Once upon a time I was led to believe that Hermann von Soden’s* work was basically reliable. This was important because his work underlies both the Hodges Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont editions of the Majority (Byzantine) Text. However, the Text und Textwert (TuT)† collations demonstrate objectively that not infrequently Soden is seriously off the mark. Maurice Robinson’s collations of the Pericope Adulterae‡ demonstrate objectively that Soden is very seriously wrong there. With reference to Soden’s treatment of codex 223 K.W. Clark stated, “Furthermore, our collation has revealed sixty-two errors in 229 readings treated by von Soden.”§ 27% in error (62÷229) is altogether too much, and what is true of MS 223 may be true of other MSS as well. Hoskier was not entirely mistaken in his evaluation. For myself, I had to reconsider the evidence for the whole New Testament, and that exercise led me to the conclusion that the most important segment of the relevant evidence had been overlooked (more precisely, it had been despised, and therefore ignored).

Herewith a new Greek Text, and critical apparatus, for the entire New Testament, based on that important segment. I call that segment Family 35, because cursive 35 is the complete New Testament, faithful to the family archetype, with the smallest number. (Cursive 18, also a complete NT, defects from the family in Revelation.) For a thorough explanation of why I prefer Family 35,* please see my book, God Has Preserved His Text! (3rd edition).† I there argue that God has preserved the precise original wording of the NT, and that we can, and do, know what it is, based on an empirical procedure. I claim to have demonstrated the superiority of Family 35 based on size, independence, age, geographical distribution, profile, care, and range. I challenge any and all to do the same for any other line of transmission.

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 a variety of sources, which vary from book to book (please see the final footnote for each book for that information)—the percentages offered, I have used [ ] for these, are extrapolations based on a comparison of those sources. I have determined the reading of f35 on the basis of well over thirty minuscule manuscripts (usually over forty, or even fifty) for each book, all of which I collated myself.§ Since the MSS come from all over the Mediterranean world (including most monasteries on the Mt. Athos peninsula), the chances that they do not represent the main line of transmission are, quite frankly, nil. So here you have the archetypal Text of f35, beyond reasonable question.

I have included six published editions in the apparatus—RP,HF,OC,TR,CP,NU.* So how do I justify this new text and apparatus? Well, just the critical apparatus justifies the edition, being by far the most informative with reference to the large Byzantine majority and to f35, which is both ancient and independent of the rest of the tradition. Also, my Text is sufficiently distinct from the rest to justify its existence (over a thousand differences from either HF or RP). For those who believe in an inerrant Text, as I do, each word is important (and even the spelling may prove to be significant).†

Where all six printed editions are in agreement, I arbitrarily limit inclusion in the apparatus to variants with at least [10%] attestation. Also, I have arbitrarily included the movable-nu in the Text, as well as the full form of οὕτως, at all points.‡

As an arbitrary decision, I have limited the citation of individual MSS to those dated to the 5th century or earlier. I use rell to indicate that the reading is supported by all other witnesses (continuous text MSS, although until all of them have been collated this is obviously inexact), and printed editions (of the six included in the apparatus), compared to the other reading.§

Quotation marks have been added throughout to facilitate a correct understanding of the text. Because standard English quotation marks too closely resemble rough and smooth breathing marks, double angle quotation marks « » are used. Nested quotations are indicated by single angle quotations marks ‹ ›, and nested quotations within nested quotations are indicated by double angle quotations marks « ». When a quotation continues with a new paragraph, it is indicated with right-pointing double angle quotations marks ».

It is the aim of the editors of this volume to produce a text which exactly represents Family 35 with an apparatus that faithfully reproduces the evidence for the variants from the manuscripts and published editions cited in the footnotes. If you come across any errors in the text or apparatus, please contact: