8 J.K. Elliott, Christian Amphoux and Jean-Claude Haelewyck A 02 (Codex Alexandrinus), chosen as a distinctive and different form of the text, sometimes called (Syro)-Byzantine. The texts as printed are not of course exact transcripts of the manuscripts; orthography has been standardized to conform to modern conventions and modern punctuation has been introduced. Lacunae have been filled from the wording in allied texts – a procedure identified by the use of brackets in the text and by the apparatus. Careful corrections of transcriptional errors such as examples of haplography or dittography have been made. However, for each manuscript in the lines of text and in the apparatus the evidence has been based on a new collation. We can readily identify important differences between witnesses merely by looking at, say, the divorce saying of Mark 10:11-12, the end- ings to the Gospel, the opening verses9, Mark 1:8 or Mark 2:14 to make an arbitrary selection. Outside Mark one can obviously see comparable differences in, say, the Paternoster in Luke 11 in ‫ ,א‬B, 700, Marcion, or in the Parable of the Two Boys in Matt 21 in ‫ ,א‬B, D10. Conventionally, editors select, reading by reading, one text that is then printed as the original, the alternatives being dismissed as scribal aberrations, harmonisations to a parallel, liturgical glosses or the like. Such explanations for the secondary variant may well be correct, but in relegating all the supposed later forms to the margin, the history of the developing New Testament textual tradition is obscured and sight is lost of the fact that all the readings of each New Testament manuscript would have been accepted by its readers as their canonical text, however ‘secondary’ modern critics may brand some readings. Without passing judgement on the originality or not of each reading, the presentations in Marc multilingue set out the earliest forms in their likeliest chronological sequence. (We return to this shortly.) ‘Text forms’ is the preferred description. There is no doubt that what we have are differences in the form of wording. The term ‘text-types’ may imply redaction or editing. However, C.-B. Amphoux, who has his own, often idiosyncratic theories about this history, feels able to speak of B 03 as an ‘edited’ text11 rather than as a representative of an evolved tradition. His theories were set out in part in his revision of Vaganay’s Initiation12, 9 J.K.Elliott, ‘Mark 1.1-3 - a Later Addition to the Gospel?’, NTS 46 (2000) 584-8. J.K.Elliott, ‘The Parable of the Two Sons: Text and Exegesis’, in the Delobel Festschrift 10 New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis, ed. a. Deraux (Leuven, 2002) 62-77 (=BETL 161). C.-B. Amphoux, ‘Les premières ‘Éditions’ des Évangiles’, in C.-B. Amphoux and 11 J. Margain (eds.), Les premières traditions de la Bible (Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 1996) 139-62 (= Histoire du texte biblique 2). 12 op. cit.