GRAPH-WIDE SEARCH
MEASURE THE GRAPH ↗NOT JUST A DICTIONARY LOOKUP
6 EVIDENCE COLLECTIONSSEARCH
THE GRAPH.
Find a modern word—or search sideways through reconstructed roots, historical forms, meanings, languages, scholars, sources, claims, disputes, and witnesses.
WIKTIONARY VIA KAIKKI / WIKTEXTRACT
Imported dictionary evidence
These are source reports, not reviewed *SET-U ancestry. A list of templates or numbered etymologies is not an ancestor chain. Scholarly disagreements remain in the original source text.
35,981 English word records · 45,491 etymology sections in this online subset
PARTIAL ENGLISH COVERAGE · FULL CORPUS REMAINS LOCAL2 source sections across 1 headword matching “Gent”. These are separate from the reviewed results below.
gentEnglish (en) · Etymology 1Source text
Short for gentleman.
Original Wiktionary entry and references ↗gentEnglish (en) · Etymology 2Source text
From Middle English gent, from Old French gent, ultimately from Latin genitum (“born”).
Original Wiktionary entry and references ↗INDEPENDENT SOURCE LIBRARY
More sources for this spelling
These are spelling matches, not a claim of identical senses or agreement. Historical accounts retain their own editions and limits; none is automatically promoted into reviewed ancestry.
Mayhew–Skeat (1888)
1888; pinned HTML transcription updated October 28, 20240112
MODERN ENTRY POINTS
WORD DOSSIERS
German masculine nounhistorical form
Freund
German Freund continues Middle High German vriunt and Old High German friunt. DWDS/Pfeifer, Duden, and Grimm independently analyze the inherited Germanic formation as a substantivized present participle of the verb represented by Gothic frijōn and Old English frēogan: historically a loving or favorably disposed one. The record is semantically wider than a modern close companion: the historical dictionaries also document neighbor, relative, lover, ally, supporter, patron, address, and euphemistic uses. The graph joins the High German line to the same reviewed *frijōnd- and *frī- nodes as English friend, keeps *prī- proposed, and stops.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗nouncontrarian claim
calculator
A person or device that calculates, inherited from a medieval human-reckoner word and the Latin counting-pebble family.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗nouncontrarian claim
etymologist
A specialist in etymology; an English agent noun formed on etymology with -ist.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗English nounhistorical form
fiend
An inherited English noun whose earliest recorded sense was enemy or foe, not demon. Old English fēond belonged to a Germanic lexicalized one-who-hates formation; Middle English fẹ̄nd preserved enemy, Satan, demon, possession, and monster senses across extensive spelling variation; modern fiend continues the same English line. OED’s revised 2026 entry marks the literal enemy sense obsolete after the medieval record, explains the Devil as the ultimate Enemy, and documents long-versus-short vowel competition before the long vowel became dominant by the eighteenth century. The Middle English Dictionary independently exposes 188 quotations across eight senses without claiming a complete corpus.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Swedish common-gender nounhistorical form
fiende
The ordinary Swedish noun for an enemy, opponent, hostile state, or figurative threat continues Old Swedish fiande or fiände and an inherited Germanic present-participial formation: literally the hating one. Svenska Akademiens current dictionary calls the word Common Germanic and gives the original force hatande; SAOB and Hellquist independently derive the noun from the fi(j)- hate verb behind Gothic fijan and Old Norse fjá. Modern Swedish hata belongs to a separate Germanic hat- family, so fiende is not transparently built from the verb Swedish speakers now use for hate. Historical Swedish also used Fienden for the Devil, but that branch is not the word’s only or current central meaning. All medieval and early-modern examples here are source-reported lexical records, not directly inspected manuscript objects.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Gothic masculine nd-stem common noundossier summary
fijands
A Gothic masculine nd-stem noun conventionally glossed enemy. Project Wulfila currently exposes 26 candidates: three verified noun assignments, two further noun-only assignments, and 21 surface forms also listed under the living verb fijan. Ayora Estevan explains the collision diachronically: Proto-Germanic had already lexicalized the present-participial *fi(j)and- as enemy, while Gothic retained productive one-who-hates participles beside the noun. The five noun-only candidates use fiand, fijands, fijande, and fijandis; all five were inspected in Codex Argenteus facsimiles.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Danish common-gender nounhistorical form
fjende
Modern Danish fjende is the ordinary noun for a person, state, force, ideological opponent, or figurative thing that harms something else. Den Danske Ordbog derives it from Old Norse fjándi, compares German Feind, and identifies the older formation as a present participle of a verb corresponding to Old Norse fjá, to hate or persecute. Gammeldansk Ordbog records fiende broadly from 1100–1300. Ordbog over det danske Sprog preserves fiende, finde, and related spellings, an ordinary enemy sense, military and animal uses, abstract threats, and a special religious Devil branch. Holbergordbog shows that Fiende could still scan as either three syllables or two, alongside Fiænde, Finde, Fînde, and clipped Fiend. The word is therefore a grammatical fossil, not a current psychological definition: a lexicalized one-who-hates became the ordinary Danish enemy noun and accumulated broad contextual work. The current pronunciations are dictionary records, not retrojections into medieval Danish. No manuscript or print object is claimed as directly inspected.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Old Norse masculine noundossier summary
fjándi
Old Norse fjándi is a masculine noun whose inherited shape still exposes a prehistoric agent formation. Cleasby and Vigfússon compare Gothic fiands, Old English feond, German Feind, Swedish fiende, and Danish fjende, identify the nd as participial, and gloss the older formation as properly a hater. They then distinguish the ordinary enemy sense from a post-Christian fiend development. The University of Copenhagen Dictionary of Old Norse Prose supplies 222 citations and six semantic zones: enemy or opponent; devil, monster, or demon; evil spirit; pagan god; the Devil or Satan; and a derogatory term for a hated or bewitched person, animal, or object. Lexicon Poeticum independently exposes 49 poetic records, including source-reported tenth-century enemy uses and later Christian fiend uses, while warning that its concordance and dates require checking. The noun therefore does not possess one timeless true meaning: an inherited lexicalized hater became an ordinary enemy word, and the branch later accumulated several demonic and derogatory senses. The displayed pronunciation is an editorial normalized approximation, not recorded historical audio. No underlying manuscript object is claimed as directly inspected in this dossier.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗English common noun and historical adjectivedossier summary
friend
English friend continues Middle English frẹ̄nd and Old English frēond, an inherited Germanic nd-stem agent noun. OED identifies cognates across West, East, and North Germanic and analyzes them as noun uses of a present participle of the Germanic base behind free; Bosworth–Toller explicitly calls Old English freónd the participle of freón, a verb meaning free or love; American Heritage independently explains the formation as originally one who loves. The historical noun later covers intimate companion, ally, supporter, relation, lover, form of address, Quaker, climbing device, and social-network contact. The graph displays a normalized *frijōnd- participial formation, Germanic *frī-, the proposed Indo-European comparison *prī-, and then stops.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Old English strong masculine nd-stem nouncontrarian claim
frēond
Old English frēond is the directly attested source-language noun behind modern friend. OED analyzes it as an inherited strong masculine agent noun in -nd, ultimately a noun use of the present participle of the Germanic base behind free, and documents West Saxon frēond, Northumbrian and Kentish frīond, Kentish frīand, mutated frīend and frȳnd, endingless plurals, and re-formed frēondas. Bosworth–Toller prints freónd and friónd, explicitly links freónde loving to freón or freógan, and supplies examples for companion, ally, relation, friend of God, friend versus foe, and friends acting as arbitrators. OED independently preserves close companion, non-enemy, ally, and kinsman senses in Old English. Cotton MS Vitellius A XV folio 152r was directly inspected at Beowulf 1018, where the pixels visibly preserve freondum in Heorot innan wæs freondum afylled. The route reuses the reviewed *frijōnd-, *frī-, and proposed *prī- nodes and then stops. The displayed pronunciation is a normalized approximation, not a recorded voice.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Old English strong masculine nd-agent nounhistorical form
fēond
An Old English enemy, foe, and Devil noun inherited from the Germanic lexicalized present-participial formation *fi(j)and-. OED’s revised 2026 entry treats fēond and fīond as dialectal Old English forms, documents i-mutated fīend and fȳnd inside the inherited nd-stem inflection, and traces the word through a highly variable Middle English record into modern fiend. Bosworth–Toller supplies the Old English paradigm and examples; the Middle English Dictionary independently reports 188 quotations across eight senses. Cotton MS Vitellius A XV folio 180v was directly inspected at Beowulf 2289, where feondes modifies fotlast, the foe’s footprint.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Old High German strong masculine nounhistorical form
fīant
Old High German fīant—written fîant and fîjant in the Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch's length-marking convention—was already a strong masculine noun meaning enemy, opponent, or adversary. The dictionary documents personal, public and military, spiritual, and specifically Devil senses across a large variant and inflectional record. Its most revealing evidence is grammatical: in fixed formulas, usually without an article, the old participial character could still shine through. Fîant uuesan could mean to be hostile, hate someone, or wish someone ill; fîant mahhôn meant make hostile, and zi fîante tuon could mean regard as an enemy or hate. The companion fîên article independently preserves the live weak verb to hate in eighth- and ninth-century Alemannic manuscripts. The noun therefore shows a lexical fossil whose older verbal force remained locally legible without ceasing to be a noun. The displayed pronunciation is an editorial normalized approximation, not a recorded historical audio object. All displayed Old High German passages are inspected dictionary or text-edition records, not directly inspected manuscript objects.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗027
ATTESTED / RECONSTRUCTED / BOUNDARY
HISTORICAL FORMS
●
Ancient Greek / Indo-European
-ιστής
-istḗsagent or person associated with an action
- DATE
- Ancient Greek
- MATCH
- gloss
- DOSSIERS
- 0
Gothic / Indo-European
fijands
enemy; lexicalized masculine nd-stem agent noun
- DATE
- Gothic textual tradition
- MATCH
- gloss
- DOSSIERS
- 1
Old High German / Indo-European
friunt
friend, favored person, or relation; inherited loving-agent noun
- DATE
- Old High German, recorded from the eighth century
- MATCH
- gloss
- DOSSIERS
- 1
Old Dutch / Indo-European
friunt
friend, beloved companion, or favored person; inherited loving-agent noun
- DATE
- Old Dutch, recorded around 1100
- MATCH
- gloss
- DOSSIERS
- 1
Old English / Indo-European
frēond
friend, relation, or one favorably disposed; historically an nd-stem agent noun
- DATE
- Old English
- MATCH
- gloss
- DOSSIERS
- 2
Present-Day English / Indo-European
intelligent
having or showing understanding, judgment, or mental capacity; later also computer-guided
- DATE
- circa 1540–today
- MATCH
- gloss
- DOSSIERS
- 1
Latin / Indo-European
intelligentia
understanding, discernment
- DATE
- Latin antiquity / Late Latin
- MATCH
- gloss
- DOSSIERS
- 1
0324
WHERE INTERPRETATION IS TESTED
CLAIMS & DISPUTES
SCHOLARLY DISPUTES / 12
openproposedposition text
Is the deepest *peh₁- route established?
No. The Germanic verb and lexicalized agent formation are firmer than the proposed Indo-European comparison, whose formal intermediates and semantic unity remain reconstructive.
openproposedposition text
Is the deepest *peh₁- route established?
No. The Germanic verb and lexicalized agent formation are firmer than the proposed Indo-European comparison, whose formal intermediates and semantic unity remain reconstructive.
openprobableposition text
Can the exact Proto-Germanic pronunciation and lexicalization moment be recovered?
No. *fi(j)and- and *fi(j)ēn- are normalized comparative reconstructions; optional j, branch vowels, and the moment the agent became an ordinary noun remain analytical.
openprobableposition text
Was Old English frēond still transparently a productive participle in every use?
Not demonstrably. Its history is participial, but OED says it inflects as a strong masculine agent noun and the textual record uses it as an ordinary noun.
openprobableposition text
Did friend or kin come first semantically?
The inherited agent formation and daughter-language distributions do not recover one securely dated semantic split. Old Norse evidence preserves overlap rather than a single transition record.
openprobableposition text
Was every Old English frēond token still a productive participle?
Not demonstrably. OED classifies the word as a strong masculine nd-agent noun, and Bosworth–Toller labels the headword a masculine noun even while preserving its participial history.
openproposedposition text
Is the deepest *peh₁- route established?
No. The Germanic verb and lexicalized agent formation are firmer than the proposed Indo-European comparison, whose formal intermediates and semantic unity remain reconstructive.
openprobableposition text
Can the exact Proto-Germanic pronunciation and lexicalization moment be recovered?
No. *fi(j)and- and *fi(j)ēn- are normalized comparative reconstructions; optional j, branch vowels, and the moment the agent became an ordinary noun remain analytical.
openprobableposition text
Is Heliand 4915 unambiguously a productive present participle?
No. Köbler lists hatandiero or hettendero under the verb hatōn as present participial forms and also under hėttiand, a lexicalized agent noun meaning enemy.
openprobableposition text
Was the weak verb formed directly from *hatiz-?
The weak verb and Old Saxon heti belong to the same inherited family, but the exact formation direction and chronology among noun, weak-verb paradigms, and agent noun remain reconstructed.
openproposedposition text
Is *leǵ- the only published root shape behind intelligent?
No. The traditional *leǵ- analysis remains probable, while *sleǵ- is a published alternative. Neither reconstructed shape is treated as an attested word.
openprobableposition text
Did rich reach Middle English only through Old English or only through French?
The shared deep ancestry is secure, but the immediate medieval history is convergent: Merriam-Webster foregrounds Old English, while American Heritage explicitly gives both Old French and Old English.
CONTRARIAN TRUTHS / 12
RANK 27GRADE Aranked reveal
The Old English verb survives most visibly as an enemy.
The located weak-verb corpus inventory gives hettan only one form: hettende. Bosworth–Toller records that surface family repeatedly under hettend, “enemy” or “antagonist,” including Genesis and the Phoenix. The verb is therefore not a neat recovered paradigm; it is a lemma inferred at the edge between action, agent, and lexicalized foe.
RANK 29GRADE Aranked reveal
One Gothic hate verb survives once—in a command to do good to those who hate you.
Project Wulfila’s only verified hatjan token is hatjandam in Matthew 5:44, directly visible on Codex Argenteus folio 3v. A parallel “love your enemies” command in Luke 6:27 instead uses hatandans from class-III hatan. The translation gloss “hate” therefore hides a genuine grammatical and historical dispute.
RANK 30GRADE Aranked reveal
Gothic hatis—the noun related to English hate—survives chiefly as wrath, including the wrath to come and the wrath of God.
Project Wulfila reports fifteen tokens in hatis, hatiza, and hatize. Fourteen are biblical; Streitberg maps the family chiefly to Greek orgē, gives Galatians 5:20 thumos, and flags Ephesians 4:31 because both stand together. Codex Argenteus folio 129r directly preserves hatiza in “the wrath to come.” Even the paradigm resists simplification: synchronic neuter a-stem, historically an i-stem remodeled into it.
RANK 31GRADE Aranked reveal
Gothic’s two hate verbs trade places across two passages.
The complete surviving hatan corpus contains only hatandane in Luke 1:71 and hatandans in Luke 6:27. In Luke 1, fijandam supplies enemies while hatandane supplies those hating; in Luke 6, hatandans supplies enemies while fijandam supplies those hating. Both Codex Argenteus pages are directly inspected. The lexical swap—and the class-III versus class-I dispute—cannot be represented by one timeless translation arrow.
RANK 39GRADE Aranked reveal
Old Norse fjándi was an enemy before it was the Devil.
Cleasby and Vigfússon identify the inherited -nd- shape as participial and gloss the older formation as properly a hater. Their first sense is the ordinary enemy; only after the introduction of Christianity does the historical account assign fjándi the fiend branch. ONP then reveals how far the word traveled: 222 citations across enemy, demon, evil spirit, pagan god, Satan, and derogatory uses for hated or bewitched beings and things. The truth is not that every enemy secretly hates. It is that a lexicalized agent noun became an ordinary social category, then accumulated new religious and expressive work.
RANK 45GRADE Aranked reveal
One Gothic anger verb survives in one question—and not in its dictionary form.
Project Wulfila’s complete current inventory contains one hatizōn token: hatizoþ in John 7:23, “are you angry at me?” Codex Argenteus folio 94v directly preserves the inflection. The manuscript never writes the normalized infinitive or its editorial macron. Grammar then reveals another layer: hatizōn is a class-II verb built from the consonantal stem hatiz- of hatis “hatred” or “wrath.” One English gloss therefore hides a noun-to-verb formation, one surviving grammatical person, and a sharp boundary between pixels and reconstruction.
RANK 48GRADE Aranked reveal
Old Saxon hate crosses from verb into enemy noun inside one manuscript locus.
Köbler assigns hatōn four cited loci, but the evidence is not four neat tokens. Heliand 1451 alone varies between Munich hatan and Cotton haton. At Heliand 4915, Munich hatandiero and Cotton hettendero are indexed twice: under the verb as present-participial forms and under hėttiand as the lexicalized agent noun enemy. The Munich hatan and hatandiero pixels are directly inspected. The reveal is therefore grammatical, not mystical: one written formation sits at the boundary between haters and enemies. It does not prove that every enemy hates, that pursue was the first meaning, or that the four-locus dictionary count represents four manuscripts.
RANK 52GRADE Aranked reveal
Friend and fiend are grammatical twins—but not cognates.
OED analyzes friend as a noun use of the present participle behind the Germanic free and love family, and it explicitly calls fiend a similar formation. Bosworth–Toller makes the Old English structure visible: freónd is the loving participle of freón, to free or love. The enemy word follows a different hate verb. The real unveiling is structural: one inherited agent noun is the loving one, the other the hating one or enemy, and parallel grammar must not be mistaken for one root splitting into moral opposites.
RANK 53GRADE Aranked reveal
Freund fossilizes the loving one—but it does not come from Freude.
Pfeifer, Duden, and Grimm route Freund through Middle High German vriunt and Old High German friunt to a substantivized Germanic present participle of the love verb. Grimm also makes the structural contrast explicit: Feind is built on a different hate verb. The unveiling is grammatical rather than mystical—Freund and Feind look like a moral pair because both preserve agent-noun architecture, not because one ancient root split into love and hate.
RANK 56GRADE Acontrarian claim
The Old English friend was a loving-agent noun—but not merely a modern intimate.
OED and Bosworth–Toller preserve the morphology behind frēond: an inherited nd-stem formation tied to the verb meaning free or love. The same sources then refuse a slogan-sized definition. Old English uses cover close companion, ally or non-enemy, relation, friend of God, friend versus foe, and friends acting as arbitrators. Cotton MS Vitellius A XV folio 152r visibly preserves freondum in a hall filled with favored people at Beowulf 1018. The unveiling is not that friend secretly means love in every sentence; it is that a loving-agent fossil became a socially versatile noun before modern English existed.
RANK 165GRADE Acontrarian claim
Intelligent did not descend from English intelligence.
English intelligent is borrowed from a Latin present participle. Intelligence follows a sibling French and Latin abstract-noun route; the words meet deeper than modern English.
RANK 185GRADE Aranked reveal
A calculator was a person before it was a device.
Middle English calkelatour named someone who counted or computed. The machine later inherited the human arithmetic agent's title.
0412
BOOKS / DICTIONARIES / ARTICLES / DATABASES
SOURCES
research article59 CLAIM LINKS
On the syntax of the Agent nouns in Gothic: the case of nd-formations
Daniel Ayora Estevan / 2023
source titleAUDIT EVERY USE ↗historical dictionary13 CLAIM LINKS
Intelligent — Word History
Merriam-Webster Editors / 2026
source titleAUDIT EVERY USE ↗digitized primary source9 CLAIM LINKS
Codex Argenteus facsimile 145 — folio 123r, Luke 1:69–77
Uppsala University Library · Project Codex Argenteus Online / 1927
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗digitized primary source7 CLAIM LINKS
Codex Argenteus facsimile 186 — folio 143v, Luke 6:25–30
Uppsala University Library · Project Codex Argenteus Online / 1927
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗digitized primary source7 CLAIM LINKS
Codex Argenteus facsimile 6 — folio 3v, Matthew 5:42–47
Uppsala University Library · Project Codex Argenteus Online / 1927
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗manuscript catalog7 CLAIM LINKS
The history of Codex argenteus
Uppsala University Library / 2026
source titleAUDIT EVERY USE ↗digitized primary source6 CLAIM LINKS
Codex Argenteus facsimile 60 — folio 94v, John 7:22–28
Uppsala University Library · Project Codex Argenteus Online / 1927
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗digitized primary source4 CLAIM LINKS
Codex Argenteus facsimile 57 — folio 33r, John 7:2–8
Uppsala University Library · Project Codex Argenteus Online / 1927
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗digitized primary source3 CLAIM LINKS
Codex Argenteus facsimile 228 — folio 164v, Luke 10:17–21
Uppsala University Library · Project Codex Argenteus Online / 1927
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗digitized primary source3 CLAIM LINKS
Codex Argenteus facsimile 31 — folio 27r, Matthew 10:34–40
Uppsala University Library · Project Codex Argenteus Online / 1927
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗digitized primary source3 CLAIM LINKS
Codex Argenteus facsimile 96 — folio 76v, John 12:19–25
Uppsala University Library · Project Codex Argenteus Online / 1927
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗historical dictionary2 CLAIM LINKS
American Heritage Dictionary: intelligent
American Heritage Dictionary Editors / 2022
source titleAUDIT EVERY USE ↗0512
FIRST USES & HISTORICAL OBJECTS
ATTESTATION WITNESSES
DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Codex Argenteus, Mark 1:11
liufs / liufs / early 6th century
Codex Argenteus facsimile 276 — folio 57v, Mark 1:6–13reporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Codex Argenteus, Matthew 5:44
hatjan / hatjan / early 6th century
Codex Argenteus facsimile 6 — folio 3v, Matthew 5:42–47reporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Codex Argenteus, Luke 3:7
hatis / hatis / early 6th century
Codex Argenteus facsimile 157 — folio 129r, Luke 3:5–9reporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Codex Argenteus, Luke 1:71
hatan / hatan / early 6th century
Codex Argenteus facsimile 145 — folio 123r, Luke 1:69–77reporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Codex Argenteus, Luke 6:27
hatan / hatan / early 6th century
Codex Argenteus facsimile 186 — folio 143v, Luke 6:25–30reporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Codex Argenteus, John 7:7
fijan / fijan / early 6th century
Codex Argenteus facsimile 57 — folio 33r, John 7:2–8reporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Codex Argenteus, John 12:25
fijan / fijan / early 6th century
Codex Argenteus facsimile 96 — folio 76v, John 12:19–25reporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Codex Argenteus, Luke 1:71
fijan / fijan / early 6th century
Codex Argenteus facsimile 145 — folio 123r, Luke 1:69–77reporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Codex Argenteus, Luke 6:27
fijan / fijan / early 6th century
Codex Argenteus facsimile 186 — folio 143v, Luke 6:25–30reporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Codex Argenteus, Matthew 5:43
fijands / fijands / early 6th century
Codex Argenteus facsimile 6 — folio 3v, Matthew 5:42–47reporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Codex Argenteus, Matthew 5:44
fijands / fijands / early 6th century
Codex Argenteus facsimile 6 — folio 3v, Matthew 5:42–47reporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Codex Argenteus, Matthew 10:36
fijands / fijands / early 6th century
Codex Argenteus facsimile 31 — folio 27r, Matthew 10:34–40reporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗06
SEARCH IS DISCOVERY, NOT PROOF
EVERY RESULT OPENS A PERMANENT EVIDENCE RECORD.
Matching text only locates a record. It does not raise confidence, settle a dispute, establish cognacy, or turn a source report into direct inspection. Follow the result into its citations and editorial limits.