THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN IN THE BYZANTINE TRADITION

THE INDIVIDUAL TRANSCRIPTIONS
 

NOTE: The descriptions of the majuscule transcriptions are identical with those in the majuscule area of the site.

STANDARD FORMATTING

'Standard formatting' consists of the following:

    1. Layout: division of text into folios (with numbers found in the MS given), columns and lines.
    2. Punctuation: upper-case letters indicating enlarged initial letters.
    3. Orthography: as in the manuscript transcribed, with superline for nu when the MS uses it, other abbreviations indicated with brackets (e.g. k(ai) indicates use of the kai compendium), and nomina sacra indicated by a superline over the second letter of the contraction. Note that we use this superline as an indication of the nomen sacrum, and not as a reproduction of precisely what is in the manuscript. Thus it is present even when it is omitted by the copyist. This represents a difference from our practice in the papyrus volume. The change has been made in order to allow the program to recognise all readings in this category.
    4. Original text and subsequent corrections are all shown, with the following sigla:
      * the text as first written by the original hand
      C* a correction made by the original hand
      C a correction by another hand. C1 or C2 is used where more than one correction is made
    Other sigla are indicated in the descriptions of individual transcriptions.
    Where the first hand (or a correction) is illegible, we enter the number or probable number of letters. For example, see the reading of 02 at 4.19.
    Note that in the printed transcriptions, corrections to manuscripts are given in the footnotes, the corrected text being in italics.
    5. Lacunae: missing text is indicated by these signs:
      lac parchment is missing and the text is lost (this includes places where the parchment is present, but the text cannot be read); where the parchment is lost, and has been replaced, the text has been transcribed in a separate file
      [____c] restoration of missing text is given in brackets. Sometimes we give a number or range of numbers in square brackets
      ________c_ dots under letters indicate that the restoration of the text is uncertain
    6. Superscription and subscription are provided when present.

TRANSCRIPTION DETAILS

02 (A) This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. A paper collation was made from the reduced collotype facsimile in the years 1986-8.
E.M. Thompson, Facsimile of the Codex Alexandrinus, 4 vols., London, 1879-83.
A number of uncertain readings were established from the manuscript. A second collation from the facsimile was made in 2000. Both collations were made into electronic transcriptions in 2001. These were automatically collated with the INTF transcription, and all discrepancies were reconciled either from the facsimile or from the manuscript. We are grateful to Luc Herren, Marie-Luise Lakmann and Klaus Witte for their contributions. The transcription contains standard formatting. Correctors are designated C1 and C.
07 (E) This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. A collation from microfilm was made before we adopted the Collate program. This was made into an electronic transcription, and a second transcription was made. These were compared automatically, and the differences reconciled. The transcription contains standard formatting. Correctors are indicated as C. It is not totally clear at 1.29 whether the initial correction is by the first hand, but it would confuse the overall picture to introduce a C1 and C2 on such slight grounds.
09 (F) This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. A collation from microfilm was made before we adopted the Collate program. This was made into an electronic transcription, and a second transcription was made. These were compared automatically, and the differences reconciled. The transcription contains standard formatting. Correctors are indicated as C.
011 (G) This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. Two collations were made in 1998 and 2000. Both of these were made from the manuscript itself. These were compared and made into a transcription in 2001. A second transcription from microfilm was made in 2001. These were compared automatically, and the differences reconciled. The transcription contains standard formatting. Correctors are indicated as C, C1 and C2.
017 (K) This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. Two collations were made from microfilm before we began using Collate. These were compared and made into a transcription in 2001. A second transcription from microfilm was made in the same year. These were compared automatically, and the differences reconciled. The transcription contains standard formatting and hanging lines. Corrections are indicated by C.
021 (M) This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. Two collations were made from microfilm before we began using Collate. These were each made into a transcription. These were compared automatically, and the differences reconciled. The transcription contains standard formatting and hanging lines. Corrections are indicated by C.
022 (N) This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. The London leaves were collated from the manuscript in 1988. The St. Petersburg folios were collated from microfilm before we began using Collate. Some uncertain readings were checked in the manuscript in June, 2001. The Thessaloniki leaf was transcribed from photographs kindly acquired for us by Professor Iohannes Karavidopoulos. This transcription was checked by a second pair of eyes. These collations were made into a single transcription in 2001. The Lerma leaf has been sold, and we could not trace its present whereabouts. This leaf was transcribed from a photograph in INTF in March, 2002. This transcription was checked by a second pair of eyes. With this added, we had a complete transcription. Cronin's transcription was consulted.
H.S. Cronin, Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus. The Text of Codex N of the Gospels edited with an Introduction and an Appendix (Texts and Studies First Series 5.4), Cambridge, 1899.
The transcription contains standard formatting and hanging lines. Corrections are indicated by C.
028 (S) This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. Two transcriptions were made from microfilm. These were compared automatically, the differences reconciled, and the corrections re-assessed. The transcription contains standard formatting. Correctors are indicated as C1, with C used where it is not possible to distinguish between the scribe and a later hand.
030 (U) This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. Two collations were made before we began using Collate. These were made into two transcriptions, which were compared automatically and the differences reconciled. The transcription contains standard formatting. Corrections are indicated by C and C2.
034 (Y) This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. A collation was made from microfilm before we began using Collate. This was made into a transcription. A second transcription was made, also from microfilm. These were compared automatically and the differences reconciled. The transcription contains standard formatting. Correctors are indicated as C1, with C used where it is not possible to distinguish the scribe and a later hand.
036 (Γ) This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. A collation of the Oxford leaves was made from the manuscript before we began using Collate. This was subsequently turned into a transcription, which was revised from the manuscript on a further visit. The St. Petersburg leaves were transcribed from the manuscript in June, 2001. All this was read against the photographs in the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung, Münster. The transcription contains standard formatting. Corrections are indicated by C and C1.
037 (Δ) This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. A collation was made from microfilm before we began using Collate. This was made into a transcription. A second transcription was made, also from microfilm. These were compared automatically and the differences reconciled. The transcription contains standard formatting. Corrections are indicated by C.
038 (Θ) This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. Two collations were made before we began using Collate. These were made into two transcriptions, which were compared automatically and the differences reconciled. The hands of the correctors were checked against Beermann and Gregory.
G. Beermann and C.R. Gregory, Die Koridethi Evangelien Θ 038, Leipzig, 1913.
The transcription contains standard formatting. Correctors are indicated by the sigla of Beermann and Gregory, the lower-case roman letters a, b, c and d. Places where d has rewritten letters are not included in the apparatus. C* is used to indicate corrections apparently made in the course of copying rather than in subsequent revision by the scribe.
041 (Π)This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. A collation was made from microfilm before we began using Collate. This was made into a transcription. A second transcription was made, also from microfilm. These were compared automatically and the differences reconciled. All corrections were checked and classified from the manuscript in June, 2001. The transcription contains standard formatting. Corrections are indicated by C, C1 and C2.
041s A transcription was made from microfilm. It does not have page formatting.
044 (Ψ) This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. Two collations were made before we began using Collate. These were made into two transcriptions, which were compared automatically and the differences reconciled. The resulting transcription was compared with the edition by Karavidopoulos.
J. Karavidopoulos, St. John's Gospel according to the Manuscript Ψ of Agia Lavra (Athos) with Lectiones Variae of 32 Manuscripts (9th to 11th Centuries), 2nd edn, Thessaloniki, 1998.
The transcription contains standard formatting. Corrections are indicated by C.
045 (Ω) This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. A collation was made from microfilm before we began using Collate. This was made into a transcription. A second transcription was made, also from microfilm. These were compared automatically and the differences reconciled. The resulting transcription was compared with the collation in Lake and New's Six Collations.
K. Lake and S. New, Six Collations of New Testament Manuscripts (Harvard Theological Studies 17), Cambridge, Mass., 1932. Collation by Mrs Frederick Winslow, pp. 3-25.
The transcription contains standard formatting. Corrections are indicated by C, C1 and C2.
047 This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. A collation was made from microfilm before we began using Collate. This was made into a transcription. A second transcription was made, also from microfilm. These were compared automatically and the differences reconciled. The transcription contains standard formatting. The cross layout is displayed. Corrections are indicated by C.
0211 This transcription is shared with the IGNTP majuscule edition. Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm in 2001. These were compared automatically and the differences reconciled. There is no previous edition of this manuscript.
For a thorough description, see Treu, Handschriften in der UdSSR, pp. 342-51.
The transcription contains standard formatting. Corrections are indicated by C.
2 An electronic transcription was made from microfilm. It was compared with a paper collation made for the IGNTP and the differences reconciled. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C and C1.
7 An electronic transcription was made from microfilm. It was compared with a paper collation made for the IGNTP and the differences reconciled. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
8 An electronic transcription was made from microfilm. It was compared with a paper collation made for the IGNTP and the differences reconciled. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
9 and 9s Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
18 Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
27 and 27s Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. Folio breaks are indicated in 27. There are no layout indications in 27s. Corrections in 27 are indicated by C and in 27s by C2. There is no transcription of 27s at 20.10-18, due to a missing photograph.
35 Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. There are no layout indications. Corrections are indicated by C. Note that the transcription is not identical with the base text, which has been slightly modified.
461 An electronic transcription was made from microfilm. It was compared with a paper collation made for the IGNTP and the differences reconciled. Folio breaks are indicated. Note that the passage 7.53-8.11 was added twice in separate hands. For technical reasons, these are presented as separate transcriptions 461-C1 and 461-C2. Other corrections are indicated by C.
475 and 475s An electronic transcription was made from microfilm. It was compared with a paper collation made for the IGNTP and the differences reconciled. There are no layout indications.
565 and 565s Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. Folio and line breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
1073 Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. There are no layout indications. Corrections are indicated by C.
1192 An electronic transcription was made from microfilm. It was compared with a second electronic transcription which had been made for the IGNTP in the Manuscript Program and the differences reconciled. There are no layout indications. Corrections are indicated by C.
1194 Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. There are no layout indications. Corrections are indicated by C, C1 and C2.
1203 An electronic transcription was made from microfilm. It was compared with a paper collation made for the IGNTP and the differences reconciled. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
1210 Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. There are no layout indications. Corrections are indicated by C.
1212 An electronic transcription was made from microfilm. It was compared with a paper collation made for the IGNTP and the differences reconciled. There are no layout indications. Corrections are indicated by C.
1216 Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
1243 An electronic transcription was made from microfilm. It was compared with a paper collation made for the IGNTP and the differences reconciled. There are no layout indications. Corrections are indicated by C.
1505 Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. There are no layout indications. Corrections are indicated by C.
1514 An electronic transcription was made from microfilm. It was compared with a second electronic transcription which had been made for the IGNTP in the Manuscript Program and the differences reconciled. There are no layout indications. Corrections are indicated by C.
1519 Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. There are no layout indications. Corrections are indicated by C.
K0141 Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. Folio and line breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C and C1.
K194 Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. Folio and line breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
K196 Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. Folio and line breaks are indicated. Because of the manuscript layout, the first occurrence of L in a block may be in the middle of a line following comment. Corrections are indicated by C and C2.
K210 Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. Folio and line breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
K743 Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. Folio and line breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C and C1.
K754 Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. There are no layout indications. Corrections are indicated by C.
K817 Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. There are no layout indications. Corrections are indicated by C and C2.
K994 and K994s Two electronic transcriptions were made from microfilm, automatically compared and the differences reconciled. Folio and line breaks are indicated in K994s and line breaks in K994. Corrections are indicated by C.
L253 An electronic transcription was revised and compared with a printed collation by J. Karavidopoulos. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
L425 An electronic transcription was revised and compared with a printed collation by J. Karavidopoulos. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
L638 An electronic transcription was revised and compared with a printed collation by J. Karavidopoulos. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
L640 An electronic transcription was revised and compared with a printed collation by J. Karavidopoulos. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
L663 An electronic transcription was revised and compared with a printed collation by J. Karavidopoulos. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
L704 and L704s An electronic transcription was revised and compared with a printed collation by J. Karavidopoulos. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
L735 An electronic transcription was revised and compared with a printed collation by J. Karavidopoulos. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
L770 An electronic transcription was revised and compared with a printed collation by J. Karavidopoulos. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
L1073 An electronic transcription was revised and compared with a printed collation by J. Karavidopoulos. There are no layout indications. Corrections are indicated by C.
L1075 An electronic transcription was revised and compared with a printed collation by J. Karavidopoulos. There are no layout indications. Corrections are indicated by C.
L 1076 and L1076s An electronic transcription was revised and compared with a printed collation by J. Karavidopoulos. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C. Some parts of the microfilm were illegible.
L 1077 An electronic transcription was revised and compared with a printed collation by J. Karavidopoulos. There are no layout indications. Corrections are indicated by C.
L 1082 An electronic transcription was revised and compared with a printed collation by J. Karavidopoulos. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
L 1091 and L1091s An electronic transcription was revised. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
L1096 An electronic transcription was revised and compared with a printed collation by J. Karavidopoulos. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
L1100 An electronic transcription was revised and compared with a printed collation by J. Karavidopoulos. There are no layout indications. Corrections are indicated by C.
L1552 An electronic transcription was revised and compared with a printed collation by J. Karavidopoulos. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.
L1692 and L1692s An electronic transcription was revised and compared with a printed collation by J. Karavidopoulos. Folio breaks are indicated. Corrections are indicated by C.

< Witness List         Apparatus Guidelines >