putting paragraph breaks before 5.21 or before both 5.21 and 5.22 (NEB, NIV1984, NRSV, NCV, etc.) while some still put one only before 5.22 (NKJV, NASB, ESV, NET). Commentators, of course, also disagree and the issue has become a lighting rod for debates about Paul and gender.

As part of my work on this variant, I revisited the text of 048 (Vat. Gr. 2061). 048 is a palimpsest with a fifth-century undertext from Acts and Paul. Given its early date, it’s quite important and is consistently cited in NA28. However, it is not cited at Eph 5.22. My guess is that this is because the last major collation of 048, done by Dale Heath in 1965 from photographic plates, says the text is illegible at this point. Well, I gave it a crack using the images at the VMR and some Photoshop adjustments and I’m pretty sure that this fifth-century witness has ὑποτασσέσθωσαν. Not surprisingly, it also has a new paragraph at 5.22 too. 

You can see my attempt to reconstruct the text and judge how I did. Red letters are ones I’m pretty confident about and blue are ones where I really can’t be sure about.

Because I didn’t have color images or MSI, I included 048 with “vid” in my article. So, here is my formal appeal for the Vatican to digitize this early manuscript using MSI and for someone to write a fresh dissertation on it. Even without new photos, I think there’s quite a bit more text to be deciphered than what Heath was able to if someone is willing to work at it.


Christian spotted that the Vatican now has color photos that weren’t there when I worked on this last. They seem to use UV light. Posted below is a close shot of the color image with some heightened contrast. I only had a little time to spare today. Anon also alerted me to the IGNTP transcriptions that I didn’t know about. They disagree with my reconstruction so be sure to check that out too.

fol. 300r

Monday, September 13, 2021

MOTB Early Printed Books Curator

Museum of the Bible is advertising a curatorial position with specializations relevant to the early Renaissance. Applicants should be proficient in German and Latin. PhD preferred. Located in Washington, DC.

Associate Curator of Early Modern Bibles and Printed Books

Ozoliņš: Observations on ESV Old Testament Translation Notes


The following is a guest post from Kaspars Ozoliņš who has a PhD from UCLA in Indo-European linguistics and currently works as a Research Associate at Tyndale House in Cambridge.

Translation notes are a time-honoured tradition in biblical translation. Here, for example, is an excerpt from the preface “To the Reader” of the 1611 KJV:

[I]t hath pleaſed God in his divine prouidence, heere and there to ſcatter wordes and ſentences of that difficultie and doubtfulneſſe, not in doctrinall points that concerne ſaluation, (for in ſuch it hath beene uouched that the ſcriptures are plaine) but in matters of leſſe momentNow in ſuch a caſe, doth not a margine do well to admoniſh the Reader to ſeeke further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?They that are wiſe, had rather haue their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other.

Translation notes are in fact a very useful tool for expanding and clarifying particular words and passages, given the many complications involved in transferring the meaning of ancient texts written in languages generally unfamiliar to the reader. The NET version excels at this, containing no fewer than 60,932 translation notes. But such an abundance of information raises an important question. What are the intended audience(s) for such notes, and therefore, what kind of information ought to be included?

This question is especially germane to notes of a text-critical nature. Naturally, the academic or pastor will consult standard critical editions of the biblical text for information about variant readings for a given passage. So it would seem that text-critical notes in an English Bible are not aimed at such an individual, at least not directly. On the other hand, what purpose could be fulfilled by supplying a layperson with variant manuscript and versional readings?

Of course, the obvious answer is that some variants ultimately make a difference, especially when dealing with an inspired text. To that end, anyone engaging with the biblical text should take at least some interest in important variant readings. Text-critical notes in translated versions should be a kind of bare-bones apparatus presenting the most important variant readings which are exegetically significant and difficult to evaluate (i.e., valuable and viable).

Friday, September 03, 2021

Codex 28 at Mark 1:1


Here is an image of Codex 28 at Mark 1:1 that came to my attention tonight via the new ECM. It seems to be a witness both to the shorter reading and to the fact that nomina sacra are easily skipped—even when only one letter is shared. I suspect Peter (Head) and Tommy remember this manuscript.

Thursday, August 26, 2021

Calvin’s Conjectures


Warning: This is a long post in which I trace out my research method and show the steps I try to take to find answers.


John Calvin, probably.
Several months ago, I was reading F.F. Bruce’s chapter “Textual Problems in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” published in David Alan Black, ed., “Scribes and Scripture: New Testament Essays in Honor of J. Harold Greenlee.” In Bruce’s discussion of Heb. 11:37, Bruce opts for the P46 reading, which does have some scant attestation from minuscule witnesses, and Bruce calls in Zuntz (Text of the Epistles, p. 47) for support.  Not making any judgments on Bruce’s arguments, what intrigued me was Bruce’s next sentence: “So already Erasmus and Calvin.”

Those 5 short words sent me down a long rabbit trail.

What seemed to be implied here was that Calvin followed Erasmus in adopting a reading that was—as far as either of them were concerned—completely without known manuscript support. I checked the notes in the Amsterdam Database of New Testament Conjectural Emendation and there is a note on this conjecture that “…Erasmus could have known some Greek attestation, but his opinion seems independent from it.”

Of course, that doesn't necessarily prove that Erasmus had no manuscripts, but Jan Krans and co. know their stuff, and I am happy to defer to their judgment on Erasmus. That still leaves Calvin, however. On p. 184 of Johnson’s 1963 translation of Calvin’s commentary on Hebrews and 1–2 Peter (which Calvin published in 1549, according to T.H.L. Parker’s Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries), Calvin says:

Regardless of what we may say about Erasmus, it seems here that Calvin understood that the text was corrupted at some point in the transmission process, and that Erasmus’ explanation for what happened was correct.

From there, I was interested to see if there were any other times Calvin accepted or proposed a conjectural emendation: the notion that the text he has in his day was corrupt and that he suggested a correct reading even if there was no manuscript support for it.

When we search the Amsterdam Database, we find 13 hits for John Calvin, though two of them are sort of the same one (see below). Admittedly, that’s not much. [[At this point it’s good to give a brief explanation of the Amsterdam Database: When you search for an author, you’ll see a list of every time that author is included. This list is not a list of every time they have been the first to propose an emendation, nor is it a list of emendations they adopt—the “Author” in the list is the first to propose, and then clicking on the conjecture itself will show all the subsequent authors who commented on it, and whether they accept it, reject it or simply discuss it.]] Calvin is only the first to propose 5 of these 13 conjectures, but since 13 is not a huge number, I might as well list and discuss them all here.

Calvin’s conjectures

The date in parentheses is the publication date for Calvin’s discussion as I understand it, but it’s a little tricky. The translations I used (the series edited by D.W. and T.F. Torrance) were made from Tholuck’s edition (1834), which seems to be something of a re-print of the Amsterdam edition (1667), which is presumably made from the final editions of Calvin’s commentaries. I admit that’s a presumption on my part, and the date does matter because Calvin does seem to have shifted around 1548 from using Colinaeus’ 1534 edition as his working text to an Erasmus or Stephanus edition, as I discuss a bit more at the end of the post. In some cases I give an image of the text as additional proof that I’m not making stuff up. I haven’t been exhaustive with it though. My main purpose is to provide enough information for someone to be able to confirm what I’m saying, and at the most basic level, the Scriptural reference alone should be enough to do that.

Wednesday, August 25, 2021

Documentary by Kipp Davis, “Josh McDowell: Manuscript Hunting and Mythmaking for Jesus”


Tonight I watched Kipp Davis’ new documentary about one of the most influential apologists in the US: “Josh McDowell: Manuscript Hunting and Mythmaking for Jesus” live in a webinar organized by the Lying Pen project at UiA, Kristiansand. My co-blogger Peter Head was there too I noticed. There was an introduction by Kipp, and brief responses by Roberta Mazza and Dana Ryan Lande. I only heard Roberta’s and then had to go.

 If you want to watch the documentary, it was released simultaneously on YouTube. I think everyone ought to see it, but perhaps in particular those involved in Christian apologetics. I already lacked confidence in McDowell before watching the film, in particular after his wheelings and dealings with manuscripts, mummy masks and Palmolive (though I doubt he knew Carroll somehow faked these sessions), etc. But this documentary brings out a lot more about McDowell’s own “testimony” that is highly disturbing and tragic.

Thursday, August 19, 2021

ECM of Mark: Thirty-three Changes to the Initial Text


The Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior (ECM) of the Gospel of Mark has just arrived in Sweden in a shoebox size 43. First of all I want to warmly congratulate the team of the INTF in Münster for this splendid achievement, in particular for doing the finish during a long pandemic.

 There are of course many things to say, but here below I simply list the thirty-three changes to the initial text from NA28 to the ECM of Mark, indicating where how the Byzantine text aligns where it is not split itself (ECM Mark I:2,1, p. 20*). Apparently, in twenty twenty-five places the initial text moves towards the Byzantine text, and in six five places it moves away from it. In this context, however, it should be noted that there are thousands and thousands of variation-units (I have not checked how many).

A pdf of the list of changes as it appears printed in vol. 1 can be downloaded from the INTF, here

Further, there are 126 places where the editors print a split guiding line, i.e., where the decision between two competing variants is left open. This list can be downloaded from here

As for the accompanying digital tools, I wrote some years ago: “A desideratum for the future is an interactive interface that will enable users to pursue the complete critical process: to create their own local steammata of variants, build up a genalogical database, and successively evaluate the consequences of their textual choices” (Tommy Wasserman, “Criteria for Evaluating Readings in NT Textual Criticism,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, ed. Ehrman and Holmes [Brill, 2013], p. 607).  Well, the future is now here; to cite Klaus Wachtel, “Every user may now install the CBGM locally, make textual decisions, construct local stemmata, and make these the basis for their own genealogical evaluation” (ECM Mark I:2,3, p. 6). 

Thus, the CBGM toolbox (formerly called “Genealogical Queries”) for Mark is found here.

If you want to know more about how you can use the tools on your own, go here.

Again, congratulations to the editors and all contributors to this milestone in New Testament textual criticism! Now we look forward to the next volume.

Changes to the Initial Text of Mark

ECM / NA28 

  • 1:1/12-16
    υιου του θεου Byz / [υιου θεου] 
  • 1:2/18
    εγω Byz / om.  
  • 1:4/5
    om. Byz / [ο] 
  • 2:12/18
    εναντιον Byz / εμπροσθεν
  • 3:11/18-26
    προσεπιπτον αυτω και εκραζον λεγοντα / προσεπιπτον αυτω και εκραζον λεγοντες 
  • 3:14/6-14
    δωδεκα ινα ωσιν μετ αυτου Byz / δωδεκα [ους και αποστολους ωνομασεν] ινα ωσιν μετ αυτου
  • 3:16/1
    om. Byz / [και εποιησεν τους δωδεκα] 
  • 3:20/12-16
    συνερχεται παλιν οχλος Byz / συνερχεται παλιν [ο] οχλος 
  • 3:32/34-40
    om. / [και αι αδελφαι σου] Byz
  • 4:15/50-52
    εν αυτοις / εις αυτους 
  • 4:16/2-6
    και ουτοι εισιν ομοιως Byz / και ουτοι εισιν 
  • 4:31/4
    κοκκον Byz / κοκκω 
  • 6:22/30-40
    ο δε βασιλευς ειπεν τω κορασιω / ειπεν ο βασιλευς τω κορασιω Byz
  • 6:23/6
    αυτη Byz / αυτη [πολλα] 
  • 6:40/10-16
    ανα εκατον και ανα Byz / κατα εκατον και κατα 
  • 7:6/24-26
    ως γεγραπται Byz / ως γεγραπται [οτι] 
  • 7:9/28
    τηρησητε Byz / στησητε 
  • 7:12/2-10
    και ουκετι αφιετε αυτον ουδεν ποιησαι Byz / ουκετι αφιετε αυτον ουδεν ποιησαι 
  • 7:35/3
    om. / [ευθεως] Byz 
  • 7:37/22-30
    ποιει ακουειν και αλαλους λαλειν / ποιει ακουειν και [τους] αλαλους λαλειν Byz 
  • 8:35/28
    απολεση Byz / απολεσει 
  • 9:1/20-24
    των ωδε εστηκοτων Byz / ωδε των εστηκοτων 
  • 10:25/18
    εισελθειν Byz / διελθειν 
  • 10:28/22
    ηκολουθησαμεν / ηκολουθηκαμεν 
  • 11:3/20
    οτι Byz / om. 
  • 11:23/4
    γαρ Byz / om. 
  • 11:32/12-14
    τον λαον Byz / τον οχλον 
  • 12:36/20
    ο Byz / om. 
  • 14:31/12-18
    με δεη συναποθανειν σοι Byz / δεη με συναποθανειν σοι 
  • 14:44/34
    απαγαγετε Byz / απαγετε 
  • 15:12/19
    om. / [θελετε] Byz 
  • 16:14/4 
    om. Byz / [δε] 
  • 16:19/8
    κυριος Byz / κυριος ιησους 

Update: After I published this blogpost, Maurice Robinson asked me why the Byz was not indicated in a few additional passages, and in one case (16:19/8) it was indicated in the wrong place. When I looked at these passages I realized that the Byz had been dropped from the passages because the sign is not indicated where there is only a negative apparatus, but it certainly ought to be in the list on p. 20*. Greg Paulson of the INTF confirms that this is the case and will add them in the online PDF of textual changes (see link above). (I will ask him to check also the list with split guiding line.) In the last passage there was a printing error (the Byz sign was placed before κυριος ιησους too far to the right which created confusion; this has also been rectified).