Description
The codex is a book of 187 leaves of 20.5–21 cm by 13-14.5 cm with painted wooden covers, consisting of 26 quires (four to eight leaves).
The text is written in one column per page, 30 lines per page. There are numerous corrections made by the original scribe and a few corrections dating to the late 5th or 6th century. John 1:1-5:11 is a replacement of a presumably damaged folio, and dates to around the 7th century. It is missing Mark 15:13-38 and John 14:26-16:7. The ink is dark brown. The words are written continuously without separation. Accents are absent. The rough breathing is used very rarely.
Like in Codex Bezae the Gospels follow in Western order: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark.
The following nomina sacra are written in abbreviated forms: ΘΣ, ΚΣ, ΧΡΣ, ΙΣ, ΠΝΑ, ΑΝΟΣ, ΠΗΡ, ΜΗΡ, ΥΣ, ΔΑΔ (ΔΔ once), ΙΗΛ (ΙΣΡΛ once).
Matthew 16:2b–3 is present and not marked as doubtful or spurious. Luke 22:43-44, John 5:4 and the Pericope de adultera are omitted by the scribe. It lacks Matthew 5:21-22 (as Minuscule 33), and Luke 19:25 (as Codex Bezae, 69, 1230, 1253, lectionaries, b, d, e, ff², syrc, syrsin, copbo);
It contains Matthew 23:14, as do manuscripts 0104, 0107, 0133, 0138, and most other Byzantine mss.
Read more about this topic: Codex Washingtonianus
Famous quotes containing the word description:
“I fancy it must be the quantity of animal food eaten by the English which renders their character insusceptible of civilisation. I suspect it is in their kitchens and not in their churches that their reformation must be worked, and that Missionaries of that description from [France] would avail more than those who should endeavor to tame them by precepts of religion or philosophy.”
—Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)
“A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.”
—John Locke (1632–1704)
“Why does philosophy use concepts and why does faith use symbols if both try to express the same ultimate? The answer, of course, is that the relation to the ultimate is not the same in each case. The philosophical relation is in principle a detached description of the basic structure in which the ultimate manifests itself. The relation of faith is in principle an involved expression of concern about the meaning of the ultimate for the faithful.”
—Paul Tillich (1886–1965)