Scholia on the PA

"The kindred copies Codd. Λ, 215 262, &c., have the following scholium at ch 7:53 ( ms. 20 has only an asterisk at the place),

"τα ωβελισμενα εν τισιν αντιγραφοις οι κειται, ουδε Απολλιναριω. εν δε τοις αρχαιοις κειηται μνημονευουσιν της περικοφης ταυς και οι αποστολοι, εν αις εξεθεντο διαταξεσιν εις οικοδμην της εκκλησιας "

The reference is to the Apostolic Constitutions (ii.24. 4) as Tischendorf perceives."

- F. H. A. Scrivener, Introduction

"The verses marked doubtful are not contained in some copies nor in Apollinarius, but are contained entire in the ancient ones...'

- Nicolson, Gosp.Heb. (1879)

"...according to another [scholium] it was not in "the copies of (used by) Apollinarius"

- Hort, Introd. (1896), Notes... p 83

Λ (saec. ix) 262 (saec. x or xii) : τα ωβελισμενα εν τισιν αντιγραφοις ου κειται, ουδε Απολιναριου. εν δε τοις αρχαιοις ολα κειται... (followed by a reference to the use of the passage in the Apostolic Constitutions).

"...notes of this kind were often not composed by the scribe, but have themselves been copied from an older exemplar. Codex Λ is a MS of the 9th century, but to judge from extant evidence very few MSS. from the 5th to the 8th centuries can have contained the Pericope; therefore the ancient copies referred to in Codex Λ probably belonged to a much older time, viz. the century of confusion between Eusebius and St. Chrysostom." [i.e., the 4th century(!)]

- Burkitt, 1901 Lectures

"The situation in Codex 1582 is identical with that in Codex 1. The PA is missing at Jn 7:53-8:11 and added at the end of the gospel after the following statement:

το περι της μοιχαλιδος κεφαλαιον
εν τωι κατα ιωαννην ευαγγελιω
ως εν τοις πλειοσιν αντιγραφοις
μη κειμενον. μη δε παρα των
θειων πρων. των ερμηνευσαν(των)
μνημονευθεν. φημι δη ιω του Χρυ
και Κυριλλου αλεχανδρ(ρειας). ουδε μην
υπο Θεοδωρου μωψουεστιας. και
των λοιπων. παρελειψα κατα
τον τοπον. κειται δε ουτως. με
τ' ολιγα της αρχης του πς κε
φαλαιου. εξης του "ερευνησον
και ιδε. οτι προφητης εκ της
γαλιλαιας. ουκ εγειρηται." (Jn 7:52b)

Then follows the text of the pericope.

- Anderson, The Textual Tradition of the Gospels:
Family 1 in Matthew, (Brill, 2004) p.69

The PA (Jn 7:53-8:11) is placed "in 1 and 1582 at the end of the Gospel - with a note that,
'it is found in some copies but not commented upon by the holy Fathers Chrysostom, Cyril Alex., and Theodore of Mopsuestia;' "

- Streeter, The Four Gospels, p 89

In codices 1 and 1582 the note on the Pericope points out that it is not mentioned in the Commentaries of Chrysostom, Cyril, and Theodore of Mopsuestia.

1582, besides having the foregoing note on the PA, also, as we have seen, gives Mk.16:9-20 as a sort of Appendix; but in the margin it has at verse 19 the note,

This is criticism of a high scientific order. Now, whoever was responsible for it, the B text has been edited on the Alexandrian principle."

- Streeter, The Four Gospels, p 123-4

The Ending of Mark

At Mk 16:8 () is a final decoration, and then (identical with Codex 1):

Then follows 16:9-20.(1582 has the relatively rare reading και εν ταις χερσιν οφεις at 16:18, with Cod. 1.)

In the margin at 16:19, the following is written in a tapering triangular shape:

The [additional] marginal note of 1582 is not found in Codex 1.

- Anderson, The Textual Tradition of the Gospels:
Family 1 in Matthew, (Brill, 2004) p.68

Codd. 1, 19, 20, 129, 135, 207 4, 215, 301, 347, 478, 604, 629, Evst. 86 also place the whole pericope at the end of the Gospel.

...While Codex 1 pleads its absence from the commentaries of Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, "as in many ancient copies" (ως εν τοις πλειοσιν αντιγραφοις), 135, 301 confess they found the PA "in the ancient copies" (εν αρχαιοις αντιγραφοις).

"...the marginalia / text provide rare and ancient readings. More often than not, the less well-attested [reading] is supported by Origen,... [sometimes] Origen discusses both variants, ...the text and margin of 1582 provide a record of early textual variation.

From the evidence of Ephraim [the copyist of 1582 (c. 10th cent.)]...it is unlikely that the marginalia are the result of Ephraim's own gathering of variants. Rather Ephraim preserved marginalia compiled by a much earlier scholar."

- Anderson, The Textual Tradition of the Gospels:
Family 1 in Matthew, (Brill, 2004) p.69-70