Bart Ehrman 1986 Didymus The Blind and The Text of The Gospels

DIDYMUS THE BLIND AND THE
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS

SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
The New Testament in the Greek Fathers
Edited by
Gordon D. Fee
Number 1
DI DYMUS THE BLI ND AND THE
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS
by
Bart D. Ehrman
DI DYMUS T H E BLI ND AND T HE
T E X T OF T HE GOS P ELS
Bart D. Ehrman
Scholars Press
Atlanta, Georgia
DIDYMUS THE BLIND AND THE
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS
Bart D. Ehrman
p
1986
The Society of Biblical Literature
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Ehrman, Bart D.
Dtdymus the Blind and the text of the Gospels.
(New Testament and the Greek Fathers ; no. 1)
Bibliography: p.
1. Bible. N.T. Gospels -Criticism, Textual.
2. Didymus, of Alexandria, the Theologian, ca.
31 3-ca. 398KnowledgeAlexandrian test of the
Gospels. I. Title. II. Series.
BS2551.A26D534 1986 226\048'0924 86-24845
ISBN 1-55540-083-3 (alk. paper)
ISBN 1-55540-084-1 (pbk. : alk. paper)
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
To Cindy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments i x
E d i t o r ' s P r e f a c e x i
I n t r o d u c t i o n 1
Chapter I Didynms a s a Witness t o the T e x t of the
G o s p e l s : M e t h d o l o g i c a l Problems 4
P a t r i s t i c S o u r c e s : T h e i r S i g n i f i c a n c e and
C o m p l e x i t i e s 4
The Use of C r i t i c a l E d i t i o n s 7
Source A n a l y s i s 7
T e x t u a l R e c o n s t r u c t i o n 12
The S p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e and P e c u l i a r
Problems of Didymus a s a T e x t u a l
Witness 17
Chapter I I I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e T e x t and C r i t i c a l
Apparatus 30
P r e s e n t a t i o n of the T e x t 31
The C r i t i c a l Apparatus 34
A b b r e v i a t i o n s used i n the Apparatus 37
Chapter I I I T e x t and Apparatus 38
Gospel of Matthew 38
Gospel of Mark 88
Gospel of Luke 91
Gospel of John 124
I n d e t e r m i n a b l e R e f e r e n c e s and Complex
C o n f l a t i o n s 172
Chapter I V The Gospel Text of Didymus: Q u a n t i t a t i v e
A n a l y s i s 187
Didymus"s A f f i n i t i e s i n Matthew 190
R e s i d u a l Methodological Concerns 195
Didymus's A f f i n i t i e s i n Mark 202
v i i
Didymus's A f f i n i t i e s i n Luke 204
Didymus's A f f i n i t i e s i n John 207
Didymus's T e x t of the Four G o s p e l s 218
Chapter V The Gospel T e x t of Didymus: Group
P r o f i l e s 223
P r o f i l e One: I n t e r - G r o u p Readings 228
P r o f i l e Two: I n t r a - G r o u p Readings 234
P r o f i l e Three: Combination I n t e r -
and I n t r a - G r o u p Readings 238
P r o f i l e Four: Didymus's R e l a t i o n s h i p
t o A l e x a n d r i a n W i t n e s s e s 243
Chapter V I C o n c l u s i o n s 254
Methods of T e x t u a l A n a l y s i s and
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n 254
The C h a r a c t e r and H i s t o r y of t h e
A l e x a n d r i a n T e x t 258
The Western T e x t i n A l e x a n d r i a 258
The B y z a n t i n e T e x t i n A l e x a n d r i a 259
The c a e s a r e a n T e x t i n A l e x a n d r i a 261
The E a r l y and L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n
T e x t s 262
26
Appendix One: Didymus i n the Apparatus of NA 268
3
Appendix Two: Didymus i n the Apparatus of UBS , 274
B i b l i o g r a p h y 276
v i i i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
T h i s book grew out of the d i s s e r t a t i o n I submitted t o the
f a c u l t y of P r i n c e t o n T h e o l o g i c a l Seminary i n 1985. I would
e s p e c i a l l y l i k e t o e x p r e s s my g r a t i t u d e t o t h e t h r e e mem-
b e r s of my d i s s e r t a t i o n committee, each of whom made s i g n i -
f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o my l a b o r s : Bruce M. Metzger, who
spawned i n me an i n t e r e s t i n the a n a l y s i s of the P a t r i s t i c
w i t n e s s e s of the NT t e x t , and whose t e x t u a l e x p e r t i s e guided
me throughout the e n t i r e p r o j e c t ; C u l l e n I K S t o r y , whose
m e t i c u l o u s a t t e n t i o n t o d e t a i l has always been a s o u r c e of
a d m i r a t i o n ; and David R. Adams, whose i n t u i t i v e s e n s e f o r
c r i t i c a l method c o n t i n u e s t o i n s p i r e r i g o r i n h i s s t u d e n t s .
Thanks a r e a l s o due E l i z a b e t h Johnson of New Brunswick Theo-
l o g i c a l Seminary f o r much g e n e r o s i t y and many h e l p f u l sugges-
t i o n s , and t o my f r i e n d J e f f r e y S i k e r who read p o r t i o n s of the
MS and gave c o n t i n u a l encouragement.
Anyone who reads t h i s study w i l l r e a l i z e the e x t e n t t o
which I am indebted t o the s c h o l a r s h i p of Gordon D. Fee.
From the v e r y beginning of my work h i s p u b l i c a t i o n s have
s e r v e d as a model of c a r e f u l r e s e a r c h , and I have c o n s i d e r e d
i t my g r e a t f o r t u n e to be a b l e to work w i t h him as the g e n e r a l
e d i t o r of t h i s p r o j e c t .
I would a l s o l i k e t o extend my thanks t o Dennis Ford
of S c h o l a r s P r e s s , who has always been prompt and w i l l i n g to
p r o v i d e t h e a s s i s t a n c e I have needed.
My deepest a p p r e c i a t i o n goes t o my w i f e Cindy whose l o v e
and p a t i e n c e have been my s t e a d y companions throughout the
c o u r s e of my work. I t i s t o her t h a t I have d e d i c a t e d t h i s
book.
i x
EDITOR'S PREFACE
The u s e f u l n e s s of P a t r i s t i c c i t a t i o n s f o r New Testament
t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m has long been r e c o g n i z e d . Indeed, when a
F a t h e r ' s t e x t can be judged as c e r t a i n (e.g. when he p r o v i d e s
commentary on t h e v e r y words of h i s t e x t or notes a l t e r n a t i v e
r e a d i n g s ) , i t p r o v i d e s d a t a b l e primary e v i d e n c e f o r the New
Testament t e x t i n a g i v e n g e o g r a p h i c a l l o c a t i o n .
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , however, t h a t u s e f u l n e s s , both f o r s c h o l a r
and s t u d e n t a l i k e , has been m i t i g a t e d by two f a c t o r s . F i r s t ,
the average s c h o l a r or s t u d e n t has v e r y l i t t l e a c c e s s t o the
d a t a , which by and l a r g e a r e the p r o v i n c e of t h e s p e c i a l i s t
a l o n e a n d even t h e s p e c i a l i s t a t t i m e s has c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f -
f i c u l t y g e t t i n g a t some of the m a t e r i a l , or a t o t h e r t i m e s
knowing how to. e v a l u a t e what he or she does have a c c e s s t o .
Second, what a c c e s s most people do have t o the d a t a , namely i n
t h e c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n s , i s h o p e l e s s l y inadequate. T h i s i s
e s p e c i a l l y t r u e , f o r example, of the o t h e r w i s e u s e f u l U n i t e d
B i b l e S o c i e t i e s Greek New Testament, where t h e r e a r e so many
i n a c c u r a c i e s t h a t even the c o r r e c t d a t a a r e not u s e f u l , s i n c e
one can never know which a r e c o r r e c t and which a r e not.
What has been l a c k i n g i s an adequate and a c c e s s i b l e
p r e s e n t a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n of t h e s e d a t a , e s p e c i a l l y of the
Greek F a t h e r s , where t o date o n l y t h a t of Clement of A l e x a n d r i a
i s a v a i l a b l e (M. Mees, Die Z i t a t e aus dem Neuen Testament b e i
Clemens von A l e x a n d r i e n [Rome, 1970]; who has a f u l l p r e s e n -
t a t i o n of the d a t a , although t h e e v a l u a t i o n l e a v e s some t h i n g s
t o be d e s i r e d ) .
The p r e s e n t volume r e p r e s e n t s the f i r s t i n a new s e r i e s
whose aim i s t o f i l l up t h i s l a c u n a . The j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r
t h e s e r i e s can be found i n Dr. Ehrman's I n t r o d u c t i o n , pp. 1-3.
L e t me here simply s e t out the g u i d e l i n e s : (1) The s e r i e s
w i l l p r e s e n t the NT t e x t u a l d a t a f o r the Greek F a t h e r s ; (2)
o n l y d a t a a v a i l a b l e from c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n s of t h e F a t h e r s '
t e x t s w i l l be i n c l u d e d ; (3) each volume w i l l i n c l u d e a f u l l
p r e s e n t a t i o n of the NT data (or p a r t s t h e r e o f ) of a g i v e n
F a t h e r or s e l e c t e d works of a g i v e n Fathtsr; (4) each p r e s e n -
t a t i o n w i l l a l s o i n c l u d e a minimal e v a l u a t i o n of the F a t h e r ' s
x i
x i i
c i t a t i o n s , as t o h i s c i t i n g h a b i t s , the r e l i a b i l i t y of h i s
d a t a , and the degree of c e r t a i n t y w i t h which one may use the
d a t a ; and f i n a l l y (5) the author w i l l o f f e r an a n a l y s i s of the
t e x t u a l d a t a as to the F a t h e r ' s p l a c e i n the h i s t o r y of t h e NT
t e x t , e s p e c i a l l y i n terms of t e x t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h the
o t h e r a v a i l a b l e d a t a . I t i s hoped t h a t such a p r e s e n t a t i o n
w i l l i n c r e a s e our o v e r a l l c o n f i d e n c e i n the use of the
F a t h e r ' s t e x t u a l d a t a .
I t i s a p l e a s u r e t o i n t r o d u c e the s e r i e s w i t h Dr. B a r t
Ehrman's a n a l y s i s of the t e x t of the four G o s p e l s as i t i s
c i t e d i n the commentaries of Didymus the B l i n d found a t Toura
i n 1941. Dr. Ehrman has not only g i v e n us a f u l l p r e s e n t a t i o n
and a n a l y s i s of the d a t a , but has a l s o o f f e r e d some r e f i n e -
ments of method i n the t a s k of a n a l y s i s t h a t h e l p us t o move
toward g r e a t e r c e r t a i n t y i n t h a t t a s k . T h i s i s an a u s p i c i o u s
b e g i n n i n g of a s e r i e s t h a t we t r u s t w i l l prove u s e f u l f o r the
ongoing t a s k of NT t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m , e s p e c i a l l y i n our
a b i l i t y someday t o w r i t e the h i s t o r y of the t e x t w i t h even
g r e a t e r c l a r i t y .
Perhaps o t h e r younger s c h o l a r s w i l l now be encouraged t o
look toward t h i s a s p e c t of t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m a s a p o s s i b l e
a r e a f o r t h e i r d i s s e r t a t i o n s , s i n c e t h i s s e r i e s o f f e r s them a
p o s s i b l i t y of p u b l i c a t i o n .
GORDON D. FEE
I n t r o d u c t i o n
Recent y e a r s have w i t n e s s e d a renewed i n t e r e s t i n the
a n a l y s i s and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of NT documentary e v i d e n c e . T h i s
renewal had i t s r o o t s i n methodological c o n c e r n s , a s ap-
proaches t a k e n t o e s t a b l i s h i n g t e x t u a l c o n s a n g u i n i t y were s y s -
t e m a t i z e d and o b j e c t i f i e d . Two new methods of a n a l y s i s were
d e v i s e d , one a q u a n t i t a t i v e method designed to demonstrate on
s t a t i s t i c a l grounds the t e x t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s of NT documents,
the o t h e r a p r o f i l e method used t o c l a s s i f y w i t n e s s e s a c c o r d -
i n g t o t h e i r p a t t e r n s of a t t e s t a t i o n of r e a d i n g s . These
developments l e d t o the p u b l i c a t i o n of s e v e r a l a n a l y s e s of
s i g n i f i c a n t t e x t u a l w i t n e s s e s , i n c l u d i n g MSS N and W and the
c h u r c h F a t h e r s Origen, Chrysostom, and H i p p o l y t u s , as w e l l a s
t o s e v e r a l important s k e t c h e s of the NT MS t r a d i t i o n s .
The p r e s e n t study s e e k s , as d i d most of i t s p r e d e c e s s o r s ,
t o u t i l i z e and r e f i n e methods of t e x t u a l a n a l y s i s now common
i n the f i e l d . F a r from d i s c u s s i n g methodology o n l y i n the
a b s t r a c t , however, the study has a s i t s primary o b j e c t i v e the
a p p l i c a t i o n of a r e f i n e d method of a n a l y s i s t o y e t another
s i g n i f i c a n t t e x t u a l w i t n e s s , Didymus t h e B l i n d .
As an e c c l e s i a s t i c a l l e a d e r i n f o u r t h - c e n t u r y A l e x a n d r i a ,
Didymus i s an important l i n k i n t h e g r e a t c h a i n of t e x t u a l
t r a n s m i s s i o n . A l e x a n d r i a was famous f o r i t s c l a s s i c a l s c h o l -
a r s h i p and i s commonly reputed t o have p r e s e r v e d , from e a r -
l i e s t t i m e s , the p u r e s t form of NT t e x t . Furthermore, s e v e r a l
of the most important A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s , i n c l u d i n g c o d i c e s
K and B, were probably produced d u r i n g Didymus's l i f e t i m e .
Thus a study of Didymus's NT q u o t a t i o n s can be expected t o
show whether t h e s e o t h e r w i t n e s s e s a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t the
A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n of the l a t e f o u r t h c e n t u r y . I n a d d i -
t i o n , Didymus's t e x t may c a s t l i g h t on somewhat broader ques-
t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the t r a n s m i s s i o n of the NT: i t may i l l u -
minate, f o r example, the h i s t o r i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between the
s o - c a l l e d " E a r l y " and " L a t e " A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t s , and i t may
show t h e e x t e n t t o which o t h e r t y p e s of t e x t i n f l u e n c e d the
A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n .
1
2/ Didymus and the G o s p e l s
The s c i e n t i f i c study of Didymus's t e x t of the N T i n t h i s
c a s e , of t h e four G o s p e l s h a s become p o s s i b l e only w i t h i n the
p a s t s e v e r a l y e a r s . I n 1941, i n a g r o t t o n e a r Toura, Egypt,
E g y p t i a n workers a c c i d e n t a l l y unearthed n e a r l y 2000 pages of
papyrus MSS. I n c l u d e d among t h e s e s i x t h - or s e v e n t h - c e n t u r y
p a p y r i were fragmentary c o p i e s of h i t h e r t o unknown e x p o s i t o r y
works of Didymus. C r i t i c a l e d i t i o n s of t h e s e commentaries on
G e n e s i s , Job, Psalms, E c c l e s i a s t e s , and Z e c h a r i a h have s l o w l y
appeared s i n c e 1968. I n them Didymus quotes e x t e n s i v e l y from
the NT G o s p e l s . The p r e s e n t study r e p r e s e n t s the f i r s t f u l l -
s c a l e t e x t u a l a n a l y s i s of t h e s e q u o t a t i o n s . The a n a l y s i s
f o c u s e s on t h r e e k i n d s of i s s u e s : (1) M e t h o d o l o g i c a l : How
can the t e x t u a l a f f i n i t i e s of Didymus's Gospel q u o t a t i o n s and
a l l u s i o n s b e s t be determined? (2) T e x t u a l : What a r e t h e s e
a f f i n i t i e s ? (3) H i s t o r i c a l : What does Didymus's Gospel t e x t
r e v e a l about the t r a n s m i s s i o n of the NT i n A l e x a n d r i a ?
Methodological i s s u e s a r e addressed a t the o u t s e t of t h e
study. Chapter I c o n s i d e r s the problems t h a t a r e unique t o
a n a l y s e s of t h e P a t r i s t i c w i t n e s s e s t o the NT t e x t . The chap-
t e r pays p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n t o the s i g n i f i c a n c e of Didymus
as a t e x t u a l w i t n e s s and t o the p e c u l i a r d i f f i c u l t i e s encoun-
t e r e d i n the a n a l y s i s of h i s Gospel q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s .
A major p o r t i o n of the study i s devoted t o a p r e s e n t a t i o n
of Didymus's Gospel t e x t . Chapter I I i n t r o d u c e s and e x p l a i n s
t h e format of t h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n , which i t s e l f i s then g i v e n i n
Chapter I I I . The p r e s e n t a t i o n i n c l u d e s a f u l l l i s t i n g of
e v e r y Gospel q u o t a t i o n and a l l u s i o n found i n Didymus's w r i t -
i n g s , and a c r i t i c a l apparatus which s u p p l i e s f u l l c o l l a t i o n s
of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t e x t u a l w i t n e s s e s a t every p o i n t .
These data a r e s u b j e c t e d t o a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s i n Chap-
t e r s I V and V. Chapter IV uses a q u a n t i t a t i v e method t o
demonstrate t h e p r o x i m i t y of Didymus's t e x t t o i n d i v i d u a l
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the major s t r a n d s of t h e t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n .
Chapter V supplements t h i s a n a l y s i s by examining Didymus's
support of r e a d i n g s t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e each of the t e x t u a l
groups, i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e i r a t t e s t a t i o n i n any g i v e n
w i t n e s s . F o r t h i s purpose a whole new s l a t e of p r o f i l e s of
I n t r o d u c t i o n /3
group r e a d i n g s i s proposed and u t i l i z e d .
The f i n a l c h a p t e r summarizes t h e important m e t h o d o l o g i c a l
r e f i n e m e n t s made i n t h e c o u r s e of t h e study, and demonstrates
t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of the a n a l y s i s f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e h i s t o r y
of t h e t e x t a s i t was t r a n s m i t t e d i n A l e x a n d r i a . P a r t i c u l a r
a t t e n t i o n i s p a i d here t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e f o u r t h -
c e n t u r y A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t w i t h o t h e r known t e x t u a l groups, and
t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s of t h e A l e x a n d r i a n subgroups.
The s t u d y c o n c l u d e s w i t h two a p p e n d i c e s . The f i r s t
i n d i c a t e s where t h e t e s t i m o n y of Didymus can now be c i t e d o r
26
c o r r e c t e d i n t h e a p p a r a t u s of NA . The second p r o v i d e s
s i m i l a r i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o UBSGNT .
Chapter I
Didymus as a Witness to the T e x t of t h e G o s p e l s :
Methodological Problems
A n a l y s e s of P a t r i s t i c w i t n e s s e s t o t h e NT t e x t encounter
a number of s e r i o u s methodological problems. These problems
a r e of two s o r t s : those i n h e r e n t i n the P a t r i s t i c s o u r c e s
g e n e r a l l y and t h o s e unique t o the works of each c h u r c h F a t h e r .
F o r the purposes of t h e p r e s e n t study, both s e t s of problems
can be c o n s i d e r e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e e x t a n t w r i t i n g s of
Didymus the B l i n d .
P a t - r i s t i c S o u r c e s : T h e i r S i g n i f i c a n c e and C o m p l e x i t i e s
NT s c h o l a r s agree t h a t the t e x t of the NT cannot be
r e c o n s t r u c t e d a p a r t from an a c c u r a t e d e l i n e a t i o n of the h i s -
t o r y o f i t s t r a n s m i s s i o n . P a t r i s t i c e v i d e n c e f i g u r e s promi-
n e n t l y i n t h i s d e l i n e a t i o n and i s , i n some r e s p e c t s , more
important t o i t than a r e the Greek MSS and e a r l y v e r s i o n s .
See n. 23, p. 17 below, and t h e d i s c u s s i o n of pp. 22-
29.
2
The h i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the P a t r i s t i c e v i d e n c e
was r e c o g n i z e d by the e a r l i e s t p i o n e e r s of t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m ,
e s p e c i a l l y by t h e e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y s a v a n t R i c h a r d B e n t l e y ,
whose study of Jerome and Origen d i c t a t e d t h e scope and method
of h i s c r i t i c a l r e s e a r c h . For contemporary a s s e s s m e n t s of the
v a l u e of t h e P a t r i s t i c s o u r c e s , see e s p e c i a l l y J e a n Duplacy
and J a c k Suggs, "Les c i t a t i o n s greques e t l a c r i t i q u e du t e x t e
de Nouveau Testament: l e pass, l e p r e s e n t , e t l ' a v e n i r , " i n
Le B i b l e e t l e s pres, eds. Andr B e n o i t and P i e r r e P r i g e n t
( P a r i s : P r e s s e s U n i v e r s i t a i r i e s de F r a n c e , 1971) 187-213;
Gordon D. Fee, "The T e x t of John i n t h e J e r u s a l e m B i b l e : A
C r i t i q u e of the Use of P a t r i s t i c C i t a t i o n s i n New Testament
T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m , " J f i L 90 (1971) 163-73; Bruce M. Metzger
" P a t r i s t i c E v i d e n c e and the T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m of t h e New
Testament," NTS 18 (1971-72) 379-400; M. J . Suggs, "The Use of
P a t r i s t i c E v i d e n c e i n the S e a r c h f o r a P r i m i t i v e New Testament
T e x t , " HIS 4 (1957-58) 131-47. The a r t i c l e s by Fee and
Metzger a r e d i r e c t e d , i n l a r g e measure, a g a i n s t t h e o v e r l y
z e a l o u s a p p r o p r i a t i o n of P a t r i s t i c e v i d e n c e by M.-E. Boismard,
whose v i e w s and r e s u l t a n t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Greek t e x t of
the Gospel of John were taken over by D. M o l l a t f o r h i s
t r a n s l a t i o n i n the J e r u s a l e m B i b l e . Boismard developed h i s
p o s i t i o n i n the f o l l o w i n g a r t i c l e s : "A propos de J e a n v, 39,"
BJ 55 (1948) 5-34; " C r i t i q u e textuell e t c i t a t i o n s p a t r i s -
t i q u e s , " RB 57 (1950) 388-408; " L e c t i o r b r e v i o r , p o t i o r , " KB
58 (1951) 161-68; "Dans l e s e i n des Pre (Jo 1,18)," RB 59
(1952) 23-39; "Problmes de c r i t i q u e t e x t u e l l e concernant l e
4
Methodological Problems /5
U n l i k e t h e s e o t h e r k i n d s of e v i d e n c e . P a t r i s t i c Bources can
be dated and l o c a l i z e d w i t h r e l a t i v e p r e c i s i o n . S i n c e t h e
t r a n s m i s s i o n h i s t o r y of the NT cannot be r e c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h -
out knowing when and where c o r r u p t i o n e n t e r e d t h e t e x t u a l
t r a d i t i o n , t h i s k i n d of p r e c i s i o n i s a s i n e gu_a. non f o r the
e n t i r e c r i t i c a l p r o c e s s .
D e s p i t e t h i s r e l a t i v e advantage. P a t r i s t i c s o u r c e s have
r e c e i v e d f a r l e s s c r i t i c a l a t t e n t i o n than have t h e Greek and
v e r s i o n a l e v i d e n c e . No doubt t h i s s c h o l a r l y r e t i c e n c e de-
r i v e s , i n l a r g e measure, from c o m p l e x i t i e s unique t o t h e
e v i d e n c e , c o m p l e x i t i e s stemming both from the l o o s e c i t a t i o n
h a b i t s of the F a t h e r s and from the f a u l t y t r a n s m i s s i o n of
t h e i r w r i t i n g s . I t i s w e l l known t h a t the F a t h e r s d i d not
always make a c o n s c i e n t i o u s e f f o r t t o c i t e B i b l i c a l t e x t s
a c c u r a t e l y , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of l e n g t h y c i t a t i o n s , quota-
t i o n s were n o r m a l l y drawn from memory w i t h o u t c o n s u l t i n g a
B i b l i c a l m a n u s c r i p t . The r e s u l t a n t " l o o s e " c i t a t i o n s range
from p a r a p h r a s e s of B i b l i c a l a c c o u n t s , t o a d a p t a t i o n s o f t e x t s
t o t h e i r s y n t a c t i c a l or m a t e r i a l c o n t e x t , t o c o m p l i c a t e d con-
f l a t i o n s of s e v e r a l p a s s a g e s i n t o one. To make m a t t e r s worse,
the F a t h e r s r a r e l y noted the s o u r c e s of t h e i r c i t a t i o n s . Thus
the "words of t h e S a v i o r , " or the "Holy A p o s t l e , " or the
" b l e s s e d P e t e r " can be quoted w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o any of the
books of the NT. And f r e q u e n t l y a NT q u o t a t i o n i s i n t r o d u c e d
o n l y by a s t a n d a r d q u o t a t i o n formula, such as Teypantat .
Consequently, i t o f t e n proves d i f f i c u l t not only t o a s c e r t a i n
quatrime vangiT" RB 60 (1953) 347-71; "Le papyrus
Bodmer I I , " ES 64 (1957) 363-98. Boismard's views l e a d t o the
a c c e p t a n c e of the " s h o r t e r t e x t " of John a t v i r t u a l l y e v e r y
p o i n t , even where the P a t r i s t i c s o u r c e s s t a n d a l o n e i n t h e i r
a t t e s t a t i o n of t h i s t e x t . As w i l l be seen below, the p r e s e n t
w r i t e r c o n c u r s t h a t Boismard's p o s i t i o n i s u n t e n a b l e . The
P a t r i s t i c s o u r c e s p r o v i d e primary e v i d e n c e f o r t h e h i s t o r y of
the t r a n s m i s s i o n of the NT t e x t but only secondary e v i d e n c e
f o r the o r i g i n a l t e x t i t s e l f .
3
s e e Bruce M. Metzger, The T e x t o f t h e New Testament: I t s
T r a n s m i s s i o n , C o r r u p t i o n , and R e s t o r a t i o n . 2nd ed. (New York:
Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1968) 86.
* T h i s a l o n e a c c o u n t s f o r t h e u b i q u i t y of " l o o s e " c i t a -
t i o n s i n t h e P a t r i s t i c s o u r c e s , see Fee, "The T e x t of John i n
t h e J e r u s a l e m B i b l e , " 167-70; Metzger, T e x t . 87-88.
6/ Didymus and the Gospel
t h e p r e c i s e wording of a F a t h e r ' s B i b l i c a l t e x t , but a l s o to
determine the s o u r c e of a q u o t a t i o n . The l a t t e r problem i s
e s p e c i a l l y a c u t e , of course, i n q u o t a t i o n s from t h e S y n o p t i c
G o s p e l s .
The o t h e r s e t of problems unique t o P a t r i s t i c s o u r c e s
c o n c e r n s the h i s t o r y of t h e i r own t r a n s m i s s i o n . The MS t r a d i -
t i o n s of v i r t u a l l y a l l the church F a t h e r s show t h a t l a t e r
c o p y i s t s tended t o " c o r r e c t " q u o t a t i o n s of the B i b l e t o the
form of t e x t p r e v a l e n t i n t h e i r own day. Consequently, P a t r i s -
t i c w r i t i n g s t h a t s u r v i v e only i n Medieval MSS or t h a t a r e
a v a i l a b l e o n l y i n u n c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n s , such a s Migne's
P a t r o l o q i a Graeca, a r e of p r a c t i c a l l y no v a l u e f o r e s t a b -
5
l i s h i n g the o r i g i n a l wording of t h e NT. B i b l i c a l c i t a t i o n s
i n such s o u r c e s do not n e c e s s a r i l y r e p r e s e n t t h e t e x t of the
6
F a t h e r , but o f t e n only t h a t known t o h i s l a t e r c o p y i s t s .
I t has become w i d e l y r e c o g n i z e d i n r e c e n t y e a r s t h a t
t h e s e c o m p l e x i t i e s r e q u i r e the c r i t i c t o f o l l o w s t r i c t method-
o l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e s when a s s e s s i n g t h e P a t r i s t i c e v i d e n c e .
These p r i n c i p l e s i n v o l v e t h r e e a s p e c t s of the a n a l y s i s : (1)
Only c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n s of a F a t h e r ' s works can be used; (2)
Only t h o s e NT q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s whose B i b l i c a l s o u r c e s
a r e beyond doubt can be c o n s i d e r e d ; and (3) A l l of the d a t a
T h i s has been acknowledged a t l e a s t s i n c e the t u r n of
the c e n t u r y . See F r e d e r i c C. Kenyon, Handbook t o the, Xe.xtual
C r i t i c i s m of t h e New Testament (London: Macmillan & Co., 1901)
206. The f o l l o w i n g i s a modern assessment by Gordon Fee:
"Over the p a s t e i g h t y e a r s I have been c o l l e c t i n g t h e Greek
p a t r i s t i c evidence f o r Luke and John f o r the I n t e r n a t i o n a l
Greek New Testament P r o j e c t . I n a l l of t h i s m a t e r i a l I have
found one i n v a r i a b l e : a good c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n of a f a t h e r ' s
t e x t , or t h e d i s c o v e r y of e a r l y MSS, always moves the f a t h e r ' s
t e x t of the NT away from t h e I B and c l o s e r t o t h e t e x t of our
modern c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n s . " (emphasis h i s ) Gordon D. Fee,
"Modern T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m and t h e R e v i v a l of t h e T e x t u s ESSSE^
t u s . " JETS 21 (1978) 26-27.
6
Among the p r e v i o u s P a t r i s t i c s t u i i e s whose f i n d i n g s a r e
compromised by the use of u n c r i t i c a l a d i t i o n s i s , s i g n i f i -
c a n t l y , the d i s s e r t a t i o n of Wilhelm C. L i n s s , "The Gospel T e x t
of Didymus" (Boston U n i v e r s i t y , 1955). See n. 42, p. below.
7
I n a d d i t i o n t o the works c i t e d i n n. 2, p. 4, see Gordon
D. Fee, "The T e x t of John i n Origen and C y r i l of A l e x a n d r i a : A
C o n t r i b u t i o n t o Methodology i n the Recovery and A n a l y s i s of
P a t r i s t i c C i t a t i o n s , " B i b l i c a 52 (1971) 357-94.
M e t h o d o l o g i c a l Problems p
i . e . a l l s u r v i v i n g c i t a t i o n s , a d a p t a t i o n s , and even a l l u -
s i o n s m u s t be a n a l y z e d ^ b e f o r e attempting t o d e l i n e a t e the
F a t h e r ' s B i b l i c a l t e x t . Each of t h e s e a s p e c t s can now be
c o n s i d e r e d i n d i v i d u a l l y .
The Use of C r i t i c a l E d i t i o n s
The c o n s t r u c t i o n of c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n s of t h e F a t h e r s '
w r i t i n g s o b v i o u s l y l i e s o u t s i d e t h e purview of NT t e x t u a l
c r i t i c i s m . T h i s means t h a t a c o r r e c t a n a l y s i s of a F a t h e r ' s
t e x t presupposes, i n some measure, t h e v a l i d i t y of p r e v i o u s
e d i t o r i a l d e c i s i o n s . The c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n s of Didymus's works
were somewhat e a s i e r to produce than a r e t h o s e of c h u r c h
F a t h e r s whose w r i t i n g s have s u r v i v e d i n numerous but l a t e MSS.
Each of Didymus's a u t h e n t i c w r i t i n g s i s p r e s e r v e d i n o n l y one,
r e l a t i v e l y e a r l y , MS which appears t o r e p r e s e n t f a i t h f u l l y the
9
o r i g i n a l t e x t . Consequently, making c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n s of
t h e s e works i n v o l v e d p r i m a r i l y t h r e e t a s k s : (1) r e c o n s t r u c t i n g
the t e x t wherever l a c u n a e occur, (2) comparing the r e a d i n g s of
t h e o r i g i n a l hands of t h e MSS w i t h t h o s e of t h e c o r r e c t o r s
10
(which i n some c a s e s numbered s i x or more), and (3)
c o r r e c t i n g obvious t r a n s c r i p t i o n a l e r r o r s . By f a r the most
f r e q u e n t e r r o r s a r e o r t h o g r a p h i c , problems of i t a c i s m o c c u r -
r i n g on n e a r l y e v e r y page.
The Source A n a l y s i s
The f i r s t s t e p toward a n a l y z i n g a F a t h e r ' s NT t e x t i n -
v o l v e s a s c e r t a i n i n g the B i b l i c a l s o u r c e f o r each c i t a t i o n ,
a d a p t a t i o n , and a l l u s i o n . I n c e r t a i n k i n d s of P a t r i s t i c
The terms " c i t a t i o n , " " a d a p t a t i o n , " and " a l l u s i o n " w i l l
be c a r e f u l l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on pp. 13-14 below. At t h i s p o i n t
i t i s n e c e s s a r y o n l y t o note t h a t the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n
u s e s the term " q u o t a t i o n " when speaking of both c i t a t i o n s and
a d a p t a t i o n s , w h i l e the term " r e f e r e n c e " i s used t o i n d i c a t e
any of the t h r e e k i n d s of e v i d e n c e c i t a t i o n , a d a p t a t i o n , or
a l l u s i o n .
9
See t h e works c i t e d i n n. 54, p. 25 below.
1 0
A s i n t h e Z e c h a r i a h commentary. See L o u i s D o u t r e l e a u ,
Didvme l'Aveugle s u r Z a c h a r i e ( P a r i s : L e s ditions du C e r f ,
(1962) 46-50.
^ L o c a t i n g a l l t h e p e r t i n e n t r e f e r e n c e s i s i t s e l f not a
d i f f i c u l t matter, i n v o l v i n g s i m p l y t h e p e r f u n c t o r y t a s k of
w r i t i n g s , of c o u r s e , t h i s k i n d of d e t e r m i n a t i o n can be made
r e l a t i v e l y e a s i l y f o r example i n a commentary on t h e B i b l i c a l
book i n q u e s t i o n . P a t r i s t i c commentaries o f t e n s u p p l y lemmata
b e f o r e the e x p o s i t i o n of each passage. To be s u r e , t h e s e
lemmata sometimes r e p r e s e n t l a t e r a d d i t i o n s t o a F a t h e r ' s
works so t h a t they can be used o n l y a s secondary s o u r c e s f o r
r e c o n s t r u c t i n g h i s B i b l i c a l t e x t . But u s u a l l y the F a t h e r
quotes t h e passage under c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n the e x p o s i t i o n i t -
s e l f , t h u s p r o v i d i n g the c r i t i c w i t h ample e v i d e n c e f o r a
t e x t u a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n .
With o t h e r genres of P a t r i s t i c w r i t i n g s , the c r i t i c i s
l e s s f o r t u n a t e . P a t r i s t i c sermons on B i b l i c a l themes, f o r
example, tend t o c o n t a i n b r i e f , s p o r a d i c r e f e r e n c e s t o the
NT. The s i t u a t i o n i s s i m i l a r i n commentaries on B i b l i c a l
books o t h e r than those being s u b j e c t e d t o t e x t u a l a n a l y s i s .
Thus one f i n d s t h a t i n h i s OT commentaries, Didymus o f t e n
quotes h a l f a v e r s e from t h e NT h e r e , h a l f a v e r s e t h e r e , two
v e r s e s h e r e , t h r e e t h e r e . Normally he does not mention t h e
B i b l i c a l s o u r c e f o r t h e s e q u o t a t i o n s . T h i s o b v i o u s l y c o m p l i -
c a t e s the e n t i r e t e x t - c r i t i c a l p r o c e s s , s i n c e an a n a l y s i s
cannot proceed w i t h o u t f i r s t d e t e r m i n i n g the B i b l i c a l
r e f e r e n t s f o r Didymus's q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s .
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , s e v e r a l p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s of P a t r i s t i c
w i t n e s s e s f a i l e d t o d e a l a d e q u a t e l y w i t h the problem of
s o u r c e s , l e a d i n g t o d i s t o r t e d p r e s e n t a t i o n s of e v i d e n c e . An
d e t e r m i n i n g where a F a t h e r quotes or a l l u d e s t o t h e NT.
N a t u r a l l y t h e s o u r c e a n a l y s i s , a s d e s c r i b e d below, w i l l e l i m -
i n a t e some of the data t e n t a t i v e l y a c c e p t e d a t the o u t s e t of
t h e a n a l y s i s .
12
See Fee, "The Text of John i n Origen and C y r i l , " 363-
64.
13
Among the noteworthy s t u d i e s o f P a t r i s t i c s o u r c e s t h a t
p r e s e r v e o n l y i s o l a t e d NT q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s a r e t h e
f o l l o w i n g : Lawrence E l d r i d g e , The Gospel T e x t of E p i p h a n l u s
of S a l a m j s ( S a l t Lake C i t y : U n i v e r s i t y of Utah P r e s s , 1969),
Gordon D. Fee, "The T e x t of John and Mark i n the W r i t i n g s of
C h r y s o s t o a , " NJT 26 (1979-80) 525-47, Alexander Globe, " S e r a -
p i o n of Thmuis a s Witness t o the Gospel T e x t Used by Origen
i n C a e s a r e a , " NovT 26 (1984) 97-127, M. Mees, Die Z i t a t e aus
dem Neuen Testament b e i Clemens von A l e x a n d r i e n (Rome, 1970) ,
and C a r r o l l Osburn, "The Text of the P a u l i n e E p i s t l e s i n
K i p p o l y t u s of Rome," Second Century 2 (1982) 97-124.
o u t s t a n d i n g c a s e i n p o i n t i s the landmark study^ of C h r y s o s -
tom's t e x t of Mark by J . G e e r l i n g s and S. New. As Gordon
Fee has r e c e n t l y demonstrated, G e e r l i n g s and New drew c o n c l u -
s i o n s about Chrysostom's t e x t of Mark from q u o t a t i o n s found i n
15
p r e c i s e l y t h e same form i n o t h e r G o s p e l s . But o b v i o u s l y a
study of Mark's t e x t cannot use a s d a t a q u o t a t i o n s which
might j u s t as w e l l have come from Matthew. T h i s r a i s e s the
m e t h o d o l o g i c a l problem of how t o determine the B i b l i c a l
s o u r c e of a P a t r i s t i c q u o t a t i o n or a l l u s i o n .
Sometimes the d e t e r m i n a t i o n proves t o be a r e l a t i v e l y
s i m p l e a f f a i r , a s when the author names h i s s o u r c e . Such a
16
statement can normally, but not always, be t r u s t e d . More
f r e q u e n t l y s o u r c e s must be determined on the b a s i s of i n t e r -
n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , t h a t i s , on the ground of v e r b a l c o r r e s -
pondence t o m a t e r i a l found i n o n l y one Gospel or another.
Problems of d e t e r m i n i n g s o u r c e s a r i s e i n t h r e e k i n d s of
c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The f i r s t has t o do w i t h Gospel p a r a l l e l s
when v e r b a l l y i d e n t i c a l p a s s a g e s o c c u r i n more than one
G o s p e l . The problem can be i l l u s t r a t e d from Didymus's
w r i t i n g s . I n h i s commentary on E c c l e s i a s t e s Didymus s t a t e s
( E c c l T 38:24). T h i s
J a c o b G e e r l i n g s and S i l v a New, "Chrysostom's T e x t of
t h e Gospel of Mark," HTR 24 (1931) 121-42.
15
Fee, "The T e x t of John and Mark i n Chrysostom," 538-47.
1 6
A s t r i k i n g example of the problem of a c c e p t i n g u n c r i -
t i c a l l y an a u t h o r ' s d e c l a r a t i o n of h i s s o u r c e can be found i n
Didymus's commentary on Psalms. I n the f o l l o w i n g passage
Didymus p o i n t s out t h e d i f f e r e n t r e n d e r i n g s of a d o m i n i c a l
s a y i n g by Matthew and Luke: &
" ,"
" ." As the e d i t o r s of t h e commentary
c o r r e c t l y n o t i c e d , the f i r s t c i t a t i o n a c t u a l l y d e r i v e s from
Matthew, and t h e second from Lukei Thus even when t h e author
names h i s source, t h e p r o c e s s of i n t e r n a l examination
o u t l i n e d below must be f o l l o w e d .
17
The f o l l o w i n g s i g l a a r e used f o r Didymus's commen-
t a r i e s throughout the p r e s e n t study. E c c l T = E c c l e s i a s t e s
commentary of Toura; GenTGenesis commentary; JobT=Job
commentary; PsT=Psalms commentary; ZeT=Zechariah commentary.
Thus E c c l T 38:24 s i g n i f i e s t h e E c c l e s i a s t e s commentary of
Toura, page 38, l i n e 24.
r e p r e s e n t s an a d a p t a t i o n of the passage found i n p r e c i s e l y
the same form i n a l l four G o s p e l s : trj
(Matt 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4; John 1:23). O c c a s i o n a l l y the
same problem a r i s e s when p r e c i s e v e r b a l p a r a l l e l s a r e found
w i t h i n the same Gospel, a s when Didymus s a y s
(ZeT 139:10), an a d a p t a t i o n of t h e
Matthean found i n both
Matt 4:23 and 9:34 or ... found i n
Matt 10:1. S i n c e the s o u r c e s of t h e s e q u o t a t i o n s cannot be
determined, they cannot be used i n an a n a l y s i s of Didymus's
t e x t . T h i s means t h a t a l a r g e number of d a t a must be excluded
from the a n a l y s i s a t the o u t s e t .
The second k i n d of problem d e r i v e s from s c r i b a l harmoni-
z a t i o n s of one Gospel t o another i n t h e c o u r s e of t h e i r t r a n s -
m i s s i o n . U s u a l l y each Gospel w i l l c o n t a i n some unique r e a d -
i n g s i n p a r a l l e l p a s s a g e s : a d i f f e r e n t v e r b t e n s e , t h e a d d i -
t i o n or o m i s s i o n of a word or p h r a s e , the use of a synonymn,
and the l i k e . I f a F a t h e r were t o quote a passage i n one of
i t s d i s t i n c t i v e forms, h i s s o u r c e would be e a s i l y r e c o g n i z e d .
But s i n c e many unique elements of the Gospels were e l i m i n a t e d
by w e l l - i n t e n t i o n e d s c r i b e s who harmonized one passage t o
another, i t i s o f t e n i m p o s s i b l e t o determine whether a F a t h e r
i s quoting one of t h e G o s p e l s i n i t s ( o r i g i n a l l y ) unique form
or a d i f f e r e n t Gospel t h a t was l a t e r harmonized t o i t . The
n a t u r e of t h e problem can a g a i n be i l l u s t r a t e d from Didymus's
w r i t i n g s . I n h i s commentary on t h e Psalms, Didymus c i t e s the
f o l l o w i n g s a y i n g of J e s u s : 8 hk\a
(PsT 276:2). The q u o t a t i o n conforms t o Matthew's v e r s i o n of
the l o g i o n . T h i s i s s i g n i f i c a n t because i t shows Didymus's
3
support f o r two v a r i a n t s i n the t r a d i t i o n : (1) 6 w i t h UBS
L fam 1 33 a g a i n s t found i n D W and
found i n TR () a (fam 13) 892 1241, and (2) w i t h
r e l l . a g a i n s t found i n fam 13 e. But t h e r e a s o n s f o r
c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s c i t a t i o n Matthean evaporate when t h e MS t r a -
d i t i o n of Mark i s examined more c l o s e l y . To be s u r e , Mark's
v e r s i o n probably r e a d 3 ... (thus B U L K
a l . ) . But t h e d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e i s found i n numerous o t h e r
Methodological Problems / l l
w i t n e s s e s , i n c l u d i n g A C 33. So h e r e i t i s i m p o s s i b l e
t o determine whether Didymus a g r e e s w i t h a g a i n s t i n a
Matthean c i t a t i o n or w i t h a g a i n s t i n a Marcan. F o r t h i s
r e a s o n , whenever a passage of one Gospel has been harmonized
t o t h a t of another i n a s i g n i f i c a n t s t r a n d of t h e t e x t u a l t r a -
d i t i o n , n e i t h e r passage can be used t o e s t a b l i s h a F a t h e r ' s
t e x t u a l a f f i n i t i e s .
A t h i r d p r o b l e m a t i c s i t u a t i o n o c c u r s when a F a t h e r ,
e i t h e r by a c c i d e n t or d e s i g n , c o n f l a t e s two or more B i b l i c a l
p a s s a g e s . O c c a s i o n a l l y a c o n f l a t e d r e a d i n g can be u n r a v e l l e d
so as t o make t h e c o n s t i t u e n t p a r t s and t h e i r s o u r c e s r e a d i l y
d i s c e r n a b l e , Such i s the c a s e , f o r example, when Didymus
s a y s . . .
. ,.& (PsT 210:34-45). The f i r s t p a r t of
t h e q u o t a t i o n (...) must r e p r e s e n t a c i t a t i o n of
Luke 12:8, t h e second (...) an a d a p t a t i o n of Matt
10:32. I n o t h e r p l a c e s , however, c o n f l a t i o n s a r e h o p e l e s s l y
complex, making t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of s o u r c e s i m p o s s i b l e . T h i s
i s t r u e , f o r example, i n the f o l l o w i n g q u o t a t i o n from E c c l T
358:26-359:2: t i ' v i ;...
' ,
' Mai 9,
won. . . . " .
C l e a r l y p a r t of t h i s t e x t d e r i v e s from Matt 11:16.-18 and p a r t
from Luke 7:31-32. But t h e two a c c o u n t s a r e so i n t r i c a t e l y
interwoven t h a t t h e s o u r c e of each phrase cannot be d i s c e r n e d .
And p a r t of t h e t e x t a g r e e s w i t h n e i t h e r Gospel, d e r i v i n g from
Didymus's own f r e e h a n d l i n g of t h e m a t e r i a l s . O b v i o u s l y com-
p l e x c o n f l a t i o n s of t h i s s o r t cannot be used when s e e k i n g t o
e s t a b l i s h a F a t h e r ' s t e x t u a l a f f i n i t i e s .
A s o u r c e a n a l y s i s , then, s e r v e s t o l i m i t t h e study of
P a t r i s t i c q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s t o t h o s e t h a t a r e not found
i n i d e n t i c a l form e i t h e r i n the o r i g i n a l t e x t s of the G o s p e l s
or i n t h e i r MS t r a d i t i o n s , and t o t h o s e t h a t a r e not c o n f l a t e d
beyond t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of d i s e n t a n g l e m e n t .
The T e x t u a l R e c o n s t r u c t i o n
The t h i r d a r e a of m e t h o d o l o g i c a l concern has t o do w i t h
the a c t u a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the F a t h e r ' s B i b l i c a l t e x t . Here
a g a i n some g e n r e s of l i t e r a t u r e w i l l be more amenable t o the
t a s k than o t h e r s . B i b l i c a l commentaries on the p a s s a g e s i n
q u e s t i o n w i l l tend t o p r e s e r v e a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h degree of
a c c u r a c y of c i t a t i o n i f not i n the lemmata, a t l e a s t i n the
18
e x p o s i t i o n i t s e l f . I n c o n t r a s t , q u o t a t i o n s i n commentaries
on o t h e r p a s s a g e s w i l l o f t e n be a l l u s i v e and more f r e q u e n t l y
adapted t o the grammatical or m a t e r i a l c o n t e x t . The f o l l o w i n g
m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r o p o s a l s were developed i n view of t h i s l a t t e r
k i n d of e v i d e n c e , g i v e n the f r e q u e n t but s p o r a d i c q u o t a t i o n s
of the NT i n Didymus's e x p o s i t o r y works.
The f i r s t s t e p toward r e c o n s t r u c t i n g a F a t h e r ' s B i b l i c a l
t e x t e n t a i l s d e t e r m i n i n g the r e l a t i v e v a l u e of a l l t h e data
t h u s f a r c o l l e c t e d . T h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n v o l v e s c l a s s i f y i n g
each B i b l i c a l q u o t a t i o n and a l l u s i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o i t s
v e r b a l correspondence t o the NT s o u r c e . At t h i s p o i n t t h e r e
e n t e r s i n t o the c r i t i c a l p r o c e s s the s u b j e c t i v e judgment of
whether t h e P a t r i s t i c author i n t e n d e d t o c i t e the t e x t p r e -
c i s e l y or w i l l i n g l y a l t e r e d or paraphrased t h e t e x t . I n
t h e o r y , one c o u l d a n a l y z e t h e manner of c i t a t i o n so a s t o make
t h i s judgment. I f , f o r example, the author i n t r o d u c e s the
r e f e r e n c e by c i t i n g h i s s o u r c e and u s i n g a c i t a t i o n formula
(e.g. Y^-ypauxai), one c o u l d c l a s s i f y the r e f e r e n c e a s an
i n t e n t i o n a l c i t a t i o n and, should t h e passage be s u f f i c i e n t l y
l e n g t h y , a s s e r t t h a t i t d e r i v e s from the a u t h o r ' s B i b l i c a l MS.
I n a c t u a l i t y , however, such i n d i c a t o r s of a u t h o r i a l i n t e n t
r a r e l y prove r e l i a b l e . C i t a t i o n formulae can j u s t a s e a s i l y
precede p a r a p h r a s e s as c i t a t i o n s , and, as p r e v i o u s l y seen, the
n o t a t i o n of s o u r c e s i s sometimes erroneous, making t h e i r v a l u e
19
i n t h i s r e g a r d dubious. For t h e s e r e a s o n s , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
of B i b l i c a l r e f e r e n c e s i s b e t t e r made p u r e l y on t h e ground of
v e r b a l correspondence t o the B i b l i c a l t e x t .
I n one s e n s e t h i s approach appears p r o b l e m a t i c , s i n c e
IB
See the d i s c u s s i o n on p. 7-8 above.
19
See n. 16, p. 9 above.
M e t h o d o l o g i c a l Problems /13
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s depend on the p r o x i m i t y of each r e f e r e n c e t o
the B i b l i c a l t e x t , w h i l e t h e physiognomy of a F a t h e r ' s t e x t
cannot be determined w i t h o u t f i r s t e s t a b l i s h i n g the a c c u r a c y
of h i s r e f e r e n c e s t o i t . I n p r a c t i c e , however, i t i s not
d i f f i c u l t t o d i s t i n g u i s h between a f a i n t a l l u s i o n and a p r e -
c i s e c i t a t i o n . The r e a l d i f f i c u l t y comes i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g ,
say, an i n t e n t i o n a l c i t a t i o n , which c o n t a i n s one or more s m a l l
v a r i a t i o n s from the F a t h e r ' s t e x t , from a s l i g h t a d a p t a t i o n of
the t e x t made i n view of the s y n t a c t i c a l or m a t e r i a l c o n t e x t .
I t must be r e c o g n i z e d a t t h i s s t a g e t h a t a l l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s
a r e n e c e s s a r i l y p r o v i s i o n a l and s h o u l d be viewed a s r e l a t i v e
p o i n t s of r e f e r e n c e along a continuum r a n g i n g from e x a c t
c i t a t i o n t o d i s t a n t a l l u s i o n . No advances i n method can
overcome the shortcomings of the P a t r i s t i c d a t a a t t h i s p o i n t ,
on o c c a s i o n i t may s i m p l y be t h a t what l o o k s l i k e an adapta-
t i o n of a B i b l i c a l t e x t a c t u a l l y d e r i v e d from the t e x t of the
F a t h e r ' s exemplar. On t h e o t h e r hand, s i n c e remnants of such
an a b e r r a n t t e x t would presumably r e c u r e l s e w h e r e i n t h e
t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n , i t i s r e l a t i v e l y s a f e t o assume t h a t t h e s e
e x c e p t i o n s w i l l be so r a r e as t o make v i r t u a l l y no impact on
the a n a l y s i s .
As a l r e a d y noted, the p r e s e n t study i s adopting, w i t h
minor m o d i f i c a t i o n s , t h e t h r e e f o l d system of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
advocated by Gordon Fee: c i t a t i o n s , a d a p t a t i o n s , and a l l u -
20
s i o n s . " C i t a t i o n s " c o n s i s t of a c c u r a t e q u o t a t i o n s of
t h e B i b l i c a l passage. Accuracy here i s determined s o l e l y on
the ground of v e r b a l c o n f o r m i t y t o the B i b l i c a l passage, a s
found i n t h e v a r i o u s s t r a n d s of the t r a d i t i o n . Thus i f the
c i t a t i o n v a r i e s markedly from the t e x t n o r m a l l y judged t o be
o r i g i n a l , y e t conforms w i t h the t e x t as found i n a s i g n i f i c a n t
element of the t r a d i t i o n , i t w i l l s t i l l be c o n s i d e r e d a c i t a -
t i o n . N a t u r a l l y , s i n c e minor changes may occur, not e v e r y
c i t a t i o n w i l l be e q u a l l y p r e c i s e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , r a t h e r t h a n
overcrowding the system beyond t h e p o i n t of u s e f u l n e s s i . e .
by l a b e l i n g c i t a t i o n s " v e r y l o o s e , " " l o o s e , " and " e x a c t " a l l
2 0
See e s p e c i a l l y "The T e x t of John i n t h e J e r u s a l e m
B i b l e , " 169-70.
more or l e s s a c c u r a t e q u o t a t i o n s w i l l be r e g i s t e r e d a s c i t a -
t i o n s .
" A d a p t a t i o n s " a r e B i b l i c a l r e f e r e n c e s which have been
s i g n i f i c a n t l y m o d i f i e d f o r one r e a s o n or another. Some c r i t i c s
apply t h i s c a t e g o r y only t o q u o t a t i o n s changed i n c o n f o r m i t y
w i t h t h e grammatical c o n t e x t o j i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h the p o i n t
b e i n g made i n the d i s c u s s i o n . But t h i s approach t o c l a s s i -
f i c a t i o n u n n e c e s s a r i l y r e s t r i c t s the c a t e g o r y t o v a r i a t i o n s
whose c a u s e s a r e r e a d i l y d i s c e r n e d . I n p o i n t of f a c t , one
would e x p e c t t h a t a F a t h e r quoting from memory would o c c a s i o n -
a l l y adapt a B i b l i c a l t e x t t o s u i t h i s own purposes, whether
or not t h e s e purposes a r e t r a n s p a r e n t . F o r t h i s reason, i t i s
b e t t e r t o c o n s i d e r any major m o d i f i c a t i o n of a B i b l i c a l pas-
sage an a d a p t a t i o n , so long a s t h e r e f e r e n c e m a i n t a i n s a c l o s e
v e r b a l correspondence t o the B i b l i c a l t e x t . T h i s broadening
of the c a t e g o r y does not r e l i e v e the c r i t i c of the t a s k of
f i n d i n g c o n t e x t u a l r e a s o n s f o r a d a p t a t i o n s ; i t does a l l o w t h e
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t o be a p p l i e d t o m o d i f i c a t i o n s made f o r no
obvious r e a s o n .
F i n a l l y , " a l l u s i o n s " c o n s i s t of S c r i p t u r a l r e m i n i s c e n c e s
t h a t have o n l y a d i s t a n t v e r b a l correspondence t o the t e x t .
R e f e r e n c e s w i t h a b s o l u t e l y no v e r b a l correspondence, of
c o u r s e , cannot h e l p t h e c r i t i c determine the words of the
F a t h e r ' s t e x t and so cannot be used i n the a n a l y s i s .
When a p p r o p r i a t e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s have been made, the
P a t r i s t i c r e f e r e n c e s can be a n a l y z e d f o r t h e i r w i t n e s s t o the
t e x t of t h e NT. Here too a number of p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s have
f a l l e n s h o r t by f a i l i n g t o t a k e i n t o account a l l of t h e e v i -
dence. R i g h t l y r e c o g n i z i n g , f o r example, t h a t B i b l i c a l a l l u -
s i o n s do not q u a l i f y as c i t a t i o n s , many e a r l i e r c r i t i c s wrong-
l y d i s c o u n t e d t h e t e x t - c r i t i c a l v a l u e of a l l u s i o n s a l t o g e -
22
t h e r . But even when r e f e r e n c e s t o the B i b l i c a l t e x t l a c k
I b i d . , 170.
22
T h i s was another shortcoming of G e e r l i n g s and New, a s
shown by G. Fee, "The T e x t of John and Mark i n Chrysostom,"
538. Other s t u d i e s , such as L i n s s ' s on Didymus, g i v e c i t a -
t i o n s i n f u l l , but only l i s t S c r i p t u r a l r e f e r e n c e s of a l l u -
s i o n s . C o l l a t i o n s a r e then made o n l y of the e x a c t quota-
t h e p r e c i s i o n of c i t a t i o n s (or of l o o s e a d a p t a t i o n s ) they can
s t i l l , on o c c a s i o n , s e r v e t o i n d i c a t e which of s e v e r a l v a r i -
a n t s was found i n the F a t h e r ' s t e x t . T h i s can be shown by an
example drawn from the p r e s e n t study of Didymus. I n a c l e a r
a l l u s i o n , t o Mt. 21:2, 4, Didymus w r i t e s (3<5 "

(ZeT 218:6-8). These words must r e f e r t o the Matthean passage
r a t h e r than t o e i t h e r of the p a r a l l e l s i n Mark or Luke (note:
6"vou ! !) . S i g n i f i c a n t l y , Matthew's use of
i s a t t e s t e d by most A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s and s e v e r a l o t h e r s
3
(UBS C D L fam 13 33 892) w h i l e i s found i n
B y z a n t i n e w i t n e s s e s and o t h e r s (TR W fam 1 1241).
Thus, d e s p i t e the a l l u s i v e c h a r a c t e r of Didymus's r e f e r e n c e ,
t h e r e can be no doubt t h a t he s u p p o r t s the A l e x a n d r i a n
t r a d i t i o n h e r e .
I n o t h e r i n s t a n c e s the p r o c e s s of e s t a b l i s h i n g the
F a t h e r ' s t e x t w i l l be r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l e , as when he quotes the
same passage s e v e r a l t i m e s i n p r e c i s e l y t h e same form, or when
the minor d i f f e r e n c e s among the c i t a t i o n s a r e not r e f l e c t e d
e l s e w h e r e i n the MS t r a d i t i o n . I n such i n s t a n c e s i t can
s a f e l y be assumed t h a t the c i t a t i o n which conforms t o the
common t e x t was a l s o t h a t of t h e F a t h e r ; t h e s l i g h t l y v a r i a n t
forms r e p r e s e n t a c c i d e n t a l or i n t e n t i o n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s .
Two k i n d s of data have been c o n s i d e r e d up t o t h i s p o i n t :
(1) a l l u s i o n s and a d a p t a t i o n s t h a t g i v e no e v i d e n c e a s t o the
c h a r a c t e r of the F a t h e r ' s t e x t of the whole passage, but t h a t
do d i s c l o s e h i s r e a d i n g i n p a r t of i t , and (2) m u l t i p l e c i t a -
t i o n s t h a t may r e q u i r e the c r i t i c t o choose one t h a t b e s t
r e p r e s e n t s the F a t h e r ' s t e x t . A t h i r d s i t u a t i o n o c c u r s when a
F a t h e r ' s q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s a r e such t h a t h i s B i b l i c a l
t e x t can and should be r e c o n s t r u c t e d . I n view h e r e a r e i n -
s t a n c e s of (1) f r e q u e n t but p a r t i a l c i t a t i o n s of a passage,
and (2) a d a p t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s which make i t p o s s i b l e t o
d i s c e r n the o r i g i n a l form of the F a t h e r ' s t e x t . R e c o n s t r u c -
t i o n s c a n be o n l y t e n t a t i v e , of c o u r s e , and must be e v a l u a t e d
on the b a s i s of a l l t h e r e l e v a n t d a t a . Both the t e n t a t i v e
t i o n s . An a l t e r n a t i v e method i s o u t l i n e d i n Ch. I I below.
c h a r a c t e r and t h e u l t i m a t e p o t e n t i a l of t e x t u a l r e c o n s t r u c -
t i o n s can be i l l u s t r a t e d , once a g a i n , from the d a t a s e t f o r t h
i n t h e f o l l o w i n g c r i t i c a l a p p a r a t u s . Didymus p r e s e r v e s two
a d a p t a t i o n s and one a l l u s i o n to Matt 5 : 4 5
(a) (PsT
177:20);
(b) '
\ \ \ (ZeT 246:11-12);
( c ) '
\ (PsT 290:21-22).
On the b a s i s o f t h e s e r e f e r e n c e s , Didymus's t e x t can be r e c o n -
s t r u c t e d a s f o l l o w s :

.
Here i t can be seen t h a t Didymus p r e s e r v e s the word order
of the o l d L a t i n MS a ( ). T h i s may not be
c o n s i d e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t , g i v e n t h e problem of word o r d e r i n the
v e r s i o n a l e v i d e n c e . But i t i s worth n o t i n g t h a t Didymus a l s o
r e a d s ... w i t h the whole t r a d i t i o n a g a i n s t
K, which omits i t . I n a c a s e such a s t h i s , t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n
must be made c o n s e r v a t i v e l y , changing word o r d e r or making
a d d i t i o n s , s u b t r a c t i o n s , or s u b s t i t u t i o n s o n l y on the b a s i s of
hard e v i d e n c e . As a r e s u l t , the r e c o n s t r u c t e d t e x t may
p r e s e r v e some s i n g u l a r r e a d i n g s , as happens t w i c e i n the
r e f e r e n c e j u s t c i t e d ( '] ' ;
' ] ' ) . I n view of the c h a r a c t e r of the e v i -
dence, no c o n f i d e n c e can be p l a c e d i n having uncovered some
r e a l s i n g u l a r r e a d i n g s by t h i s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . I t c o u l d w e l l
be t h a t Didymus s i m p l y misquoted o r adapted the t e x t c o n s i s -
t e n t l y . But b e f o r e even t h i s c o n c l u s i o n can be drawn, the
data must a t l e a s t be p r e s e n t e d . I n t h i s c a s e such a p r e s e n t -
a t i o n i s most a d e q u a t e l y a c h i e v e d through a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n .
O c c a s i o n a l l y a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n can be attempted when a
s o l i t a r y a d a p t a t i o n e x i s t s , so long a s the changes a r e predo-
m i n a n t l y s y n t a c t i c a l . Here a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e n t a i l s l i t t l e
more than the r e v e r s i o n t o the p a s s a g e ' s o r i g i n a l s y n t a x .
Thus, f o r example, Didymus p r e s e r v e s o n l y one, f a i r l y e x t e n -
s i v e , a d a p t a t i o n o f Matt 22:13:
HOOLV

,
(PsT 247:7-8).
A r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of Didymus's t e x t can be made w i t h a f a i r
degree of c o n f i d e n c e .
()
,
The r e c o n s t r u c t i o n shows t h a t Didymus s u p p o r t s two s i g n i f i -
c a n t v a r i a n t s of the t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n : ( l ) "
1. 13
w i t h L f 892 a g a i n s t both
# found i n D a b e, and
supported by the
b u l k of l a t e r MSS as w e l l a s by C 33 and 1241; and (2)
w i t h D f
1 3
1241 a b e a g a i n s t most o t h e r MSS.
The S p e c i a l S i g n i f i c a n c e and P e c u l i a r Problems of Didymus as
a T e x t u a l Witness
There can be no doubt about the t e x t - c r i t i c a l s i g n i f i -
cance of the Gospel q u o t a t i o n s of Didymus, t h e b l i n d monk
appointed head of the A l e x a n d r i a n c a t e c h e t i c a l s c h o o l by Atha-
n a s i u s . Didymus's l i f e spanned the f o u r t h c e n t u r y (A.D.
313-398). Born and r a i s e d i n A l e x a n d r i a , he a p p a r e n t l y never
l e f t h i s home c i t y even as an a d u l t . At an e a r l y age, perhaps
f o u r or f i v e , Didymus became b l i n d , probably t h e r e s u l t of a
Didymus's l i f e , work, and t e a c h i n g s have been t h e sub-
j e c t of t h r e e monographs i n modern t i m e s : G. Bardy, Didyme
1'Aveuqle ( P a r i s : Beauchesne, 1910); J . L e i p o l d t , Didvmus der
B l i n d e von A l e x a n d r i a ( L e i p z i g : J . C. H i n r i c h s , 1905); and
W i l l i a m J . Gauche, Didvmus the B l i n d : An E d u c a t o r of t h e
F o u r t h Century (Washington: C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y of America,
1934). Other h e l p f u l s k e t c h e s i n c l u d e Wolfgang A. B i e n e r t ,
" A l l e g o r i a " und "Anagoge" B e i Didvmos dem B l i n d e n von A l e x a n -
d r i e n ( B e r l i n : W a l t e r de G r u y t e r , 1972) 1-31; L o u i s Doutre-
l e a u , Sur Z a c h a r i e 1-128; Brbel Kramer, "Didymus von Alexan-
d r i e n , " T h e o l o g i s c h e Realenzyklopdie, v o l . V I I I ( B e r l i n :
W a l t e r de G r u y t e r , 1981) 741-46; Johannes Quasten, P a t r o l o g y .
v o l . I I I ( U t r e c h t : Spectrum, 1966) 85-100; and F r a n c e s Young,
From Micaea t o Chalcedon: ft Guide t o t h e L i t e r a t u r e and I t s
Background ( P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s P r e s s , 1983) 83-91.
18/ Didymus and the Gospels
24
c h i l d h o o d d i s e a s e . D e s p i t e t h i s s e t b a c k , he d i s p l a y e d a
g r e a t f a c i l i t y f o r l e a r n i n g , and l a t e r i n l i f e a c q u i r e d a
25
r e p u t a t i o n f o r a p r o d i g i o u s memory. H i s e d u c a t i o n covered
a l l the major d i s c i p l i n e s of the day: mathematics, geometry,
2 6
astronomy, grammar, r h e t o r i c , d i a l e c t i c , and p h i l o s o p h y .
B e s t known f o r h i s understanding of S c r i p t u r e , Didymus e s t a b -
l i s h e d h i m s e l f e a r l y i n l i f e as a prominent t e a c h e r i n A l e x a n -
d r i a . I t was i n the midst of the A r i a n c o n t r o v e r s y t h a t Atha-
n a s i u s appointed him t o be head of the famed c a t h e c h e t i c a l
s c h o o l , which by t h i s time had l o s t much of the s p l e n d o r and
28
r e p u t a t i o n i t had e a r l i e r enjoyed under Clement and Origen.
There i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t Didymus p u b l i c l y l e c t u r e d t o f u l f i l l
t h e d u t i e s of h i s p o s t . More l i k e l y he taught from the p r i v a -
cy of h i s own monk's c e l l . N e v e r t h e l e s s , h i s r e p u t a t i o n
spread f a r and wide: by l i f e ' s end he c o u l d number among h i s
29
s t u d e n t s such n o t e w o r t h i e s a s Jerome and R u f m u s .
During the c o u r s e of h i s c a r e e r Didymus d i c t a t e d numerous
t h e o l o g i c a l t r e a t i s e s and B i b l i c a l commentaries. Most s i g n i -
f i c a n t f o r t h e c o n t r o v e r s i e s of h i s own day were h i s d o c t r i n a l 2 4
P a l l a d i u s , H i s t . Laus. I V ; Jerome Chronicon. V I I I ;
S o c r a t e s , H i s t . E c c l . IV, 25; C a s s i o d o r u s , H i s t o r l a T r i p a r -
ti, V I I I , 8.
25
See, e.g., S o c r a t e s , H i s t . E c c l . . IV, 25; R u f i n u s ,
H i s t . E s s i . , I I , 7; Jerome, V i r . 111.. 109 and E p i s t . 50, ad
Domnionem.
2 6
R u f i n u s , Hist. E c c l , I I , 7; S o c r a t e s , Hj,s,fc. l., IV,
25-26; Theodoret, H j s t . E c c l . . IV, 26.
27
The d a t e of h i s appointment has been w i d e l y debated.
Proposed d a t e s range from A.D. 335, b e f o r e A t h a n a s i u s ' s f i r s t
e x i l e (T. de Rgnon, Etudes de Thologie P o s i t i v e s u r l a
S a i n t e Trinit, v o l . I I I [ P a r i s , 1898] 19, based on the t e s t i -
mony of R u f i n u s , H i s t . E c c l . , I I , 7) t o A.D. 371 ( C a r l Andre-
sen, "Didymos 3," i n L e x i k o n der A l t e n Welt [ Z u r i c k : Artemis
V e r l a g , 1965] 732-33). See the d i s c u s s i o n s of Bardy, Dldvme.
6; B i e n e r t , " A l l e g o r i a " , 5-6; Gauche, Eiyjjms, 78; L e i p o l d t ,
28 /
See esp. G. Bardy, "Pour l ' h i s t o i r e de l'cole d'Alex-
a n d r i a , " V i v r e e t Penser 2 (1942) 80-109; Gauch, Didvmus. 36-
70.
29
See Jerome's E p i s t . 112, ad A u g u s t i n i u s , 4-6; E p i s t .
84, ad Pammachium e t Oceanun; R u f i n u s , Apology. I I , 12; H i s t .
E S S l . , I I , 7.
30
works on t h e T r i n i t y (De T r i n i t a t e ^ and the Holy S p i r i t (De
31
S p i r i t u S a n c t o ) . At h e a r t , though, Didymus was a B i b l i c a l
s c h o l a r , h a v i n g d i c t a t e d commentaries on much of the Old
32
Testament and most of t h e New. I n a d d i t i o n , some of Didy-
mus's s t u d e n t s l a t e r p u b l i s h e d n o t e s t a k e n from h i s e x p o s i t o r y
33
l e c t u r e s on y e t o t h e r B i b l i c a l books.
Didymus i s an important w i t n e s s t o the NT t e x t p r e -
c i s e l y because of h i s h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t . He s t u d i e d the NT
and quoted i t s t e x t i n A l e x a n d r i a when the g r e a t A l e x a n d r i a n
34
u n c i a l s were b e i n g produced. An a u r a of mystery has always
surrounded the A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t . Was an e c c l e s i a s t i c a l l y -
s a n c t i o n e d r e c e n s i o n made t h e r e ( i n the 4 t h c e n t u r y ? o r the
35 , , ,
2 n d ? ) ? When and how e x t e n s i v e l y d i d a s t r a i n of t h e Western
30
See t h e r e c e n t c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n s by Jrgen Hnscheid
Didymus d e r B l i n d e : De t r i n i t a t e , Buch I (Meisenheim am G l a n :
V e r l a g e Anton Hain, 1975) and I n g r i d S e i l e r , Didymus der
B l i n d e : De t r i n i t a t e . Buch I I , K a p i t e l 1-7 (Meisenheim am
G l a n : V e r l a g Anton Hain, 1975).
3 1
S e e L o u i s Doutreleau, "tude d'une t r a d i t i o n manus-
c r i t e : Le 'De S p i r i t u Sancto' de Didyme," i n KyriaKon: Es&-
s c h r i f t Johannes Quasten, ed. P a t r i c k G r a n f i e l d and J o s e f A.
Jungmann, v o l . 1 (Mnster: V e r l a g A s c h e n d o r f f , 1970) 352-89;
and idem, "Le De S p i r i t u Sancto de Didyme e t s e s diteurs,"
RechSR 51 (1963) 383-406. The t e x t can be found i n Migne, PG
39, 1031-86.
32
D o u t r e l e a u g i v e s the f o l l o w i n g as Didymus's commenta-
r i e s , acknowledging t h a t " c e t t e l i s t e e s t s a n s doute incom-
plte": G e n e s i s , Exodus, L e v i t i c u s , Job, Psalms, P r o v e r b s ,
E c c l e s i a s t e s , Song of Songs, I s a i a h , F i n a l V i s i o n of I s a i a h ,
J e r e m i a h , D a n i e l , Hosea, Z e c h a r i a h ; Matthew, Luke, Jchn, A c t s ,
Romans, 1 and 2 C o r i n t h i a n s , G a l a t i a n s , E p h e s i a n s , Hebrews,
C a t h o l i c e p i s t l e s , and R e v e l a t i o n . Sur Z a c h a r l e . I , 17-18;
119-26.
33
T h i s i s to be i n f e r r e d from the c h a r a c t e r of the E c c l e -
s i a s t e s and Psalms commentaries d i s c o v e r e d a t Toura, as d i s -
c u s s e d below, pp. 26-27.
34
See the d i s c u s s i o n of c o d i c e s N and B i n Metzger, Text,
7-8; 42-48.
35
T h i s view was p o p u l a r i z e d by Wilhelm Bousset, l a r g e l y
on t h e b a s i s of h i s a n a l y s i s of t h e A l e x a n d r i a n fragments
commonly d e s i g n a t e d by the s i g l u m "T": "Die R e c e n s i o n des
H e s y c h i u s , " T e x t k r i t i s c h e tudien zum Neuen Testament ( L e i p -
z i g : J . C. H i n r i c h s , 1894) 74-110. B o u s s e t ' s p o s i t i o n has
been d i s c o u n t e d by a number of s c h o l a r s , most r e c e n t l y by
Gordon D. Fee, "P75, P66, and O r i g e n : The Myth of E a r l y
T e x t u a l R e c e n s i o n i n A l e x a n d r i a , " i n New Dimensions i n New
20/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s
3 6
t e x t e n t e r t h e A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n ? Were t h e r e two
37
streams of t r a n s m i s s i o n t h e r e , one e a r l y and one l a t e ? Or
38
were t h e r e two roughly contemporaneous s t r e a m s ? Were e l e -
ments of a p r o t o - B y z a n t i n e t e x t found i n A l e x a n d r i a a l r e a d y by
t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y ? Did t h e Caesarean t e x t u l t i m a t e l y de-
r i v e from t h e r e ? S c h o l a r s have a d d r e s s e d many of t h e s e
i s s u e s by a n a l y z i n g the second- and t h i r d - c e n t u r y A l e x a n d r i a n
w i t n e s s e s , v i z . t h e e a r l i e s t p a p y r i , Clement, and Origen.
Testament Study, eds. R i c h a r d N. Longenecker and H e r r i l l C.
Tenney (Grand R a p i d s : Zondervan, 1974) 19-45.
3 6
A s e a r l y a s t h e t h i r d c e n t u r y , E g y p t i a n w i t n e s s e s such
a s P29, P38, P45, P48 p r e s e r v e elements of t h e Western t e x t .
See Metzger, T e x t , 214. Gordon D. Fee ("Codex S i n a i t i c u s i n
t h e Gospel of John: A C o n t r i b u t i o n t o Methodology i n E s t a b -
l i s h i n g T e x t u a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s , " NTS 15 [1968-69] 23-44) shows
t h a t i n John 1:1-8:38 codex S i n a i t i c u s i s a l e a d i n g r e p r e s e n -
t a t i v e of the Western t e x t .
37
T h i s view was p o p u l a r i z e d by Westcott and H o r t ' s d i f -
f e r e n t i a t i o n between the " A l e x a n d r i a n " and " N e u t r a l " t e x t s
(The New Testament i n the O r i g i n a l Greek. 2 [Cambridge:
Macmillan, 1881] 126-32, 164-72). See a l s o t h e d i s c u s s i o n of
C a r l o M a r t i n i , " I s There a L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n T e x t of t h e
G o s p e l s ? " HIS 24 (1977-78) 285-96.
38
T h i s i s the p o s i t i o n advocated by M a r t i n i i n the a r t i -
c l e c i t e d i n the p r e c e d i n g note.
39
See t h e l i s t of papyrus-supported B y z a n t i n e r e a d i n g s i n
Harry A. S t u r z , The B y z a n t i n e Text-Tvpe and New Testament
T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m , 3rd ed. ( L a Mirada, C a l : B i o l a C o l l e g e
Bookstore, 1980) 107-222, and the c o n c l u s i o n s drawn t h e r e .
See a l s o C. C. T a r e l l i , "The C h e s t e r B e a t t y Papyrus and the
Western and B y z a n t i n e T e x t s , " ZS& 41 (1940) 253-60, and
Gunther Zuntz, The T e x t of t h e E p i s t l e s : A D i s q u i s i t i o n Upon
t h e Corpus Paulinum (London: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y , 1953) 55.
4 0
The o r i g i n of the Caesarean t e x t has sometimes been
t r a c e d back t o the t e x t Origen brought t o C a e s a r e a when he
moved from A l e x a n d r i a . Thus Robert P. B l a k e , K i r s o p p Lake,
and S i l v a New, "The C a e s a r e a n T e x t of Mark," HTg 21 (1928)
207-404. See Bruce M. Metzger, "Caesarean T e x t of t h e Gos-
p e l s , " i n C h a p t e r s i n t h e H i s t o r y of New Testament T e x t u a l
C r i t i c i s m ( L e i d e n : E. J . B r i l l , 1963) 47, 62-67.
41
I n a d d i t i o n t o the works c i t e d i n nn. 35, 36, 39, and
40 above, see e s p e c i a l l y p. M, Barnard, The B i b l i c a l T e x t of
Clement of A l e x a n d r i a (Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1899);
Gordon D. Fee, "Origen's T e x t of the New Testament and t h e
T e x t of Egypt," NTS 28 (1982) 348-64; M. Mees, Die Z i t a t e ;
C a l v i n P o r t e r , "papyrus Bodmer XV (P75) and t h e T e x t of Codex
V a t i c a n u s , " J B L 81 (1962) 363-76; Reuben J . Swanson, "The
Gospel T e x t of Clement of A l e x a n d r i a " (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y , 1956).
Now another l i n k i n the c h a i n can be forged by s t u d y i n g the
w r i t i n g s of Didymus, a f o u r t h - c e n t u r y A l e x a n d r i a n church
F a t h e r .
I t s h o u l d be noted t h a t two p r e v i o u s s c h o l a r s have
a n a l y z e d Didymus's t e x t . The f i r s t was Wilhelm L i n s s , whose
d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n i s rendered v i r t u a l l y u s e l e s s by i t s
m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i n a d e q u a c i e s and by the p u b l i c a t i o n of newer
d i s c o v e r i e s s i n c e i t s completion i n 1955. More r e c e n t l y
C a r l o M a r t i n i probed the i s s u e s r a i s e d by Didymus's t e x t a s
p r e s e r v e d i n the Toura commentaries, but d i d not p r o v i d e a
43
thoroughgoing p r e s e n t a t i o n and a n a l y s i s of the d a t a . Both
of t h e s e former s t u d i e s w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d a t a p p r o p r i a t e
j u n c t u r e s i n the a n a l y s e s of C h a p t e r s I V and V below.
I n a d d i t i o n t o the c o m p l e x i t i e s i n h e r e n t i n a l l P a t r i s t i c
s o u r c e s , a s a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d , the c i t a t i o n s of any p a r t i c u l a r
F a t h e r w i l l pose unique d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r a t e x t - c r i t i c a l ana-
l y s i s . For Didymus, a d d i t i o n a l c o m p l e x i t i e s a r i s e from the
c i r c u m s t a n c e of h i s b l i n d n e s s and from the problems of d e t e r -
mining the a u t h e n t i c i t y of v a r i o u s w r i t i n g s a t t r i b u t e d t o him.
Didymus's b l i n d n e s s poses obvious problems f o r the a n a l y -
s i s of h i s NT t e x t . Whereas o t h e r church F a t h e r s f r e q u e n t l y
chose t o quote S c r i p t u r e from memory, Didymus always d i d so
out of n e c e s s i t y ; whereas o t h e r s c o u l d check t h e i r c i t a t i o n s
a g a i n s t B i b l i c a l MSS whenever they wished, Didymus never
c o u l d ; whereas o t h e r s l e a r n e d S c r i p t u r e by r e a d i n g a v a i l a b l e
MSS, Didymus d i d not. Didymus went b l i n d b e f o r e he c o u l d
r e a d , so t h a t h i s v a s t knowledge of S c r i p t u r e came by memori-
z i n g what was r e a d t o him. S i n c e d i f f e r e n t ones of h i s e a r l y
t e a c h e r s presumably used d i f f e r e n t B i b l i c a l MSS, each w i t h i t s
With the e x c e p t i o n of Z o e p f l ' s e d i t i o n of the E x p o s i -
t i o i n septum canonlcorum e p l s t o l a r u m (see n. 47 below), L i n s s
had a c c e s s only t o Migne's u n c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n of Didymus's
w r i t i n g s . J u s t as i m p o r t a n t l y , the a u t h o r s h i p of most of
t h e s e works has s i n c e come under a t t a c k , a s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d
below. Furthermore, L i n s s sought t o e s t a b l i s h Didymus's
t e x t u a l a f f i n i t i e s l a r g e l y by t a b u l a t i n g agreements i n v a r i a -
t i o n from the TP.. Thus L i n s s ' s study p r o v i d e s incomplete data
drawn from an u n c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n of w r i t i n g s t h a t may w e l l not
be a u t h e n t i c .
43
M a r t i n i , " I s There a L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n T e x t ? "
22/ Didymus and t h e Gospels
own t e x t u a l p e c u l i a r i t i e s , Didymus would have l e a r n e d an
" e c l e c t i c " t e x t a t t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g of h i s l i f e . F u r t h e r -
more, a s an author, Didymus c o u l d not have w r i t t e n any of h i s
t r e a t i s e s h i m s e l f , but would have had to d i c t a t e them t o
v a r i o u s amanuenses. I t i s not i m p o s s i b l e t h a t d i f f e r e n t
amanuenses r e c o r d e d Didymus's S c r i p t u r a l c i t a t i o n s , not as he
gave them, but i n t h e form of t e x t they themselves had
l e a r n e d . I t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t t h i s would have
l e d o n l y t o minor m o d i f i c a t i o n s of t h e t e x t . But i f such
m o d i f i c a t i o n s d i d occur, then even b e f o r e Didymus's works were
r e l e a s e d t o t h e p u b l i c , h i s c i t a t i o n s of S c r i p t u r e d i f f e r e d
from t h e t e x t as he had i t memorized. Taking a l l t h e s e
problems i n t o account, i t l o o k s a s though t h e t a s k of e s t a b -
l i s h i n g Didymus's Gospel t e x t i s v e r y g r e a t indeed, perhaps
insurmountable.
On c l o s e r examination, however, t h e s e problems appear no
g r e a t e r than those t h a t o b t a i n i n the a n a l y s i s of any o t h e r
P a t r i s t i c w r i t e r . Yes, Didymus would have l e a r n e d S c r i p t u r e
by memorizing passages from v a r i o u s MSS. But, presumably, so
too would have most C h r i s t i a n s i n h i s day. Furthermore, how-
e v e r "mixed" the r e s u l t a n t memorized t e x t would have been, i t
would have been a t e x t w i t h i t s v a r i o u s c o n s t i t u e n t p a r t s
coming from f o u r t h - c e n t u r y A l e x a n d r i a n exemplars. I t must be
borne i n mind t h a t an a n a l y s i s of a F a t h e r ' s t e x t i s concerned
p r i m a r i l y w i t h the d a t e and l o c a t i o n of t h e d a t a , not simply
w i t h t h e i r s o u r c e . Yes, Didymus would have been f o r c e d t o
quote from memory. But so too d i d most of t h e F a t h e r s . And
on t h i s s c o r e Didymus c o u l d perhaps be s a i d t o have an advan-
tage, g i v e n h i s r e p u t a t i o n f o r a s u p e r i o r memory. Yes, Didy-
mus would have used d i f f e r e n t amanuenses who c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y
have changed h i s q u o t a t i o n s of S c r i p t u r e b e f o r e t h e y even came
t o the page. But t h i s i n no way a f f e c t s t h e a n a l y s i s of Didy-
mus's t e x t , s i n c e , a g a i n , changes of t h i s s o r t would n e c e s -
s a r i l y r e p r e s e n t r e a d i n g s found i n f o u r t h - c e n t u r y A l e x a n d r i a .
Thus t h e problems d e r i v i n g from the c i r c u m s t a n c e of Didymus's
b l i n d n e s s s h o u l d have l i t t l e b e a r i n g on an a n a l y s i s of h i s NT
q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s .
Somewhat more c o m p l i c a t e d i s the i s s u e of the a u t h e n t i -
c i t y of t h e v a r i o u s works a t t r i b u t e d t o Didymus. C l e a r l y i f
Didymus's t e x t i s t o be a n a l y z e d , o n l y h i s w r i t i n g s can be
s t u d i e d . But s i n c e the p u b l i c a t i o n of t h e commentaries d i s -
covered a t Toura, Egypt i n 1941 ( s e e below) t h e a u t h o r s h i p of
v i r t u a l l y a l l of the t h e o l o g i c a l and e x p o s i t i o n a l works p r e -
v i o u s l y a t t r i b u t e d t o him has come i n t o d i s p u t e . The h i s t o r y
of the a t t r i b u t i o n of v a r i o u s w r i t i n g s t o Didymus i s i n t e r -
e s t i n g but i n v o l v e d . Here only a b r i e f s k e t c h w i l l be pro-
v i d e d so a s t o show t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r r e s t r i c t i n g the p r e s e n t
44
i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o the Toura commentaries.
By the e a r l y e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , t h r e e works were com-
monly a s c r i b e d t o Didymus: Jerome's L a t i n t r a n s l a t i o n of a
45
t r e a t i s e on the Holy S p i r i t , De S p i r i t u Sancto; a l i t t l e
t r a c t a t e d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t the Manichaeans, Contra Mani-
46
c h a i o s ; and a commentary on t h e seven C a t h o l i c e p i s t l e s ,
47
E x p o s i t i o Septem Canonicarum E p i s t o l a r u m . Then i n 1758 J .
M i n g a r e l l i d i s c o v e r e d a three-volume work on the T r i n i t y .
Some e l e v e n y e a r s l a t e r , i n the p r e f a c e t o h i s e d i t i o n of the
work, M i n g a r e l l i argued f o r Didymian a u t h o r s h i p on t h r e e
grounds: (1) the e a r l y church h i s t o r i a n S o c r a t e s ( c a . A.D.
440) knew of a three-volume work on t h e T r i n i t y by Didymus;
(2) t h e a u t h o r of the work makes s e v e r a l r e f e r e n c e s t o h i s
former t r e a t i s e on the Holy S p i r i t , presumably De S p i r i t u
The f o l l o w i n g s u r v e y of r e s e a r c h i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n -
debted t o t h e d i s c u s s i o n of B i e n e r t , " A l l e g o r l a " . 8-31. See
a l s o 0.uasten, P a t r o l o o y . I l l , 86-93.
See note 31, above.
4 6
P r e s e r v e d i n L a t i n t r a n s l a t i o n w i t h only fragments of
t h e Greek t e x t e x t a n t . See Migne, PG, 39, 1085-1110.
47
C a s s i o d o r u s s t a t e s t h a t Didymus's commentary on the
C a t h o l i c e p i s t l e s was t r a n s l a t e d i n t o L a t i n by E p i p h a n i u s (De
I n s t i t u t i o n e Divinarum L i t t e r a t a r u m . 8, i n Migne L, 70,
1120). But a l r e a d y by t h e e a r l y e i g h c e e n t h c e n t u r y some
s c h o l a r s q u e s t i o n e d whether the e x t a n t document i s t h i s t r a n s -
l a t i o n , or whether i n s t e a d i t r e p r e s e n t s a commentary o r i g i n -
a l l y w r i t t e n i n L a t i n (and hence not Didymus's). s e e espe-
c i a l l y Dom R. C e i l l i e r , H i s t o i r e gnrale des A u t e u r s Sacrs
e t Ecclsiastiques, 2nd ed. v o l V ( P a r i s , 1860) 739-41. The
t e x t of t h e commentary can be found in Migne, P_S 39, 1749-
1818, o r i n the c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n p r e p a r e d by F. Z o e p f l , Didymi
A l e x , i n e p i s t o l a s c a n o n i c a s b r e v i s e n a r r a t i o (Munster:
A s c h e n d o r f f s c h e Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1914).
Sancto; and (3) a number of formal and m a t e r i a l p a r a l l e l s can
48
be found between t h e s e two works. M i n g a r e l l i ' s p o s i t i o n was
w i d e l y a c c e p t e d among s c h o l a r s f o r n e a r l y 200 y e a r s .
I n the l a t e 19th and 20th c e n t u r i e s o t h e r works were
a t t r i b u t e d t o Didymus, l a r g e l y on t h e b a s i s of formal and
m a t e r i a l p a r a l l e l s t o D e ^ T r i n l t a t e . Thus P s e u d o - B a s i l ' s
Adversus Eunomium IV-V, Pseudo-Gregory's Adversus Arium e t
Sabel^jum, Pseudo-Hieronymus's On the V i s i o n of t h e S e r a -
phim, the Pseudo-Athanasian D i a l o g u e s , and C o n t r a Monta
53
nus, were a l l a s s i g n e d t o Didymus a t one time or another.
Even b e f o r e the Toura f i n d s , none of t h e s e a t t r i b u t i o n s was
u n i v e r s a l l y a c c e p t e d . But w i t h t h e d i s c o v e r y and p u b l i c a t i o n
of Didymus's Old Testament commentaries, a c l o u d of doubt was
c a s t over the a u t h o r s h i p of De T r i n i t a t e , and c o n s e q u e n t l y
over a l l o t h e r w r i t i n g s a t t r i b u t e d t o Didymus on the b a s i s of
s i m i l a r i t i e s t o i t .
I n August of 1941, a crew of E g y p t i a n workers, d i g g i n g
out a g r o t t o f o r use as a munitions depot i n Toura, Egypt
( t w e l v e k i l o m e t e r s south of C a i r o ) , unearthed e i g h t a n c i e n t
papyrus c o d i c e s , t o t a l i n g some 2000 pages. When t h e c o d i c e s
48
M i n g a r e l l i ' s p r e f a c e t o De T r i n i t a t e was r e p r i n t e d i n
Migne PG 39, 139-216.
49
F i r s t a t t r i b u t e d t o Didymus by F. X. Funk, "Die zwei
l e t z e n Bcher der S c h r i f t B a s i l i u s ' des Gr. gegen Eunomlus,"
K i r c h e n g e s c h i c t l i c h e Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, I I
(Paderborn: F. Schningh, 1899) 291-329. F o r t h e c o u r s e of
t h e subsequent debate, see B i e n e r t , " A l l e g o r l a " , 10-12. The
s t r o n g e s t c a s e a g a i n s t Didymian a u t h o r s h i p was made by Chr.
B i z e r , " S t u d i e n zu den pseudoathanasian Dialogen, Der Orthodo-
xos und A e t i o s " ( D i s s e r t a t i o n , Bonn, 1966) 2 1 3 f f .
50
K. H o l l , "Uber d i e Gregor von Nyssa z u g e s c h r i e b e n e
S c h r i f t 'Adversus Arium e t S a b e l l i u m , "' MS 25 (1904) 380-98.
H o l l ' s arguments were r e j e c t e d by s e v e r a l subsequent s c h o l a r s .
See e s p e c i a l l y Bardy, Didyme, 1 7 f f .
51
W. D i e t s c h e , Didymus von A l e x a n d r i e n a l s V e r f a s s e r der
S c h r i f t ber d i e S e r a p h v i s i o n ( F r e i b u r g : Blumer, 1941). F o r a
c o n t r a r y view, see B. A l t a n e r , "Wer i s t der V e r f a s s e r des
T r a c t a t u s i n I s a i a m V I , 1-7" ThRev 42 (1943) 147-51.
5 2
S e e e s p e c i a l l y A. Gnthor, Die 7 p s e u d o a t h a n a s i a n i s c h e n
D i a l o g e , e i n Werk Dldvmus' des B l i n d e n von A l e x a n d r i e n (Rome:
Herder, 1941) 2 3 f f .
53
I b i d . , c o n t r a B i z e r , S t u d i e n .
f i n a l l y reached t h e hands of p a p y r o l o g i s t s , i t was r e a l i z e d
54
t h a t a d i s c o v e r y of the f i r s t o r d e r had been made. Along
w i t h c o p i e s of s e v e r a l works of Origen were s i x t h or s e v e n t h -
c e n t u r y fragmentary c o p i e s of commentaries on G e n e s i s , Job,
Psalms, E c c l e s i a s t e s , and Z e c h a r i a h . The a t t r i b u t i o n of the
G e n e s i s , Job, and Z e c h a r i a h commentaries t o Didymus came a l -
55
most immediately. W i t h i n s e v e r a l y e a r s t h e o t h e r two works
56
were l i k e w i s e a s s i g n e d to him. These a t t r i b u t i o n s , which
today a r e a c c e p t e d by v i r t u a l l y a l l s c h o l a r s , were based on
the f o l l o w i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . The G e n e s i s and Job commenta-
r i e s c o n t a i n numerous l i n g u i s i c and m a t e r i a l p a r a l l e l s t o the
e x p o s i t i o n s p r e s e r v e d i n Didymus's name i n the Medieval
c a t a n a e . The e x t e n t and c h a r a c t e r of t h e s e p a r a l l e l s l e a v e
l i t t l e room f o r doubt a s t o the a u t h o r s h i p of t h e commenta-
r i e s . The commentary on Z e c h a r i a h was a t t r i b u t e d to Didymus
l a r g e l y on the b a s i s of Jerome's testimony. I n the p r e f a c e t o
h i s own commentary on Z e c h a r i a h , Jerome s t a t e d t h a t Didymus
had p r e v i o u s l y w r i t t e n a five-volume commentary on t h a t book
The f i r s t n o t i c e of the d i s c o v e r y was made by 0.
Guerand "Note prliminaire s u r l e s papyrus d'Origne dcou-
v e r t s Toura," MB 131 (1946) 85-103. S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r a
number of b r i e f a p p r a i s a l s of the f i n d were p u b l i s h e d : B.
A l t a n e r , " E i n g r o s s e r , a u f s t e h e n erregender p a t r o l o g i s c h e r
Papyrusfund," ThQ 127 (1947) 332-33; O. Cullmann, "Die neues-
t e n Papyrusfunde von O r i g e n e s t e x t e n und g n o s t i s c h e r S c h r i f -
t e n , " T M 5 (1949) 153-57; J . de G h e l l i n c k , "Rcentes dcou-
v e r t e s de littrature chrtienne a n t i q u e , " EBSh 71 (1949) 83-
86; E. Klostermann, "Der Papyrusfund von T u r a , " ThLZ 73 (1948)
47-50; H.-Ch. Puech, " L e s nouveaux crits d'Origne e t de
Didyme dcouverts Toura," RHPhR 31 (1951) 293-329. The b e s t
d i s c u s s i o n of t h e f i n d p r i o r t o the p u b l i c a t i o n of any of the
t e x t s was by L o u i s Doutreleau, "Que savons-nous a u j o u r d ' h u i
des Papyrus de Toura," RechSR 43 (1955) 161-93. D o u t r e l e a u
updated t h i s d i s c u s s i o n t w e l v e y e a r s l a t e r w i t h the a s s i s t a n c e
of Ludwig Koenen, "Nouvelle i n v e n t a i r e des papyrus de Toura,"
RechSR 55 (1967) 547-64.
55
Guerand, "Note prliminaire," 90.
56
D o u t r e l e a u , "Que savons-nous," 167-68.
57
D o u t r e l e a u and Koenen, "Nouvelle i n v e n t a i r e , " 551, 561;
B i e n e r t " A l l e q o r i a " . 23-24. As A. H e i n r i c h s has shown, some
of the Job catenae p r e s e r v e d under the name of N i c e t a s ( e l e -
v e n t h c e n t u r y ) a c t u a l l y d e r i v e from Didymus, and t h e s e a l s o
f i n d p a r a l l e l s i n the Toura commentary. Didvmos Der B l i n d e :
Hiob Kommentar. I , 14-15.
58
a t h i s r e q u e s t . The Toura commentary comprises f i v e books
and shows numerous s i m i l a r i t i e s t o Jerome's work. I n t h e
o p i n i o n of L. Doutreleau, t h e p a r a l l e l s demonstrate not o n l y
t h a t Didymus authored t h i s commentary, b u t ^ t h a t Jerome made
e x t e n s i v e use of i t i n producing h i s own.
The a u t h o r s h i p of the Psalms commentary proved somewhat
more d i f f i c u l t t o e s t a b l i s h , s i n c e v e r y few v e r b a l p a r a l l e l s
e x i s t between t h i s e x p o s i t i o n and^the c a t e n a e fragments of the
Psalms t h a t bear Didymus's name. N e v e r t h e l e s s , e x t e n s i v e
61
m a t e r i a l s i m i l a r i t i e s do o c c u r between t h e two e x p o s i t i o n s
and t h e v o c a b u l a r y and s t y l e of t h i s commentary conform
c l o s e l y t o what i s found i n the t h r e e a l r e a d y a t t r i b u t e d t o
Didymus. These c o n s i d e r a t i o n s have l e d a number of s c h o l a r s
t o conclude t h a t w h i l e the catenae fragments and the Toura
62
commentary both d e r i v e from Didymus, t h e y r e p r e s e n t
d i f f e r e n t e x p o s i t i o n s , or, p o s s i b l y , d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s of the
same e x p o s i t i o n , the t e x t of the catenae perhaps r e p r e s e n t i n g
63
a l a t e r r e d a c t i o n of Didymus's work. The E c c l e s i a s t e s com-
mentary was o b v i o u s l y w r i t t e n by t h e author of the Psalms
commentary, a s i s shown by the remarkable s i m i l a r i t i e s i n
v o c a b u l a r y and s t y l e of e x p o s i t i o n . Furthermore, i t l i k e w i s e
conforms i n o u t l o o k ^ t h e o l o g y , and s t y l e t o the t h r e e o t h e r
Toura commentaries. I t should be noted t h a t of t h e s e f i v e
commentaries, those on G e n e s i s , Job, and Z e c h a r i a h appear t o
r e p r e s e n t a c t u a l l i t e r a r y p r o d u c t i o n s , d i c t a t e d and r e v i s e d by
See Migne, PL, 25, i 4 8 6 .
59
Doutreleau, Sur Z a c h a r i e , 129-37.
6 0
S e e t h e d e t a i l e d comparisons and d i s c u s s i o n by Adolphe
Gesch, La C h r i s t o l o q i e du 'Commentaire s u r l e s Psaumes' d-
c o u v e r t Toura (Gemblouxi J . Duculot, 1962) 327-51.
6 1
S e e t h e d i s c u s s i o n of A l o y s K e h l , ed. Der Psalmenkom-
mentar von T u r a . Quaternlo I X (Kln: westdeutschen V e r l a g ,
1964) and, e s p e c i a l l y , t h a t of Gesch, La C h r i s t o l o q i e . 322-
417 .
6 2
S o B i e n e r t , " A l l e c r o r i a " . 27. See t h e d i s c u s s i o n of
p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s t o t h i s view i n Gesch, La C h r i s t o l o q i e ,
347-50.
63
B i e n e r t , " A l l e a o r i a " , 27-28.
64
I b i d . , 28.
Didymus w i t h t h e i n t e n t i o n of p u b l i c a t i o n , w h i l e t h o s e on
Psalms and E c c l e s i a s t e s appear t o have been produced by Didy-
mus 's s t u d e n t s from l e c t u r e n o t e s taken w h i l e s i t t i n g a t t h e i r
65
m a s t e r ' s f e e t . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , i n t h e s e l a t t e r two works the
t e x t u a l e x p o s i t i o n i s p e r i o d i c a l l y i n t e r r u p t e d by a s t u d e n t ' s
q u e s t i o n which, along w i t h t h e t e a c h e r ' s answer, has been
d u t i f u l l y r e c o r d e d .
I n a landmark a r t i c l e w r i t t e n some s i x t e e n y e a r s a f t e r
the d i s c o v e r y of t h e Toura commentaries, L. D o u t r e l e a u r e -
66
opened t h e q u e s t i o n of the a u t h o r s h i p of De T r i n i t a t e . With
t h e a u t h o r s h i p of t h e Toura commentary on Z e c h a r i a h so f i r m l y
e s t a b l i s h e d by the t e s t i m o n y of Jerome, D o u t r e l a e u asked how
t h i s new e v i d e n c e a f f e c t e d the e a r l i e r c o n c l u s i o n s of Mingar-
e l l i . D o u t r e l e a u argued t h a t the two works c o u l d not have
come from the same author, l a r g e l y because of t h e i r i r r e c o n -
c i l a b l e e x p o s i t i o n s of Zech. 3:8-4:10. The d i f f e r e n c e s ex-
tend t o t h e s t y l e , d i c t i o n , and e s p e c i a l l y t h e c o n t e n t of the
e x p o s i t i o n s . A g l a r i n g i n c o n s i s t e n c y , f o r example, comes i n
t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the "mountain" of Zech 4:7: i n the
Toura commentary i t s i g n i f i e s the Redeemer, w h i l e i n De T r i n i -
67
la i t i s s a i d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e D e v i l .
While D o u t r e l e a u ' s arguments were not p e r s u a s i v e t o a l l
68
s c h o l a r s , t h e y d i d c l e a r the way f o r a r e e x a m i n a t i o n of the
See e s p e c i a l l y t h e d i s c u s s i o n s o f Gerhard B i n d e r and
Leo L i e s e n b o r g h s , Didymos der B l i n d e : Kommentar zum E c c l e s i a s -
t e s 1:1 (Bonn*. Rudolf H a b e l t V e r l a g , 1979) x - x i i i , and A l o y s
K e h l , Der Psalmenkommentar, 39-43.
6 6
" L e 'De T r i n i t a t e * e s t - i l l ' o e u v r e de Didyme
l ' A v e u g l e ? " RechSR 45 (1957) 514-57.
6 7
S e e De T r i n i t a t e I I , 14 ( i n Migne PG 39, 701A-708A) and
ZeT 54:9-75.
68
E s p e c i a l l y unconvinced was Ludwig Koenen ("Ein t h e o l o -
g i s c h e r Papyrus des Klner Sammlung: Kommentar Didymos' des
B l i n d e n zu Zach 9,11 u. 16," A r c h i v fr P a p y r u s f o r s c h u n q . 17
[1960] 60-105), who d a t e s De T r i n i t a t e c a . A.D. 3 9 5 t h a t i s ,
some e i g h t y e a r s a f t e r the Z e c h a r i a h commentary. Koenen argued
t h a t the two works were not only w r i t t e n a t d i f f e r e n t times,
but a l s o i n r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s fDe T r i n i t a t e was
w r i t t e n d u r i n g an O r i g e n i s t c o n t r o v e r s y ) and f o r d i f f e r e n t
purposes ( o n l y De T r i n i t a t e was w r i t t e n f o r p u b l i c a t i o n ) .
These f a c t o r s , Koenen maintained, c o u l d e a s i l y account f o r any
e x e g e t i c a l d i s c r e p e n c i e s . See t h e d i s c u s s i o n s of B i e n e r t ,
e v i d e n c e o r i g i n a l l y s e t f o r t h by M i n g a r e l l i . I n 1963 L.
Beranger showed t h a t when the author of De T r j n i t a t e mentioned
h i s p r i o r work on the Holy S p i r i t , he d i d not r e f e r t o another
t r e a t i s e , but t o h i s d i s c u s s i o n e a r l i e r i n t h e same docu-
69
ment. Furthermore, i t i s now g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d t h a t the
p a r a l l e l s between the De S p i r i t u Sancto and the De T r i n i t a t e
d e r i v e from a mutual dependence on the same s o u r c e s , r a t h e r
70
than from a common author. More r e c e n t l y W. B i e n e r t has
argued t h a t M i n g a r e l l i overlooked one major t e n s i o n between De
S p i r i t u Sancto and De T r i n i t a t e t h a t r e n d e r s the view of
mutual a u t h o r s h i p d o u b t f u l : whereas Didymus e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e s
i n De S p i r i t u Sancto t h a t no pagan c o u l d u n d e r s t a n d the t h i n g s
of t h e S p i r i t w i t h o u t the w i t n e s s of the S c r i p t u r e s , t h e
a u t h o r of De T r i n i t a t e u s e s numerous pagan a u t h o r s a s c o r o l -
^ 71
l a r y w i t n e s s e s t o the t r u t h of h i s d o c t r i n e .
I t i s not t h e purpose of t h i s b r i e f overview t o determine
whether Didymus wrote the v a r i o u s works sometimes a t t r i b u t e d
t o him. A p e r u s a l of the P a t r o l o g i e s ^ a n d secondary l i t e r a t u r e
shows t h a t no consensus has emerged. T h i s s i t u a t i o n i s not
i n t h e l e a s t s u r p r i s i n g , g i v e n the u n c e r t a i n t y of the a u t h o r -
s h i p of De T r i n i t a t e . But now t h e q u e s t i o n n a t u r a l l y a r i s e s :
which w r i t i n g s should be s t u d i e d when a n a l y z i n g Didymus's
Gospel c i t a t i o n s ? S u r e l y t h e r e i s no m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y sound
a l t e r n a t i v e t o u s i n g only t h o s e works t h a t a r e u n i v e r s a l l y
" A l l e a o r i a " . 16-20 and Hnscheid, De T r i n i t a t e . 5-7.
6
^ " S u r deux nigmes du 'De T r i n i t a t e ' de Didyme
l ' A v e u g l e , " RechSR 51 (1963) 255-67.
70
Thus t h e use of I s a 6, John 12:40-41, and A c t s 28:25-
27 t o e s t a b l i s h the D e i t y of the F a t h e r , Son, and Holy S p i r i t
i n both works had been appealed t o by L. C h a v o u t i e r ( " Q u e r e l l e
origniste e t c o n t r o v e r s e s t r i n i t a i r e s propos de T r a c t a t u s
c o n t r a Origenem de V i s i o n e I s a i a e , " VC 14 [1960] 9-14) a s
p r o o f t h a t Didymus wrote De T r i n i t a t e . But t h i s view was
d i s c o u n t e d by M. T e t z ("Zur Thologie des M a r k e l l von Ancyra
I , " ZJG 75 [1964] 217-70) who showed t h a t t h i s c o n c a t e n a t i o n
of p a s s a g e s was f i r s t made by M a r c e l l u s of Ancyra.
B i e n e r t , " A l l e q o r i a " . 19.
7 2
See, f o r example, A l t a n e r , P a t r o l o g v . 324-25, B i e n e r t ,
" A l l e q o r i a " . 8-31, Quasten, P a t r o l o g y , 86-92, and Young, FXOJ J
N i c a e a t o Chalcedpn, 85.
a s s i g n e d t o Didymus and t h a t a r e found i n c r i t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e
e d i t i o n s . Of what v a l u e would t h i s k i n d of a n a l y s i s be i f i t
were l a t e r d i s c o v e r e d t h a t some of t h e e v i d e n c e d i d not d e r i v e
from a f o u r t h - c e n t u r y A l e x a n d r i a n but a f i f t h - c e n t u r y Caesa-
r e a n ? Or how c o u l d r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s be o b t a i n e d by c o n s u l t i n g
e d i t i o n s which had not removed s c r i b a l c o r r u p t i o n s of t h i s
f o u r t h - c e n t u r y t e x t ? Thus, d e s p i t e t h e n a t u r a l urge t o extend
t h e d a t a base a s f a r a s p o s s i b l e , the p r e s e n t study w i l l not
t a k e i n t o account the works whose a u t h e n t i c i t y has not been
d e c i d e d w i t h r e a s o n a b l e c e r t a i n t y . E s s e n t i a l l y , t h i s l e a v e s
the c r i t i c w i t h Cin^r^J toi cMi a
8
., Be_^pJxLtM,..S,ftnst,Q, the
c a t e n a e fragments, and t h e Toura commentaries. Of t h e s e , Ee
S p i r i t u Sancto e x i s t s o n l y i n L a t i n t r a n s l a t i o n , which,
c o u p l e d w i t h t h e c o m p l e x i t i e s of P a t r i s t i c e v i d e n c e g e n e r a l l y ,
v i r t u a l l y n u l l i f i e s i t s t e x t - c r i t i c a l v a l u e . The Contra
Manichaips i s e x t a n t o n l y i n a l a t e s i x t e e n t h - c e n t u r y MS, and
no c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n e x i s t s . Furthermore, t h e c a t e n a e , w i t h
t h e i r i n c r e d i b l y complex h i s t o r y of t r a n s m i s s i o n , a r e a t b e s t
of secondary u s e f u l n e s s f o r t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m . T h i s l e a v e s
t h e c r i t i c w i t h t h e e d i t i o n s of t h e Toura commentaries a s the
o n l y r e l i a b l e s o u r c e s f o r r e c o v e r i n g t h e Gospel t e x t of Didy-
mus.
Even the c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n of the Psalm c a t a n a e by
Ekkehard Muhlenberg !Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenviber-
l i e f e r u n q . 3 v o l s . [ B e r l i n : W a l t e r de G r u y t e r , 1975-78]) i s
of l i t t l e use f o r the p r e s e n t study, i n view of the problems
of t h e c a t e n a e g e n e r a l l y : the medieval s c r i b e s normally
would have used l a t e MSS of Didymus's w r i t i n g s i n c o m p i l i n g
the c a t e n a e , so t h a t even i f the a t t r i b u t i o n of v a r i o u s
comments t o him a r e c o r r e c t o f which t h e r e can be l i t t l e
a s s u r a n c e h i s NT c i t a t i o n s w i l l have s u f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e
c o u r s e o f t r a n s m i s s i o n . As t o t h e problems c o n c e r n i n g the
r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e Psalm c a t e n a e and t h e Toura commentary
g e n e r a l l y , see above pp. 26-27.
Chapter I I
I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the T e x t and C r i t i c a l Apparatus
One methodological i s s u e not y e t c o n s i d e r e d i n v o l v e s the
p r e s e n t a t i o n of t e x t u a l d a t a once they have been c o l l e c t e d
from a P a t r i s t i c s o u r c e . When a F a t h e r ' s q u o t a t i o n s of the
B i b l e a r e f r e q u e n t but s p o r a d i c , a s i s t h e c a s e w i t h Didymus's
OT commentaries, what i s t h e most e f f e c t i v e way t o s e t f o r t h
h i s B i b l i c a l t e x t ?
A common approach t o t h i s t a s k i n v o l v e s l i s t i n g a l l
t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s found among r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i t n e s s e s i n p a s -
sages quoted by a F a t h e r . The v a l u e of t h i s system l i e s i n
i t s m a n a g e a b i l i t y : i t a l l o w s the r e a d e r t o see t e x t u a l a l i g n -
ments a t e v e r y p o i n t of v a r i a t i o n w h i l e c o n s e r v i n g space by
not c i t i n g the a u t h o r ' s t e x t i n f u l l . Yet t h i s advantage a l s o
proves to be the system's g r e a t e s t f l a w , s i n c e a l i s t i n g of
v a r i a n t s can i n d i c a t e p o i n t s of disagreement among w i t n e s s e s
but not c o r r e s p o n d i n g p o i n t s of agreement. T h i s drawback can
be r e a d i l y i l l u s t r a t e d . Were Didymus known t o c i t e a v e r s e of
twenty words i n which v a r i a t i o n among r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t e x t u a l
w i t n e s s e s o c c u r s only i n one verb t e n s e or i n the s u b s t i t u t i o n
of a synonym, a n o t a t i o n of the v a r i a n t and i t s s u p p o r t i n g
documents would not inform a r e a d e r e i t h e r of the l e n g t h of
Didymus's c i t a t i o n or of h i s e x t e n s i v e agreement w i t h a l l the
w i t n e s s e s . As a r e s u l t , s t i l l o t h e r MSS c o u l d not be compared
w i t h Didymus's t e x t per s e , but only w i t h h i s t e x t a t one u n i t
of v a r i a t i o n . The s i t u a t i o n would be even worse f o r t h e por-
t i o n s of t e x t i n which no v a r i a t i o n i s found among the w i t -
n e s s e s c o n s u l t e d . Here a r e a d e r would not know even t h a t
Didymus quotes the passage.
T h i s inadequate manner of c i t i n g t e x t u a l v a r i a t i o n can,
i n c a s e s of t e x t u a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , a c t u a l l y prove t o be
d e c e p t i v e . As a l r e a d y observed, a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n must be
based on every a v a i l a b l e c i t a t i o n , a d a p t a t i o n , and a l l u s i o n .
Each r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s more or l e s s t e n t a t i v e , of c o u r s e ,
depending on the e x t e n t and r e l i a b i l i t y of the e v i d e n c e . But
when v a r i a n t s from a r e c o n s t r u c t e d t e x t a r e p r e s e n t e d a p a r t
30
I n t r o d u c t i o n t o T e x t and Apparatus /31
from a f u l l l i s t i n g of the r e l e v a n t d a t a , a r e a d e r i s m i s l e d
i n t o t h i n k i n g t h a t the F a t h e r ' s t e x t i s unambiguous when i n
f a c t i t i s not.
I n view of such problems, Gordon Fee has i s s u e d an urgent
p l e a f o r c r i t i c s to p r e s e n t a l l the r e l e v a n t d a t a when s e t t i n g
f o r t h t h e t e x t of a church F a t h e r . T h i s k i n d of p r e s e n t a t i o n
i n v o l v e s l i s t i n g a l l of a F a t h e r ' s B i b l i c a l c i t a t i o n s , adapta-
t i o n s , and a l l u s i o n s , and p r o v i d i n g a c r i t i c a l a p p a r a t u s which
shows e v e r y v a r i a n t found among the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t e x t u a l
w i t n e s s e s . Only when such a procedure i s adopted can o t h e r
c r i t i c s c o l l a t e a d d i t i o n a l w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s t the F a t h e r ' s
t e x t , e v a l u a t e the adequacy of the o c c a s i o n a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s ,
and d e t e c t e r r o r s i n t h e a n a l y s i s . T h i s , t h e r e f o r e , i s the
mode of p r e s e n t a t i o n used i n the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r . The
purpose of the c h a p t e r i s t w o f o l d : (1) t o g i v e i n i t s e n t i r e -
t y the Gospel t e x t of Didymus as p r e s e r v e d i n the Toura com-
m e n t a r i e s , and (2) t o p r o v i d e a c r i t i c a l a p p a r a t u s of r e p r e -
s e n t a t i v e w i t n e s s e s f o r e v e r y p o r t i o n of t h i s t e x t .
The P r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e T e x t
A l l of Didymus's Gospel r e f e r e n c e s a r e l i s t e d and c l a s s i -
f i e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r v e r b a l correspondence t o the B i b l i -
c a l passage. C i t a t i o n s , i n d i c a t e d by [ C ] , c o n s i s t of more or
l e s s v e r b a l l y e x a c t q u o t a t i o n s ; a d a p t a t i o n s [Ad] comprise
g r e a t e r o r l e s s e r m o d i f i c a t i o n s of a passage, u s u a l l y , but not
e x c l u s i v e l y , i n view of the s y n t a c t i c a l or m a t e r i a l c o n t e x t ;
a l l u s i o n s [ A l l ] r e p r e s e n t d i s t a n t echoes of a B i b l i c a l t e x t
which n o n e t h e l e s s c o n t a i n c o n c e p t u a l and v e r b a l a f f i n i t i e s
w i t h t h e passage. Normally the f i r s t hand of Didymus's Toura
commentaries i s c i t e d , except i n c a s e s of e d i t o r i a l c o r r e c -
t i o n s of i t a c i s m and nonsense r e a d i n g s . R e s t o r e d l a c u n a e a r e
p l a c e d i n square b r a c k e t s [ ] .
As suggested e a r l i e r , the problems a r i s i n g from Gospel
p a r a l l e l s o c c a s i o n a l l y make i t i m p o s s i b l e t o determine t h e
"The Text of John i n Origen and C y r i l of A l e x a n d r i a : A
C o n t r i b u t i o n t o Methodology i n the Recovery and A n a l y s i s of
P a t r i s t i c C i t a t i o n s , " Sib 52 (1971) 358-64.
p a r a l l e l s o c c a s i o n a l l y make i t i m p o s s i b l e t o determine the
s o u r c e of Didymus's q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s . I n a s i m i l a r
v e i n , Didymus not i n f r e q u e n t l y c r e a t e s a complex c o n f l a t i o n of
p a s s a g e s i n which t h e i n d i v i d u a l components cannot be r e l i a b l y
d i s c e r n e d . Whenever the s o u r c e of a q u o t a t i o n or a l l u s i o n
cannot be a s c e r t a i n e d w i t h c o n f i d e n c e , t h e r e l e v a n t t e x t s a r e
l i s t e d s e p a r a t e l y i n t h e appendix a t t h e end of Chapter I I I .
I n r a r e i n s t a n c e s a complex c o n f l a t i o n p r e s e r v e s a v a r i a n t
which must have been d e r i v e d from the MS t r a d i t i o n of o n l y one
of t h e G o s p e l s , i n such c a s e s the r e f e r e n c e i s g i v e n both i n
the appendix and i n the a p p r o p r i a t e c r i t i c a l a p p a r a t u s .
The Gospel r e f e r e n c e s a r e g i v e n i n t h e i r c a n o n i c a l s e -
quence, w i t h a c r i t i c a l a p p a r a t u s p r o v i d e d immediately beneath
t h o s e p a s s a g e s f o r which Didymus's t e x t can be c o n s i d e r e d
s e c u r e . C i t a t i o n s of a passage a r e l i s t e d f i r s t , f o l l o w e d by
a d a p t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s .
I t would o b v i o u s l y be of l i t t l e h e l p t o c i t e a l l v a r i a n t s
from Didymus's a d a p t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s , s i n c e t h e s e do not
r e p r e s e n t h i s Gospel t e x t per s e , but only g i v e c l u e s a s t o
what t h a t t e x t may have looked l i k e . Some means was needed,
t h e r e f o r e , t o i n d i c a t e which of the l o o s e r r e f e r e n c e s were
determined v a l u a b l e f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g Didymus's t e x t u a l consan-
g u i n i t y . The procedure t h a t was used i n making t h i s d e t e r m i -
n a t i o n i s a s f o l l o w s . F o r each of Didymus's Gospel r e f e r -
ences, i n c l u d i n g even d i s t a n t a l l u s i o n s , a l l t h e r e p r e s e n t a -
t i v e documents were c o l l a t e d a g a i n s t one a n o t h e r . Whenever
g e n e t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n was found, Didymus's r e f e r -
ence was c o n s u l t e d to a s c e r t a i n whether i t s u p p o r t s one of the
v a r i a n t r e a d i n g s . When i t does, a c r i t i c a l a p p a r a t u s t h a t
i n d i c a t e s t h e v a r i a n t s and t h e i r s u p p o r t i n g documents i s pro-
v i d e d , j u s t a s i s done f o r a l l the c i t a t i o n s . A d a p t a t i o n s and
a l l u s i o n s t h u s found t o support one v a r i a n t over a n o t h e r a r e
marked w i t h an a s t e r i s k (*) . Hence [ A d ] * and [ A l l ] * i n d i c a t e
a d a p t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s which support a r e a d i n g f o r some or
a l l of the u n i t s of v a r i a t i o n l i s t e d i n the c r i t i c a l appara-
t u s . Other d i f f e r e n c e s between Didymus and the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
w i t n e s s e s a r e not l i s t e d . Consequently, a d a p t a t i o n s and a l l u -
s i o n s not marked w i t h an a s t e r i s k have been judged t o be of no
I n t r o d u c t i o n to T e x t and Apparatus /33
h e l p f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g Didymus's t e x t u a l a l i g n m e n t s . I n e v e r y
i n s t a n c e t h i s i s e i t h e r because no v a r i a t i o n was found among
the t e x t u a l w i t n e s s e s c o n s u l t e d , o r because Didymus's r e f e r -
ence does not p r o v i d e c l e a r e v i d e n c e of h i s t e x t a t t h i s
p o i n t . I n e i t h e r c a s e Didymus's r e f e r e n c e i s deemed of no
t e x t - c r i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e .
Didymus sometimes r e f e r s t o a t e x t i n a way t h a t seems to
support a v a r i a n t of the t r a d i t i o n , y e t the q u o t a t i o n d e p a r t s
so r a d i c a l l y from the o r i g i n a l wording of t h e t e x t t h a t i t s
w i t n e s s t o t h e v a r i a n t i n q u e s t i o n i s v i t i a t e d . Such adapta-
t i o n s a r e not marked w i t h an a s t e r i s k , but a c r i t i c a l appara-
t u s i s p r o v i d e d t o show t h a t the v a g a r i e s of Didymus's r e f e r -
ence d i s a l l o w h i s apparent a t t e s t a t i o n of the r e a d i n g i n
q u e s t i o n .
O c c a s i o n a l l y Didymus c i t e s the same passage i n s e v e r a l
s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t forms. Rather than making a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n
t h a t reproduces one of t h e c i t a t i o n s verbatim, t h e c i t a t i o n
t a k e n to be as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Didymus's t e x t i s marked
w i t h a double a s t e r i s k ( [ C ] * * ) . When none of the r e f e r e n c e s
appears t o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of Didymus's
t e x t has been attempted. Such r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s a r e based only
on the p o r t i o n s of t e x t p r e s e r v e d i n t h e e x t a n t r e f e r e n c e s ,
emendations being r e s t r i c t e d t o the f a i r l y l o g i c a l r e v e r s i o n
of s y n t a c t i c a l a d a p t a t i o n s t h e s h i f t of g e n i t i v e a b s o l u t e s
back i n t o f i n i t e c l a u s e s , the change of v e r b t e n s e s , e t c . As
a r e s u l t , the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i l l sometimes be incomplete,
w i t h l a c u n a e o c c u r r i n g i n the middle of the t e x t . These
l a c u n a e w i l l not be taken i n t o account i n the c o l l a t i o n s . I n
the l a y o u t of the t e x t , r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i l l be g i v e n a f t e r
t h e l i s t of q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s .
Didymus sometimes makes a s o l i t a r y l o o s e r e f e r e n c e t o a
passage, t h u s d i s a l l o w i n g a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . When such r e f e r -
ences show h i s support f o r a v a r i a n t r e a d i n g , but i n a s l i g h t -
l y m o d i f i e d form, they a r e marked w i t h an a s t e r i s k , and the
c r i t i c a l a p p a r a t u s c i t e s Didymus's support i n p a r e n t h e s e s .
The C r i t i c a l Apparatus
The c r i t i c a l apparatus l i s t s a l l v a r i a n t s uncovered i n
the c o l l a t i o n s of the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e documents. Only those
v a r i a n t s p r e v i o u s l y adjudged t o be g e n e t i c a l l y i m m a t e r i a l a r e
not i n c l u d e d : nu-movable, OO'TW/OUTCUS , nonsense r e a d i n g s ,
i t a c i s m , and o t h e r minor s p e l l i n g d i f f e r e n c e s , i n c l u d i n g ,
normally, the s p e l l i n g of proper names. Furthermore, Didymus
sometimes c i t e s a passage which i s p r e s e r v e d i n s h o r t e r and
l o n g e r forms i n the t r a d i t i o n . When the a d d i t i o n s or omis-
s i o n s o c c u r a t the end of such a passage, and Didymus seems t o
c i t e the s h o r t e r form, h i s w i t n e s s normally cannot be used.
I n s t e a d of p r e s e r v i n g the s h o r t e r t e x t , he may simply have
3
quoted a p o r t i o n of the passage germane t o h i s d i s c u s s i o n .
Only when i t seems n a t u r a l to assume t h a t Didymus would have
i n c l u d e d the l o n g e r t e x t had he known i t can h i s testimony be
g i v e n i n support of the s h o r t e r t e x t .
With the e x c e p t i o n of such unusable r e a d i n g s , a l l v a r i -
a n t s a r e g i v e n i n the apparatus i n the order of t h e i r o c c u r -
r e n c e i n the t e x t . Those supported by two or more w i t n e s s e s
a r e c i t e d f i r s t , f o l l o w e d by a l i s t of a l l s i n g u l a r v a r i a n t s ,
i n c l u d i n g those s i n g u l a r t o Didymus. Any w i t n e s s which c l e a r -
l y s u p p o r t s a v a r i a n t r e a d i n g , but i n a s l i g h t l y m o d i f i e d
form, i s c i t e d i n p a r e n t h e s e s . The a b b r e v i a t i o n " v i d
H
(=
v l d e t u r ) i s used w i t h MSS t h a t a r e p a r t i a l l y fragmentary a t
the p o i n t of v a r i a t i o n , but t h a t n o n e t h e l e s s appear t o a t t e s t
t h e r e a d i n g i n q u e s t i o n . I n the f i r s t u n i t of v a r i a t i o n of
each t e x t , a l l s u p p o r t i n g documents a r e c i t e d i n f u l l . I n
subsequent v a r i a n t s , the support f o r one r e a d i n g i s normally
d e s i g n a t e d by the a b b r e v i a t i o n " r e l l " (= r e l l c r u i ) . The appa-
r a t u s d e s i g n a t e s the w i t n e s s e s which a r e l a c u n o s e f o r each
passage w i t h the a b b r e v i a t i o n " L a c . " W i t n e s s e s p a r t i a l l y
One n o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n , o c c a s i o n e d by t e x t u a l alignments
which s u g g e s t a g e n e t i c s i g n i f i c a n c e , i s the s p e l l i n g of Beee-
SouX. i n Matt 12:24 and Luke 11:15.
3
S e e B. M. Metzger's t r e n c h a n t c r i t i c i s m s of Boismard's
proposed r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the t e x t of John. " P a t r i s t i c E v i -
dence and the T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m of the New Testament," NTS 18
(1971-72) 387-95.
l a c u n o s e a r e p l a c e d i n p a r e n t h e s e s .
For each u n i t of v a r i a t i o n , Didymus's r e a d i n g i s g i v e n
f i r s t . O c c a s i o n a l l y Didymus's w i t n e s s w i l l be s p l i t i . e . he
sometimes s u p p o r t s one v a r i a n t , sometimes another. When, as
a consequence, h i s t e x t cannot be determined w i t h c e r t a i n t y ,
h i s support i s l i s t e d f o r both v a r i a n t r e a d i n g s and i s tabu-
l a t e d a s a g r e e i n g w i t h each s e t of w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s t the
o t h e r .
The Old L a t i n e v i d e n c e i s always d i f f i c u l t t o i n t e r p r e t .
I n some k i n d s of v a r i a t i o n , such a s the p r e s e n c e or absence of
the a r t i c l e , i t s t e s t i m o n y i s mute. I n o t h e r s , such as word
o r d e r , i t s testimony may be h e l p f u l , but i s o f t e n ambiguous.
I n s t i l l o t h e r i n s t a n c e s , such a s the i n c l u s i o n or e x c l u s i o n
of words or p h r a s e s , i t s testimony i s u n e q u i v o c a l . Only when
the Old L a t i n support of a v a r i a n t i s judged t o be r e l a t i v e l y
c e r t a i n w i l l i t be i n c l u d e d i n the c r i t i c a l a p p a r a t u s . When
t h e t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n s p l i t s t h r e e or more ways t h e Old L a t i n
i s sometimes found t o support e i t h e r of two v a r i a n t s , but not
a t h i r d ( a s when two of the v a r i a n t s d i f f e r o n l y i n the p r e -
sence or absence of t h e a r t i c l e ) . I n such c a s e s the Old L a t i n
MSS a r e c i t e d i n p a r e n t h e s e s f o r each of t h e two p o s s i b l e
v a r i a n t s a g a i n s t the t h i r d .
The f o l l o w i n g w i t n e s s e s were chosen a s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of
the major t e x t - t y p e s i n each of t h e G o s p e l s . Commonly
a c c e p t e d d e s i g n a t i o n s f o r t h e s e groupings ( E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n ,
e t c . ) w i l l be used here a s a matter of convenience. As can
be seen, i n a d d i t i o n t o the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e MSS, the t e x t s of
UBS and TR a r e a l s o c i t e d .
See t h e d i s c u s s i o n i n Metzger, The T e x t of the Hew
Testament: I t s T r a n s m i s s i o n . C o r r u p t i o n , and R e s t o r a t i o n , 2nd
ed. (New York: Oxford P r e s s , 1968) 36-66, 213-18.
3 6 / Didymus and t h e Gospels
Matthew
3
E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n : UBS x B
L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n : C L 3 3 8 9 2 1 2 4 1
Western: D a b e k
C a e s a r e a n : 8 fam 1 fara 1 3
B y z a n t i n e : TR A E W A n S
Mark
3
E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n : UBS K B
L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n : C L A ? 3 3 5 7 9 8 9 2 1 2 4 1
Western: D W ( 1 : 1 - 5 : 3 0 ) a b e k
Caesarean: 8 fam 1 fam 13
B y z a n t i n e : TR A E n S
Luke
3 7 5
E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n : UBS P N B
L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n : C L W ( 1 : 1 - 8 : 1 2 ) * 3 3 5 7 9 8 9 2 1 2 4 1
Western: D a b e
C a e s a r e a n : 6 fam 1 fam 1 3
B y z a n t i n e : TR A W ( 8 : 1 3 - 2 4 : 5 3 ) A U Q
John
3 6 6 7 5
E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n : UBS P P K ( 8 : 3 9 - 2 1 : 2 5 ) B
L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n : C L W V 3 3 5 7 9 8 9 2 1 2 4 1
Western: N ( 1 : 1 - 8 : 3 8 ) D a b e
C a e s a r e a n : 8 fam 1 fam 1 3
B y z a n t i n e : TR A A H 8
A b b r e v i a t i o n s
[Ad] A d a p t a t i o n
[ A d ] * A d a p t a t i o n t h a t s u p p o r t s v a r i a t i o n g i v e n i n t h e
c r i t i c a l apparatus
[ A l l ] A l l u s i o n
[ A l l ] * A l l u s i o n t h a t s u p p o r t s v a r i a t i o n g i v e n i n t h e
c r i t i c a l a p p a r a t u s
[C] C i t a t i o n
[ C ] * * C i t a t i o n taken t o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Didymus's
t e x t (and used a s a base f o r c o l l a t i o n )
[ ] Lacuna i n the MS
L a c . Lacunose Witness
() Witness s u p p o r t s the r e a d i n g , but i n a s l i g h t l y
m o d i f i e d form; or, a p a r t i a l l y l a c u n o s e w i t n e s s
v i d . v i d e t u r . Witness appears t o support the r e a d i n g
r e l l . r e l i o u i . A l l o t h e r w i t n e s s e s support the r e a d i n g
TR T e x t u s Receptus
3
UBS U n i t e d B i b l e S o c i e t i e s ' Greek New Testament, 3rd
e d i t i o n
Chapter I I I
Text and Apparatus
Matt. 1:1
3[ ] (GenT 145:19} [ C ]
[]
(2eT 103:25) [ C ]
tXoc TR UBS
3
L w ()
fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 a j l i b e r g e n e r a l i s (= ?)
k
Lac.: A C D b e
Matt. 1:6
( E c c l T 5:8-9) [ C ]
6 UBS
3
fam 1. 13 k] 6 TR C L W
33 892 1241 a
v l d
Lac. : D ( a ) b e
Matt. 1:16
6 [ ] 6 ,
(PsT 153:5-6) [ C ]
3
TR UBS C L w
Ca) 8 f
a m
33 892 1241]
fam 13 a (b) (k)
( 2 )
r e l l ] omit
] fam 1; k;
r e l l
Lac . : A D e
Matt. 1:17
a*o
(PsT 304:4) [Ad]
] TR UBS
3
C L
W fam 1. 13 33 892 1241
] omit r e l l
38
Text and Apparatus /39
Matt. 1:17 ( c e n t . )
b ] omit r e l l
L a c . : A D e
Matt. 1:21
[t ] >.
(ZeT. 219:25) [Ad]
Matt. 1:21-23
6 , [ ]
( E c c l T 218:12-13) [ A l l ]
Matt. 1:23
[] ' .
[ ] (ZeT
102:13-14) [ A l l ]
n '
(ZeT 219:18-19) [ A l l ]
Matt. 2:1-2

,
(ZeT 202:4-7) [ A l l ]
Matt. 2:11

(ZeT 267:18)
[ A l l ]
Matt. 3:12
[ ] [] [ ] [
] [] ,
[ (JobT 157:2-6) [ C ]
Matt. 3:12 ( c o n t . l
L fam 13 392 a b l TR UBS
3
C
W fara 1 33 1241
r e l l ] L W 892 b
r e l l ] am 13
L a c . : A D e k
Matt. 4:1-2

(ZeT 44:22)
[ A l l ]
.-.en' , ' []
Seou (GenT 71:16-18)
[ C ]
TR 2 f a m l 3 1241] UBS
3
C
D L W fam 1 . 33 892
r e l l ] C D fam 13
r e l l ] omit D a b
'.,. r e l l J omit i_n toto k
L a c . : A e
Matt. 4:9
... (ZeT
45:2) Cc l
] UBS^ C W fam 1.
33; r e l l
L a c . : A e
Text: and Apparatus /41
Matt. 4:19
... , [ ]
(ECC1T 286:20-21) [ C ]
,
(GenT 61:15-16) [ C ]
TR UBS
3
C L W 2 fam 1 . 13 892 1241 ]
D 33 a b k
Lac . : e
Ma 11.. 5 : 3
^
(JobT 5:24 ) [ A d ] *

(PsT 186:25 ) [ A l l ] *
[ ][ ] (PsT 2 0 2 : 2 4 ) [C]
TR UBS
3
C W fans 1. 13 33 892
1241] D
Lac . : A L 6 e
Matt. 5:4
urtkucpioi . . . [],
( E c c l T 198:6) [ C ]
33 892 ] omit TR UBS
3
C D W 2 fam 1. 13
1241 a b k
La c . : A L e
Ma 11 . 5:5
. . . ,
(GenT 104 :20-21 ) [ C ]
ua Ka pi o i
< GenT 218 :10-11 ) [ C]
[ 3 [ \
(JobT 70:32-71:1) [C]
Matt. 5:5 ( c o n t . )
TR UBS
3
K B C D E W i S n S fam 1. 13 33 892 ]
omit 1241
Lac . : A L e
Ma 11 . 5:6
, ,
(PsT 50:16-17) [ c ]
Text: TR UBS
3
B C D E W i B n S fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241
a b k
La c . : A L e
Matt. 5:7
[ ) (PsT 179:22)
[ C ]
Text: TR UBS
3
B C D E t f n f l i i f am 1 . 13 33 892 1241
(a) (b) (k!
Lac . : A L e
Matt. 5:8
5 3 []
( E c c l T 11 :5 ) [ A l l ]
... ,
(PsT 83:17-18) [ A l l ]
... (PsT 84:25!
[ A l l ]
... (PsT 93:2) [ A l l ]
[] ( E c c l T 44:18) [ C ]
[6]
(Gen 248 :1 8 ) [C]
[] (JobT 213:12) [C]
(PsT 53:19) [ C ]
...
(PsT 209: 20 ! [C]
Matt. 5:8 ( c o n t . )
...01 , ,
(PsT 240:16) [ C ]
,
{ZeT 192:12) [ C ]
TR UBS
3
K B C D E W n e i l f i fam 1 . 13 33 892
1241 a b] Dominum (=! k
Lac . : L e
Ma 11 5:9

(PsT 227:18) [ A l l ] *
,
(JobT 306:33-34) [ C ]
C D fam 13 a b] TR UBS W
fam 1 33 892 1241 k
Lac . : A L e
Matt. 5:11-12
(PsT 277:22-23)
[Ad]
ouv 5
(PsT 318:10) [ A l l ]
Matt. 5:13
( E c c l T 305:12-13) [ C ]
TR UBS
3
C fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 ]
D W
La c. : A L e
Matt. 5:14
(GenT 38:22) [ C ]
[] (PsT 193:6) [ C ]
Matt. 5: 14 ( c o n t . )
xo (ZeT 3 0 5 : 1 7 ) [ c ]
owe [] [ ] (ZeT 376 :1) [ C ]
T e x t : TR UBS
3
B C D W ( A ) fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241
a b k
Lac . : A L e
Matt. 5: 16
... ... >
(PsT 2 4 : 1 - 3 ) [ A l l ] *
[ ] '
(PsT 1 8 9 : 2 8 - 2 9 ) [ A i l ]
. . . ,

(PsT 231 : 2 4 - 2 5 ) [ C ]
TR UBS' D L W f a m l . 13 33 892 1241
a b k] omit
] r e l l
Lac . : A C e
Matt. 5:17
vouov
(ZeT 40:11) [ A l l ]

( ZeT 372:19 ) [ A l l ]
Mart_
1
__5j_19

(ZeT 183:26) [ A d ] *
TR UBS
3
L S f a m l . 13 33 892 1241] s i c
(= ) a ( k ) ; s i c h i c (= ) b
... ] omit i n toto K D W
Lac . : A C e
Text and Apparatus ,'45
Matt. 5:20
eav []
(Ecc.1T 43:6-7) [C]
eav
[J (PsT 287:9) [ C ] * *
ce UBS
3
fam 13 892
1241] TR fam 1 33 a b (k)
() r e l l ] L
. . . . r e l l ] omit i n toto D
Lac . : A C e
Matt. 5:25
'
(PsT 212:20 ) [ C ]
' UBS
3
D L fam 1 . 13 33 892
a b] ' .) TR 1241 k
r e l l ] fam 13 1241; L
] r e l l
r e l 1 ] omit D
La c . : A C e
Matt. 5:28
(PsT 263:10) [ A l l ]
Ma 11. 5:34
.
(PsT 69:5) [ A l l ]
6 (ZeT 185:27) [ c ]
Text: TR UBS
3
H B D E ( L ) W fam 1 . 13 33 892
1241 a b k
Lac . : A C e
46/ Diciymus and the Gospels
Matt. 5:41
[] , ' au [ 6]
( E c c l T 123:26) [C]
( 33 892)1 omit TR UBS
3
8 L I I S f a m l . 13
1241 a b Je
r e l l ] emit L
] r e l l
(or -, or -) r e l l ] D
L a c : A C e
Matt. 5:42
(JobT 139:2-3)
[ C ]
TR UBS
3
L W 3 fam 1 . 13 33 892
1241] D, ( v o l e n t i ) a b, (ab eo qui
v o l u e r i t ) k
a i o r e l l ] omit D (k)
Lac . : A C e
Matt. 5:45
[] (PsT 177:20)
[ A d ] *

(PsT 290:21-22 ) [ A l l ] *
[ ]
(ZeT 246 :11-12 ) [ A d ] *
R e c o n s t r u c t i o n :

a ] TR UBS
3

D E L fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 b k
] r e l l
] r e l l
L... r e l l ] omit
Lac . : A C e
Text and Apparatus /4 7
Matt. 5:48
(PsT 68:19)
[ A d ] *

(PsT 130:29-30) [ A d ] *
...[ ]
(GenT 180:4-5) [C]
UBS
3
L fam 1. 13 33] TR D 6
892; 1241
UBS
3
L W f a m l . 13 33 892 1241 a ]
b k r e l l
] r e l l
Lac . : A C e
Matt. 6:1
outiii ,
,
(GenT 125 : 4-6 ) [ A l l ] *
'
(GenT 212:16-17! [ A l l ] *
TR L W fam 13 33 892 1241 k]
UBS
3
D fam l a b
r e l l ]
Lac . : A C e
Matt. 6:2
e [ ] . > [ ].
(GenT 180:2-3 ) [ A l i ]
[] , []
[] (JobT 37:18-20) [Ad]
... ,
( ZeT 238 :8-9 ) [Ad]
Matt. 6:5
6e nepi [ ] ,
[]
(ZeT 386:17) [ A l l ]
Matt. 6:14
,
(ZeT 126:14) [C]
TP. UBS
3
L W fam 1 . 13 33
892 1241] D b k; a
r e l l ] a b k
L f a m l 3 ] o m i t r e l l
D L ] r e l l
] ; r e l l
L a c . : A C e
Matt. 6:19
[ ] (PsT 276:25-26)
[ C ]
TR UBS
3
t 8 li 8 fam 1. 13 33
892 1241 a b k ] D
r e l l ]
L a c . : A C e
Matt. 6:20-21
6
( E c c l T 6:23) [ A l l ]
Matt. 6:20-21 ( c o n t . )

( E c c l T 35:18-19) [ A l l ]
.
(PsT 53:18-19) [ A d ] *
.
[]...
(PsT 276 :25-26) [ A d ] *
... ,
ZeT 22:1-2) [ A l l ]
[ ] []
(ZeT 407:10) [ A l l ]
UBS a b k ] TR L
fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241
r e l l ] omit
L a c . : A C D e
Matt. 6:24
[] [ ]
[ ] []
. [ ] []
(GenT 175: 14-17) [ C ]
(PsT 84:4) [ C ]
TR UBS W Q fam 1 . 13 33 892 a b k ]
L 1241
r e l l ] omit b
r e l l ] Domino (= ) k
L a c . : A c D e
Matt. 6:33
[] ,
( E c c l T 84:16-17) [Ad]
Matt. 6:33 ( c o n t . )
[ ] . . . [ ]
, [ ] ( E c c l T 193:
22-24) [AdJ
un [ ][ ] [] (JobT 395: 14-15!
[Ad]
a b ] un TR UBS
3
E L i il 2 f a m l . 13
33 892 1241 k
] r e l l
L a c . : A C D e
Matt. 7:6
0[ ]
[] (GenT 72:13-14) [Ad]*

(ZeT 276:27) [ A d ] *

(ZeT 277:19) [ A l l ]
,
, []
( E c c l T 352:4-5) [ C ]

...
(GenT 111:2-4) [ C ]
(GenT 196:7-8) [ C ]
,
[/ ]

D i d
p
TR f a m l 892 1241 a b k]
DidP* UBS3 B C L W fam 13 33
r e l l ] 33 1241
r e l l ] L
Text and Apparatus /SI
Matt. 7:6 ( c o n t . )
r e l l ]
] ev r e l l
L a c . : e
Matt. 7:9-10
... , ,
; [].
[]; ( E c c l T 314:4-5) [ C ]
L 124.1 b] R UBS'* C W 3
fam 1. 13 ( 33) 892 (a) k
( o r - o e i ) '
1
' UBS
3
(C! a b j ()
( o r -) r e l l
892 a b k ] . TR E L W 9; Mai r e l l
( o r - )
< 2
' UBS
3
C f am 1 33 892 1241]
() ( o r -) r e l l
] r e l l
r e l l ] f am 13
( o r - o e i ) '
1
' r e l l ] C
r e l .1 ] o mi t k
L a c . : A D e
Matt. 7:11
...[ ],
( E c c l T 78:15) [ A l l ]
, 6 ] []
( E c c l T 293:14-15) [Ad]
(PsT 61:1) [Ad]
... , 6 ...
(PsT 245:6) [ A l i ]
... (PsT 101:9) [ C ]
(PsT 109:15) [ C ]
Matt. 7:11 ( c o n t . )
Text: TR UBS
3
H B C E (L) () () fam 1 . 13 33
892 1241 a b k
Lac.: A D e
Matt. 7:13
... ,
(GenT 166:2) [ A l l ] *

, < (PsT 141 :27-28)
[ A l l ] *

,
(ZeT 211:13-15) [ A l l ]
[] []
[ ], []
(ZeT 271:12-14) [ A l l ] *
... [] [] [
] "(ZeT 387:23 ) [ A l l ] *
... ,
(GenT 102:
20-21) [ C ]
D i d
p
a b k ] D i d
p
TR UBS
B C E L W 4 0 I I 8 f a m l . 13 33 892 1241
r e l l ] faml, 1241;
r, fan 13
r e l l ] omit
] ' r e l l
L a c . : A D e
Matt. 7:14
, , (PsT 142:2) [ A l l ]
[]
[ ]
(ZeT 271:10-12! [ A l l ] *
Matt. 7;14 ( c o n t . )

(GenT 102:18-19) [ C ]
UBS
3
L () 11 fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 a b k ]
TR
r e l l ] L 1241; omit a k
Lac.: A D e
Matt. 7:15
[ Sn ] too ] ,
(GenT 125:19-21) [ A l l ]
[][] [ ]
,
(JobT 254:2-5) [ A l l ]
[ ]
(JobT 401:19-22) [ A l l ]

,
(PsT 232:1-2) [ A l l ]

(PsT 274:20) [ A l l ]
Matt. 7:21
,
,
(PsT 85:15) [ A l l ] *

(PsT 281:31) [ A l l ] *
[] ,
, ' []
( E c c l T 208:7-8) [ C ]
... , ,
, ' [ ]
(PsT 229:6) [ C ]
, , '
(PsT 231:3) [ C ]
Matt. 7:21 ( c o n t . )
UBS
3
C a fans 1 33 892] omit TR L W
f a m l 3 1241
ye ] a b k re 11
r e l l ]
L a c . : A D e
Matt. 7:22
. - ,
(PsT 281:29) [ C ]
TR UBS
3
C L 8 8 fam 1. 13 33 892 1241]
omit
L a c . : A D e
Matt. 7:23
-
GenT 194:17-18) [Ad]*
' , []
(JobT 383:6-8) [ A d ] *
( p
s
T 281:29-30) [ A d ] *
" ,
(ZeT 177:19) [ A d ] *
TR UBS
3
C ( L ) 4 H 8 fara 1 33
892 1241] fam 13
a k r e l l ] L fam 13 b
a ] r e l l
k] r e l l
r e l l ] non (= ou) a b
r e l l ]
L a c . : A D e
Matt. 7:24

( E c c l T 310:23-24) [ A l l ]

( E c c l T 311 : 3-4) [ A i l ]

( E c c l T 342:5-6) [ A l l ]
[ ] , [ ]
(, []
(JobT 147:15-19) [ A d ] *
6[ ] []
(JobT 148:24-26) [ A l l ]

[]
, ' (JobT 312:18-22) [ A l l ]

(PsT 145:1-146:1) [ A l l ]
... []
[]

(ZeT 107:9) [ A l l ]
..., ( ZeT 183: 22) [ C ]
UBS
3
fam 13 33 892 1241 a b ]
T R C E L W n Q k ;
fam 1
TR L & fam 13 a b k]
r e l l
L a c . : A D e
Matt. 7:25

.
(ZeT 31:7-9)
[ A l l ]
, , ,
[] (JobT 147:19-22) [Ad]
Matt. 7:26

[] ( E c c l T 290:9) [ A d ] *
[ ] , []
(JobT 148:5-8) [ A d ] *
(PsT 146:1-2) [ A l l ]

(ZeT 31:12-14) [ A i l ]
...un TR UBS B C E L K A D Q fam 1
33 892 1241 a b k] ... fam 13
TR C L fam 13 33 a b k]
r e l l
Lac.: A D e
Matt. 8:11
-
[]
(ZeT 161:11-12) [ C ]
] omit TR UBS fam 1. 13 33
892 1241 a b k
] post r e l l
L a c . : A D e
Matt. 8:12

(PsT 260:29-30) [ A d ] *
UL OI
(PsT 55:6) [ C ]
TR UBS
3
B C E I 9 H 2 f a m l . 13 33
892 1241 a k ] b
D i d
p t
. ( e x i e n t ) k, ( i b u n t ) a b]
(- D i d P
1
) TR UBS
3
B C E L W
f a m l . 13 33 892; 1241
Matt. 8:12 i c o n t . )
0 1 ] 0 1 be r e l 1
Lac. : A D e
Matt. 9:33
EKBOCVXOC t oo Souuoviou eXaA-noev o Hiocpoc. (PsT 268:2) [ A d ] *
eK>>r,eevioc . . . xou 6otipovioo eAaXnoev o Ki ocpoc, (PsT 267:33)
[C]
KUKPOC TR UBS
3
K B C D E L K A 8 [J Q fam 1 . 13 33 892 a b]
Moses (Mioon,^ k
Lac. : A 12 41 e
Matt. 10:9
Xa\xov e i ? [x]ac. C[io]vac. (JobT 138:29) [ C ]
Text: TR UBS
3
N B C D E L W d n Q fam 1 . 13 33 892
a b k
Lac. : A .12 41 e
Matt. 10:10
aî oc; o epTOTHS
1
-H
t
; tpocpnq autou (ZeT 317:9) [ C ]
tri? Tpocpns TR UBS
3
K B C D E L W A 6 3 fam 1 . 13 33 k ]
too uiaoou n 892 a b
autou UBS
3
K B C L fam 1 . 13 892 ] autou e o t i v r e l l
a? 1 0 5 ] agioc. fap r e l l
L a c : A 1241 e
Matt. 10:16
Yivec opovMiuoi ajc; OL o; pi <; KQI anepctioi 10c; a i i s p i o x e p a i
(GenT 93:3) [ C ]
riVC6e k] yiveo9e ouv TR UBS
3
K B C D E L W A 6 0 Q
fam 1 . 13 33 892 a b
uc. 0 1 (2x) r e l l ] uaei L
Matt. 10:16 ( c o n t . l
r e l l ]
r e l l ] D
L a c . : A 1241 e
Matt. 10:28
to (PsT 47:7.1 [ A d ] *
, 6
-
] (GenT 56:5-8)
[C ] * *
[] (JobT 86:
29-31) [ C ]
[ ] [ ] ,
[] [] (JobT 347:
12-1.5) [ C ]

(PsT 52:27-53:1) [C ]
,
[ ] (PsT 194:31-32) [ C ]

(PsT 209:16-17! [ C ]
UBS
3
C L fam 13 ] TR D W
fam 1 33 892
TR D E L A 6
v l d
2 fam 1. 13 33 ]
r e l l
( 2 )
] L fam 1 ; 6 , a b k r e l l
r e l l ] omit tarn 13 a b
( 2 )
" r e l l ] W fam 13
(
1
)
" r e l l ] W fam 13
r e l l ] D, ( i n gehennam) a b
r e l l ] D
Lac.: A 1241 e
Matt. 10:29
6 [] [] ; []
[ [][ ]
[] . ] (JobT 317:10-13) [ A d ] *
TR UBS
3
C L I i II 2 fam 1 . 13 33
892] D, (veneunt) a, ( v e n i u n t ) b k
r e l l ] s i n e v o l u n t a t e p a t r i s (=
?) a b
892 b ] omit r e l l
r e l l ] . D
L a c . : A 1241 e
Matt. 10:32-33
[ ] ,
[] [] , ...
(GenT 176:10-12! [ A d ] *
3
UBS D W iam 1 33 a b k]
TR G E L D 3 fam 13 892
L a c . : A 1241 e
Matt. 10:34
, (GenT 98:26-27)
... ,
(ZeT 319:25) [ C ]
, , .
! k ) ] TR UBS" B C D
L W 2 fam 1 . 13 33 892 a b
r e l l ] a b k
] r e l l
r e l l ] omit fam 13
L a c : A 1241 e
Matt. 10:37

(PsT 112:8-9) [ C ]
. .- TR UBS K B C D E L W A 6 ' 1 Q
f a m l . 13 33 892 a b ] t... k
Lac. : A 1241 e
Matt. 10:40
, ( ZeT 3 71:29-
372:1) [ C ]
TR UBS
3
C L S ram 1 . 13 33 892 ]

L a c . : A D 1241 e
Matt. 11:12
(GenT 166:7) [ A l l ]
[] (JobT 136: 23-24)
[ A l l ]
Matt. 11:18

( E c c l T 73:10-11) [ A d ] *
TR UBS
3
B C D E W A r i Q l a m 1 33 892 a b k ]
(L) fam 13
Lac.: A 1241 e
Matt. 11:20
. [ ]
[]
GenT I81:1-2) [ C ) * *

,
(GenT 232: 15-17) [ C ]
C L W fam 1.13 892] omit TR UBS
3
D
33 a b k
Matt. 11:20 ( c o n t . )
r e l l ] D, ( f a c t a e f u e r a n t ) k
r e l 1 ] omi t D
L a c . : A 1241 e
Matt. 11:21
, ',
,
(GenT 232:
15-20) [ C ]
, ,
,
(ZeT 202:29) [ C ] * *
TR UBS
3
C L 2 fam 1. 13
33 892] D a b k
r e l l ] 33 892; D
r e l l ] (or - ) C fam 1
33 892
r e l l ] omit L
] r e l l
L a c : A 1241 e
Matt. 11:28
...
( E c c l T 317:4-6) [ A d ] *
... , (PsT 262: 21-22 ) [Ad]
[] (ZeT 406:3) [ A l l ]
(PsT 257:124-25) [ C ]
, ,
(ZeT 133:10) [ C ]

(ZeT 260:21) [ C ]
[ ] (ZeT 260 :29) [ C ]
Matt. 11:28 ( c o n t . )
TR UBS
3
N B C E L W A e n fam 1 . 13 33
892] D, ( o n e r a t i e s t i s ) a b k
Lac.: A 1241 e
Matt. 11:29
.
(PsT 265:21-22) [Ad]

, ( ZeT 12:6-8) [Ad]
...
(ZeT 96:14-15) [Ad]
[]. . . ( E c c l T 319:12-13)
[ C ]
'
(GenT 71:1-2) [ C ]
' '
[] []
[] (GenT 189:1-4) [ C ] * *
'
(GenT 212:22-23! [ C ]
' ,
(PsT 81:12-13) [ C ]
' , (PsT 81:15-16) [ c ]
a t ' ,
(PsT 202:25) [ C ]
...' ,
(PsT 246:13-14) [ C ]
, [ ...]
(PsT 257:24-25) [ C ]
'
(ZeT 133:11-12) [ C ]
'
(ZeT 185:8-9)
[C ]
Matt. 11:29 ( c o n t . )
' ,
(ZeT 201:
16-17) [ C ]
' , '
(ZeT 220:19-21) [ C ]
-
' , [ ']
(ZeT 260:22-24) [ C ]
' ,
(ZeT 306:3-5)
[ C ]
' ,
(ZeT 335:16) [ C ]
[] [ ] (ZeT 406:6) [ C ]
' TR UBS
3
B C D L D S fam 1 . 13 33 892
a b k] omit K
L a c . : A 1241 e
Matt. 11:30

(PsT 262:22-23) [ C ]

(ZeT 220:19-20) [ C ] * *
(ZeT 221:16) [ C ]
[ ]
(ZeT 260:24-25) [ C ]
TR UBS
3
C * S 8 H 2 fam 1 33 892 a b k ]
L fam 13
L a c . : A 1241 e
Matt. 12:24
[] []
(PsT 294:9) [ C ]
Matt. 12:24 ( c o n t . )
TR UBS
3
fam 1 . 13 892 1241 ]
omit 33
] L b ; a re 11
r e l l ]
L a c : A (1241) e
Matt. 12:33
. ,
Kat
(JobT 369:17-20) [ C ]

( 2 )
TR UBS
3
B C E L W A i l S fam 1 . 13 33 892]
D
...
a ] ...
b k r e l l
L a c . : A 1241 e
Matt. 12:35
[ , ] ,
( E c c l T 78:18-19) [ A l l ] *
T a
( 2 )
T R C L fam 1 33] omit UBS
3
B D
fam 13 892
Lac . : A 1241 e
Matt. 12:36
6[]
(GenT 174:13-14) [ A U ]
12:37

(GenT 88:27-89:1) [ A d ] *
, [ ]
(PsT 255:10) [ A d ] * *
Matt. 12:37 i c o n t . )

(PsT 272:22-23) [ A d ] *
.. . (or -)
(a) ( b ) ] ... (or
-) UBS C D L W > fam 1 . 13
33 892 k
r e l l ] D a
- D i d
p t
) r e l l ]
- D i d P
1
) L 33
r e l l ] omit a
'^' r e l l ]
Lac . : 1241 e
Matt. 12:40

( E c c l T 92:9) [ A l l ]
[ ] ...
[ ]
(GenT 189:19-21) [Ad]
Matt. 12:43
...[ ] ,
'
(JobT 398:21-26) [ C ]
L ] TR UBS fam 1. 13
33 892 a b k
L a c . : A 1241 e
Matt. 13:11
,.-
(PsT 75:9! [ A l l ] *

(ZeT 147:27) [ C ]
u u t i v
[] (ZeT 162:28) [ C ]
Matt. 13:11 ( c o n t . )
TR UBS
3
B C D E L W A S n Q fam 1. 13
33 892 1241 b e ] mysteriutn ( a ) , sacramentum (k)
(= ) a k
r e l l ] omit a b e k
Lac. : A
Matt. 13:17

(PsT 247:4-5) [ c ]
TR UBS C L U H Q fam 1. 13
33 892 1241 b ] D; et
non a u d i e r u n t (= ) a k; omit e
r e l l ] omit
Lac. : A
Matt, 13:23
, ,
( E c c l T 146:1! [Ad]
, [, ] (JobT 152:13) [Ad]
(PsT
67:28) [ A l l ]
Matt. 13:24
[ ] [ ] []
[] []
;jobT 152:9-13) [Ad]
Matt. 13:28
(GenT 164:23-24) [ C ]
T e x t : TR UBS
3
B C D E L W i S n S fam 1. 13 33
892 1241 a b e k
Lac . : A
Matt. 13:38
[] . ( JobT 156 : 2-3 [Ad]
k] TR UBS
3
B C D E L W A S n S
fain 1.13 33 892 1241 a b e
] 6 r e l l
] r e l 1
] r e l l
La c. : A
Matt. 13:43

( E c c l T 195:11) [ A d ] *

(JobT 178:24-26} [ A d ] *
... [] []
( E c c l T 46:8-9) [ C ] * *
... ( E c c l T 163:4-5) [C]

( E c c l T 194:18-19) [ C ]
[]
(GenT 39:9-10) [ C ]

(ZeT 3 75:21) [ C ]
Did^
l t
1241]
DidPt TR UBS
3
K C (0) U 1 il
fam 1. (13 ) 33 892 a b e k
r e l l ] D fam 13, ( f u l g e b u n t ) a b e k
r e l l ] fam 13
r e l l ] mei () e
Lac . : A
Matt. 13:45
[ou ]
[] (ZeT 278:6-7) [ A l l ] *
Matt. 13:45 ( c o n t . )
TR UBS
3
C D L S J 2
fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 e k] bonam margaritam (=
) a b
Lac. : A
Matt. 13:47

( E c c l T 228:7-8) [ A l l ] *
TR UBS C D L 4 2 fara 1 . 13 33 892
1241 k] gnre pi scrum (= ) a b e
] ; L; ;
r e l l
Lac. : A
Matt. 13:52

[] [ ] ( E c c l T 65:18) [ A l l ]
... ] f a m l , p r o f e r i t (a) b
(e) k; TR UBS
3
N B C D E L W A
fam 13 33 892 1241
Lac. : A
Matt. 14:21
[] , []
-
[] , (JobT 31:
2 5-2 9) [ A l l } *
TR UBS C L S 3 S fam 13
33 892 1241] D () ( f a m l ) a
b e
r e l l ] f a m l
Lac . : A k
Ma 11. 15:6
Sua
, (ZeT 309:5) [ A l l ] *
TR L W () Il fam 1 33 1241 ]
UBS
3
D 6 892 a b e ; C fam 13
Lac . : A k
Matt. 15:8
, 6
' (ZeT 309:2-3) [ C ]
USS D L fam 13 33 892 a b e ]
TR
C W () () 1241;
fam 1
r e l l ] omit W
r e l l ] D a b e
r e l l ] 1241
r e l l ]
L a c . : A k
Matt. 15:9
5
(ZeT 309:3-5) [ A d j *
] TR
UBS
3
C D L W r a m i . 13 33 892 1241;
d o c t r i n a s e t mandata ( p r a e c e p t a e) (=6
) a b e
r e l l ] omit
Lac . : A k
Ma 11. 15:13
' [], []
, (JobT 223:33-224:1)
L Ad ]
Matt. 15:13 ( c o n t . )
eHo[ittov] naaav
(ZeT 80:14) [Ad]
Matt. 15:14
, [ ] []
( E c c l T 301:9-10) [ C ]
TR UBS
3
C (Dl L 4 S f a m l 33
892 (1241 ) a e ] fam 13
r e l l ] fam 13
D fam 1] r e l l
(or ) ( ) TR UBS
3
C W
33 892 a e ] () (or
) r e l l
r e l l ] D w
] 1241; 6 r e l l
L a c . : S b k
Matt. 15:19
]
( E c c l T 280:20-21) [ A d ] *
[]
(JobT 217: 32-33 ) [ C ]
TR UBS
3
C D L i 9 8 fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 a e ]
omit K (homeoeteleuton !
r e l l ] W
L a c . : A b k
Matt. 16:16
(Gen 114:
14-15) [ C ]
TR UBS
3
B C E b W i e n fam 1. 13 33
892 1241 a b e ] D
L a c . : A k
Matt. 16:17
[] , '
[][] (Ecc.1T 331:13)
[Ad]
Matt. 16:18
La
( E c c l T 355:24-25) [ A l l ]
, , []
, []
(GenT 114:15-17) [ C ] * *
...5 , (GenT 195:6) [ C ]
, []
(JobT 148:1-3! [ C ]
,
(JobT 312 : 23-25 ) [ C ]
,
,
(ZeT 107:17-18) [ C ]
TR UBS C L ti H 5 fara 1 .
13 33 892 1241] D a b e
r e l l ] ; ;
D;
r e i l ]
Lac . : A k
Matt. 16:19

(Ze 187:4-5) [ A l l ] *
3
TR C D 3 fam 1. 13 33 892 1241]
UBS L W
La c . : A k
Ma 11. 16:27
. te
[ A l l ] *
(ZeT 78:18!
Matt. 16:27 ( c o n t . !
TR UBS
3
fam 13 33
892 1241 e ] H fara 1 a b
Lac . : A k
Matt. 18:3

, (PsT 91:5-6! [ A l l ]
1: . 18:6
[] [ ]
, , [ ]

[] { 306 :3-6 } []*

( 194:26-27) []*
3
UBS L 33 892]
W S f a m l . 13 1241, ( i n collum) e; E H
TR D; i n c o l l o (=ev ') a b
r e l l ] L
L a c . : A C k
18:7
' (Ecc.IT 113:3)
[]
UBS
3
L f a m l 892] TR
(W) fam 13 33 1241 a b ( e )
r e l l ] fam 13; omit
L a c . : A C k
Matt. 18:10
[]
6ic< [<:] ( E c c l T 344 :22-23)
[ A l l ]
Matt. 18:10 ( c o n t . )

(GenT 89:15-16) [ A d ] *
au
(GenT 194:26)
[ A d ] *
L
(ZeT 194:13)
[ A d ] *
fam 1 e ] TR UBS D
fai n 13 ( 892 ! 1241 a b:
(33)
D i d
p t
D 33 892] omit D i d
p t
TR UBS
3
E L W
fara i . 13 1241
Lac . : A C k
Matt. 18:20
o n ote [] [ ]
[] ( E c c l T 127:6) [ A l l ]
[ ] , []
( E c c l T 127:6-7) [ A d ] *
... TR UBS B E L W A e f l Q f a r a l .
13 33 892 1241a b e ] ..."
D
r e l l ] omit
r e l l ] omit e
Lac . : A C k
Matt. 18:21
; ; (Pa 107:21) [Ad]
Matt. 18:22
, ,
(PsT 107:21-22) [ A d ] *
( 2 ! 3
TR UBS L U i! 2 f a m l . 13 33 892
1241] D, ( s e p t i e s ) a b e
Lac . : A C k
Matt. 18:35

(ZeT 126:23-24)
[Ad]
Matt. 19:12
[] [] [ ]
[]... (ZeT 398:16)
[ A l l ]
Matt. 19:28

(PsT 225:14) [ A d ] *
'

, ,
(ZeT 56:8-10) [ A l l ] *

(JobT 327: 12-15 ) [ C ]
R e c o n s t r u c t i o n : ...

TR UBS
3
C W fam 13 33 1241 a b e ]
D L fam 1 892
(or ) r e l l ] f a m l
** ' r e l l ] D
r e l l ] omit D
Lac . : A k
Matt. 20:32
(GenT 54:9-10) [ C ]
L 892] omit TR UBS
3
C D W faro 1. 13
33 1241 a b e
Lac . : A S k
Matt. 21:2
[] -

(ZeT 218:6-8) [ A l l ] *
UBS
3
C D L fam 13 33 892] TR
W () fam 1 1241
La c . : A k
Matt. 21:10
oe ],
(GenT 180:25-26 ) [Ad]
Matt. 21:19

(GenT 85:27-86:1) [ C ]
L ] omit TR UBS
3
C D t 1 11 8 fam 1.13
33 892 1241
r e l l ]
Lac . : A k
Matt. 21:31

(PsT 55:2-3) [ C ]
a b e ]
TR UBS
3
K B C D E L W fam 1.13 33
892 1241
( i n regno) a b e ]
r e l l
Matt. 21:31 ( c e n t . )
r e l l ] A
La c. : A k
Matt. 22:13
L UI
[ ] -
,
!PsT 247:7-8)
[ A d ] *
(?) ,

UBS L f a m l . 13
892] D a b e;
TR C W
a 33 ( 1241 )
D fam 13 1241 a b e ] r e l l
r e l l ] 1241
Lac . : A k
Matt. 22:19
(ZeT 309:10) [ C ]
TR UBS
3
C 0 I, 5 Q fam 1 . 13 33 892
1241 a e ] omit b
r e l l ] denarium (=) e
La c . : A k
Matt. 22:44
(PsT 7:23) [ C ]
UBS
3
D] TR L W f a m l . 13
33 892 1241
] r e l l
Lac. : A C k
Matt. 22:45
,
(PsT 7:23-24) [ A d ] *
(+ Did.) D fam 13 a b ]
TR UBS3 L W fam 1 33 892 1241 e
Lac. : A C k
Matt. 23:2

(JobT 327:15-1 7) [ C ]
D fam 13 a b e j
TR UBS
3
L W fam 1 33 892 12.4).
L a c . : A C k
Matt. 23:14
,
(JobT 322:
28-31) [Ad]
Matt. 23:25

,
(ZeT 88:22-24) [ A l l ] *
TR UBS
J
D L f a m l . 13 33 892 1241
a e ] C ;
Lac. : A b k
Matt. 23:27

(ZeT 88:22-23) [ A l l ]
[ ]
[] (GenT 125:21-23)
[ C ]
TR UBS C D E L H A O S ) fam 13 33
892 1241] f a m l
Matt. 23:27 ( c o n t . !
] r e l l
] 6e r e l l
r e l l ] D
L a c . : A ( b)
Matt. 23:30
,
(ZeT 82:
20-22) [ C ]
TR W S f a m l 33] UBS
3
B C D E L
fam 13 892 1241
r e l l ] TR W S f a m l . 13 33
r e l l ] UBS
3
D f a m l . 13;
; (. . post ) 1241
. .. a b r e l l ] omit i_n toto e
Lac.: A k
Matt. 23:31

(ZeT 82:22-23) [ C ]
3
] TR UBS C D L
( f a m l . 13) 33 892 1241 a b e
] r e l l
L a c . : A k
Matt. 23:32

(ZeT 82:23-24) [ c ]
TR UBS C
1241 a b]

L W f a m l . 13 33 892
e; D
] omit r e l l
Matt. 23:32 ( c o n t . )
] ante r e l l
L a c . : A k
Matt. 23:33
(GenT 96:19-20) [ C ]
TR UBS
3
C D L W II Q fam 1. 13 33 892
1241 a e ] omit b
L a c . : A k
Matt. 23:35

(!) (ZeT 2:5-6) [ A l l ] *
TR UBS
3
C H t 6 II f a m l . 13
33 892 1241 a b e ] omit K
Lac.: A k
Matt. 23:37
,

(GenT 171: 25-172:1) [ C ]
UBS
3
D L f a m l . 13 33 892
a b e ] TR C 1241
] ( r e l l
r e l l ] a b e
Lac. : A k
Matt. 24:3

( E c c l T 87:4) [ C ]
, []
(GenT 73:20-22) [ C ] * *
Matt. 24:3 ( c o n t . )
UBS
3
B C L e-S f a m l 33 892]
TR D E W A fam 13 1241
note r e l 1 ] C
r e l l ] D
( 2 )
a b r e l l ] omit e
r e l l ] omit e
Lac. : A k
Matt. 24:5
-
(GenT 221: 5- 6) [ C ]
] TR UBS
3
B C D E L W
fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 a b e
] r e l l
r e l l ] . C
L a c . : A k
Matt. 24:12
, [] ,
(GenT 44: 16- 17) [ A l l ]

(GenT .193:3- 4) [ C ]
TR UBS
3
K B E L W A 6 n H f a m l . 13 33
892 1241] D
Lac. : A C k
Matt. 24:14

( E c c l T 357:21- 22) [ A d ] *
TR UBS
3
D L f a m l . 13 33 892
1241 a b e ] omit W
Lac. : A C k
Text and Apparatus / 81
Matt. 24:22
, 8
(ZeT 73:1-2) [ C ]
Text: TR UBS
J
D L W 9 5 fam 1. 13 33 892
1241 a b e
L a c . : A C k
Matt. 24:29

,
(PsT 14:24-26) [ C ]
a ] TR UBS
J
B D E L W i e r i
fam 1.13 33 892 1241 b e
] r e l l
L a c . : A C k
Matt. 24:30
[ ] [ ]
[] []
(ZeT 375:2-4) [ C ]
TR UBS" L W fam I . 13
33 892 1241] D a b e
] , r e l l
L a c . : A C k
Matt. 24:36
,
, ZeT 3 77:
17-18) [ A d ] *
3 () post TR UBS
D W f a m l . 13 (33) 1241 a (b) e; omit L 892
TR f a m l 33] r e l l
r e l l ] 33, (vel.) b
82/ uidyrnus and the Gospels
Matt. 24:36
( o r ) UBS
3
D fam 13 a b]
neque f i l i u s hominis (= )
e; omit r e l l
r e l l ] TR W 1241
Lac. : A C k
Matt. 24:40
[6] [ ] [], ]
[] [][ ][] ( E c c l T 346:15-16) [ A d ] *
R e c o n s t r u c t i o n : , -

6 TR UBS
J
D L 4 8 H f a m l . 13 33 1241
a b e ] ti 892
Lac.: A C k
Matt. 25:1

(ZeT 197:14) [ C ]
TR UBS
J
C D L i S f a m l . 13 33
892 1241 a b] W
L a c . : A e k
Matt. 25:3-4, 10
...
( E c c l T 349:
20-21) 11]
Matt. 25:6
- [],
( E c c l T 349:18-19) [ A d ] *
(Did.) TR UBS
J
A B C (D) E L W
fam13 33 892 1241] f a m l (b)
r e l l ]
Lac.: a e k
Text and Apparatus ..'83
Matt. 25:15
[] []
[] ,
, , ( E c c l T 164:18-20) [ A l l ] *
[] ...
, , (PsT 251:15-17) [ A d ] *
TR UBS C L i II C fam 1. 13
33 892 1241] D
r e l l ] D
L a c . : a e k
Matt. 25:16

(PsT 251:17) [ A d ] *
TR UBS
3
C L i C fam 13 33 892
1241 ] ' fam 1
L a c . : e k
Matt. 25:18

,
(PsT 251:18-19) [ A l l ]
Matt. 25:25
(PsT 251:21) [Ad]
,
] (PsT 251:22-23) [Ad]
Matt. 25:31
(ZeT 178:1) [Ad]
Matt. 25:32

,
( E c c l T 321:25-322:2) [ A l l ]
Matt. 25:33
,
( E c c l T 322:2-3) [ A d ] *
TR UBS
3
f a m l . 13 33 892 1 241 ]
omit D a b
] r e l l
r e l l ]
L a c . : C e k
Matt. 25:41

( E c c l T 322:4-5) [Ad]
[]
(PsT 247:7-8) [ C ]
]
(ZeT 83:14-15) [ C ]
, ,

(ZeT 178:6-8) [ C ] * *
Ol TR UBS i D 11 S f a m l . 13 892] omit
L 33 1241
r e l l ] D f a m l
a b
] ' ; '
r e l l
] r e l l
Lac . : C e k
.Matt. 26:15
,
(PsT 93:15-16! [ A d ] *
,
(PsT 293:21) [ A d ] *
,
(PsT 294:4) [ A d ] *
Matt, 26:15 ( c o n t . )
TR BS
3
N A B D E L A e n f a m l . 13 33
892 1241 a b] W
Lac.: C e k
Matt. 26:31

(ZeT 354:16) [ C ]
51 TR D W S f a m l ] -
UBS
3
C L fara 13 33 892 1241 a b
Lac. : e k
Matt. 26:52

(PsT 85:25-26) [ C ]
- ]
(PsT 247:28) [ C ]
a ] TR UBS A B C D E L W A e t l Q
fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 b
] UBS C L 3 3 :
r e l l
r e l l ] W fam 13 1241
r e l l ] f a m l
L a c . : e k
Matt. 26:53

(GenT 225:18-20) [Ad]*
(Did.) TR UBS
(C) D L 8 fam ( 11. 13 33 892 ( 1241! ] ou
a b
r e l l ] C
v : L C
* f a m l 1241
... ] ... UBS
3
() L 33
892; ... r e l l
Matt, 26:53 ( c o n t . )
uoL r e l l ] fam 1
r e l l ] UBS
3
D
UBS
3
D L b] r e l l
A C L fam 13 33]
; r e l l
] X I I n u l l a ( ) b
L a c . : e k
Matt. 26:55
*
(PsT 294:5) [Ad]
Matt. 27:3. 5
... ] ] ( 293:30)
[ A l l ]
Matt. 27:25
' [ ]
(ZeT 161:25) [Ad]
Matt. 27:40
, !ZeT 341:8)
[ C ]
TR UBS
3
S D L ( 8 f a m l . 13 33
892 1241] B a b
r e l l ] UBS
3
A D a b
Lac. : C e k
Matt. 27:52-53
, , (PsT 186:28)
[ A l l ]
Matt. 28:19
oitep
[] 9 (JobT 402:38-403:2! [ A l l ]
(ZeT 263:17! [ c ]
TR L'BS
3
f am 1. 13 33
892 1241 a b] D e
A f a m l 3 ] D a b ;
ouv r e l l
L a c . : C L k
Matt. 28:20
16ou If ' ( E c c l 2 3 9 : 2 6 ! [Ad]
( E c c l T 87:3! [ A d ] *
'
(cclT 239:17-18! [d]*
(PsT 12:7) [ A d ] *
] omit TR UBS
3
A B D E w fam 1 . 13
33 892 1241 a b e
L a c . : C L k
Mark 1:15
(PsT 157:30)
ICI
Text: TR UBS
J
A B D E L fam 1. 13 33 579
892 1241 a b
Lac. : C e k
Mark 3:17
-
( E c c l T 355:23) [ A l l ] *

(...
Did) TR UBS () C (D) L
f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b ]
e
L a c . : f k
Mark 4:10
[][] ( E c c i T 10:3)
[ A l l ] *
(Did) UBS
J
B C L A 892]
TR f a m l 33 579 1241;
D w fam 13 a b
L a c . : e k
Mark 4:11
. [ ] ,
*
[] ( E c c l T 5: 26-27) [ ] *
[]
( E c c l T 10:1) [ A l l ] *
( E c c l T 7:23) [ A l l ] *
TR UBS N A B C D E L W A 6 i l S fam 13 33
579 892 a b] fam 1 1241
r e l l ]
L a c . : e k
Mark 4:28

. . . (GenT 104:2-3) [ A U ] *
(or ) TR UBS
3
C D L W
f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e ] omit:
r e l l ] D; W
Lac. : k
Mark 4:34
[ ]).uet
( E c c l T 7:24! [ A U ]
Mark 7:6
[ ] [ ] ,
[ ] (GenT 176:18-19) [ C ]
D b] TR UBS
3
.
W S f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241; a
r e l l ] D W a b
L 892] e s t (= ) a b; D;
W; ; r e l l
] r e l l
L a c . : C e k
Mark 9:49
s. (ZeT 207:6) [ C ]
(ZeT 358:25) [ C ]
(a)] TR UBS
3
A B C (D) E L W 'f
f a m l . 13 579 892 1241 (b! (k!
- (yao) () r e l l ] D a b k
r e l l ] c
r e l l ] W;
L a c . : 3 3 e
Mark 11:2
, , ,
,

' (ZeT 221:21-24) [ A l l ] *
UBS C L W farn 13 892 (adhuc b) ]
A 1241 ( b ) ; omit TR D fam 1 579 a k
r e l l ] TR A D f a m l . 13;
w
Lac.: 3 3 e
Mark 14:33
( 282:3)
[Ad]*
& (PsT 43:20) [ C ]
(PsT 222:10) [ C ]
... (PsT 293:7) [ c ]
] TR UBS A B C D E L W A
V fam!3 579 892; f a m l ;
1241
a b k r e l l ] L
r e l l ] D
L a c . : 3 3 e
Luke 1:2
0 1 a s ' (ZeT 329:23)
[ C ]
OL TR UBS
3
C D L W 9 fam 1 33 579 892
1241] omit fam13
] b e r e l l
Lac. :
7 5
a
Luke 1:15
6 .
'
(PsT 31:22) [ A l l ]

(PsT 30:9) [ c ]
TR UBS S B C D L l S H i S f a m l . 13
33 579 892 1241 a b] W e
r e l l ) omit b
75
L a c :
Luke 1:17

(ZeT 68:1-2) [ A d ] *
(Did! TR UBS
3
A D W f a m l . 13
33 579 892 1241 a b e ] C L
] r e l l
7S
L a c . :
Luke 1:28
, (GenT 161:24)
[ C ]
TR UBS S B C D L K i U f
f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a e ] omit b
Lac.:
7 5

Luke 1:32-33
- '
,
(ZeT 109:4-6) [Ad]
Luke 1:34
, ( 179:22)
[ ]*
, ( 118:1-2)
[ 0 ]
f a m l . 13 33 892 1241] omit TR UBS
3
A C D
L W A n f 3 579 a e
r e l l ] 579
... r e l l ] omit i n t o t o b
L a c : P
7 5
Luke 1:35
, ,
(3 5:14) []

'
( 29:21-22) [Ad]
,
[] (3 285:9-10)
[]
'

( 41:2-5)
[11 ]

,
( 166:20! []

( 215:29-31! ]
[] ,
,
< 0 ^ 274: 18-22) ]
Luke 1:35 ( c o n t . )
e m ...
(PsT 18:20-22} [C]
. ,
(ZeT 68:4-5) [C]
e ] TR UBS
3
( C D ( ) 4 i l i 8
fam 1. 13 33 579 892 1241 a b
r e l l ] AW
] C f a m l 33 a
v i d
e; omit r e l l
L a c : P
7 5
Luke 1:38
-
( E c c l T 236:20) [C ]
... ] [ ]
(PsT 295:29! [ C ]
Text: TR UBS
3
A B C D L W i e n f S fam 1. 13 33
579 892 1241 a b
Omi t i n t o t o :
L a c : P
7 5
Luke 1:44

(JobT 57:25-27} [ A l l ]
Luke 1:53

[ ] (ZeT 258:10) [ A U ]
[]
(PsT 196:18-19) [ C ]
] TR UBS A B C D L W i e O ' f Q
fam 1.13 33 579 892 1241
L a c :
7 5
94/ Bidymus and the Gosoels
Luke 1:68
, ^
(ZeT 220:14-15) [ C ]
TR UBS
3
C ? S fam 1. 13 33
579 892 1241 e ] omit W a b
( q u i ) e] oxi r e l l
] r e l l
Hai r e l l ] omit e
L a c : P
7 5
Luke 1:69
(ZeT 105:29) [ C ]
(ZeT 220:15-16)
[ C ] * *
UBS
3
C D L W f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 ]
TR S
L a c :
7 5
Luke 1: 78-79

(PsT 323:22) [ A d ] *

ZeT 57:17) [Ad]*

(ZeT 105:20! [Ad]*
(Did! TR UBS
3
f a m l . 13
33 579 892 1241 a b e ] D
75
L a c . :
Luke 2:11
.,. ,
(ZeT 22:3-4) [ C ]
Luke 2:11 ( c o n t . !
TP. UBS
3
K A B D L W A S n v n fam 1.13
33 579 892 a b e ] 1241
r e l l ] W; C h r i s t u s l e s u s
Dominus (= ) e
L a c . :
7 5
C
Luke 2:14
(PsT 20:8) [ C ]
Text: TR UBS
3
L W f a m l . 13 33 579 892
1241 a b e
L a c . :
7 5
C
Luke 2:34
[] []).
(ZeT 392:1-2) [ C ]
TR UBS
3
N A B L W A e n t S fam 1. 13 33 579
892 1241 a b e ] D
L a c . :
7 5
C
Luke 2:3 5
(PsT 41:26-27)
t c ]
L W 579 b] TR UBS
3
A D
faro 1 . 13 33 892 1241 a e
L a c . :
7 5
C
Luke 2:36
,
(ZeT 1 54: 21-22) [C]
UBS
3
L W fam 13 33
579 892 1241 a ( e ) ] TR
fam 1 ( b ) ; A D
r e l l ] v i r o suo (= ) b e
Luke 2:36 ( c o n t . )
r e l l ]
Lac. : *~
Luke 2:37

(ZeT 154:23-24) [ C ]
UBS
3
L 33 579] TR W fam 1.
892 1241; omit. D a b e
r e l l ]
Lac.:
7 5
C
Luke 3:8
(ZeT 79:23)
[ c l
TR UBS
3
A C L fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 a b ] D W e;

] ouv r e l l
() r e l l ] ergo v o b i s (= ) e
75
L a c :
Luke 4:5

(ZeT 45:1-2) [ A l l ] *
5 ? 2 '. 13
33 579 892] 1241; VI
75
,:
Luke 4:9
(ZeT 44:25) [C]
TR UBS
3
S D L 4 t Q fam 1. 13 3 3 5 79
892 1241 b e ] omit a
L a c : P
7 5
C
Luke 4:13
aie' ... PsT 43:27!
[C]
(PsT 44:14) [Ad]*
] TR UBS
D L W ' fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e
r e l l ] D
75
L a c . : P C
Luke 4:17

(PsT 336:20) [C]
579] omit TR UBS
3
fam 1. 13
33 892 1241
a b r e l l ]
TR fam 1 1241 e;
D
75
L a c . : C
Luke 4:18
(ZeT 11:25-26)
[Ad]
' , ,
, (ZeT 38:2-4) [ C ]
' , , [ ]
[] , [ ]
(ZeT 393:11-13) [ C ]
(
' UBS (D) L W fam 13 33 579 892 a b e ]
TR
fam 1 (1241)
r e l l ] TR
r e l l ] D
75
L a c . : C
Luke 4:22
[ ] [ ]
[] []
(PsT 336:20-21) t C ]
] , TR UBS
I i 8 2 f a r a l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b;
cum vidrent, testimpnium U l i s r e d d e b a t e t (=
) e
r e l l ] corde (=) e
L a c . :
7 5
C
Luke 4:29
...[ ] ,
(GenT 180:22-24) [ C ]
UBS
3
K A B C L W A e n ? S fam 1 33 579 892 1241 ]
TR D (fam 13)
TR A C fam 1 1241 b]
a r e l l
r e l l ] omit
] ' r e l l
r e l l ] D
L a c . :
Luke 5:10
(GenT 61:16-17) [ c ]
TR UBS C L
W fam 1.13 33 579 892 1241 a b]
D e
L a c :
7 5
Luke 5:22
( ZeT 178:16-17)
CC]
Luke 5:22 ( c o n t . )
] TR UBS
3
K A B C D L W A 6 n ? Q
Lac
Luke 6:21
fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241
75
3 []
( E c c l T 72:1-2) [ A l l ]
( E c c l T 72:2-3) [ C ]
, (JobT 228:
13-15) [ C ]
, (JobT 228:
20-21) [ C ]
... , ( 280:11)
[C ]
(w} e ] TR UBS
3
L
f a m l . 13 33 (579 ) 892 1241 a b
...] omit i n toto D
75
L a c . : P C
Luke 6:35

(PsT 251:11-12) [C]
3 75
TR UBS N A B D L W
fam 13 33 579 892 a (b! e ]
f a m l 1241
] g r a t o s (=! b
L a c . : C
Luke 6:36
[
] PsT 290:20-21) [ A l l ]
Luke 6:38
(ZeT 83:7) [C]
(or ) aml3 a b] (or ) TR UBS
3
P
7 5 V l d

A B C D L W a n V fam 1 33 892 1241 e
() UBS
3
P
7 5 V 1 <
K D L W ( f a r a l ) 33 892 1241 e ]
() r e l l
r e l l ] 33 b e
L a c : 579
Luke 6:45
...[] [] []
[] [] (JobT 339:13-14) [ C ]
[]
(PsT 331:16-17) [ C ]
TR UBS H I C D L i I! J S
f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 e ] bonus enim (=
) a b
UBS
3
p
7 5 v i d
579] (
ante D) r e l l
r e l l ] L 579
r e l l ] omit D W
r e l l ] bona (= ) e
Luke 6:46
, ,
( E c c l T 208:6) [ C ]
, ,
(PsT 204:12) [ C ]
, ,
(PsT 229 : 3) [ C]
, ,
(PsT 281:30) [ C ]
;
;
;
[] ;
D] TR UBS
3
'-> C L W 9 f Q
Cam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e
Luke 6:46 ( c e n t . )
75
r e l l ] B e
] r e l l
Luke 6:48

(JobT 27:20-22) [ A l l ]
...
(ZeT 31:11-12) [ A l l ]
Luke 7:28
[ [ ]
[JobT 293:17-19) [ C ]
UBS
3

? 3
L w fam 1 33 579 a b e ]
TR A D f a m l 3 (892! 1241
UBS
3

7 5
L W fam 1 579 892] omit 1241;
(- ) r e l l
r e l l ] ante D;
1241
Lac . : C
Luke 7:41

, (PsT 106:28-29) [ A d ] *
TR UBS
3
L W fam 1 . 13 33 579
892 1241 b e ] D a
75
L a c . : C
Luke 8:14
[ ] . . . ( E c c l T 32.4:13)
[ A l l ]
Luke 8:15
...
( E c c l T 320:
17-20) [ A l l ] *
Luke 8:15 ( c o n t . )
,
, (PsT 21:25-26) [ A l l ] *

... (PsT 67:26-27)
[ A l l ] *
TR UBS L "
33 579 892 1241] omit D a b e
r e l l ]
Lac. : C
Luke 9:23
,
, '
(ZeT 185:10) [ A d ] *
' TR UBS '
3
L W f a m l . 13
33 892 1241] omit C D 579 a b e
Luke 9:30-31
...
,
(ZeT 77:14-16) [ A U ]
Luke 9:62
'
... (PsT 207:31) [ C]
-
5
. 1 3 33 579 892
1 2 4 1 ]
7 5
L VI
3"
7
~" 1 b]
8 9 2 ] (

... ( ) ]
()
fam 1. 13
L; fam 13
Luke 10:13
[] (] ]
, [ ] [HI ]
) [] (JobT 346:12-16 ) [C]
UBS
3

7 5
D L fan 13 33 579 892
1241 a b ] TR A C W ' fan 1 e
r e l l ] omit L
] r e l l
r e l l ] omit e
Luke 10:19

( E c c l T 81:23) [ A U ] *

[] ( E c c l T 323:19-20)
[ A d ] *
>
... (GenT 61:18-20!
[Ad]*
[] [ ] []
[] ] [
[] (JobT 63:13-16) [Ad]*
[] [e] [ ] [] [
[] ...]
(JobT 130:17-20) [Ad]*
[] [] [ -] [
[] [] [] (JobT 143:
31-144:2) [Ad]*

(PsT 5:23-24) [Ad]*
[ ]
(PsT 297:8-9) [Ad]*

...
(ZeT 157:10) [Ad]*

(ZeT 217:16-18! [Ad]*
Luke 10: 19 ( c o n t . )
...
,
( E c c l T 319: 18- 191 [ C ]

,
(GenT 9 6 : 2 8 - 3 0 ) ( C l

... (PsT 7 8 : 1 1 - 1 2 )
r c ]
.,.
, (ZeT 2 0 5 : 3 ! [ C]
R e c o n s t r u c t i o n : ,
,
, [ou ]
UBS
3
'
5
C L W fam 1 579 892 1241 b e ]
TR A D fam 13 33
W fam 1 ] r e l l
D i d
p t
r e l l ] omit D l d
p t
D
A D L fam 1 579] r e l l
] r e l l
r e l l ] D
] omit 579
r e l l ]
L a c . : (a)
Luke 10: 20

( E c c l T 3 2 9 : 5 - 6 ) [ 1 ] *
(] (JobT 48: 2.1) [ A l l ]

(PsT 264: 11) [Ad]*
'

(GenT 2 4 6 : 1 5 - 1 7 ) [C * *
Text and Apparatus .'105
Luke 10:20 ( c e n t . )

(ZeT 149:4-5) [ C ]
D fam 1 ( e ) ] TR UBS
3
P
7 j

C L W f fam 13 33 (579) 892 1241 a b
UBS
3

7 5
H L fam 1 33 579 1241 ]
; r e l l
r e l l ] D a b e
r e l l ] L
'] TR; r e l l
Luke 10:30

(PsT 202:5-6) [ A l l ]
Luke 11:13

... ( E c c l T 5-6) [Ad]*
(PsT 109:16) [C]
TR UBS
3

7 5
H B C L K S H S f a m l . 13
33 579 891 1241] D
r e l l ] D b; L;

L a c . : a e
Luke 11:15

(PsT 145:28) [ C ]

(PsT 14 7:29) [C]

(PsT 369:32-34) [ C ]

[... ] (PsT 304 : 19) [C]
Luke 11:15 ( c o n t . )
( 5 7 9 ) ] TR UBS
3

7 5
A C
D (L) W is f a m l . 13 33 892 1241 b
r e l l ] omit TR D f a m l
r e l l ] omit 579
L a c . : a e
Luke 11:33
. . . ... ( ZeT 65:
12-13) [Ad]*
UBS
J
A B C D L W A e n fam 13 33 892
1241 (a b e)] TR fam 1 (a b e ) ; omit 5 79
Luke 11:50
[ ]
[ ] [] (GenT 181:17-19) [Ad]*
ein
(PsT 70:14-15) [Ad]*
TR UBS C L I 4 9 S
f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241] D a b ;
omi t e
Luke 12:7
(JobT 120:27-28)
[Ad]*
TR UBS
3

7 5
I 4 11 ! 8 f a m l . 13
33 892 1241) D 579
L a c : C
Luke 12:8
[ ] ...
(GenT 176:10-11) [ C]
.,.
(PsT 210:34-35! [ C]
Luke 12:8 ( c o n t . )
D i d
p t
<F 579] D i d
p t
TR UBS
3

7 5
A
D L W fam 1. 13 33 892 1241
TR UBS
3

7 5
L W ] r e l l
L a c : C
Luke 12:18

(JobT 101:17-19) [ C ]
[] [ ] [ ] [ ]
(JobT 396:14-16! [ C ]
TR UBS
3

7 5
D L 8 D ! i ! fam 1 . 13 33 579
892 1241 b e ] omit W a
r e l l ] D e;
maiora faciam (= ) b
r e l l ]
Lac, : C
Luke 12:19
, , , [] { E c c l T 37:6! [ A d ] *
, , ( E c c l T 278:11)
[ A d ] *
[ ] [, ] [ ], ,
, [] (JobT 396:15-17) [ A d ] *
! 2 1
TR UBS
3

7 5
4 8 I 2 fam 1,13 33
579 892 1241] W; omit a b e
, r e l l ] omit D a b e
] r e l l
L a c : C
Luke 12:20
, [] .
, ( E c c l T 168:22-23) [ C ]
Luke 12:20
, .
, ( E c c l T 196:19-20! [ C ]
,
(JobT 101:19-21) [C]
, .
(JobT 108:12-14) [ C ]
, []
(JobT 375:30-376:1) [ C ]
[- ], [] []
[ ] . , x f i v i ]
(JobT 396:17-21) [Ad]*
, [] []
(PsT 238:34! [ C ]
D i d ^ TR UBS A D W f a m l . 13
892 1241, ( r e p o s c u n t ) a
v i d
, ( r e p e t u n t ) b]
DidPt ( a u f e r e t u r e ) ; DidP
t :
;
7
"*
L 33 5 79
() D i d
p t
D 579]
() DidPt r e l l
( 2 )
r e l l ] ouv D a e
r e l l ] D a b e
Lac. : C
Luke 12:49
...
(GenT 47:1-2) [ A l l ] *
, (ZeT 207:2)
[Ad]*

(ZeT 358:24-25! [ A d ] *
[ ] []
(ZeT 371:4-5) [ A d ] *
[] [ ],
(JobT 346:18-20) [ C ]
Luke 12:49 ( c o n t . )
UBS
3

7 5
A L W f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241]
TR D
L a c . : C a
Luke 13:11

(PsT 264:6-7) [ A l l ]
Luke 13:27
6
(GenT 194:17-18) [Ad]*
6 () Did TR UBS L W
f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b ]
D e
r e l l j omit
7 3
L 1241 b
L a c : C
Luke 13:32
[] ( E c c l T 96:1-2)
[ C ]
TR UBS
3

7 5
* D U 4 8 D ! S) fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 a e ] i l I i (= ) b
L a c : C
Luke 14:26
[ ] -
( E c c l T 81:14! [Ad]*

,
(GenT 209:13-16) [Ad]*
...
,

, (PsT 112:
14-16) [Ad]*
Luke 14:26 ( c o n t . !
(PsT 112:24! [ A d ] *
D i d
p
TR UBS L 892 (a b ) ]
DidPt A D W f a m l . 13 33 1241
(a b ) ; 579 e
D ] r e l l
r e l l ] UBS
3
L 33;
7 5
a b e
r e l l ] UBS
3

7
^ 579
(1241) a b e
Dl.d
p t
UBS
3
L 33 579 892 1241]
DidP*
7 5
fam 13;
e; r e l l
r e l l ] 579
r e l l ] 579
L a c : C
Luke 14:28
[ ][]
(ZeT 388:7-9)
[Ad]*
TR f a m l ] UBS D L W 579
1241; fam 13 33 892
r e l l ] omit L
L a c : C
Luke 14:29
[ ] [],
(ZeT 388:9-11)
[Ad]*
(or ) TR UBS
A B L i 8 fam 1.13 33 579 892 1241 a b ]
D e
L f a m l ] r e l l
Luke 14:29 ( c o n t . )
... (v. 30) (a b) r e l l J D e
r e l l ] 892
r e l l ] TR fam 13 33;
' 892; omit D a b e
(or ) r e l l ]
L a c . : C
Luke 14:30
[], ,
(ZeT 388:11-13) [ A d ] *
TR UBS
3

7 ; >
D L H i D fam I . 13
33 892 1241] 579
L a c . : C
Luke 14:34
, ( E c c l T 305:13)
[ C ]
TR UBS
3
L i I U S fam 1. 13 33 579 892
1241]
7 5
D W
r e l l ] fam 1 33; 8
] TR
7 5
A W fam 1 892 b e; a
r e l l ; fam 13
r e l l ] x t v i
L a c . : C
Luke 15:8
6[][]
[ ] [] []
(ZeT 404:9-10) [ A U ]
Luke 15:17
(PsT 226:15) [ C ]
Luke 15:17 ( c o n t . )
TR UBS
3

7 5
H S D II i H I S fam 1. 13 33
579 892 1241 a b e ] L
L a c : C
Luke 15:22
[ ] (JobT 262:18! [Ad]*
TR UBS B D L I 4 9 H S fam 1. 13 33
892 a b e ]
7
^ 579 1241; A
75
579] TR
fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 (a b e ) ;
(a b e) r e l 1
L a c : C
Luke 16:8
[]
(GenT 163:24-26)
[Ad]*
[] []
(JobT 76:27-29) [Ad]*
[]
[] (ZeT 385:
20-22) [Ad]*
D i d
p
] . . . Did
1
TR UBS
3
75 s L 4 6 I! ! 2 f am 1 . 13 33 ( 579)
892 (1241! a b e
0 1 r e l l ] P m i t 579 1241
(Did) r e l l ] ;
gente hac ( a ) , hac g e n e r a t i o n e (b) ( !
a b
L a c , : C
Luke 16:15
.,. [ ] 8
, 5 [
]
( E c c l T 297:7-9) [ c ]
Luke 16:15 ( c o n t . )
,
,
, (ZeT 178:11-14) [ C ] * *
579] TF UBS
3

7 5

() D L W f a m l . 13 33 892 1241
TP. tara 13 579 (892 ) (a) (b) ( e ) ] omit r e l l
] r e l l
r e l l ]
r e l l ] 579
( ) r e l l ]
Lac . : C
Luke 16:19-23
[ ]-- [
] --
[ ] (JobT 68:19-23) [ A l l ]

, .
*

(JobT 228:28-32) [ A l l ]
Luke 16:19
0 [' ]
( E c c i T 106:
24-25) [ A d ] *
' []
[] [] [ ]
(JobT 108:4-7) [ A d ] *
TR UBS" D L w f a m l . 13
579 892 1241 a b ( e ) ]
( D i d ) r e l l ] omit b
Lac . : C
Luke 16:20
() (JobT 1.78:15-16) [Ad]
Luke 16:22
[ ] [ ] [],
[] [] [] (JobT 175:
10-11) [ A l l ] *

, []...
( ]
(PsT 292:5-6) [ A l l ]

(PsT 238:32-33) [ A d ] *
[] [] [ ], K ] OL
[ ] [ ]
(JobT 3 76 : 3-6) [ A d ] *
.] TR UBS D L
W fam 1 , 1 3 33 579 892 1241
r e l l ] TR W fam 13
a b e r e l l ] 579; fam 13
r e l l ] b
... r e l l ] D
Lac. : C
Luke 16:22-23

, .
, ,
, ,
( E c c l T 92:1-5) [ A l l ]
Luke 16:23

... (PsT 217:5-6) [ A U ] *
TR UBS
J
i L 4 11 S! fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1241] D a b e
() (Did) D b e ] omit r e l l
Lac. : C
Luke 16:24-28
[ ]
.
[ ]
; []
;
]; ( E c c l T 280:
5-9! [ A l l ]
Luke 16:25
( E c c l T 85:27) [ C ]
[ ] ] ( E c c l T 106:26-27)
[ c ]
[] ,
(GenT 98:2-3! [C]
(PsT 60:26-27) [C]
UBS
J
'
3
D L fam 13 579 a e ]
TR (A) W fam 1 33 892 1241 b
( 1 )
r e l l ] omit a b e
Lac: C
Luke 16:26
(GenT 20:24-25) [Ad]
Luke 17:5
(GenT 162:13) [C]
Text: TR UBS
J
( P
/ 3
) fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 a b e
L a c : C
Luke 17:10
, ,
, ][] (JobT 341:34-
342 :1) [Ad]*
Luke 17:10 ( c o n t . )
, , (PsT 96:21!
[Ad]*
TR UBS
3

7 5
L 4 9 J 8 fam 1. 13 33 892
1241 ] omit 579 a b e
fam 1 a b e ] D r e l l
r e l l ] TR W Q fam 13 33
r e l l ] 892 1241
() r e l l ] D;
omi t
( r e l l ) ]
r e l l ] D
r e l l ] omit a
L a c : C
Luke 17:21
(JobT 141:22-23) [Ad]
(JobT 370:27-28) [ C ]
T e x t : TR UBS
3

7 5
fam 1,13
33 579 892 1241 a b e
L a c . : C
Luke 18:2
[] []
[ ( E c c l T 314:9) [Ad]*
TR UBS
3

7 3
. fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 a b e ] W
L a c : C
Luke 1 8 : 3 , 5
[] [ ],
( E c c l T 314:11-12) [ A l l ]
Luke 18:6
[] [] ( E c c l T 314:13)
[ C ]
TR UBS
J
fam 1.13
33 579 892 1241 a b e ] omit
L a c . : C
Luke 18:7
[] ( E c c l T 314:
14-15) [ C ]
TR f a m l . 13 33] UBS
J

L 579 892 1241 e; D; omit a b
r e l l ] D 1241
r e l l ] omit D
L a c . : C
Luke 18:8
[]
[ ] (GenT 187:23-24) [ C ]
TR UBS
J
J B D L I i 9 1 I ! S faro 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 b] putas i n v e n i e t ( i n v e n i e t putas a)
( ?) a b
]
D a b e; r e l l
r e l l ] omit D
Lac. : C
Luke 18:14
[ ] [ ] ' (JobT 284:1-2)
[CJ
' UBS L f a m l 33 579] TR W ;
fam 13 892 1241;
D a b e
J r e l l
Luke 19:10

PsT 267:18) [Ad]*
[] (PsT 286:25-26)
[ A d ] *
(ZeT 96:25)
[ A d ] *
... (ZeT 38:21! [ C ]
[]
(ZeT 220:9) [ C ]
] TR UBS
3
S D L 2 f a m l .
33 579 892 1241 a b e
r e l l ]
L a c : C
Luke 19:12
,
( E c c l T 47:2) [ C ]
TR DBS
3
N A B O L i e r i f S f a m l . 13 33 579
892 1241 a ] W b e
r e l l ] D 579
r e l l ] omit D a b e
r e l l ]
75
L a c . : P C
Luke 19:17, 19
[ ] 6
(JobT 71:8-9) [ A l l ]
Luke 19:21
,
(PsT 251:22-23) [ A d ] *
Text, and Apparatus /119
Luke 19:21 ( c o n t . l
o t i TR U'BS
3
A L fam 1 . 13
33 579 892 1241 a b] D e
r e l l ] D W e
75
Lac . : P C
Luke 19:23
,
(PsT 251: 24-25 ) [ A U ]
Luke 19:42
. .
(ZeT 326:4-5) [ A d ] *
TR UBS
3
B D H 4 9 H S fam 1 . 13 33 579
892 1241] a e
UBS
3
L 579 ] D fam 13 e ;
r e l l
r e l l ] omit a e
r e l l ] omit a
... r e l l ] omit i n t o t o A
r e l l ]
L a c . :
7 5
C b
Luke 19:43
[vo] ,
(ZeT 326:5) [ A d ] *
(Did) TR UBS
3
8 C L 4 9 O S
fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241 a ] ; omit W e
r e l l ] omit D a e
( D i d ! TR A W fam 1 . 13 892 ]
( ) D; r e l l
75
L a c . : b
Luke 20:24
(ZeT 309:11) [ C ]
TR UBS
3
x A B C L W f a r a l . 13 33 579
892 1241] D
75
L a c . : b
Luke 20:25

(ZeT 309:13) [ C ]
UBS L fam 13 579 892 1241 ]
TR A C 4 6 H S fam 1 33;
D a e
r e l l J C D L fam 13 1241
r e l l ] D
L a c . : P
7 5
b
Luke 20:35
,
(ZeT 53:23) [ A l l ] *
[][ ] ( E c c l T 66:12-13) [ C ]
UBS D L fam 1 33 579 892]
1241; TR t ; A W
fam13
75
L a c . : C b
Luke 20:36
... {ZeT 53:24) [ A l l ] *
[... ] ( E c c l T 66:13) [ C j
TR UBS
3
A B D L W d e n f S fam 13 33 579 892
1241 a ] omit fam 1 e
r e l l ] D W a e
r e l l ] 892
L a c . : P
7 5
C b
Luke 21:20
... ,
(ZeT 326:8)
[Ad]*
TR A 1, * fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 ] omit UBS
D W 579
() ] post 579; post
r e l l
W f a m l ] D e; r e l l
A f a m l ] r e l l
L a c . :
7 5
C b
Luke 21:26
...
[ ] [
] , [ ]
(ZeT 3 77:1 ) [ A U ]
Luke 22:15
'
(PsT 9:12) [CJ
T e x t : TR UBS
3

7 5
A B C P I , fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 a b e
Luke 22:30
e n
(JobT 87:18) [Ad]*
] TR UBS
?
5 J I 8 II ! fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b;
D e; omit 2
L a c . : C
Luke 22:31
(PsT 43:29) [ A d ] *
Luke 22:31 ( c o n t . )
[]
(JobT 7:24-26) [C]
1.6 []
(JobT 90:17-19) f c ]
6
(ZeT 43:18) [CJ
Did )
DidPt TR UBS
3
75

s D L W 4 ' S
f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e
16 t e l . I ] omit b
L a c : C
Luke 22:32
uitep .,.
(ZeT 43:19-20! [Ad]*
UBS
3
D L fare 1 579] TR
Lac. :
fam 13 33 892 1241
75
Luke 22:33
(PsT 148:17) [ c ]
] TR UBS
3
p
7 5 v i d
D L () fam 1. 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e
r e l l ] omit W
Lac.: C
Luke 23:21
, (PsT 290:30) [ C ]
3 75
, UBS B D ] ,
TR A L f a m l . 13 579 892 1241;
W a b e
L a c : C 33
Luke 23:43
< ZeT 26:20) [Ad]
(ZeT 368:29) [Ad]
' ( E c c l T 92:9) [ C ]
' IGenT 108:9) [CJ
' [] (GenT HO: 12-13)
' (GenT 117:5- 6) [C]
' (PsT 221:1) t c j
' TR J B S
3 75

L fam 1.
33 579 892 1241 a b e ] ' C
Luke 24:32
,
(GenT 196:3-4) [ A d ] *
,
(PsT 274:10) [ A d ] *
3 75
TR UBS
J
p '
J
L 1 f S
fam 1. 13 33 579 892 1241 a b]
D (nostrum f u i t exterminatum) e
r e l l ] D
L a c : C
Luke 24:49
,
(ZeT 67:21) [ C ]
3 7S
UBS C D L a b e ]
TR A W '* a f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241
] D f a m l : r e l l
3 7^
UBS C L 33 579]
r e l l
] r e l l
John 1:1
. . . ] (PsT 302:27) [ A d ] *
... , (ZeT 94 :22) [ A d ] *
( E c c l T 355:27) [ C ]
... (PsT 187:19-20) [ C ]
R e c o n s t r u c t i o n : .

TR UBS
3

6
'
7 5
f a m l . 13 33 579
892 1241] L
Lac . : C W it
John 1:2
(ZeT 253:13) [Ad]
John 1:3
' [] [] (JobT 14:9) [ A l l ]
' (PsT 134:3-4) [ A l l ]
' (ZeT 253:13) [ A l l ]
[] '
(JobT 281:15-17) [ C ]
' (PsT 110:28) [ c ]

6 6
D f a m l ] TR UBS
3

7 5
C
v i d
L
f a m l 3 33 579 892 1241
Lac . : w
John 1:4
(PsT 98:26) [ C ]
nv TR UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5
A B C D L A e r i Y f a m l . 13 33 579
892 1241 a e ] e s t (=) e
r e l l ] omit
L a c . : W
John 1:5
[] [ ] <[] [ ]
[6] (JobT 352:3-4) [ C ]
Text: TR UBS
3

6 6
7 5
C D L fart 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 a (b) (e)
L a c . : W
John 1: 6
, ,
(PsT 30:9! [ C ]
, [ ] ,
(PsT 321:7-8) [ C ]
TR UBS
3

6 6 -
'
5
C L 9 fam 1 . 1 3 33 5 79
892 1241] D
a b c r e l l ] D
L a c . : WS
John 1:7
(PsT 82:2-3)
[Ad]
,
(PsT 321:8) [ C ]
T e x t : TR UBS
3
P
6 6
'
7 5
N A B C D L A e n
1
? fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 a b e
L a c . : W
John 1: 9
[] ,
( E c c l T 330:9-10) [ C ]
( E c c l T 356:1) [ C ]
... [ ] [] ,
[ ] ] (GenT 6:4) [ C ]
[ . [) (JobT 333 :6-7) [ C ]
(PsT 305:22) [ C ]
John 1:9 ( c o n t . )
TR UBS ' K A B C D L f i e n f fam 1. 13 33 579
892 1241 a b] e s t ( = ) e
. r e l l ] inlumnabat (= ) b
L a c . : W
John 1:14
,
, (PsT 48:22-25) [Ad]
,
(PsT 63:14) [Ad]
,
(PsT 63:18-19) [Ad]

(PsT 73:13) [Ad]
[ ] ,
(PsT 131:8-9) [Ad]
, (PsT 185:13-14) [Ad]
,
, [] (PsT 327:17-18)
[Ad]
(PsT
328:16) [Ad]
[ 3 ,
(ZeT 33:6-7) [ A l l ]
,
(ZeT 40:16-17) [Ad]
[] ,
, (ZeT 315:6)
[Ad]

(ZeT 366:12-13! [ A l l ]
,
(PsT 86:23) [ C ]
,
. (PsT 103:16-17) [ C ]
Text and Apparatus ,/127
John 1:14 ( c o n t . )
,
,
(PsT 149:28-29 ) [C 3
. . . ,
(PsT 153:30-31) [ C ]
,
(PsT 221:19-20) [ C]
,
(ZeT 32:13) [ C]
[ ] ,
[], ,
[] (ZeT 249: 17! [C ] **
TR UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5
C D L i H ! 2 fam 1 . 13 33 579
892 1241 a b e ] omit B
r e l l ] D
Lac . : w
John 1:16
... (GenT 162:22-23) [ A l l ] *
...
(PsT 327:2-3) [ A l l ]
[ luv [ ] (PsT 327:18)
[ A l l ]
(PsT 134:16)
[ C]
(ZeT 70:24) [ C]
...
Text: TR UBS
3

6 6 -
'
3
C D L & S am 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 a b e
John 1:17
6
(PsT 155:26! [ A d ] *
[ ] 6
(PsT 3:20) [ C]
(autem a b e ) ]
6 6
(a b e ) ; omit TR UBS
3

7 5

fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241
r e l l ] omit H
L a c . : D
John 1:18
(Ecc.1T 356:1 ) [ C]
(GenT 216:22) [ C]

(ZeT 365:16-18) [ C ] * *
TR UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5
J C L i 9 II f 3 fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1241] umquam n i s i (= ) a b e
3 6 6
UBS C L ] r e l l
UBS
3
P
6 6
'
7 5
C L 33] r e l l
r e l l ] omit a
r e l l ]
7 5
() r e l l ] f i l i u s suus (= ) a
r e l l ] omit a
] r e l l
L a c : D W
John 1:29
(PsT 5:2) [ A l l ]

(PsT 286:1) [Ad]

(PsT 315:2) [ A l l ]
John 1:29 ( c o n t . )

(ZeT 252:10-11) [ A d ] *
(ZeT 60:8) [ C ]

(ZeT 148:22-23! [ C ]
&
(ZeT 252:10-11) [ C ]
TR UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5
C L 9 fam 1. 13 33
579 892 1241 e ] Dei ecce (= ) a b
r e l l ] peccata (= ) e
L a c . : D W
John 1:30
(Eccl'F 73:5) [ C ]

(ZeT 23:15-16) [ C ] * *

(ZeT 105:12) [ c ]
T e x t : TR UBS
3
P
6 6 - 7 5
f a m l . 1 3 33
579 892 1241 a b e
L a c . : D W
John 1:47
, (GenT
219:10-11) [Ad]
] TR UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5
L
f a m l . 1 3 33 579 892 1241 a b e
] r e l l
r e l l ] 579
L a c . : C D W
John 2:19
(PsT 238:20! [ C ]

(ZeT 16:23) [ C ]
TR UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5
A L ' fam 1. 1 3 33 5 79
892 1241 a b e ] omit
L a c . : C D W
John 2 :21
(PsT 73:24) [ A l l ]
(PsT 238:21 ) [ C ]
(ZeT 16:25) [ C ]

] TR UBS
3

6 6
'
7 5
L
f a m l . 1 3 33 579 892 1241 a b e
r e l l ] omit
Lac . : C D W
John 3:4
,
(JobT 104:8-10) [ A d ] *
(GenT 243:22) [ C ]
TR UBS
3

7 5
L
f a m l . 1 3 33 579 892 1241 a b ]
66.
; homo denuo r e n a s c i cum s i t senex (>
! e
r e l l ] fam!3
L a c . : C D W
John 3:5
(PsT 56:23) [ A U ]

(PsT 225:11-12! [ A U ]
John 3:7
(GenT 243:21) [ C ]
(JobT 104:6-7) [ C ]
T e x t : TR UBS
3

6 6
*
7 5
fam 1. 13 33
579 892 1241 a b e
Lac .: C D W
John 3:13

, (PsT 153:8-9) [ C ]

, (PsT 234:23) [ C ]
T e x t : TR UBS
3

6 6 -
'
5
L fam 1.13 33
579 892 1241 a b e
Lac . : C VI
John 3:16

(PsT 221:21) [ A d ] *

(PsT 86:24-25) [ C ]

,
(ZeT 337:13-15) [ C ] * *
TR A L fam 1 . 13 33 579 892
a b e ] UBS
3

5 6
7 5

r e l l ] 33 (e)
r e l l ] '
7 5
( L )
John 3:16 ( c o n t . )
r e l l ] omit
r e l l ]
] ' r e l l
omit in_ toto 1241
L a c . : C D W
John 3:18
, n e t
(PsT 87:1-2) [ C]
L
(PsT 221:22) [ C]
TP, UBS"
6
7 5
A L fam 1 . 13 33 579 892
1241 a b e ] *
L a c . : C D W
John 3:19
( E c c l T 47:29)
[ C]
3 75
TR CBS A B L
aml3 33 579 892 1241 a b]

6 6
fam 1 e;

L a c . : C D W
John 3:20
( E c c l T 48:3) [Ad]
John 3:29
.
(ZeT 105:13) [Ad]
... ] ( E c c l T 76:13) [ C]
John 3:29 ( c o n t . )
[] [] ( E c c l T 66:29-67:1) [ C ]
( E c c l T 76:13) [ C ]
] ( E c c l T 325: 18) ( C ]
T e x t : TR UBS
3

6 6
*
7 5
R S B D L 1 8 D : 8 f a u l . 13
33 579 892 1241 a b e
L a c . : C W
John 4:13
... [ ] ( E c c l T
148:2) [ C ]
Text: TR UBS
3

6 6
"
7 5
A B C D L A B F l f Q f a m l . 1 3
33 579 892 1241 a b e
Lac . : W
John 4:14
,
. ][]
( E c c l T 164:26-27) [ A l l ]
... ( E c c l T
361:26 [ A l l ]
[] ,
[] []
] (JobT 140:8-12) [ A d ] *
( , )
(JobT 371:24-25! [ A d ] *
... , ,
(PsT 58:23-24) [ A d ] *
[
] [ ] (PsT 310:15)
[ A l l ] *
John 4:14 ( c o n t . )

(ZeT 122:3-4) [ A l l ]
[ ] [] ,
[] []
< ZeT 381:4-6) [Ad]*
TR UBS
3

6 6
"
7 5
i C L C 2 f a m l . 1 3
33 579 892 1241] D
a b e r e l l ] ^
r e l l l fam 13
L a c : W
John 4:20-24
'
,
n (ZeT 196:19-21)
[ A l l ]
John 4:20
... ...
(ZeT 162:10) [ A d ] *
(Did) UBS
5
C D L 3 3
892 b ] TR fam 1 . 13 579
1241 a e
r e l l ] omit
L a c : W
John 4:23

... (PsT 55:15-16) [ A l l ] *
...
(ZeT 103:29-30) [ A l l ] *
[ ]
[ ] (ZeT 405:5-6) [ A l l ] *
John 4:23 ( c o n t . )
TI VEUUCJ TI TR UBS
3
P
6 5
'
7 5
K A B C D L A 6 n S f a m l 3
33 579 892 1241] xco uveuuaxi, fam 1
Lac . : W
John 4:24
Hveuua o eeo? (GenT 88:20) [ C ]
T e x t : TR UBS
3
P
6 6
'
7 5
K A B C D L i e n f S fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 a b e
Lac . : W
John 4:28
ouxcoc, eupLOHStc ] r t e p [ i ] tqc Sauapi x i&oc. ye-ypauuevov
[ o x i KCI I ] eneivn aepnwev xtiv u&piav, ev n e i [\]n,Xu8ei,
aouoaaeai. u6up, nan a[nr)X8ev xo i c/1 ito\t xoa c eauxnc,
e m e i v . . . ( E c c l T 361:12-14) [ A l l ] *
aq>nxsv TR UBS P N A B C L A 8 II t Q
fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241 a i a-jnuev n yuvri
D b e
tr.v u&piav r e l i ] uoiav A
Lac , : W
John 4:29
Seute i6exe avOputov, o? e u s v L;OL tav to au[apxn.ua] nou
( E c c l T 361:14-15) [Ad]
John 4:32
eyu) puoiv ex ipafetv n.v uueic. oux oioaxe (PsT 315:25)
f c ]
Text: TR UBS
3
P
6 6
'
7 5
K A B C D L A 9 II V S fam 1 . 13
33 579 892 1241 a b e
Lac . : W
136/ Didymus and t he Gospels
John 4:34
[]
[] {PsT 286 :30) [ A l l ]
(PsT 315:24)
[Ad]
John 4:35

( E c c l T 40:24) [Ad]
[ , ]
[ , ]
(ZeT 18:23) [ C ]
D i d
V i d
TR UBS
3
P
6 6
'
7 5
C D L
f a m l 3 33 579 892 a b e ] omit fam 1 1241
Lac .: W
John 4:36
... ( E c c l T 324:12-13) [ A l l ]
( E c c l T 324:7-8) [ C]
( E c c l T 328:3) [ C] * *
UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5
C L fam 1 33 1241 e ] TR
A D fam 13 579 892 a b
r e l l ]
6 6

r e l l ]
D
r e l l ] cum eo qui m e t i t (=
) e
L a c : W
John 5:5
[ ]
[]
36[] (PsT 291:15) [ A l l ]
John 5:6
; (PsT 132:15) [ C ]
T e x t : TR UBS
3
P
6 6
'
7 5
A C D L fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 a b e
L a c , : W
John 5:f
,
(PsT 132:15-16) [ C ]
,
(PsT 292:10) [ C ]
TR UBS
3

5 6
*
7 5
C L fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1241] A D a b e
] (or ) r e l l
r e . l l ] 1241
Lac . : W
John 5:18
[] [ ] , []
, ' [ ]
[], (GenT 9:5-7)
[ A d ] *
TR UBS D L 2 am 1 . 13
33 892 a b e ]
579 1241
L a c . : C
John 5:19
[ ],
(GenT 22:6-7) [ C ]
(Did) TR UBS W
faml. 13 33 (579) a ] (Did) D;
A ( L ) 892 1241 (b) e
John 5:19 ( c o n t . )
r e l l ] D a b ; e
r e l l ] w
r e l l ] 579
L a c . : C
John 5:29
[] ,
6 (PsT 146:16-17) [ A d ] *
D W] TR UBS
3

6 6
"
7 5

L * S f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241
6 b r e l l ] a e ; w
r e l l ] D
L a c . : C
John 5:37
[] []6 [ ]...
(JobT 353:2-4) [ A d ] *
6 TR UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5
D L S f a m l . 13
33 579 892 1241 a e ] 6 W b
L a c : C
John 5:38
... [] [ ] (JobT
353:5-6) [ C ]
Xoyov e ] TR UBS
6 6 . 75 D L fam 1 . 13 33 579 892

1241 a b
UBS
3

6 6
'
7 5
L W fam 1 . 13 33 579
892 1241 b ] r e l l
Lac . : C
John 5:39

(ZeT 308:23-25) [ A l l ]
[]
(Ze 384:13) [ A d ] *
W e ] TR UBS D L i 8 II
Q f a r a l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b
L a c : C
John 5:45
[] [] [][] -
,
( E c c l T 315:14-15) [ A d ] *
-
( E c c l T
351:5-7) [ C ]
T R UBS
3

6 6
f a r a l . 13 33 579 892]
P
7
S L 1241; D
] r e l l
a b e ] r e l l ]
L a c : C
John 5:46
[ ]
( E c c l T 274 : 24-25) [ A U ]
, ( E c c l T 351:7)
[ C ]
TR UBS D L i 0 S f a m l . 1 3
33 579 892 1241] e t mihi (= ) a b e
Lac . : C
John 5:47
e i 6e
( E c c l T 351:7-8) [ C ]
( 2
'
6 6 - 7 5
] TR UBS
3
A
33 892 a b e; D W () fam 1.13 579 1241
L a c : C
John 6:27

( E c c l T 283:20! [ A l l !
[]
(ZeT 168:25-26) [ A l l ]
[ ][ ],
[...] ( E c c l T 118:22-23) [ C ]
( 2 ) 3 75

1
' TR UBS D L W S f a u l . 13
33 579 892 1241 a b e ] omit
L a c . : P
6 6
C
John 6:29
ivo [] ov ( E c c l T 118:25)
[ C ]
UBS
3

7 5
( L ) fam 1 33 579 a b e ]
TR D W A fam 13 892 1241
L a c : P
6 6
C
John 6:38
[)
, (PsT 286:17) [ A d ] *
..,
(PsT 29:19-20) [ C ]

(ZeT 38:20-21) [ C ]

Text and Apparatus / M l
Jphn 6:38 ( c o n t . )
UBS
3

6 6
A L W 6 fam 13 33 1241 ]
TR X D Q fam 1 579 892
a b r e l l ]
M (b) e
r e l l ] D L W
r e l l ] D 892 a (b) e
r e l l ]
r e l l ] 579

' r e l l ] omit a
75
L a c . : P C
John 6:41
(PsT 237:9) [ C ]
fam 1 3 b e ]
TR UBS
3

6
7 5
II C D [, 8 fam 1
33 (579) 892 1241 a
r e l l ]
r e l l ] 579
John 6:46
(GenT 216:23) [ C ] * *
,
(ZeT 365:18-19) [ C ]
3 66
UBS B C D L f 33 579 1241 a b e ]
TR f a m l . 13 892
75
] () r e l l
r e l l ] f a m l
L a c : (
7 5
)
John 6:47
( E c c l T 171:7) [ C ]
(PsT 13:12-13) [ C ]
(ZeT 231:6) [ C ]
TP. A D fain 1. 13 33 579 1241 a b e ]
omit UBS
3

6 6
C L W 892
L a c :
7 5
John 6:51
[ ] [ ] [] [
[] [] ... ( E c c l T 161:4-5)
[ A l l ]
John 6:57
[] (PsT 2:7) [ c ]
... (PsT 147:13) [ C ]
[ ] [ ] [ ]
(PsT 298:11-121 [ C ]
(PsT 305:12 ! [ C ]
TR UBS
3

7 5
3 C [, f S f am 1 33 892 ]

6 6
D fam 13 579 1241

7 5
) omit a b e r e l l
] r e l l
L a c . : A
John 6:62
[]
(PsT 153:12-13) [ C ]
W] TR DBS
fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241
(66) 75
C D I 4 2
r e l l ] omit a b e
' r e l l 1 ou
p
6 6
D ;
John 6:62 ( c o n t . )
av6puTtou r e l l ] omit 1241
avaatvovta r e l l ] ante tov uiov K
Lac . : A
John 6:63
r> oap^...ouH lomeXei ou6ev, TO itveuua eoxi to CUOTC [oi ]ouv
(GenT 153:10-11) [ A d ] *
TO nvEUUff TR UBS
3
P
6 6
'
7 5
B C D L W A 6 n f Q fam 1 . 13
33 579 892 1241] iveuua N
Lac . : A
John 6:70
ouxi TOUC 5w6ena uuac ECeXEgauriv; (PsT 322: 1 ) [ C ]
ouxi TOUC 6W6EMS u)jac eEeXeCauriv; urn e i c E uiiuv iaoXoc,
eoxtv (ZeT 44:19) [ C ]
OOXt K ] OUK TR UBS
3
P
6 6
'
7 5
B C D L W d 6 f! f fam 1.
33 579 892 1241
s i c eE uuwv D b (e)] EE uucov K ; E uviuv s i c . a r e l l
ouxi ] (OUK ) ET r e l l
TOUC r e l l ] omit K
TOUC. jeKa uuac, ] uuac, TOUC. wexa r e l l
6wEKa . . .SKEXsCaynv r e l l ] ECEXsEaunv 6to6eKa K
eEeXeaun,v r e l l ] sEaXsEa A
Lac . : A
John 7:37
eoiuig o Inoouc. EKEHPotyEv XETTWV- Et t i c . itya, epxEOQis
up PC u. HOI TUVETI D (ZeT 42:21) [ A d ] *
E i W] Edv TR UBS
3
P
6 6
-
7 5
K B D I 5 8 II f a f a u l . 1 3
33 579 892 1241
John 7:37 ( c o n t . )
(a) r e l l ]
7 5
B ( a ) ; omit
6 6
- D b e
L a c : A C
John 7:38
. 6 .
(PsT 21:2) [ A U ]

(PsT 68:14-15) [ A l l ]
,
(JobT 371:21-23) [ C ]
. . . , [ , ,
[ ] (PsT
310:15-16) [ C ] * *
, ,
] (ZeT 381:6-8)
[ C ]
TR BS
3

6 6 - 7 5
K B D L N B n i fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 a b e ]
L a c . : A C
John 7:39
[ ]
[ ] (PsT 310:16-17) [ C ]

6 6
] TR L'BS
3

7 5
D L i 8 II ? 8
fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241
3 75
r e l l ] UBS
r e l l ] UBS
3

6 6
L W;
omi t b
a b e r e l l ] W
L a c . : ( P
7 5
) A C
Text and Apparatus /14s
John 8:3-11
,
[] -
, [ ]ou . ,
,
[ ] ,
, []
. ,
, .
, []
, . ( E c c l T 223:6-13)
[ A l l ]
John 8:12
xoouou.
, " (PsT 99:2-3) [ C ]
TR UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5
3 f a m l . 1 3 33 5 79
892 1241 (a) b] e
r e l l ]
r e l l ]
] ou r e l l
L a c . : A C
John 8:33
(GenT 99:9) [ C ]
T e x t : TR UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5
D L W fam 1. 13 33
579 892 1241 a b e
Lac . : A C
John 8:34
... [] (GenT
175:19-20) [ A d ] *
^ TR UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5

f a m l . 1 3 33 579 892 1241 a e ] omit D b
Lac . : A
John 8:37
(GenT 218:30) [ C ]
Text: TR UBS
3
P
6 6 - 7 5
B C D L W A e f l Q fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 a b e
Lac . : A
John 8:39
t o i e i v [
( E c c l T 274:24-25) [ A l l ]
(GenT 234:
17-18) [ A l l ]
,
(GenT 99:11-12) [ C ]
,
(GenT 218:27-28) [ C ]
[] , []
(JobT 151:13-16) [ C ]
,
(ZeT 262:14) [ C ]
D i d
p t
UBS
3

6 6
7 5
D L ] D i d
p t
T R C W i e n f S
f a m l . 13 33 579 (892) 1241 a b e
ft ft ^ 7 S
] UBS W (;
r e l l
Lac . : A
John 8:40
[] , ] [
[] , [] (PsT 3:13-14)
[ C ]
TR UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5
C L W
f a m l 33 579 892 1241 ] D fam 13
a b e
r e l l ] D e
John 8:40 ( c o n t . )
xou 9eou r e l l ] xou itaxpoq uou fam. 1.3 1241
lie r e l l ] omit e
aiOKTEivuL r e l l ] a n o n t e i v a t Mai 579
ovxa] omit r e l l
XeXaXriKOt r e l l ] l o c u t u s e s t (=XeXaXnHEv) e
i v r e l l ] n,v OUK A
Lac . : A
John 8:42
eym E K 8eou en>9ov x a i n><w (ZeT 26:15) [ C ]
EYU) EM xou 9eou egrixeov Mai n,Mu>- Pu6e yap au' euauxou
elnXuOa, aXX' ewetvoc. Me aneaxeiXev (ZeT 366:15) [ c ] * *
pue TR UBS
3
P
7 5
N B C L W A f i f fam 1 . 13 33 579 892
1241 a b ] ou P
6 6
D 0 e
eyto] 70) yap r e l l
EH r e l l ] irapa 579
s5nX3ov r e l l ] e?EXn.Xu6a P ^
Mai r\>aii r e l l ] omit e
euauxpu r e l l ] euauxou OUM W
eXnXu6a r e l l ] eXnXuOov D
aÊOXEiXev r e l l ] aEeaxaAxev P
6 6
L a c . : A
John 8:44
n EM xou 6iaoXou yewnPavToc. autouq OeAnaavrec xac.
eiu6uuLac, auxou H O I E I V (ZeT 234:18) [ C ]
oxav XaXn xo ipeu&oc. ex tun liwv XaXei, oxi ÊUOXHS eoxiv
Mai o naxrjp auxou (GenT 94: 22-23 ) [ C ]
John 8:44 ( c o n t . )
... [] (JobT 151:21) [ C ]

(PsT 70:19) [ C ]
...
(PsT 198:8-9) [ C ]
... (PsT 198:14) [ C ]
UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5
C D I i 6 ?
fam 1 . 13 33 579 1241] TR 892
r e l l ] 892
a b r e l l ] qui (= ) e
r e l l ] omit 579
L a c : A
John 8:45
[ ]
(PsT 3:15-16) Cc ]
TR UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5
C L W fam 1 . 13 33
579 892 1241] omit D a b e
] C fam 13 1241 b; r e l l
r e l l ] L
r e l l ] D
r e l l ] D
Lac . : A
John 8:48

; (PsT 145:26-27) [ C ]
Co ] []
; (PsT 294:10) [ C ]
Text and Apparatus 7149
John 8:48 ( c o n t . )

6 6
] TR UBS
3

7 5
B C D ( L ) W
fam 1. 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e
() r e l l ] ()
6 6
D L 892
1241
r e l l ] omit a e
ou r e l l ] omit M f am 1. 13
Lac . : A
John 8:56
, ,
, ( E c c l T 326:19-20)
[ A l l ]
[] ,
(GenT 214:29-215:1) [Ad]
[ ] [ ]
, (PsT 300:9) [Ad]
...
(ZeT 305:9) [ A l l ]

, (GenT 221:9-11) [ C ]
T e x t : TR UBS
3
p
6 6
'
7 5
A B C D L r f a m l . 13
33 579 892 1241 a b e
John 9:1
... (GenT 168:14) [ A U ]
(PsT 15:26)
[ A l i ]
John 9:2
[] - [][]
, ; (jobT 118 :23-25) [ A d ] *
TR UBS
3

6 5
'
7 5
A B C L W i e n T B
fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b] D e
John 9:6

,
(ZeT 56:25) [ A l l ] *
(Did) TR UBS
3

6 6
"
7 5
,
f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e ]
John 9:16
(PsT 147:30) [Ad]
, []
(PsT 294:9) [ A l l ]
John 9:28
( E c c l T 205:23-24) [ C ]
a b] TR UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5

D L W fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241 e
r e l l ] omit P ^
Lac . : C
John 9:39

(GenT 81:23-24) [ A d ] *
, [] [ ]
[] (ZeT 392:22-
393:1) [ C ]
TR UBS
3

6 6
* D t i D ! fam 1 . 1 3 33 1 2 4 1 ]

7 5
5 7 9 8 9 2

6 6
1241] r e l l

6 6
D a b ] ()
e r e l l
r e l l ]
r e l l ] D
r e l l ] omit 1 2 4 1
Text and Apparatus / 15.1
J ohn 9 : 3 9 ( c o n t . )
BXeuooOLv HOI 01 SXETEOVXE? r e . l l ] omit 579
TSVB\nai r e l l ] YEVFioovxai f a m l 3
Lac . : C
John 1 0 : 9
ETU e i y i n Sopa. A i ' euou eav T I C iX6n. EioEXEUOEtai,
Kai EESXEUOEX[a ] i not vounv eupnei (ZeT 2 5 1 : 1 6 ) [ C]
eav TR UBS
3
P
6 6
K A B D L A 8 n S fam 1 . 1 3 33 579 1 2 4 1 ]
av P 75 W
x a i eioeXeuosTai b r e l l ] o mi t W A a e
eiceX8r)] eioeXOr) au)6n.Oxai x a i r e l l
L a c . : C 892
J ohn 1 0 : 1 0
eyo) r )XSov...iva ion.v EKUJOLV Hal itepiocav exiooiv ( E c c l T 4 6 : 2 - 3 )
[ C ]
etui nXSov i v a 5ion.v EXUOI V HOI rcepiooov eymoiv ( E c c l T 8 2 : 1 6 - 1 7 )
[ C]
eyu) nXBov i v a t i onv Exai ei v x a i Ttepicoov EXI OOI V (ZeT 3 0 3 : 1 1 )
[ C]
eya> TR UBS
3
P
6 6
*
7 5
K A B L W A 6 P. V Si fam 1 . 1 3 33
579 1 2 4 1 b e ] eyco 6e D a
x a i TI EPI OOOV EXI OOI V r e l l ] omit P
6 6
D
75
Tt ept aoov r e l l ] nepiaaoxspov P f 579, ( a b u n d a n t i u s ) a b e
Ciolv r e l l ] l,u>r\v aiviov H
L a c : C 892
J ohn 1 0 : 1 1
...om VOUEUC. a p [ i ] OT O? xn.v i|-'Oxnv sauxou E9n,xev unep av
EXnXuSev [ o u ] o a i TtpoSaxov (ZeT 2 5 3 : 1 8 - 1 9 ) [ A l l ]
John 10:11 ( c o n t . )

(ZeT 297:8 - 10)
[ A l l ]

, (ZeT 316:15-16)
[ A l l ]
...
(ZeT 354:17-19) [ A l l ]
.. . [ ] []
[] (ZeT 356:4-6)
[ A l l ]
. 0
(ZeT 102:30-103:2! [ c ]
TR UBS
3

6 6
"
7 5
f am 1. 13 33
579 1241 a e ] x b
r e l l ] p a s t o r enim (b)/autem (a) bonus
(= ) a b
r e l l ] ovibus s u i s = ) b e
] r e l l
r e l l ]
L a c . : C 89 2
John 10:14
(ZeT 278:16) [ C ]
TR UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5
I 1 1! ! 2
f a m l . 13 33 579 1241] D
L a c : C 892
John 10:15
... (ZeT 303:12)
[Ad]
(ZeT 278:16)
[ C ]
Text and Apparatus /1S3
John 10:15 ( c o n t . )
TR UBS
3
, fam 1 . 13 33 579 1241
a b e ]
6 6
D W
r e l l ] ovibus meis (= ) b e
r e i l ] omit D
L a c . :
7 5
C 892
John 10:16

(ZeT 312:8-9)
[ A l l ]

,
(ZeT 297:11-14)
[ C ]
TR UBS
3
1, S fara 1 . 13 33 579 1241
b e ]
6 6
D a
TR 579 1241] r e l l

6 6
] r e l l
TR UBS
3

6 6
7 5
D L fam 1 b e ]
; r e l l
] TR
6 6
fam 13 579
1241 a b e; r e l l
] a b e; r e l l
] r e l l
L a c . : (
7 5
) C 892
John 10:17
, ; (PsT 238:221 [Ad]
... (PsT 238:26-27) [Ad]
... ,
( ZeT 301:5) [ A U ]
John 10:17 ( c o n t . )
... " (PsT 148:10) [ C ]
... (PsT 238:37) [ C ]
Text: TR UBS
3

6 6
D L W fam 1 . 13 33
579 1241 a b e
L a c . :
7 5
C 892
John 10:18
]. [ '] , '
[] ' (JobT 375:8-10) [ A d ] *

(PsT 41:18-19!
[ A U ]
' '
(PsT 148:10) [ A d ] *
' , '
(PsT 238:23-24) [ A d ] *
, ' '
(PsT 238:26-27) [Ad]*
..."
(PsT 238:37) [Ad]*
R e c o n s t r u c t i o n : / ' , '
' -

D i d
p t
TR U B S
3
P
6 6
'
7 5
A D L W fam 1 . 13
33 579 1241 a b e ] DidP*
r e l l ] '
'.. . r e l l ] omit i n toto D
r e l l ] W : 579
r e l l ] potestatem autem (= e) a
r e l l ]
L a c : (
7 5
! C 892
John 10:27

(ZeT 302:20-21! [ A d ] *
(PsT 58:6-7)
[ C ]
(PsT 236:31)
[ C ]
(ZeT 278:15-16)
[ C ]
UBS
3

6 6
L W fam 13 33 1241 a b e ]
TR
7 5
A D fam 1; 579
] r e l l
L a c . : C 892
John 10:28
,
(ZeT 302:21-303:1) [ C ]
3 75
UBS L 33 1241] post
TR A D V fam 1 . 13 579 a b e
L a c : C 892
John 10:29
(PsT 148:26)
[Ad]
[ [] [] [ ] ]
(JobT 22:20-21) [ C ]
[] [] []
(JobT 150:11-13) [ C ]
[ ] [] [ ] [ )
(JobT 150.-24-26) [ C ]
... (PsT 148:
31-149:1) [ C ]
John 10:29 ( c o n t . )
f a m l 3 ] TR UBS
3

6 6
A D L W
A fam 1 33 579 1241
() r e l l ] raoere i l lud ( =
) a b e
r e l l ] omit UBS
3
P
6 6
'
7 5
L
L a c : (
7 5
! C 892
John 10:30
(JobT 266:19-21) [Ad]
(PsT 131:2) [ A l l ]
(PsT 7:27-28) [ C ]
(ZeT 35:5) [ C ]
(ZeT 185:16) [ C ]
TR UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5
f a r o l . 13 33
579 1241 a b] DidP* W e
L a c : C 892
John 10:32
en
( E c c l T 87:20) [ A d ] *
TR D L fam 13 579]
UBS fam 1 33 1241
a e; b: ;
75vid
TR
6 6
A I, W fam 1 . 13 33 579 1241 a b]
omit UBS
3
H B D e

7
^ r e l l ] ouv W; ouv P ^ ; omit e
Lac . : (P
7 5
) C 892
John 10:33
(GenT 9:3-4) [ C]
[ ] (GenT 45:20-21) [ C]
3 fi 6
TR UBS L W fam 1 . 13 33 579 a b]
omit 1241 e

7 5
r e l l ]
6 6
1241
r e l l ]
6 6
L a c : (
7 5
) C 892
John 1 0 : 3 5
' [ ]
( 3 2 8 : 1 7 ) [ A l l ] *
... ,
( E c c l T 4 1 : 2 ) [ C]
[ ] []
(GenT 1 5 9 : 3 - 4 ) [ C]
...
(GenT 2 4 6 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) [ C]
...
(PsT 1 8 7 : 2 1 ) [ C]
..,
(PsT 2 7 9 : 2 4 - 2 5 ) [ C]

(ZeT 9 4 : 2 7 - 2 8 ) [ C]
[]
(ZeT 2 7 9 : 2 4 - 2 5 ) [ C]
TR UBS L W
f a m l . 13 33 579 1241] D a b e
] r e l l
Lac. : C 892
John 10:36
pv . . .
-
(ZeT 94:29-95:2) [ C ]
a b e ] TR UBS
3

6 6
"
7 5
A B D
L W fam 1 . 13 33 579
1241 r e l l ]
6 6
D W
] omit 579
] r e l l
(} . ( ) r e l l ]
1241
L a c . : C 892
John 11:26

(PsT 134:27-28) [ C ]
W] TR UBS
3

6 6
"
7 5
A B C
D L fam 1 . 13 33 579 1241 a b e
L a c : 892
John 11:39
6

(PsT 15 :24-25 ) [ A U ]
John 11:43
, (PsT 270:20) [ C ]
Text: TR UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5
( ) A B C D L W A B D ' i S f am 1. 13
33 579 1241 a b e
L a c : 892
John 12:2
(PsT 270:21-22) [ C ]
TR A D W f a u l . 13 33 579 1241] eM
UBS
3

6 6
L
r e l l ] TR 3 3
L a c . :
7 5
C 892
John 12:24
[] [] [
, [], []
[] (JobT 156:4-7) [ C ]
] TR UBS
3

6 6
7 5
n D I, ? 8
fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e ;
Lac . : C
John 13:2
- []
( E c c l T 294 :15-16)
[ A l l ]
[
( E c c l T 295:11-12) [ A l l ]
' [ ]
(JobT 245:9-10) [ A l l ]

(ZeT 43:9) [ A l l ]
John 13:13
..- ,
(PsT 58:9) [ C ]
,
- (PsT 236:34) [ C ]
,
(ZeT 28:3-4) [ C ]
Jphn 13:13 ( c o n t . )
,
(ZeT 182:21-22) [ C ]
HUPLO fan-, 13 33 892 1241]
TR UBS
3

6 6
C D m 4 f 2
fam 1 579 a b e
L a c :
7 5
John 13:25
[] []
. . . ( E c c l T 15:20-21) [ A U ]
John 13:27
[] ,
iPsT
42:3) [ A l l ]
6[] []
(PsT 293:22 ) [ A d ] *
[] [ ] ( E c c l T
294:17) [ C ]
, (PsT 293:17) [ c ]
(ZeT 43:13)
[ C ] * *
TR UBS
3

6 6
C L 4 f
f a m l . 1 3 33 579 892 1241 ( a ! ( b ) ] omit D e
D L 579 a b] r e l l
1241 a b e ] r e l l
r e l l ] D
r e l l ] omit
] r e l l
L a c :
7 5
John 13:30
- (PsT 149:3) [Ad]
John 13:37
(John 375:25-26) [ A d ] *
(PsT 148:17) [ A d ] *
D i d
p
TR UBS C D L
f a m l . 13 33 892 1241 a (b) e ]
DidPt
6 6
w 579
L a c :
7 5
John 13:38
; (JobT 375:27-28) [Ad]
John 14:2
(GenT 232:4) [ A l l ]
John 14:6
, ( E c c l T 43:5) [Ad]
(PsT 4:4) [Ad]
(PsT 79: 24 ) [Ad]
... (PsT 155:16) [Ad]
(PsT 138:27) [ C ]
(PsT 252:24) [ c ]
Text: TR UBS
3

6 6
fam 1 . 13
Lac
33 579 892 1241 a b e
75
John 14:9
(GenT 89:19) [ A l l ]
John 14:9 ( c o n t . )
(PsT 131:9! [ A d ] *
... (PsT 240:2) [Ad]*
... ( E c c l T 331:10) [ C ]
(GenT 58:6) [ c ]
... (PsT 18:30-31) [ C ]
(PsT 147:6) [ C ]
... (PsT 151:21) [ C ]
(ZeT 185:16) [ C ]
... (ZeT 194:10) [ c ]
(ZeT 259:11) [ C ] * *
TR UBS
3

6 6
D L W fam 1 . 13
33 579 892 1241 e ]
7 j
a b
L a c : C
John 14:10
( E c c l T 87:19)
[ A d ] *
(] (GenT 176:21) [ C ]
(PsT 7:27! [ C ]
, (ZeT 185:15-16)
[ C ]
(Did) TR S D S 8 f a m l . 13 33
579 892 1241 a] UBS &
6
75

L b e
UBS
3

6 6
]
7 5
L W 33 579; TR f
f a m l . 13 892 1241; i p s e l o q u i t u r et opera, quae ego
f a c i o , i p s e f a c i t (=
) a b; f a c i t f a c t a (- ) e
Lac . : C
John 14:12
,
(PsT 15:20-21) [ C ]
] TR UBS
3

6 6 - 7 5
D L W
f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e
6 6
r e l l ] omit
... r e l l ] omit _in toto e
L a c : C
John 14:21
, []
6
, [] (Ecc.1T 331:5-7) [ C ]
,

,
(ZeT 192:22) [ C ] * *
6e TP. UBS
3

6 6
*
7 5
J 0 L II 8 ' 5
f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b] omit e
^ r e l l ] 892
r e l l ] 579 e; fam 13
r e l l ]
r e l l ]
7 5
r e l l ] D
r e l l ]
L a c : C
John 14:23
[ ] , [ ]
* to ! [ ] (JobT 224:10-12) [ A d ] *
'
(PsT 131:1) [ A d ] *
John 14:23 ( c o n t . )
, ,
,
' (ZeT 16:30-33) [ C]
, , ,
,
' (ZeT 166:14-16) [ C ] * *
TR UBS J L 4 ? 2 fait 1. 13
33 579 1241 a b) D e; e
6 6
(a b) r e l l ] TR A 1241
(a b ) ; D e
] r e l l
(2)-,
] r e l l
] omit r e l l
' r e l l ] D
L a c . : C 892
John 14:27
6 , [.]
(ZeT 158:16-17) [ A d ] *
(ZeT 15:2) [ C ]
[6] (ZeT 171:22-23) [ C ]
R e c o n s t r u c t i o n : ,

^
1
' a e ] omit TR UBS
3

7 5

fam 1 . 13 33 579 1241 b
L a c . :
6 6
C 892
John 14:31
, (GenT 110:1) [ C ]
[], (ZeT 398:4) [ C]
John 14:31 ( c o n t . )
T e x t : TR UBS
3
fam 1 . 13 33 579 1241
a b e
L a c :
6 6
"
7 5
C 892
John 15:1
.
{ E c c l T 42:21-22) [ A l l ]
... ( E c c l T 312:12)
[ A l l ]

(PsT 238:17-18) [ A l l ]

(PsT 331:15) [ A l l ]
John 15:1-2

( E c c l T 36:20-21) [ A l l ]
[ ][
] [ ] [ ] [][
] (ZeT 389:1-3) [ A l l ]
John 15:2
(ZeT 61:13-14)
[ A d ] *
, ,
(ZeT 172:7) [ A d ] *
TR A D fam 1. 13 1241]
UBS ) I ? 3 3 579 a b e
r e l l ]
L a c :
6 6 - 7 5
C W 892
John 15:2, 6

(ZeT 343:17-18) [ A l l ]
John 15:5
. , (ZeT 61:13) [ C ]
, (ZeT 172:7) [ C ]
TR UBS
3

6 6
L i l f 2 f a i l l i . 13 33 579
1241 b e ] D a
L a c . :
7 5
C W 892
John 15:14
, (PsT 198:12) [ C ]
TR UBS
3

6 6
A B L fam 1 . 13 33 1241
a b e ] D 579
.] , r e l l
L a c :
7 5
C w 892
John 15:15
(PsT 198:12) [Ad]*
f a m l ] TR UBS
3

6 6
D L
f a m l 3 33 579 1241 a b e
Lac.:
7 5
C W 892
John 15:16
...
(ZeT 263:18-20) [ A d ] *
TR UBS
3
D L I 2 fam 1 . 13 33 579
1241 a b e )
6 6
; omit
L a c . :
7 5
C W 892
John 15:19
[],
(GenT 149:9-10) [ A d ] *
John 15:19 ( c o n t . )
[] , ' [ ]
(JobT 66:29-31) [ A d ] *
(JobT 137:4-5) [ A d ] *
R e c o n s t r u c t i o n : , '

] TR UBS
3

6 6
L '
f a m l . 13 33 579 1241 a b e; D
]
6 6
; r e l l
* r e l l ] et (= ) e
L a c . :
l o
C W 8 92
John 16:13
' [ ] (PsT 334:24-25) (Ad)
John 16:33
, (ZeT 158:18) [ A d ] *
TR UBS
3
K A B C D L W A 9 n ? S f a m l . 13 33 579
1241 b] q u i a ego (= o f t ) a e
L a c :
6 6
7 5
892
John 17:3
,
( E c c l T
171:8-9) [C ] **
,
(PsT
13:11-12) [C ]
,
[] (PsT 240:6-7) [ C ]
' ,
, (ZeT 231:6-8) [ C ]
168/ Didymus and the Gosoels
John 17:3 ( c o n t . )
A D L W 33 5 79 12 41 ]
TR UBS C fi fam 1.13 a b e
r e l l ] solum e t verum <=
) b e
r e l l ] omit L
r e l l ] omit W
r e l l ] W;
6 6 v i d
L a c : P
( 6 6 !
-
7 5
892
John 17:5
,
( E c c l T 322: 7-8) [ A U ]
i Shl Lj - I l l l
, (GenT 100:28) [ C ]
, ] (PsT 246:26) [ C ]
T e x t : TR UBS
3

6 6
N A B C D L W i e n Y S fam 1 . 13 33 579
1241 a b e
L a c :
7 5
892
John 17:12
, (PsT 246:26) [ C ]
3 66
UBS K B C D L W fam 1 a b e ]
TR fam13 33 579 1241
L a c :
7 5
892
John 17:21

(JobT 266:19-21) [ A d ] *
' ...
(PsT 131:2) [ A d ] *
John 17:21 ( c o n t . )
iv" , ,
] (PsT 179:4) [ A U ]
A L S fam 1 . 13 33 579 1241 ]
, Tg . 11
UBS
3
p v i d C D W a b
] r e l l
L a c :
( 6 6
'
7 5
392
John 18:4-5
. . . [] (PsT 148:13) [ C ]
D a ] TR UBS
3
C U 4 II 1
Q fam 1 . 13 33 579 1241 b e
L a c
6 6
"
7 5
892
John 18:6
... (PsT
148:13) [ C ]
T e x t : TR UBS
3
fam 1 . 13 33 579
1241 a b e
L a c :
6 6
"
7 5
892
John 18:7
(PsT 148:14) [Ad]
John 18:8
(PsT 148:15) [ C ]
TR UBS
3
p
6 6 v l d
H
A B C D L H A e n i ' Q fam 1. 13
33 579 a b ( e ) ] 1241
L a c :
( 5 6 )
7 5
892
John 19:14
[] (GenT 189:23-24)
[ A l l ]
John 19:15
, ,
i P s T 32 :27-28) [ A d ] *
[] [] ( E c c l T 205:23) [ C ]
(PsT 290:31) [ C ]
[] (ZeT 161:25) [ C ]
, (Did) TR UBS
3
- . f a m l . 13
33 579 1241 a b e ]
6 6
L a c : P
( 6 6
-
7 5
C D 892
John 19:23-24

" (PsT 39:11-12) [ A l l ]
John 19:30
... (PsT 238:25-26)
[ C ]
TR UBS
3
p
6 6 v l d
N A B L e n f Q f a m l . 13
33 579 1241 a b e ] W
L a c :
( 6 6 >
7 5
c D 892
John 19:37
[]
] [ ] (PsT 295 :12) [ A l l ]
] (PsT 295:4-5) [ C ]
(ZeT 341:11) [ C ]
Text: TR UBS
3
P
6 6 v l d
[, w i,\m 1. 13
33 579 1241 (a) b (e)
L a c :
7 5
C D 892
John 19:38-40
&
[ ] (ZeT 268:
6-8) [ A l l ]
John 20:19

, (PsT 71:
25-26) [ A l l ]
172/ Dldymus and the
I n d e t e r m i n a b l e
Gospels
R e f e r e n c e s and Complex C o n f l a t i o n s
Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4; John 1:23
[
( E c c l T 38:2 3-24 )
Matt. 3:9: Luke 3:8

(GenT 218-26-27)
Matt. 3:10; Luke 3:9
6 [ ] ...
[ ] ( E c c l T 68:15-16)

]
(JobT 369:13-16)

(ZeT 79:24-26)
Matt. 3:10; 7:19; Luke 3:9

(ZeT 27:3-4)

(ZeT 331:
13-15)

(ZeT 342:18-19)
Matt. 3 : i l _ ^ Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16
...
(ZeT 358:27-29)
Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17

,
-- 6' --
' (ZeT 331:17-21)
Text and Apparatus /.17 3
Matt . 4:8; Luke 4:5

(ZeT 44:25-45:1)
Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 10:1
'
(JobT 3:33-34)
Matt. 5:12; Luke 1:47; Rev. 19:7
-
[ ] (JobT 72:6-9)
Matt. 5:16; 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 16:17; 21:33
......
( E c c I T 12:21-22)
, []
( E c c I T 340:19-20)
(PsT 245:29)
Matt. 5:29; 5:30; 18:8; 18:9
[] [ ],
(Ecc.1T 69:1-2)
Matt. 5:37; James 5:12
... (PsT 69:6)
(PsT 199:1)
' , (ZeT 185:28)
Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27
(PsT 77:5-6)
Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27-28
[]
, ( E c c I T 81:8-9)
Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27-28 ( c o n t . )
,
(PsT 89:16-17!
... ( E c c l T 124:7)
Matt. 6:4, 6
[] & , (JobT 37:21-22 !
6 (PsT 201:15)
Matt 6:9; Luke 11:2
(PsT 183:18, 20)
(PsT 190:16!
(PsT 205:21)
(ZeT 383:15)
Matt. 6:9-10; Luke 11:2
[ ] ...
(PsT 280:4-5)
Matt. 6:10; Luke .11:2

(GenT 104 :25-26)
- [] (PsT 205:22)
Matt. 6:13; Luke 11:4
(JobT 167:8-9)
[ ] (JpbT 286:18-19)
(PsT 28:2)
(PsT 62:5)
Text and Apparatus / I 75
Matt. 6;1 3 ; Luke 11:4 ( c o n t . )
( , )
(PsT 78:12-13)

(PsT 141:21-22)
(PsT 210:21)
(PsT 219:24-25)
(PsT 305:7)
Matt. 6 :21r Luke 12:34
[ ], [ ] ( E c c I T
44:16)
Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13
(PsT 84:8)
Matt. 7:7; Luke 11:9
( E c c I T 350:19-20)
(ZeT 284:4)
Matt. 7:11; Luke 11:13
e i [ ]
6[] [], []
[] ( E c c I T 314:5-7)
Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31
, [ ,
] ( E c c I T 223:21!
[ ] ,
(GenT 183:6-7)
Matt. 7:17-18; 12:33; Luke 6:43
[ ][]
... ( E c c I T 69:8-9)
Matt. 7:24; Luke 6:47-48
.
( E c c I T 352:18-19)
,
(PsT 108:12-13)

(ZeT 183:21-23)
Matt. 7:24-25; Luke 6:47-48
]
( E c c I T 35:29-36:3)
Matt. 8:2: Mark 1:40; Luke 5:12
(GenT 54:11-12)
(PsT 132:13)
ue (PsT 286:25)
Matt. 8:3; Mark 1:41; Luke 5:13
, (PsT 132:13-14)
, (PsT 292:10)
Matt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28

( E c c I T 72: 7-8)

( E c c I T 199:5-6)
Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24
>
(PsT 158:19)
Matt. 9:20; Mark 5:25-27; Luke 8:43-44
,
, '
(ZeT 57:5-7)
Matt. 9:22; Mark 5:34; Luke 8:48
[, (ZeT 413:17)
Matt. 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13
(PsT 90:12)
, (PsT 282:1!
Matt. 10:30; Luke 12:7
]
( E c c l T 122:19-20)
Matt. 10:32; Luke 12:8
... . ...
(PsT 210:34-35)
Matt. 11:3; Luke 7:19
, [ ] (PsT 133:7-8)
Matt. 11:7; Luke 7:24
;
; (JobT 357:26-28)
Matt. 11:9; Luke 7:27
... (ZeT 252:13)
Matt. 11:11; Luke 7:28
(ZeT 105:11)
ou
(ZeT 358:26-27)

(ZeT 368:15-16)
Matt. 11:15; 13:9: 13:43; Luke 8:8; 14:35
(PsT 308:12)
Matt. 11:16-17; Luke 7:32

,
( E c c I T 73:1-2)
Matt. 11:16-18; Luke 7:31-32
;...
,
,
. . . ( E c c I T 358:26-
359:2)
Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34
6e , ...
( E c c I T 73:13-14)
[ ] ( E c c I T 159:1-2)
Mat t . 11:21; Luke 10:13
,
(PsT 136:18-19)
. .
,
[] (PsT 236:5-7)
Matt. 11:23; Luke 10:15
;
(JobT 313:23-25)
, , , -
(PsT 150:3-4)
, ,
(PsT 201:30)
Matt. 11:25; Luke 10:21

(GenT 223:10-11)
,[], ,
[ ] ,
[] (
300:16-18)
Matt. 11:25; Luke 10:21 ( c o n t . )
, [ ]
[] [] (PsT 312:21-22)
Matt. 12:41-42; Luke 11:31-32
. . . [] []
, [ ] []
[ ].
[5] []
(JobT 3:7-14)
Matt. 12:45; Luke 11:26
,
,
(ZeT 88: 2-5)
Matt. 13:5-6; Mark 4:6-7
] [ ]-
[ ] (JobT 80:17-20)
Matt. 13:8, 23
[ ],

(PsT 233:28-29)

, [ ,] (PsT 259:33-34)
Matt. 13:31; Luke .13:19
(PsT 318:28-319:1)
Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23
[ ... ( E c c l T 81:14)
... (GenT 209:13)
... (PsT 112:14)
, [ ]
(PsT 198:21-22)
Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23 ( c o n t . )
, ,
, (ZeT 133:8-10)
Matt. 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24
, . 6
, ( E c c l T 77:25-26)
Matt. 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27
, -
(GenT 136:17-18)
[], []
(JobT 148:21-23)
(ZeT 53:11-12)
[ ]
[] (ZeT 392:9-10)
Matt, 19:27: Mark 10:28
(GenT
209:19)
Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45

(ZeT 301: 5-6)

(ZeT 308:15-16)

... (ZeT 324:23-24)
... (ZeT 354:18-19)
Matt. 21:2; Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30

[ ]... (GenT 52:6-7)

,

' (ZeT 221:21-24)
Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25
(PsT 155:11)
Matt. 22:29; Mark 12:24
[] []
(PsT 1:23-24)
Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38
( E c c I T 199: 7)
... ( E c c I T 312:17-18)
... (PsT 276:2)
Matt. 22:39; Mark 12:31, 33; Luke 10:27; Rom. 13:9; G a l . 5:14
James 2:8; Lev. 19:18
... 6' ,
, (ZeT 178:5-6)
Matt. 23:25; Luke 11:39
... [] (GenT 125:19)
Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:50-51
[ , [ 6 ]
[ ] [] (GenT 181:17-19)

... (PsT 70:14-15)
Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34
, (PsT 134:2)
Matt. 23:37-38; Luke 13:34-35
...
(PsT 186:28-29!
Matt. 23:38; Luke 13:35
( E c c I T 345:11)
Matt. 23:38; Luke 13:35 ( c o n t . )
i 5ou (ZeT 237:16)
u u i v (ZeT 325:11-12)
(ZeT 367:10)
Matt. 24:3; Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7
- (PsT 12:7)
Matt. 24:19; Mark 13:17; Luke 21:23
[ ] [! [
( E c c I T 173:25)

(GenT 245:19-20)
Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:24; I s a . 13:10
...
( E c c I T 340:20-21 )
[ ]
(PsT 16:14-15)
Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:27

...
(ZeT 21:19-21)

(ZeT 30:25-26)
Matt. 24 : 35; Mark .13:31; Luke 21:33

( E c c I T 87:22-23)
[] [ ]
... (PsT 160:3-4)
,
(PsT 337:8-9)

(ZeT 5 5 : 26-2 7)
Matt. 24 : 35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33 (cont . !
,
(ZeT 1 2 8 : 2 3 - 24)
Matt. 24:42, 43; 25:13; Mark 13:35; Luke 12:39
[] , []
(JobT 88:15-16)
Matt. 24:45; Luke 12:42
[ ] ( E c c l T 46:29)
Matt. 25:21, 23
[] ( E c c l T 72:5)
[ ] ( E c c l T
199:4 )
(JobT 86:1-2)
' ,
(PsT 6:20-21)
(ZeT 260:8)
Matt. 25:26; Luke 19:22
, ...
(PsT 251:23-24)
Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9
[ ] . . .
(GenT 183:14)
Matt. 26:24; Mark 14:21
[] , [] ( E c c l T 172:24)
[ ] [] ( E c c l T 175:22)
[ ] ]
(JobT 62:7-8)
[ ] [ ] (JobT 289:14-15 )
Matt, 26:31; Mark 14:27
(PsT 33:12)
Matt. 26:34; Mark 14:30
, (JobT 375:27-28)
, (PsT 148:18)
Matt. 26:48; Mark 14:44
.. . ,
[] (PsT 293:28)
Matt. 26:49; Mark 14:45; Luke 22:47
[] [] (PsT 293:16 )
Matt. 27:40; Mark 15:29

(PsT 29:5)
[]
(ZeT 341:6-7)
Matt. 27:42; Mark 15:31
, (ZeT 341:7 )
Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16; John 1:27
,
(PsT 130:18)
Mark 2:9; John 5:8, 11
' []
(PsT 291:21)
Mark 5:30; Luke 8:46
[]
(ZeT 34:7-8)
Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26
. uou... (PsT 93:18)
...
(PsT 288:7)
Luke 3:6; I s a . 40:5
[] (GenT 153:8-9)
[' (GenT 198:23-24)
Luke 8:16; 11:33
. . . [ ]
, ' ,
(] (ZeT 65:12-14)
Luke 14:11; 18:14
[ ]
(JobT 121:18-20)

(PsT 201 : 32 -33 )
... (PsT 264:29-30!
Luke 15:23; 15:27, 30
[ ...
(JobT 12:11-13)
John 5:24; 1 John 3:14
... (ZeT 105:22)
John 6:33, 35, 41, 48, 50, 51, 58
,
( E c c l T 3.16:14-15!
... [ ]-
,
(PsT 182:10-1.1)
John 6:33, 35, 41, 48, 50, 51, 58 ( c o n t . )

,
... (ZeT 119:13-15)
John 6:35, 48
(PsT 50:14)
. . . (PsT 196:16)
(PsT 220:3)
(PsT 237:9)
[] (PsT 331:13-14)
John 10:3, 16, 27
[ ]
... ( E c c I T 38:10-11)
[] .
( E c c I T 38:19)
6
(ZeT 27:29-30)
[ ]... []
(ZeT 103:11-13)
John 11:25; 14:6
(GenT 106:2-3)
(PsT 147:12)
(PsT 239:32)
John 17:21, 22
,
(ZeT 268:19-20)
Chapter I V
The Gospel Text of Didymus: Q u a n t i t a t i v e A n a l y s i s
F o r over two hundred y e a r s t e x t u a l c r i t i c s a n a l y z e d and
c l a s s i f i e d NT MSS by t a b u l a t i n g t h e i r agreements whenever they
v a r i e d from the TR. Although used from t h e i n c e p t i o n of the
d i s c i p l i n e , t h i s p r a c t i c e d i d not f i n d an adequate t h e o r e t i c a l
r a t i o n a l e u n t i l K a r l Lachmann p o p u l a r i z e d h i s dictum t h a t
" i d e n t i t y of r e a d i n g i m p l i e s i d e n t i t y of o r i g i n . " L a c h -
mann
1
s p o s i t i o n was e v e n t u a l l y b u t t r e s s e d by Westcott and
H o r t ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e h i s t o r y of t h e NT t e x t : i n 1902
K i r s o p p Lake argued t h a t s i n c e the B y z a n t i n e t e x t (Westcott
and H o r t ' s " S y r i a n " ) came t o dominate t h e t r a d i t i o n i n the
Middle Ages, e a r l i e r forms of t e x t were p a r t i a l l y p r e s e r v e d i n
documents not c o m p l e t e l y conformed t o the B y z a n t i n e s t a n d a r d .
F o r t h i s r e a s o n , t o a s c e r t a i n t h e t r u e l i n e a g e of a MS, one
need o n l y remove t h e B y z a n t i n e c o r r u p t i o n s and compare t h e
remaining p o r t i o n s of t e x t . T h i s i s r e a d i l y done by c o l l a t i n g
4
a g a i n s t t h e TR and comparing v a r i a n t s . B. H. S t r e e t e r
gave an eloquent e x p o s i t i o n of t h i s method a s l a t e as 1936.
By the middle of the p r e s e n t c e n t u r y , t e x t u a l c r i t i c s
came t o r e c o g n i z e t h e insurmountable d e f i c i e n c i e s of t h e t r a -
F o r a more d e t a i l e d account of t h e r i s e of t h i s t r a -
d i t i o n a l method of MS a n a l y s i s and t h e development of contem-
p o r a r y methods as r e a c t i o n s a g a i n s t i t , see my a r t i c l e
"Methodological Developments i n t h e A n a l y s i s and C l a s s i -
f i c a t i o n of New Testament Documentary E v i d e n c e , " NovT,
forthcoming.
2
I n t r o d u c t i o n and Appendix, v o l . I I , The New Testament i n
the O r i g i n a l Greek. (Cambridge: Macmillan, 1881).
3
Codex 1 of t h e G o s p e l s and A c t s (Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y
P r e s s , 1902) x x i i i .
4 ,
I n t h a t same y e a r , but q u i t e i n d e p e n d e n t l y of Lake,
Edgar Goodspeed a p p l i e d a s i m i l a r p r i n c i p l e i n h i s a n a l y s i s ,
The Newberry G o s p e l s (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1902).
5
T h e Four G o s p e l s : A Study of O r i g i n s . 5th i m p r e s s i o n
(London: Macmillan, 1936) 25-76, esp. 39-45. S t r e e t e r ' s
s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d statement of h i s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n i s
worth c i t i n g : t h i s " i s a canon of f i r s t importance. Of MSS.
whether Greek or L a t i n , l a t e r t h a n the f i f t h c e n t u r y , o n l y
t h o s e r e a d i n g s need be noted which d i f f e r from t h e s t a n d a r d
t e x t (p. 44, emphasis h i s ) .
187
6
d i t i o n a l method of MS a n a l y s i s and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . The
method may p r o v i d e a "rough and ready" measure of t e x t u a l
c o n s a n g u i n i t y . But o v e r l o o k i n g documentary agreements i n
r e a d i n g s s h a r e d w i t h the T R r e a d i n g s t h a t o f t e n prove t o be
v e r y a n c i e n t , i f not g e n u i n e c a n s e r i o u s l y skew the p i c t u r e
of t e x t u a l a l i g n m e n t s . For t h i s r e a s o n , t h e t r a d i t i o n a l
method of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n has g i v e n way t o a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d
method of q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s , o r i g i n a l l y d e v i s e d by E. C.
7
C o l w e l l , former p r o f e s s o r of NT a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago.
I n s t e a d o f c o u n t i n g agreements i n v a r i a t i o n from an e x t r i n s i c
norm, such a s the TR, the newer method t a b u l a t e s a w i t n e s s ' s
p r o p o r t i o n a l agreements w i t h c a r e f u l l y s e l e c t e d t e x t u a l r e p r e -
s e n t a t i v e s i n al\ u n i t s of v a r i a t i o n judged t o be g e n e t i c a l l y
The death k n e l l f o r t h e method was sounded i n 1945 by
Bruce M. Metzger, "The C a e s a r e a n T e x t of the G o s p e l s , " r e -
p r i n t e d i n h i s c h a p t e r s i n t h e H i s t o r y of New Testament
T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m ( L e i d e n : E. J . B r i l l , 1963) 42-72. s u b s e -
quent r e s e a r c h confirmed Metzger's f i n d i n g s , i n a d d i t i o n t o
t h e a r t i c l e s of E. C. C o l w e l l c i t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g note,
s e e esp. H a r o l d Murphy, " E u s e b i u s " New Testament T e x t i n t h e
Demonstratio E v a n c r e l i c a . " J B L 78 (1954) 162-68; Gordon D. Fee,
"Codex S i n a i t i c u s i n the Gospel of John: A C o n t r i b u t i o n t o
Methodology i n E s t a b l i s h i n g T e x t u a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s , " NTS 15
(1968-69) 23-44; Idem, "The T e x t of John i n O r i g e n and C y r i l
of A l e x a n d r i a : A C o n t r i b u t i o n t o Method i n the Recovery and
A n a l y s i s of P a t r i s t i c C i t a t i o n s , " fiite 52 (1971) 357-94. I t
s h o u l d be noted t h a t even i n the e a r l i e s t p e r i o d of r e s e a r c h
not everyone was o b l i v i o u s t o t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l f l a w s of the
t r a d i t i o n a l system o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . See, e.g., t h e s c a t h i n g
assessment of G r i e s b a c h ' s Symbolae c r l t l c a e (2 v o l s . , H a l l e ,
1785) by Archbishop R i c h a r d Laurence, Remarks on t h e Systema-
t i c C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of M a n u s c r i p t s Adapted bv G r i e s b a c h i n h i s
E d i t i o n of the New Testament (Oxford, 1814), r e p r i n t e d i n the
B i b l i c a l R e p e r t o r y 2 (1826) 33-95.
See h i s r e v i s e d and updated e s s a y s i n S t u d i e s i n Method-
ology i n T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m of the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1969), esp. "Method i n L o c a t i n g a Newly D i s c o v e r e d
M a n u s c r i p t , " 26-44; and "Method i n E s t a b l i s h i n g Q u a n t i t a t i v e
R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between Text-Types of New Testament Manu-
s c r i p t s , " ( w i t h E r n e s t W. Tune), 56-62. The s u p e r i o r i t y of
C o l w e l l ' s methods was demonstrated by s e v e r a l subsequent s t u -
d i e s , most n o t a b l y Gordon D. Fee, "Codex S i n a i t i c u s , " and
L a r r y Hurtado, T e x t - C r i t i c a l Methodology and t h e P r e - C a e s a r e a n
T e x t (Grand R a p i d s : Eerdmans, 1981). The a n a l y s i s used i n
t h i s c h a p t e r e s s e n t i a l l y f o l l o w s t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e method as
o u t l i n e d by Fee and Hurtado.
Q u a n t i t a t i v e A n a l y s i s /189
8
s i g n i f i c a n t .
I n a p i o n e e r i n g a r t i c l e on t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e method of
a n a l y s i s , C o l w e l l , i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h E r n e s t Tune, observed
t h a t c l o s e l y r e l a t e d MSS, such a s V a t i c a n u s and S i n a i t i c u s ,
agree i n a p p r o x i m a t e l y 70% of a l l i n s t a n c e s of g e n e t i c a l l y
s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n , w h i l e b e i n g s e p a r a t e d from t h e i r next
c l o s e s t t e x t u a l r e l a t i o n s by about 10%. C o l w e l l and Tune
reasoned by e x t r a p o l a t i o n t h a t MSS b e l o n g i n g t o t h e same
t e x t u a l group would normally s t a n d i n comparable p r o x i -
mity both t o one another ( a t l e a s t a 70% agreement) and to
w i t n e s s e s of o t h e r groups (a 10% gap).
A thorough t e s t i n g of C o l w e l l ' s method i n r e c e n t y e a r s
has e f f e c t e d s e v e r a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s . The most s i g n i f i c a n t
breakthrough came i n W. L. R i c h a r d ' s demonstration t h a t no s e t
r a t e of agreement among MSS of a group can be a n t i c i p a t e d a t
t h e o u t s e t of an a n a l y s i s ; t h e d i f f e r e n t t e x t u a l groups must
be a l l o w e d ^ t o s e t t h e i r own l e v e l s of agreements, and t h e s e
w i l l v a r y . I n h i s c a r e f u l study of t h e MSS of the Johannine
E p i s t l e s , f o r example, R i c h a r d s showed t h a t members of most of
t h e B y z a n t i n e subgroups agree i n the v i c i n i t y of 90% of a l l
v a r i a t i o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s , subsequent r e s e a r c h has supported
one important a s p e c t of C o l w e l l ' s c o n c l u s i o n s . S e v e r a l s t u -
d i e s , i n c l u d i n g R i c h a r d s ' s , have shown t h a t A l e x a n d r i a n w i t -
n e s s e s do tend t o agree t o g e t h e r i n about 70% of a l l i n s t a n c e s
of v a r i a t i o n . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n proves s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h e
V a r i a n t s a r e " g e n e t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t " when they i n d i -
c a t e t e x t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . Thus a q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s does
not c o n s i d e r v a r i a n t s t h a t a r e r e a d i l y a t t r i b u t e d t o s c r i b a l
e r r o r (e.g. nonsense r e a d i n g s ) or t o common s c r i b a l p r e d i l e c -
t i o n (e.g. nu-movable, i t a c i s m , OUTU/OUTOIC, e t c . ) . For a
demonstration of t h e g e n e t i c i n s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e s e k i n d s of
v a r i a t i o n , see W. L. R i c h a r d s , The C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of t h e Greek
M a n u s c r i p t s of t h e J o h a n n i n e E p i s t l e s (SBLDS 35. M i s s o u l a :
S c h o l a r s P r e s s , 1977) 33-41. Furthermore, a q u a n t i t a t i v e
a n a l y s i s does not t a k e s i n g u l a r r e a d i n g s i n t o account, s i n c e
t h e s e a l s o do not demonstrate a MS'e a f f i n i t i e s w i t h o t h e r
MSS.
9
"Method i n E s t a b l i s h i n g Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e l a t i o n s h i p s , " 59.
R i c h a r d s , C l a s s i f i c a t i o n , 43-68.
1 : L
Gordon D. Fee, i n an important m e t h o d o l o g i c a l study,
("The T e x t of John i n O r i g e n and C y r i l of A l e x a n d r i a : A
1 9 0 / Didymus and the G o s p e l s
a n a l y s i s of a w i t n e s s , such as Didymus, who c o u l d be s u s p e c t e d
on a p r i o r i grounds t o p r e s e r v e an A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t . And the
s u s p i c i o n r e c e i v e s a remarkable c o n f i r m a t i o n when Didymus's
t e x t i s s u b j e c t e d t o a thorough-going q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s .
PiavBus.'s A f f i n i t i e s i n Matthew
Didymus quotes Matthew more e x t e n s i v e l y than t h e o t h e r
S y n o p t i c G o s p e l s . When t h e s e q u o t a t i o n s (and u s a b l e a l l u -
s i o n s ) a r e c o l l a t e d a g a i n s t the MSS r e p r e s e n t i n g the major
t e x t u a l groupings i n Matthew, 1 6 3 u n i t s of g e n e t i c a l l y s i g n i -
f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n a r e uncovered. A rank o r d e r i n g of t h e r e p r e -
s e n t a t i v e w i t n e s s e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r p r o p o r t i o n a l agreements
w i t h Didymus i n t h e s e r e a d i n g s r e s u l t s i n the a l i g n m e n t s s e t
f o r t h i n T a b l e I (p. 1 9 1 ) .
A c l o s e examination of t h e s e d a t a r e v e a l s t h a t t h i s l i s t
r e q u i r e s a minor adjustment b e f o r e i t a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t s
Didymus's t e x t u a l a f f i n i t i e s i n Matthew. Codex A i s simply
too fragmentary here t o be c o n s t r u e d a s e v i d e n c e t h a t Didy-
mus's t e x t stood i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o an e a r l y s t r a n d of the
B y z a n t i n e t r a d i t i o n a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t o t h e r w i s e would have t o
be drawn. I t s h o u l d seem obvious t h a t s i n c e A does not p r e -
s e r v e even one-eighth of the t o t a l number of r e a d i n g s under
c o n s i d e r a t i o n ( 2 0 / 1 6 3 ) , i t s testimony must be d i s c o u n t e d .
T h i s assumption i s borne out by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a l i g n m e n t s of
t h e o t h e r B y z a n t i n e w i t n e s s e s (TR, E, A, W, n , a ) , w i t -
n e s s e s t h a t n o r m a l l y agree e x t e n s i v e l y w i t h A. These docu-
ments a l i g n themselves w i t h Didymus +20% Ifegjj t h a n does A.
C o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e Methodology i n t h e Recovery and A n a l y s i s
of P a t r i s t i c C i t a t i o n s , " Bib. 5 2 [ 1 9 7 1 ] 3 5 7 - 9 4 ) showed t h a t
although the "primary A l e x a n d r i a n " w i t n e s s e s can agree w i t h
one another i n e x c e s s of 8 0 % , the 70% l e v e l of agreement h o l d s
t r u e f o r the "secondary A l e x a n d r i a n s . " These f i n d i n g s were
confirmed i n h i s subsequent study, " P 7 5 , P 6 6 , and O r l g e n : The
Myth of E a r l y T e x t u a l R e c e n s i o n i n A l e x a n d r i a , " i n New Dimen-
s i o n s i n New Testament S t u d i e s , ed. R i c h a r d N. Longenecker and
M e r r i l l C. Tenney (Grand R a p i d s : Zondervan, 1 9 7 4 ) 1 9 - 4 5 .
S i m i l a r l y , R i c h a r d s demonstrated t h a t t h e A l e x a n d r i a n w i t -
n e s s e s have t h e i r h i g h e s t l e v e l of agreements a t 70% i n the
Johannine E p i s t l e s , d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t members of o t h e r
t e x t u a l groups agree among themselves a t h i g h e r l e v e l s
f C l a s s i f i c a t i o n . 4 3 - 1 2 9 ) .
See pp. 1 3 - 1 5 above.
T a b l e I
W i t n e s s e s Ranked A c c o r d i n g t o P r o p o r t i o n a l
Agreement With Didymus i n G e n e t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t
V a r i a t i o n i n Matthew
(163 u n i t s of v a r i a t i o n )
1. A
3
16/20 (80.0%)
2 . UBS 111/163 (68.1%)
3 . 33 108/163 (66.3%)
4. L 104/157 (66.2%)
5. 892 106/161 (65.8%)
6. K 106/162 (65.4%)
7. c 80/123 (65.0%)
8. B 105/163 (64.4%)
9. n
102/163 (62.6%)
10. Q 100/162 (61.7%)
11.
fara 13 100/163 (61.3%)
12 . E 100/163 (61.3%)
13 . TR 99/163 (60.7%)
14. fam 1 98/163 (60.1%)
15.
A 97/163 (59.5%)
16.
8
88/159 (55.3%)
17. W 88/161 (54.7%)
18. 1241 72/134 (53.7%)
19. e 24/46 (52.2%)
20. D 62/132 (47.0%)
21. a 60/130 (46.2%)
22 . b 54/127 (42.5%)
23 . k 32/76 (42.1%)
F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , A cannot be used t o determine Didymus's
t e x t u a l a f f i n i t i e s i n Matthew.
T h i s procedure of e l i m i n a t i n g from c o n s i d e r a t i o n l a r g e l y
fragmentary w i t n e s s e s r a i s e s an i n e v i t a b l e q u e s t i o n : e x a c t l y
what l e n g t h of t e x t i s r e q u i r e d f o r an a n a l y s i s of t h i s s o r t ?
No h a r d and f a s t r u l e has emerged f o r d e c i d i n g the i s s u e .
Each i n s t a n c e must be c o n s i d e r e d i n d i v i d u a l l y . One should
probably q u e s t i o n , f o r example, whether the Old L a t i n MS k can
be used f o r the a n a l y s i s of Matthew, s i n c e i t c o n t a i n s fewer
than h a l f of t h e r e a d i n g s under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . But i t should
be noted t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h i s MS t o Didymus c o r r e s -
ponds c l o s e l y to t h a t of the o t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e
Western group (D, a, b, e ) . Apparently, then, k p r e s e r v e s
enough t e x t t o be used f o r the a n a l y s i s .
A f t e r t h e testimony of A i s d i s c o u n t e d , T a b l e I i s seen
t o c o n t a i n c l e a r b l o c k s of w i t n e s s e s i n c l o s e agreement. I n
g e n e r a l , t h e seven l e a d i n g A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s ( e x c l u d i n g
1241) top the l i s t , w h i l e the f i v e Western documents come a t
the end. Between t h e s e two b l o c k s s t a n d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of
the B y z a n t i n e and Caesarean t e x t s , i n no c l e a r - c u t p a t t e r n .
E q u a l l y n o t i c e a b l e , however, i s t h e absence of major b r e a k s
3
between t h e s e b l o c k s of w i t n e s s e s . L e a v i n g the TR and UBS
out of c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r the moment, the c l e a r e s t b r e a k s occur
between B and n (1.8% d i f f e r e n c e ) , A and Q ( 4 . 2 % d i f f e r e n c e ) ,
1241 and e ( 1 . 5 % d i f f e r e n c e ) , and e and D ( 5 . 2 % d i f f e r e n c e ) .
The l a s t of t h e s e breaks h o l d s no g r e a t s i g n i f i c a n c e s i n c e MS
e i s so fragmentary i n Matthew ( c o n t a i n i n g o n l y 46/164 u n i t s
of v a r i a t i o n under e x a m i n a t i o n ) . The amount of t e x t p r e s e r v e d
i n MS e i s adequate t o e s t a b l i s h a b a s i c alignment: i t j o i n s
the o t h e r Western w i t n e s s e s a t t h e bottom of the l i s t . But
the s p a r s i t y of i t s a t t e s t a t i o n s h o u l d c a u t i o n a g a i n s t making
too much of i t s d i s t a n c e from D and the o t h e r s .
Thus one i s l e f t w i t h t h r e e groupings of w i t n e s s e s : ( l )
A l e x a n d r i a n documents which v a r y from one another o n l y 1.9%
i n r e l a t i o n s h i p t o Didymus, (2) a group of B y z a n t i n e and
C a e s a r e a n documents which s p l i t i n t o two groups, the f i r s t
v a r y i n g among themselves 3.1% and t h e second 1.6%, and (3) a
group o f Western w i t n e s s e s which v a r y among themselves 10.1%.
T h i s comparative d i s p a r i t y among t h e Western s o u r c e s d e r i v e s ,
no doubt, from the w i d e l y r e c o g n i z e d u n c o n t r o l l e d c h a r a c t e r of
the t e x t - t y p e .
One w i t n e s s r e q u i r i n g s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n a t t h i s j u n c t u r e
i s codex 1241, a document commonly a s s i g n e d t o the L a t e -
A l e x a n d r i a n group. Why i s i t t h a t 1241 e x h i b i t s such a low
p r o p o r t i o n of agreement w i t h Didymus ( 5 3 . 7 % ) , f a l l i n g t o the
bottom of the B y z a n t i n e and Caesarean b l o c k of w i t n e s s e s ?
Here i t can o n l y be p o i n t e d out t h a t no thorough a n a l y s i s of
t h e document has been p u b l i s h e d , and i t s t e x t of Matthew has
o c c a s i o n a l l y been l i n k e d t o the B y z a n t i n e t r a d i t i o n . I n
view of t h e ambiguity of i t s w i t n e s s , i t s h o u l d not be used to
d e f i n e more c a r e f u l l y Didymus's t e x t u a l a l i g n m e n t s i n Matthew.
The breakdown of w i t n e s s e s i n t o groups, which may a t
f i r s t appear u n c o n v i n c i n g i n view of the absence of major gaps
between r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the d i f f e r e n t t e x t - t y p e s , becomes
more c o m p e l l i n g when the aggregate r e l a t i o n s h i p s of known
group members a r e t a b u l a t e d . Here t h e work of e a r l i e r c r i t i c s
i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e t e x t u a l c o n s a n g u i n i t y of t h e s e r e p r e s e n t a -
t i v e s must be assumed. Furthermore, w i t n e s s e s which have
been shown t o be u n u s u a l l y fragmentary or a b e r r a n t (A, 1241)
cannot be used f o r the t a b u l a t i o n . The r o l e of the modern
e d i t i o n s i s more ambiguous, s i n c e , on the one hand, UBS and
TR a r e not, s t r i c t l y speaking, E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n and B y z a n t i n e
documents, but, on the o t h e r hand, do r e p r e s e n t e c l e c t i c t e x t s
drawn p r i m a r i l y from t h e s e t r a d i t i o n s . F o r t h i s r e a s o n , two
s e t s of t a b u l a t i o n s w i l l be provided, one w i t h and the o t h e r
w i t h o u t t h e testimony of t h e e d i t i o n s .
The aggregate r e l a t i o n s h i p s of a l l the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
w i t n e s s e s w i t h Didymus i n Matthew i s s e t f o r t h i n T a b l e I I
(pp. 194-95).
Here t h e breakdown of w i t n e s s e s i s much c l e a r e r than when
t h e documents were c o n s i d e r e d i n d i v i d u a l l y . Didymus's t e x t of
Matthew s t a n d s c l o s e s t t o the A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s . When
3
t h e t e s t i m o n y of UBS i s t a k e n i n t o account, Didymus s t a n d s
e q u a l l y c l o s e t o t h e e a r l i e r and l a t e r s t r a n d s of t h i s t r a d i -
t i o n (66.0% and 65.9% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Without the t e x t of
3
UBS , however, Didymus's agreement w i t h the e a r l i e r s t r a n d
drops a f u l l p e r c e n t a g e p o i n t , making him more c l o s e l y a l i g n e d
Thus K i r s o p p Lake and S i l v a New, S i x C o l l a t i o n s of New
Testament M a n u s c r i p t s (HTS, x v i i ; Cambridge, Mass.! Harvard
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1932) 95. See f u r t h e r , pp. 205, 212 below.
1 4
S e e e.g. Metzger, The T e x t of t h e New Testament; I t s
T r a n s m i s s i o n , c o r r u p t i o n , and R e s t o r a t i o n . 2nd ed. (New York:
Oxford u n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1968) 36-66; 213-19.
T a b l e I I
P r o p o r t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p of A l l W i t n e s s e s With Didymus
Arranged by T e x t u a l Group i n Matthew
Agreements Disagreements % Agreement
EARLY ALEXANDRIAN:
3
U B S 111 52
K 106 56
B 105 58
T o t a l s 322 166 66.0%
3
T o t a l s w/o U B S 211 114 64.9%
LATE ALEXANDRIAN:
C 80 43
L 104 53
33 108 55
892 106 55
T o t a l s 398 206 65.9%
(Average A l e x a n d r i a n ) 720 372 65.9%
(Average A l e x a n d r i a n
W/ O U B S ) 609 320 65.6%
C A E S A R E A N :
6 88 71
fam 1 98 65
fam 13 100 63
T o t a l s 286 199 59.0%
BYZANTINE:
TR 99 64
E 100 63
W 88 73
A 97 66
H 102 61
9 100 62
T o t a l s 586 389 60.1%
T o t a l s W/ O TR 487 325 60.0%
T a b l e I I ( c o n t . )
WESTERN:
D 62 70
a 60 70
b 54 73
e 24 22
k 32 44
T o t a l s 232 279 45.4%
w i t h t h e L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n s . A s i g n i f i c a n t gap now s e p a r a t e s
the A l e x a n d r i a n group from t h e B y z a n t i n e , w i t h which Didymus
a v e r a g e s a 60.1% agreement when TR i s i n c l u d e d (a drop of 5.8%
from t h e L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n s ) and 60.0% when i t i s not (a drop
of 5.9%) . Didymus a g r e e s w i t h the C a e s a r e a n w i t n e s s e s a t about
the same r a t e 5 9 . 0 % , a drop of 6.9% from the L a t e A l e x a n -
d r i a n s . The c l o s e p r o x i m i t y of t h e B y z a n t i n e and C a e s a r e a n
groups s h o u l d not be a t a l l s u r p r i s i n g , both i n view of the
a l i g n m e n t s of t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and i n view of
the i n a b i l i t y of p r i o r r e s e a r c h t o e s t a b l i s h a C a e s a r e a n
t r a d i t i o n i n Matthew. The most s i g n i f i c a n t a s p e c t of t h i s
c o l l o c a t i o n of w i t n e s s e s i s the s t r i k i n g l y low support f o r
Didymus by the Western group. Removed by 13.6% from t h e i r
n e a r e s t neighbors, the Western w i t n e s s e s agree w i t h Didymus i n
an aggregate of o n l y 45.4% of a l l v a r i a t i o n .
I n s h o r t , t h e s e f i g u r e s show t h a t i n Matthew Didymus i s a
d e c i d e d l y A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s , s t a n d i n g somewhat c l o s e r to the
l a t e r s t r a n d of t h a t t r a d i t i o n . Furthermore, Didymus's t e x t
shows l i t t l e or no e v i d e n c e of Western c o n t a m i n a t i o n .
R e s i d u a l Methodological Concerns
B e f o r e e x t e n d i n g t h i s a n a l y s i s t o the o t h e r t h r e e Gos-
p e l s , some f i n a l m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i s s u e s must be a d d r e s s e d .
F i r s t , one must q u e s t i o n even more r i g o r o u s l y t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e
of the r e l a t i v e l y even p r o g r e s s i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o Didymus
among the t e x t u a l w i t n e s s e s . Why i s i t t h a t , w i t h t h e excep-
t i o n of t h e Western group, no major b r e a k s o c c u r between
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of d i f f e r e n t t e x t - t y p e s i n T a b l e I ? Notably,
1 9 6 / Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s
the A l e x a n d r i a n support f o r Didymus ranges from 6 6 . 3 % (MS 3 3 )
t o 6 4 . 4 % (MS B ) , a d i f f e r e n c e of 1 . 9 % , w h i l e B d i f f e r s from
the B y z a n t i n e w i t n e s s n by o n l y 1 . 8 % . I n t h i s r e g a r d , i t
s h o u l d be r e c a l l e d t h a t C o l w e l l and Tune concluded not o n l y
t h a t group members w i l l normally agree i n +70% of a l l v a r i a -
t i o n but t h a t they a l s o w i l l be s e p a r a t e d from o t h e r group
w i t n e s s e s by about about 1 0 % . Why does t h i s a n a l y s i s of
Didymus not demonstrate such c l e a r - c u t a f f i l i a t i o n s ?
These a r e d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n s t o a d d r e s s , q u e s t i o n s which
can perhaps r e c e i v e no f i n a l answers. N e v e r t h e l e s s , two
common s e n s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s e r v e t o m i t i g a t e t h e i r f o r c e : ( 1 )
t h e P a t r i s t i c data a r e more d i f f i c u l t t o uncover than a r e
t h o s e of the Greek MSS, and (2) d e s p i t e t h i s d i f f i c u l t y , c l e a r
a l i g n m e n t s of w i t n e s s e s have emerged i n the a n a l y s i s .
F i r s t , the groupings of w i t n e s s e s s h o u l d be expected t o
be l e s s w e l l d e f i n e d i n r e l a t i o n s h i p t o a P a t r i s t i c s o u r c e
t h a n t o t h e continuous Greek t e x t of a NT MS. As p r e v i o u s l y
shown, t h e F a t h e r s quoted t h e NT randomly and, o f t e n , i n a c -
c u r a t e l y . T h i s makes t h e r e c o v e r y of t h e i r t e x t always d i f -
f i c u l t , and sometimes i m p o s s i b l e . Methodological advances i n
t e x t u a l a n a l y s i s s i m p l y cannot c i r c u m v e n t t h i s problem:
o c c a s i o n a l l y a t e x t u a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n w i l l be i n e r r o r . The
c r i t i c must t h e r e f o r e proceed w i t h m e t h o d o l o g i c a l r i g o r , and
a p p l y a degree of c a u t i o n when u s i n g q u e s t i o n a b l e e v i d e n c e .
Both of t h e s e f a c t o r s o c c a s i o n a l e r r o r s of r e c o n s t r u c t i o n and
s y s t e m a t i c c a u t i o n w i l l have an u n a v o i d a b l e e f f e c t on t h e
s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s : they w i l l tend t o "even out" d i f f e r -
ences among t h e t e x t u a l w i t n e s s e s . Thus the absence of l a r g e
b r e a k s between i n d i v i d u a l w i t n e s s e s of d i f f e r e n t t e x t - t y p e s i s
not s u r p r i s i n g . Were Didymus's continuous Gospel t e x t f u l l y
r e c o v e r e d , t h e t e x t u a l alignments so f a r d i s c e r n e d would
d o u b t l e s s become more w e l l d e f i n e d .
At t h e same time, i t i s p r e c i s e l y t h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n
which makes t h e alignments uncovered by t h e a n a l y s i s a l l the
more remarkable. T a b l e I I (pp. 1 9 4 - 9 5 ) shows the u n m i s t a k a b l y
A l e x a n d r i a n , a n t i - W e s t e r n q u a l i t y of Didymus's Gospel t e x t .
See p. 1 8 9 above.
I n view of the c h a r a c t e r of t h e a v a i l a b l e d a t a , one must be
s t r u c k both by t h e r e l a t i v e l y h i g h agreement o f Didymus w i t h
t h e A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s and the d i s p a r i t y between t h i s group
and t h e o t h e r s . Didymus must have had a v e r y good A l e x a n d r i a n
t r a d i t i o n a t h i s d i s p o s a l . T h i s not o n l y makes h i s unequivo-
c a l support f o r a g i v e n v a r i a n t s i g n i f i c a n t f o r a s c e r t a i n i n g
t h e o r i g i n a l r e a d i n g , i t a l s o makes the c o l l o c a t i o n of v a r i -
a n t s p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r a c l e a r e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of
t h e A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n a s a whole.
T h i s matter of " r e l a t i v e l y h i g h agreement" w i t h A l e x a n -
d r i a n w i t n e s s e s l e a d s t o a second s e t of m e t h o d o l o g i c a l ques-
t i o n s . How can one gauge the r e l a t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e s e
s t a t i s t i c a l breakdowns? How, f o r example, can t h e s i g n i f i -
cance of a 65.9% agreement of Didymus w i t h another w i t n e s s be
put i n t o p e r s p e c t i v e ? O b v i o u s l y t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e
i s suggested by a c o n t r a s t i n g 45.4% agreement: Didymus i s f a r
more A l e x a n d r i a n than Western. But t h e s e s t a t i s t i c s do not
show how gssA an A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s he i s . They do not show,
t h a t i s , how c l o s e l y he r e l a t e s t o t h e o t h e r A l e x a n d r i a n
w i t n e s s e s i n comparison w i t h the p r o x i m i t y of t h e s e w i t n e s s e s
t o one a n o t h e r .
I n t h e o r y the comparative s i g n i f i c a n c e of Didymus's
a l i g n m e n t s c o u l d be a s c e r t a i n e d by c o n s i d e r i n g them i n r e l a -
t i o n s h i p t o the mutual a l i g n m e n t s of a l l o t h e r w i t n e s s e s . To
t h i s end, T a b l e I I I shows t h e agreements of a l l w i t n e s s e s w i t h
one another i n t h e p o r t i o n s of Matthew p r e s e r v e d i n Didymus
(p. 198).
The r e a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s t a b l e can be seen by rank-
o r d e r i n g t h e a f f i n i t i e s of each w i t n e s s . T h i s procedure w i l l
show where Didymus s t a n d s i n r e l a t i o n t o w i t n e s s e s whose
r e l a t i o n s h i p s to him have a l r e a d y been e s t a b l i s h e d . The ques-
t i o n s a d d r e s s e d by such r a n k - o r d e r i n g s a r e whether Didymus has
a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of agreements w i t h w i t n e s s e s t h a t
appear t o be h i s c l o s e s t a l l i e s , and, c o n v e r s e l y , a r e l a t i v e l y
low p r o p o r t i o n of agreements w i t h w i t n e s s e s t h a t appear t o be
f u r t h e s t removed from h i s t e x t . L e a v i n g a s i d e MS A, t h e t h r e e
w i t n e s s e s w i t h t h e h i g h e s t agreements w i t h Didymus a r e UBS ,
33, and L. How w e l l Didymus s u p p o r t s the r e a d i n g s found i n
Mi!
I!
!
Z , 2
1 ;
"1
1
r T T " T
i \ s
5! :..
. J:
!
S
i S
3 S
i s;
!
si s! s
s; s 5 i s
t h e s e w i t n e s s e s can be seen i n the f o l l o w i n g r a n k - o r d e r i n g s .
1. B (91, .4%)
2 . K (84, .0%)
3. c (82, ,9%)
4. 892 (80, .1%)
5. fam 1 (79, .4%)
6. 33 (77, .3%)
7. w (75, .6%)
8.
n
(74. .2%)
9. E (74. .2%)
10. L (73, .1%)
11. TH (72, .3%)
12. 9 (72, .3%)
13. 2 (72, .2%)
14 . A (71, .8%)
15. fam 13 (70, .6%)
16. A (70.0%)
17. 1241 (69 .4%)
18. DIDYMUS (68, .1%)
19. D (61 .4%)
20. k (51. .3%)
21. e (51 .0%)
22 . a (46 .9%)
23. b (45 .5%)
33
1.
C (81. .3%)
2. 892
3
(80. .7%)
3 . UBS (77 3%)
4. TH (77. ,3%)
5. 2 (77. .2%)
6. A (75. .0%)
7. n (74. .8%)
8. B (74, ,8%)
9. W (73. ,7%)
10. (73. ,6%)
11. fam 1 (73. .0%)
12. E (73. ,0%)
13. L (72. .4%)
14. 1241 (70. ,1%)
15.
K
(68. ,5%)
16. DIDYMUS (66, ,3%)
17.
9
(65.4%)
18. fam 13 (65. . 0%)
19. k (50. .0%)
20. D (50. .0%)
21. e (42. .9%)
22 . a (42, .0%)
23 . b (41. .1%)
L
3 ~
1. UBS (73. .1%)
2 . C (72. ,5%)
3. 33 (72. .4%)
4. E (72. .4%)
5. 892 (72. .2%)
6. A (72. .2%)
7. fam 13 (71. .2%)
8. B (70. .5%)
9. n
(69. ,9%)
10. TR (69. .9%)
11.
a
(69. .7%)
12 . 1241 (69. ,3%)
13. A (69. .2%)
14. W (66. .7%)
15. e (66. .4%)
16. DIDYMUS (66. .2%)
17. N (65, .6%)
18. fam 1 (64. .1%)
19. D (48, .8%)
20. k (43, .2%)
21. e (40, .0%)
22 . b (39, .0%)
23. a (33 ,9%)
O b v i o u s l y Didymus does not s t a n d i n a s c l o s e a r e l a t i o n -
s h i p t o t h e s e t e x t s as t h e y s t a n d i n r e l a t i o n s h i p t o him.
S i m i l a r r e s u l t s a r e o b t a i n e d when Didymus's r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o
the w i t n e s s e s f u r t h e s t removed from h i s t e x t a r e gauged.
2 0 0 / Didymus and the G o s p e l s
a fe K
1. b (83. ,7%) 1. a (83. ,7%) 1. D (69. ,6%)
2. e (76. ,5%) 2. e (71. ,7%) 2. a (67. ,1%)
3 . k (67,
1%)
3. D (64. ,6%) 3. b (63. .6%)
4. D (64, .0%) 4. k (63. ,6%) 4.
a (61. ,8%)
5. A (52, .9%) 5. A
3
(47. ,1%) 5. TR (61. ,8%)
6.
n
3
(47, .7%) 6. UBS (45.5%) 6. n (60. ,8%)
7. UBS (46, .9%) 7. fam 13 (45, .2%) 7. E (60. ,5%)
8. DIDYMUS (46, .2%) 8. n (45, .2%) 8. A (55, .3%)
9. E (46, .2%) 9. 9 (45 0%) 9. e (53. ,8%)
10. TR (45. .4%) 10. TR (44. ,8%) 10. 6 (52. ,5%)
11. K (45, .0%) 11. E (44. ,4%) 11. UBS (51. ,3%)
12. fam 13 (44. .6%) 12. B (43. ,5%) 12. W (50. .7%)
13 . 892 (43. ,8%) 13 . 892 (43. ,4%) 13. K
(50. ,7%)
14. Q (43. .8%) 14. K (43. ,1%) 14. 33 (50. ,0%)
15. A (43, .8%) 15. f l (42. ,7%) 15. fam 1 (50. ,0%)
16. C (43. .2%) 16. A (42. ,7%) 16. B (48. ,7%)
17. 33 (42, ,0%) 17. DIDYMUS (42. ,5%) 17. 892 (47. ,4%)
18. 9 (41, .7%) 18. 33 (41, .1%) 18. fam 13 (47, .4%)
19. B (41. .5%) 19. C (40. ,4%) 19. c (44, ,8%)
20. 1241 (40, .0%) 20. L (39. ,0%) 20. L (43. ,2%)
21. fam 1 (40, .0%) 21. 1241 (38, .1%) 21. DIDYMUS (42, .1%)
22. w (38.4%) 22. W (36, .4%) 22. 1241 (41, .1%)
23. L (33.9%) 23. fam 13 (36, .3%) 23. A (0, .0%)
These a r e p u z z l i n g a l i g n m e n t s indeed. F o r MS k Didymus
i s ranked where one would expect, near t h e bottom of t h e l i s t .
But he i s p r o p o r t i o n a l l y a s c l o s e t o MS b a s he i s t o UBS and
he s t a n d s i n c l o s e r p r o x i m i t y t o MS a than t o any o t h e r w i t -
n e s s . How can t h e s e f a c t s be e x p l a i n e d ?
B e f o r e a d d r e s s i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n d i r e c t l y , i t i s important
t o note one o t h e r p u z z l i n g f e a t u r e of t h e s e l i s t s : many o t h e r
w i t n e s s e s i n them do not s t a n d where one would e x p e c t . Only
the Western w i t n e s s e s show c o n s i s t e n t alignments, s t a n d i n g
t o g e t h e r a t t h e top of the r a n k - o r d e r i n g s f o r group members
and a t the bottom of t h o s e f o r A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s ( w i t h the
Q u a n t i t a t i v e A n a l y s i s / 2 0 1
e x c e p t i o n of MS e i n r e l a t i o n s h i p t o MS k, where both t e x t s
a r e h i g h l y f r a g m e n t a r y ) . Other w i t n e s s e s tend t o f a l l r a n -
domly, showing no i n n e r group a d h e s i o n . T a k i n g one example,
t h e L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n MS L has as i t s c l o s e s t a l l i e s , as one
3
would e x p e c t , o t h e r A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s ! UBS ( 7 3 . 1 % ) , C
( 7 2 . 5 % ) , and 33 ( 7 2 . 4 % ) . But t h e B y z a n t i n e MS E s t a n d s i n
p r o p o r t i o n a l l y the same r e l a t i o n s h i p t o L a s does 33, i n s t a r k
c o n t r a s t t o t h e o t h e r B y z a n t i n e documents (e.g. TR, 69.9%; W,
6 6 . 4 % ) . And the o t h e r w i s e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d S i n a i t i c u s s t a n d s
r e l a t i v e l y f a r removed ( 6 5 . 6 % ) . Such unexpected a l i g n m e n t s
can be found i n the r a n k - o r d e r i n g s of v i r t u a l l y e v e r y w i t n e s s .
What c o n c l u s i o n can be drawn from t h e s e f i n d i n g s ? Simply
t h i s : t h e s e t e x t u a l alignments occur i n p o r t i o n s of t e x t
which have been c o l l e c t e d a t random. There i s no e s c a p i n g
t h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e f o r t h e simple r e a s o n t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e
d e r i v e s e n t i r e l y from the s p o r a d i c q u o t a t i o n s of a church
F a t h e r . As a consequence, the a l i g n m e n t s which demonstrably
o c c u r i n t h e s e p o r t i o n s of t e x t a r e not n e c e s s a r i l y t h o s e t h a t
o b t a i n i n a f u l l a n a l y s i s of a l l w i t n e s s e s i n t h e i r t o t a l
t e x t s . I n t h e s e a r b i t r a r i l y p r e s e r v e d p a s s a g e s MS L happens
t o be c l o s e r t o E than t o K . T h i s does not mean t h a t t h e s e
r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e m a i n t a i n e d i n every p o r t i o n of t h e i r t e x t s
of Matthew. Of c o u r s e t h e r e i s some measure of p r e d i c t a b i l i t y
i n t h e a l i g n m e n t s : most A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s a l i g n them-
s e l v e s , even here, w i t h o t h e r A l e x a n d r i a n s . But not c o n s i s -
t e n t l y so.
These c o n s i d e r a t i o n s r e q u i r e a s i g n i f i c a n t methodological
c o n c l u s i o n . F o r P a t r i s t i c e v i d e n c e of t h i s s o r t , g r a p h i c s
such a s T a b l e I I I a r e of l i t t l e or no v a l u e . To be s u r e , i f
one were comparing the continuous t e x t of one MS a g a i n s t the
c o n t i n u o u s t e x t s of o t h e r s , such a g r a p h i c would prove u s e f u l .
One c o u l d then a s c e r t a i n , say, t h e r e l a t i v e a f f i l i a t i o n s of K
B i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to D k, and draw c o n c l u s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g
group membership. T h i s , i n f a c t , has been the approach nor-
m a l l y t a k e n i n a n a l y s e s of t h i s k i n d , s t a r t i n g w i t h the work
of C o l w e l l . But as t h i s study shows, t h e approach does not
See the works c i t e d i n n.7, p. 188, above.
work w e l l when s e e k i n g to p o r t r a y t h e a f f i n i t i e s of a h i g h l y
fragmentary and randomly s e l e c t e d c o l l e c t i o n of data, as i s
u s u a l l y the c a s e i n P a t r i s t i c a n a l y s e s .
How then can the r e l a t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e q u a n t i f i e d
r e l a t i o n s h i p s be e s t a b l i s h e d ? Only by s e t t i n g t h e f i n d i n g s
i n r e l a t i o n s h i p t o q u a n t i f i e d a f f i l i a t i o n s a l r e a d y determined
f o r the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i t n e s s e s i n p r i o r s t u d i e s of t h e i r
c o n t i n u o u s t e x t s . Thus the Colwell-Tune r u l e of thumb t h a t a
group w i t n e s s w i l l agree i n approximately 70% of a l l v a r i a t i o n
w i t h o t h e r group members, w i t h a +10% d i s p a r i t y between
groups, can be used a s a s t a r t i n g p o i n t . As a l r e a d y sug-
g e s t e d , t h e s e numbers s h o u l d be lowered somewhat i n view of
the s p e c i a l c h a r a c t e r of P a t r i s t i c q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s
t h a t o c c u r f r e q u e n t l y but s p o r a d i c a l l y , lowered perhaps t o a
+65% agreement of a w i t n e s s w i t h group members w i t h a 6-8%
d i s p a r i t y between groups.
Didymus's A f f i n i t i e s i n Mark
Didymus r a r e l y quotes the Gospel of Mark: p a r t s of o n l y
t e n v e r s e s of the Gospel can be i s o l a t e d i n the Toura commen-
t a r i e s . Even more s i g n i f i c a n t l y , only ten u n i t s of g e n e t i -
c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n can be found among t h e s e r e f e r -
e n c e s . Of c o u r s e , Didymus may w e l l have quoted Mark more
f r e q u e n t l y than t h i s . But i t i s p r a c t i c a l l y i m p o s s i b l e to
i s o l a t e Marcan q u o t a t i o n s f o r t h r e e r e a s o n s : (1) most of
Mark's Gospel i s not " d i s t i n c t i v e , " s i n c e i t was "reproduced"
by Matthew and Luke; (2) Didymus r a r e l y c i t e s a u n i q u e l y
Marcan form of the t e x t ; and (3) never does Didymus i d e n t i f y
Mark as the author of a q u o t a t i o n . As a r e s u l t , t h e r e a r e
h a r d l y enough data t o produce a q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s . And
even when the a n a l y s i s i s undertaken, the r e s u l t s c e r t a i n l y
cannot be c o n s i d e r e d r e l i a b l e by themselves. T h i s i s p a r t i c u -
l a r l y u n f o r t u n a t e because p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h has i s o l a t e d the
C a e s a r e a n t e x t o n l y i n Mark.
These c a v e a t s n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , the e v i d e n c e from Mark can
be combined w i t h t h a t from the o t h e r G o s p e l s t o p r o v i d e an
aggregate p i c t u r e of Didymus's Gospel t e x t . As T a b l e I V
demonstrates (p. 203), Mark's minor r o l e i n t h i s t o t a l p i c t u r e
i s b a s i c a l l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the major r o l e s p l a y e d by the
o t h e r G o s p e l s .
T a b l e I V
W i t n e s s e s Ranked According t o P r o p o r t i o n a l Agreement With
Didymus i n G e n e t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n i n Mark
1. 10/10 (100%)
2. B 9/10 (90.0%)
3 . 892 9/10 (90.0%)
4. L 9/10 (90.0%)
5. C 6/7 (85.7%)
6. UBS 8/10 (80.0%)
7.
A 8/10 (80.0%)
8. K 7/10 (70.0%)
9. e 7/10 (70.0%)
10. n 6/10 (60.0%)
11. fam 13 6/10 (60.0%)
12. 579 6/10 (60.0%)
13. TR 5/10 (50.0%)
14. A 5/10 (50.0%)
15. E 5/10 (50.0%)
16.
f i 5/10 (50.0%)
17. 33 5/10 (50.0%)
18. 1241 5/10 (50.0%)
19. b 5/10 (50.0%)
20. D 4/10 (40.0%)
21. W 4/10 (40.0%)
22. fam 1 4/10 (40.0%)
23. a 3/9 (33.3%)
24. k 1/3 (33.3%)
25. e 0/1 (0.0%)
Didymus a l i g n s most f r e q u e n t l y w i t h A l e x a n d r i a n w i t -
n e s s e s , l e a s t f r e q u e n t l y w i t h Western. The p e c u l i a r a l i g n m e n t s
of some MSS (e.g. MS 33) d e r i v e only from t h e extreme s p a r s i t y
of t h e d a t a . I n v i e w of t h i s problem, t h e r e i s no r e a s o n to
a n a l y z e Didymus's t e x t of Mark any f u r t h e r a t t h i s s t a g e .
Didymus's A f f i n i t i e s i n Luke
The d a t a f o r Didymus's t e x t of Luke a r e c o n s i d e r a b l y more
p r o m i s i n g . As can be seen i n the c r i t i c a l a p p a r a t u s , Didymus
quotes and a l l u d e s t o Luke e x t e n s i v e l y . A c o l l a t i o n of t h e
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i t n e s s e s i n t h e s e r e f e r e n c e s r e v e a l s 125 u n i t s
of v a r i a t i o n . S i g n i f i c a n t l y , the q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s s e t
f o r t h i n T a b l e V demonstrates t e x t u a l alignments comparable t o
t h o s e a l r e a d y found i n Matthew.
T a b l e V
W i t n e s s e s Ranked A c c o r d i n g t o P r o p o r t i o n a l Agreements With
Didymus i n G e n e t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n i n Luke
3
1. UBS 91/125 (72. 8%)
2 .
H
88/123 (71. 5%)
3. B 89/125 (71. 2%)
4. L 88/125 (70. ,4%)
5. fam 1 87/124 (70.2%)
6. 579 85/122 (69. 7%)
75
85/122 (69. 7%)
7. P 56/81 (69. ,1%)
8. 892 85/125 (68. ,0%)
9. 33 83/124 (66. 9%)
10.
80/125 (64. ,0%)
11. fam 13 80/125 (64. 0%)
12. 6 79/124 (63. ,7%)
13 . n 78/125 (62 . ,4%)
14. A 77/124 (62. ,1%)
15. C 27/45 (60. , 0%)
16. 1241 75/125 (60. , 0%)
17 . A 74/124 (59. .7%)
18. W 72/124 (58. .1%)
19. TR 71/125 (56, .8%)
20.
a
69/122 (56, .6%)
21. b 3 6/86 (41, .9%)
22. a 39/94 (41, .5%)
23 . D 46/120 (38 .3%)
24 . e 30/92 (32 .6%)
As i n Matthew, Didymus's t e x t of Luke s t a n d s c l o s e s t t o
t h e A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s and f u r t h e s t from the Western.
Between t h e s e b l o c k s of w i t n e s s e s s t a n d the B y z a n t i n e and
C a e s a r e a n MSS i n random order. There i s , once a g a i n , c o n s i -
d e r a b l e d i s p a r i t y among t h e Western w i t n e s s e s t h e m s e l v e s .
Only t h r e e unexpected alignments o c c u r h e r e : fam 1, which
f a l l s i n the midst of the A l e x a n d r i a n group, undoubtedly
because of t h e c u r i o u s i n f u s i o n of A l e x a n d r i a n r e a d i n g s
11
throughout i t s t e x t ; c, which i s h i g h l y fragmentary i n Luke,
p r e s e r v i n g only 45/125 u n i t s of v a r i a t i o n ; and, once a g a i n ,
1241, whose t e x t u a l c h a r a c t e r i s becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y
s u s p e c t .
When the MS support f o r Didymus's t e x t i n Luke i s broken
down by t e x t - t y p e s , the r e l a t i o n s h i p s c h a r t e d i n T a b l e VI
r e s u l t . ( I n view of i t s p e c u l i a r alignments, 1241 i s once
a g a i n not counted among the A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s ) .
T a b l e VI
P r o p o r t i o n a l Agreements With Didymus Arranged
By T e x t u a l Group i n Luke
EARLY ALEXANDRIAN:
3
UBS 91 34
75
P 56 25
K 88 35
B 89 36
T o t a l s 324 130 71.4%
3
T o t a l s w/o UBS 233 96 70.8%
i i
See Metzger, Text, p. 215.
12
See pp. 193, 212.
T a b l e V I ( c o n t . )
LATE ALEXANDRIAN:
C 27 18
L 88 37
W (1:1-8:12) 18 15
f 80 45
33 83 41
579 85 37
892 85 40
T o t a l s 466 233 66.7%
W/ O UBS ) 699 329 68.0%
CAESAKEAN:
8 79 45
fam 1 87 37
fam 13 80 45
T o t a l s 246 127 66.0%
BYZANTINE:
TR 71 54
A 77 47
W (8:13-24:53) 54 37
A 74 50
n 78 47
Q 69 53
T o t a l s 423 288 59.5%
T o t a l s W/ O TR 352 234 60.1%
WESTERN:
D 46 74
a 39 55
b 36 50
e 30 62
T o t a l s 151 241 38.5%
Here the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the groups t o Didymus a r e even
more c l e a r - c u t t h a n i n Matthew. Didymus a g r e e s w i t h the
A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s i n 68% of a l l v a r i a n t s , w i t h a gap of
+8% between t h i s group and the B y z a n t i n e . Of the A l e x a n d r i a n
subgroups, Didymus s t a n d s c l o s e r t o the e a r l i e r , w i t h a r e s -
p e c t a b l e 71.4% agreement. As a l r e a d y i n t i m a t e d , t h e Caesarean
agreement (66.0%) i s h i g h e r t h a n would be expected because of
t h e e x t e n s i v e agreement of fam 1 w i t h Didymus. E x c l u d i n g fam
1 from the t a b u l a t i o n would drop the C a e s a r e a n t o t a l more than
two p e r c e n t a g e p o i n t s ( t o 6 3 . 9 % ) . The Western w i t n e s s e s , on
the o t h e r hand, agree w i t h Didymus i n an a s t o n i s h i n g l y low
38.5% of a l l v a r i a t i o n . Thus, once a g a i n , Didymus i s seen t o
p r e s e r v e a predominantly A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t f a r removed from
Western i n f l u e n c e .
Didymus's A f f i n i t i e s i n John
Didymus quotes John more e x t e n s i v e l y t h a n any o t h e r Gos-
p e l . C o l l a t i o n s of h i s q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s a g a i n s t the
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i t n e s s e s r e v e a l 128 u n i t s of v a r i a t i o n . The
p r o p o r t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h e r e b y uncovered a r e s e t f o r t h i n
T a b l e V I I (p. 2 0 8 ) .
One i s immediately s t r u c k by the f a i l u r e of the q u a n t i t a -
t i v e a n a l y s i s t o i s o l a t e group support f o r Didymus's t e x t i n
John. F o r the most p a r t , the c l e a r p a t t e r n s of t e x t u a l a l i g n -
ment found i n t h e S y n o p t i c s s i m p l y do not o c c u r h e r e . The
o n l y e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n i s , n o t a b l y , the Western
group. These w i t n e s s e s a g a i n form a c l e a r b l o c k a t the end of
t h e l i s t , s u p p o r t i n g Didymus i n 50% or l e s s of a l l v a r i a t i o n .
P a r t i c u l a r l y noteworthy i s the d i v e r s i t y of the A l e x a n d r i a n
a t t e s t a t i o n . S e v e r a l L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s head the l i s t
(33, C, L ) , although t h e i r d i s t a n c e from l e a d i n g c a e s a r e a n and
B y z a n t i n e w i t n e s s e s (fam 13, fam 1, 2) i s n e g l i g i b l e . F u r -
thermore, o t h e r A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s a r e found s c a t t e r e d
75
throughout t h e l i s t (note P w i t h 59.6% agreement and 892
w i t h 5 7 . 0 % ) . Nor can any u n i f o r m i t y be found among the Byz-
a n t i n e w i t n e s s e s . Codex S r a n k s seve-ith on the l i s t , removed
o n l y 0.3% from Didymus's c l o s e s t A l e x a n d r i a n a l l i e s , w h i l e
codex A r a n k s n i n e t e e n t h . Even more s t r i k i n g i s the c o n s i s -
t e n t l y even d i s t r i b u t i o n of w i t n e s s e s . The o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t
break between i n d i v i d u a l w i t n e s s e s o c c u r s between 892 and b,
t h a t i s , a t the b e g i n n i n g of the Western group. When the
Western w i t n e s s e s a r e excluded, Didymus's c l o s e s t a l l y i s
s e p a r a t e d from t h e most d i s t a n t by o n l y 11%.
T a b l e V I I
W i t n e s s e s Ranked A c c o r d i n g t o P r o p o r t i o n a l Agreement With
Didymus I n G e n e t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n i n John
1. 33 87/128 (68. 0%)
2. C 36/54 (66. ,7%)
3. L 83/128 (64. .8%)
4. fam 13 83/128 (64. ,8%)
5. UBS 82/128 (64. .1%)
6 . fam 1 82/128 (64. ,1%)
7. 81/127 (63. ,8%)
66
81/127 (63. ,8%)
8.
P
77/121 (63. ,6%)
9. B 81/128 (63. .3%)
10. 579 81/128 (63. ,3%)
11. A 64/102 (62, .7%)
12. 80/128 (62, .5%)
13. W 66/106 (62. ,3%)
14. 1241 77/124 (62, ,1%)
15. TR 79/128 (61, .7%)
75
79/128 (61, .7%)
16.
P
59/99 (59, ,6%)
17. e 76/128 (59, .4%)
18. n 76/128 (59, .4%)
19. A 75/127 (59. .1%)
20. K 73/128
(57.
.0%)
21. 892 49/86 (57. ,0%)
22. b 51/102 (50, ,0%)
23. a 50/103 (48. ,5%)
24. D 53/117 (45 .3%)
25. e 45/103 (43, .7%)
The c l o s e p r o x i m i t y of a l l the w i t n e s s e s t o Didymus i n
John can be seen even more c l e a r l y when the a l i g n m e n t s a r e
arranged a c c o r d i n g t o t e x t - t y p e s , as i s done i n T a b l e V I I I .
T a b l e V I I I
P r o p o r t i o n a l Agreements With Didymus Arranged
By T e x t u a l Group i n John
EARLY ALEXANDRIAN:
UBS
66
P
75
P
82
77
59
46
44
40
K (8:39-21:25) 43 31
B 81 47
T o t a l s 342 208 62. ,2%
T o t a l s w/o UBS 260 162 61. .6%
LATE ALEXANDRIAN:
C 36 18
L 83 45
W 66 40
f 80 48
33 87 41
579 81
47
892 49 37
1241 77 47
T o t a l s 559 323 63, .4%
(Average A l e x a n d r i a n ) 901 531 62, .9%
w/o UBS ) 819 485 62, .8%
T a b l e V I I I (oont.)
CAESAREAN:
6 76 52
fam 1 82 46
fam 13 83 45
T o t a l s 241 143 62.8%
BYZANTINE:
TR 79 49
A 64 38
A 75 52
n 76 52
ffl 81 46
T o t a l s 375 237 61.3%
T o t a l s w/o TR 296 188 61.2%
WESTERN:
K (1:1-8:38) 30 24
D 53 64
a 50 53
b 51 51
e 45 58
T o t a l s 229 250 47.8%
Once a g a i n , t h e Western w i t n e s s e s s t a n d a c o n s i d e r a b l e
d i s t a n c e from the o t h e r groups. N o n e t h e l e s s , they support
Didymus somewhat more f r e q u e n t l y than i n Matthew and Luke.
Even more s i g n i f i c a n t l y , the A l e x a n d r i a n , B y z a n t i n e , and
C a e s a r e a n w i t n e s s e s , taken as groups, v a r y from one another by
o n l y 1.6%. One i s tempted t o draw the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Didymus
r e p r e s e n t s a thoroughly "mixed" form of t e x t i n John, a t e x t
t h a t i s not d i s t i n c t i v e l y l i k e any one of the groups but t h a t
r e p r e s e n t s a combination of t e x t forms throughout t h e Gospel.
T h i s would account f o r both the uneven A l e x a n d r i a n support and
the c o n s i s t e n t l y even d i s t r i b u t i o n of w i t n e s s e s .
Such a c o n c l u s i o n , however, would be premature a t t h i s
s t a g e . F i r s t i t must be determined whether t h e s e a f f i l i a t i o n s
apply t o t h e whole of Didymus's t e x t of John, or whether,
i n s t e a d , d i f f e r e n t t e x t u a l a l i g n m e n t s o c c u r i n d i f f e r e n t por-
t i o n s of t e x t . A p e r u s a l of the c r i t i c a l a p p a r a t u s of John
s u g g e s t s t h a t Didymus's t e x t i s predominantly A l e x a n d r i a n
through John 6:46. But b e g i n n i n g w i t h John 6:47 one n o t i c e s a
l e s s c o n s i s t e n t a t t e s t a t i o n of A l e x a n d r i a n r e a d i n g s .
These i m p r e s s i o n s demand s t a t i s t i c a l v e r i f i c a t i o n . T a b l e
I X shows t h e a l i g n m e n t s of t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i t n e s s e s b e f o r e
John 6:47.
T a b l e I X
W i t n e s s e s Ranked According t o P r o p o r t i o n a l Agreement With
Didymus I n G e n e t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n i n John 1:1-6:46
1. C
3
14/17 (82, .4%)
2. UBS 31/40 (77. .5%)
3. B 30/40 (75. .0%)
4. 33 30/40 (75 .0%)
66
30/40 (75 .0%)
5.
P
28/38 (73 .7%)
6. 29/40 (72 .5%)
75
29/40 (72 .5%)
7.
P
26/37 (70 .3%)
8. L 28/40 (70 .0%)
9. 579 27/40 (67 .5%)
10. fam 13 27/40 (67 .5%)
11. fam 1 26/40 (65 .0%)
12.
6
26/40 (65 .0%)
13. A 25/40 (62 .5%)
14.
a 24/39 (61 .5%)
15. TR 24/40 (60 .0%)
16. 24/40 (60 .0%)
17. 892 24/40 (60 .0%)
18. n 23/40 (57 .5%)
19.
K
23/40 (57 .5%)
20. w 12/21 (57 .1%)
21. 1241 21/37 (56 .8%)
22. b 16/30 (53 .3%)
23. e 14/32 (43 .8%)
24. D 12/30 (40 .0%)
25. a 12/31 (38 .7%)
2X2/ Didymus and the G o s p e l s
As t h e t a b l e demonstrates, Didymus's a l i g n m e n t s f o r John
1:1-6:46 a r e s t r i k i n g l y s i m i l a r t o t h o s e a l r e a d y uncovered i n
the S y n o p t i c G o s p e l s . H i s c l o s e s t a l l i e s a r e A l e x a n d r i a n
w i t n e s s e s , most of which agree w i t h him i n more t h a n 70% of
a l l v a r i a t i o n . T h i s group i s c l o s e l y f o l l o w e d by C a e s a r e a n
w i t n e s s e s , w i t h 67.5%-65.0% agreement, and B y z a n t i n e , w i t h
62.5%-57.5%. The Western r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f a l l t o the bottom
of t h e l i s t and e v i d e n c e widespread d i v e r g e n c e among them-
s e l v e s (53.3%-36.7% agreement). Notable e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e s e
c l e a r alignments a r e s e v e r a l L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s which
p r o v i d e an u n e x p e c t e d l y low support f o r Didymus's t e x t : 1241,
whose t e x t u a l c h a r a c t e r has a l r e a d y come under s u s p i c i o n ;
W, whose t e x t i s known t o p r e s e r v e a c u r i o u s amount of mix-
t u r e ; and 892.
T a b l e X shows t h e alignments f o r John 1:1-6:46 by t e x t u a l
group.
P r o p o r t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s With Didymus Arranged
A c c o r d i n g t o T e x t u a l Group i n John 1:1-6:46
EARLY ALEXANDRIAN:
T a b l e X
3
31
26
28 10
11
9
B
30 10
T o t a l s
115 40 74. 2%
3
T o t a l s w/o UBS
84 31 73.0%
T a b l e X ( c o n t . )
LATE ALEXANDRIAN:
C 14 3
L 28 12
W 12 9
f 29 11
33 30 10
579 27 13
892 24 16
1241 21 16
T o t a l s 185 90 67.3%
T o t a l s w/o W
and 1241 152 65 70.0%
(Average A l e x a n d r i a n ,
w/o W, 1241) 267 105 71.8%
(Average A l e x a n d r i a n ,
W/ O W, 1241, 0BS ) 236 96 71.1%
CAESAREAN:
9 26 14
fam 1 26 14
fam 13 27 13
T o t a l s 79 41 65.8%
BYZANTINE:
TR 24 16
A 25 15
A 24 16
n 23 17
Q 24 15
T o t a l s 120 79 60.3%
T o t a l s W/ O TR 96 63 60.4%
T a b l e X ( c o n t . )
WESTERN:
N 23 17
D 12 18
a 12 19
b 16 14
e 14 18
T o t a l s 77 86 47.2%
Didymus's alignments i n John 1:1-6:46 a r e even more
c l e a r - c u t than i n Matthew and Luke. Here Didymus a g r e e s most
e x t e n s i v e l y w i t h A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s (+ 7 0 % ) , h i s agreements
w i t h the e a r l i e r s t r a n d of t h i s t r a d i t i o n b e i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y
g r e a t e r than those f o r the l a t e r . The C a e s a r e a n group i s
u n i f i e d i n i t s support, a l l y i n g w i t h Didymus somewhat l e s s
t h a t the average A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s (by 4 . 7 % ) , but somewhat
more than the average B y z a n t i n e (by 5 . 4 % ) . Once a g a i n , the
Western w i t n e s s e s a r e f a r removed from the n e x t c l o s e s t group,
s u p p o r t i n g Didymus i n o n l y 47.2% of a l l v a r i a t i o n (a drop of
13.2% from t h e B y z a n t i n e group). These d a t a f o r John 1:1-6:46
b e a r out what has a l r e a d y been shown f o r the o t h e r G o s p e l s
Didymus's t e x t i s predominantly A l e x a n d r i a n w i t h few Western
a f f i n i t i e s .
That Didymus's t e x t u a l c o n s a n g u i n i t y s h i f t s d r a m a t i c a l l y
i n the remaining p o r t i o n of the F o u r t h Gospel i s shown c l e a r l y
by T a b l e XI (p. 2 1 5 ) . Here one f i n d s even l e s s c l e a r group
a f f i l i a t i o n than i n the q u a n t i f i e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s c h a r t e d f o r
t h e whole Gospel ( s e e T a b l e V I I p. 208). A l e x a n d r i a n , Cae-
s a r e a n , and B y z a n t i n e w i t n e s s e s a r e i n t e r s p e r s e d throughout
t h e t a b l e i n a b a f f l i n g sequence. Note, f o r example, the
p o s i t i o n s of the A l e x a n d r i a n MSS 33 (second, w i t h 64.8% a g r e e -
66
ment), L ( n i n t h , w i t h 62.5%), P ( t h i r t e e n t h , w i t h 5 9 . 0 % ) , B
( s i x t e e n t h , w i t h 5 8 . 0 % ) , and P ( t w e n t y - f i r s t , w i t h 5 3 . 2 % ) !
Furthermore, the gaps between w i t n e s s e s a r e s l i g h t throughout
t h e sequence w i t h no o u t s t a n d i n g b r e a k i n g p o i n t s , even between
T a b l e X I
W i t n e s s e s Ranked A c c o r d i n g to P r o p o r t i o n a l Agreement w i t h
Didymus I n G e n e t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n i n John 6:47-21:25
1.
a
57/88 (64. ,8%)
2. 33 57/88 (64. ,8%)
3. 1241 56/87 (64. ,4%)
4. fam 1 56/88 (63. ,6%)
5. fam 13 56/88 (63. , 6%)
6. W 54/85 (63. ,5%)
7. A 39/62 (62. .9%)
8. TR 55/88 (62. ,5%)
9. L 55/88 (62. ,5%)
10. 579 54/88 (61. ,4%)
11.
n 53/88 (60. ,2%)
12. c 22/37
(59.
,5%)
66
22/37
(59.
,5%)
13.
P
49/83 (59. .0%)
14.
3
51/87 (58.6%)
15. UBS 51/88 (58. .0%)
16. B 51/88 (58. .0%)
17. 51/88 (58. .0%)
18. 9 50/88 (56, .8%)
19. H 50/88 (56, .8%)
20. 892 25/46 (54 .3%)
75
25/46 (54 .3%)
21.
P
33/62 (53 .2%)
22. a 38/72 (52, .8%)
23. b 35/72 (48 . 6%)
24. D 41/87 (47, .1%)
25. e 31/71 (43 .7%)
t h e Western w i t n e s s e s and t h e r e s t . These o b s e r v a t i o n s add up
t o an i n e v i t a b l e c o n c l u s i o n : from John 6:47 t o t h e end of the
Gospel, Didymus's t e x t cannot be counted as predominantly
A l e x a n d r i a n , or, f o r t h a t matter, as predominantly r e l a t e d to
any of the s t a n d a r d t e x t - t y p e s . I t i s a h i g h l y e c l e c t i c t e x t
i n which v a r i a n t s from each of t h e s e v e r a l t r a d i t i o n s ( l e a s t .
of c o u r s e , from the Western) a r e r e p r e s e n t e d i n random
f a s h i o n .
T h i s c o n c l u s i o n can be borne out by c o n s i d e r i n g the group
support f o r Didymus's t e x t i n John 6:47-21:25.
P r o p o r t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s To Didymus Arranged
A c c o r d i n g To T e x t u a l Group i n John 6:47-21:25
EARLY ALEXANDRIAN:
UBS 51 37
66
P 49 34
75
P 33 29
K (8:39-21:25) 43 31
B 51 33
T o t a l s 227 164 58.1%
T o t a l s w/o UBS 176 127 58. 1%
LATE ALEXANDRIAN:
C 22 15
L 55 33
W 54 31
51 37
33 57 31
579 54 34
892 25 21
1241 56 31
T o t a l s 374 233 61.6%
w/o UBS ) 550 360 60. 4%
Although John 20:19 i s the l a s t v e r s e of the Gospel t h a t
Didymus quotes, i t w i l l be assumed t h a t h i s t e x t u a l a f f i n i t i e s
remain c o n s t a n t t o the end of the Gospel.
CAESAEEAN:
e 50 38
fam 1 56 32
fam 13 56 32
T o t a l s 162 102 61. 4%
BYZANTINE:
TR 55 33
A
39 23
A
51 36
n 53 35
a 57 31
T o t a l s 255 158 61. ,7%
T o t a l s w/o TR 200 125 61. ,5%
WESTERN:
K (6:47-8:38) 7 7
D
41 46
a 38 34
b 35 37
e 31 40
T o t a l s 152 164 48, . 1%
T h i s t a b u l a t i o n v a l i d a t e s the o b s e r v a t i o n s made p r e -
v i o u s l y on the b a s i s of the support of i n d i v i d u a l w i t n e s s e s .
The Western group i s f u r t h e s t removed from Didymus's t e x t ,
s t a n d i n g 10.0% behind the next n e a r e s t group (the E a r l y
A l e x a n d r i a n ! ) . The o t h e r t e x t - t y p e s s t a n d extremely c l o s e
t o g e t h e r , w i t h no more than 1.1% v a r i a n c e among them when the
TR and UBS a r e not counted. What t h i s must i n d i c a t e i s the
h i g h l y e c l e c t i c c h a r a c t e r of Didymus's t e x t i n the l a t t e r p a r t
of the F o u r t h Gospel. Here Didymus does not support any one
of the groups p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l h i s t e x t has not become
predominantly Western or B y z a n t i n e , f o r example. I n s t e a d the
d i s t i n c t i v e l y A l e x a n d r i a n c h a r a c t e r of h i s t e x t has simply
g i v e n way t o elements of the o t h e r t r a d i t i o n s . Now Didymus i s
seen t o r e p r e s e n t a thoroughly "mixed" t e x t . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n
w i l l be borne out by a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of Didymus's support of
group r e a d i n g s i n Chapter V.
B e f o r e t u r n i n g t o such a c o n s i d e r a t i o n , however, i t may
be u s e f u l t o s e t f o r t h Didymus's t e x t u a l r e l a t i o n s f o r h i s
e n t i r e Gospel t e x t . T h i s i n v o l v e s a simple t a b u l a t i o n of the
f i g u r e s a l r e a d y s e t f o r t h f o r each of t h e Gospels i n d i v i d u a l l y
( T a b l e X I I I ) .
T a b l e X I I I
P r o p o r t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s t o Didymus Arranged According
To T e x t u a l Grouping f o r A l l Four G o s p e l s
Matthew Mark Luke John T o t a l s
EARLY ALEXANDRIAN
UBS 111/163 8/10 91/125 82/128 292/426 68. 5%
DO
P
7 R
77/121 77/121 63. 6%
/ 3
P
56/81 59/99 115/180 63. 9%
K 106/162 7/10 88/123 43/74 244/369 66. 1%
B 105/163 9/10 89/125 81/128 284/426 66. 7%
T o t a l E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n :
1012/1522 66.5%
LATE ALEXANDRIAN
C 80/123 6/7 27/45 36/54 149/229 65. 1%
L 104/157 9/10 88/125 83/128 284/420 67. ,6%
W 18/33 66/106 84/139 60. ,4%
A
8/10 8/10 80. , 0%
10/10 80/125 80/128 170/263 64. .6%
33 108/163 5/10 83/124 87/128 283/425 66. .6%
579 6/10 85/122 81/128 172/260 66 .2%
892 106/161 9/10 85/125 49/86 249/382 65 .2%
1241 (72/134) 5/10 (75/125) 77/124 229/393 58 .3%
T o t a l L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n ( i n c l u d i n g 1241) 1628/2521 64
.6%
Average A l e x a n d r i a n 2627/4023 65, .3%
T a b l e X I I I ( c o n t . )
CAESAREAN
6 88/159 7/10 79/124 76/128 250/421 59.4%
fam 1 98/163 4/10 87/124 82/128 271/425 63.8%
fa 13 100/163 6/10 80/125 83/128 269/426 63.1%
T o t a l C a e s a r e a n : 790/1272 62.1%
BYZANTINE
59.6%
63.3%
60.7%
56.3%
59.4%
61.5%
60.6%
T o t a l B y z a n t i n e : 1426/2368 60.2%
TR 99/163 5/10 71/125 79/128 254/426
A (16/20) 5/10 77/124 64/102 162/256
E 100/163 5/10 105/173
W 88/161 54/91 142/252
A
97/163 74/124 75/127 246/414
n
102/163 6/10 78/125 76/128 262/426
a
100/162 5/10 69/122 81/127 255/421
WESTERN
K 30/54 30/54 55.6%
D 62/132 4/10 46/120 53/117 165/379 43.5%
W 2/3 2/3 66.7%
a 60/130 3/9 39/94 50/103 152/336 45.2%
b 54/127 5/10 36/86 51/102 146/325 44.9%
e 24/46 0/1 30/92 45/103 99/242 40.9%
K 32/76 1/3 33/79 41.8%
T o t a l Western: 627/1418 44.2%
These f i g u r e s show the c l e a r A l e x a n d r i a n a f f i n i t i e s of
Didymus's t e x t , but they cannot be a c c e p t e d w i t h o u t r e s e r v a -
t i o n i n view of t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s made p r e v i o u s l y i n t h i s
c h a p t e r . Three adjustments must be made b e f o r e the q u a n t i t a -
t i v e a n a l y s i s r e f l e c t s Didymus's t e x t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s a s
a c c u r a t e l y a s p o s s i b l e : (1) Didymus's t e x t of t h e l a t t e r
p o r t i o n of John, b e g i n n i n g w i t h John 6:47, must be s e p a r a t e d
o f f from t h e r e s t of h i s Gospel t e x t ; (2) MSS 1241 and W, i n
view of t h e i r c u r i o u s l y v a r i e g a t e d t e x t s , s h o u l d be removed
from the a n a l y s i s ; and (3) UBS and TR, which a r e not,
s t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g , r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of any t e x t - t y p e , s h o u l d be
l e f t out of c o n s i d e r a t i o n . - When t h e s e changes a r e made t h e
r e s u l t s appear c o n c l u s i v e ( T a b l e X I V ) .
P r o p o r t i o n a l Agreement With Didymus Arranged A c c o r d i n g
To T e x t Group i n Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John 1:1-6:46
66 75
EARLY ALEXANDRIAN: P ( J n . ) , P (Lk., J n . ) , K (Mt., Mk, L k ) , B
Matthew 211/325 64.9%
Mark 16/20 80. 0%
Luke 233/329 70.8%
J n . 1:1-6:46 84/115 73.0%
T o t a l s 544/789 68.9%
LATE ALEXANDRIAN: C, L, A (Mk.), (Mk., Lk, J n . ) , 33,
579 (Mk., Lk., J n . ) , 892
Matthew 398/604 65.9%
Mark 53/67 79.1%
Luke 448/666 67.3%
J n . 1:1-6:46 152/217 70.0%
T o t a l s 1051/1554 67.6%
Average A l e x a n d r i a n 1595/2343 681%
CAESAREAN: 6 ; fam 1; fam 13
Matthew 286/485 59.0%
Mark 17/30 56.7%
Luke 246/373 66.0%
J n . 1:1-6:46 79/120 65.8%
T o t a l s 628/1008 62.3%
BYZANTINE: A; E (Mt., Mk.); A (Mt., Lk., J n . ) ; H;
Matthew 415/671 61.8%
Mark 21/40 52.5%
Luke 298/495 60.2%
J n . 1:1-6:46 96/159 60.4%
T o t a l s 830/1365 60.8%
T a b l e XIV ( c o n t . )
WESTERN: N ( J n . ) ; D; W (MX.); a; b; e; k (Mt. , Mk.)
Matthew 232/511 45. .4%
Mark 13/33 39. .4%
Luke 151/392 38. .5%
J n . 1:1-6:46 77/163 47. .2%
T o t a l s 473/1099 43. .0%
These q u a n t i f i e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r Didymus's Gospel t e x t
up to John 6:46 can p r o f i t a b l y be compared w i t h those a l r e a d y
s e t f o r t h f o r J n . 6:47-21:25 ( T a b l e XV: UBS , TR, W, and
1241 a r e not c o n s i d e r e d . )
T a b l e XV
Comparison of Support f o r Didymus Among T e x t u a l Groups
I n the L a t t e r P a r t of John
T o t a l s f o r Mt., Mk., Lk., J n . 6:47-21:25
and J n . 1:1-6:46
E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n : 68.9% 58.1%
L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n 67.6% 60.7%
(Average A l e x a n d r i a n ) 68.1% 59.6%
C a e s a r e a n 62.3% 61.4%
B y z a n t i n e 60.8% 61.5%
Western 43.0% 48.1%
T h i s comparison demonstrates on a broader s c a l e what had
a l r e a d y been shown from John's Gospel i t s e l f : a s h i f t i n
c o n s a n g u i n i t y o c c u r s i n Didymus's t e x t of J n . 6:47-21:25. The
e c l e c t i c c h a r a c t e r of t h i s p o r t i o n of t e x t i s s e e n p a r t i c u -
l a r l y i n the remarkable absence of c l e a r - c u t group support f o r
or a g a i n s t Didymus: the L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n , Caesarean, and Byz-
a n t i n e groups a l l f a l l w i t h i n one p e r c e n t a g e p o i n t of each
o t h e r . Only the w e s t e r n w i t n e s s e s s t a n d a t some d i s t a n c e from
Didymus's t e x t , although even t h i s group s t a n d s c l o s e r t o
Didymus here than i n any o t h e r p o r t i o n of t h e G o s p e l s .
Some p r e l i m i n a r y c o n c l u s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g Didymus*s t e x t of
t h e G o s p e l s can be drawn from t h i s q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s . I t
was argued above t h a t t o be c l a s s i f i e d as a group member, a
P a t r i s t i c w i t n e s s must m a i n t a i n no l e s s than a 65% r e l a t i o n -
s h i p w i t h members of a group, w i t h a t l e a s t 6-8% d i s t a n c e
between groups. T h i s i s p r e c i s e l y what i s found i n the
c a s e of Didymus. F o r most of h i s Gospel q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u -
s i o n s , Didymus s t a n d s as a c l e a r w i t n e s s t o t h e A l e x a n d r i a n
t e x t . He b e a r s a p a r t i c u l a r l y c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the e a r l y
s t r a n d of t h i s t r a d i t i o n , though the d i s t a n c e between the
E a r l y and L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s i s not s t r i k i n g ( 1 . 3 % ! ) .
Didymus's t e x t b e a r s no p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o e i t h e r
t h e B y z a n t i n e or the s o - c a l l e d Caesarean t e x t . T h i s o b s e r v a -
t i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t p r i m a r i l y f o r i t s n e g a t i v e i m p l i c a t i o n s :
(1) Didymus cannot be used t o shed l i g h t on t h e h i s t o r y of the
C a e s a r e a n t e x t , which some have thought o r i g i n a t e d i n h i s own
home town some 150 y e a r s e a r l i e r ; and (2) h i s t e x t cannot be
used t o i s o l a t e a p r o t o - B y z a n t i n e t e x t i n f o u r t h - c e n t u r y
A l e x a n d r i a .
Of f u r t h e r s i g n i f i c a n c e i s Didymus's g r e a t d i s t a n c e from
the Western w i t n e s s e s . Although the Western t e x t d i d e x e r t
some i n f l u e n c e over the A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n i n Didymus's
17
day, t h i s i n f l u e n c e a p p a r e n t l y had no e f f e c t on Didymus
h i m s e l f .
These p r e l i m i n a r y c o n c l u s i o n s can be expanded and sup-
p o r t e d by t h e c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e a f f o r d e d by an examina-
t i o n of Didymus's a t t e s t a t i o n of group r e a d i n g s . Such an
examination w i l l be made i n the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r .
See pp. 195-202 above.
Chapter V
The Gospel T e x t of Didymus: Group P r o f i l e s
Up t o t h i s p o i n t , Didymus's t e x t u a l a f f i n i t i e s have been
determined s t r i c t l y by comparing h i s t e x t w i t h i n d i v i d u a l
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the known t e x t - t y p e s . With t h i s emphasis
on i n d i v i d u a l MSS, no a t t e n t i o n has been p a i d t o Didymus's
support f o r r e a d i n g s t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h the v a r i o u s t e x t u a l
groups. Y e t t h i s k i n d of support i s e q u a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ,
s i n c e Didymus can s c a r c e l y be c l a s s i f i e d a s a good A l e x a n d r i a n
w i t n e s s u n l e s s he p r e s e r v e s p r i m a r i l y A l e x a n d r i a n group r e a d -
i n g s . Thus i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o supplement t h e p r e c e d i n g quan-
t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s w i t h a comprehensive e x a m i n a t i o n of Didy-
mus's r e l a t i o n s h i p to r e a d i n g s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of d i f f e r e n t
t e x t u a l groups.
Over the p a s t t h i r t y y e a r s , s e v e r a l p r o p o s a l s have been
made f o r t h e a n a l y s i s of group r e a d i n g s . None o f ^ t h e s e propo-
s a l s has r e c e i v e d widespread c r i t i c a l a c c e p t a n c e . Most
T a k i n g h i s l e a d from E. A. Hutton's A t l a s of T e x t u a l
C r i t i c i s m (Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1911), E. C. C o l w e l l
was the f i r s t t o make a t r u l y s y s t e m a t i c p r o p o s a l . To d e t e r -
mine the p o s s i b i l i t y of group a f f i l i a t i o n p r i o r t o the q u a n t i -
t a t i v e a n a l y s i s , C o l w e l l suggested t a b u l a t i n g a w i t n e s s ' s
support of " m u l t i p l e r e a d i n g s . " " M u l t i p l e r e a d i n g s " were n a r -
rowly d e f i n e d a s r e a d i n g s " i n which the minimum support f o r
each of a t l e a s t t h r e e v a r i a n t forms of the t e x t i s e i t h e r one
of the major s t r a n d s of the t r a d i t i o n , or the support of a
p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d group..., or t h e support of some one of
the a n c i e n t v e r s i o n s . . . , or the support of some s i n g l e manu-
s c r i p t of a d m i t t e d l y d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r " ("Method i n L o c a t -
i n g , " 2 7 - 2 8 ) . To demonstrate the r e l a t i o n s h i p t h u s i n d i c a t e d ,
C o l w e l l proposed c o n s i d e r i n g the document's a t t e s t a t i o n of the
unique r e a d i n g s of the group.
C o l w e l l had hoped t h a t the i n i t i a l a n a l y s i s of m u l t i p l e
r e a d i n g s would save time i n making a p r e l i m i n a r y judgment of
a document's t e x t u a l a f f i n i t i e s . But such an a s s e s s m e n t would
save time only i f l i s t s of m u l t i p l e r e a d i n g s were r e a d i l y
a v a i l a b l e , which they a r e not. And w h i l e a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of
s i n g u l a r r e a d i n g s w i l l i n d i c a t e primary group members, such
r e a d i n g s a r e p r a c t i c a l l y u s e l e s s f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g secondary
membership, s i n c e they a r e t y p i c a l l y t h e f i r s t t o be a s s i m i -
l a t e d by mixture w i t h r e a d i n g s of o t h e r groups. Furthermore,
n e i t h e r of t h e s e i n i t i a l s t e p s can i n d i c a t e what must be
e s t a b l i s h e d by a thorough q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s i n any c a s e
v i z . how c l o s e l y a document r e l a t e s t o a l l o t h e r s i n t o t a l
v a r i a t i o n . F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s many subsequent r e s e a r c h e r s
bypassed C o l w e l l ' s f i r s t two s t e p s . Other r e s e a r c h e r s , how-
223
have f a i l e d to match t h e l e v e l of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n a c h i e v e d by
t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s of i n d i v i d u a l MSS; o t h e r s have
r e p r e s e n t e d ad hoc c r e a t i o n s not a p p l i c a b l e t o a wide range of
3
t e x t u a l w i t n e s s e s . Not even the Claremont P r o f i l e Method
e v e r , r e f r a i n e d from making an a n a l y s i s of group r e a d i n g s
u n t i l b a s i c t e x t u a l a f f i l i a t i o n had been e s t a b l i s h e d by the
c l e a r e s t means p o s s i b l e , the q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s . As w i l l
be seen s h o r t l y , t h i s l a t t e r approach i s t o be p r e f e r r e d . An
assessment o f group r e a d i n g s w i l l not save time, a s C o l w e l l
a n t i c i p a t e d , but i t can s e r v e t o c l a r i f y and r e f i n e the
f i n d i n g s of a p u r e l y q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s . For a f u l l e r
t r e a t m e n t of t h i s i s s u e , see my a r t i c l e "The Use of Group
P r o f i l e s f o r the C l a s s f i c a t i o n of NT Documentary E v i d e n c e , "
JBL. forthcoming.
2
T h i s i s t r u e , e.g., of the p r o f i l e method used by
C a r r o l l Osburn i n h i s o t h e r w i s e v a l u a b l e study, "The Text of
the P a u l i n e E p i s t l e s i n H i p p o l y t u s of Rome," The Second Cen-
t u r y 2 (1982) 97-124. For t h i s a n a l y s i s Osburn used E . A.
Hutton's e a r l i e r method of " T r i p l e Readings," t a b u l a t i n g Hip-
p o l y t u s 's support of r e a d i n g s a t t e s t e d u n i q u e l y by members of
one o f the t h r e e major t e x t - t y p e s . The problems of such an
approach a r e now w e l l known: i t b a s e s i t s judgments o n l y on
" d i s t i n c t i v e " r e a d i n g s (which a r e never d e f i n e d ) and does not
c o n s i d e r the r e a d i n g s " d i s t i n c t i v e " of any subgroups. T h i s
k i n d of a n a l y s i s can g i v e a v e r y b a s i c p i c t u r e of a document's
t e x t u a l a f f i n i t i e s , but nothing more. For Osburn's s t u d y t h e
method was s u f f i c i e n t t o demonstrate h i s major c o n t e n t i o n ,
t h a t H i p p o l y t u s cannot be used t o e s t a b l i s h t h e e x i s t e n c e of a
B y z a n t i n e t r a d i t i o n i n the second c e n t u r y .
Much worse i s Alexander Globe's study "The Gospel Text of
S e r a p i o n of Thmuis," NovTest, 26 (1984) 97-127. Globe's group
p r o f i l e method assumes the c r i t i c ' s a b i l i t y t o a s c e r t a i n t h e
c h a r a c t e r and provenance of t e x t u a l c o r r u p t i o n p r i o r t o the
a n a l y s i s ! That i s t o say, Western v a r i a n t s a r e c a l l e d
Western, or Caesarean v a r i a n t s Caesarean, not because they a r e
supported p r i m a r i l y by Western or C a e s a r e a n documents, but
because i n Globe's o p i n i o n , the r e a d i n g s r e p r e s e n t c o r r u p t i o n s
which o r i g i n a t e d i n the West or i n C a e s a r e a . Not i n f r e q u e n t l y
Globe makes such judgments q u i t e i n d e p e n d e n t l y of the e x t e n t
and c h a r a c t e r of the MS support f o r the r e a d i n g s , on the s l i m
b a s i s of t h e i r e a r l i e s t e x t a n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I n a c t u a l i t y ,
of c o u r s e , the e a r l i e s t o c c u r r e n c e of a v a r i a n t t e l l s us
n o t h i n g of i t s p l a c e of o r i g i n .
3
T h i s a p p l i e s to Gordon F e e ' s groundbreaking study of
t h e t e x t of John i n Origen and C y r i l ( s e e n. 7, p. 6 above).
I n t h i s a n a l y s i s Fee e s t a b l i s h e d group p r o f i l e s e m p i r i c a l l y
r a t h e r than t h e o r e t i c a l l y , t h a t i s , by d e t e r m i n i n g group
a l i g n m e n t s i n the p o r t i o n s of John p r e s e r v e d i n O r i g e n ' s and
C y r i l ' s q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s . F o r t h i s r e a s o n , the s e -
venteen t e x t u a l groupings t h a t Fee i s o l a t e d cannot be a p p l i e d
i n t h e a n a l y s i s of o t h e r w i t n e s s e s f o r d i f f e r e n t p o r t i o n s of
t e x t .
Group P r o f i l e s /225
the most i n f l u e n t i a l p r o p o s a l t o d a t e c a n be regarded a s
4
adequate f o r a thorough and i n - d e p t h a n a l y s i s . I have argued
e l s e w h e r e t h a t t h i s method i s w e l l s u i t e d f o r making a q u i c k
5
d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a document's e s s e n t i a l c o n s a n g u i n i t y . But
s i n c e i t e v a l u a t e s only one p a t t e r n of group r e a d i n g , i t f a i l s
t o c o n s i d e r enough data t o a l l o w an a c c u r a t e assessment of a
document's t e x t u a l a f f i n i t i e s . I n simple terms, t h e Claremont
P r o f i l e Method c l a s s i f i e s a MS on the b a s i s of i t s a t t e s t a t i o n
of r e a d i n g s found e x t e n s i v e l y among w i t n e s s e s of one group,
independent of a thorough q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s and i r r e s -
p e c t i v e of " d i s t i n c t i v e " r e a d i n g s , t h a t i s , r e a d i n g s p r e s e r v e d
6
e x c l u s i v e l y by members of one t e x t u a l group or another. A
f u l l and a c c u r a t e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of group a f f i l i a t i o n , however,
r e q u i r e s (1) a f u l l - s c a l e q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s which
demonstrates the document's p r o p o r t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o o t h e r
w i t n e s s e s i n t o t a l v a r i a t i o n , such as i s found i n the
For i n i t i a l s t a t e m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g the r a t i o n a l e and
a p p l i c a t i o n of the Claremont P r o f i l e Method, see Eldon J a y
Epp, "The Claremont P r o f i l e - M e t h o d f o r Grouping New Testament
Minuscule M a n u s c r i p t s , " i n S t u d i e s i n the H i s t o r y and T e x t of
t h e New Testament, ed. Boyd L. D a n i e l s and J a c k M. Suggs (SD,
29. S a l t Lake C i t y : u n i v e r s i t y of Utah P r e s s , 1967) 27-37;
E r n e s t C. C o l w e l l , P a u l R. McReynolds, I r v i n g A. Sparks, and
F r e d e r i k Wisse, "The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Greek New Testament P r o -
j e c t : A S t a t u s Report," JJ3L. 87 (1968) 187-97. The method was
d e v i s e d by McReynolds and Wisse w h i l e d o c t o r a l c a n d i d a t e s a t
Claremont Graduate S c h o o l . For f u l l s t a t e m e n t s and c o n s i s t e n t
a p p l i c a t i o n s of the method see t h e i r d i s s e r t a t i o n s : Paul R.
McReynolds, "The Claremont P r o f i l e Method and the Grouping of
B y z a n t i n e New Testament M a n u s c r i p t s " (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
Claremont Graduate S c h o o l , 1968); F r e d e r i k Wisse, "The C l a r e -
mont P r o f i l e Method f o r the C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the B y z a n t i n e
New Testament M a n u s c r i p t s : A Study i n Method" (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a -
t i o n , Claremont Graduate S c h o o l , 1968). Wisse l a t e r r e v i s e d
h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n and updated the d i s c u s s i o n i n h i s monograph
The P r o f i l e Method f o r c l a s s i f y i n g [ a n d E v a l u a t i n g Manuscript
E v i d e n c e (SD, 44. Grand R a p i d s : Eerdmans, 1982).
"The Use of Group P r o f i l e s . "
6
I b i d . Wisse's d e c i s i o n not t o apply a f u l l q u a n t i t a t i v e
a n a l y s i s and h i s r e f u s a l t o c o n s i d e r r e a d i n g s unique t o t h e
v a r i o u s groups l e d him t o make erroneous c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of
documents i n Luke. The most o u t s t a n d i n g i n s t a n c e was h i s
a s s i g n a t i o n of MSS Bezae and V a t i c a n u s t o the same group!
T h i s m i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s e a s i l y d e t e c t e d by a q u a n t i t a t i v e
a n a l y s i s .
p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r , and (2) a comprehensive e v a l u a t i o n of group
r e a d i n g s : both those p r e s e r v e d e x t e n s i v e l y among members o f a
group and t h o s e unique t o each of the groups.
Three p r e l i m i n a r y p r o f i l e s have been d e v i s e d t o p r o v i d e
such a comprehensive e v a l u a t i o n f o r t h e Gospel q u o t a t i o n s and
a l l u s i o n s of Didymus. (1) An i n t e r - g r o u p p r o f i l e i s con-
cerned w i t h r e a d i n g s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y p r e s e r v e d by w i t n e s s e s
of o n l y one of t h e known t e x t u a l groups (a c a t e g o r y not c o n s i -
dered by t h e Claremont P r o f i l e Method). Two s e t s of r e a d i n g s
a r e p r o f i l e d : those supported mainly by members of only one
group ( a s d e f i n e d s t r i c t l y below) and those supported only by
members of one group. The l a t t e r s e t of r e a d i n g s has i t s e l f
been d i v i d e d i n t o two s u b - c a t e g o r i e s : r e a d i n g s supported by
most group members (and no o t h e r w i t n e s s e s ) and those sup-
p o r t e d only by a few group members (and no o t h e r s ) . (2) An
i n t r a - g r o u p p r o f i l e i s concerned w i t h r e a d i n g s found e x t e n -
s i v e l y among members of a group, r e g a r d l e s s of how w e l l they
a r e a l s o a t t e s t e d by members of o t h e r groups. Once a g a i n two
s e t s of r e a d i n g s a r e p r o f i l e d : those supported by a j l the
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i t n e s s e s of a group and t h o s e supported by a t
l e a s t t w o - t h i r d s of t h e s e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . (3) A combination
p r o f i l e i s concerned w i t h the e x t e n t and s t r e n g t h of a r e a d -
i n g ' s a t t e s t a t i o n both w i t h i n a g i v e n group and among the
v a r i o u s groups. The r e a d i n g s p r o f i l e d under t h i s c a t e g o r y a r e
t h o s e supported by a l l or most r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of a group ( a s
determined by t h e i n t r a - g r o u p p r o f i l e ) but by few or no o t h e r
w i t n e s s e s ( a s determined by the i n t e r - g r o u p p r o f i l e ) .
I t would be h e l p f u l a t t h i s s t a g e t o d e f i n e a s narrowly
a s p o s s i b l e t h e terms used t o d e s c r i b e each of t h e s e group
r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
I n t e r - G r o u p R e l a t i o n s h i p s
D i s t i n c t i v e Readings: G e n e r a l l y , r e a d i n g s d i s t i n c t t o a
group, i . e . those s h a r e d by most group members and found i n no
o t h e r w i t n e s s e s . F o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r a n a l y s i s of Didymus,
I n t h e a r t i c l e j u s t c i t e d , I g i v e a more extended
r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e s e p r o f i l e s , and i l l u s t r a t e t h e i r s u p e r i o r i t y
w i t h the d a t a c o l l e c t e d f o r the p r e s e n t study.
d i s t i n c t i v e group r e a d i n g s have been d e f i n e d a s f o l l o w s :
D i s t i n c t i v e l y A l e x a n d r i a n : Readings found i n a t
l e a s t two E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s , h a l f
of t h e L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n , and no o t h e r s .
D i s t i n c t i v e l y Western: Readings found i n a t l e a s t
one Greek w i t n e s s and two Old L a t i n MSS (when
t h e i r w i t n e s s can be adduced) and no o t h e r s .
When t h e Old L a t i n cannot be used, r e a d i n g s
found i n two Greek w i t n e s s e s .
D i s t i n c t i v e l y C a e s a r e a n : Readings found i n a l l the
C a e s a r e a n w i t n e s s e s and no o t h e r s .
D i s t i n c t i v e l y B y z a n t i n e : Readings found i n a l l but
one of t h e B y z a n t i n e w i t n e s s e s and no o t h e r s .
E x c l u s i v e Readings: Readings found e x c l u s i v e l y among
w i t n e s s e s of one group, i . e . t h o s e s h a r e d by a t l e a s t two
group members and no o t h e r s ( e x c l u d i n g d i s t i n c t i v e r e a d i n g s ) .
P r i m a r y Readings: Readings t h a t a r e s h a r e d by a t l e a s t
two group members and t h a t have g r e a t e r group t h a n non-group
s u p p o r t . " G r e a t e r group support" i s d e f i n e d (a) i n t h e c a s e
of "uniform" primary r e a d i n g s (see the i n t r a - g r o u p p r o f i l e
below) a s r e a d i n g s supported n e i t h e r u n i f o r m l y by another
group, nor predominantly by more than one o t h e r group, nor by
more t h a n two o t h e r groups when one of them s u p p o r t s i t p r e -
dominantly; (b) i n the c a s e of "predominant" primary r e a d i n g s
( s e e below) as r e a d i n g s supported n e i t h e r u n i f o r m l y nor p r e -
dominantly by another group; and ( c ) i n a l l o t h e r c a s e s , a s
r e a d i n g s supported by more group than non-group w i t n e s s e s .
I n t r a - G r o u p R e l a t i o n s h i p s
Uniform Readings: Readings s h a r e d by a l l group w i t n e s s e s
w i t h t e x t .
Predominant Readings: Readings s h a r e d by a t l e a s t two-
8
t h i r d s of a l l group w i t n e s s e s w i t h t e x t .
N a t u r a l l y , t o be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l
p r i n c i p l e s s k e t c h e d p r e v i o u s l y , a l l of t h e p r e c e d i n g c a t e -
g o r i e s of group w i t n e s s e s can be a p p l i e d o n l y t o u n i t s of
g e n e t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n i n which two or more of the
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i t n e s s e s agree a g a i n s t t h e r e s t . Furthermore,
i n view of t h e p r e c e d i n g q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s , i t was d e c i d e d
not t o t a k e i n t o account t h e w i t n e s s of e i t h e r W or 1241 when
I t i s now p o s s i b l e t o d e s c r i b e t h e t h r e e p r e l i m i n a r y
p r o f i l e s i n terms of t h e s e n a r r o w l y d e f i n e d group r e l a t i o n -
s h i p s . The f i r s t two p r o f i l e s a r e " s i m p l e " o n e a s c e r t a i n i n g
t h e e x t e n t t o which Didymus a t t e s t s t h e d i s t i n c t i v e , e x c l u -
s i v e , and primary r e a d i n g s of each group, t h e o t h e r determin-
i n g h i s support of uniform and predominant r e a d i n g s . The
t h i r d p r o f i l e i s "complex"showing Didymus's a t t e s t a t i o n of
r e a d i n g s which a r e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y uniform or predominant and
d i s t i n c t i v e , e x c l u s i v e , or primary.
P r o f i l e One: I n t e r - G r o u p Readings
The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e shows the frequency w i t h which Didy-
mus s u p p o r t s the d i s t i n c t i v e , e x c l u s i v e , and primary r e a d i n g s
of the f o u r major c o n t r o l groups. The f r a c t i o n s r e p r e s e n t the
number of Didymus's agreements over the t o t a l number of r e a d -
i n g s . I t was d e c i d e d t o s e p a r a t e the r e a d i n g s of John 6:47-
21:25 from the r e s t of the Gospel t e x t a s a means o f d e t e r -
mining on independent grounds whether a s h i f t of c o n s a n g u i n i t y
o c c u r s i n t h a t p o r t i o n of t e x t .
T a b l e XVI
Didymus's A t t e s t a t i o n of I n t e r - G r o u p Readings
Distinct, j,V3 Exclusive primary
Matthew
A l e x a n d r i a n : 1/2
B y z a n t i n e : 0/0
C a e s a r e a n : 0/0
Western: 0/13
4/8
0/1
0/7
3/19
9/19
5/23
6/18
11/27
Totals
14/29
5/24
6/25
14/59
Mark
A l e x a n d r i a n :
B y z a n t i n e :
C a e s a r e a n :
Western:
1/1
0/0
0/0
0/2
0/1
0/0
0/0
0/2
3/3
0/2
0/0
1/2
4/5
0/2
0/0
1/6
e s t a b l i s h i n g uniform or d i s t i n c t i v e r e a d i n g s .
T a b l e XVI (cont.)
D i s t i n c t i v e E x c l u s i v e Primary T o t a l s
Luke
A l e x a n d r i a n : 1/1 2/8 14/23 17/32
B y z a n t i n e : 0/0 0/0 2/13 2/13
C a e s a r e a n : 0/0 0/0 6/9 6/9
Western: 0/15 0/18 7/17 7/50
John 1:1-6:46
B y z a n t i n e : 0/0
C a e s a r e a n : 0/0
Western: 0/4
0/5
0/0
0/0
0/5
4/4
0/2
0/2
2/9
4/9
0/2
0/2
2/18
T o t a l s : Matthew-John 6:46
A l e x a n d r i a n : 3/4 6/22 30/49 39/75
(75.0%) (27.3%) (61.2%) (52.0%)
B y z a n t i n e : 0/0 0/1 7/40 7/41
( )
(0.0%) (17.5%) (17.1%)
C a e s a r e a n : 0/0 0/7 12/29 12/36
( " )
(0.0%) (41.4%) (33.3%)
Western: 0/34 3/44 21/55 24/133
(0.0%) (6.8%) (38.2%) (18.0%)
John 6:47-21:25
1/1
2/11 2/6 5/18
(100%) (18.2%) (33.3%) (27.8%)
B y z a n t i n e : 0/0 0/0 0/4 0/4
( " ) ( " )
(0.0%) (0.0%)
C a e s a r e a n : 0/0
1/1
0/3 1/4
(--)
(100%) (0.0%) (25.0%)
Western: 1/4 4/21 6/14 11/39
(25.0%) (19.0%) (42.9%) (28.2%)
B e f o r e e v a l u a t i n g t h e s e d a t a , i t may prove h e l p f u l t o
c o n s i d e r the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the i n t e r - g r o u p p r o f i l e i n
g e n e r a l terms. For a w i t n e s s t o be c l a s s i f i e d as a group
member, i t o b v i o u s l y must support a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of d i s -
t i n c t i v e group r e a d i n g s . The c a t e g o r y " d i s t i n c t i v e " i t s e l f ,
of c o u r s e , can be u s e f u l only when r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i t n e s s e s
have been c h o s e n s c a r c e l y e v e r do a l l w i t n e s s e s of a t e x t -
t y p e agree on a g i v e n v a r i a n t r e a d i n g . For t h i s reason, a
newly a n a l y z e d w i t n e s s cannot be expected t o agree i n every
c a s e w i t h r e a d i n g s found e x c l u s i v e l y among t h e m a j o r i t y of
a l r e a d y s e l e c t e d group r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . But what can be ex-
p e c t e d i s t h a t A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s o u t s i d e the c o n t r o l group
of KSS w i l l f r e q u e n t l y p r e s e r v e such d i s t i n c t i v e r e a d i n g s , and
t h a t r a r e l y w i l l t h e y p r e s e r v e r e a d i n g s d i s t i n c t i v e t o o t h e r
groups.
Furthermore, one would expect any group w i t n e s s t o con-
t a i n a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of e x c l u s i v e and primary
group r e a d i n g s . Here a s p e c i a l degree of c a u t i o n must be
a p p l i e d . Because t h e s e l a t t e r k i n d s of i n t e r - g r o u p r e a d i n g s
i n v o l v e group s p l i t s , w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y of group members
sometimes opposing the e x c l u s i v e or primary t e x t , one should
not be o v e r l y sanguine about e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e same p r o p o r t i o n
of agreement i n such r e a d i n g s as o b t a i n s i n a q u a n t i t a t i v e
a n a l y s i s of the i n d i v i d u a l w i t n e s s e s . That i s t o say, a 65-
70% agreement w i t h e x c l u s i v e or primary r e a d i n g s i s f a r more
t h a n can be a n t i c i p a t e d , s i n c e t h i s would i n e v i t a b l y i n v o l v e a
f r e q u e n t o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e group's m a j o r i t y t e x t . What can be
expected i s a s t r i k i n g l y h i g h e r a t t e s t a t i o n of t h e e x c l u s i v e
and primary r e a d i n g s of one group t h a n of t h o s e of t h e o t h e r s .
On t h e b a s i s of t h e s e t h e o r e t i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n s , i t should
be c l e a r t h a t p r i o r t o John 6:47, Didymus's p r o f i l e conforms
t o what one would expect of a good A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s . He
p r e s e r v e s a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of d i s t i n c t i v e l y A l e x a n d r i a n
r e a d i n g s v a r y i n g i n only one of f o u r i n s t a n c e s . Ho d i s t i n c -
Didymus's t e x t i n t h e one v a r i a n t r e a d i n g i s somewhat
u n c e r t a i n , i n v o l v i n g the p r e s e n c e of the a r t i c l e i n Matt.
25:41. Both immediately b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e r e a d i n g i n
q u e s t i o n Didymus p r e s e r v e s s i n g u l a r v a r i a n t s (omit ait' uo ;
MeHairiDauvo i f o r Kainpauevo L ) . Of t h e remaining t h r e e
i n s t a n c e s , t h e p l u r a l form ta tapaSoXcx of Mark 4:10 appears
f a i r l y c e r t a i n , although i t o c c u r s i n an a l l u s i o n , w h i l e the
d i s t i n c t i v e r e a d i n g s of Matt. 18:6 and Luke 24:49 a r e beyond
q u e s t i o n .
t i v e r e a d i n g s a r e found among the Caesarean and B y z a n t i n e
c o n t r o l groups. But t h e r e i s an i m p r e s s i v e number of d i s t i n c -
t i v e Western r e a d i n g s ( t h i r t y - f o u r ) of which Didymus
p r e s e r v e s none. T h i s s t a t i s t i c c o n f i r m s what has a l r e a d y been
shown by t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s : Didymus was b a s i c a l l y
u n a f f e c t e d by the Western t r a d i t i o n .
Furthermore, Didymus p r e s e r v e s a markedly h i g h e r propor-
t i o n of A l e x a n d r i a n e x c l u s i v e and primary r e a d i n g s than of any
o t h e r group. Didymus does not p r e s e r v e the s o l e B y z a n t i n e
e x c l u s i v e r e a d i n g , nor any of the seven Caesarean e x c l u s i v e
12 13
r e a d i n g s , and o n l y t h r e e of the f o r t y - f o u r Western. By
c o n t r a s t , he agrees w i t h A l e x a n d r i a n e x c l u s i v e r e a d i n g s i n
more than one out of every f o u r i n s t a n c e s . I n a d d i t i o n ,
15
Didymus's 61.2% agreement w i t h A l e x a n d r i a n primary r e a d i n g s
Matt. 4:4; 5:42; 10:28; 10:29; 11:21; 11:28; 15:8;
16:18; 18:22; 22:13; 24:30; 25:33; 28:19; Mark 7:6; 9:49; Luke
2:37; 8:15; 9:62; 10:20; 11:13; 11:50; 12:19; 12:20 ( 2 x ) ;
14:29; 16:23; 18:14; 19:12; 19:43; 20:25; John 1:6; 4:14;
4:28; 5:19.
11
Matt. 26:53.
12
Matt. 7:23; 7:26; 13:43; 14:21; 15:14 ( 2 x ) ; 25:16.
13
A l l t h r e e a r e from Matthew; a l l t h r e e c o n s i s t of agree-
ments w i t h Old L a t i n MSS a g a i n s t a l l o t h e r w i t n e s s e s (12:37;
21:31 [ 2 x ] ) . Western e x c l u s i v e r e a d i n g s not supported by
Didymus: Matt. 5:19; 5:42; 6:14; 7:23; 10:29; 10:34; 11:20;
12:37; 13:11 ( 2 x ) ; 13:17; 13:45; 13:47; 18:6; 26:53; 28:19;
Mark 3:17; 7:6; Luke 2:36; 5:10; 6:45; 7:41; 12:18; 12:19;
13:27; 14:29 ( 2 x ) ; 16:8; 16:25; 18:7; 18:8; 19:21; 19:42 ( 2 x ) ;
21:20; 24:32; John 1:18 ( 2 x ) ; 1:29; 3:16; 5:46.
14
As a n t i c i p a t e d , t h i s p r o p o r t i o n of agreement i s much
lower t h a t Didymus's o v e r a l l agreement w i t h the A l e x a n d r i a n
w i t n e s s e s only because the e x c l u s i v e r e a d i n g s i n n e a r l y every
c a s e r e p r e s e n t an A l e x a n d r i a n m i n o r i t y opposing a l l o t h e r
w i t n e s s e s . Didymus p r e s e r v e s t h e A l e x a n d r i a n e x c l u s i v e r e a d -
i n g s of Matt. 5:4; 12:24; 20:32; 21:19; Luke 6:45; 11:15;
w h i l e v a r y i n g a t Matt. 7:6; 7:14; 11:21; 24:40; Mark 9:49;
Luke 1:17; 14:29; 15:22; 16:8; 17:10; 20:35; John 3:16 ( 2 x ) ;
5:18; 5:29; 5:45.
15
Didymus agrees w i t h A l e x a n d r i a n primary r e a d i n g s i n the
f o l l o w i n g t e x t s : Matt. 5:41; 7:9 ( 2 x ) ; 10:28 ( 2 x ) ; 12:35;
21:2; 23:30; 24:3; Mark 7:6; 11:2 ( 2 x ) ; Luke 2:35; 2:36; 2:37;
4:17; 6:38; 7:28 ( 2 x ) ; 10:19; 10:20; 11:15; 12:8; 18:14 19:42;
20:25; John 4:20; 4:36; 5:38; 5:47. Disagreements: Matt.
6:24; 10:28; 11:21; 15:6; 16:19; 19:28; 22:45; 26:31; 26:53
( 2 x ) ; Luke 6:45; 6:46; 13:27; 14:26; 14:28; 18:7; 19:43;
20:25; 21:20.
2 32/ Didymus and the G o s p e l s
c o n t r a s t s s h a r p l y w i t h h i s support f o r a l l t h e o t h e r groups:
Caesarean, 41.4% agreement; Western, 38.2%; and B y z a n t i n e ,
18
17.5%.
When Didymus's support of t h e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t k i n d s of
i n t e r - g r o u p r e a d i n g s i s t a b u l a t e d t o g e t h e r ( t h e T o t a l s c o l -
umn) , one can see w i t h p a r t i c u l a r c l a r i t y h i s comparative
p r o x i m i t y t o the A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t . He agrees w i t h over h a l f
of t h e A l e x a n d r i a n group r e a d i n g s , but w i t h o n l y a t h i r d of
the Caesarean, and w i t h l e s s than a f i f t h of the B y z a n t i n e and
Western. Thus i t should be c l e a r t h a t Didymus i s not o n l y a
good A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s ( a s shown e s p e c i a l l y by h i s a t t e s t a -
t i o n of d i s t i n c t i v e r e a d i n g s ) but t h a t h i s d e v i a t i o n s from the
A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n a r e not toward a Western o r B y z a n t i n e
t e x t .
One o t h e r f e a t u r e of t h i s p r o f i l e worth o b s e r v i n g i s the
change i n Didymus's alignments b e g i n n i n g w i t h John 6:47. The
p a u c i t y of the data makes i t d i f f i c u l t t o compare o n l y t h e two
p a r t s of John, although the s t r i k i n g l y c l o s e r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o
the Western r e a d i n g s i n t h e second p a r t of t h e Gospel s h o u l d
not be overlooked (11/39 [28.2%] as c o n t r a s t e d w i t h 2/18
[ 1 1 . 1 % ] ) . But a comparison of Didymus's t o t a l Gospel t e x t
b e f o r e John 6:47 w i t h t h a t which f o l l o w s v a l i d a t e s t h e c o n c l u -
s i o n drawn e a r l i e r : the c h a r a c t e r of Didymus's t e x t s h i f t s
d r a m a t i c a l l y f o r the f i n a l t w o - t h i r d s of John's G o s p e l . P a r -
Agreements w i t h Caesarean primary r e a d i n g s : Matt. 1:6;
3:12; 11:20; 22:13; 24:36; 26:53; Luke 1:34; 6:38; 9:23;
14:28; 21:20; 22:32. Disagreements: Matt. 7:23; 7:26; 10:28
( 4 x ) ; 11:18; 15:14; 23:30 ( 2 x ) ; 25:6; 26:53; Luke 2:37; 20:35;
23:21; John 4:20; 5:47.
Âgreements w i t h Western primary r e a d i n g s : Matt. 3:12;
5:9; 6:20; 7:9 ( 2 x ) ; 7:24; 7:26; 22:13; 23:2; 24:36; 26:53;
Mark 7:6; Luke 4:18; 10:20; 16:15; 16:23; 17:10 ( 2 x ) ; 24:49;
John 1:3; 6:46. Disagreements: K a t t . 1:16; 4:19; 5:20; 5:48;
6:1; 6:14; 11:20; 12:24; 13:43; 14:21; 15:6; 23:37; 25:41;
26:53; 27:40 ( 2 x ) ; Mark 4:10; Luke 1:68; 3:8; 9:23; 14:26;
17:10; 19:12; 19:21; 19:42; 20:36; 23:21; John 5:8; 5:29;
5:47; 6:38 ( 4 x ) .
18
Agreements w i t h B y z a n t i n e primary r e a d i n g s : Matt. 4:4;
15:6; 15:14; 23:30; 26:31; 28:19; Luke 4:29; 19:43. D i s a g r e e -
ments: Matt. 1:6; 5:25; 5:48; 7:9 ( 2 x ) ; 7:21; 7:24; 15:8;
21:2; 22:13; 23:25; 23:37; 24:3; 24:36 ( 3 x ) ; 26:52; 24:53;
Mark 4:10; 11:2; Luke 1:69; 2:36; 4:17; 4:18; 6:38; 10:13;
16:25; 18:14; 19:42; 20:25; 22:32; John 6:29; 6:46.
t i c u l a r l y worth n o t i n g a r e : (1) the drop i n Didymus's support
f o r A l e x a n d r i a n r e a d i n g s from 52.0% to 27.8%; and (2) t h e
g r e a t e r a t t e s t a t i o n of Western r e a d i n g s (up from 18.0% t o
2 8 . 2 % ) . Only i n t h i s p o r t i o n of t e x t does Didymus p r e s e r v e a
d i s t i n c t i v e Western r e a d i n g , and he c o n t a i n s n e a r l y t h r e e
t i m e s t h e p r o p o r t i o n of e x c l u s i v e Western r e a d i n g s as i n ^ t h e
r e s t of h i s Gospel t e x t (19.0% as c o n t r a s t e d w i t h 6 . 8 % ) .
O b v i o u s l y t h e s e d a t a a r e too s p a r s e t o a l l o w f i n a l judgments
of Didymus's t e x t u a l a f f i n i t i e s . There a r e s c a r c e l y any
B y z a n t i n e group r e a d i n g s h e r e , f o r example. A l l the same, i t
cannot be overlooked t h a t Didymus has changed from b e i n g a
v e r y good s u p p o r t e r of the A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n t o b e i n g a
r a t h e r mediocre one. And a t l e a s t i n p a r t t h i s s h i f t has
i n v o l v e d a g r e a t e r i n f l u x of Western r e a d i n g s .
Two major drawbacks t o t h i s f i r s t p r o f i l e have a l r e a d y
been i n t i m a t e d . F i r s t , i t i s based on few data t h a t tend t o
be unevenly d i s t r i b u t e d among the t e x t u a l groups. When no
d i s t i n c t i v e B y z a n t i n e or Caesarean r e a d i n g s a r e found among a
F a t h e r ' s B i b l i c a l q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s , the p r o f i l e cannot
v e r y w e l l i l l u m i n a t e h i s a f f i n i t i e s w i t h the B y z a n t i n e or
C a e s a r e a n t e x t s . With o t h e r P a t r i s t i c s o u r c e s , of c o u r s e ,
t h e d a t a w i l l be more numerous. Second, a w i t n e s s ' s f a i l u r e
t o support a group's e x c l u s i v e or primary r e a d i n g s may r e s u l t
from i t s p r e s e r v a t i o n of the v a r i a n t found i n t h e m a j o r i t y of
the group's w i t n e s s e s . T h i s i n f a c t o f t e n proves t o be t h e
c a s e f o r Didymus. These two drawbacks suggest the need t o
c o r r o b o r a t e the f i n d i n g s of the i n t e r - g r o u p p r o f i l e w i t h a
p r o f i l e which c o n s i d e r s p u r e l y i n t r a - g r o u p r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
He a g r e e s w i t h the o n l y d i s t i n c t i v e l y A l e x a n d r i a n
r e a d i n g s i n t h i s p a r t of John (10:28), but a g r e e s w i t h o n l y
two o f t h e e x c l u s i v e r e a d i n g s (8:39; 9:39) w h i l e v a r y i n g from
n i n e o t h e r s (7:37; 7:39 [ 2 x ] ; 9:39; 10:9; 10:29; 10:33; 12:2;
14:10). He a l s o p r e s e r v e s two primary r e a d i n g s (13:13; 14:10)
w h i l e f a i l i n g to support f o u r o t h e r s (6:47; 8:48; 10:15;
14:10).
2 0
J o h n 6:70. He v a r i e s from t h r e e o t h e r s (6:62; 8:45;
10:35).
2 1 .
Agreements w i t h Western e x c l u s i v e r e a d i n g s : John 9:28;
10:36; 14:27; 18:5. Disagreements: 8:12; 8:34; 8:40; 8:48;
9:2; 10:10; 10:11 ( 2 x ) ; 10:15; 10:29; 13:27; 14:10; 14:23
( 2 x ) ; 15:5; 16:33; 17:3.
P r o f i l e Two: I n t r a - G r o u p Readings
The second p r o f i l e c h a r t s the a t t e s t a t i o n of uniform and
predominant r e a d i n g s without r e g a r d t o the d i s t r i b u t i o n of
r e a d i n g s among v a r i o u s groups. To be i n c l u d e d i n t h e p r o f i l e ,
a r e a d i n g must v a r y from a t l e a s t one o t h e r r e a d i n g t h a t i s
a t t e s t e d by a t l e a s t two r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of any group. T h i s
d e l i m i t a t i o n s e r v e s t o e x c l u d e from c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n s t a n c e s of
a c c i d e n t a l agreement among o t h e r w i s e u n r e l a t e d MSS.
T a b l e X V I I
Didymus's A t t e s t a t i o n of I n t r a - G r o u p Readings
Matthey:
B y z a n t i n e :
C a e s a r e a n :
Western:
49/57 (86.0%)
60/87 (69.0%)
45/59 (76.3%)
25/52 (48.1%)
Pxegmi.rianfc
29/45 (64.4%)
9/16 (56.3%)
26/56 (46.4%)
12/29 (41.4%)
T o t a l
78/102 (76.5%)
69/103 (67.0%)
71/115 (61.7%)
37/81 (45.7%)
Mark:
B y z a n t i n e :
C a e s a r e a n :
Western:
4/4 (100%)
4/8 (50.0%)
4/5 (80.0%)
1/4 (25.0%)
3/5 (60.0%)
0/0 (--)
0/4 (0.0%)
2/4 (50.0%)
7/9 (77.8%)
4/8 (50.0%)
4/9 (44.4%)
3/8 (37.5%)
Luke:
A l e x a n d r i a n : 33/37 (89.2%) 28/35 (80.0%) 61/72 (84.7%)
B y z a n t i n e : 39/61 (63.9%) 10/18 (55.6%) 49/79 (62.0%)
C a e s a r e a n : 47/55 (85.5%) 17/33 (51.5%) 64/88 (72.7%)
Western: 8/30 (26.6%) 7/18 (38.9%) 15/48 (31.3%)
John 1:1-6:46:
Alexandrian.- 11/11 (100%) 13/14 (92.9%) 24/25 (96.0%)
B y z a n t i n e : 17/23 (73.9%) 0/3 (0.0%) 17/26 (65.4%)
Caesarean: 19/23 (82.6%) 3/6 (50.0%) 22/29 (75.9%)
Western: 5/10 (50.0%) 1/6 (16.7%) 6/16 (37.5%)
T a b l e X V I I ( c o n t . )
Uniform Predominant T o t a l
A l e x a n d r i a n : 97/109 (89.0%) 73/99 (73.7%) 170/208 (81.7%)
B y z a n t i n e : 120/179 (67.0%) 19/37 (51.4%) 139/216 (64.4%)
C a e s a r e a n : 115/142 (81.0%) 46/99 (46.5%) 161/241 (66.8%)
Western: 39/96 (40.6%) 22/57 (38.6%) 61/153 (39.9%)
John 6:47-21:25
A l e x a n d r i a n : 20/27 (74.1%) 19/24 (79.2%) 39/51 (76.5%)
B y z a n t i n e : 42/59 (71.2%) 2/2 (100%) 44/61 (72.1%)
C a e s a r e a n : 38/51 (74.5%) 6/13 (46.2%) 44/64 (68.8%)
Western: 8/17 (47.1%) 11/17 (64.7%) 19/34 (55.9%)
Once a g a i n some p r e l i m i n a r y remarks about t h i s p r o f i l e
may be h e l p f u l . A w i t n e s s o b v i o u s l y cannot be c l a s s i f i e d as a
bona f i d e member of a group u n l e s s i t c o n t a i n s a h i g h propor-
t i o n of t h e r e a d i n g s s h a r e d by a l l or most group members. One
would e x p e c t a h i g h e r a t t e s t a t i o n of uniform r e a d i n g s than
predominant, s i n c e f a i l u r e t o support a predominant r e a d i n g of
a group o c c u r s whenever a w i t n e s s a t t e s t s a primary or e x c l u -
s i v e r e a d i n g of t h e group's m i n o r i t y . Furthermore, s i n c e the
predominant r e a d i n g of one group w i l l o f t e n be t h a t of ano-
t h e r , t h i s p r o f i l e w i l l not r e v e a l t h e k i n d of r a d i c a l d i s -
p a r i t i e s among groups a s t h o s e seen i n the f i r s t p r o f i l e ,
where two of the t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s of group r e a d i n g s were
m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e . What i t does demonstrate i s a w i t n e s s ' s
s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r support f o r r e a d i n g s of one group than
f o r t h o s e of t h e o t h e r s , i n a p p r o x i m a t e l y the same p r o p o r t i o n
a s was a t t a i n e d i n the q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s of i n d i v i d u a l
w i t n e s s e s .
I n view of t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , i t can be seen t h a t t h e
i n t r a - g r o u p p r o f i l e demonstrates beyond r e a s o n a b l e doubt t h a t
Didymus's c l o s e s t a f f i n i t i e s l i e w i t h t h e A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t ,
and t h a t t h e c o n s a n g u i n i t y of h i s t e x t s h i f t s a f t e r John 6:46.
Most s i g n i f i c a n t i s t h e t a b u l a t i o n of uniform r e a d i n g s . Didy-
mus s u p p o r t s a l l of the A l e x a n d r i a n uniform r e a d i n g s i n Mark
and John 1:1-6:46, a l l but e i g h t of f i f t y - s e v e n i n Matthew,
. 23
and a l l but f o u r of t h i r t y - s e v e n i n Luke. T h i s 89.0% agree-
ment c o n t r a s t s s h a r p l y w i t h h i s support of the o t h e r groups,
p a r t i c u l a r l y the B y z a n t i n e (67.0% agreement) and Western
(40.6% agreement).
That a good group w i t n e s s c o u l d v a r y from r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
w i t n e s s e s i n about 10% of a l l uniform r e a d i n g s s h o u l d not be
s u r p r i s i n g . The r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i t n e s s e s themselves s e r v e t o
d e f i n e " u n i f o r m i t y " : t h e s e a u t o m a t i c a l l y agree i n 100% of
such r e a d i n g s . Any e x t r a n e o u s w i t n e s s w i l l n a t u r a l l y p r e s e r v e
some v a r i a t i o n . T h i s can be demonstrated by c o n s i d e r i n g Didy-
mus 's e i g h t v a r i a t i o n s from t h e uniform A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t of
Matthew. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t i f codex L were
removed from the group of A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s and c o l l a t e d
a g a i n s t the o t h e r f i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i n Matthew, i t too
would p r e s e r v e e i g h t p l a c e s of v a r i a t i o n (57/65, 87.7% a g r e e -
ment). Thus Didymus's o v e r a l l agreement of 89% i n A l e x a n -
d r i a n uniform r e a d i n g s p r i o r t o John 6:47 i s not o n l y s i g n i f i -
c a n t l y h i g h e r than h i s support of o t h e r groups, i t i s a l s o
s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h i n and of i t s e l f .
S t a y i n g f o r the moment w i t h uniform r e a d i n g s , one i s
s t r u c k by the s h i f t s t h a t o c c u r b e g i n n i n g w i t h John 6:47. I n
e f f e c t , Didymus's support of the C a e s a r e a n and e s p e c i a l l y the
25
A l e x a n d r i a n groups drops s i g n i f i c a n t l y , w h i l e h i s a t t e s t a -
t i o n of B y z a n t i n e and Western r e a d i n g s i n c r e a s e s . As a r e -
s u l t , t h e d i f f e r e n c e s among the non-Western groups a r e now
n e g l i g i b l e (3%), w h i l e t h e Western w i t n e s s e s make a somewhat
2 2
T h e e i g h t e x c e p t i o n s a r e Matt. 4:4; 12:37; 21:31
(2x) ; 22:13; 22:45; 23:2; 26:31. Three of t h e s e (12:37; 21:31
[ 2 x ] >
2
a r e agreements w i t h Old L a t i n MSS a g a i n s t a l l o t h e r s .
The e x c e p t i o n s : Luke 10:20; 16:23; 17:10; 21:20.
24
6:24; 7:9; 7:14; 7:21; 7:23; 7:24; 11:18; 15:14.
25
I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y worth n o t i n g t h a t Didymus never
v a r i e s from the A l e x a n d r i a n uniform r e a d i n g s i n John 1:1-6:46,
but does so seven t i m e s i n the r e s t of t h e Gospel (6:70; 9:28;
10:29; 10:36; 13:27; 14:27; 1 3 : 5 ) . Three of t h e s e (9:28;
10:36; 14:27) r e p r e s e n t agreements w i t h Old L a t i n MSS a g a i n s t
a l l o t h e r s . O v e r a l l , Didymus's support of A l e x a n d r i a n uniform
r e a d i n g s drops more than 15% i n t h i s p o r t i o n of h i s Gospel
t e x t ; h i s support of Caesarean uniform r e a d i n g s drops over 6%.
b e t t e r showing (up n e a r l y 7% t o a 47.1% agreement). The
c o n c l u s i o n cannot be escaped t h a t Didymus's t e x t u a l a f f i n i t i e s
a r e much l e s s pronounced f o r the l a t t e r p a r t of John's Gospel,
e v i d e n c i n g a g r e a t e r i n f l u x of Western and B y z a n t i n e r e a d i n g s .
A s i m i l a r p r o f i l e emerges i n the t a b u l a t i o n of predomi-
nant r e a d i n g s . Before John 6:47, Didymus i s a g a i n shown t o be
a s t r o n g w i t n e s s t o the A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t , which he s u p p o r t s i n
73.7% of a l l i n s t a n c e s . The next c l o s e s t group, t h e Byzan-
t i n e , i s removed by a f u l l 22% ( w i t h 51.4% agreement), the
C a e s a r e a n by 26% (46.5% agreement), and the Western by 35%
(38.6% agreement). As a l r e a d y noted, Didymus s u p p o r t s fewer
A l e x a n d r i a n predominant r e a d i n g s than uniform because he o f t e n
a t t e s t s the v a r i a n t of t h e group's m i n o r i t y i n primary and
e x c l u s i v e r e a d i n g s .
When Didymus's support f o r predominant group r e a d i n g s i s
combined w i t h t h a t f o r t h e uniform, t h e p r o f i l e of i n t r a - g r o u p
r e l a t i o n s h i p s becomes c l e a r . Up t o John 6:47, Didymus
i s a s t r o n g s u p p o r t e r of the A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t (81.7% agree-
ment) , a r a t h e r mediocre w i t n e s s to the C a e s a r e a n and Byzan-
t i n e groups (66.8% and 64.4% agreement r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , and a
poor r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e Western group (39.9% agreement).
B e g i n n i n g w i t h John 6:47 the alignments s h i f t : the wide
d i s p a r i t i e s among the A l e x a n d r i a n , B y z a n t i n e , and C a e s a r e a n
groups narrow s h a r p l y (here they a r e s e p a r a t e d by 8% r a t h e r
t h a n 1 7 % ) , w h i l e the Western group now s t a n d s much c l o s e r t o
Didymus (up 16% from 39.9% t o 5 5 . 9 % ) .
The major drawback of t h i s second p r o f i l e i s t h a t the
p r o p o r t i o n of Didymus's agreements w i t h t h e A l e x a n d r i a n , Byz-
a n t i n e , and C a e s a r e a n groups i s i n e v i t a b l y r a i s e d by the
common o c c u r r e n c e of e x c l u s i v e and d i s t i n c t i v e Western r e a d -
i n g s t h a t i s , by i n s t a n c e s of two or t h r e e Western w i t n e s s e s
a g r e e i n g a g a i n s t a l l o t h e r s . The d i s t i n c t i v e and e x c l u s i v e
r e a d i n g s of the o t h e r groups, though l e s s f r e q u e n t , have a
s i m i l a r e f f e c t on t h e p r o f i l e . Readings of t h i s k i n d r e v e a l
l e s s about a w i t n e s s ' s o v e r a l l a f f i n i t i e s w i t h t h e d i f f e r e n t
t e x t - t y p e s than about i t s f a i l u r e t o support a p a r t i c u l a r l y
a b e r r a n t form of one of the t e x t u a l groups. But t h i s n e g a t i v e
k i n d of r e l a t i o n s h i p was a l r e a d y t a b u l a t e d under the c a t e -
g o r i e s of the f i r s t p r o f i l e . O b v i o u s l y what i s needed i s a
p r o f i l e which can combine t h e concerns of t h e f i r s t p r o f i l e
w i t h those of the second, so a s t o a s c e r t a i n a w i t n e s s ' s
agreements w i t h t h e uniform and predominant r e a d i n g s of a
group t h a t happen a l s o t o be d i s t i n c t i v e , e x c l u s i v e , or
primary.
P r o f i l e Three: Combination I n t e r - and I n t r a - G r o u p Readings
The r e l a t i o n s h i p of an i n d i v i d u a l w i t n e s s t o a group can
b e s t be gauged by t a b u l a t i n g i t s support f o r r e a d i n g s found
u n i f o r m l y or predominantly among group members, but among no
or few o t h e r w i t n e s s e s . N a t u r a l l y t h e r e w i l l be fewer d a t a i n
a p r o f i l e of t h i s s o r t . Nonetheless, enough e x i s t i n Didy-
mus's c a s e t o p r o v i d e a c l e a r p o r t r a i t of h i s group a f f i n i -
t i e s .
T a b l e X V I I I
Didymus's Support of Uniform and Predominant Readings That
Are A l s o D i s t i n c t i v e , E x c l u s i v e , or Primary
Uniform
Matthew:
B y z a n t i n e : 2/12
Caesarean: 4/5
Western: 8/29
Predominant T o t a l
4/7 9/14
0/3 2/15
2/19 6/24
6/18 14/47
Mark:
B y z a n t i n e : 0/1
C a e s a r e a n : 0/0
Western: 0/3
2/2 3/3
0/0 0/1
0/0 0/0
1/2 1/5
Luke:
B y z a n t i n e : 2/11
C a e s a r e a n : 3/5
Western: 3/18
7/10 10/14
0/1 2/12
3/4 6/9
3/12 6/30
T a b l e
Uniform
X V I I I ( c o n t . )
Predominant T o t a l
John 1:1-6:46:
B y z a n t i n e : 0/2
C a e s a r e a n : 0/1
Western: 2/7
2/2
0/1
0/0
0/4
3/3
0/3
0/1
2/11
A l e x a n d r i a n : 10/13 (76.9%) 15/21 (71.4%) 25/34 (73.5%)
B y z a n t i n e : 4/26 (15.4%) 0/5 (0.0%) 4/31 (12.9%)
C a e s a r e a n : 7/11 (63.6%) 5/23 (21.7%) 12/34 (35.3%)
Western: 13/57 (22.8%) 10/36 (27.8%) 23/93 (24.7%)
John 6:47-21:25
B y z a n t i n e : 0/4
C a e s a r e a n : 0/0
Western: 1/5
V i
0/0
1/4
6/10
1/1 (100%)
0/4 (0.0%)
1/4 (25.0%)
7/15 (46.7%)
Once a g a i n , the p r o f i l e up t o John 6:47 shows t h a t
Didymus's s t r o n g e s t a f f i n i t i e s l i e w i t h t h e A l e x a n d r i a n group.
He s u p p o r t s a f u l l 76.9% of t h e A l e x a n d r i a n uniform r e a d -
25 27
i n g s , a s opposed t o 63.6% of the C a e s a r e a n r e a d i n g s ,
22.8% of t h e Western, and a s c a n t 15.4% of the B y z a n t i n e .
26 .
H i s agreements: Matt 5:28
24:3; Mark 11:2; Luke 2:36; 4:17;
ments: Matt. 22:45; 26:31; Luke
2 7
T h i s r e l a t i v e l y h i g h l e v e l
buted t o the pronounced A l e x a n d r i
w i t n e s s e s , i n c o n t r a s t w i t h t h o s e
groups. See below, pp. 261-62.
1:6; 3:12; 11:20; 22:13; Luke 1:3
ments: Matt 15:14; Luke 2:37; 23
2 8
Western agreements: Matt.
22:13: 23:2; 24:36; Luke 4:18; 17
Western d i s a g r e e m e n t s : 1:16; 4:4
11:20; 11:21; 11:28; 13:43; 14:21
22:13; 24:30; 25:33; 25:41; 26:53
9:49; Luke 2:37; 8:15; 9:23; 9:62
; 10:28; 18:6; 21:2;
11:15; John 5:38. D i s a g r e e -
17:10.
of agreement i s b e s t a t t r i -
an element i n the Caesarean
of the Western and B y z a n t i n e
Didymus's agreements: Matt
4; 9:23; 21:20. D i s a g r e e -
:21; John 5:47.
3:12; 6:20; 7:9; 7:24; 7:26;
10; 24:49; John 1:3; 6:46.
4:19; 5:19; 5:42; 10:29;
15:6; 15:8; 16:18; 18:22;
27:40; Mark 4:10; 7:6;
10:20; 11:13; 12:19; 12:20;
Even more t e l l i n g i s the t a b u l a t i o n of predominant r e a d i n g s .
Here Didymus a t t e s t s 71.4% of the A l e x a n d r i a n r e a d i n g s , but
31 32
o n l y 21.7% of the Caesarean, and 27.8% of t h e Western. He
33
s u p p o r t s none of t h e predominant B y z a n t i n e r e a d i n g s . The
combination of t h e s e f i g u r e s i n the t o t a l s column makes Didy-
mus 's a f f i n i t i e s c r y s t a l c l e a r . While s u p p o r t i n g 73.5% of a l l
A l e x a n d r i a n r e a d i n g s of t h i s p r o f i l e , he a t t e s t s o n l y 35.3% of
the Caesarean r e a d i n g s , 24.7% of t h e Western, and 12.9% of the
B y z a n t i n e . The s p a r s i t y of r e l e v a n t group r e a d i n g s i n t h e
l a t t e r p o r t i o n of John's Gospel p r e c l u d e s a complete compar-
i s o n w i t h the r e s t of Didymus's Gospel t e x t , although i t i s
worth n o t i n g t h a t Didymus's a t t e s t a t i o n of w e s t e r n r e a d i n g s
n e a r l y doubles from 24.7% t o 46.7%.
One way t o put t h i s p r o f i l e i n t o p e r s p e c t i v e i s by con-
t r a s t i n g Didymus w i t h a l l o t h e r w i t n e s s e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o
14:29; 16:23; 18:14; 19:12; 19:43; 20:25; 20:36; John 1:6;
4:14; 5:19; 6:38 (2x) ,
29
B y z a n t i n e agreements: Matt. 15:6; 15:14; Luke 4:29;
19:43. Disagreements: Matt. 1:6; 7:9; 7:24; 15:8; 21:2;
22:13; 23:37; 24:36 ( 2 x ) ; 26:53; Mark 11:2; Luke 1:69; 4:17;
4:18; 6:38; 10:13; 16:25; 18:14; 19:42; 20:25; John 5:38;
6:46.
3 0
A l e x a n d r i a n agreements: Matt. 7:9; 10:28; 12:35;
23:30; Mark 4:10; 11:2; Luke 2:37; 6:38; 7:28; 10:19; 10:20;
20:25; 24:49; John 4:20; 4:36. Disagreements: Matt. 10:28;
11:21; 25:41; Luke 14:28; 18:7; 19:43.
3 1
C a e s a r e a n agreements: Matt. 24:36; 26:53; Luke 6:38;
14:28; 22:32. Disagreements: Matt. 7:23 ( 2 x ) ; 7:26 ( 2 x ) ;
10:28 ( 3 x ) ; 11:18; 13:43; 14:21; 15:14 ( 2 x ) ; 23:30 ( 2 x ) ; 25:6;
25:16; 26:53; Luke 20:35.
3 2
W e s t e r n agreements: Matt. 5:9; 6:34; 7:9; 21:31 (2x) ;
26:53; Mark 7:6; Luke 16:15; 16:23; 17:10. Disagreements:
Matt. 5:48; 6:1; 6:14 ( 2 x ) ; 7:14; 7:23; 10:28; 10:34; 13:11;
23:37; 26:53; 28:19; Mark 7:6; Luke 11:50; 12:19; 12:20;
14:26; 16:25; 17:10; 19:42; 21:20; 23:21; John 1:18; 5s8;
5:47; 6:38.
3 3
B y z a n t i n e d i s a g r e e m e n t s : Matt. 5:25; 7:21; 24:3; Luke
22:32; John 6:29.
3
* A l e x a n d r i a n agreements i n t h i s p o r t i o n of John: 10:28
(predominant). C a e s a r e a n agreements: 10:29 (predominant).
Western agreements: u n i f o r m 1 7 : 1 2 ; p r e d o m i n a n t 6 : 7 0 ; 9:39;
10:16; 10:36; 13:27; 13:27. B y z a n t i n e d i s a g r e e m e n t s : 8:39;
10:27; 14:23; 17:12 ( a l l u n i f o r m ) . C a e s a r e a n d i s a g r e e m e n t s :
8:48; 10:16; 10:32 ( a l l predominant). Western d i s a g r e e m e n t s :
u n i f o r m 8 : 4 0 ; 8:45; 10:35; 17:21; p r e d o m i n a n t 6 : 6 2 ; 7:37;
10:10; 10:29.
t h e i r s u p p o r t of t h e A l e x a n d r i a n group r e a d i n g s . O b v i o u s l y
w i t n e s s e s c l o s e s t t o the A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t w i l l c o n t a i n such
r e a d i n g s w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t frequency.
There would be no r e a s o n t o i n c l u d e A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s
i n a r a n k - o r d e r i n g of MSS a c c o r d i n g t o support of uniform
A l e x a n d r i a n r e a d i n g s . By d e f i n i t i o n , t h e A l e x a n d r i a n s a l l
35
s h a r e t h e s e r e a d i n g s . When the o t h e r w i t n e s s e s a r e ranked
by t h i s s t a n d a r d , however, a s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t i s o b t a i n e d .
T a b l e XIX c o n f i r m s Didymus's s t r o n g A l e x a n d r i a n a f f i n i t i e s :
he s t a n d s w e l l above a l l o t h e r w i t n e s s e s on t h e l i s t .
T a b l e XIX
W i t n e s s e s Ranked A c c o r d i n g t o Support of Uniform
D i s t i n c t i v e , E x c l u s i v e , or Primary A l e x a n d r i a n Readings
I n Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John 1:1-6:46
1. Didymus 10/13 (76.9%)
2. fam 13 9/13 (69.2%)
3. 1241 7/12 (58.3%)
4. w 7/13 (53.8%)
5. e
6/13 (46.2%)
6. a 4/9 (44.4%)
7. b 4/9 (44.4%)
8. fam 1 5/13 (38.5%)
9. e 2/6 (33.3%)
10. Q 4/13 (30.8%)
11. A 2/7 (28.6%)
12. E 2/8 (25.0%)
13. D 3/13 (23.1%)
14. A 3/13 (23.1%)
15. n 3/13 (23.1%)
16. k 0/0
)
An even more s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t i s o b t a i n e d by r a n k i n g
t h e w i t n e s s e s a c c o r d i n g t o agreements i n predominant d i s t i n c -
t i v e , e x c l u s i v e , or primary r e a d i n g s of the A l e x a n d r i a n group.
With the e x c e p t i o n of 1241, which, a s noted, was l e f t
out of c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .
S i n c e the A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s s p l i t i n t h e s e r e a d i n g s , they
can be i n c l u d e d i n t h e t a b u l a t i o n a s w e l l . But i t s h o u l d be
r e c o g n i z e d t h a t group members o u t s i d e of the c o n t r o l group
w i l l n o r m a l l y c o n t a i n fewer of t h e s e r e a d i n g s t h a n those i n -
s i d e , s i n c e they were not used t o e s t a b l i s h t h e boundaries of
t h e c a t e g o r y . T h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n makes t h e p o s i t i o n of Didy-
mus i n t h e r a n k - o r d e r i n g of T a b l e XX t h e more remarkable.
T a b l e XX
W i t n e s s e s Ranked According t o Support of Predominant
D i s t i n c t i v e , E x c l u s i v e , or Primary Readings
I n Matthew, Mark, Luke, John 1:1-6:46
1. P 9/9 (100%)
66
9/9 (100%)
2. P 2/2 (100%)
3 . K 18/21 (85.7%)
4. B 18/21 (85.7%)
5. L 18/21 (85.7%)
6. C 13/16 (81.3%)
7. Didymus 15/21 (71.4%)
8. 579 9/13 (69.2%)
9. 1241 11/17 (64.7%)
10. 892 13/21 (61.9%)
11. 8/13 (61.5%)
12. 33 12/20 (60.0%)
13. e 5/11 (45.5%)
14. fam 1 9/21 (42.9%)
15. W 6/19 (31.6%)
16. A 6/21 (28.6%)
17. D 5/20 (25.0%)
18. b 2/12 (16.7%)
19. A 2/15 (13.3%)
20. E 1/9 (11.1%)
21. 8 2/21 (9.5%)
22 . n 2/21 (9.5%)
23. s 2/21 (9.5%)
24. fam 13 2/21 (9.5%)
25. a 1/14 (7.1%)
26. k 0/3 (0.0%)
As t h i s r a n k - o r d e r i n g demonstrates, the t h i r d p r o f i l e not
o n l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t Didymus p r e s e r v e s the A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t i t
shows t h a t he does so even b e t t e r than some members of the
A l e x a n d r i a n c o n t r o l group. Didymus i s o b v i o u s l y not a primary
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the t e x t - t y p e ( c f . h i s | t a n d i n g i n r e l a t i o n -
s h i p t o t h e E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s P P N and B ) .
But j u s t a s o b v i o u s l y he must be c o n s i d e r e d a s t r o n g secondary
w i t n e s s t o i t , a t l e a s t as s t r o n g a s , or perhaps somewhat
s t r o n g e r than, t h e m i n u s c u l e MSS of the " L a t e " A l e x a n d r i a n
subgroup (MSS 33, 579, 892, 1241).
T h i s c o n c l u s i o n can be f u r t h e r sharpened by y e t another
c o n f i g u r a t i o n of MSS i n t h e i r combined w i t n e s s , as s e t f o r t h
i n a f o u r t h p r o f i l e . U n l i k e t h e t h r e e p r e l i m i n a r y p r o f i l e s ,
the f o u r t h cannot be used f o r e v e r y t e x t u a l w i t n e s s , but o n l y
f o r t h o s e whose b a s i c A l e x a n d r i a n a f f i n i t i e s have a l r e a d y been
e s t a b l i s h e d .
P r o f i l e Four: Didymus's R e l a t i o n s h i p t o A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s
The s o - c a l l e d " l a t e r " A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s a r e g e n e r a l l y
grouped t o g e t h e r because they c o n t a i n a g r e a t e r " i m p u r i t y " of
t e x t than the " e a r l i e r " A l e x a n d r i a n s . One way t o gauge the
l e v e l of i m p u r i t y i n t h e s e w i t n e s s e s i s by c o l l a t i n g them
a g a i n s t the r e l a t i v e l y p u r e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e A l e x a n -
d r i a n group. To some e x t e n t , of c o u r s e , t h i s has a l r e a d y been
done i n the q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s . But t h a t a n a l y s i s d i d not
a l l o w f o r comparisons of i n d i v i d u a l MSS w i t h group or subgroup
r e a d i n g s , and so d i d not p e r m i t judgments t o be made con-
c e r n i n g t h e r e l a t i v e p u r i t y of i n d i v i d u a l group members. These
judgments can be made, however, by i s o l a t i n g t h e p u r e s t A l e x -
a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s from t h e r e s t and u s i n g them as a s t a n d a r d
of comparison.
Thus the f o u r t h p r o f i l e attempts t o determine Didymus's
r e l a t i v e s t a n d i n g among the A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s w i t h r e s p e c t
t o t h e t e x t s h a r e d by t h e group's p u r e s t members. F o r each
Gospel, a l l w i t n e s s e s were c o l l a t e d a g a i n s t t h e uniform and
predominant E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n r e a d i n g s ( i . e . r e a d i n g s sup-
p o r t e d by a l l or by a t l e a s t t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e E a r l y A l e x a n -
d r i a n MSS w i t h t e x t ) . The r e s u l t a n t r a n k - o r d e r i n g s i n d i c a t e
how w e l l each MS p r e s e r v e s t h e A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t i n i t s l e a s t
a d u l t e r a t e d form. S i n c e and B a r e t h e o n l y E a r l y A l e x a n -
d r i a n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i n Matthew and Mark, o n l y a l i s t of
uniform r e a d i n g s w i l l be g i v e n f o r t h e s e G o s p e l s ( T a b l e s XXI
and X X I I ) . I n Luke t h e w i t n e s s of P and i n John
66 75
t h a t of both P and P a r e a l s o a v a i l a b l e . Hence f o r t h e s e
two G o s p e l s s e p a r a t e l i s t s can be p r o v i d e d f o r uniform and
predominant E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n r e a d i n g s ( T a b l e s X X I I I and XXIV).
T a b l e XXI
W i t n e s s e s Ranked A c c o r d i n g t o P r o p o r t i o n a l Agreement
With t h e Uniform E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n T e x t i n Matthew
1. C 70/85 (82. ,4%)
2. 892 95/116 (81. ,9%)
3 . 33 90/116 (77. ,6%)
4. Didymus 87/116 (75. .0%)
5. L 83/114 (72. .8%)
6. fam 1 84/116 (72. ,4%)
7. W 82/116 (70, ,7%)
8. a 80/115 (69, .6%)
9. E 79/115 (68, .7%)
10. 4 79/116 (68, .1%)
11. n
78/116 (67, .2%)
12. 1241 63/94 (67, .0%)
13. A 9/12 (66, .7%)
14. e 74/113 (65, ,5%)
15. fam 13 73/116 (62, .9%)
16. D 51/94 (54, .3%)
17 . k 26/53 (49 , .1%)
18. e 18/38 (47, ,4%)
19. a 44/93 (47, .3%)
20. b 37/89 (41, .6%)
T a b l e X X I I
With the Uniform E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n T e x t i n Hark
1. C
2.
3. Didymus
4. L
5. A
6. 892
7. 33
8. 579
9. A
10.
n
11. fam 13
12 . 1241
13. E
14 .
e
15. a
16. fam 1
17. b
18. W
19. a
20. k
21. D
22 . e
6/6 (100%)
3/3 (100%)
7/8 (87.5%)
7/8 (87.5%)
7/8 (87/5%)
7/8 (87.5%)
4/5 (80.0%)
6/8 (75.0%)
6/8 (75.0%)
6/8 (75.0%)
6/8 (75.0%)
6/8 (75.0%)
5/8 (62.5%)
5/8 (62.5%)
5/8 (62.5%)
4/8 (50.0%)
4/8 (50.0%)
3/8 (37.5%)
3/8 (37.5%)
1/3 (33.3%)
2/8 (25.0%)
0/1 (0.0%)
24 6/ Didymus and the G o s p e l s
T a b l e X X I I I
W i t n e s s e s Ranked According to P r o p o r t i o n a l Agreement
With the E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n T e x t i n Luke
Uniform Readings
1. L 86/94 (91. 5*)
2 . 579 83/92 (88. .3%)
3 . Didymus 79/94 (84. 0%)
4. 33 78/93 (83. ,9%)
5. Y 76/94 (80. ,9%)
6. c 28/36 (77. 8%)
7. 892 72/94 (76.6%)
8. n 70/94 (74. ,5%)
9. A 68/94 (73. .1%)
10. 1241 68/94 (72. .3%)
11. e 68/94 (72. .3%,
12. fam 13 67/94 (71. .3%)
13. a 66/94 (70. .2%)
14. fam 1 64/94 (68. .1%)
15.
a
63/94 (67, .0%)
16. w 62/94 (66, .0%)
17. a 39/75 (52, .0%)
18. b 32/67 (47, .8%)
19. D 43/93 (46, .2%)
20. e 29/76 (38, .2%)
Uniform and Predominant Readings
1. L 93/106 (87. 7%)
2. 579 87/103 (84.
5%)
3. Didymus 86/106 (81.
1%)
4. 82/106 (77. 4%)
5. 33 81/105 (77. 1%)
6. 892 80/106 (75. 5%)
7. C 31/42 (73. ,8%)
8. 1241 76/106 (71. ,2%)
9. fam 13 75/106 (70. 8%)
10. n 74/106 (69. ,8%)
11. e 73/106 (68. ,9%)
12. A 71/105 (67. ,6%)
13. A 70/106 (66, .0%)
14 . W 69/106 (65. .1%)
15. fam 1 69/106 (65. .1%)
16.
a
67/106 (63. .2%)
17. a 42/80 (52, .5%)
18. b 34/73 (46, .6%)
19. D 48/105 (45, .7%)
20. e 31/81 (38. .3%)
T a b l e XXIV
With t h e E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n T e x t i n John 1:1-6:46
Uniform Readings Uniform and Predominant Readings
(18 u n i t s of v a r i a t i o n ) (31 u n i t s of v a r i a t i o n )
1. C 9/9 (100%) 1. C 15/15 (100%)
2. 33 17/18 (94. ,4%) 2. 33 28/31 (90.3%)
3 . L 17/18 (94. ,4%) 3. Didymus 27/31 (87.1%)
4. 15/18 (83. ,3%) 4. L 26/31 (83.9%)
5. Didymus 14/18 (77. ,8%) 5. ? 24/31 (77.4%)
6. 579 14/18 (77. ,8%) 6. 579 23/31 (74.2%)
7 . e 14/18 (77. ,8%) 7 . A 23/31 (74.2%)
8. 892 13/18 (72 . ,2%) 8. fam 1 23/31 (74.2%)
9. fam 1 13/18 (72. ,2%) 9.
e 23/31 (74.2%)
10. A 13/18 (72. ,2%) 10. 1241 22/30 (73.3%)
11. 1241 12/17 (70. . 6%) 11. 892 22/31 (71.0%)
12 . A 12/18 (66. .7%) 12 . fam 13 22/31 (71.0%)
13.
a
12/18 (66. .7%) 13. A
21/31 (67.7%)
14 . fam 13 12/18 (66, ,7%) 14. n 21/31 (67.7%)
15. 11/18 (61, .1%) 15. A 20/30 (66.7%)
16. W 6/10 (60 .0%) 16. W 9/15 (60.0%)
17. D 8/14 (57 .1%) 17 . a 11/24 (45.8%)
18. a 9/18 (50 .0%) 18. b 11/24 (45.8%)
19. b 8/18 (44 .4%) 19. e 11/24 (45.8%)
20. e 7/18 (38 .9%) 20. D 9/23 (39.1%)
As can seen from t h e s e t a b l e s , Didymus s t a n d s i n a p p r o x i -
mately t h e same r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n w i t -
n e s s e s i n a l l of the G o s p e l s up t o John 6:47. When t h e agree-
ments p r e s e n t e d i n t h e s e t a b l e s a r e combined, an aggregate
p i c t u r e emerges of Didymus's r e l a t i v e support of t h e E a r l y
A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t . T h i s w i l l f i r s t be done w i t h r e s p e c t t o
uniform r e a d i n g s ( T a b l e XXV, p. 248).
T h i s t a b l e p r o v i d e s a c l e a r demonstration of Didymus's
A l e x a n d r i a n a f f i n i t i e s h e s t a n d s among the group of L a t e
T a b l e XXV
W i t n e s s e s Ranked A c c o r d i n g to P r o p o r t i o n a l Agreement w i t h
Uniform E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n Readings i n Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John 1:1-6:46
1. C 119/136 (87. ,5%)
2. 579 103/118 (87. .3%)
3 . L 193/234 (82. .5%)
4. 94/115 (81. .7%)
5. 33 189/232 (81. .5%)
6.
Didymus 187/236 (79. ,2%)
7. 892 187/236 (79. .2%)
8. A 96/131 (73. ,3%)
9. 1241 149/213 (70. .0%)
10. fam 1 165/236 (69. .9%)
11. n 165/236 (69. ,9%)
12. A 164/236
(69. .5%)
13.
9
161/233 (69. .1%)
14. E 84/123 (68. ,3%)
15.
2 160/235 (68. ,1%)
16. W 153/228 (67. .1%)
17. fam 13 158/236 (66. ,9%)
18. D 104/209 (49. .8%)
19. k 27/56 (48. .2%)
20. b 81/182 (44. .5%)
21. a 95/214 (44. .4%)
22. e 54/193 (40. .6%)
A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s . E s p e c i a l l y t o be noted h e r e i s t h e 6%
drop between 892 and A, showing t h e b * s i c c o h e s i o n of the
A l e x a n d r i a n group.
N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h i s p r o f i l e s h o u l d be f u r t h e r r e f i n e d by
t a k i n g i n t o account t h e t w e n t y - f i v e i n s t a n c e s of predominant
E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n r e a d i n g s i n Luke and John. The d e c i s i o n to
use such r e a d i n g s i s based on the assumption t h a t t h e v a r i a -
t i o n of one w i t n e s s of the subgroup d e r i v e s e i t h e r from t h e
v a g a r y of the w i t n e s s i t s e l f or from c o r r u p t i o n of one s t r a n d
of the group by a d i f f e r e n t element of the t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n .
When t h e s e predominant r e a d i n g s a r e a c c e p t e d a s a l s o r e p r e -
s e n t i n g the A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n i n i t s p u r e s t form, the
r e l a t i o n s h i p of each w i t n e s s t o t h i s t r a d i t i o n i s shown as
c l e a r l y a s p o s s i b l e ( T a b l e XXVI).
T a b l e XXVI
W i t n e s s e s Ranked A c c o r d i n g t o P r o p o r t i o n a l Agreement With
Uniform and Predominant E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n Readings
I n Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John 1:1-6:46
1. 579 126/142 (88. 7%)
2. C 128/148 (86. 5%)
3 . L 209/259 (80. 7%)
4. Didymus 207/261 (79. 3%)
5. 33 203/257
(79. 0%)
6. 892 205/261 (78. 2%)
7 . 109/140 (77. 9%)
8. 1241 167/238 (70. ,2%)
9. A 109/156 (69. 9%)
10. fam 1 180/261 (69. 0%)
11. n 179/261 (68. ,6%)
12. E 84/123 (68. 3%)
13.
e
177/261 (67. 8%)
14. A 175/258 (67.
8%)
15. fam 13 176/261 (67. 4%)
16. w 163/245 (66. ,5%)
17 . 3
172/259 (66. ,45)
18. k 27/56 (48. 2%)
19. D 110/230 (47. ,8%)
20. a 100/225 (44. ,4%)
21. b 86/194 (44. 3%)
22. e 60/144 (41. 7%)
The g e n e r a l c o n t o u r s of t h i s f i n a l p r o f i l e a r e not s u r -
p r i s i n g . The L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s s t a n d c l o s e s t t o the
E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n s , the Western w i t n e s s e s a r e f u r t h e s t r e -
moved, w h i l e the B y z a n t i n e and C a e s a r e a n w i t n e s s e s g r a v i t a t e
t o the middle. The L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n s agree w i t h t h e p u r e s t
form of A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t i n 78-88% of a l l i n s t a n c e s . As would
be expected from the e a r l i e r q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s , MS 1241
f a l l s f a r behind the o t h e r A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s (removed 7.7%
from f, i t s c l o s e s t A l e x a n d r i a n n e i g h b o r ) . Judged by t h i s
s t a n d a r d , the t e x t of 1241 appears t o be much c l o s e r t o the
B y z a n t i n e and Caesarean groups ( s t a n d i n g only 0.3% ahead of
A ) . The w i t n e s s e s of t h i s middle group a r e remarkably c o n s i s -
t e n t w i t h one another i n t h e i r a t t e s t a t i o n of E a r l y A l e x a n -
d r i a n r e a d i n g s , w i t h l e s s than 4% d i f f e r e n c e s e p a r a t i n g t h e
h i g h e s t ranked w i t n e s s from the l o w e s t . Between the B y z a n t i n e
and Western w i t n e s s e s i s a gap of 12%, the Western w i t n e s s e s
a l o n e s h a r i n g l e s s than h a l f the r e a d i n g s found i n the E a r l y
A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t .
As a l r e a d y suggested, the s u p e r i o r i t y of t h i s f i n a l pro-
f i l e r e s i d e s i n i t s a b i l i t y t o i s o l a t e A l e x a n d r i a n group
r e a d i n g s by e l i m i n a t i n g the v a g a r i e s of i n d i v i d u a l E a r l y A l e x -
a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s . T h i s makes Didymus's p o s i t i o n i n T a b l e
XXVI p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i k i n g . Here he i s shown t o be a s t r o n g
A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s a s s t r o n g an A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s as some
of t h e l e a d i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n sub-
group ( L , f , 33, and 8 9 2 ) . T h i s f i n d i n g l e a d s one t o con-
c l u d e t h a t Didymus should be ranked among the L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n
w i t n e s s e s .
Both W. L i n s s and C. M a r t i n i p r e v i o u s l y m a i n t a i n e d t h a t
Didymus r e p r e s e n t s the e a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n . But one
would e x p e c t t h a t i f Didymus were an E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n w i t -
n e s s , he would have stood above a l l o t h e r A l e x a n d r i a n MSS i n
t h i s f i n a l p r o f i l e . Such o b v i o u s l y i s not the c a s e . One
o t h e r way t o use t h i s f o u r t h p r o f i l e t o t e s t Didymus's l o c a -
t i o n w i t h i n t h e A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n i s t o c h a r t h i s agree-
ments when the E a r l y and L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s c l e a r l y
s p l i t . No such s p l i t s o c c u r i n Didymus"s t e x t of Mark, but a
3 6
t o t a l of t h i r t y o c c u r i n Matthew, Luke, and John 1:1-6:46,
3 6
M a t t . 1:6; 5:4; 6:1; 6:20; 7:9; 7:14; 7:26; 11:20;
12:24; 16:19; 22:44; 24:36; 24:40; 26:53 ( 2 x ) ; Luke 6:45;
6:46; 9:62; 11:15; 13:27; 14:26; 14:34; 16:25; 21:20; 23:21;
24:49; John 1:18; 3:16; 5:47; 6:38.
Notably, Didymus's support f o r the predominant r e a d i n g of each
group i n t h e s e s p l i t s i s n e a r l y even: he a g r e e s w i t h the
E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n s i n s i x t e e n and the L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n s i n
f o u r t e e n . So s l i g h t a d i f f e r e n c e i s c l e a r l y not enough t o
j u s t i f y r a n k i n g Didymus among t h e E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n s . T h i s
c o n c l u s i o n can be s u b s t a n t i a t e d by examining the a t t e s t a t i o n
of the L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s i n those s p l i t s where t h e i r
r e a d i n g s a r e not uniform ( i . e . where o n e - t h i r d or l e s s support
the E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n r e a d i n g ) . Notably, of the n i n e o c c u r -
r e n c e s of such r e a d i n g s i n Luke and John 1:1-6:46, MS 579
37
a g r e e s w i t h t h e E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n r e a d i n g i n f i v e ! There
remains no argument c o n t r a r y t o the c o n c l u s i o n a l r e a d y drawn:
i n h i s Gospel t e x t up t o John 6:47 Didymus i s a good r e p r e s e n -
t a t i v e of t h e L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n subgroup.
The f o u r t h p r o f i l e can a l s o s e r v e t o document the s h i f t
i n the c o n s a n g u i n i t y of Didymus's t e x t b e g i n n i n g w i t h John
6:47. T a b l e XXVII (p. 252) p r e s e n t s a r a n k - o r d e r i n g of w i t -
n e s s e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r support of uniform and predominant
E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n r e a d i n g s i n t h i s p o r t i o n of t e x t .
On t h e whole, t h i s p r o f i l e resembles the one made p r e -
v i o u s l y f o r the r e s t of Didymus's Gospel t e x t (p. 2 4 9 ) . The
L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of MS 579, top
the l i s t , s u p p o r t i n g the E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n s i n a t l e a s t 76% of
a l l r e a d i n g s . The Western w i t n e s s e s f a l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y below
a l l o t h e r s , a t t e s t i n g the E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n r e a d i n g s i n
s l i g h t l y more t h a n h a l f of a l l i n s t a n c e s . The B y z a n t i n e and
C a e s a r e a n w i t n e s s e s group t o g e t h e r i n the middle of the t a b l e ,
somewhat lower than the A l e x a n d r i a n s and s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r
t h a n the Westerns.
G i v e n t h i s e s s e n t i a l c o n t i n u i t y w i t h t h e e a r l i e r p r o f i l e ,
one i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r u c k by the p o s i t i o n now o c c u p i e d by
Didymus. R a t h e r than s t a n d i n g i n the m i d s t of t h e L a t e A l e x -
a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s , Didymus has f a l l e n n e a r the bottom of the
middle s e c t i o n occupied by B y z a n t i n e and C a e s a r e a n w i t n e s s e s .
I t s h o u l d be r e c a l l e d t h a t 579 was not used a s a r e p r e -
s e n t a t i v e w i t n e s s i n Matthew. I t a g r e e s w i t h the E a r l y A l e x -
a n d r i a n s i n Luke 6:45; 11:15; 14:26; 16:25; and 21:20, but not
i n Luke 13:27; 24:49; John 1:18; and 6:38.
T a b l e XXVII
W i t n e s s e s Ranked A c c o r d i n g t o P r o p o r t i o n a l
Agreement With Uniform and Predominant
E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n Readings i n John 6:47-21:25
1. C 36/37 (97. ,3%)
2. L 60/68 (88. ,2%)
3. W 55/66 (83. ,3%)
4. 33 54/68 (79. ,4%)
5. 't 53/68 (77. ,9%)
6. 892 26/34 (76. ,5%)
7. a 52/68 (76. ,5%)
8. n 51/68 (75. .0%)
9. e 50/68 (73. .6%)
10. & 47/68 (69. ,1%)
11. 579 47/68 (69.
.1%)
12. A 35/51 (68. .6%)
13. fam 13 46/68 (67. .6%)
14. Didymus 44/68 (64. ,7%)
15. fam 1 44/68 (64, .7%)
16. 1241 43/68 (63. .2%)
17. b 33/60 (55, .0%)
18. a 31/60 (51. .7%)
19. D 35/68 (51.5%)
20. m 31/61 (50. .8%)
I n s t e a d of an i m p r e s s i v e 79.3% agreement w i t h the E a r l y A l e x -
a n d r i a n s , Didymus now m a i n t a i n s a mediocre 64.7% agreement.
One o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n demonstrates the s h i f t i n
Didymus's t e x t u a l a f f i n i t i e s f o r t h i s p o r t i o n of the G o s p e l s .
A comparison of Didymus w i t h the E a r l y and L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n
w i t n e s s e s when t h e i r t e x t s s p l i t produces a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t
from t h a t o b t a i n e d e a r l i e r f o r the r e s t of h i s Gospel t e x t
(pp. 250-51). I n s t e a d of c o n t a i n i n g a s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r a t t e s -
t a t i o n of the p u r e r A l e x a n d r i a n r e a d i n g s , as r e p r e s e n t e d i n
the E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t , Didymus now e v i d e n c e s a c o n v i n c i n g
p r o c l i v i t y t o the L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n type of t e x t , s u p p o r t i n g
t h e s e l e s s pure r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the t r a d i t i o n i n e i g h t of
t e n i n s t a n c e s . T h i s does not s u g g e s t t h a t Didymus i s a good
w i t n e s s of the L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n subgroup i n the l a t t e r p a r t of
t h e F o u r t h Gospel ( c f . the p r e c e d i n g p r o f i l e ! ) . I n t h e s e
A l e x a n d r i a n s p l i t s Didymus n e c e s s a r i l y p r e s e r v e s one r e a d i n g
or the o t h e r . H i s a t t e s t a t i o n of the l a t e r s t r a i n of the
A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , s i m p l y demonstrates t h a t i n
John 6:46-21:25 the c o n s a n g u i n i t y of h i s t e x t changed through
an i n c r e a s e d o c c u r r e n c e of t e x t u a l c o n t a m i n a t i o n .
E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n agreements: 14:10; 17:12; L a t e
A l e x a n d r i a n : 7:39 ( 2 x ) ; 10:15; 10:29; 12:2; 14:10; 17:3;
17:21.
Chapter V I
C o n c l u s i o n s
The most enduring c o n t r i b u t i o n of the p r e s e n t study w i l l
undoubtedly be i t s a c c u m u l a t i o n of s i g n i f i c a n t d a t a : h e r e a l l
t h e NT q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s of a f o u r t h - c e n t u r y A l e x a n -
d r i a n w i t n e s s have been p r e s e n t e d and c o l l a t e d . Not u n t i l a l l
t h e d a t a from a l l o t h e r important s o u r c e s a r e s i m i l a r l y a c c u -
mulated w i l l we be a b l e t o s k e t c h a s a c c u r a t e l y as p o s s i b l e
the h i s t o r y of the NT t e x t . And o n l y then w i l l we draw n e a r e r
t o t h e u l t i m a t e g o a l of t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m : the a c c u r a t e
r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e NT autographs.
At t h e same time t h i s study has made o t h e r , more g e n e r a l
c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the ongoing t a s k of t e x t u a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n .
The purposes of t h i s f i n a l c h a p t e r a r e (1) t o r e h e a r s e the
m e t h o d o l o g i c a l r e f i n e m e n t s proposed i n the c o u r s e of t h i s
study f o r t h e a n a l y s i s and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of NT w i t n e s s e s , and
(2) t o draw out the i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e a n a l y s i s of Didymus
f o r t h e e a r l y h i s t o r y of the NT t e x t , p a r t i c u l a r l y a s i t was
t r a n s m i t t e d i n A l e x a n d r i a .
Methods of T e x t u a l A n a l y s i s and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n
A number of s i g n i f i c a n t methodological advances have been
made by o t h e r t e x t u a l a n a l y s e s i n r e c e n t y e a r s . These ad-
v a n c e s have made an important impact on t h e p r e s e n t study i n
f o u r major a r e a s : (1) The Use of a Q u a n t i t a t i v e A n a l y s i s .
T e x t u a l a f f i n i t i e s cannot be a s c e r t a i n e d by c o u n t i n g a w i t -
n e s s ' s agreements w i t h MSS r e p r e s e n t i n g known t e x t u a l groups
o n l y when they v a r y from an e x t r i n s i c and a r t i f i c i a l s t a n d a r d
such a s t h e TR. I n s t e a d , t e x t u a l c o n s a n g u i n i t y must be d e t e r -
mined by t a b u l a t i n g alignments i n a l l u n i t s of g e n e t i c a l l y
s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n . (2) The Alignments of A l e x a n d r i a n
W i t n e s s e s . A l e x a n d r i a n MSS can be expected t o agree w i t h one
another i n approximately 70% of a l l v a r i a t i o n , w h i l e s t a n d -
i n g a t a d i s t a n c e of about 10% from MSS r e p r e s e n t i n g o t h e r
254
C o n c l u s i o n s /255
groups. (3) The Phenomenon of B l o c k M i x t u r e . S i n c e s c r i b e s
sometimes made use of more than one exemplar, a t e x t u a l w i t -
n e s s may e v i d e n c e r a d i c a l and sudden s h i f t s of c o n s a n g u i n i t y .
A t e x t u a l a n a l y s i s must t h e r e f o r e be conducted so a s t o d e t e c t
3
unexpected r e a l i g n m e n t s . (4) P r o f i l e s of Group Readings. A
q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s t h a t c o n s i d e r s a w i t n e s s ' s p r o x i m i t y t o
i n d i v i d u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of known t e x t u a l groups cannot be
used e x c l u s i v e l y t o determine t e x t u a l a l i g n m e n t s . I n s t e a d a
supplementary a n a l y s i s of r e a d i n g s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of each
group must be used t o c o n f i r m and r e f i n e the f i n d i n g s of the
4
q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s .
Not o n l y d i d the p r e s e n t study r e l y on e a r l i e r methodolo-
g i c a l advances, i t a l s o sought t o make r e f i n e m e n t s of i t s own
i n t h e methods of a n a l y s i s now i n common use. With r e s p e c t t o
t h e use of a q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s , t h i s s t u d y proposed t h a t a
document's r e l a t i o n t o the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i t n e s s e s of known
t e x t u a l groups can be c r y s t a l i z e d somewhat by l o o k i n g a t a
composite of the data group by group, r a t h e r than r e s t r i c t i n g
the comparison o n l y t o the p r o p o r t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the
i n d i v i d u a l MSS t h e m s e l v e s . That i s t o say, a q u a n t i t a t i v e
a n a l y s i s s h o u l d be used t o a s c e r t a i n t h e average r e l a t i o n s h i p
of a p r e v i o u s l y u n c l a s s i f i e d w i t n e s s t o t h e members of each
group qua group r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . T h i s s t e p s e r v e s to reduce
somewhat t h e problems a t t e n d a n t t o the i d i o s y n c r a c i e s of t h i s
or t h a t i n d i v i d u a l MS.
A second r e f i n e m e n t has t o do w i t h t h e e x t e n t of a g r e e -
ment t h a t a q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s can be expected t o y i e l d f o r
See pp. 189-90 above. As d i s c u s s e d below, t h e s e
f i g u r e s s h o u l d be lowered somewhat f o r t h e non-continuous
t e x t s of P a t r i s t i c s o u r c e s . See a l s o pp. 195-202.
Thus Didymus's t e x t s h i f t s d r a m a t i c a l l y b e g i n n i n g w i t h
John 6:47 and c o n t i n u i n g t o t h e end of t h e G o s p e l . See t h e
d i s c u s s i o n of pp. 207-18.
4
5
S e e t h e t a b l e s on pp. 194-95; 205-06; 209-10; 212-14;
216-17.
6
I t w i l l be r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e group p r o f i l e s e f f e c t a
s i m i l a r end through an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t means.
a P a t r i s t i c author. I t was argued t h a t P a t r i s t i c s o u r c e s
p r e s e r v i n g f r e q u e n t but s p o r a d i c q u o t a t i o n s of the NT may not
e v i d e n c e group a f f i l i a t i o n as c l e a r l y as o t h e r s o u r c e s , such
as Greek MSS which c o n t a i n a continuous t e x t . The r e a s o n s f o r
t h i s comparative l a c k of c l a r i t y were not hard to l o c a t e .
Only t h o s e p a s s a g e s a church F a t h e r chose t o quote, and only
t h o s e quoted p a s s a g e s t h a t happen t o s u r v i v e , a r e a v a i l a b l e
f o r a n a l y s i s . T h i s random c h a r a c t e r of the d a t a combines w i t h
o t h e r problems unique t o t h e P a t r i s t i c s o u r c e s t h e l o o s e
c i t a t i o n h a b i t s of t h e F a t h e r s and the o c c a s i o n a l c o r r u p t i o n
of t h e i r c i t a t i o n s i n t h e c o u r s e of t r a n s m i s s i o n t o make the
a n a l y s i s of a P a t r i s t i c w i t n e s s p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t . No
m e t h o d o l o g i c a l advances can surmount t h e s e problems: o c c a -
s i o n a l l y a proposed t e x t u a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n w i l l be i n c o r r e c t .
The c r i t i c must t h e r e f o r e proceed w i t h m e t h o d o l o g i c a l r i g o r
and apply a degree of c a u t i o n when u s i n g q u e s t i o n a b l e e v i -
dence. Both of t h e s e f a c t o r s o c c a s i o n a l e r r o r s of r e c o n -
s t r u c t i o n and s y s t e m a t i c c a u t i o n w i l l have an u n a v o i d a b l e
e f f e c t on the q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s : they w i l l tend t o "even
out" t h e d i f f e r e n c e s among t e x t u a l w i t n e s s e s .
Thus i t was shown t h a t Didymus's t e x t i s s t r o n g l y A l e x a n -
d r i a n , more s t r o n g l y A l e x a n d r i a n i n f a c t , than even some of
8
t h e t h e w i t n e s s e s of t h e A l e x a n d r i a n c o n t r o l group. Y e t t h e
p r o p o r t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s of Didymus's t e x t c h a r t e d by t h e
q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s a r e not as c l e a r c u t as i s n o r m a l l y
expected of A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s . For t h e s e r e a s o n s i t was
proposed t h a t the normal r u l e of thumb t h a t A l e x a n d r i a n w i t -
n e s s e s agree i n + 70% of a l l v a r i a t i o n and be removed from
9
l e a d i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of o t h e r groups by a d i s t a n c e of 10%
be somewhat m o d i f i e d f o r s o u r c e s such as Didymus. The c h a r a c -
t e r of the d a t a urges the l o w e r i n g of t h e s e f i g u r e s t o l e v e l s
of agreement as low a s 65%, w i t h gaps between groups of around
See t h e d i s c u s s i o n on pp. 195-96 above.
8
S e e esp. t h e t h i r d and f o u r t h p r o f i l e s on pp. 238-53
above.
9
See t h e d i s c u s s i o n of pp. 189-90 above.
10
6-8%.
The major m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r o p o s a l s developed i n t h i s
s t u d y concern the use of t h e Comprehensive Group P r o f i l e
Method f o r c l a r i f y i n g and r e f i n i n g t h e f i n d i n g s of a q u a n t i t a -
t i v e a n a l y s i s . S i n c e a q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s c o n s i d e r s the
r e l a t i o n s h i p s of an e x t r a n e o u s w i t n e s s o n l y t o i n d i v i d u a l
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of known t e x t u a l groups, o r t o t h e i r composite
t e s t i m o n i e s as group w i t n e s s e s , i t must be supplemented w i t h a
c o r r o l a r y a n a l y s i s which c o n s i d e r s the r e a d i n g s t h a t c h a r a c -
t e r i z e the v a r i o u s groups, i r r e s p e c t i v e of whether t h e s e
r e a d i n g s a r e a t t e s t e d by t h i s or t h a t i n d i v i d u a l w i t n e s s .
P r e v i o u s p r o f i l e methods have l a c k e d adequate s o p h i s t i c a t i o n ,
a p p l i c a b i l i t y , or thoroughness t o a l l o w f o r a complete a n a l -
y s i s . Hence t h r e e p r o f i l e s were developed f o r t h e study
of Didymus
1
s t e x t , p r o f i l e s which can be used f o r any w i t n e s s
whose t e x t has been f u l l y c o l l a t e d and, p r e f e r a b l y , a l r e a d y
s u b j e c t e d t o a q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s .
F i r s t , an i n t e r - g r o u p p r o f i l e was used t o a s c e r t a i n the
e x t e n t of Didymus's a t t e s t a t i o n of r e a d i n g s found mainly by
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of o n l y one of the c o n t r o l groups ("primary"
group r e a d i n g s ) or o n l y by r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of one group ( " d i s -
t i n c t i v e " r e a d i n g s when the m a j o r i t y of group w i t n e s s e s a t t e s t
t h e r e a d i n g ; " e x c l u s i v e " r e a d i n g s when a m i n o r i t y of a t l e a s t
two d o ) . Next an i n t r a - g r o u p p r o f i l e was used t o determine
Didymus*s support of r e a d i n g s found among a l l the w i t n e s s e s of
any group ("uniform" r e a d i n g s ) orâmong most of t h e s e w i t -
n e s s e s ("predominant" r e a d i n g s ) . F i n a l l y , a combination
p r o f i l e was d e v i s e d t o c o n f l a t e t h e concerns of t h e o t h e r two
by t a b u l a t i n g Didymus*s a t t e s t a t i o n of r e a d i n g s supported by
most or a l l members of one group, but by few o r no o t h e r
w i t n e s s e s ( i . e . uniform or predominant r e a d i n g s t h a t a r e a l s o
See t h e d i s c u s s i o n of pp. 195-202 above.
See t h e d i s c u s s i o n on pp. 223-25 above.
See pp. 228-33.
See pp. 234-38.
258/ Didyiaus and t h e G o s p e l s
d i s t i n c t i v e , e x c l u s i v e , or p r i m a r y ) .
These p r o f i l e s demonstrated c o n v i n c i n g l y t h a t Didymus i s
a s t r o n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t . A
f o u r t h p r o f i l e was developed t o c o n f i r m t h e s e f i n d i n g s by
1 5
c o n s i d e r i n g a d i f f e r e n t c o n f i g u r a t i o n of r e a d i n g s . U n l i k e
t h e o t h e r p r o f i l e s , the f o u r t h can be used o n l y f o r w i t n e s s e s
a l r e a d y determined t o be A l e x a n d r i a n . Here t h e E a r l y A l e x a n -
d r i a n MSS a r e used as a c o l l a t i o n base, on t h e assumption t h a t
t h e i r u n i f o r m (or predominant) t e x t b e s t r e p r e s e n t s t h e A l e x -
a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n i n i t s p u r e s t form. When o t h e r w i t n e s s e s
a r e c o l l a t e d a g a i n s t t h i s h y p o t h e t i c a l s t a n d a r d , t h e i r l e v e l s
of A l e x a n d r i a n " p u r i t y " can be r e a d i l y gauged. The a p p l i -
c a t i o n of t h i s f i n a l p r o f i l e t o Didymus demonstrated beyond
r e a s o n a b l e doubt t h a t he p r e s e r v e s a good s t r a n d of t h e " L a t e "
A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n .
The C h a r a c t e r and H i s t o r y of the A l e x a n d r i a n T e x t
S i n c e the data from the p r e s e n t study d e r i v e e n t i r e l y
from t h e A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n of the mid- t o l a t e - f o u r t h
c e n t u r y , t h e y cannot be used t o make sweeping g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s
c o n c e r n i n g the e n t i r e h i s t o r y of the NT t e x t . At the same
time, however, once t h e s e d a t a have been a n a l y z e d and Didymus
has been f i r m l y s i t u a t e d i n the " L a t e " A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n ,
i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o a s k what l i g h t h i s t e x t can shed on the
thorny problems a l r e a d y r a i s e d c o n c e r n i n g the h i s t o r y of the
16
A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t .
The w e s t e r n T e x t i n A l e x a n d r i a
17
I t has l o n g been debated whether t h e Western t e x t began
See pp. 238-43.
15
See pp. 243-53.
16
1 7
Here we do not need t o concern o u r s e l v e s w i t h the
q u e s t i o n of the i n t e g r i t y of the Western t e x t . Most t e x t u a l
s c h o l a r s now acknowledge t h a t Western w i t n e s s e s do not cohere
as c l o s e l y a s do t h o s e of o t h e r groups, but i n s t e a d p r e s e r v e a
" w i l d " form of t e x t t h a t was extremely e a r l y and widespread.
See, f o r example, K u r t Aland, "The S i g n i f i c a n c e of the P a p y r i
f o r P r o g r e s s i n New Testament R e s e a r c h , " The B i b l e i n Modern
18
t o e x e r t i t s i n f l u e n c e l a t e i n A l e x a n d r i a , or i n s t e a d was
i n f l u e n t i a l e a r l y , o n l y t o be g r a d u a l l y e l i m i n a t e d i n l a t e r
19 , ,
t i m e s . T h i s l a r g e r problem cannot be r e s o l v e d by l o o k i n g a t
o n l y one p o i n t along the continuum of the A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i -
t i o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t Didymus p r e s e r v e s
a t r a d i t i o n which i s v i r t u a l l y f r e e from Western i n f l u e n c e .
Judging from the e v i d e n c e a f f o r d e d both by the q u a n t i t a t i v e
a n a l y s i s of i n d i v i d u a l w i t n e s s e s and by t h e p r o f i l e s of group
r e a d i n g s , t h e Western t r a d i t i o n was making p r a c t i c a l l y no
i n r o a d s i n t o the mainstream of the A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t i n Didy-
mus' s day.
T h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s not m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t e d by the s h i f t
i n c o n s a n g u i n i t y d e t e c t e d i n Didymus's t e x t f o r the l a t t e r
p a r t of John's G o s p e l . I t i s t r u e t h a t Didymus's support of
i n d i v i d u a l Western w i t n e s s e s and h i s a t t e s t a t i o n of Western
group r e a d i n g s both improve a t t h i s p o i n t . But when viewed
from t h e l a r g e r p e r s p e c t i v e , h i s Western a f f i l i a t i o n s a r e
s t r i k i n g l y weak even h e r e : he s t i l l s t a n d s c l o s e r t o t h e
A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t i n e v e r y r e s p e c t . Hence the t e x t u a l s h i f t
does not s u g g e s t t h a t Didymus used Western m a n u s c r i p t s f o r
t h i s p o r t i o n of John. I t does suggest t h a t the d i s t i n c t i v e l y
A l e x a n d r i a n element of h i s t e x t was m o d i f i e d by an i n c r e a s e d
p r o c l i v i t y toward an e c l e c t i c t e x t . I n t h i s p a r t of the
F o u r t h Gospel, Didymus p r e s e r v e s r e a d i n g s of v a r i o u s t r a d i -
t i o n s l e a s t of a l l t h e W e s t e r n i n no r e c o g n i z a b l e p a t t e r n of
20
a t t e s t a t i o n .
The B y z a n t i n e T e x t i n A l e x a n d r i a
As was shown by the l a b o r s of von Soden, K. Lake, and
21
E. C o l w e l l , the B y z a n t i n e t e x t i s no monolith, but r a t h e r
S c h o l a r s h i p , ed. J . P h i l i p H y a t t ( N a s h v i l l e : Abingdon, 1965)
3 36; E r n e s t C. C o l w e l l , S t u d i e s I n Methodology. 53; Gordon D.
Fee "Codex S i n a i t i c u s , " 44.
18
So S t r e e t e r , The Four G o s p e l s . 60, 118.
1 9
S o P. L. Hedley, "The E g y p t i a n T e x t of the G o s p e l s and
A c t s , " Q2S 118 (1934) 223.
2 0
O n the p r e s e n c e of the Western t e x t i n A l e x a n d r i a , see
n. 36, p. 20 above.
21
See Hermann von Soden, Di^slV^.iaiLte&^S&aJl!iaBL-.
comprises a c o m p l i c a t e d network of v a r i o u s streams of t r a d i -
t i o n . L e a d i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the more important B y z a n t i n e
subgroups were s e l e c t e d f o r t h e p r e s e n t a n a l y s i s of Didymus:
22
A, E, n, Q. Didymus s t a n d s i n v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l r e l a -
t i o n s h i p s t o each of t h e s e w i t n e s s e s , and hence t o t h e sub-
groups they r e p r e s e n t . I n no c a s e does he e v i d e n c e a s i g n i f i -
c a n t a f f i l i a t i o n w i t h any of the branches of t h e B y z a n t i n e
t e x t , whether by h i s support of group w i t n e s s e s or by h i s
a t t e s t a t i o n of group r e a d i n g s . I n most i n s t a n c e s Didymus
s u p p o r t s B y z a n t i n e group r e a d i n g s o n l y when t h e s e a r e s h a r e d
by o t h e r groups. I t should not be overlooked, i n t h i s connec-
t i o n , t h a t he a t t e s t s a lower p r o p o r t i o n of u n i f o r m o r predo-
minant B y z a n t i n e r e a d i n g s t h a t a r e a l s o d i s t i n c t i v e , e x c l u -
s i v e , or p r i m a r y than he does f o r any o t h e r g r o u p t h e Western
i n c l u d e d .
These f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t no " p r o t o - B y z a n t i n e " t e x t
e x i s t e d i n A l e x a n d r i a i n Didymus's day or, a t l e a s t i f i t d i d ,
i t made no impact on the mainstream of t h e t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n
24
t h e r e . Thus t h e s u p p o r t of Didymus f o r B y z a n t i n e w i t -
n e s s e s , which i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than t h a t f o r the
Western, does not suggest t h a t he drew some of h i s r e a d i n g s
25
from an a l r e a d y e x i s t e n t B y z a n t i n e t r a d i t i o n . I t s u g g e s t s
a e n t s ( B e r l i n : Alexander Drucker, 1902-11); K i r s o p p Lake, "The
E c c l e s i a s t i c a l T e x t , " E x c u r s u s I of K. Lake, Robert P. B l a k e ,
and S i l v a New, "The C a e s a r e a n T e x t of Mark, HXB 21 (1928) 338-
57; E. C. C o l w e l l , "The Complex C h a r a c t e r of the L a t e Byzan-
t i n e T e x t of the G o s p e l s , " Jg 54 (1935) 211-21. See a l s o
Wisse, P r o f i l e Method. 1-18.
22
On t h e s e MSS and the subgroups t h e y r e p r e s e n t , see
R u s s e l l Champlin, F a m i l y E and i t s A l l i e s i n Matthew (SD, 28;
S a l t Lake C i t y : U n i v e r s i t y of Utah P r e s s , 1967) 1-11, and
S i l v a Lake, F a m i l y H and t h e Codex A l e x a n d r i n u s ; The T e x t
A c c o r d i n g t o Mark (SD, 5; London: C h r i s t o p h e r s , 1937) 65-71.
2 4
N o t a b l y , once a g a i n , the s h i f t e v i d e n c e d i n Didymus's
t e x t a t John 6:47 does not s i g n i f y a p a r t i c u l a r l y c l o s e r r e l a -
t i o n s h i p t o t h e B y z a n t i n e t e x t .
2 5
H . S t u r z (The B y z a n t i n e Text-Type) r e p e a t e d l y a s s e r t s
t h a t "the B y z a n t i n e r e a d i n g s " d e r i v e from a t l e a s t t h e second
c e n t u r y , from a stream of t r a n s m i s s i o n independent of the
r a t h e r t h a t the B y z a n t i n e e d i t o r s d e r i v e d t h e i r t e x t , i n p a r t ,
from elements found i n the A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n . T h i s con-
c l u s i o n , of c o u r s e , has a l s o been drawn by 6. Zuntz and o t h e r s
26
on e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t grounds.
The C a e s a r e a n T e x t i n A l e x a n d r i a
As was observed e a r l i e r , the C a e s a r e a n T e x t has been
i s o l a t e d o n l y i n Mark's Gospel, f o r which the d a t a from Didy-
mus a r e s c a n t i e s t . Nonetheless, i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t n e i -
t h e r h e r e nor i n any o t h e r p o r t i o n of the G o s p e l s does Didymus
g i v e any i n d i c a t i o n of the e x i s t e n c e of a Caesarean t e x t i n
f o u r t h - c e n t u r y A l e x a n d r i a .
How i s i t , then, t h a t the q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s and group
p r o f i l e s show Didymus s t a n d i n g c l o s e r t o the C a e s a r e a n group
t h a n t o the B y z a n t i n e and Western, groups which a r e known t o
e x i s t a s d i s t i n c t e n t i t i e s ? The q u e s t i o n i s not so p e r p l e x i n g
when i t i s r e c a l l e d t h a t the s o - c a l l e d C a e s a r e a n w i t n e s s e s
r e p r e s e n t "mixed" t e x t s i n which the A l e x a n d r i a n element i s
e s p e c i a l l y prominent. I n t h i s r e g a r d i t cannot be overlooked
t h a t i n the t e x t u a l r e a l i g n m e n t s of the l a t t e r p a r t of John,
Didymus's d i m i n i s h e d a t t e s t a t i o n of the A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t i s
matched by a c o r r e s p o n d i n g drop i n h i s support f o r the Caesa-
rean, w h i l e h i s support f o r the o t h e r groups i n c r e a s e s . H i s
agreements w i t h the Caesarean w i t n e s s e s , t h e r e f o r e , seem t o
Western and A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n s . I n h i s view, the r e a d i n g s
of t h i s t h i r d type of t e x t c r e p t i n t o Western and A l e x a n d r i a n
w i t n e s s e s through v a r i o u s k i n d s of m i x t u r e . But i f t h i s were
t r u e , why d i d t h i s k i n d of t e x t have such an i n f i n i t e s i m a l
e f f e c t on Didymus? U n f o r t u n a t e l y S t u r z has made an unwar-
r a n t e d leap*, h a v i n g d i s c o v e r e d t h a t some B y z a n t i n e r e a d i n g s
c o u l d be found i n t h e e a r l y p a p y r i , he assumed t h e e a r l y
o r i g i n of a l l B y z a n t i n e r e a d i n g s . But the p r e s e n c e of some
B y z a n t i n e r e a d i n g s i n second-century MSS s i m p l y does not prove
t h a t the t e x t - t y p e i t s e l f i . e . a l l of i t s r e a d i n g s i n t h e i r
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c c o m b i n a t i o n s e x i s t e d a t t h a t time. F u r t h e r -
more, S t u r z ' s e v i d e n c e i t s e l f i s h i g h l y q u e s t i o n a b l e : a c t u a l -
l y v e r y few of the 150 B y z a n t i n e r e a d i n g s he f i n d s i n the
second- and t h i r d - c e n t u r y p a p y r i a r e " d i s t i n c t i v e l y " B y z a n t i n e
i n any s e n s e o f t h e term. As one example drawn from a myriad
of o t h e r s , S t u r z c l a s s i f i e s a r e a d i n g such as :i>uxfi OuSv of
Luke 12:22 a s " d i s t i n c t i v e l y " B y z a n t i n e , though, on h i s own
showing, i t i s supported by Old L a t i n , S y r i a c , and C o p t i c
v e r s i o n s , a s w e l l as by Clement of A l e x a n d r i a and A t h a n a s i u s !
26
G. Zuntz, T e x t of the E p i s t l e s .
d e r i v e from mutual a f f i n i t i e s w i t h the A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t , not
from any p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p he bore t o a d i s t i n c t i v e l y
C a e s a r e a n t r a d i t i o n .
The E a r l y and L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n T e x t s
M a r t i n i ' s p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the Gospel t e x t of
Didymus l e d him t o conclude t h a t Didymus r e p r e s e n t s the E a r l y
A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t , a type of t e x t M a r t i n i l a b e l e d " p r e r e c e n -
s i o n a l . " S i n c e Didymus resembles t h i s o l d e r form of t e x t as
l a t e as the f o u r t h c e n t u r y . M a r t i n i q u e s t i o n e d whether the
d e s i g n a t i o n of o t h e r w i t n e s s e s a s " L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n " i s a t a l l
28
a p p r o p r i a t e . He drew a t t e n t i o n t o the f a c t t h a t some of the
r e a d i n g s of t h i s " l a t e " t e x t a r e q u i t e e a r l y , c i t i n g the
75
r e a d i n g of P i n John 8:39 as an example. From t h i s M a r t i n i
concluded t h a t the s o - c a l l e d L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t must i n
29
f a c t have been q u i t e e a r l y . He suggested t h a t i t d e r i v e d
from a s l i g h t c o r r e c t i o n of an extremely a n c i e n t , u n e d i t e d
30
l i n e of t e x t p r e s e r v e d a l s o i n A l e x a n d r i a . I n M a r t i n i ' s
view, both the u n e d i t e d A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t ( r e p r e s e n t e d b e s t by
P B) and the e d i t e d v e r s i o n e x i s t e d s i d e by s i d e f o r s e v e r a l
c e n t u r i e s .
A c l o s e examination of M a r t i n i ' s argument shows t h a t
Didymus a c t u a l l y has v e r y l i t t l e t o do w i t h i t . Even i f
Didymus were an E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s , he c o u l d be used
o n l y t o show the c o n t i n u e d p e r s i s t e n c e of t h i s type of t e x t i n
the f o u r t h c e n t u r y . But t h i s would be no new d i s c o v e r y .
M a r t i n i h i m s e l f demonstrated t h i s v e r y phenomenon by h i s
e x a m i n a t i o n of another f o u r t h - c e n t u r y A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s ,
31
Codex V a t i c a n u s ! To demonstrate t h a t the d e s i g n a t i o n " L a t e
A l e x a n d r i a n " i s inadequate, t h e r e f o r e , M a r t i n i was f o r c e d t o
by-pass the e v i d e n c e from Didymus and look t o the o l d e r p a p y r i
M a r t i n i , " L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n T e x t , " 295.
28
I b i d . , 295.
29 ,
I b i d . , 295-96.
30
I b i d . , 295-96.
3 1
I 1 p r o b l e a a d e l l a r e c e n s i o n a l i t a d e l c o d i c e B a l i a l u c e
d e l p a p i r o Bodmer XIV (Rome, 1966) .
f o r e a r l i e r elements of t h i s t r a d i t i o n .
The p r e s e n t study shows a t l e a s t one of the i n a d e q u a c i e s
of M a r t i n i ' s a n a l y s i s . Didymus a c t u a l l y does bear a c l o s e
r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e s o - c a l l e d L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s .
Although the q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s shows t h a t h i s o v e r a l l
agreements a r e g r e a t e r w i t h t h e E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s ,
the d i f f e r e n c e between the two A l e x a n d r i a n groups i s n e g l i g i -
b l e ( 1 . 3 % ) , and i n Matthew and Mark Didymus a c t u a l l y s t a n d s
c l o s e r t o the L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n s . Furthermore, t h e f o u r t h
p r o f i l e makes i t c e r t a i n t h a t Didymus cannot be c l a s s i f i e d as
a member of t h e E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n group: o t h e r L a t e A l e x a n -
d r i a n w i t n e s s e s resemble the E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t more
33
c l o s e l y than Didymus does! Thus Didymus must be c o n s i d e r e d
a L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s .
But t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n r a i s e s the q u e s t i o n a l s o posed by
M a r t i n i : what does i t mean t o c a l l a w i t n e s s L a t e Alexan-
d r i a n ? I n view of the c o n c l u s i o n s a l r e a d y r e a c h e d i n t h i s
study, t h e q u e s t i o n can be somewhat m o d i f i e d : how i s i t t h a t
a w i t n e s s which s t a n d s c l o s e s t t o E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s
must be c o n s i d e r e d L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n ? The s o l u t i o n t o t h i s
enigma w i l l i l l u m i n a t e the r e a l c h a r a c t e r of the h i s t o r y of
the A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t .
When c r i t i c s speak of two d i s t i n c t t y p e s of t e x t i n
A l e x a n d r i a , a s does M a r t i n i , they tend t o confuse t h e h i s t o r i -
c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e s e t e x t s . I t has been c o n v i n c i n g l y
75
demonstrated t h a t the P B t y p e of t e x t does not r e p r e s e n t a
r e c e n s i o n of any k i n d i . e . i t cannot be c o n s i d e r e d an e d i t i o n
34
or r e v i s i o n of e a r l i e r t e x t s . What then of t h e A l e x a n d r i a n
MSS t h a t d i f f e r from t h i s u n r e v i s e d , u n e d i t e d type of t e x t ?
Do they d e r i v e from an A l e x a n d r i a n r e c e n s i o n ? O b v i o u s l y t o
some e x t e n t t h e s e MSS d i f f e r from the pure l i n e of t e x t b e s t
75
p r e s e r v e d i n P B. I t i s not so obvious t h a t t h e s e o t h e r
33
3 4
S e e Gordon D. Fee, "P75, P66, and Origen"; C a l v i n
P o r t e r , "Papyrus Bodmer XV (P75) and the T e x t of Codex V a t i -
canus," J P L 81 (1962) 363-76; and M a r t i n i , I I problema.
w i t n e s s e s p r e s e r v e a d i s t i n c t type of t e x t , i . e . t h a t t h e i r
agreements r e p r e s e n t a form of t e x t which has been d e r i v e d
from an e a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n r e c e n s i o n of the p u r e r l i n e of t e x t .
T h i s , of c o u r s e , was H o r t ' s c o n c e p t i o n taken over w i t h o u t
apology by M a r t i n i A l e x a n d r i a p r e s e r v e d an u n e d i t e d
(=Neutral) and an e d i t e d (-Alexandrian) type of t e x t . But
the f o i b l e of H o r t ' s t h e o r y has long been r e c o g n i z e d : he c o u l d
c i t e no Greek MS which r e p r e s e n t s t h i s l a t t e r k i n d of t e x t i n
an unmixed form. M a r t i n i h i m s e l f has i n a s e n s e h i g h l i g h t e d
the problem bv; p o i n t i n g t o an e a r l y o c c u r r e n c e of a " l a t e "
r e a d i n g i n P . Although M a r t i n i does not draw t h i s c o n c l u -
s i o n , he v e r y w e l l c o u l d have: the s o - c a l l e d L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n
w i t n e s s e s do not r e p r e s e n t a d i s t i n c t type of t e x t d e r i v i n g
from a r e c e n s i o n a t a l l ; r a t h e r , they i n d i c a t e a movement
away from the p u r e s t l i n e of A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t by v a r i o u s
w i t n e s s e s a t v a r i o u s t i m e s .
36
T h i s i s not, of c o u r s e , a new c o n c e p t i o n . But i t does
r e c e i v e c o r r o b o r a t i o n from t h e p r e s e n t a n a l y s i s of Didymus.
The q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s which shows Didymus's c l o s e r e l a -
t i o n s h i p t o E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s , coupled w i t h the
f o u r t h p r o f i l e which shows him t o be L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n , sug-
g e s t s t h a t the n o t i o n of two d i s t i n c t t y p e s of A l e x a n d r i a n
t e x t i s i n a c c u r a t e . There was one type of t e x t i n A l e x a n d r i a ,
w i t h A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s p r e s e r v i n g i t i n v a r y i n g l e v e l s of
p u r i t y .
M a r t i n i ' s q u e s t i o n i n g of the e x i s t e n c e of a " L a t e "
A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t i . e . , of a d i s t i n c t i v e form of t e x t d e r i v i n g
from a t h i r d - or f o u r t h - c e n t u r y r e c e n s i o n h a s , i n e f f e c t ,
s i m p l y pushed the date of the " r e c e n s i o n " back i n t o the second
c e n t u r y . Thus the c o n c l u s i o n s of the p r e s e n t study d i f f e r
from M a r t i n i ' s i n one important r e s p e c t : h e r e i t i s b e i n g
contended t h a t e a r l y c o r r u p t i o n s of t h e p u r e s t A l e x a n d r i a n
t r a d i t i o n do not n e c e s s a r i l y d e r i v e from a r e c e n s i o n , i . e . ,
from an i n t e n t i o n a l and d e l i b e r a t e p r o d u c t i o n of an e d i t i o n or
r e v i s i o n . They c o u l d j u s t a s w e l l have r e s u l t e d from a r b i -
t r a r y improvements of the B i b l i c a l t e x t a t d i f f e r e n t times by
d i f f e r e n t s c r i b e s who were t r a i n e d i n t h e same c l a s s i c a l
t r a d i t i o n f o r which A l e x a n d r i a was so famous. As shown below,
t h i s way of c o n s t r u i n g the development of t h e " L a t e " A l e x a n -
d r i a n t e x t seems t o e x p l a i n more a d e q u a t e l y the t e x t u a l c h a r -
a c t e r of Didymus's Gospel q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s .
See, e.g., S t r e e t e r , The Four GoSBgls, 59-61.
I f t h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s c o r r e c t , a whole new s e t of d e s i g -
n a t i o n s f o r the A l e x a n d r i a n subgroups i s n e c e s s a r y . The
l a b e l s " E a r l y " and " L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n , " used merely a s a
m a t t e r of convenience i n the p r e s e n t study, do s e r v e t o h i g h -
l i g h t one a s p e c t of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e s e subgroups: the
p u r e s t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s tend to be e a r l y , t h e l e s s pure l a t e .
But when a f o u r t h - c e n t u r y w i t n e s s such as Didymus i s l a b e l e d
L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n , w h i l e a contemporary w i t n e s s such a s codex
K i s c a l l e d E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n , some c o n f u s i o n may r e s u l t . Of
c o u r s e t h e s e d e s i g n a t i o n s s i m p l y i n d i c a t e t h a t one of the
w i t n e s s e s p r e s e r v e s the e a r l i e r form of t e x t . But g i v e n the
c i r c u m s t a n c e t h a t " e a r l y " and " l a t e " r e a d i n g s c o e x i s t i n the
37
e a r l i e s t s o u r c e s , one wonders about t h e adequacy of the
l a b e l s .
M a r t i n i p u z z l e d over t h i s problem a s w e l l , but e x p r e s s e d
a r e t i c e n c e about r e t u r n i n g t o the H o r t i a n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a
" N e u t r a l " t e x t . T h i s d e s i g n a t i o n i s s t i l l commonly used,
but i t too i s m i s l e a d i n g . To be s u r e , t h i s type of t e x t i s
p r e s e r v e d i n a s e c o n d - c e n t u r y w i t n e s s (P ) which i t s e l f does
not appear to r e p r e s e n t a t e x t u a l r e v i s i o n or e d i t i o n . Ob-
v i o u s l y , then, i t r e p r e s e n t s "a v e r y a n c i e n t l i n e of a v e r y
a n c i e n t t e x t . " But t h a t does not make i t " N e u t r a l , " i . e .
" o r i g i n a l . " And once the d e s i g n a t i o n i s extended so a s t o
i n c l u d e "primary" and "secondary" N e u t r a l s , a s i s done by Fee
39
and o t h e r s , the term has l o s t much of i t s meaning. The i d e a
of a "secondary N e u t r a l " w i t n e s s i s b i z a r r e i n the extreme!
From the f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n i t s h o u l d be seen t h a t the
A l e x a n d r i a n subgroups a r e b e s t l a b e l e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r
r e l a t i v e p r e s e r v a t i o n of the p u r e s t form of the t e x t i n A l e x -
a n d r i a . The most s a t i s f a c t o r y d e s i g n a t i o n s of t h e s e sub-
groups, t h e r e f o r e , a r e "Primary A l e x a n d r i a n " and "Secondary
A l e x a n d r i a n . " The l a b e l "Primary A l e x a n d r i a n " presupposes
n o t h i n g about the o v e r a l l s u p e r i o r i t y or t h e u n r e v i s e d c h a r a c -
See M a r t i n i , "The L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n T e x t , " 295.
3 S
S e e , f o r example, the s t u d i e s of Fee ("The T e x t of John
i n O r i g i n and C y r i l " ) and Globe ("Serapion of Thmuis").
"The T e x t of John i n Origen and C y r i l , " 387.
266/ Didyirtus and the G o s p e l s
t e r of t h i s t e x t , nor does i t suggest t h a t the t e x t i s found
among a l l e a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s but among none of the
l a t e r . "Secondary A l e x a n d r i a n " s i g n i f i e s a r e l a t i v e contami-
n a t i o n of the d i s t i n c t A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t , w i t h o u t presupposing
e i t h e r the r e l a t i v e i n f e r i o r i t y of t h i s k i n d o f t e x t or i t s
l a t e date of o r i g i n . Furthermore, by s u g g e s t i n g a r e l a t i v e l y
impure p r e s e r v a t i o n of a d i s t i n c t i v e form of t e x t , the l a t t e r
d e s i g n a t i o n a v o i d s the misconception t h a t the MSS of t h i s
group themselves d e r i v e from a r e c e n s i o n of some s o r t . When
t h e t e x t i n A l e x a n d r i a i s understood i n t h i s way, i t becomes
c l e a r how a w i t n e s s such a s Didymus can agree most e x t e n s i v e l y
w i t h "Primary A l e x a n d r i a n " w i t n e s s e s w h i l e b e i n g c l a s s i f i e d a s
"Secondary A l e x a n d r i a n " : h i s t e x t i s on the same l e v e l of
i m p u r i t y as o t h e r secondary w i t n e s s e s , but does not always
s h a r e w i t h them the same c o n t a m i n a t i o n s .
I t w i l l be e v i d e n t from what has a l r e a d y been s a i d t h a t
t h e c h a r a c t e r of Didymus's t e x t c o u n t e r s the o l d e r view of
Bousset, von soden, and o t h e r s t h a t t h e A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t
r e p r e s e n t s an o f f i c i a l r e c e n s i o n made i n the t h i r d or f o u r t h
40
c e n t u r y . Were t h e r e such an e c c l e s i a s t i c a l l y s a n c t i o n e d
t e x t , one would c e r t a i n l y e x p e c t t o f i n d a much g r e a t e r homo-
g e n e i t y i n the A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n . One would e s p e c i a l l y
suppose t h a t the t e x t of a prominent church l e a d e r t h e head
of t h e A l e x a n d r i a n c a t e c h e t i c a l s c h o o l ! w o u l d d i f f e r l i t t l e
from t h a t p r e s e r v e d i n the m a g n i f i c e n t A l e x a n d r i a n c o d i c e s
produced d u r i n g h i s l i f e t i m e . P a r t i c u l a r l y unfounded i s the
c o n j e c t u r e of S. J e l l i c o e , t h a t Didymus h i m s e l f was a popu-
l a r i z e r of the Hesychian r e c e n s i o n , t h a t i t was a c t u a l l y he
who persuaded Jerome of i t s e x c e p t i o n a l q u a l i t y when the
l a t t e r v i s i t e d him f o r two weeks i n A.D. 386.
The t e x t of the NT was f l u i d i n f o u r t h - c e n t u r y A l e x a n -
d r i a , though not n e a r l y as f l u i d as i n o t h e r c e n t e r s of an-
c i e n t Christendom. A good d e a l of e v i d e n c e e x i s t s t o i n d i c a t e
-4Tj
See note 35, p. 19 above.
41
I Bi 82 (1963) 4 0 9 f f .
t h a t p a r t i c u l a r e f f o r t s were taken t o p r e s e r v e t e x t u a l p u r i t y
42
t h e r e . And a t l e a s t one l i n e of A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t was v e r y
a n c i e n t , u n r e v i s e d , and u n e d i t e d . The Gospel q u o t a t i o n s and
a l l u s i o n s of Didymus h e l p t o demonstrate the degree of c o n t r o l
t h a t t h i s pure l i n e of t r a n s m i s s i o n e x e r c i s e d over the e n t i r e
A l e x a n d r i a n t r a d i t i o n : t e x t u a l v a r i a t i o n tended t o be away
from t h i s norm. But the t r e n d toward v a r i a t i o n was so wide-
s p r e a d t h a t by the time of Didymus most A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s
had l o s t the e x c e p t i o n a l p u r i t y of the P B l i n e of t e x t .
See e s p e c i a l l y Zuntz, T e x t of the E p i s t l e s . 271-76.
Appendix One
Didymus i n the Apparatus of NA'
The f o l l o w i n g i s a complete l i s t of r e a d i n g s f o r which
Didymus's support can now be c i t e d o r c o r r e c t e d i n the
26
a p p a r a t u s of NA . The l i s t i n c l u d e s o n l y t h o s e r e a d i n g s f o r
which s u p p o r t i n g documents a r e a l r e a d y c i t e d . P a r e n t h e s e s
i n d i c a t e t h a t Didymus's r e a d i n g d i f f e r s s l i g h t l y from the one
g i v e n i n the a p p a r a t u s . Readings f o r which Didymus's support
s h o u l d be c o r r e c t e d i n the apparatus a r e marked w i t h an
a s t e r i s k .
Matt 1 6 omit
Matt 1 16 ( ,
)
Matt 5 4 add
Matt 5 25 ' 6
Matt 5 41 ( )
Matt 6 1
Matt 6 14
(2 )

Matt 6 21
(2 )

Matt 7 6 D i d
p t
/
Matt 7 9 omit
Matt 7 9 omit
Matt 7 10 ( )
Matt 7 13 omit D i d
p t
Matt 7 14

Matt 7 21 add
Matt 7 24

Matt 7 26

Matt 8 12 Did^/{ !
Matt 10:28
^
1
^
2 68
Matt 10:28
Matt 10:33
Matt 11:20
Matt 12:24
Matt 12:35
Matt 15:6
Matt 15:8
*Matt 15:14
Matt 16:19
Matt 18:6
Matt 18:7
Matt 18:10
Matt 19:28
Matt 21:2
Matt 21:19
Matt 22:13
Matt 22:44
Matt 22:45
Matt 23:2
Matt 23:30
Matt 23:37
Matt 23:37
Matt 24:3
Matt 24:36
Matt 24:40
Matt 25:41
Matt 25:41
1

add

add

omit
omit

add
(
omit
(add )

omit
add
add

add

Didymus i n t h e /269
)
Matt 26:31
Matt 26:52
via
Matt 26 : 53 omit
Matt 26 : 53
.
Matt 26 :53 omit
Matt 26 : 53 ()
Matt
27 : 40 omit
Matt 28 :19 omit
Mark 4: 10
( )
Mark 7: 6

Mark 11 :2 ( )
Mark 11 :2
Luke 1: 17 ( )
Luke 1: 69 omit
Luke 2: 35
Luke 2: 37
Luke 4: 17
Luke 6: 21 ( )
Luke 6: 38 ( )
Luke 6: 45 omit
Luke 7: 28
Luke 9: 23 add .'
Luke 9: 62 ( '
)
Luke 10 :13
Luke 10 :19
*Luke 10:19 D i d
p
/omit Did
1
Didymus i n the
2 6
/271
Luke 10:20
Luke 10:20
Luke 11:15
Luke 12:8 Did*
3 1
"/ Did*
3 1
"
Luke 12:20 Did*
3
*"
Luke 13:27
Luke 14:26 Did*
31
"/ Did*
3
^
Luke 14:26
Luke 14:26
Luke 14:26 ^/ D i d
p t
Luke 14:34 omit
Luke 14:34
Luke 15:22 add
Luke 16:23 ()
Luke 18:14 '
Luke 19:42 omit
Luke 19:43 ()
Luke 21:20 omit
Luke 23:21
Luke 24:49 omit
Luke 24:49
John l : 3
John 3: 18 add
John 4: 36 omit
John 5: 29
John 5: 47
John 6: 46
272/ Dich/mus and the Gospels
John 6: 57 add uou
John 6: 62
John 6: 70 ei e UMicv
John 7: 39 eXe-yev
John 7: 39 ou
John 7: 39 n L oxeuovxe
John 8: 12 epoi
*John 8: 39
eoxe D i d
p t
/ n x e D i d
p t
*John 8: 39 ito i e i xe
John 9: 6
(eitexpLoev )
John 10 : 16 o u v a y a y e i v
John 10 :16 uxouoouoiv
John 10 :16 (yevnooxixai )
John 10 :18 npev Did
p t
/ai.peL. D i d
p t
John 10 :27 axououotv
John 10 :29
f 2 1
add uou
John 10 :30 add uou D i d
p t
John 10 :32 ><aXa epya e6eia u p u
John 10 : 32 add uou
John 11 :26 omit et eue
John 12 :2 omit EM
John 13 : 37 (xn,v ûxqv uou uiep sou)
ijjuxnv uou) D i d
p
John 14 : 10 (add o )
John 14 tlO au xou
John 14 23
noi-naouea
John 17 :3 YlVBOHOUOtV
John 17 :12 omit ev xai HOOUIO
Didymus i n the
2 6
/273
John 17:21 omit
John 18:5
Appendix Two
Didymus i n the Apparatus of UBS
The f o l l o w i n g i s a complete l i s t of r e a d i n g s f o r which
Didymus's support can now be c i t e d or c o r r e c t e d i n the
apparatus of UBS . The format i s the same a s Appendix One.
Matt 1: 16
( ,
)
Matt 3: 12
( )
Matt 7: 13
Did
p t
/niit D i d
p t
Matt 7: 14
Matt 7: 14
Matt 7: 24

Matt 8: 12
() Di d
p t
/ a D i d
p t
Matt 15: 6

Matt 18 :7
W a t t 24 : 36

Matt 27 :40 omit <
Mark 7: 6
Mark 9: 49
( )
Luke 1: 17 ()
Luke 1: 35

Luke l : 68
Luke 2: 11

Luke 6: ;38

Luke 7: 28

Luke 9: 62 '
( f o r )
2 74
2 75/ Didynus and the Gospels
Luke 11 : 13
itveuua a r i o v
Luke 12 :20
auai TOuai v t n v ûxnv aou ai t o
i|)uxnv aou a i x c u a i v a i o aou
oou or nai TOUOi v ai t o aou Did'
Luke 13 :27 OUH ota uua itoBev e a t s
Luke 19 :42
eipnv nv
John 8: 34
inc. auapxiac.
*John 8: 39
ItO LELt E
John 9: 6 enexp i ev
John 10 : l l
xi not v
John 10 : 15 T i 6 n u i
John 10 : 16 ( y e v n a o v x a i )
*John 10 :18 a i. pei Did
p t
/noev D i d
p t
John 10 :29 Jiaxpo you
John 10 :32
naxpoc uou
John 17 :21
e v I i v
3ou D i d
p t
/ (
x
n
. D i d
p
/ tnv !|>ox
S e l e c t e d B i b l i o g r a p h y
I . B i b l i c a l T e x t s and E d i t i o n s
Aland, K u r t . S y n o p s i s Quattuor Evanqeliorum. 8th ed. S t u t t -
g a r t : Deutsche B i b e l a n s t a l t , 1973.
Aland, K u r t ; B l a c k , Matthew; M a r t i n i , C a r l o M.; Metzger, Bruce
M.; and Wikgren, A l l e n . The Greek New Testament. 3rd ed.
New York: U n i t e d B i b l e S o c i e t i e s , 1975.
B a r n a b i t a e , C a r d i V e r c e l l o n e S o d a l i s , and B a s i l i a n i , l o s e p h i
Cozza Manachi, eds. B i b l l o r u m Sacrorum Graecus Codex
V a t i c a n u s . 1868. Reproduced, D e t r o i t : Brown and Thomas,
1982.
Beerman, Gustav, and Gregory, Caspar Rene, eds. Die K o r i d e t h i
E v a n g e l i e n . L e i p z i g : J.C. H i n r i c h s , 1913.
Champlin, R u s s e l l . F a m i l y E and i t s A l l i e s i n Matthew (SD,
X X V I I I ) S a l t Lake C i t y : U n i v e r s i t y of Utah P r e s s , 1966.
F e r r a r , W i l l i a m Hugh. A C o l l a t i o n of Four Important Manu-
s c r i p t s of the G o s p e l s . E d i t e d by T. K. Abbott. London:
Macmillan & Co., 1877.
G e e r l i n g s , Jacob. F a m i l y n i n John (SD, X X I I I ) . S a l t Lake
C i t y : U n i v e r s i t y of Utah P r e s s , 1963.
. F a m i l y p i n Luke (SD, X X I I ) . S a l t Lake C i t y :
U n i v e r s i t y of Utah P r e s s , 1962.
. F a m i l y n i n Matthew (SD, XXIV). S a l t Lake C i t y :
U n i v e r s i t y of Utah P r e s s , 1964.
. F a m i l y 1 3 T h e F e r r a r Group; The T e x t A c c o r d i n g
t o John (SD, X X I ) . S a l t Lake C i t y : U n i v e r s i t y of Utah
P r e s s , 1962.
. F a m i l y 1 3 T h e F e r r a r Group: The T e x t A c c o r d i n g
t o Luke (SD, XX). S a l t Lake C i t y : U n i v e r s i t y of Utah
P r e s s , 1961.
. F a m i l y 1 3 T h e F e r r a r Group: The T e x t According
t o Matthew (SD, X I X ) . S a l t Lake C i t y : U n i v e r s i t y of
Utah P r e s s , 1961.
H a n s e l l , Edward H., ed. Novum Testamentum Graece: A n t i q u i s -
simorum Codicum Textus i n Ordine P a r a l l e l o D i s p o s i t i
A c c e d i t C o l l a t i o C o d i c e s S i n a l t i c i . 3 v o l s . Oxford:
Clarendon P r e s s , 1864.
276
B i b l i o g r a p h y /277
H a r r i s , J . Rendel. "An Important Manuscript of the New
Testament," J B L 9 (1890) 31-59.
Hort, Fenton John Anthony, and w e s t c o t t , Brooke F o s s , eds. The
New Testament i n t h e O r i g i n a l Greek, I , Cambridge: Mac-
m i l l a n , 1881.
Jlicher, Adolf. I t a l a : Das Neue Testament i n a l t l a t e i n -
i s c h e r berlieferung. B e r l i n : Walter de G r u y t e r & Co., I V ,
1963; I - I I I , eds. K u r t Aland and W a l t e r Matzkow, 1970.
Lake, Helen, and Lake, K i r s o p p , eds. Codex S i n a i t i c u s
P e t r o p o l i t a n u s : The New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon
P r e s s , 1911; reproduced D e t r o i t : Brown & Thomas, 1982.
Lake, K i r s o p p . Codex 1 of the G o s p e l s and I t s A l l i e s . (TS,
3 ) . Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1902.
Lake, K i r s o p p , and Lake, S i l v a . F a m i l y 13 (The F e r r a r Group):
The T e x t According t o Mark (SD, X I ) . London: C h r i s t o -
p h e r s , 1941.
Lake, K i r s o p p , and New, S i l v a . S i x C o l l a t i o n s of New Testament
M a n u s c r i p t s (HTS, X V I I ) . Cambridge Mass.: Harvard
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1932.
Lake, S i l v a . F a m i l y n and t h e Codex A l e x a n d r i n u s ; The T e x t
A c c o r d i n g t o Mark (SD, V ) . London: C h r i s t o p h e r s , 1937.
Legg, S. C. E., ed. Novum_Testamentum G r a e c e : Evangelium
Secundum Marcum. Oxford: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1935.
. , ed. Novum Testamentum Graece: Evangelium Secundum
Matthaeum. Oxford: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1940.
M a r t i n , V i c t o r , ed. Bapyrus 6 o d i g r _ I J ; jv^gilS-aS-imSLJ^.
14. Geneva: B i b l i o t h e c a Bodmeriana, 1956.
, ed. Papyrus Bodmer I I . Supplement: E v a n q i l e de
J e a n chap. 14-21. Geneva: B i b l i o t h e c a Bodmeriana,
1958.
N e s t l e - A l a n d Novum Testamentum Graece. 26th ed. T e x t e d i t e d
by K u r t Aland, Matthew B l a c k , C a r l o M. M a r t i n i , Bruce M.
Metzger, and A l l e n Wikgren. Apparatus e d i t e d by K u r t
Aland and Barbara Aland w i t h the I n s t i t u t e f o r the Study
of the T e x t of t h e New Testament ( W e s t p h a l i a ) . S t u t t -
g a r t : Deutsche B i b e l g e s e l l s c h a f t , 1979.
R e t t i g , H. C. M., ed. Codex S a n g a l l e n s i s . Z u r i c h : F r e d e r i c h
S h u l t h e s s , 1836.
schmidtke, A l f r e d , ed. Die E v a n g e l i e n : E i n e s a l t e n nzial-
codex. L e i p z i g : J . C. H i n r i c h s , 1903.
S c r i v e n e r , F r e d e r i c k H. A., ed. Novum Testamentum: Textus
S t e p h a n i e ! A. D. 1550. Cambridge: Deighton B e l l , 1877.
von Soden, Hermann F r e i h e r r . Die S c h r i f t e n des Neuen
Testaments i n i h r e n ltesten e r r e i c h b a r e n T e x t g e s t a l t .
I I , T e x t mit Apparat. Gottingen, 1913.
T i s c h e n d o r f , C o n s t a n t i n u s , ed. Monumenta S a c r a I n e d i t a .
L e i p z i g , 1846.
, ed. Novum Testamentum Graece. Ex S i n a i t l c o Codice.
L e i p z i g : F. A. Brockhaus, 1865.
I I . E d i t i o n s of Didymus's Commentaries found a t Toura
Didymus. Kommentar zum E c c l e s i a s t e s . 1.1 ( P a p y r o l o g i s c h e
T e x t e und Abhandlungen. 2 5 ) . Gerhard Binder and Leo
L i e s e n b o r g h s , eds. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt V e r l a g GMBH,
1979.
. Kommentar zum E c c l e s i a s t e s . I I ( P a p y r o l o g i s c h e
Texte und Abhandlungen. 2 2 ) . Michael Gronewald, ed.
Bonn: Rudolf Habelt V e r l a g GMBH: 1977.
. Kommentar zum E c c l e s i a s t e s . I I I ( P a p y r o l o g i s c h e
T e x t e und Abhandlungen. 1 3 ) . Johannes Kramer, ed.
Bonn: Rudolf Habelt V e r l a g GMBH, 1970.
Kommentar zum E c c l e s i a s t e s . I V ( P a p y r o l o g i s c h e
T e x t e und Abhandlungen. 1 6 ) . Johannes Kramer and Brbel
Krebber, eds. Bonn: Rudolf H a b e l t V e r l a g GMBH, 1972.
Kommentar zum E c c l e s i a s t e s . V (J
Texte und Abhandlungen. 2 4 ) . Michael Gronewald, ed.
Bonn: Rudolf H a b e l t V e r l a g GMBH, 1979.
. Kommentar zum E c c l e s i a s t e s . V I ( P a p y r o l o g i s c h e
T e x t e und Abhandlungen. 9 ) . Gerhard B i n d e r and Leo
L i e s e n b o r g h s , eds. Bonn: Rudolf H a b e l t V e r l a g GMBH,
1969.
. Kommentar zu Hiob. I ( P a p y r o l o g i s c h e Texte und
Abhandlungen, 1 ) . A l b e r t H e n r i c h s , ed. Bonn: Rudolf
H a b e l t V e r l a g GMBH, 1968.
. Kommentar zu Hiob. I I ( P a p v r o l o a i s c h e T e x t e und
Abhandlungen, 2 ) . A l b e r t H e n r i c h s , ed. Bonn: Rudolf
. Kommentar zu Hiob. I I I f P a p v r o l o g i s c h e T e x t e und
Abhandlungen. 3 ) . U r s u l a Hagedorn, D i e t e r Hagedorn, and
Ludwig Koenen, eds. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt V e r l a g GMBH,
1968.
_ . Psalmenkommentar I ( P a p v r o l o g i s c h e Texte und
Abhandlungen, 7) . L o u i s D o u t r e l e a u , Adolphe Gesche', and
M i c h a e l Gronewald, eds. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt V e r l a g
GMBH, 1969.
. Psalmenkommentar. I I f P a p y r o l o g i s c h e Texte und
Abhandlungen. 4 ) . Michael Gronewald, ed. Bonn: Rudolf
Habelt V e r l a g GMBH, 1968.
. Psalmenkommentar. I I I ( P a p y r o l o q j s c h e Texte und
Abhandlungen. 8 ) . M i c h a e l Gronewald, ed. Bonn: Rudolf
. Psalmenkommentar. IV ( P a p y r o l o g i s c h e Texte und
Abhandlungen. 6 ) . Michael Gronewald, ed. Bonn: Rudolf
Habelt V e r l a g GMBH, 1969.
. Psalmenkommentar. V ( P a p v r o l o g i s c h e T e x t e und
Abtlandlungen. 1 2 ) . Michael Gronewald, ed. Bonn:
Rudolf H a b e l t V e r l a g GMBH, 1970.
. Der Psalmenkommentar von Tura. Quaternio I X .
A l o y s K e h l , ed. Cologne: Westdeutscher V e r l a g , 1964.
. Sur l a Gense. Texte indit d'aprs un papyrus de
Toura: I n t r o d u c t i o n , t e x t e c r i t i g u e . t r a d u c t i o n e t
n o t e s . 2 v o l s . (SC, 233, 244) P a r i s : L e s ditions du
C e r f , 1976, 1978.
. Sur Z a c h a r i e . Texte indit d'aprs un papyrus de
Toura: I n t r o d u c t i o n , t e x t e c r i t i q u e , t r a d u c t i o n e t
n o t e s . 3 v o l s . (SC, 83-85). L o u i s Doutreleau, ed.
P a r i s : Les ditions du C e r f , 1962.
I I I . Books and A r t i c l e s
Aland, K u r t . "The S i g n i f i c a n c e of the P a p y r i f o r P r o g r e s s i n
New Testament R e s e a r c h , " i n The B i b l e i n Modern S c h o l a r -
s h i p . ed. J . P h i l i p H y a t t . N a s h v i l l e : Abingdon P r e s s ,
1965.
_ _ . S t u d i e n zur berlieferung des Neuen Testaments
und s e i n e s T e x t e s . B e r l i n : W a l t e r de G r u y t e r , 1967.
A l t a n e r , B e r t h o l d . " E i n g r o s s e r , aufsehen e r r e g e n d e r
p a t r o l o g i s c h e r Papyrusfund," T_hj2 127 (1947) 332-33.
. "Wer i s t der V e r f a s s e r des T r a c t a t u s i n I s a i a m
V I , 1-7?" ThRev 42 (1943) 147-51.
A l t a n e r , B e r t h o l d , and S t u i b e r , A l f r e d . P a t r o l o a i e : Leben
S c h r i f t e n , und Lehre der Kirchenvter. 8th ed. F r e i b u r g :
Herder, 1978.
Andresen, C a r l . "Didymos 3," i n L e x i c o n der A l t e n Welt.
Z u r i c h : Artemis V e r l a g , 732-33.
Bardenhewer, Otto. G e s c h i c h t e der a l t k i r c h l i c h e n
L i t e r a t u r , v o l . I I I . Darmstadt: W i s s e n s c h a f t l i c h e
B u c h g e s e l l s c h a f t , 1962.
Bardy, Gustav. "Pour l ' h i s t o i r e de l'cole d ' A l e x a n d r i n e , "
V i v r e e t P e n s e r 2 (1942) 80-109.
. Didvme l ' A v e u g l e . P a r i s : Beauchesne, 1910.
Barnard, P. M. The B i b l i c a l T e x t of Clement of A l e x a n d r i a .
(TU, V) Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1899.
Bebb, J . M. "The E v i d e n c e of t h e E a r l y V e r s i o n s and P a t r i s -
t i c Q u o t a t i o n s on the T e x t of t h e Books of the New T e s t a -
ment," i n S t u d i a B i b l i c a e t E c c l e s i a s t l c a . Oxford:
Clarendon P r e s s , 1890, 195-240.
Beranger, L o u i s . "Sur deux nigmes de 'De T r i n i t a t e ' de
Didyme l ' A v e u g l e , " RechSR 51 (1963) 155-67.
B i e n e r t Wolfgang A. " A l l e g o r i a " und "Anagoge" b e i Didymos
dem B l i n d e n von A l e x a n d r i a . B e r l i n : W a l t e r de G r u y t e r ,
1972.
B i z e r , Chr. " S t u d i e n zu den p s e u d o a t h a n a s i a n D i a l o g e n . Der
Orthodoxos und Atios." Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , Bonn, 1966.
Boismard, M.-E "A Propos de J e a n V, 39," EB 55 (1948) 5-34.
. " C r i t i q u e t e x t u e l l e e t c i t a t i o n s p a t r i s t i q u e s , "
SS 57 (1950) 388-408.
. "Dans l e s e i n de Pre (Joh 1,18)," ES 59 (1952)
23-39.
_ . " L e c t i o b r e v i o r , p o t i o r , " BB 58 (1951) 161-68.
. "Le papyrus Bodmer I I , " RJ3 64 (1957) 363-98.
. "Problmes de c r i t i q u e t e x t u e l l e concernent l e
quatrime vangile," gB 60 (1953) 347-71.
Bousset, Wilhelm. "Die Recension des H e s y c h i u s , " i n T e x t -
k r i t i s c h e S t u d i e n zum Heuen Testament. L e i p z i g : J . C.
H i n r i c h s , 1894, 74-110.
Brooks, James A r t h u r . "The T e x t of the P a u l i n e E p i s t l e s i n
the Stromata of clement of A l e x a n d r i a . " Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n ,
P r i n c e t o n T h e o l o g i c a l Seminary, 1966.
C e i l l i e r , Remy. H i s t o r i e gnrale des A u t e u r s Sacrs e t
Ecclsiastiques V. 2nd ed. P a r i s : L o u i s V i v e s , 1860.
C h a v o u t i e r , L. " Q u e r e l l e origniste e t c o n t r o v e r s e s t r i n i -
t a i r e s propos du T r a c t u s c o n t r a Origenem de v i s i o n e
I s a i a e , " v 14 ( i 9 6 0 ) 9-14.
C o l w e l l , E r n e s t C. "The Complex c h a r a c t e r of t h e L a t e
B y z a n t i n e T e x t of the G o s p e l s , " J B L 54 (1935) 211-21.
. S t u d i e s i n Methodology i n T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m of the
Mew Testament. Grand R a p i d s : Eerdmans, 1969.
C o l w e l l , E r n e s t C.; McReynolds, Paul R.; Sparks, I r v i n g A.;
and Wisse, F r e d e r i c k . "The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Greek New
Testament P r o j e c t : A S t a t u s Report," IB 87 (1968) 187-
97.
Cullmann, O s c a r . "Die neuesten Papyrusfunde von O r i g e n e s -
t e x t e n und g n o s t i s c h e n S c h r i f t e n , " ThZ 5 (1949) 153-57.
D i e t s c h e , W. Didvmus von A l e x a n d r i e n a l s V e r f a s s e r der
S c h r i f t ber d i e S e r a p h v i s i o n . F r e i b u r g : Blumer, 1941.
D o u t r e l e a u , L o u i s . "tude d'une t r a d i t i o n m a n u s c r i t e : Le 'De
S p i r i t u Sancto' de Didyme" i n K y r i a k o n : F e s t s c h r i f t
Johannes Quasten, eds. P a t r i c k G r a n f i e l d and J o s e f A.
Jungmann. V o l . I . Mnster: V e r l a g A s c h e n d o r f f , 1970.
. "Le 'De S p i r i t u Sancto' de Didyme e t s e s diteurs,"
RechSR 51 (1963) 383-406.
. "Le 'De T r i n i t a t e
1
e s t - i l l ' o e u v r e de Didyme
l ' A v e u g l e ? " RechSR 45 (1957) 514-57.
. "Que savons-nous a u j o u r d ' h u i des Papyrus de
T o u r a ? " RechSR 43 (1955) 161-93.
D o u t r e l e a u , L o u i s , and Koenen, Ludwig. "Nouvelle i n v e n t a i r e
des papyrus de Toura," RechSR 55 (1967) 547-64.
Duplacy, J e a n , and Suggs, H. J a c k . "Les c i t a t i o n s grecques e t
l a c r i t i q u e du t e x t e de Nouveau Testament: l e pass, l e
p r e s e n t e t l ' a v e n i r , " i n Le B i b l e e t l e s pres. E d i t e d
by Andre B e n o i t and P i e r r e P r i g e n t . P a r i s : P r e s s e s
U n i v e r s i t a i r e s de F r a n c e , 1971, 187-213.
E l d r i d g e , Laurence. Thn^SosSSL3&M%^LEiSimîus of Salamis..
(SD, X L I ) . S a l t Lake C i t y : U n i v e r s i t y of Utah P r e s s ,
1969.
Epp, E l d o n J . "The claremont P r o f i l e Method f o r Grouping New
Testament Minuscule M a n u s c r i p t s , " i n S t u d i e s i n the
H i s t o r y and T e x t of t h e New Testament i n honor of
Kenneth W i l l i s C l a r k . E d i t e d by Boyd L D a n i e l s and M.
J a c k Suggs (SD, X X I X ) . S a l t Lake C i t y : U n i v e r s i t y
of Utah P r e s s , 1967, 27-38.
Fee, Gordon D. "Codex S i n a i t i c u s i n the Gospel of John: A
C o n t r i b u t i o n t o Methodology i n E s t a b l i s h i n g T e x t u a l
R e l a t i o n s h i p s , " NTS 15 (1968-69) 23-44.
. "Origen's T e x t of t h e New Testament and t h e T e x t
Of E g y p t ^ HI|
6
28 (1982) 348-64.
. "P , P , and Origan: The Myth of E a r l y
T e x t u a l R e c e n s i o n i n A l e x a n d r i a , " i n New Dimensions i n
New Testament E d i t e d by R i c h a r d N. Longenecker and
M e r r i l l C. Tenney. Grand R a p i d s : Zondervan, 1974, 19-
45.
. "The T e x t of John and Mark i n t h e W r i t i n g s of
Chrysostom," MIS 26 (1979-80) 525-47.
. "The T e x t of John i n Origen and C y r i l of A l e x -
a n d r i a : A C o n t r i b u t i o n t o Methodology i n the Recovery
and A n a l y s i s of P a t r i s t i c C i t a t i o n s , " Bjjb 52 (1971) 357-
94.
. "The T e x t of John i n the J e r u s a l e m B i b l e : A C r i -
t i q u e of the Use of P a t r i s t i c C i t a t i o n s i n New Testament
T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m , " I f i L 90 (1971) 163-73.
F i s c h e r , B o n i f a t i u s . "Das Neue Testament i n l a t e i n i s c h e r
Sprache. Der gegenwrtige s t a n d s e i n e r E r f o r s c h u n g und
s e i n e Bedeutung f u r d i e g r i e s c h e n T e x t g e s c h i c h t e , " i n
Die A l t e n bersetzungen des Neuen Testaments. Die
Kirchenvterzitate und L e k t i o n a r e . E d i t e d by K u r t
Aland. B e r l i n : Walter de G r u y t e r , 1972, 1-92.
Funk, F. X. "Die zwei l e t z e n Bcher der S c h r i f t B a s i l i u s '
des Gr. gegen Eunomius," K i r c h e n g e s c h i c h t l i c h e
Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. I I . Paderborn:
F e r d i n a n d Schningh, 1899, 291-329.
Gauche, W i l l i a m J . Didvmus t h e B l i n d : An E d u c a t o r of t h e
F o u r t h Century. Washington: C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y of
America, 1934.
G e e r l i n g s , Jacob and New, S i l v a . "Chrysostom*s T e x t of the
Gospel of Mark," HIB 24 (1931) 121-42.
Gesch, Adolph. La C h r i s t o l o g i e du 'Commentaire s u r l e s
Psaumes' dcouvert Toura. Gembloux: J . Duculot, 1962.
de G h e l l i n c k , J . "Rcentes dcouvertes de littrature
chrtienne a n t i q u e , " NRTh 71 (1949) 83-86.
Globe, Alexander. " S e r a p i o n of Thmuis a s Witness t o t h e
Gospel T e x t Used by Origen i n C a e s a r e a , " NovT 26 (1984)
97-127.
Goodspeed, Edgar J . The Newberry G o s p e l s . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y
P r e s s , 1902.
Grant, Robert M. "The C i t a t i o n of P a t r i s t i c E v i d e n c e i n an
Apparatus C r i t i c u s . " i n New Testament Manuscript S t u d i e s .
E d i t e d by M e r r i l l P a r v i s and A l l e n P. Wikgren. Chicago:
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1950, 117-24.
G r e e n l e e , J . Harold. The Gospel T e x t of C y r i l o f J e r u s a l e m
(SD, X V I I ) . Copenhagen: E j n a r Munksgaard, 1955.
G r i e s b a c h , Johann Jakob. Svmbolae C r i t i c a e . 2 v o l s . H a l l e ,
1785.
Gurand, O. "Note prliminaire s u r l e s papyrus d'Orign
dcouverts Toura," EHE 131 (1946) 85-108.
Gnthor, P. Anselm. Die 7 pseudoathanischen D i a l o g e : e i n
Werk Didvmus' des B l i n d e n von A l e x a n d r i e n . Rome:
Herder, 1941.
Hedley, P. L. "The E g y p t i a n T e x t of the G o s p e l s and A c t s , "
COR 118 (1934) 23-39T 188-230.
Heron, A l i s t a i r . "The Two Pseudo-Athanasian D i a l o g u e s A g a i n s t
the Anomeans," JJES, n.s. 24 (1973) 101-22.
H i l l s , E. F. "A New Approach t o t h e Old E g y p t i a n T e x t , " JBL
4 (1950) 345-62.
Hnscheid, Jrgen. Didvmus der B l i n d e : De t r i n i t a t e . Buch I .
Meisenheim am G l a n : V e r l a g Anton Hain, 1975.
H o l l K u r t . "ber d i e Gregor von Nyssa z u g e s c h r e i b e n S c h r i f t
'Adversus Arium e t S a b e l l i u m , ' " ZKG 25 (1904) 390-98.
Hort, Fenton John Anthony, and Westcott, Brooke F o s s . The New
Testament i n t h e O r i g i n a l Greek. I I , I n t r o d u c t i o n and
Appendix. Cambridge: Macmillan, 1881.
Hurtado, L a r r y . T e x t - C r i t i c a l Methodology and the P r e -
Hutton, Edward Ardron. An A t l a s of T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m .
Cambridge: u n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1911.
J e l l i c o e , Sidney, "The Hesychian R e c e n s i o n R e c o n s i d e r e d , " JBL
82 (1963) 409-18.
Kenyon, F r e d e r i c G. Handbook t o the T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m of the
New Testament, 2nd ed. London: Macmillan 4 Co., 1912.
. "Hesychius and the T e x t of t h e New Testament," i n
Memorial Lagrange. E d i t e d by Hugues V i n c e n t . P a r i s : J .
Gabalda, 1940, 245-50.
K l i j n , A. J . "Papyrus Bodmer I I (John i - x i v ) and the T e x t of
Egypt," NTS 3 (1956-57) 327-34.
C a n o n i c a s E n a r r a t l o . L e i p z i g : J . C. H i n r i c h s , 1905.
. "Der Papyrusfund von T u r a , " ThLZ 73 (1948) 47-50.
Koenen, Ludwig. " E i n t h e o l o g i s c h e r Papyrus des Klner
Sammlung: Kommentar Didymos' des B l i n d e n zu Zach 9,11 u.
16," A r c h i v fr Papvrusforschunq 17 (1960) 61-105.
. "Zu den P a p y r i aus dem A r s e n i o s k l o s t e r b e i T u r a , "
ZPE 2 (1968) 44-53.
Grand R a p i d s : Eerdmans, 1981.
Klostermann, E r i c h .
Kramer, Brbel. "Didymus von A l e x a n d r i e n , " i n T h e o l o g i s c h e
Realenzyklopdie. V I I I . B e r l i n : Walter de G r u y t e r ,
1981, 741-46.
Lachmann, K a r l . "Rechenshaft ber s e i n e Ausgabe des Neuen
Testaments," ThStK 3 (1830) 817-45.
Lake, K i r s o p p . "The E c c l e s i a s t i c a l T e x t . " E x c u r s u s 1 of
Robert P. B l a k e , K i r s o p p Lake, and S i l v a New, "The
C a e s a r e a n T e x t of Mark," HJJl 21 (1928) 338-57.
. " T e x t s from Mount Athos," i n S t u d i a B i b l i c a e t
E c c l e s i a s t i c a . V. Oxford: Clarendon P r e s s , 1903.
Lake, K i r s o p p , and Lake, S i l v a . "The B y z a n t i n e T e x t of the
G o s p e l s , " i n Memorial Lagrange. E d i t e d by Hugues
V i n c e n t P a r i s : J . Gabalda, 1940, 251-58.
Laurence, R i c h a r d . Remarks Upon G r i e s b a c h ' s C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of
M a n u s c r i p t s . Oxford, 1814. R e p r i n t e d i n B i b l i c a l
R e p e r t o r y 2 (1826) 33-95.
Lebon, J . "Le P s e u d o - B a s i l e (Adv. Eunom. IV-V) e s t b i e n
Didyme D ' A l e x a n d r i e , " Le Museon 59 (1937) 61-83.
L e i p o l d t , Johannes. Didvmus der B l i n d e von A l e x a n d r i a (TU,
X I V ) . L e i p z i g : J . C. H i n r i c h s , 1905.
L i n s s , Wilhelm C a h i l l . "The Four Gospel T e x t of Didvmus."
Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , Boston U n i v e r s i t y , 1955.
Marcos, N a t a l i o Fernandez. " E l Texto B i b l i c o de Didimo en E l
Commentario Z a c a r i a s Del P a p i r o De T u r a , " gej 36 (1976)
267-84.
M a r t i n i , C a r l o M. " I s There a L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n T e x t of the
G o s p e l s ? " HIS 24 (1977-78) 285-96.
. I I problema d e l l a r e c e n s i o n a l i t a d e l c o d i c e B
a l i a l u c e d e l p a p i r o Bodmer XIV (AnBib, XXVI) Rome:
P o n t i f i c a l B i b l i c a l I n s t i t u t e , 1966.
Mees, M. Die Z i t a t e aus dem Neuen Testament b e i Clemens von
A l e x a n d r i e n . Rome, 1970.
Metzger, Bruce M. The Ear3,y V e r s i o n s of the New Testament: T h e i r
O r i g i n . T r a n s m i s s i o n , and L i m i t a t i o n s . Oxford: c l a r e n d o n
P r e s s , 1977.
_ _ . " P a t r i s t i c E v i d e n c e and the T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m of
t h e New Testament," iffig 18 (1971-72) 379-400.
. The T e x t of the New Testament: I t s T r a n s m i s s i o n .
C o r r u p t i o n , and R e s t o r a t i o n . 2nd ed. New York: Oxford
u n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1968.
Migne, J.-P. P a t o l o a i a e C u r s u s Completus s e r i e s Graeca P r i o r .
Vol.XXXIX. P a r i s , 1863.
M i n g a r e l l i , J . A. Didymi A l e x a n d r i n i de T r i n i t a t e L i b r i Trs.
Bonn, 1769. R e p r i n t e d i n Kigne S XXXIX, 139-216.
Mhlenberg, Ekkehard. Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenen-
berlieferunq. 3 v o l s . B e r l i n : Walter de G r u y t e r ,
1975-78.
Mller-Wiener W. "Zu den P a p y r i aus dem A r s e n i o s k l o s t e r b e i
Tura, T e i l I I , " 2 (1968) 53-63.
Muncey, R. W. The New Testament T e x t of S a i n t Ambrose.
Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1959.
Murphy, Harold S. " E u s e b i u s ' New Testament Text i n the
Demonstratio E v a n g e l i c a . " JBL 78 (1954) 162-68.
O l i v e r , H a r o l d Hunter. "The Text of the Four G o s p e l s , As
Quoted i n the M o r a l i a o f B a s i l t h e G r e a t . " Ph.D.
D i s s e r t a t i o n , Emory, 1961.
Osburn, C a r r o l l . "The Text of the P a u l i n e E p i s t l e s i n
H i p p o l y t u s of Rome," Second Century 2 (1982) 97-124.
P a t r i c k , John. "The B i b l i c a l Text i n Clement," Appendix F i n
Clement of A l e x a n d r i a . London: Wm. Blackwood & Sons,
1914.
P o r t e r , C a l v i n L. "Papyrus Bodmer XV (P75) and t h e Text of
the Codex V a t i c a n u s , " J B i 81 (1962) 363-76.
P r i g e n t , P i e r r e . "Les c i t a t i o n s des Pres g r e c s e t l a c r i -
t i q u e t e x t u e l l e du Nouveau Testament," i n Die a l t e n
bersetzung des Neuen Testaments,, d i e Kirchenvterzitate
und L e k t j o n a r e . E d i t e d by Kurt Aland. B e r l i n : Walter
de G r u y t e r , 1972, 436-54.
Puech H.-ch. "Les nouveaux crits d'Origne e t de Didyme
dcouverts Toura," RHPhR 31 (1951) 293-329.
Quasten, Johannes. P a t r o l o g y V o l . I I I , The Golden Age of
Greek P a t r i s t i c L i t e r a t u r e . U t r e c h t : Spectrum, 1966.
de Regnon, T. tudes de thologie p o s i t i v e s u r l a s a i n t e
Trinit. I I I . P a r i s , 1898.
R i c h a r d s , W. L. The C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the Greek M a n u s c r i p t s of
t h e Johannine E p i s t l e s . SBLDS, 35; M i s s o u l a : S c h o l a r s
P r e s s , 1977.
Sanders, Henry A. "The E g y p t i a n T e x t of the Four G o s p e l s and
A c t s , " HTR. 26 (1933) 79-98.
. "A New C o l l a t i o n of MS 22 of the G o s p e l s , " JJ3_L. 33
(1914) 91-117.
_. The Washington Manuscript of the Four G o s p e l s . New
York: Macmillan & Co. 1912.
Sandys, John Edwin. A H i s t o r y of C l a s s i c a l S c h o l a r s h i p . 2nd
ed. V o l . I . Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1906.
S e i l e r , I n g r i d . Didymus der B l i n d e : De t r i n i t a t e Buch 2.
K a p i t e l 1-7. Meinsenheim am Glan: V e r l a g Anton Hain,
1975.
von Soden, Hermann F r e i h e r r . Die S c h r i f t e n des Neuen
Testaments i n i h r e n ltesten e r r e i c h b a r e n T e x t g e s t a l t .
I , Untersuchungen. 3 v o l s . B e r l i n , 1902-10.
S t o l z , Eugen. "Didymus, Ambrosius, Hieronymus," J_Q 87
(1905) 371-401.
S t r e e t e r , B u r n e t t H i l l m a n . The Four G o s p e l s : A Study of
O r i g i n s . 5th i m p r e s s i o n . London: Macmillan & Co.,
1936.
S t u r z , Harry A. The B y z a n t i n e Text-Type and New Testament
T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m . 3rd s y l l a b u s e d i t i o n . L a Mirada,
C a l . : B i o l a C o l l e g e Bookstore, 1980.
Suggs, M. J a c k . "The use of P a t r i s t i c E v i d e n c e i n t h e S e a r c h
f o r a P r i m i t i v e New Testament T e x t , " NTS 4 (1957-58)
131-57.
Swanson, Reuben J . "The Gospel T e x t of Clement of A l e x a n d r i a . "
Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y , 1956.
T a r e l l i , c . C. "The C h e s t e r B e a t t y Papyrus and the Western
and B y z a n t i n e T e x t s , " JTS 41 (1940) 253-60.
T a t e , K a r t i n . "Zur T h e o l o g i e des M a r k e l l von Ankyra I , " 2KG
75 (1964) 217-70.
Wisse, F r e d e r i c k . The P r o f i l e Method f o r C l a s s i f y i n g and
E v a l u a t i n g Manuscript E v i d e n c e (SD, 4 4 ) . Grand R a p i d s :
Eerdmans, 1982.
Young, F r a n c e s . F r o a Nlcaea t o Chalcedon; A Guide t o the
L i t e r a t u r e and I t s Background. P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s
P r e s s , 1983.
Zewopoulos, G e r a s s i a o s . "The G o s p e l s T e x t of A t h a n a s i u s . "
Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , Boston u n i v e r s i t y , 1955.
Z o e p f l , F i e d r i c h . Didymi A l e x a n d r i n i i n e p i s t o l a s c a n o n i c a s
b r e v i s e n a r r a t i o , i n N e u t e s t a m e n t l i c h e Abhandlungen, IV,
ed. M. M e i n e r t z . Mnster: A s c h e n d o r f f s e h e V e r l a g s b u c h -
handlung, 1914.
Zuntz, Gnther. The T e x t of the E p i s t l e s : A D i s q u i s i t i o n Upon
t h e Corpus Paulinum. London: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ,
1953.
9 "781555 400842'

Bart Ehrman 1986 Didymus The Blind and The Text of The Gospels

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bart Ehrman 1986 Didymus The Blind and The Text of The Gospels

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DIDYMUS THE BLIND AND THE

TEXT OF THE GOSPELS

6 6 . 75 D L fam 1 . 13 33 579 892

You might also like