*13:23αδελφον f35 [95%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 1 ημων 𝕻46ℵA,C [5%] NU
†13:25αμην f35 A,C [97%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — 𝕻46ℵIv [3%] NU
‡13:25The citation of f35 is based on thirty-five MSS—18, 35, 141, 201, 204, 328, 386, 394, 444, 604, 757, 824, 928, 959, 1072, 1075, 1100, 1248, 1249, 1503, 1548, 1637, 1725, 1732, 1761, 1768, 1855, 1864, 1865, 1892, 2080, 2466, 2554, 2587 and 2723—all of which I collated myself. 2554 is a ‘perfect’ representative of f35 in Hebrews, as it stands, and the exemplars of 35, 1637, 2080 and 2723 may have been, while several others were off by only one variant. Since these MSS come from all over the Mediterranean world (Sinai, Jerusalem, Patmos, Aegean, Constantinople, Bucharest, Trikala, Mt. Athos [six different monasteries], Athens, 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 had to revert to von Soden and the apparatus of N-A27, supplementing from other sources where possible (Scrivener and Tischendorf)—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 ±3%; where there is some division among the Byzantine witnesses the margin of error should rarely exceed ±15%. However, I guarantee the witness of f35. Please see the last footnote for Matthew for further information.
κακουχουμενων rell ¦ κακοχουμενον (C) [30%]
δε f35 C [96%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ γαρ 𝕻46ℵA [3%] NU ¦ — [1%]
αδελφον f35 [95%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 1 ημων 𝕻46ℵA,C [5%] NU
αμην f35 A,C [97%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — 𝕻46ℵIv [3%] NU
The citation of f35 is based on thirty-five MSS—18, 35, 141, 201, 204, 328, 386, 394, 444, 604, 757, 824, 928, 959, 1072, 1075, 1100, 1248, 1249, 1503, 1548, 1637, 1725, 1732, 1761, 1768, 1855, 1864, 1865, 1892, 2080, 2466, 2554, 2587 and 2723—all of which I collated myself. 2554 is a ‘perfect’ representative of f35 in Hebrews, as it stands, and the exemplars of 35, 1637, 2080 and 2723 may have been, while several others were off by only one variant. Since these MSS come from all over the Mediterranean world (Sinai, Jerusalem, Patmos, Aegean, Constantinople, Bucharest, Trikala, Mt. Athos [six different monasteries], Athens, 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 had to revert to von Soden and the apparatus of N-A27, supplementing from other sources where possible (Scrivener and Tischendorf)—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 ±3%; where there is some division among the Byzantine witnesses the margin of error should rarely exceed ±15%. However, I guarantee the witness of f35. Please see the last footnote for Matthew for further information.