The Marc mu l t i l i n g u e Pro j e c t 9 and have been developed in his La parole qui devient Évangile13, as well as more recently in ‘Le texte grec de Marc’ in Mélanges de science religieuse 56, Évangile de Marc: Recherches sur les versions du texte, 5-25. Other users of the essentially objective displays in Marc multilingue may well reach different conclusions about the historical sequence of the text forms and the reasons for the developments. The relative sequence as presently set out starts with D followed by W. Both of these have Mark’s Gospel in fourth position, and may reflect the earliest form of Mark that we have. Amphoux is convinced that the text now found in the 4th century manuscript D is no mere maverick text of the Gospels and Acts but one of its earliest forms. It is thus vir- tually a sole survivor of a text that had been abandoned as the tradition developed14. Some recent work on the Western text of Acts15 collaborates his arguments. W is often close to D in Mark but is not an exact copy. Whether we may speak with Amphoux of W as a revised form of D or, better, as a developed form of the text remains to be discussed further, but by printing these two forms in full in contiguous sections readers will be able to make their own judgements on these early and differing text forms. θ as an example of another distinctive text form possibly of Palesti- nian or Syrian origin stands next. Its evidence, often supplemented by the evidence of the minuscule groupings, family 1 (fam1) and family 13 (fam13), as shown in the accompanying apparatus (see below), stands in the section following. Recent researches by Didier Lafleur on family 13 have resulted in a more accurate presentation of this evidence. ‫ א‬and B stand next; B is a kind of base text or at least (with ‫ )א‬a highly influential text. These two could have originated in Alexandria or, if Skeat’s latest arguments are accepted 16, in Caesarea. The sixth section is given over to A, as an early representative of the Byzantine text form. This sequence is defensible but need not be the only order that could be produced. The Table also includes the lay out of the apparatus to accompany the text. This includes variants in D W, the few Paris, 1993. 13 14 See D.C. Parker and C.-B. Amphoux (eds.), Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel Colloquium June 1994 (Leiden, 1996) (= NTTS 22). 15 M.-É. Boismard, Le texte occidental des Actes des Apôtres (Paris, 2000) (= ÉB 40), a revision of M.-É. Boismard and A. Lamouille, Texte occidental des Actes des Apôtres 2 vols. (Paris, 1984) (= Éditions recherche sur les civilisations. Synthèse 17) and W.A. Strange, The Problem of the Text of Acts (Cambridge, 1992) (= SNTS Monograph Series 71). 16 T.C. Skeat, ‘The Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine’, JTS 50 (1999) 583-625.