John 21

25 Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ ὅσα*οσα f35 A,D,W [99.5%] CP,HF,RP,OC,TR ¦ α B,C [0.5%] NU ¦ ℵ omits whole verse ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἅτινα ἐὰν γράφηται καθ᾿ ἕν,*καθ᾿ ἑν rell ¦ καθέν f35 [30%] [for the record] οὐδὲ*ουδε f35 A,C,W [98.5%] CP,HF,RP,OC,TR ¦ ουδ B,D [1.5%] NU αὐτὸν οἶμαι τὸν κόσμον χωρῆσαι τὰ γραφόμενα βιβλία. Ἀμήν.*αμην f35 [98.5%] CP,HF,RP,OC,TR ¦ --- A,B,C,D,W [1.5%] NU,*In the colophons, f35 [50%] have "published thirty-two years after the ascension of Christ", or 61/62 AD. For 50% of the MSS to have this information probably means that the tradition is ancient; and of course, I have demonstrated, to my own satisfaction at least, that f35 goes back at least to the 3rd century. If this information is correct, then John was ‘published’ in 61/62 AD. The same sources have Matthew published eight years after the ascension, or 38/39 AD, Mark published two years later (40/41) and Luke another five years later (45/46). Not only were the authors eyewitnesses of the events, but many others were still alive when the Gospels appeared. They could attest to the veracity of the accounts, but could also be the source of textual variants, adding tidbits here and there, or ‘correcting’ something that they remembered differently.,*The citation of f35 is based on the following fifty-seven MSS—18, 35, 83, 128, 141, 201, 204, 363, 402, 479, 480, 510, 547, 553, 586, 685, 696, 757, 789, 824, 867, 897, 928, 1072, 1075, 1111, 1117, 1145, 1147, 1334, 1339, 1384, 1435, 1461, 1496, 1503, 1559, 1560, 1572, 1617, 1637, 1652, 1667, 1686, 1694, 1700, 1713, 2122, 2253, 2322, 2352, 2382, 2466, 2503, 2554, 2765 and Iviron 2110. I collated all of them myself, except for 201 and 480 that I took from Scrivener. None of them is a ‘perfect’ representative of f35 in John, as it stands [an unreasonable expectation, presumably, for a book this size, besides being a Gospel], but several come very close (cursive 2382 has only one variant, corrected, so its exemplar was presumably perfect). [This refers to the MSS I have collated—there may be even better ones out there. In fact, since I have only collated around 20% of the family representatives for this book, there probably are better ones out there.] The uniformity is impressive. Since these MSS come from all over the Mediterranean world (Sinai, Jerusalem, Patmos, Constantinople, Aegean, Andros, Lesbos, Prinkipos, Bucharest, Athens, Modena, Meteora, Tirana, Mt. Athos [nine different monasteries], Grottaferrata, Corinth?, Vatican, etc.) they are certainly representative of the family, giving us the precise family profile—it is reflected in the Text without exception.In the statements of evidence I have included the percentage of manuscript attestation for each variant within either ( ) or [ ]. I have used ( ) for the evidence taken from Text und Textwert, which I take to be reasonably precise. For the variant sets that are not covered there, I referred to Swanson, Scrivener and von Soden—the percentages offered, I have used [ ] for these, are extrapolations based on a comparison of these sources.I venture to predict, if complete collations ever become available, that for any non-Byzantine variants listed with 5 to 1% support (in my apparatus) the margin of error should not exceed ±2%; for non-Byzantine variants listed with 10 to 6% support the margin of error should hardly exceed ±4%; where there is some division among the Byzantine witnesses the margin of error should rarely exceed ±15%—since my sources had collated a lower percentage of the extant MSS than ECM for the General Epistles, for example, my guesses as to percentages are more tentative than they were there, except that I guarantee the witness of f35. Please see the last footnote for Matthew for further information.