I’ve recently been doing some work on the ending of Romans that necessitated re-examining the data from the Teststellen in Romans. In doing so, I’ve identified five additional manuscripts that most likely derive, in whole or in part, from an early printed edition of the Greek New Testament, but that I had missed in my previous survey. Each of them has the doxology as found in Erasmus, with the Byzantine verse 24 followed by 16:25–27.
While this is (apart from the presence of verse 24) the placement found in the earliest manuscripts, these manuscripts contain no other early non-majority text readings, making it very unlikely that their doxology placement is the result of influence from early manuscripts. It should be noted that the combination of 16:24 and the doxology at 16:25–27 is exceptionally rare in the tradition. All other manuscripts that have this combination have a large number of other distinctive readings elsewhere in Romans.
GA 1931—XVI century
Contains the Pauline Corpus only. As in printed editions (but unlike the majority of Byzantine manuscripts), it has Hebrews at the end, after Philemon. More importantly, the manuscript contains no nomina sacra, and also uses the (Western) chapter divisions contained in printed editions. Apart from the doxology placement, the only non 1 or 1/2 reading in the Teststellen for Romans is εχομεν at TT_3/5:1, which is the reading of Erasmus. I would say this is almost certainly a copy of a printed edition.
GA 1882—Liste XV, Omont XVI Century
Contains the Pauline Corpus, with Hebrews after Philemon, followed by the Catholic Letters (as in early printed editions). While the *Liste* dates to the XV century, Omont, who catalogued the ms, dated it to the XVI century. It contains no nomina sacra. Although it does not have chapter divisions and does use ekthesis, the paragraph breaks (at least for the first few chapters of Romans) follow precisely those of Erasmus. The use of empty lines to mark the end of paragraphs is also typical of printed editions rather than Greek manuscripts. Apart from the doxology placement, there are only two readings in the Teststellen for Romans that are neither 1 or 1/2:
TT_3/5:1 εχομεν (as above)
TT_19/10:15 non-addition of των ευαγγελιζομενων ειρηνην
This latter could easily be accounted for by a simple copying error, though it is possible that an early edition also was lacking this phrase—we really do need a collation of early editions! It does not contain the Comma Johanneum (henceforth CJ) at 1 John 5:7, but then again, neither did Erasmus’s first two editions. I would say this is almost certainly copied, in whole or in part, from a printed edition.
While the situation for the next three manuscripts is more complex, I still think it is more probable than not that they are in some way dependent on a printed edition. As all three of them come from Athos, it is likely that there is a relationship between them.
GA 1104—1702
Acts, Paul (with Hebrews after Philemon), Catholic Letters. Contains nomina sacra. Minimal text divisions of any kind, but no obvious printed features. No CJ. However, it does contain the long Erasmian retroversion from the Latin at Acts 9:5. According the ECM, this addition is otherwise only found in very late marginal additions to GA 69 and 808. The reading in GA 69 is in a hand that is known to have compared the text to that of a printed edition of the Textus Receptus.
Apart from the doxology placement, the only non 1 or 1/2 reading in the *Teststellen* for Romans is εχομεν at TT_3/5:1, which is the reading of Erasmus. While this manuscript was clearly copied by a scribe more familiar with Greek ms conventions than those responsible for GA 1931 and 1882, the evidence still seems sufficient to conclude that this manuscript goes back, in whole or in part, to a printed edition.
GA 1869—1688
Acts, Paul (with Hebrews after Philemon), Catholic Letters. No CJ, but with Erasmus’s addition at Acts 9:5. Apart from the doxology placement, the only non 1 or 1/2 reading in the Teststellen for Romans is εχομεν at TT_3/5:1, which is the reading of Erasmus. The situation for this manuscript is very similar to that of GA 1104 above.
GA 1903—1636
Acts, Paul (Heb after Philemon), Catholics + Revelation. According to Text und Textwert for Revelation, this manuscript was “either partially copied from the TR or heavily influenced by it.” As it has ξυλου της ζωης in Rev 22.19, it is not simply a copy of the Textus Receptus. No CJ, but it does have Erasmus’s addition at Acts 9:5. Apart from the doxology placement, the only non 1 or 1/2 reading in the *Teststellen* for Romans is εχομεν at TT_3/5:1, which is the reading of Erasmus. The situation for this manuscript is again very similar to the two preceding manuscripts.