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 TuT, which I take to be reasonably precise. For the variant sets that are not covered there I used Reuben Swanson’s excellent collations (New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Romans [Ed. Reuben Swanson, Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001]). For Romans Swanson collated 81 MSS, three being fragmentary (for any given variant set there will usually be at least 75 MSS listed), and I occasionally supplemented from 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 ±1%; for non-Byzantine variants listed with 10 to 6% support the margin of error should hardly exceed ±2%; where there is some division among the Byzantine witnesses the margin of error should rarely exceed ±10%—by comparing Swanson with TuT, I believe one can make a fairly accurate extrapolation. However, I guarantee the witness of f35. Please see the last footnote for Matthew for further information.
*16:1 ουσαν f35 ℵA [99%] OC,RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ 1 και 𝕻46 B,C [1%] [NU]
†16:1 κεγχρεαις rell ¦ κεχρεαις [15%] ¦ five further spellings 𝕻46ℵA,B,C
‡16:2 αὑτη f35 [80%] OC,TR ¦ αὐτη [20%] RP,HF,CP,NU ¦ uncials ambiguous
§16:2 προστατις f35 ℵA,B,C [75%] OC,RP,HF,TR,CP,NU ¦ προστατης [25%]
*16:2 αυτου εμου f35 [85%] OC,RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ ~ 21 B [15%] NU ¦ 1 και 2 ℵ ¦ ~ 2 τε 1 A
†16:3 ασπασασθε rell ¦ ασπασασθαι ℵ [12%]
‡16:3 πρισκαν f35 (𝕻46)ℵA(B)C [70%] RP,HF,NU ¦ πρισκιλλαν [30%] OC,TR,CP
§16:5 μου rell ¦ μοι CP
*16:5 αχαιας f35 (95.6%) OC,RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ ασιας 𝕻46ℵA,B,C (4%) NU ¦ long omissions (0.3%)
†16:6 μαριαμ f35 𝕻46ℵ [97%] OC,RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ μαριαν A,B,C [3%] NU
‡16:6 υμας f35 𝕻46ℵA,B,C (22.8%) CP,NU ¦ ημας f35¼ (76.4%) OC,RP,HF,TR ¦ υμιν (0.5%) ¦ two other variants (0.3%)
§16:7 γεγονασιν f35 C [98%] OC,RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ γεγοναν ℵA,B [1%] NU ¦ γεγονεν 𝕻46 ¦ — [1%]
*16:8 αμπλιαν f35 [97%] OC,RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ αμπλιατον 𝕻46ℵA,B [3%] NU
†16:9 σταχυν rell ¦ σταχην CP
‡16:11 ηρωδιωνα rell ¦ ηροδιωνα TR ¦ four further spellings
§16:14 ερμαν πατροβαν ερμην f35 [97%] OC,RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ ~ 321 ℵA,B,C [3%] NU ¦ ~ 312 𝕻46
*16:15 νηρεα rell ¦ νηρεαν A [2%] CP ¦ three further spellings 𝕻46 [4%]
†16:16 εκκλησιαι f35 (84.8%) OC,RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ 1 πασαι 𝕻46ℵA,B,C (14.3%) NU ¦ long omissions (0.8%)
‡16:16 χριστου f35 𝕻46ℵA,B,C (88.9%) OC,RP,HF,TR,CP,NU ¦ θεου (10.3%) ¦ long omissions (0.8%)
§16:17 εκκλινατε f35 (𝕻46A) [98%] OC,RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ εκκλινετε ℵ(B)C [2%] NU
*16:18 ιησου f35 [87%] OC,RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ — 𝕻46ℵA,B,C [13%] NU [OC is in small print]
†16:18 δουλευουσιν rell ¦ δουλευσουσιν [15%] ¦ two other variants
‡16:19 χαιρω ουν το εφ υμιν f35 [94%] OC,RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ ~ 4521 ℵA,B,C [5%] NU ¦ 1245 𝕻46 [1%]
§16:19 μεν f35 ℵA,C [95%] OC,RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ — 𝕻46B [5%] NU
*16:20 χριστου f35 A,C (98.3%) OC,RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ — 𝕻46ℵB (1%) NU ¦ long omissions (0.7%)
†16:21 ασπαζονται f35 [95%] OC,RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ ασπαζεται 𝕻46ℵB,C [4%] NU ¦ ασπαζετε A [1%]
‡16:23 της εκκλησιας ολης f35 [95%] OC,RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ ~ 312 ℵA,B,C [5%] NU
§16:24 ημων f35 [18%] ¦ υμων [82%] OC,RP,HF,TR,CP,NU (If verse 24 was not dictated by Paul, the first person is especially appropriate, coming from Tertius.)
*16:24 The whole verse 24 f35 (96.8%) OC,RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ — 𝕻46ℵA,B,C (3.2%) NU
†16:24 ℵA,B,C (7.2%) CP,TR[NU] place 14:24-26 here as verses 25-27 (recall that 𝕻46ℵA,B,C (3.2%) NU omit verse 24)
‡16:24 The citation of f35 is based on the following thirty-seven MSS—18, 35, 141, 201, 204, 386, 394, 757, 824, 928, 986, 1040, 1072, 1075, 1100, 1249, 1482, 1503, 1548, 1637, 1652, 1704, 1725, 1732, 1761, 1855, 1856, 1858, 1864, 1865, 1876, 1892, 1897, 2466, 2554, 2587 and 2723—all of which I collated myself. Only 2723 is a ‘perfect’ representative of f35 in Romans, as it stands, while 1482 and 2554 have only alternate spellings, that are not proper variants. The uniformity is impressive. Since these MSS come from all over the Mediterranean world (Sinai, Jerusalem, Patmos, Constantinople, Bucharest, Aegean, Trikala, Athens, Mt. Athos [ten different monasteries], Grottaferrata, 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 TuT, which I take to be reasonably precise. For the variant sets that are not covered there I used Reuben Swanson’s excellent collations (New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Romans [Ed. Reuben Swanson, Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001]). For Romans Swanson collated 81 MSS, three being fragmentary (for any given variant set there will usually be at least 75 MSS listed), and I occasionally supplemented from 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 ±1%; for non-Byzantine variants listed with 10 to 6% support the margin of error should hardly exceed ±2%; where there is some division among the Byzantine witnesses the margin of error should rarely exceed ±10%—by comparing Swanson with TuT, I believe one can make a fairly accurate extrapolation. However, I guarantee the witness of f35. Please see the last footnote for Matthew for further information.