DIDYMUS T H E BLIND AND T H E

T E X T OF T H E GOSPELS

SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL L I T E R A T U R E
The New Testament in the Greek Fathers
Edited by
Gordon D. Fee

Number 1
DIDYMUS THE BLIND AND THE
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS
by
Bart D. Ehrman

DIDYMUS T H E BLIND AND T H E

T E X T OF THE GOSPELS

Bart D. Ehrman

Scholars Press
Atlanta, Georgia

DIDYMUS T H E BLIND AND T H E

T E X T OF THE GOSPELS
Bart D . Ehrman

1986

The Society of Biblical Literature

L i b r a r y of Congress Cataloging in Publication D a t a

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 C i n d y

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

ix

Editor's Preface

xi

Introduction

Chapter I

Didynms a s a W i t n e s s t o t h e T e x t o f t h e
Gospels:

Methdological Problems

Patristic

Sources:

Complexities

The U s e o f C r i t i c a l

Editions

Source A n a l y s i s

7
7

Textual Reconstruction
The

T h e i r S i g n i f i c a n c e and

Special significance

12

and P e c u l i a r

P r o b l e m s o f Didymus a s a T e x t u a l
Witness

Chapter I I

17

I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e T e x t and

30

P r e s e n t a t i o n of the Text

31

The

C r i t i c a l Apparatus

A b b r e v i a t i o n s used

Chapter I I I

Critical

Apparatus

34

i n the Apparatus

T e x t and A p p a r a t u s

37

38

G o s p e l o f Matthew

38

G o s p e l o f 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 a n d Complex
Conflations

Chapter I V

172

The G o s p e l T e x t o f Didymus:

Quantitative

Analysis

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

202

vii

i n Mark

Didymus's A f f i n i t i e s

i n Luke

Didymus's A f f i n i t i e s

i n John

204
207

Didymus's T e x t o f t h e Four G o s p e l s

Chapter

The

T e x t o f Didymus:

Group

Profile

One:

Inter-Group

Readings

228

Profile

Two:

Intra-Group

Readings

234

Profile

Three:

Gospel
Profiles

and

to

VI

223

Combination

Intra-Group

Profile

Chapter

218

Four:

Inter-

Readings

238

Didymus's R e l a t i o n s h i p

Alexandrian Witnesses

243

Conclusions

254

Methods o f T e x t u a l A n a l y s i s and
Classification
The

254

C h a r a c t e r and H i s t o r y o f

the

Alexandrian Text

258

The

Western Text i n A l e x a n d r i a

258

The

Byzantine Text

in Alexandria

259

The

caesarean Text

i n Alexandria

261

The

E a r l y and

Alexandrian

Late

Texts

262
26

A p p e n d i x One:

Didymus i n t h e A p p a r a t u s o f NA

A p p e n d i x Two:

Didymus i n t h e A p p a r a t u s o f UBS

268
3

Bibliography

274

276

viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T h i s book grew o u t o f t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n

I submitted

f a c u l t y o f P r i n c e t o n T h e o l o g i c a l Seminary i n 1985.
especially

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 o f my d i s s e r t a t i o n c o m m i t t e e ,
ficant

to the

I would

each

o f whom made

signi-

c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o my l a b o r s : B r u c e M. M e t z g e r , who

spawned i n me a n i n t e r e s t

i n the analysis of the P a t r i s t i c

w i t n e s s e s o f t h e NT t e x t ,

and whose t e x t u a l e x p e r t i s e g u i d e d

me t h r o u g h o u t t h e 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 ,
meticulous
admiration;
critical

attention to detail
and David

h a s always

whose

been a s o u r c e o f

R. Adams, whose i n t u i t i v e s e n s e f o r

method c o n t i n u e s

to inspire rigor

i nhis

students.

T h a n k s a r e a l s o due E l i z a b e t h J o h n s o n o f New B r u n s w i c k T h e o logical

tions,

S e m i n a r y f o r much g e n e r o s i t y a n d many h e l p f u l s u g g e s a n d t o my f r i e n d J e f f r e y S i k e r who r e a d p o r t i o n s o f t h e

MS a n d g a v e c o n t i n u a l e n c o u r a g e m e n t .
Anyone who r e a d s t h i s s t u d y
w h i c h I am i n d e b t e d

will

r e a l i z e the extent t o

t o t h e s c h o l a r s h i p o f Gordon D. F e e .

From t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g

o f my work h i s p u b l i c a t i o n s h a v e

s e r v e d a s a model o f c a r e f u l r e s e a r c h , a n d I h a v e
it

my g r e a t

considered

f o r t u n e t o b e a b l e t o work w i t h h i m a s t h e g e n e r a l

editor of this project.

I

would a l s o l i k e t o extend

o f S c h o l a r s P r e s s , who h a s a l w a y s
provide

t o Dennis

Ford

b e e n prompt a n d w i l l i n g t o

t h e a s s i s t a n c e I have needed.

My d e e p e s t
and

my t h a n k s

a p p r e c i a t i o n g o e s t o my w i f e C i n d y whose

love

p a t i e n c e h a v e b e e n my s t e a d y c o m p a n i o n s t h r o u g h o u t t h e

course

o f my work.

I t i s t o h e r t h a t I have d e d i c a t e d

book.

ix

this

EDITOR'S PREFACE

The

u s e f u l n e s s of P a t r i s t i c

textual criticism

has

F a t h e r ' s t e x t c a n be
commentary on
readings),

as c e r t a i n

alike,

the average

aloneand

or notes

and

when a
provides

alternative

f o r the

however, t h a t u s e f u l n e s s , b o t h f o r s c h o l a r

has v e r y

factors.

little

l a r g e a r e the province of the

even t h e s p e c i a l i s t

the

specialist

a t times has c o n s i d e r a b l e

to. e v a l u a t e w h a t he

dif-

times

o r she does have a c c e s s t o .

S e c o n d , w h a t a c c e s s most p e o p l e do
the c r i t i c a l editions,

First,

access to

g e t t i n g a t some o f t h e m a t e r i a l , o r a t o t h e r

k n o w i n g how

New

location.

h a s b e e n m i t i g a t e d by two

s c h o l a r or student

d a t a , w h i c h by

Testament

Indeed,

evidence

i n a given geographical

Unfortunately,

f o r New

( e . g . when he

i t provides datable primary

student

ficulty

judged

t h e v e r y words of h i s t e x t

Testament t e x t

and

citations

long been r e c o g n i z e d .

have t o t h e d a t a ,

i s h o p e l e s s l y inadequate.

namely i n

This i s

e s p e c i a l l y t r u e , f o r example, o f t h e 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 G r e e k New

T e s t a m e n t , w h e r e t h e r e a r e s o 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 ,

one

can

never

know w h i c h a r e c o r r e c t

and w h i c h a r e

What h a s b e e n l a c k i n g i s an a d e q u a t e and
p r e s e n t a t i o n and

e v a l u a t i o n of these data,

Greek F a t h e r s , where t o d a t e
is

available

Clemens von
tation
to

be

The

[Rome, 1 9 7 0 ] ; who

although

of

the

Alexandria

Neuen T e s t a m e n t
has

a full

bei

presen-

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

p r e s e n t volume r e p r e s e n t s t h e
i s to f i l l

the s e r i e s

will

only t h a t of Clement of

Mees, D i e Z i t a t e a u s dem

of the data,

accessible

especially

desired).

whose aim

Let

(M.

Alexandrien

since

not.

me

here

c a n be
simply

p r e s e n t t h e NT

be

lacuna.

f o u n d i n Dr.

only data a v a i l a b l e
texts will

up t h i s

f i r s t i n a new
The

textual data

(1) The

1-3.

series

f o r the Greek F a t h e r s ;

(2)

from c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n s o f t h e F a t h e r s '

included;

(3) e a c h v o l u m e w i l l
data

include a

(or p a r t s t h e r e o f ) of a

F a t h e r or s e l e c t e d works of a g i v e n Fathtsr;
also

for

Ehrman's I n t r o d u c t i o n , pp.

s e t out the g u i d e l i n e s :

p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e NT

tation will

series

justification

(4) e a c h

i n c l u d e a minimal e v a l u a t i o n of the
xi

full

given
presenFather's

xii

citations,
data,

and

d a t a ; and
textual
text,

as

to h i s c i t i n g h a b i t s ,

the

degree of

finally

data as

(5) t h e

to

the

increase

Father's
It

our

textual

in
and

Father's

i n the

the

the

history

such a

of

NT

the

the

certainty

s e r i e s w i t h Dr.

four G o s p e l s as

Didymus t h e

not

task

the

Blind

o n l y g i v e n us
has

of

also offered

analysis that

in that

task.

some r e f i n e -

h e l p us
i s an

criticism, especially in

ability

someday t o w r i t e
clarity.

the

history

Perhaps other younger s c h o l a r s

look toward t h i s a s p e c t of

textual

for t h e i r d i s s e r t a t i o n s ,

since

of

will

t o move
auspicious

we

greater

prove u s e f u l

the

now

Toura

presentation

o f NT

textual

trust will

This

Bart

i t is

found a t

a full

a s e r i e s that

of

the

presentation

use

ongoing t a s k

area

the

of t h e

with

beginning of

possiblity

his

use

a n a l y s i s of

relationships

introduce the
t e x t of

data, but

m e n t s o f method i n t h e
toward g r e a t e r

i n the

of

may

data.

Ehrman h a s

a n a l y s i s of

place

textual

commentaries of

Dr.

o f f e r an

I t i s hoped t h a t

i s a p l e a s u r e to

1941.

reliability

o v e r a l l confidence i n the

Ehrman's a n a l y s i s of
cited

author w i l l

e s p e c i a l l y i n terms of

other a v a i l a b l e data.
will

the

c e r t a i n t y w i t h w h i c h one

for

text with

be

the

our
even

encouraged

c r i t i c i s m as a

to

possible

t h i s s e r i e s o f f e r s them a

publication.

GORDON D.

FEE

Introduction

Recent

y e a r s have w i t n e s s e d

a n a l y s i s and
renewal

had

proaches

a renewed i n t e r e s t

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f NT

i t s roots i n methodological

taken to e s t a b l i s h i n g t e x t u a l

tematized
devised,

and
one

objectified.

Two

new

concerns,

grounds the t e x t u a l

t h e o t h e r a p r o f i l e method u s e d

as

c o n s a n g u i n i t y were

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

to s e v e r a l
The

important

and

the f i e l d .

abstract,

MS

analyses of

and W and

As

traditions.

s e e k s , a s d i d most o f i t s p r e d e c e s s o r s ,

r e f i n e methods o f t e x t u a l

a n a l y s i s now

F a r from d i s c u s s i n g m e t h o d o l o g y o n l y

however, t h e s t u d y h a s a s i t s p r i m a r y

an e c c l e s i a s t i c a l

transmission.

liest

important

o b j e c t i v e the

leader i n fourth-century

to have p r e s e r v e d ,

t h e p u r e s t form o f NT

text.

produced during

o f Didymus's NT

Alexandrian t r a d i t i o n

Didymus's

quotations

of the l a t e

D i d y m u s ' s t e x t may

t i o n s concerning
minate,

c a n be

show t h e

"Early"

cast

light

on

several

and

to

represent

the

I n addi-

i t may

ques-

illu-

r e l a t i o n s h i p between

"Late" Alexandrian

tradition.

lifetime.

somewhat b r o a d e r

t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n o f t h e NT:

extent to which other

Alexandrian

ear-

expected

fourth century.

f o r example, t h e h i s t o r i c a l

so-called

schol-

from

Furthermore,

show w h e t h e r 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

tion,

textual

Alexandrian witnesses, including codices

were probably

Thus a study

Alexandria,

famous f o r i t s c l a s s i c a l

i s commonly r e p u t e d

times,

B,

another

l i n k i n the g r e a t c h a i n of

A l e x a n d r i a was

of t h e most i m p o r t a n t
K and

common

i n the

t e x t u a l w i t n e s s , Didymus t h e B l i n d .

Didymus i s an

a r s h i p and

the

as w e l l as

a p p l i c a t i o n o f a r e f i n e d method o f a n a l y s i s t o y e t
significant

accord-

These

Hippolytus,

s k e t c h e s o f t h e NT

present study

to u t i l i z e
in

C h r y s o s t o m , and

on

documents,

to c l a s s i f y witnesses

developments l e d to the p u b l i c a t i o n of s e v e r a l

F a t h e r s Origen,

sys-

were

to demonstrate

r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f NT

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 .

church

This

ap-

methods o f a n a l y s i s

a q u a n t i t a t i v e method d e s i g n e d

statistical

i n the

documentary e v i d e n c e .

texts,

types of t e x t

and

i t

the

may

influenced the

2/

Didymus and

The
case,
past

the

Gospels

scientific

of the

study

several years.

Egyptian

o f Didymus's t e x t

four G o s p e l s h a s
I n 1941,

i n a g r o t t o near Toura,

workers a c c i d e n t a l l y unearthed

p a p y r u s MSS.

of the N T i n

or

Genesis,

Job,

a p p e a r e d s i n c e 1968.
t h e NT

e d i t i o n s of these

Psalms, E c c l e s i a s t e s ,

Gospels.

and

f o c u s e s on

present

study

represents the

t h r e e k i n d s of i s s u e s :

the t e x t u a l a f f i n i t i e s

affinities?
reveal

determined?

(3) H i s t o r i c a l :

Methodological

The

(2) T e x t u a l :

What d o e s Didymus's G o s p e l

and

a t the o u t s e t of

text.

A major p o r t i o n of the study

The

Gospel quotation

ings,

and

a critical

and

allusion

apparatus

given

listing

found i n Didymus's

a t every

writ-

point.

are subjected to a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s

I V and

C h a p t e r I V u s e s a q u a n t i t a t i v e method
o f Didymus's t e x t

in

of

collations

These data

demonstrate the proximity

explains

i s then

which s u p p l i e s f u l l

of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t e x t u a l witnesses

V.

encoun-

i s devoted to a p r e s e n t a t i o n

presentation includes a f u l l

every

chap-

Didymus

allusions.

C h a p t e r I I i n t r o d u c e s and

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

Chapter I I I .

and

the

to

The

to the p e c u l i a r d i f f i c u l t i e s

of h i s Gospel quotations

o f Didymus's G o s p e l t e x t .

text

in Alexandria?

i s s u e s are addressed

i n the a n a l y s i s

and

these

Chapter I c o n s i d e r s the problems t h a t a r e unique

as a t e x t u a l w i t n e s s

ters

full-

How

What a r e

pays p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n to the s i g n i f i c a n c e of

tered

the

first

analysis

(1) M e t h o d o l o g i c a l :

a n a l y s e s o f t h e P a t r i s t i c w i t n e s s e s t o t h e NT
ter

on

slowly

o f Didymus's G o s p e l q u o t a t i o n s

a b o u t t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n o f t h e NT

study.

have

I n them Didymus q u o t e s e x t e n s i v e l y from

The

a l l u s i o n s b e s t be

expository

commentaries

Zechariah

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 .

can

of

seventh-century

p a p y r i w e r e f r a g m e n t a r y c o p i e s o f h i t h e r t o unknown
Critical

the

Egypt,

n e a r l y 2000 p a g e s

I n c l u d e d among t h e s e s i x t h -

w o r k s o f Didymus.

this

become p o s s i b l e o n l y w i t h i n

to

i n Chapto

individual

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 the t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n .

C h a p t e r V s u p p l e m e n t s t h i s a n a l y s i s by
support

of r e a d i n g s

groups,

irrespective

witness.

examining

t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e each
of t h e i r a t t e s t a t i o n

F o r t h i s p u r p o s e a w h o l e new

Didymus's

of the t e x t u a l
i n any

given

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

g r o u p r e a d i n g s i s p r o p o s e d and u t i l i z e d .
The

final

c h a p t e r summarizes t h e important

r e f i n e m e n t s made i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e s t u d y ,
the s i g n i f i c a n c e

of the a n a l y s i s

methodological

and

demonstrates

f o runderstanding

o f 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 .
attention

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
to

the historical
The

relationships

corrected
similar

of the Alexandrian

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 .

i n d i c a t e s where t h e t e s t i m o n y
i n t h e apparatus

the history
Particular

groups, and
subgroups.

The f i r s t

o f Didymus c a n now b e c i t e d o r
26

o f NA

The second

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 .

provides

Chapter

Didymus a s a W i t n e s s t o t h e T e x t o f t h e
Methodological Problems
A n a l y s e s o f P a t r i s t i c w i t n e s s e s t o t h e NT
a number o f s e r i o u s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l
a r e o f two

sorts:

g e n e r a l l y and

c a n be

text

encounter

These

those i n h e r e n t i n the P a t r i s t i c

those unique

For the purposes

problems.

Gospels:

problems
sources

to the works of each c h u r c h F a t h e r .

of the p r e s e n t study, both

sets

of problems

considered with reference to the extant writings

Didymus t h e

Pat-ristic Sources:
NT

T h e i r S i g n i f i c a n c e and

s c h o l a r s agree that

the t e x t

o f t h e NT

Complexities
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 o f t h e
tory of i t s transmission.

Patristic

nently

and

in this delineation

important

evidence

23, p.

figures

i s , i n some r e s p e c t s ,

t o i t t h a n a r e t h e G r e e k MSS

S e e n.

of

Blind.

17 b e l o w , and

and

early

the discussion

his-

promimore

versions.

o f 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 o f t h e 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 t h e e a r l i e s t p i o n e e r s o f 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 s t u d y o f J e r o m e and O r i g e n d i c t a t e d t h e s c o p e and method
of h i s c r i t i c a l r e s e a r c h . For contemporary assessments of the
v a l u e of the 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 S u g g s , " L e s c i t a t i o n s g r e q u e s e t l a c r i t i q u e du t e x t e
de Nouveau T e s t a m e n t : l e pass, l e p r e s e n t , e t l ' a v e n i r , " i n
L e B i b l e e t l e s pres, e d s . 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) 1 8 7 - 2 1 3 ;
Gordon D. F e e , "The T e x t o f J o h n 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 o f t h e U s e o f 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 ( 1 9 7 1 ) 1 6 3 - 7 3 ; B r u c e M. M e t z g e r
" P a t r i s t i c E v i d e n c e and t h e T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m o f t h e New
T e s t a m e n t , " NTS 18 ( 1 9 7 1 - 7 2 ) 3 7 9 - 4 0 0 ; M. J . Suggs, "The U s e o f
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 , " HIS 4 ( 1 9 5 7 - 5 8 ) 131-47.
The a r t i c l e s by F e e 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 o f 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 o f t h e G r e e k t e x t o f
t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n w e r e t a k e n o v e r 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 Jerusalem B i b l e .
Boismard developed h i s
p o s i t i o n i n t h e f o l l o w i n g a r t i c l e s : "A p r o p o s de J e a n v , 39,"
B J 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 ( 1 9 5 1 ) 1 6 1 - 6 8 ; "Dans l e s e i n d e s Pre ( J o 1 , 1 8 ) , " RB 59
( 1 9 5 2 ) 2 3 - 3 9 ; "Problmes de c r i t i q u e t e x t u e l l e c o n c e r n a n t l e
4

Methodological
Unlike these other kinds of evidence.
be

dated

and l o c a l i z e d w i t h

Patristic

Bources can

relative precision.

t r a n s m i s s i o n h i s t o r y o f t h e NT c a n n o t

Problems /5

Since the

be r e c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h -

o u t k n o w i n g when a n d w h e r e 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
tradition,
entire

this

critical

kind of precision

Despite t h i s
received
versional
rives,

evidence.

No d o u b t t h i s

scholarly

r e t i c e n c e de-

t i o n s were n o r m a l l y

to cite

of lengthy

Biblical

The r e s u l t a n t

of B i b l i c a l

their syntactical

to adaptations

i n t o one.

t o complicated

Fathers rarely

the

"words o f t h e S a v i o r , " o r t h e " H o l y A p o s t l e , "

noted t h e s o u r c e s of t h e i r

P e t e r " c a n be q u o t e d w i t h o u t

o n l y by a s t a n d a r d
Consequently,

citations.

i t often proves

formula,

conworse,
Thus

or the

r e f e r e n c e t o any o f t h e

And f r e q u e n t l y a NT q u o t a t i o n
quotation

range
of texts

To make m a t t e r s

the

b o o k s o f t h e NT.

quota-

consulting a

"loose" citations

accounts,

or material context,

of s e v e r a l passages

texts

citations,

drawn from memory w i t h o u t

B i b l i c a l manuscript.

"blessed

citation

transmission of

I t i s w e l l known t h a t t h e F a t h e r s d i d n o t

with the exception

from p a r a p h r a s e s

have

from c o m p l e x i t i e s u n i q u e t o t h e

make a c o n s c i e n t i o u s e f f o r t

flations

sources

have t h e Greek and

c o m p l e x i t i e s stemming b o t h from t h e l o o s e

accurately,

to

advantage. P a t r i s t i c
a t t e n t i o n than

o f t h e F a t h e r s a n d from t h e f a u l t y

their writings.
always

relative

farless critical

i n l a r g e measure,

evidence,
habits

i s a s i n e gu_a. non f o r t h e

process.

such

i s introduced

a s Teypantat .

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) 3 4 7 - 7 1 ; " L e p a p y r u s

Bodmer I I , " ES 64 (1957) 363-98.
Boismard's views l e a d t o t h e
a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e " s h o r t e r t e x t " o f John a t v i r t u a l l y e v e r y
p o i n t , even where t h e 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 text.
As w i l l be s e e n b e l o w , t h e p r e s e n t
w r i t e r concurs t h a t Boismard's p o s i t i o n i s untenable.
The
P a t r i s t i c sources provide primary evidence f o r t h e h i s t o r y of
t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n o f t h e NT t e x t b u t o n l y s e c o n d a r y
evidence
for the o r i g i n a l t e x t i t s e l f .
3

s e e B r u c e M. M e t z g e r , The T e x t o f t h e New T e s t a m e n t : 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 , a n d R e s t o r a t i o n . 2nd e d . (New Y o r k :
O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1968) 86.
*This alone accounts f o r t h e u b i q u i t y of "loose" c i t a tions i n the P a t r i s t i c sources,
s e e F e e , "The T e x t o f J o h n i n
t h e J e r u s a l e m B i b l e , " 167-70; M e t z g e r , T e x t . 8 7 - 8 8 .

6/

the

Didymus and

the

Gospel

p r e c i s e wording of

determine the
especially

a Father's

Biblical

source of a q u o t a t i o n .

acute, of

course,

The

t e x t , but

also

to

l a t t e r problem i s

in quotations

from t h e

Synoptic

Gospels.
The

o t h e r s e t of problems unique to

concerns the

h i s t o r y o f t h e i r own

Patristic

transmission.

t i o n s of v i r t u a l l y

a l l the

copyists

" c o r r e c t " quotations of

form of
tic

tended to

text prevalent

writings

that

a v a i l a b l e only
Patroloqia

church Fathers

i n t h e i r own

survive

only

in uncritical

day.

show t h a t
the

MS

tradi-

later

Bible

to

the

Consequently, P a t r i s -

i n M e d i e v a l MSS

editions,

sources

The

or t h a t

such as

are

Migne's

Graeca, are

o f 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 t h e o r i g i n a l w o r d i n g o f t h e NT.
Biblical citations
i n s u c h s o u r c e s do n o t 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 o f t h e
6

Father,

but

often

It

has

become w i d e l y r e c o g n i z e d

these complexities

only that

require

known t o h i s l a t e r

the

These p r i n c i p l e s involve

three

Only c r i t i c a l

editions

O n l y t h o s e NT

q u o t a t i o n s and

are

beyond doubt can

be

of

i n recent

critic

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

to

the

aspects

a Father's

copyists.
years

follow

Patristic
of the

works can

that

strict

analysis:
be

used;

a l l u s i o n s whose B i b l i c a l

c o n s i d e r e d ; and

method-

evidence.

(3) A l l o f t h e

(1)
(2)

sources
data

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 century.
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 o f t h e New T e s t a m e n t (London: M a c m i l l a n & Co.,
1901)
206.
The f o l l o w i n g i s a modern a s s e s s m e n t by Gordon F e e :
"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 the Greek
p a t r i s t i c e v i d e n c e f o r L u k e and J o h n f o r t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l
G r e e k New T e s t a m e n t 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
f o u n d 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 o f a f a t h e r ' s
t e x t , o r t h e d i s c o v e r y o f e a r l y MSS,
a l w a y s moves t h e f a t h e r ' s
t e x t o f t h e NT away from t h e I B and c l o s e r t o t h e t e x t o f our
modern c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n s . " ( e m p h a s i s 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 o f t h e T e x t u s E S S S E ^
t u s . " J E T S 21 ( 1 9 7 8 ) 26-27.
6

Among t h e 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 t h e u s e o f 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 , t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n o f W i l h e l m C. L i n s s , "The G o s p e l T e x t
o f Didymus" ( B o s t o n U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 5 5 ) . See n. 42, p.
below.
7

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e w o r k s c i t e d i n n. 2, p. 4, s e e Gordon
D. F e e , "The T e x t o f J o h n i n O r i g e n and C y r i l o f 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 M e t h o d o l o g y i n t h e R e c o v e r y and A n a l y s i s o f
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 ( 1 9 7 1 ) 3 5 7 - 9 4 .

Methodological
i.e.

a l l surviving citations,

sionsmust

be

analyzed^before

Father's B i b l i c a l
considered
The

Use

adaptations,

text.

attempting

Each

and

even

allu-

to d e l i n e a t e the

o f t h e s e a s p e c t s c a n now

be

individually.

of C r i t i c a l E d i t i o n s
c o n s t r u c t i o n of c r i t i c a l

The
writings

obviously l i e s

criticism.

editorial

e d i t i o n s of the F a t h e r s '

o u t s i d e t h e p u r v i e w o f NT

textual

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 o f a F a t h e r ' s

t e x t presupposes,

i n some m e a s u r e , t h e v a l i d i t y

decisions.

The

critical

of

previous

e d i t i o n s o f Didymus's w o r k s

w e r e somewhat e a s i e r t o p r o d u c e t h a n

are those

of

church

F a t h e r s whose w r i t i n g s h a v e s u r v i v e d i n numerous b u t
Each

Problems

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

late

MSS.

i n only

one,

r e l a t i v e l y e a r l y , MS w h i c h a p p e a r s t o r e p r e s e n t f a i t h f u l l y t h e
9
original text.
C o n s e q u e n t l y , 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 :
the t e x t wherever lacunae

occur,

t h e o r i g i n a l h a n d s o f t h e MSS
(which

with those

transcriptional

frequent e r r o r s are orthographic,

r i n g on

nearly every

Source
The

errors.

and
By

(3)

f a r t h e most

problems of i t a c i s m

occur-

page.

Analysis

first

s t e p t o w a r d a n a l y z i n g a F a t h e r ' s NT

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
adaptation,

of

of the c o r r e c t o r s
10

i n some c a s e s numbered s i x o r m o r e ) ,

c o r r e c t i n g obvious

The

(1) r e c o n s t r u c t i n g

(2) c o m p a r i n g t h e r e a d i n g s

and

allusion.

source

text i n -

f o r each

citation,

I n c e r t a i n kinds of

Patristic

The t e r m s " 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 b e l o w .
At t h i s p o i n t
i t i s n e c e s s a r y only 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 t h e t e r m " q u o t a t i o n " when s p e a k i n g o f b o t h 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 to i n d i c a t e
any o f t h e t h r e e k i n d s o f 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 , o r
allusion.
9
S e e t h e w o r k s c i t e d i n n. 54, p. 25 b e l o w .
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 ' A v e u g l e 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 the 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 simply the perfunctory t a s k of

8/

Didymus and

writings,

the

of course,

relatively

this

easilyfor

book i n q u e s t i o n .
before

Gospels
k i n d of determination

Patristic

passage.

lemmata s o m e t i m e s r e p r e s e n t l a t e r
w o r k s s o t h a t t h e y c a n be u s e d
reconstructing his Biblical

self,

the

Biblical

commentaries o f t e n supply

the e x p o s i t i o n of each

quotes the passage

c a n be made

example i n a commentary on

To be

sure,

lemmata

these

a d d i t i o n s to a Father's

only as secondary

text.

sources

But u s u a l l y the

for

Father

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 -

thus providing the c r i t i c

w i t h ample e v i d e n c e

for a

textual reconstruction.
With o t h e r genres
less

fortunate.

example, t e n d
NT.

The

quotes h a l f

Biblical

three there.

source

proceed

referents

those being

sporadic r e f e r e n c e s to

the

subjected to t e x t u a l
commentaries,
here,

Biblical
analysis.

Didymus o f t e n

half a verse there,

N o r m a l l y he d o e s n o t m e n t i o n

first

This obviously

determining

f o r Didymus's q u o t a t i o n s

Unfortunately,

sources,

for

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

without

is

themes,

for these quotations.

witnesses failed

Biblical

i n c o m m e n t a r i e s on

a v e r s e from t h e NT

c a t e s the e n t i r e
cannot

i s similar

f i n d s t h a t i n h i s OT

v e r s e s here,

w r i t i n g s , the c r i t i c

s e r m o n s on

to contain b r i e f ,

situation

books o t h e r than
T h u s one

of P a t r i s t i c

Patristic

and

several previous

to deal adequately

the

two

the

compli-

analysis

Biblical

allusions.
s t u d i e s of

Patristic

w i t h the problem

of

leading to d i s t o r t e d p r e s e n t a t i o n s of evidence.

An

d e t e r m i n i n g w h e r e a F a t h e r q u o t e s o r 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 o f t h e d a t a t e n t a t i v e l y a c c e p t e d a t t h e o u t s e t o f
the a n a l y s i s .
12
S e e F e e , "The T e x t o f J o h n i n O r i g e n and C y r i l , " 3 6 3 64.
13
Among t h e n o t e w o r t h y 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
following:
L a w r e n c e E l d r i d g e , The G o s p e l T e x t o f E p i p h a n l u s
of Salamjs ( 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),
G o r d o n D. F e e , "The T e x t o f J o h n and Mark i n t h e W r i t i n g s o f
C h r y s o s t o a , " NJT 26 ( 1 9 7 9 - 8 0 ) 525-47, A l e x a n d e r G l o b e , " S e r a p i o n o f T h m u i s a s W i t n e s s t o t h e G o s p e l T e x t U s e d by O r i g e n
i n C a e s a r e a , " NovT 26 ( 1 9 8 4 ) 9 7 - 1 2 7 ,
M. Mees, D i e Z i t a t e a u s
dem Neuen T e s t a m e n t b e i C l e m e n s von A l e x a n d r i e n (Rome, 1970) ,
and C a r r o l l O s b u r n , "The T e x t o f t h e 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 o f Rome," S e c o n d C e n t u r y 2 ( 1 9 8 2 ) 9 7 - 1 2 4 .

Methodological

P r o b l e m s /9

o u t s t a n d i n g c a s e i n p o i n t i s t h e l a n d m a r k study^ o f C h r y s o s tom's t e x t o f Mark by J . G e e r l i n g s and S. New.

A s Gordon

F e e h a s r e c e n t l y d e m o n s t r a t e d , G e e r l i n g s a n d New

drew c o n c l u

s i o n s a b o u t C h r y s o s t o m ' s t e x t o f Mark from q u o t a t i o n s

15
precisely
study

t h e same form i n o t h e r G o s p e l s .

o f Mark's t e x t cannot

might j u s t

p r o b l e m o f how

source of a P a t r i s t i c

t o determine

affair,

which

T h i s r a i s e s the
the B i b l i c a l

quotation or a l l u s i o n .

Sometimes t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n p r o v e s
simple

But o b v i o u s l y a

use as data quotations

a s w e l l h a v e come from Matthew.

methodological

found i n

a s when t h e a u t h o r

t o be a

relatively

names h i s s o u r c e .

Such a
16

statement

can normally,

but not always,

f r e q u e n t l y s o u r c e s must be d e t e r m i n e d
nal

considerations, that

be t r u s t e d .

More

on t h e b a s i s o f

inter

i s , on t h e g r o u n d o f v e r b a l c o r r e s

p o n d e n c e t o m a t e r i a l f o u n d i n o n l y one G o s p e l
Problems of determining
circumstances.
when v e r b a l l y
Gospel.
writings.

The f i r s t

sources a r i s e

or

h a s t o do w i t h G o s p e l

i d e n t i c a l passages

occur

The problem c a n be i l l u s t r a t e d

parallels

i n more t h a n

one

from Didymus's

I n h i s commentary on E c c l e s i a s t e s

another.

i n three kinds of

Didymus

( E c c l T 38:24).

states

This

J a c o b G e e r l i n g s and S i l v a New, " C h r y s o s t o m ' s T e x t o f

t h e G o s p e l o f Mark," HTR 24 ( 1 9 3 1 ) 1 2 1 - 4 2 .
15
F e e , "The T e x t o f J o h n a n d Mark i n C h r y s o s t o m , " 5 3 8 - 4 7 .
1 6

A s t r i k i n g example o f t h e problem o f a c c e p t i n g u n c r i
t i c a l l y a n a u t h o r ' s d e c l a r a t i o n o f h i s s o u r c e c a n be f o u n d i n
D i d y m u s ' s commentary on P s a l m s .
I n the f o l l o w i n g passage
Didymus p o i n t s o u t t h e d i f f e r e n t r e n d e r i n g s o f a d o m i n i c a l
s a y i n g by Matthew and L u k e :
&
" ,"
" . " As t h e e d i t o r s o f t h e commentary
c o r r e c t l y n o t i c e d , t h e 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, a n d t h e s e c o n d from L u k e i
T h u s e v e n when t h e a u t h o r
names h i s s o u r c e , t h e p r o c e s s o f i n t e r n a l e x a m i n a t i o n
o u t l i n e d b e l o w must b e f o l l o w e d .
17
T h e f o l l o w i n g s i g l a a r e u s e d f o r D i d y m u s ' s commen
t a r i e s throughout the p r e s e n t study.
EcclT=Ecclesiastes
commentary o f T o u r a ; GenTGenesis commentary; J o b T = J o b
commentary; P s T = P s a l m s commentary; Z e T = Z e c h a r i a h
commentary.
T h u s 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 o f
T o u r a , p a g e 38, l i n e 24.

10/

Didymus a n d t h e G o s p e l s

r e p r e s e n t s an a d a p t a t i o n of t h e passage
t h e same form i n a l l f o u r G o s p e l s :
(Matt

found i n p r e c i s e l y

trj

3:3; Mark 1:3; L u k e 3:4; J o h n 1 : 2 3 ) .

Occasionally the

same p r o b l e m 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
w i t h i n t h e same G o s p e l ,

a r e found

a s when Didymus s a y s

(ZeT 1 3 9 : 1 0 ) ,

an adaptation of t h e

M a t t h e a n found i n b o t h
M a t t 4:23 and 9:34 o r ...

found i n

Matt 10:1.

S i n c e t h e s o u r c e s of t h e s e q u o t a t i o n s cannot

determined,

they cannot

text.

be u s e d

be

i n a n a n a l y s i s o f Didymus's

T h i s means t h a t a l a r g e number

o f d a t a must be

excluded

from t h e a n a l y s i s a t t h e o u t s e t .
The

second

k i n d o f p r o b l e m d e r i v e s from s c r i b a l

z a t i o n s o f one G o s p e l
mission.

t o another

U s u a l l y each Gospel

ings i n p a r a l l e l passages:

harmoni

i n t h e course of t h e i r

will

c o n t a i n some u n i q u e

a d i f f e r e n t verb tense, the addi

t i o n o r o m i s s i o n o f a word o r p h r a s e ,
and

the l i k e .

its

distinctive

But

s i n c e many u n i q u e e l e m e n t s

t h e u s e o f a synonymn,

I f a F a t h e r were t o quote a passage

i n one o f

forms, h i s s o u r c e would be e a s i l y

recognized.

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 h a r m o n i z e d one p a s s a g e
another,
is

i t i s o f t e n impossible t o determine

quoting

one o f t h e G o s p e l s

or a d i f f e r e n t

Gospel

to

whether a F a t h e r

in i t s (originally)

unique

t h a t was l a t e r h a r m o n i z e d t o i t .

n a t u r e o f t h e p r o b l e m c a n a g a i n be i l l u s t r a t e d
writings.

trans
read

I n h i s commentary on t h e P s a l m s ,

from Didymus's

Didymus c i t e s t h e

f o l l o w i n g s a y i n g o f J e s u s : 8 hk\a
(PsT 276:2).
the logion.

form
The

The q u o t a t i o n conforms t o Matthew's v e r s i o n of

T h i s i s s i g n i f i c a n t because

i t shows D i d y m u s ' s
3

support

f o r two v a r i a n t s

L fam 1

() a (fam 13) 892 1241, a n d ( 2 )

a g a i n s t found i n fam 13 e.

considering this
dition

o f Mark

UBS

read

3 ...

But t h e d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e

with

But t h e reasons f o r

c i t a t i o n Matthean evaporate

i s e x a m i n e d more c l o s e l y .

v e r s i o n probably
al.).

( 1 ) 6 w i t h

33 a g a i n s t f o u n d i n D W a n d

f o u n d i n TR
rell.

i n the tradition:

when t h e MS

tra

To be s u r e , M a r k ' s
(thus

B U L K

i s f o u n d i n numerous

other

Methodological Problems / l l

witnesses,

including

AC

33.

So h e r e i t i s

t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r Didymus a g r e e s w i t h
Matthean c i t a t i o n or w i t h
reason,

against

textual

strand

passages.

or design,

Occasionally

when a

a conflated

reading

Such i s t h e case,

c a n be

Biblical
unravelled

sources

f o r e x a m p l e , when

readily

Didymus

. . .

. ,.& ( P s T 2 1 0 : 3 4 - 4 5 ) .
quotation

10:32.

The f i r s t

(...) must r e p r e s e n t

L u k e 12:8, t h e s e c o n d
I n other

true,

ti'vi

of Matt

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

f o r example, i n t h e f o l l o w i n g

358:26-359:2:

p a r t of

a c i t a t i o n of

(...) a n a d a p t a t i o n

places,

complex, m a k i n g t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f s o u r c e s
is

Father,

c o n f l a t e s two o r more

a s t o make t h e c o n s t i t u e n t p a r t s a n d t h e i r

discernable,

the

tra

Father's

affinities.

A t h i r d problematic s i t u a t i o n occurs

says

in a
For this

of t h e t e x t u a l

n e i t h e r p a s s a g e c a n be u s e d t o e s t a b l i s h a

e i t h e r by a c c i d e n t

so

i n a Marcan.

w h e n e v e r a p a s s a g e o f one G o s p e l h a s b e e n h a r m o n i z e d

to that of another i n a s i g n i f i c a n t
dition,

impossible

against

impossible.

quotation

from

;...

This

EcclT

' ,
' Mai 9,
won. . . .

" .

C l e a r l y part of t h i s t e x t derives
from L u k e 7 : 3 1 - 3 2 .

f r o m M a t t 11:16.-18 and p a r t

B u t t h e two a c c o u n t s a r e s o

intricately

i n t e r w o v e n t h a t t h e s o u r c e o f e a c h p h r a s e c a n n o t be
And p a r t

of the t e x t agrees with

D i d y m u s ' s own f r e e h a n d l i n g
plex

c o n f l a t i o n s of t h i s

establish a Father's

s o r t c a n n o t be u s e d when s e e k i n g

textual

in

identical

or

i n t h e i r MS

from

o f t h e m a t e r i a l s . O b v i o u s l y com
to

affinities.

A source a n a l y s i s , then, serves

P a t r i s t i c quotations

discerned.

neither Gospel, d e r i v i n g

to limit

t h e study of

a n d a l l u s i o n s t o t h o s e t h a t a r e n o t found

form e i t h e r i n t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t s o f t h e G o s p e l s
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 n o t 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 disentanglement.

12/

Didymus and

The

Textual
The

again

area of methodological

of

others.

question w i l l

tend

literature

exposition

the passages

not

o f t e n be

given

each

B i b l i c a l quotation

the r e l a t i v e

or w i l l i n g l y
one

judgment.

and

allusion

t o t h e NT

latter

quotations

At t h i s p o i n t

to c i t e

or paraphrased

the t e x t

the text.

and

should

the passage

be

Citation

formulae
and,

can

i s sometimes erroneous,
19

an

sufficiently
Biblical

just

MS.

intent
as

easily

making t h e i r

For these reasons,

to the B i b l i c a l

the

formula

as p r e v i o u s l y seen,

the

value

classification

o f 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
v e r b a l correspondence

of

preIn

introduces

using a citation

i n d i c a t o r s of a u t h o r i a l

as c i t a t i o n s ,

regard dubious.

there

s o a s t o make

could c l a s s i f y the r e f e r e n c e as
and,

prove r e l i a b l e .

data

with respect to i t s

source.

intended

h i s source

however, s u c h

paraphrases

Biblical

classifying

a s s e r t t h a t i t d e r i v e s from t h e a u t h o r ' s

actuality,

this

following

p r o c e s s t h e s u b j e c t i v e judgment

altered

one

citation

n o t a t i o n of s o u r c e s
in

involves

I f , f o r example, t h e a u t h o r

citing

Y^-ypauxai),

intentional

rarely

sporadic

c o u l d a n a l y z e t h e manner o f c i t a t i o n

r e f e r e n c e by

precede

The

i n view of t h i s

v a l u e of a l l the

This determination

i n t o the c r i t i c a l

lengthy,

i n commentaries
more f r e q u e n t l y

or m a t e r i a l context.

whether the P a t r i s t i c author

In

and

in
of

i n the

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

v e r b a l correspondence

(e.g.

allusive

the f r e q u e n t but

determining

far collected.

this

lemmata, a t l e a s t

In contrast, quotations
will

thus

cisely

i n the

Here
the

i n Didymus's e x p o s i t o r y w o r k s .
first

text entails

theory,

be more a m e n a b l e t o

p r o p o s a l s were developed

kind of evidence,

enters

will

high degree

adapted to the grammatical

methodological

The

with

B i b l i c a l c o m m e n t a r i e s on

itself.

other passages

o f t h e NT

h a s t o do

to preserve a r e l a t i v e l y

a c c u r a c y of c i t a t i o n i f
18
on

concern

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 .

some g e n r e s

task than

Gospels

Reconstruction

third

the a c t u a l

the

t h e ground

text.

I n one s e n s e t h i s a p p r o a c h a p p e a r s p r o b l e m a t i c ,
IB
S e e t h e d i s c u s s i o n on p. 7-8 a b o v e .
19
S e e n. 16, p. 9 a b o v e .

since

of

Methodological

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s d e p e n d on
the B i b l i c a l
cannot

the proximity

of h i s r e f e r e n c e s to i t .

cise

establishing

In practice,

The

intentional

variations

real

difficulty

citation,

allusion

w h i c h c o n t a i n s one

from t h e F a t h e r ' s t e x t ,

must be

recognized

at this

citation

on

shortcomings

o c c a s i o n i t may

tion

of a B i b l i c a l

F a t h e r ' s exemplar.
an

adaptation

be v i e w e d a s

tradition,

exceptions w i l l

be

No

relative

a d v a n c e s i n method
data

can

at this

t h a t what l o o k s l i k e

an

point,

adapta-

from t h e t e x t o f

t h e o t h e r hand, s i n c e r e m n a n t s o f

i t i s relatively

s o r a r e a s t o make v i r t u a l l y

the
such

in the

s a f e t o assume t h a t
no

these

impact

on

analysis.
As

a l r e a d y noted, the p r e s e n t study

i s adopting,

minor m o d i f i c a t i o n s , the t h r e e f o l d system

advocated
20

by

Gordon F e e :

sions.

"Citations" consist

the B i b l i c a l passage.

citations,

of

adaptations,

here

with

classification
and

of a c c u r a t e q u o t a t i o n s

Accuracy

the ground of v e r b a l c o n f o r m i t y

alluof

i s determined s o l e l y

to the B i b l i c a l

passage,

on
as

found i n t h e v a r i o u s s t r a n d s o f 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 m a r k e d l y from t h e t e x t n o r m a l l y

judged

original,

y e t conforms w i t h the t e x t as

element of the t r a d i t i o n ,
tion.

i t will

still

found i n a
be

N a t u r a l l y , s i n c e m i n o r c h a n g e s may

citation will

be

equally precise.

overcrowding the system

by

of

from e x a c t

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

textual

the

should

text actually derived

On

pre-

or m a t e r i a l context.

of the P a t r i s t i c

s i m p l y be

o r more s m a l l

from a s l i g h t

a continuum r a n g i n g

to d i s t a n t a l l u s i o n .

overcome t h e

and

stage 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
p o i n t s of r e f e r e n c e along

text

accuracy

comes i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g ,

t h e t e x t made i n v i e w o f t h e s y n t a c t i c a l
It

the

however, i t i s not

t o d i s t i n g u i s h between a f a i n t

citation.

s a y , an

first

/13

reference to

t e x t , w h i l e t h e physiognomy of a F a t h e r ' s

be d e t e r m i n e d w i t h o u t

difficult

of each

Problems

labeling citations

considered
occur,

Nevertheless,

to

not

See e s p e c i a l l y
169-70.

cita-

every

rather

than

beyond t h e p o i n t of u s e f u l n e s s i . e .

" v e r y l o o s e , " " l o o s e , " and

"exact"all

20
Bible,"

be

significant

"The

Text of John i n the

Jerusalem

14/

Didymus and

more o r l e s s

the

Gospels

accurate quotations w i l l

be

registered as

cita-

tions.
"Adaptations"

are B i b l i c a l

s i g n i f i c a n t l y modified
apply

t h i s category

f o r one

r e f e r e n c e s w h i c h have been
reason

or another.

only to quotations

w i t h the grammatical

context o j i n conformity

b e i n g made i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n .

But

fication

the category

unnecessarily restricts

ally

t h a t a Father quoting

adapt a B i b l i c a l

t e x t t o s u i t h i s own

better

t o c o n s i d e r any

correspondence

of the category

obvious

variations

purposes,

For t h i s

whether

reason,

to the B i b l i c a l

does not

text.

r e l i e v e the c r i t i c
for adaptations;

i t is
pas-

a close

T h i s broadening
of the t a s k

of

i t does a l l o w

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

the

no

reason.

Finally,

" 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

reminiscences
to the

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 c o r r e s p o n d e n c e ,
course,

cannot

help the c r i t i c

F a t h e r ' s t e x t and

so cannot

be

determine t h e words of
used

i n the

r e f e r e n c e s c a n be

o f t h e NT.
s h o r t by

dence.

Here too
failing

analyzed

text.
of
the

analysis.

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 h a v e b e e n made,
Patristic

fallen

one

occasion-

so l o n g a s t h e r e f e r e n c e m a i n t a i n s

t h a t have only a d i s t a n t v e r b a l correspondence

text

point
classi-

major m o d i f i c a t i o n of a B i b l i c a l

finding contextual reasons

classification

to

f r o m memory w o u l d

these purposes are t r a n s p a r e n t .

s a g e an a d a p t a t i o n ,

with the

I n p o i n t of f a c t ,

or not

verbal

critics

conformity

t h i s approach to

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 .
would expect

Some

changed i n

the

f o r t h e i r witness to

a number o f p r e v i o u s

to take i n t o account

a l l of the

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

s i o n s do

not

qualify

as c i t a t i o n s ,

the

s t u d i e s have

many e a r l i e r c r i t i c s

evialluwrong-

l y d i s c o u n t e d the 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
ther.
B u t e v e n when r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e B i b l i c a l t e x t l a c k
Ibid.,

170.

22
T h i s was a n o t h e r s h o r t c o m i n g o f G e e r l i n g s and New,
as
shown by G. F e e , "The T e x t o f J o h n and Mark i n C h r y s o s t o m , "
538.
O t h e r s t u d i e s , s u c h a s 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 sions.
C o l l a t i o n s a r e t h e n made o n l y o f t h e e x a c t q u o t a -

Methodological

the p r e c i s i o n of c i t a t i o n s
still,

on

a n t s was

(or of loose adaptations)

found i n the F a t h e r ' s t e x t .

a l l u s i o n , t o Mt.

21:2,

4,

(ZeT 2 1 8 : 6 - 8 ) .
r a t h e r than

is

t o e i t h e r of the p a r a l l e l s
Significantly,

C D L fam

13

w i t n e s s e s and

can

vari

shown by

o f Didymus. I n a

an

clear

T h e s e w o r d s must r e f e r t o t h e M a t t h e a n

!) .

Byzantine

T h i s c a n be

/15

Didymus w r i t e s (3<5 "

a t t e s t e d by most A l e x a n d r i a n
3

(UBS

they

occasion, serve to i n d i c a t e which of s e v e r a l

e x a m p l e drawn from t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y

6"vou !

Problems

33

Matthew's u s e

w i t n e s s e s and

892)

others

while

(TR W

passage

i n Mark o r L u k e

(note:

o f

several

others

i s f o u n d i n
fam

1241).

Thus, d e s p i t e t h e 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 c a n be
tradition

no d o u b t t h a t he

supports

the

Alexandrian

here.

In other

i n s t a n c e s the process of e s t a b l i s h i n g

Father's text w i l l
same p a s s a g e

be

several

relatively
times

simple,

in precisely

a r e not

the

reflected

elsewhere

i n t h e MS

s a f e l y be

assumed t h a t t h e c i t a t i o n w h i c h c o n f o r m s t o

common t e x t was

I n such

quotes

t h e same form, o r when

t h e m i n o r d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e c i t a t i o n s
tradition.

the

a s when he

i n s t a n c e s i t can
the

a l s o t h a t of the F a t h e r ; the s l i g h t l y

variant

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 o f d a t a h a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r e d up

(1) a l l u s i o n s and

adaptations

t h a t g i v e no

to t h i s

evidence

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,

do

d i s c l o s e h i s reading

t i o n s t h a t may

i n p a r t o f i t , and

r e q u i r e the c r i t i c

r e p r e s e n t s the F a t h e r ' s t e x t .
Father's quotations
t e x t c a n and
stances of
and

A third

allusions

the o r i g i n a l
only

and

An

cita

that best

that his

reconstructed. I n view here

citations

of a

Biblical
are i n
passage,

a l l u s i o n s w h i c h make i t p o s s i b l e t o

form o f t h e F a t h e r ' s t e x t .

tentative,

of course,

the b a s i s of a l l the r e l e v a n t data.

tions.

the
that

s i t u a t i o n o c c u r s when a

are such

(1) f r e q u e n t b u t p a r t i a l

t i o n s c a n be
on

s h o u l d be

(2) a d a p t a t i o n s

discern

and

but

(2) m u l t i p l e

t o c h o o s e one

point:

as to

and

Reconstruc

must be

evaluated

Both the

tentative

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.

16/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

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 c a n be i l l u s t r a t e d ,

once a g a i n ,

from t h e d a t a s e t f o r t h

in the following c r i t i c a l

apparatus.

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
(a)

to Matt 5 : 4 5

( P s T

177:20);
(b)

'

\ \

(c)

(ZeT 2 4 6 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) ;

'

(PsT 290:21-22).

On t h e b a s i s o f t h e s e r e f e r e n c e s , D i d y m u s ' s t e x t c a n be

recon

structed as follows:

.
Here i t c a n be s e e n t h a t
o f t h e o l d L a t i n MS
considered
versional
reads

Didymus p r e s e r v e s t h e word

a ( ) .

significant,
evidence.

order

T h i s may

n o t be

g i v e n t h e p r o b l e m o f word o r d e r

i n the

B u t i t i s w o r t h n o t i n g t h a t Didymus

also

... w i t h t h e w h o l e t r a d i t i o n a g a i n s t

K, w h i c h omits i t .

I n a case such a s t h i s ,

the reconstruction

must be made c o n s e r v a t i v e l y , c h a n g i n g word o r d e r o r m a k i n g

additions,
hard

s u b t r a c t i o n s , o r s u b s t i t u t i o n s o n l y on t h e b a s i s o f

evidence.

As a r e s u l t ,

the reconstructed text

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 , a s h a p p e n s t w i c e i n t h e
reference j u s t

cited

' ] ' ) .

( '] ' ;
I n view of the c h a r a c t e r of the e v i

d e n c e , no c o n f i d e n c e c a n be p l a c e d i n h a v i n g
real
be

singular

r e a d i n g s by t h i s

uncovered

reconstruction.

t h a t Didymus s i m p l y m i s q u o t e d o r a d a p t e d t h e t e x t

tently.

well

consis

B u t b e f o r e e v e n t h i s c o n c l u s i o n c a n be drawn, t h e

d a t a must a t l e a s t be p r e s e n t e d .
ation

some

I t could

i s most a d e q u a t e l y

In this

case such

a present

achieved 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 c a n be a t t e m p t e d when a
solitary

adaptation e x i s t s ,

minantly

syntactical.

so long a s the changes a r e predo

Here a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e n t a i l s

more t h a n t h e r e v e r s i o n t o t h e p a s s a g e ' s
Thus,

original

little

syntax.

f o r e x a m p l e , Didymus p r e s e r v e s o n l y one, f a i r l y

exten-

Methodological

sive,

a d a p t a t i o n o f Matt

P r o b l e m s /17

22:13:

H O O L V

,
( P s T

247:7-8).

A r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f Didymus's t e x t c a n b e made w i t h a f a i r
degree o f confidence.

The

()

r e c o n s t r u c t i o n shows t h a t

cant v a r i a n t s of the textual

with

Didymus s u p p o r t s
tradition:
1. 13

L f

two s i g n i f i

( l ) "
892 a g a i n s t b o t h

f o u n d i n D a b e, a n d

by t h e

b u l k o f l a t e r MSS a s w e l l
w i t h
The

D f

supported

a s by C 33 a n d 1 2 4 1 ; a n d ( 2 )

1241 a b e a g a i n s t most o t h e r MSS.

S p e c i a l S i g n i f i c a n c e a n d P e c u l i a r P r o b l e m s o f Didymus a s

a Textual
There
cance

Witness
c a n be no d o u b t a b o u t t h e t e x t - c r i t i c a l

of t h e Gospel

appointed

head o f 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
Didymus's l i f e

313-398).

Born and r a i s e d

h i s home c i t y

four or f i v e ,

signifi

q u o t a t i o n s o f Didymus, t h e b l i n d

nasius.

left

monk

s c h o o l by A t h a -

s p a n n e d t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y (A.D.
i n A l e x a n d r i a , he a p p a r e n t l y

even a s an a d u l t .

Didymus became b l i n d ,

never

A t an e a r l y age, perhaps
probably

the result

of a

D i d y m u s ' s l i f e , work, a n d t e a c h i n g s h a v e b e e n t h e s u b
j e c t o f t h r e e monographs i n modern t i m e s : G. B a r d y , Didyme
1 ' A v e u q l e ( P a r i s : B e a u c h e s n e , 1 9 1 0 ) ; J . L e i p o l d t , Didvmus d e r
B l i n d e v o n 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 , 1 9 0 5 ) ; a n d
W i l l i a m J . G a u c h e , Didvmus t h e B l i n d : An E d u c a t o r o f 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 o f America,
1934).
O t h e r h e l p f u l s k e t c h e s i n c l u d e W o l f g a n g A. B i e n e r t ,
" A l l e g o r i a " u n d "Anagoge" B e i Didvmos dem B l i n d e n v o n 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 , 1 9 7 2 ) 1-31; L o u i s D o u t r e l e a u , S u r Z a c h a r i e 1-128; Brbel K r a m e r , "Didymus v o n A l e x a n 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 , 1 9 8 1 ) 7 4 1 - 4 6 ; J o h a n n e s Q u a s t e n , P a t r o l o g y .
vol.
I I I ( U t r e c h t : S p e c t r u m , 1 9 6 6 ) 8 5 - 1 0 0 ; a n d F r a n c e s Young,
From M i c a e a t o C h a l c e d o n : ft G u i d e t o t h e L i t e r a t u r e a n d 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
childhood disease.
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.
His education covered
all

t h e major d i s c i p l i n e s o f t h e day:

a s t r o n o m y , grammar, r h e t o r i c ,

dialectic,

B e s t known f o r h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g
lished himself early
dria.

I t was

school,

i s no

t i m e had

spread

f a r and w i d e : by

Origen.

lectured to

fulfill

from t h e

end

he

priva-

c o u l d number among h i s
29

a s Jerome and

Rufmus.

t h e c o u r s e o f h i s c a r e e r Didymus d i c t a t e d

t h e o l o g i c a l t r e a t i s e s and

and
28

Nevertheless, h i s reputation

life's

students such noteworthies

During

u n d e r C l e m e n t and

More l i k e l y he t a u g h t

monk's c e l l .

Atha-

cathechetical

l o s t much o f t h e s p l e n d o r

t h a t Didymus p u b l i c l y

the d u t i e s of h i s post.
c y o f h i s own

Didymus e s t a b -

of the A r i a n c o n t r o v e r s y t h a t

e a r l i e r enjoyed

evidence

philosophy.

of S c r i p t u r e ,

t o be h e a d o f t h e famed

w h i c h by t h i s

r e p u t a t i o n i t had
There

him

and

geometry,
26

i n l i f e as a prominent t e a c h e r i n Alexan-

i n the midst

n a s i u s appointed

mathematics,

Biblical

commentaries.

Most

numerous
signi-

f i c a n t P fa ol rl atdhieu sc,o n Ht irsotv.e rLsaiuess. o fI V h; i Jse r

own
o m e day
C h r ow neirceo nh.i s V dI oI cI ;t r i n a l
S o c r a t e s , H i s t . E c c l . I V , 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
S e e , e.g., S o c r a t e s , H i s t . E c c l . . I V , 25; R u f i n u s ,
H i s t . E s s i . , I I , 7; J e r o m e , V i r . 111.. 109 and E p i s t . 50, ad
Domnionem.
R u f i n u s , H i s t . E c c l , I I , 7; S o c r a t e s , Hj,s,fc. l., I V ,
2 5 - 2 6 ; T h e o d o r e t , H j s t . E c c l . . I V , 26.
27
The d a t e o f h i s a p p o i n t m e n t h a s b e e n w i d e l y d e b a t e d .
P r o p o s e d d a t e s r a n g e 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, E t u d e s 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, b a s e d on t h e t e s t i mony o f 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 A n d r e s e n , "Didymos 3," i n L e x i k o n d e r A l t e n W e l t [ Z u r i c k : A r t e m i s
V e r l a g , 1965] 7 3 2 - 3 3 ) .
S e e t h e d i s c u s s i o n s o f B a r d y , Dldvme.
6; B i e n e r t , " A l l e g o r i a " , 5-6; G a u c h e , Eiyjjms, 78; L e i p o l d t ,
2 4

2 6

28

/
S e e e s p . G. B a r d y , " P o u r l ' h i s t o i r e de l'cole d ' A l e x a n d r i a , " V i v r e e t P e n s e r 2 ( 1 9 4 2 ) 8 0 - 1 0 9 ; G a u c h , Didvmus. 3670.
29
S e e J e r o m e ' 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 , A p o l o g y . I I , 12; H i s t .
E S S l . , I I , 7.

Methodological

P r o b l e m s /19

30
w o r k s on t h e T r i n i t y (De T r i n i t a t e ^
a n d t h e H o l y S p i r i t (De
31
S p i r i t u Sancto).
A t h e a r t , t h o u g h , Didymus w a s a B i b l i c a l
scholar,

having

d i c t a t e d c o m m e n t a r i e s on much o f t h e O l d
32
I n a d d i t i o n , some o f D i d y -

T e s t a m e n t a n d m o s t o f t h e New.
mus's s t u d e n t s

l a t e r published notes

l e c t u r e s on y e t o t h e r

Biblical

Didymus i s a n i m p o r t a n t
cisely
and

books.

context.

the Alexandrian

text.

pre-

He s t u d i e d t h e NT

i n A l e x a n d r i a when t h e g r e a t
34

u n c i a l s were being produced.

surrounded

from h i s e x p o s i t o r y

w i t n e s s t o t h e NT t e x t

because of h i s h i s t o r i c a l

quoted i t s t e x t

taken
33

Alexandrian

An a u r a o f m y s t e r y h a s a l w a y s
Was a n 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 t h e 4 t h c e n t u r y ? o r t h e
35
,
,
,
2nd?)?
When a n d how e x t e n s i v e l y d i d a s t r a i n o f t h e W e s t e r n
30
S e e 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 b y Jrgen Hnscheid
Didymus d e r B l i n d e : De t r i n i t a t e , B u c h I ( M e i s e n h e i m am G l a n :
V e r l a g e A n t o n H a i n , 1 9 7 5 ) a n d I n g r i d S e i l e r , Didymus d e r
B l i n d e : De t r i n i t a t e . B u c h I I , K a p i t e l 1-7 ( M e i s e n h e i m am
G l a n : V e r l a g Anton Hain, 1975).
S e e L o u i s D o u t r e l e a u , "tude d'une t r a d i t i o n manusc r i t e : L e 'De S p i r i t u S a n c t o ' de Didyme," i n KyriaKon: Es&s c h r i f t J o h a n n e s Q u a s t e n , e d . P a t r i c k G r a n f i e l d a n d 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 , 1 9 7 0 ) 3 5 2 - 8 9 ;
and idem, " L e De S p i r i t u S a n c t o de Didyme e t s e s diteurs,"
R e c h S R 51 ( 1 9 6 3 ) 3 8 3 - 4 0 6 .
T h e t e x t c a n b e f o u n d i n Migne, PG
39, 1 0 3 1 - 8 6 .
32
D o u t r e l e a u g i v e s t h e f o l l o w i n g a s D i d y m u s ' s commentar 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 incomplte":
G e n e s i s , Exodus, L e v i t i c u s , J o b , Psalms,
Proverbs,
E c c l e s i a s t e s , Song o f S o n g s , I s a i a h , F i n a l V i s i o n o f I s a i a h ,
J e r e m i a h , D a n i e l , H o s e a , Z e c h a r i a h ; Matthew, L u k e , J c h n , A c t s ,
Romans, 1 a n d 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 .
S u r Z a c h a r l e . I , 17-18;
119-26.
33
T h i s i s t o be i n f e r r e d from t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e 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, a s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w , pp. 2 6 - 2 7 .
34
See t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f c o d i c e s N and B i n Metzger, T e x t ,
7-8; 4 2 - 4 8 .
35
T h i s v i e w was p o p u l a r i z e d by W i l h e l m B o u s s e t , l a r g e l y
on t h e b a s i s o f h i s a n a l y s i s o f t h e A l e x a n d r i a n f r a g m e n t s
commonly d e s i g n a t e d by t h e s i g l u m "T": " D i e R e c e n s i o n d e s
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 T e s t a m e n t ( L e i p z i g : J . C. H i n r i c h s , 1 8 9 4 ) 7 4 - 1 1 0 .
Bousset's p o s i t i o n has
b e e n d i s c o u n t e d b y a number o f s c h o l a r s , most r e c e n t l y b y
G o r d o n D. F e e , "P75, P66, a n d O r i g e n : T h e Myth o f 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 D i m e n s i o n s i n New
3 1

20/

Didymus and

the

Gospels
3 6

t e x t enter the Alexandrian

streams

o f t r a n s m i s s i o n t h e r e , one

w e r e t h e r e two

roughly

rive

fourth century?
from t h e r e ?

i s s u e s by

Were t h e r e

e a r l y and

text

ele-

already

many o f

third-century

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 , C l e m e n t , and

3 6

Or

text ultimately

S c h o l a r s have addressed

a n a l y z i n g t h e s e c o n d - and

Testament Study, eds.

Tenney (Grand R a p i d s :

Were

found i n A l e x a n d r i a

Did the Caesarean

two
37

one l a t e ?
38

contemporaneous s t r e a m s ?

ments of a p r o t o - B y z a n t i n e
the

tradition?

R i c h a r d N. L o n g e n e c k e r and
Z o n d e r v a n , 1974) 1 9 - 4 5 .

by

de-

these

Alexandrian
Origen.
Herrill

C.

A s e a r l y as the t h i r d century, Egyptian witnesses such

a s P29, P38, P45, P48 p r e s e r v e e l e m e n t s o f t h e W e s t e r n t e x t .
S e e M e t z g e r , T e x t , 214.
Gordon D. F e e ("Codex S i n a i t i c u s i n
t h e G o s p e l 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 [ 1 9 6 8 - 6 9 ] 2 3 - 4 4 ) shows
t h a t i n J o h n 1:1-8:38 c o d e x 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 v i e w was p o p u l a r i z e d by W e s t c o t t and H o r t ' s d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e " 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 T e s t a m e n t i n t h e O r i g i n a l G r e e k . 2 [ C a m b r i d g e :
M a c m i l l a n , 1881] 1 2 6 - 3 2 , 1 6 4 - 7 2 ) .
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 ( 1 9 7 7 - 7 8 ) 2 8 5 - 9 6 .
38
T h i s i s t h e p o s i t i o n a d v o c a t e d by M a r t i n i i n t h e a r t i c l e c i t e d i n the preceding note.
39
See t h e l i s t of p a p y r u s - s u p p o r t e d B y z a n t i n e r e a d i n g s i n
H a r r y A. S t u r z , The B y z a n t i n e T e x t - T v p e and New T e s t a m e n t
T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m , 3 r d ed. ( L a M i r a d a , C a l : B i o l a C o l l e g e
B o o k s t o r e , 1980) 107-222, and t h e c o n c l u s i o n s drawn t h e r e .
S e e 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 P a p y r u s and t h e
W e s t e r n and B y z a n t i n e T e x t s , " ZS& 41 ( 1 9 4 0 ) 2 5 3 - 6 0 , and
G u n t h e r Z u n t z , The T e x t o f 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 C o r p u s P a u l i n u m (London: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , 1953)
55.
40
The o r i g i n o f t h e C a e s a r e a n t e x t h a s s o m e t i m e s b e e n
t r a c e d b a c k t o t h e t e x t O r i g e n b r o u g h t t o C a e s a r e a when he
moved f r o m A l e x a n d r i a .
T h u s R o b e r t P. B l a k e , K i r s o p p 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 o f Mark," HTg 21 ( 1 9 2 8 )
207-404.
S e e B r u c e M. M e t z g e r , " C a e s a r e a n T e x t o f t h e G o s 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 o f New T e s t a m e n t 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, 6 2 - 6 7 .
41
I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e w o r k s c i t e d i n nn. 35, 36, 39, and
40 a b o v e , s e e e s p e c i a l l y p. M, B a r n a r d , The B i b l i c a l T e x t o f
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);
G o r d o n D. F e e , " O r i g e n ' s T e x t o f t h e New T e s t a m e n t and t h e
T e x t o f E g y p t , " NTS 28 ( 1 9 8 2 ) 3 4 8 - 6 4 ; M. Mees, D i e Z i t a t e ;
C a l v i n P o r t e r , " p a p y r u s Bodmer XV (P75) and t h e T e x t o f Codex
V a t i c a n u s , " J B L 81 ( 1 9 6 2 ) 3 6 3 - 7 6 ; Reuben J . Swanson, "The
G o s p e l T e x t o f C l e m e n t o f A l e x a n d r i a " (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
Yale U n i v e r s i t y , 1956).

Methodological
Now

another

link

i n t h e c h a i n c a n be

forged

by

Problems

studying

w r i t i n g s o f 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

/21

the

church

Father.
It

should

analyzed

be

n o t e d t h a t two

Didymus's t e x t .

doctoral dissertation
methodological

The

i s rendered

inadequacies

C a r l o M a r t i n i probed the

the p u b l i c a t i o n of

i n 1955.

i s s u e s r a i s e d by

whose

u s e l e s s by i t s
newer

More r e c e n t l y
Didymus's t e x t

as

i n the Toura commentaries, but d i d not p r o v i d e

43

t h o r o u g h g o i n g p r e s e n t a t i o n and
of these

s c h o l a r s have

Wilhelm L i n s s ,

virtually

and b y

d i s c o v e r i e s s i n c e i t s completion

preserved

previous

f i r s t was

former s t u d i e s w i l l

junctures

a n a l y s i s of the data.

be c o n s i d e r e d

i n the a n a l y s e s of Chapters

at

I V and

a
Both

appropriate
V

below.

I n a d d i t i o n to the complexities inherent i n a l l P a t r i s t i c

sources,

as already discussed, the c i t a t i o n s

Father w i l l
lysis.

pose unique d i f f i c u l t i e s

F o r 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

circumstance
mining the

o f h i s b l i n d n e s s and

particular

from

from the p r o b l e m s of

o f h i s NT

text.

Whereas o t h e r

church

did

so

citations

whenever they wished,

Didymus

never

c o u l d ; w h e r e a s o t h e r s l e a r n e d S c r i p t u r e by

reading

available

MSS,
read,

B i b l i c a l MSS

him.

analy-

Fathers frequently

of n e c e s s i t y ; whereas o t h e r s could check t h e i r

against

deter-

problems f o r the

c h o s e t o q u o t e S c r i p t u r e from memory, Didymus a l w a y s

out

anathe

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 to

Didymus's b l i n d n e s s p o s e s o b v i o u s
sis

o f any

for a t e x t - c r i t i c a l

Didymus d i d n o t .

Didymus w e n t b l i n d b e f o r e

he

could

s o t h a t h i s v a s t k n o w l e d g e o f S c r i p t u r e came by

z i n g w h a t was

r e a d t o him.

t e a c h e r s presumably used

Since different

different

Biblical

memori-

ones of h i s
MSS,

early

each with 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 s e p t u m c a n o n l c o r u m e p l s t o l a r u m ( s e e n. 47 b e l o w ) , L i n s s

had a c c e s s o n l y t o M i g n e ' s u n c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n o f D i d y m u s ' s
writings.
J u s t a s i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e a u t h o r s h i p o f most of
t h e s e w o r k s h a s s i n c e come u n d e r 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 a g r e e m e n t s i n v a r i a t i o n f r o m t h e TP..
Thus L i n s s ' s study p r o v i d e s incomplete data
drawn f r o m an u n c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n o f w r i t i n g s t h a t may w e l l n o t
be a u t h e n t i c .
43
M a r t i n i , " I s There a Late A l e x a n d r i a n T e x t ? "

22/

Didymus a n d t h e G o s p e l s

own t e x t u a l p e c u l i a r i t i e s ,
"eclectic"

Didymus w o u l d h a v e l e a r n e d a n

t e x t a t t h e very beginning

more, a s a n a u t h o r ,

of h i s l i f e .

t r e a t i s e s h i m s e l f , b u t would have had t o d i c t a t e

v a r i o u s amanuenses.
amanuenses

recorded

I t i s not impossible that

Didymus's

Scriptural

g a v e them, b u t i n t h e form o f t e x t
learned.
led

I t seems

Further-

Didymus c o u l d n o t h a v e w r i t t e n a n y o f h i s

reasonable

citations,

n o t a s he

they t h e m s e l v e s had

t o assume

t h a t t h i s would

o n l y t o minor m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e t e x t .

modifications d i d occur,

them t o

different

then even before

have

But i f such

Didymus's

works

were

released to the public, h i sc i t a t i o n s of Scripture differed

from t h e t e x t a s he h a d i t memorized.
problems
lishing

i n t o account,
Didymus's

Taking

a l l these

i t l o o k s a s though t h e t a s k o f e s t a b -

Gospel

text

i s v e r y g r e a t indeed,

perhaps

insurmountable.
On c l o s e r
g r e a t e r than

examination,

however,

Patristic writer.

Y e s , Didymus w o u l d h a v e l e a r n e d S c r i p t u r e

by m e m o r i z i n g p a s s a g e s

from v a r i o u s MSS.

t o o w o u l d h a v e most C h r i s t i a n s
ever

would have been a t e x t w i t h

But, presumably, so

i n h i s day.

" m i x e d " t h e r e s u l t a n t memorized

coming

t h e s e p r o b l e m s a p p e a r no

those t h a t o b t a i n i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f any o t h e r

Furthermore,

i t svarious constituent parts

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 b e

b o r n e i n mind t h a t a n a n a l y s i s o f 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 t h e d a t e and l o c a t i o n o f t h e d a t a ,
with t h e i r

source.

q u o t e from memory.

Y e s , Didymus w o u l d h a v e b e e n

tage,

d i f f e r e n t amanuenses

t h e page.

mus's t e x t ,
sarily

But t h i s
since,

conceivably

i n no way a f f e c t s t h e a n a l y s i s o f D i d y s o r t would

neces-

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 .

T h u s t h e p r o b l e m s d e r i v i n g from t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e

quotations

Y e s , Didy-

who c o u l d

o f S c r i p t u r e b e f o r e t h e y e v e n came

again, changes o f t h i s

represent readings

blindness should

And

t o have a n advan-

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.

have changed h i s q u o t a t i o n s
to

not simply
forced to

B u t s o t o o d i d most o f t h e F a t h e r s .

on t h i s s c o r e Didymus c o u l d p e r h a p s b e s a i d

mus w o u l d h a v e u s e d

how-

t e x t would have been, i t

have l i t t l e

of

Didymus's

b e a r i n g on a n a n a l y s i s o f h i s NT

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 -

Methodological Problems
city

of the

various

Didymus's t e x t
studied.

But

works a t t r i b u t e d

i s t o be

analyzed,

s i n c e the

publication

c o v e r e d a t T o u r a , E g y p t i n 1941
virtually
viously
of

the

a l l of

attributed

t o him

has

so

involved.

as to

investigation
By

the

of

and

the

to

the

rationale

Toura

if

be
dis-

authorship
works

come i n t o d i s p u t e .
writings

can

commentaries

expositional

The

of

pre-

history

Didymus i s i n t e r be

f o r r e s t r i c t i n g the
44

propresent

commentaries.

e a r l y eighteenth century,

monly a s c r i b e d

Clearly

Here only a b r i e f s k e t c h w i l l

show t h e
to

Didymus.

(see below) the

theological

a t t r i b u t i o n of v a r i o u s

e s t i n g but
vided

the

to

only h i s writings

/23

t h r e e w o r k s w e r e com-

Didymus: J e r o m e ' s L a t i n t r a n s l a t i o n o f a
45
t r e a t i s e on t h e H o l y S p i r i t , De S p i r i t u S a n c t o ;
a little
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, C o n t r a Mani46
chaios;
and a commentary on t h e s e v e n C a t h o l i c e p i s t l e s ,
47

Expositio
Mingarelli

to

Septem C a n o n i c a r u m E p i s t o l a r u m .

Some e l e v e n y e a r s l a t e r ,
work, M i n g a r e l l i
grounds:
440)

i n the

the

p r e f a c e to h i s e d i t i o n

early

church h i s t o r i a n Socrates

a t h r e e - v o l u m e work on

a u t h o r of

the

f o r m e r t r e a t i s e on

the

the

work makes s e v e r a l
Holy S p i r i t ,

T r i n i t y by
references

p r e s u m a b l y De

J.

Trinity.

a r g u e d f o r D i d y m i a n a u t h o r s h i p on

(1) t h e

knew o f

(2) t h e

T h e n i n 1758

d i s c o v e r e d a t h r e e - v o l u m e w o r k on

of

the

three
(ca.

A.D.

Didymus;
to

his

Spiritu

The f o l l o w i n g s u r v e y o f r e s e a r c h i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n d e b t e d t o t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f 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 , 8 6 - 9 3 .
See
4 6

n o t e 31,

above.

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
the Greek t e x t extant.
S e e Migne, PG, 39, 1 0 8 5 - 1 1 1 0 .
47
C a s s i o d o r u s s t a t e s t h a t D i d y m u s ' s commentary on t h e
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 Litteratarum.
8, i n Migne L,
70,
1120).
B u t 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 w h e t h e r t h e e x t a n t document i s t h i s t r a n s l a t i o n , o r w h e t h e r 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 h e n c e n o t D i d y m u s ' s ) .
see espec i a l l y Dom R. C e i l l i e r , H i s t o i r e gnrale d e s A u t e u r s Sacrs
e t Ecclsiastiques, 2nd ed. v o l V ( P a r i s , 1860) 7 3 9 - 4 1 .
The
t e x t o f t h e commentary c a n be f o u n d i n Migne, P_S 39,
17491818, o r i n t h e 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 , D i d y m i
Alex, 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:
Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1914).

24/

Didymus and

Sancto;
be

and

the

Gospels

( 3 ) a number o f f o r m a l and
48

f o u n d b e t w e e n t h e s e two

widely accepted

19th

and

material parallels
Sabel^jum,

was

years.

c e n t u r i e s o t h e r works were
on

the b a s i s of formal

to D e ^ T r i n l t a t e .

A d v e r s u s Eunomium IV-V,
phim,

20th

t o Didymus, l a r g e l y

can

Mingarelli's position

among s c h o l a r s f o r n e a r l y 200

In the l a t e
attributed

works.

material parallels

Thus

and

Pseudo-Basil's

Pseudo-Gregory's Adversus Arium e t

P s e u d o - H i e r o n y m u s ' s On

the V i s i o n of the

the Pseudo-Athanasian Dialogues,

and

Contra

SeraMonta

53
nus,

w e r e a l l a s s i g n e d t o Didymus a t one

Even before

the Toura

universally

accepted.

of

time

or

another.

none o f t h e s e a t t r i b u t i o n s

was

B u t 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

Didymus's O l d T e s t a m e n t c o m m e n t a r i e s , a c l o u d o f d o u b t

c a s t over
over

t h e a u t h o r s h i p o f De

Trinitate,

a l l other w r i t i n g s attributed

similarities

a grotto

and

was

consequently

t o Didymus on

the b a s i s

of

to i t .

I n August of
out

finds,

1941,

a crew of E g y p t i a n workers,

f o r use as a munitions

depot i n Toura,

(twelve k i l o m e t e r s south of C a i r o ) , unearthed

papyrus codices, t o t a l i n g

some 2000 p a g e s .

digging
Egypt

eight ancient

When t h e

codices

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, 1 3 9 - 2 1 6 .
49
F i r s t a t t r i b u t e d t o Didymus by F . X. Funk, " D i e z w e i
l e t z e n Bcher d e r S c h r i f t B a s i l i u s ' d e s G r . g e g e n E u n o m l u s , "
K i r c h e n g e s c h i c t l i c h e A b h a n d l u n g e n und U n t e r s u c h u n g e n , I I
( P a d e r b o r n : F . Schningh, 1899) 2 9 1 - 3 2 9 .
For the course 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 D i d y m i a n a u t h o r s h i p was made by C h r .
B i z e r , " S t u d i e n z u 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 O r t h o d o x o s 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 G r e g o r v o n N y s s a z u g e s c h r i e b e n e
S c h r i f t ' A d v e r s u s A r i u m e t S a b e l l i u m , "' M S
25 ( 1 9 0 4 ) 3 8 0 - 9 8 .
H o l l ' s a r g u m e n t s w e r e r e j e c t e d by s e v e r a l s u b s e q u e n t s c h o l a r s .
S e e e s p e c i a l l y B a r d y , Didyme, 1 7 f f .
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 d e r
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 : B l u m e r , 1 9 4 1 ) .
For a
c o n t r a r y v i e w , s e e B. A l t a n e r , "Wer i s t d e r V e r f a s s e r d e s
T r a c t a t u s i n I s a i a m V I , 1-7" T h R e v 42 ( 1 9 4 3 ) 1 4 7 - 5 1 .
S e e e s p e c i a l l y A. Gnthor, D i e 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' d e s B l i n d e n von A l e x a n d r i e n (Rome:
H e r d e r , 1941) 2 3 f f .
53
Ibid., contra Bizer, Studien.
51

5 2

M e t h o d o l o g i c a l Problems

finally

r e a c h e d t h e hands o f p a p y r o l o g i s t s ,

t h a t a d i s c o v e r y of the f i r s t

i t was

century

realized
54

o r d e r h a d b e e n made.

w i t h c o p i e s o f s e v e r a l works of O r i g e n were s i x t h
fragmentary c o p i e s o f commentaries

/25

Along
or seventh-

on G e n e s i s , J o b ,

P s a l m s , 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 o f t h e
G e n e s i s , J o b , and Z e c h a r i a h c o m m e n t a r i e s t o Didymus came a l 55
most i m m e d i a t e l y .
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 w o r k s
56
w e r e l i k e w i s e a s s i g n e d t o him.
t o d a y a r e a c c e p t e d by v i r t u a l l y
the

following considerations.

ries

c o n t a i n numerous l i n g u i s i c

These a t t r i b u t i o n s ,
a l l scholars,
The

G e n e s i s and J o b

The

on

commenta-

and m a t e r i a l p a r a l l e l s t o t h e

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 t h e
catanae.

which

were based

Medieval

e x t e n t and c h a r a c t e r o f t h e s e p a r a l l e l s

leave

little

room f o r d o u b t a s t o t h e a u t h o r s h i p o f t h e commenta-

ries.

The

commentary on

Z e c h a r i a h was

attributed

to

largely

on t h e b a s i s o f J e r o m e ' s t e s t i m o n y .

his

commentary on Z e c h a r i a h , J e r o m e s t a t e d t h a t

own

had p r e v i o u s l y w r i t t e n

Didymus

In the p r e f a c e to
Didymus

a f i v e - v o l u m e commentary on t h a t book

T h e f i r s t n o t i c e o f t h e d i s c o v e r y was made by 0.
G u e r a n d "Note prliminaire s u r l e s p a p y r u s d'Origne dcouv e r t s T o u r a , " M B 131 (1946) 8 5 - 1 0 3 .
Shortly thereafter a
number o f b r i e f a p p r a i s a l s o f t h e f i n d w e r e p u b l i s h e d :
B.
Altaner, " E i n grosser, aufstehen erregender patrologischer
P a p y r u s f u n d , " ThQ 127 (1947) 3 3 2 - 3 3 ; O. C u l l m a n n , " D i e n e u e s t e n P a p y r u s f u n d e 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 ten,"
TM
5 ( 1 9 4 9 ) 153-57; J . de G h e l l i n c k , "Rcentes dcouv e r t e s de littrature chrtienne a n t i q u e , " EBSh 71 ( 1 9 4 9 ) 8 3 86; E . K l o s t e r m a n n , "Der P a p y r u s f u n d von T u r a , " ThLZ 73 (1948)
4 7 - 5 0 ; H.-Ch. P u e c h , " L e s n o u v e a u x crits d'Origne e t de
Didyme dcouverts T o u r a , " RHPhR 31 (1951) 2 9 3 - 3 2 9 . The b e s t
d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e f i n d p r i o r t o t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f any o f t h e
t e x t s was by L o u i s D o u t r e l e a u , "Que s a v o n s - n o u s a u j o u r d ' h u i
d e s P a p y r u s de T o u r a , " R e c h S R 43 ( 1 9 5 5 ) 1 6 1 - 9 3 .
Doutreleau
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 L u d w i g Koenen, " N o u v e l l e i n v e n t a i r e d e s p a p y r u s de T o u r a , "
R e c h S R 55 ( 1 9 6 7 ) 5 4 7 - 6 4 .
55
G u e r a n d , "Note prliminaire," 90.
56
D o u t r e l e a u , "Que s a v o n s - n o u s , " 167-68.
57
D o u t r e l e a u and Koenen, " N o u v e l l e 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 " . 2 3 - 2 4 . As A. H e i n r i c h s h a s shown, some
of t h e J o b c a t e n a e p r e s e r v e d u n d e r t h e name o f 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 t h e T o u r a commentary. Didvmos Der B l i n d e :
H i o b Kommentar. I , 14-15.

26/

Didymus a n d t h e G o s p e l s
58

at h i s request.
and

The T o u r a commentary c o m p r i s e s

five

books

shows numerous s i m i l a r i t i e s t o J e r o m e ' s work. I n t h e

opinion
that

o f L. D o u t r e l e a u ,

Didymus a u t h o r e d

t h e p a r a l l e l s demonstrate not only

t h i s commentary, b u t ^ t h a t J e r o m e made

e x t e n s i v e u s e o f i t i n p r o d u c i n g h i s own.
The

authorship

more d i f f i c u l t
exist

between t h i s

Psalms t h a t bear
material
and

o f t h e P s a l m s commentary p r o v e d

to establish,

since very

e x p o s i t i o n and^the catenae

Didymus's name.

similarities

the vocabulary

few v e r b a l

somewhat
parallels

fragments of the

Nevertheless,

extensive
61

do o c c u r b e t w e e n t h e two e x p o s i t i o n s

a n d s t y l e o f t h i s commentary

conform

c l o s e l y t o what i s found i n t h e 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.

T h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s h a v e l e d a number o f s c h o l a r s

to conclude

t h a t while the catenae

fragments and t h e Toura

62

commentary b o t h d e r i v e from Didymus,

different

they

same e x p o s i t i o n , t h e t e x t o f t h e c a t e n a e
63
a later

represent

expositions, or, possibly, different

r e d a c t i o n o f Didymus's work.

stages of the

perhaps

representing

The E c c l e s i a s t e s

m e n t a r y was o b v i o u s l y w r i t t e n by t h e a u t h o r

com-

of t h e Psalms

commentary, a s i s shown by t h e r e m a r k a b l e s i m i l a r i t i e s i n
vocabulary

and s t y l e o f e x p o s i t i o n .

conforms i n o u t l o o k ^ t h e o l o g y ,
Toura commentaries.

Furthermore,

i t likewise

and s t y l e t o t h e t h r e e

I t should

other

be n o t e d t h a t o f t h e s e

five

c o m m e n t a r i e s , t h o s e on G e n e s i s , J o b , a n d Z e c h a r i a h a p p e a r t o
r e p r e s e nS te e a Migne,
c t u a l l iPtLe,r a25,
r y pir4o8d6u.c t i o n s , d i c t a t e d a n d r e v i s e d by
59
D o u t r e l e a u , S u r 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 c o m p a r i s o n s and d i s c u s s i o n by A d o l p h e
Gesch, L a C h r i s t o l o q i e du 'Commentaire s u r l e s P s a u m e s ' d c o u v e r t T o u r a (Gemblouxi J . D u c u l o t , 1 9 6 2 ) 3 2 7 - 5 1 .
6 1

S e e t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f A l o y s K e h l , e d . D e r Psalmenkomm e n t a r v o n T u r a . Q u a t e r n l o I X (Kln: w e s t d e u t s c h e n V e r l a g ,
1964) a n d , e s p e c i a l l y , t h a t o f Gesch, L a C h r i s t o l o q i e . 3 2 2 417 .
6 2

S o B i e n e r t , " A l l e c r o r i a " . 27. S e e t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f

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 v i e w i n Gesch, L a 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.

Methodological

Problems

/27

Didymus w i t h t h e i n t e n t i o n o f p u b l i c a t i o n , w h i l e t h o s e on
P s a l m s a n d E c c l e s i a s t e s a p p e a r t o h a v e b e e n p r o d u c e d by D i d y mus ' s s t u d e n t s from l e c t u r e n o t e s t a k e n w h i l e s i t t i n g a t t h e i r
65
feet.

master's
textual

Interestingly,

in these l a t t e r

exposition i s periodically

q u e s t i o n which,
dutifully
In

along w i t h t h e t e a c h e r ' s answer, has

a landmark a r t i c l e w r i t t e n

the a u t h o r s h i p of the Toura

L. D o u t r e l e a u

commentary on

e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e t e s t i m o n y

elli.

evidence affected

Doutreleau

argued

expositions.

diction,

A glaring

3:8-4:10.
and

Trinitate.

With
firmly

asked

works c o u l d not
of t h e i r

The

especially

how

have

irrecon-

differences

ex-

the content of

the

i n c o n s i s t e n c y , f o r e x a m p l e , 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

commentary

re66

c o n c l u s i o n s of Mingar-

l a r g e l y because

c i l a b l e e x p o s i t i o n s of Zech.
tend to the s t y l e ,

after

Z e c h a r i a h so

of Jerome, D o u t r e l a e u

the e a r l i e r

t h a t t h e two

come f r o m t h e same a u t h o r ,

Toura

the

been

some s i x t e e n y e a r s

commentaries,

o p e n e d t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e a u t h o r s h i p o f De

new

works

a student's

recorded.

the d i s c o v e r y of t h e Toura

this

two

i n t e r r u p t e d by

4:7:

i n the

i t s i g n i f i e s t h e Redeemer, w h i l e i n De
67

Trini-

la

i t i s s a i d to represent the 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
scholars,
t h e y d i d c l e a r t h e way f o r a r e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e
S e e 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 G e r h a r d B i n d e r and
L e o L i e s e n b o r g h s , Didymos d e r B l i n d e : Kommentar zum E c c l e s i a s t e s 1:1 (Bonn*. R u d o l f 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, 3 9 - 4 3 .
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

l ' A v e u g l e ? " R e c h S R 45 ( 1 9 5 7 ) 5 1 4 - 5 7 .
6 7

Didyme

S e e De T r i n i t a t e I I , 14 ( i n Migne PG 39, 701A-708A) and

54:9-75.
68
E s p e c i a l l y u n c o n v i n c e d was L u d w i g Koenen ( " E i n t h e o l o g i s c h e r P a p y r u s d e s Klner Sammlung: Kommentar Didymos' d e s
B l i n d e n z u Z a c h 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
[ 1 9 6 0 ] 6 0 - 1 0 5 ) , who d a t e s De T r i n i t a t e c a . A.D.
395that i s ,
some e i g h t y e a r s a f t e r t h e Z e c h a r i a h commentary.
Koenen a r g u e d
t h a t t h e two w o r k s w e r e n o t o n l y w r i t t e n a t d i f f e r e n t t i m e s ,
b u t 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
p u r p o s e s ( 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 ) .
T h e s e f a c t o r s , Koenen m a i n t a i n e d , c o u l d e a s i l y a c c o u n t f o r any
exegetical discrepencies.
See t h e d i s c u s s i o n s of B i e n e r t ,
ZeT

28/

Didymus and

evidence

the

Gospels

originally

s e t f o r t h by M i n g a r e l l i .

B e r a n g e r showed t h a t when t h e a u t h o r
h i s p r i o r work on

the Holy S p i r i t ,

o f De

I n 1963

L.

Trjnitate

he d i d n o t

mentioned

r e f e r to

another

t r e a t i s e , b u t 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 d o c u 69
ment.
F u r t h e r m o r e , 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 t h e
p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n t h e De

S p i r i t u Sancto

and

t h e De

Trinitate

derive
than

from a m u t u a l d e p e n d e n c e on t h e same s o u r c e s , r a t h e r
70
f r o m a common a u t h o r .
More r e c e n t l y W. B i e n e r t h a s

argued t h a t M i n g a r e l l i overlooked
S p i r i t u Sancto

and

De

mutual a u t h o r s h i p d o u b t f u l :
i n De

Spiritu

Sancto

o f De

major t e n s i o n between
the view

states

the

the w i t n e s s of the S c r i p t u r e s ,

T r i n i t a t e u s e s numerous p a g a n a u t h o r s
^
71

De

of

w h e r e a s Didymus e x p l i c i t l y

t h a t no pagan c o u l d u n d e r s t a n d

of the S p i r i t without
author

one

T r i n i t a t e that renders

things

the

as

corol-

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 .
It

i s not

the purpose of t h i s b r i e f overview

to

w h e t h e r Didymus w r o t e t h e v a r i o u s w o r k s s o m e t i m e s
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

shows t h a t no
in the l e a s t
s h i p o f De

consensus

has

surprising,

Trinitate.

Gospel

citations?

now

the question n a t u r a l l y

16-20

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

and

i s not
authorarises:

s t u d i e d when a n a l y z i n g D i d y m u s ' s

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
"Alleaoria".

literature

This situation

given the u n c e r t a i n t y of the

But

w h i c h w r i t i n g s s h o u l d be

emerged.

determine

attributed

Hnscheid, De

Trinitate.

sound

universally
5-7.

^ " 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 ( 1 9 6 3 ) 2 5 5 - 6 7 .
70
T h u s t h e u s e o f I s a 6, J o h n 1 2 : 4 0 - 4 1 , and A c t s 2 8 : 2 5 27 t o e s t a b l i s h t h e D e i t y o f t h e F a t h e r , Son, and H o l y S p i r i t
i n b o t h w o r k s had b e e n a p p e a l e d 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 p r o p o s de T r a c t a t u s
c o n t r a O r i g e n e m de V i s i o n e I s a i a e , " VC 14 [ 1 9 6 0 ] 9-14)
as
p r o o f t h a t Didymus w r o t e De T r i n i t a t e .
B u t t h i s v i e w was
d i s c o u n t e d by M. T e t z ("Zur Thologie d e s M a r k e l l von A n c y r a
I , " ZJG 75 [ 1 9 6 4 ] 2 1 7 - 7 0 ) who showed t h a t t h i s c o n c a t e n a t i o n
o f 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 o f A n c y r a .
B i e n e r t , " A l l e q o r i a " . 19.
72
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, Q u a s t e n , P a t r o l o g y , 8 6 - 9 2 , and Young, FXOJJ
N i c a e a t o C h a l c e d p n , 85.

Methodological

a s s i g n e d t o Didymus and

Problems

t h a t a r e found i n c r i t i c a l l y

/29

reliable

editions.

Of w h a t v a l u e w o u l d t h i s k i n d o f a n a l y s i s be

if i t

were l a t e r

d i s c o v e r e d t h a t some o f t h e e v i d e n c e

derive

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
rean?

Or

how

but

a fifth-century

c o u l d r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s be

e d i t i o n s w h i c h had

n o t removed s c r i b a l

fourth-century text?

d i d not

obtained

Caesa-

by c o n s u l t i n g

c o r r u p t i o n s of

this

Thus, d e s p i t e t h e n a t u r a l urge to

extend

the data base as f a r as p o s s i b l e , the p r e s e n t study w i l l

take

i n t o account

decided

t h e w o r k s whose a u t h e n t i c i t y h a s n o t

with reasonable

the c r i t i c

certainty.

Essentially,

catenae

fragments,

Spiritu

Sancto

coupled

w i t h the c o m p l e x i t i e s of P a t r i s t i c

virtually

and

the Toura commentaries.

e x i s t s only

nullifies

critical

their

incredibly

the c r i t i c

the

these,

Furthermore,

complex h i s t o r y

The

generally,

Contra

the catenae,

and

with

of t r a n s m i s s i o n , a r e a t b e s t

usefulness for textual c r i t i c i s m .

This leaves

w i t h the e d i t i o n s of the Toura commentaries a s

only r e l i a b l e

sources

Ee

which,

evidence

value.

leaves

i n a l a t e s i x t e e n t h - c e n t u r y MS,

edition exists.

of secondary

Of

in Latin translation,

i t s text-critical

Manichaips i s extant only

no

this

Cin^r^JtoicMia ., Be_^pJxLtM,..S,ftnst,Q,

with

not

been

f o r r e c o v e r i n g the Gospel

t e x t of

the

Didy-

mus.

E v e n t h e c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n o f t h e P s a l m c a t a n a e by
E k k e h a r d M u h l e n b e r g !Psalmenkommentare a u s d e r K a t e n e n v i b e r 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 , 1 9 7 5 - 7 8 ] ) 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 the catenae g e n e r a l l y : the medieval s c r i b e s normally
w o u l d h a v e u s e d l a t e MSS o f Didymus's w r i t i n g s i n c o m p i l i n g
the catenae, 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 w h i c h t h e r e c a n 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 h a v e 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 p r o b l e m s c o n c e r n i n g t h e
r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e P s a l m c a t e n a e and t h e T o u r a commentary
g e n e r a l l y , s e e a b o v e pp. 2 6 - 2 7 .

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

One m e t h o d o l o g i c a l

Apparatus

issue not y e t considered

p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t e x t u a l d a t a once they have been

from a P a t r i s t i c

source.

involves the
collected

When a F a t h e r ' s q u o t a t i o n s

Bible a r e frequent but sporadic, a s i st h e case with

of the
Didymus's

OT c o m m e n t a r i e s , 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

his Biblical

text?

A common a p p r o a c h 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
textual variants
sages
its

f o u n d 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 -

quoted by a F a t h e r .

manageability:

The v a l u e o f t h i s

system

lies in

i t allows the reader to see textual

align-

ments a t e v e r y p o i n t o f v a r i a t i o n w h i l e c o n s e r v i n g s p a c e by
not

citing

proves

the author's

text

t o be t h e s y s t e m ' s

infull.

Yet this

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
but
be

not corresponding
readily

p o i n t s o f agreement.

illustrated.

advantage

also

g r e a t e s t flaw, s i n c e a l i s t i n g of
among

witnesses

T h i s drawback c a n

Were Didymus known t o c i t e

a verse of

t w e n t y w o r d s i n w h i c h 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
witnesses occurs only

i n one v e r b

tense or i n the substitution

o f a synonym, a n o t a t i o n o f t h e v a r i a n t
documents would n o t i n f o r m

and i t s s u p p o r t i n g

a reader e i t h e r of the length of

Didymus's c i t a t i o n o r o f h i s e x t e n s i v e agreement w i t h a l l t h e
witnesses.

As a r e s u l t ,

still

o t h e r MSS c o u l d n o t b e compared

w i t h Didymus's t e x t p e r s e , b u t o n l y 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 .
tions of text

T h e s i t u a t i o n w o u l d be e v e n w o r s e f o r t h e p o r i n w h i c h no v a r i a t i o n

nesses consulted.

i s found among t h e w i t -

H e r e a r e a d e r w o u l d n o t know e v e n t h a t

Didymus q u o t e s t h e p a s s a g e .
This

inadequate

in cases of textual
deceptive.
based
Each

manner o f c i t i n g t e x t u a l v a r i a t i o n c a n ,
r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , a c t u a l l y p r o v e t o be

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

on e v e r y a v a i l a b l e c i t a t i o n ,

adaptation,

r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s more o r l e s s t e n t a t i v e ,

d e p e n d i n g on t h e e x t e n t a n d r e l i a b i l i t y
when v a r i a n t s

and a l l u s i o n .
of course,

of the evidence.

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
30

But

apart

Introduction t o Text

from a f u l l

listing

of the r e l e v a n t data,

a n d A p p a r a t u s /31

a reader

i s misled

i n t o t h i n k i n g t h a t t h e F a t h e r ' s t e x t i s unambiguous when i n

fact

i t i s not.
I n view of such

plea

for critics

p r o b l e m s , Gordon F e e h a s i s s u e d a n

to present

f o r t h t h e t e x t of a church
involves l i s t i n g
tions,

a l l t h e r e l e v a n t d a t a when
Father.

This kind

a l l of a Father's B i b l i c a l

and a l l u s i o n s ,

and p r o v i d i n g

urgent
setting

of p r e s e n t a t i o n

citations,

a critical

adapta-

apparatus

which

shows e v e r y v a r i a n t f o u n d among t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t e x t u a l
witnesses.
critics
text,
and

O n l y when s u c h

a procedure i s adopted can other

collate additional witnesses

evaluate

detect

against the Father's

t h e adequacy o f t h e 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 ,

errors i n the analysis.

This, therefore,

mode o f p r e s e n t a t i o n u s e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r .
purpose of t h e chapter

i s twofold:

(1) t o g i v e

t y t h e G o s p e l t e x t o f Didymus a s p r e s e r v e d
mentaries,

and ( 2 ) t o p r o v i d e

sentative witnesses

The

f o r every

a critical

i s the
The

i n i t s entire-

i n t h e Toura

apparatus

portion of this

com-

of repre-

text.

Presentation of the Text

All

o f Didymus's G o s p e l r e f e r e n c e s a r e l i s t e d

fied with

and c l a s s i -

respect to t h e i r v e r b a l correspondence to 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 o f more o r

l e s s v e r b a l l y exact quotations;

adaptations

greater or lesser modifications

of a passage, u s u a l l y , but not

exclusively,
allusions

i n view of the s y n t a c t i c a l

[ A l l ] represent

which nonetheless
with the passage.

or material

Normally t h e f i r s t
except

and v e r b a l

As

text

affinities

hand o f Didymus's T o u r a

i n cases of e d i t o r i a l

t i o n s o f i t a c i s m and n o n s e n s e r e a d i n g s .
placed

context;

d i s t a n t echoes of a B i b l i c a l

contain conceptual

commentaries i s c i t e d ,

[Ad] c o m p r i s e

Restored

correc-

lacunae a r e

i n square brackets [ ] .
suggested e a r l i e r ,

parallels

t h e problems a r i s i n g

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

from

Gospel

to determine t h e

"The T e x t o f J o h n i n O r i g e n a n d C y r i l o f 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 t h e R e c o v e r y and A n a l y s i s o f
P a t r i s t i c C i t a t i o n s , " Sib
52 ( 1 9 7 1 ) 3 5 8 - 6 4 .

32/

Didymus and

parallels
source
vein,

the

Gospels

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 d e t e r m i n e

of Didymus's q u o t a t i o n s
Didymus n o t

passages

and

components c a n n o t

Whenever t h e s o u r c e o f a q u o t a t i o n

cannot

be

listed

s e p a r a t e l y i n the appendix a t the

In

In a

the

similar

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 o f

i n which the i n d i v i d u a l

discerned.

allusions.

ascertained with confidence,

or

be

reliably

allusion

the r e l e v a n t t e x t s
end

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

w h i c h must h a v e b e e n d e r i v e d from t h e MS

are

of Chapter I I I .
variant

tradition

of only

one

of the Gospels,

i n such c a s e s the r e f e r e n c e i s given both i n

t h e a p p e n d i x and

i n the appropriate c r i t i c a l

The

Gospel

references are given

quence, w i t h a c r i t i c a l
those

passages

secure.

apparatus

It

and

canonical se-

immediately

are l i s t e d

beneath

considered

first,

followed

w o u l d o b v i o u s l y be

r e p r e s e n t h i s Gospel
what t h a t t e x t may

of l i t t l e
and

help to c i t e

allusions,

t e x t per s e , but

have looked

a l l variants

s i n c e t h e s e do

only give c l u e s as

like.

Some means was

The

procedure

t h a t was
For each

used

needed,

i n making t h i s

nation

i s as follows.

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 ,

genetically

variant

s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n was

readings.

j u s t as

a l l u s i o n s thus

Whenever

t h e i r supporting

found t o s u p p o r t
(*) .

one

Hence

variant

of the u n i t s

of v a r i a t i o n

listed

w i t n e s s e s a r e not

listed.

Adaptations

over another
[All]*

a reading

Consequently,

the

and

are

indicate

f o r some o r

i n the c r i t i c a l

O t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n Didymus and

of

that

documents i s p r o -

[ A d ] * and

a l l u s i o n s which support

refer-

one

apparatus

i s done f o r a l l t h e c i t a t i o n s .

a d a p t a t i o n s and

tus.

another.

found, Didymus's

When i t d o e s , a c r i t i c a l

m a r k e d w i t h an a s t e r i s k

all

refer-

representa-

c o n s u l t e d to a s c e r t a i n whether i t supports

i n d i c a t e s t h e v a r i a n t s and
vided,

a l l the

consan-

determi-

of Didymus's G o s p e l

t i v e d o c u m e n t s w e r e c o l l a t e d a g a i n s t one

e n c e was

not
to

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

d e t e r m i n e d 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
guinity.

by

allusions.

from Didymus's a d a p t a t i o n s

therefore,

in their

provided

f o r w h i c h Didymus's t e x t c a n be

C i t a t i o n s of a passage

adaptations

apparatus.

appara-

the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e

adaptations

s i o n s n o t marked w i t h an a s t e r i s k h a v e b e e n j u d g e d

and
t o be

alluof

no

I n t r o d u c t i o n t o T e x t a n d A p p a r a t u s /33

help

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 .

instance this

i s e i t h e r because

the t e x t u a l w i t n e s s e s consulted, o r because

ence does n o t p r o v i d e c l e a r
point.

I n every

no v a r i a t i o n was f o u n d among
Didymus's

evidence of h i s text

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 o f no

text-critical

significance.

Didymus s o m e t i m e s r e f e r s t o a t e x t
support

a variant

so r a d i c a l l y

of the tradition,

i n a way t h a t seems t o

y e t the quotation departs

from t h e o r i g i n a l w o r d i n g o f t h e t e x t

witness to the variant

i n question i s v i t i a t e d .

t i o n s a r e n o t m a r k e d w i t h an a s t e r i s k ,

that i t s

Such

adapta-

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 t h e v a g a r i e s o f Didymus's
ence

refer-

at this

d i s a l l o w h i s apparent

refer-

attestation of the reading i n

question.
O c c a s i o n a l l y Didymus c i t e s
slightly
that

different

reproduces

forms.

t h e same p a s s a g e

one o f t h e c i t a t i o n s v e r b a t i m ,

the citation

t a k e n t o be a s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f Didymus's t e x t
w i t h a double a s t e r i s k
appears

([C]**).

t o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ,

t e x t h a s been attempted.
on

i n several

R a t h e r than making a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n

i s marked

When none o f t h e r e f e r e n c e s

a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f Didymus's

Such r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s a r e based

only

the portions of text preserved i n the extant references,

emendations being
of s y n t a c t i c a l

restricted to the f a i r l y

adaptationsthe shift

back i n t o

finite clauses,

a result,

the reconstructions w i l l

n o t be t a k e n

the layout of t h e text,

the l i s t

sometimes be

ences

be g i v e n

In

after

o f q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s .
loose reference to a

thus disallowing a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n .

show h i s s u p p o r t

ly modified
critical

These

i n the collations.

reconstructionsw i l l

As

incomplete,

of the text.

i n t o account

Didymus s o m e t i m e s makes a s o l i t a r y
passage,

reversion

t h e change o f v e r b t e n s e s , e t c .

w i t h lacunae o c c u r r i n g i n t h e middle
lacunae w i l l

logical

of genitive absolutes

for a variant

When s u c h

form, t h e y a r e m a r k e d w i t h an a s t e r i s k ,

apparatus c i t e s

refer-

reading, but i n a s l i g h t -

Didymus's s u p p o r t

and t h e

i n parentheses.

34/

Didymus and

The

Critical
The

the

Gospels

Apparatus

critical

apparatus

lists

a l l v a r i a n t s uncovered i n

t h e c o l l a t i o n s o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e documents.
v a r i a n t s p r e v i o u s l y a d j u d g e d t o be g e n e t i c a l l y
not

included:

itacism,

and

normally,

nu-movable, OO'TW/OUTCUS , n o n s e n s e

of proper

cite

a t t h e end

names.

are

readings,

Furthermore,

which i s preserved

forms i n the t r a d i t i o n .

s i o n s occur

those

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 ,

the s p e l l i n g

sometimes c i t e s a passage
longer

Only

immaterial

Didymus

in shorter

When t h e a d d i t i o n s o r

of such a passage,

and

t h e s h o r t e r form, h i s w i t n e s s n o r m a l l y

Instead of p r e s e r v i n g the s h o r t e r t e x t ,

and

omis-

Didymus seems t o

cannot

he may

be

used.

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 .

O n l y when i t seems n a t u r a l t o assume t h a t Didymus w o u l d h a v e

included the
given

l o n g e r t e x t had

i n support

he

known i t c a n h i s t e s t i m o n y

With the exception of such unusable

ants are given
rence
are

i n the apparatus

i n the t e x t .

cited

first,

including those
ly

supports

vldetur)

Those supported

f o l l o w e d by

i s u s e d w i t h MSS

each

text,

i n question.
a l l supporting

subsequent v a r i a n t s ,
designated

a list

by

two

Any

witness which

in a slightly

The

abbreviation "vid

I n the f i r s t

f o r one

with the abbreviation "Lac."

(=

fragmentary
appear to

at
attest

u n i t of v a r i a t i o n

documents a r e c i t e d

the a b b r e v i a t i o n " r e l l "

clear-

modified

in full.

reading

is

(= r e l l c r u i ) .

r a t u s designates the w i t n e s s e s which are lacunose

passage

occur-

of a l l s i n g u l a r v a r i a n t s ,

that nonetheless

the support

a l l vari-

o r more w i t n e s s e s

that are p a r t i a l l y

the point of v a r i a t i o n , but

the reading

by

s i n g u l a r t o Didymus.

i n parentheses.

readings,

i n the order of t h e i r

a v a r i a n t reading, but

form, i s c i t e d

be

of the s h o r t e r t e x t .

Witnesses

of
In

normally
The

for

appaeach

partially

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 a l i g n m e n t s
w h i c h 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 t h e s p e l l i n g o f BeeeSouX. i n M a t t 12:24 and L u k e 1 1 : 1 5 .
3

S e e B. M. M e t z g e r ' s t r e n c h a n t c r i t i c i s m s o f B o i s m a r d ' s
proposed r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the t e x t of John.
"Patristic Evid e n c e and t h e T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m o f t h e New T e s t a m e n t , " NTS
18
(1971-72) 387-95.

I n t r o d u c t i o n t o T e x t and Apparatus /35

lacunose a r e placed i n parentheses.

unit of variation,

For each
first.

sometimes supports

one v a r i a n t ,

a consequence, h i s t e x t cannot
his

Didymus's r e a d i n g i s g i v e n

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

support

i slisted

be s p l i t i . e .

sometimes another.
be determined

f o r both v a r i a n t

he

When, a s

with

certainty,

r e a d i n g s and i s tabu-

l a t e d a s agreeing with each s e t of w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s t t h e

other.
The
In

Old L a t i n evidence

the a r t i c l e ,
order,
In

i t s testimony

i t s testimony

still

other

the Old L a t i n support

certain will
the t e x t u a l

i s mute.

i t s testimony
of a variant

o r absence o f

I n o t h e r s , such

i s unequivocal.
i s judged

i t be i n c l u d e d i n t h e c r i t i c a l
tradition splits

a s word

sence or absence

either

of the a r t i c l e ) .

i n parentheses

O n l y when

t o be r e l a t i v e l y
apparatus.

When

t h r e e o r more w a y s t h e O l d L a t i n
o f two v a r i a n t s ,

( a s when two o f t h e v a r i a n t s d i f f e r

MSS a r e c i t e d

to interpret.

may be h e l p f u l , b u t i s o f t e n a m b i g u o u s .

sometimes found t o s u p p o r t

a third

difficult

such a s t h e presence

i n s t a n c e s , such a s t h e i n c l u s i o n o r e x c l u s i o n

of words o r p h r a s e s ,

is

i s always

some k i n d s o f v a r i a t i o n ,

only

but not

i n the pre-

I n such cases t h e Old L a t i n

f o r each

o f t h e two p o s s i b l e

variants against the third.

The

f o l l o w i n g w i t n e s s e s were chosen

the major t e x t - t y p e s i n each

accepted d e s i g n a t i o n s f o r these groupings

etc.)
be
UBS

will

seen,

be used

as representative of

of the Gospels.

here a s a matter

Commonly

(Early

Alexandrian,

of convenience.

As c a n

i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e MSS, t h e t e x t s o f

a n d TR a r e a l s o

cited.

S e e t h e d i s c u s s i o n i n M e t z g e r , T h e T e x t o f t h e Hew
T e s t a m e n t : 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 , a n d R e s t o r a t i o n , 2nd
e d . (New Y o r k : O x f o r d P r e s s , 1 9 6 8 ) 36-66, 2 1 3 - 1 8 .

36/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Matthew
3

Early

Alexandrian:

Late Alexandrian:
Western:

UBS

C L 33 892 1241

D a b e k

Caesarean:

Byzantine:

TR A E W A n S

fam 1 fara 1 3

Mark
3

Early

Alexandrian:

Late Alexandrian:

K B

C L A ? 3 3 5 7 98 9 2 1 2 4 1

( 1 : 1 - 5 : 3 0 )

Caesarean:

fam 1 fam 1 3

Byzantine:

TR A E n S

Western:

UBS

a b e k

Luke
3

Early Alexandrian:
Late Alexandrian:
Western:

75

UBS

( 1 : 1 - 8 : 1 2 )

C L W

33

579

892

1241

D a b e

Caesarean:

6 fam 1 fam 1 3

Byzantine:

TR A W

( 8 : 1 3 - 2 4 : 5 3 )

A U

John
3

Early

Alexandrian:

Late Alexandrian:
Western:

66

UBS

75

( 8 : 3 9 - 2 1 : 2 5 )

C L W V 33 5 7 98 9 2 1 2 4 1

( 1 : 1 - 8 : 3 8 )

Caesarean:

Byzantine:

TR A A H 8

fam 1 fam 1 3

a b e

I n t r o d u c t i o n t o T e x t and A p p a r a t u s

Abbreviations

[Ad]

Adaptation

[Ad]*

Adaptation
critical

that supports v a r i a t i o n given i n the

apparatus

[All]

Allusion

[All]*

Allusion that
critical

[C]

supports v a r i a t i o n given i n the

apparatus

Citation

[C]**

C i t a t i o n t a k e n t o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f
text

(and u s e d a s a b a s e

[]

Lacuna

Lac.

Lacunose

()

Witness

i n the

modified

for

Didymus's

collation)

MS

Witness

supports the reading, but

form; o r , a p a r t i a l l y

appears

in a

slightly

lacunose witness

vid.

videtur.

Witness

to support

rell.

relioui.

A l l other witnesses support

TR

Textus

the

the

reading

reading

Receptus

3
UBS

U n i t e d B i b l e S o c i e t i e s ' G r e e k New
edition

Testament,

3rd

/37

Chapter I I I
Text

and A p p a r a t u s

Matt. 1:1
3[ ]

(2eT 103:25)

(GenT 1 4 5 : 1 9 }

[C]

[]
[C]

tXoc
TR U B S
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

6

( E c c l T 5:8-9)

[C]

UBS
fam 1. 13 k ] 6 TR C L W
33 892 1241 a
v

Lac.

D (a) b

Matt. 1:16
6 [ ] 6 ,

( P s T 153:5-6) [ C ]
3

TR UBS
C L w
Ca) 8 f
33 892 1 2 4 1 ]
fam 13 a ( b ) ( k )
(2)

r e l l ] omit

]

Lac . :

fam 1;
rell

k;

A D e

Matt. 1:17
a*o

(PsT 304:4) [Ad]

]
W fam 1. 13 33 892 1241
] omit

rell

38

TR U B S

C L

Text

M a t t . 1:17

Matt.

b ] omit

Lac.:

A D e

rell

1:21

1:21-23

6 ,
( E c c l T 2 1 8 : 1 2 - 1 3 ) [ A l l ]

Matt.

/39

(cent.)

[t ] >.
(ZeT. 219:25)
[Ad]

Matt.

and A p p a r a t u s

[ ]

1:23

[] ' .

[ ]
(ZeT
102:13-14) [ A l l ]
n '

(ZeT 2 1 9 : 1 8 - 1 9 ) [ A l l ]

Matt.

2:1-2

(ZeT 202:4-7) [ A l l ]

Matt.

2:11

(ZeT 267:18)
[All]

Matt.

3:12

[ ] [] [ ] [
] [] ,
[
(JobT 157:2-6) [ C ]

40/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

M a t t . 3:12

(cont.l

L fam 13 392 a b l
W fara 1 33 1241

Lac.:

r e l l ]

rell]

TR U B S

L W 892 b

am 13

A D e k

M a t t . 4:1-2



[All ]

(ZeT 44:22)

.-.en' , ' []
Seou
(GenT 71:16-18)
[C]

TR 2 f a m l 3 1 2 4 1 ]
D L W fam 1 . 33 892

rell]

CD

Lac.:

fam 13

'.,.

UBS

rell]

r e l l J o m i t i_n t o t o

omit

D a b

A e

M a t t . 4:9
...
45:2) C c l
]
33;
rell
Lac.:

A e

UBS^

(ZeT

C W fam 1.

Text: and A p p a r a t u s

/41

Matt. 4:19
... , [ ]
(ECC1T 2 8 6 : 2 0 - 2 1 ) [ C ]
,
(GenT 6 1 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) [ C ]

TR U B S
C L W 2 fam 1 . 13 892 1241 ]

D 33 a b k
Lac . :

Ma 11.. 5 : 3
^
( J o b T 5:24 ) [ A d ] *

( P s T 186:25 )
[All]*
[ ][ ]
3

TR U B S
1241]
D
Lac . :

Matt.

(PsT

2 0 2 : 2 4

[C]

C W fans 1. 13 33 892

A L 6 e

5:4

urtkucpioi . . . [ ] ,
( E c c l T 198:6) [ C ]

33 892 ] omit
1241 a b k

La c . :

TR U B S

C D W 2 fam 1. 13

A L e

Ma 11 . 5:5
. . . ,
(GenT 104 :20-21 ) [ C ]
u a K a p i o i
< GenT 218 :10-11 ) [ C ]

[ 3 [
(JobT 70:32-71:1)
[C]

42/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Matt. 5:5

(cont.)
3

TR UBS
K B C D E W i S n S
omit
1241

Lac . :

fam 1. 13

33 892 ]

A L e

Ma 11 . 5:6
, ,

( P s T 50:16-17) [ c ]
Text:
TR U B S
a b k
La c . : A

Matt.

B C D E W i B n S

fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241

L e

5:7

[ )
[C]
3

Text:
TR UBS
(a) (b) (k!
Lac . :

Matt.

B C D E t f n f l i i

(PsT 179:22)

f am 1 . 13 33 892 1241

A L e

5:8

5 3 []
( E c c l T 11 :5 ) [ A l l ]

... ,

( P s T 83:17-18) [ A l l ]
...
[All]
...

( P s T 84:25!

( P s T 93:2) [ A l l ]

[]

( E c c l T 44:18)

[C]

[6]
(Gen 248 :1 8 ) [ C ]
[]

(JobT

213:12)

( P s T 53:19)

[C]

[C]

...
( P s T 209: 20 ! [ C ]

Text

Matt. 5:8

and A p p a r a t u s

/43

(cont.)

...01 , ,
(PsT 240:16) [ C ]
,
{ZeT 1 9 2 : 1 2 ) [ C ]
3

TR U B S
K B C D E W n e i l f i
1241 a b ] Dominum (=! k
Lac . :

Ma 11

fam 1 . 13 33 892

L e

5:9

( P s T 227:18)
[All]*

,
(JobT 306:33-34) [ C ]

C D fam 13 a b ]
fam 1 33 892 1241 k

Lac . :

TR UBS

A L e

Matt. 5:11-12

[Ad]

( P s T 277:22-23)

ouv

(PsT 318:10) [ A l l ]

Matt. 5:13

( E c c l T 305:12-13)

[C]

TR U B S C fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 ]

D W
La c . :

A L e

M a t t . 5:14

[ ]

(GenT 3 8 : 2 2 )
(PsT 193:6)

[C]
[C]

44/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Matt. 5 : 1 4 ( c o n t . )
xo
owe

[] [ ]

Text:
TR U B S
a b k
Lac . :

(ZeT 3 0 5 : 1 7 )

( Z e T 3 7 6 :1)

[c]
[C]

B C D W ( A ) fam 1 . 1 3 3 3 8 9 2 1 2 4 1

A L e

Matt. 5 : 1 6
... ... >

(PsT 2 4 : 1 - 3 )
[All]*
[ ] '

(PsT 1 8 9 : 2 8 - 2 9 ) [ A i l ]
. . . ,

(PsT 2 3 1 : 2 4 - 2 5 )
[C]

TR UBS'
D L W f a m l . 13 33 892 1241
a b k ] omit

]
Lac . :

rell

A C e

Matt. 5:17

(ZeT 4 0 : 1 1 ) [ A l l ]

vouov

( ZeT 372:19 )
[All ]

Mart_ __5j_19
1

(ZeT 183:26) [ A d ] *

TR U B S L S f a m l . 13 3 3 892 1 2 4 1 ] s i c
(= )
a ( k ) ; s i c h i c (= )
b
3

... ] omit
Lac . :

A C e

i n toto

D W

Text

and A p p a r a t u s ,'45

Matt. 5:20
eav

[]

(Ecc.1T 4 3 : 6 - 7 ) [ C ]

eav

[J
(PsT 287:9) [ C ] * *
3

ce
UBS

1 2 4 1 ]
()

rell]

. . . .
Lac . :

fam 13
TR fam 1 33 a b ( k )

892

L
rell]

omit

i n toto

A C e

Matt. 5:25
'

( P s T 212:20 ) [ C ]
3

'
UBS
D L fam 1 . 13 33 892
a b ] ' .) TR 1241 k

rell]

fam 13

rell

r e l 1 ] omit

La c . :

1241;

A C e

Matt. 5:28

Ma 11.

( P s T 263:10) [ A l l ]

5:34

.

( P s T 69:5)
[All]
6
Text:
TR U B S
1241 a b k
Lac . :

A C e

H B D E

(ZeT 185:27)

[c]

( L ) W fam 1 . 13 33 892

46/

Diciymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Matt. 5:41
[] , ' au [ 6 ]
( E c c l T 123:26) [ C ]

( 33 892)1 omit
1241 a b Je

rell]

emit

Lac:

TR UBS

8 L II S f a m l . 13

rell
( o r -, o r -)

rell]

A C e

Matt. 5:42

[C]
3

TR UBS
1241]

voluerit ) k
aio

Lac . :

rell]

omit

(JobT 139:2-3)

L W 3 fam 1 . 13 33 892
D,
(volenti)
a b, (ab eo q u i

D (k)

A C e

Matt. 5:45
[]
[Ad]*

(PsT 177:20)

( P s T 290:21-22 )
[All]*
[ ]

( Z e T 246 :11-12 ) [ A d ] *
Reconstruction:



a ]
D E L fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 b k
]
]
L...
Lac . :

A C e

rell
rell]

omit

rell

TR UBS

Text

and A p p a r a t u s

/4 7

Matt. 5:48

[Ad]*

( P s T 68:19)

(PsT 130:29-30) [ A d ] *
...[ ]

(GenT 1 8 0 : 4 - 5 ) [ C ]

UBS
892;

L fam 1. 13 3 3 ]
1241

TR D 6

UBS
L W f a m l . 13 33 892 1241 a ]

b k rell
]
Lac . :

rell

A C e

Matt. 6:1
outiii ,
,

(GenT 125 : 4-6 )

[All]*
'

(GenT 2 1 2 : 1 6 - 1 7 !
[All]*

TR L W fam 13 33 892 1241 k ]

UBS
D fam l a b
3

Lac . :

Matt.

rell]

A C e

6:2

e [ ] . > [ ].
(GenT 180:2-3 ) [ A l i ]
[] , []
[]
(JobT 37:18-20) [Ad]
... ,
( ZeT 238 :8-9 ) [ A d ]

48/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

M a t t . 6:5
6e n e p i [ ]
,
[]
(ZeT 3 8 6 : 1 7 ) [ A l l ]

M a t t . 6:14
,
(ZeT 126:14) [ C ]
3

TP. U B S
L W fam 1 . 13 33
892 1 2 4 1 ]
D b k;
a

rell]

D L ]

]
Lac.:

L faml3]omit

a b k
rell

rell
;

rell

A C e

Matt. 6:19
[ ]
[C]

(PsT 276:25-26)

TR U B S
t 8 li 8 fam 1. 13 33
892 1241 a b k ]
D

rell]

Lac.:

Matt.

A C e

6:20-21

6

( E c c l T 6:23) [ A l l ]

Text

M a t t . 6:20-21

and A p p a r a t u s ,'49

(cont.)

( E c c l T 35:18-19) [ A l l ]

.
(PsT
53:18-19) [ A d ] *
.

[]...
(PsT
276 :25-26) [ A d ] *
... ,

ZeT 2 2 : 1 - 2 ) [ A l l ]
[ ]
(ZeT
407:10) [ A l l ]

[]

UBS
a b k ]
fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241

Lac.:

Matt.

r e l l ] omit

TR L

A C D e

6:24

[] [ ]
[ ] []
. [ ] []

(GenT 1 7 5 : 1 4 - 1 7 ) [ C ]

( P s T 84:4)

[C]

TR UBS
W Q fam 1 . 13 33 892 a b k ]

L 1241

rell]

omit

rell]

Domino

Lac.:

Matt.

b
(= )

A c D e

6:33

[] ,

( E c c l T 84:16-17)
[Ad]

50/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Matt. 6:33

(cont.)

[ ] . . . [ ]
, [ ]
( E c c l T 193:
22-24) [ A d J

un

[ ][ ] []
[Ad]

a b ] un TR U B S
33 892 1241 k

]
Lac.:

Matt.

( J o b T 395: 14-15!

E L i il 2 f a m l . 13

rell

A C D e

7:6

0[ ]
(GenT 72:13-14) [ A d ] *
[]

( Z e T 276:27) [ A d ] *

(ZeT 277:19) [ A l l ]

,
, []

( E c c l T 352:4-5) [ C ]

...

(GenT 1 1 1 : 2 - 4 ) [ C ]

(GenT 1 9 6 : 7 - 8 )

[C]

Reconstruction:

,
[/ ]

Did

rell]
rell]

TR f a m l 892 1241 a b k ]
DidP* UBS3 B C L W fam 13 33

33 1241

Text

Matt.

7:6

(cont.)

rell]

] ev
Lac.:

Matt.

and A p p a r a t u s / S I

rell

7:9-10

... , ,
;
[].
( E c c l T 314:4-5) [ C ]
[];

L 124.1 b ]
R UBS'*
fam 1. 13 ( 33) 892 ( a ) k
1

C W 3

( o r - o e i ) ' ' U B S
(C! a b j
rell
( o r -)

892 a b k ] .
< 2

TR E L W 9; Mai
3

( o r - ) '
UBS
() ( o r -)
]
r e l l ]

Matt.

rell
33 892 1 2 4 1 ]

rell

fam 13
1

(or -oei)' '

r e l .1 ] o m i t

Lac.:

C fam 1
rell

()

rell]

A D e

7:11

...[ ],
( E c c l T 78:15) [ A l l ]
, 6 ]

( E c c l T 293:14-15)
[Ad]

[]

[Ad]

( P s T 61:1)

... , 6 ...
(PsT 245:6) [ A l i ]
...

(PsT 101:9)
( P s T 109:15)

[C]
[C]

52/

Didymus

and t h e G o s p e l s

M a t t . 7:11

(cont.)

Text:
892

TR U B S
H B C E ( L ) () () fam 1 . 13 33
1241 a b k

Lac.:

A D e

Matt.

7:13

... ,
(GenT 1 6 6 : 2 )
[All]*

, <
( P s T 141 :27-28)
[All]*


,
(ZeT 2 1 1 : 1 3 - 1 5 ) [ A l l ]
[] []
[ ], []
(ZeT 2 7 1 : 1 2 - 1 4 )
[All]*
... [] [] [
]
"(ZeT 387:23 )
[All]*
... ,

(GenT 102:
20-21) [ C ]
p

Did
a b k ]
Did
B C E L W 4 0 I I 8 f a m l . 13 33 892 1241

rell]

r e l l ]
r, f a n 13
omit

Matt.

TR

UBS

1241;

] '
Lac.:

faml,

rell

A D e

7:14

, ,

(PsT 142:2) [ A l l ]

[]
[ ]

(ZeT 271:10-12!
[All]*

Text

Matt.

7;14

and A p p a r a t u s

/53

(cont.)

(GenT 1 0 2 : 1 8 - 1 9 ) [ C ]

Lac.:

Matt.

U B S L () 11 fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 a b k ]

TR

rell]

L 1241; omit

a k

A D e

7:15

[ Sn ] too ] ,
(GenT 1 2 5 : 1 9 - 2 1 ) [ A l l ]

[][] [ ]
,
(JobT 254:2-5) [ A l l ]
[ ]

(JobT 401:19-22) [ A l l ]

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


( P s T 274:20) [ A l l ]

Matt.

7:21

,
,

( P s T 85:15)
[All]*


( P s T 281:31)
[All]*
[] ,
, ' []

( E c c l T 208:7-8) [ C ]
... , ,
, ' [ ]

( P s T 229:6) [ C ]
, , '

( P s T 231:3) [ C ]

54/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

M a t t . 7:21

(cont.)

UBS
C a fans 1
f a m l 3 1241
3

ye ]

TR L W

a b k r e 11

Lac.:

33 8 9 2 ] omit

rell]

A D e

M a t t . 7:22
. (PsT 2 8 1 : 2 9 ) [ C ]

TR U B S
omit

Lac.:

C L 8 8 fam 1. 13 33 892 1 2 4 1 ]

A D e

M a t t . 7:23
GenT 1 9 4 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) [ A d ] *

' , []

(JobT 383:6-8) [ A d ] *

( p T 281:29-30) [ A d ] *
s

" ,

(ZeT 177:19) [ A d ] *

TR U B S
C ( L ) 4 H 8 fara 1
892
1 2 4 1 ]

fam 13

a k rell]

Lac.:

a ]

k ]
rell]

non (= ou)

r e l l ]
A D e

L fam 13

rell
a b

33

rell

Text

Matt.

and A p p a r a t u s

/55

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 ]


( P s T 145:1-146:1) [ A l l ]
... []
[]

(ZeT 107:9) [ A l l ]
...,

( ZeT 183: 22)

[C]

UBS
fam 13 33 892 1241 a b ]

T R C E L W n Q k ;

fam 1

rell
Lac.:

Matt.

TR L & fam 13

a b k ]

A D e

7:25

.

( Z e T 31:7-9)
[All]
, , ,
[]
(JobT 147:19-22)
[Ad]

56/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

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 ]

( Z e T 31:12-14) [ A i l ]
...un
TR UBS
B C E L K A D Q
33 892 1241 a b k ] ...

TR C L fam 13

rell
Lac.:

fam 1
fam 13

33 a b k ]

A D e

Matt. 8:11
[]

(ZeT 161:11-12) [ C ]
] omit
TR UBS
892 1241 a b k

] p o s t
Lac.:

fam 1. 13 33

rell

A D e

M a t t . 8:12

( P s T 260:29-30) [ A d ] *
U L O I

(PsT 55:6) [ C ]

TR U B S
B C E I 9 H 2 f a m l . 13
892 1241 a k ]
b
p t

33

Did
.
( e x i e n t ) k, ( i b u n t ) a b ]
(- D i d P ) TR U B S B C E L W
f a m l . 13 33 892; 1241
1

Text

Matt.
01

8:12

and A p p a r a t u s /57

icont.)

] 0 1 be r e l 1

Lac.

A D e

Matt. 9:33
EKBOCVXOC

t o o Souuoviou

eXaA-noev o Hiocpoc.

eK>>r,eevioc . . . xou 6otipovioo eAaXnoev

[C]

( P s T 268:2) [ A d ] *
Kiocpoc,

( P s T 267:33)

KUKPOC
TR U B S 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.

Text:
TR U B S
a b k
Lac.

(JobT 138:29)

N B C D E L W d n Q

[C]
fam 1 . 13 33 892

A .12 41 e

Matt. 10:10
a^ioc;
tri?

o epTOTHS -H ; tpocpnq a u t o u

( Z e T 317:9)

[C]

Tpocpns
TR U B S
K B C D E L W A 6 3 fam 1 . 13 33 k ]
too
uiaoou
n 892 a b
3

autou

UBS

B C L fam 1 . 13 892 ] a u t o u e o t i v

a? 1 0 5 ]

agioc. f a p

Lac:

A 1241 e

rell

rell

Matt. 10:16
Yivec opovMiuoi ajc; OL o ; p i < ; K Q I a n e p c t i o i
(GenT 9 3 : 3 ) [ C ]
riVC6e
k ] y i v e o 9 e ouv
fam 1 . 13 33 892 a b
uc.

0 1 (2x) r e l l ]

uaei

TR U B S
L

10c; a i i s p i o x e p a i

B C D E L W A 6 0 Q

58/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

M a t t . 10:16

(cont.l

rell]

r e l l ]

Lac.:

A 1241 e

Matt. 10:28

to

( P s T 47:7.1

[Ad]*

, 6

]
(GenT 5 6 : 5 - 8 )
[C ] * *
[]
29-31) [ C ]

( J o b T 86:

[ ] [ ] ,
( J o b T 347:
[] []
12-1.5) [ C ]


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

( P s T 209:16-17! [ C ]

UBS
C L fam 13 ]
fam 1 33 892
3

rell

TR D E L A

v l d

TR D W

2 fam 1. 13 33 ]

(2 )

rell]

L fam 1 ; 6 ,
omit

tarn 13

a b k rell

a b

(2 )

"

rell]

W fam 13

( )

"

rell]

Lac.:

rell]
rell]

A 1241 e

W fam 13

D,

( i n gehennam)

a b

Text

and A p p a r a t u s

/59

M a t t . 10:29
6 [] [] ; []
[ [][ ]
[] . ]
(JobT 317:10-13) [ A d ] *
3

TR U B S
8 9 2 ]

C L I i II 2 fam 1 . 13 33
D, ( v e n e u n t ) a, ( v e n i u n t ) b k

r e l l ] sine voluntate
?)
a b

Lac.:

Matt.

rell]

892 b ] omit

patris

(=

rell

A 1241 e

10:32-33

[ ] ,
[] [] , ...
(GenT 1 7 6 : 1 0 - 1 2 ! [ A d ] *

3

UBS
D W iam 1

TR G E L D 3 fam 13 892
Lac.:

33 a b k ]

A 1241 e

M a t t . 10:34
,

(GenT

98:26-27)

... ,

( Z e T 319:25) [ C ]
Reconstruction:

, , .

! k ) ]
L W 2 fam 1 . 13 33 892 a b

rell]

]

Lac:

rell]

A 1241 e

rell
omit

fam 13

TR UBS"

a b k

BCD

60/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

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

M a t t . 10:40
,
372:1) [ C ]

( ZeT 3 71:29-

TR U B S C L S ram 1 . 13 33 892 ]

Lac.:

A D 1241 e

M a t t . 11:12

(GenT 1 6 6 : 7 ) [ A l l ]

[]
[All]

( J o b T 136: 23-24)

M a t t . 11:18

( E c c l T 73:10-11) [ A d ] *

TR U B S
B C D E W A r i Q

( L ) fam 13

Lac.:

la m 1

33 892 a b k ]

A 1241 e

M a t t . 11:20
. [ ]
[]
GenT I 8 1 : 1 - 2 ) [ C ) * *

,
(GenT 232: 1 5 - 1 7 ) [ C ]

C L W fam 1.13 8 9 2 ] o m i t
33 a b k

TR U B S

M a t t . 11:20

Text

and A p p a r a t u s

(factae

fuerant) k

/61

(cont.)

rell]

r e l 1 ] omi t

Lac.:

A 1241 e

D,

M a t t . 11:21
, ',
,

(GenT 2 3 2 :
15-20) [ C ]
, ,
,

(ZeT 202:29)
[C]**
3

TR U B S
C L 2 fam 1. 13
33 8 9 2 ]
D a b k

33

rell]

rell]
892

rell]

]
Lac:

omit

33 892;
( o r - )

C fam 1

rell

A 1241 e

M a t t . 11:28
...

( E c c l T 317:4-6) [ A d ] *
... ,

( P s T 262: 21-22 )

[Ad]

[]

(ZeT 406:3) [ A l l ]

(PsT 257:124-25)

, ,

(ZeT 133:10) [ C ]

(ZeT 2 6 0 : 2 1 ) [ C ]

[ ]

( Z e T 260 :29)

[C]

[C]

62/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Matt. 11:28

(cont.)
3

TR U B S N B C E L W A e n
fam 1 . 13 33
8 9 2 ]
D, ( o n e r a t i e s t i s )
a b k
Lac.:

A 1241 e

Matt. 11:29

.
( P s T 265:21-22)
[Ad]

,
( ZeT 1 2 : 6 - 8 )

[Ad]

...

(ZeT 9 6 : 1 4 - 1 5 )
[Ad]

[]. . .
[C]

(EcclT

'
(GenT 71:1-2) [ C ]

319:12-13)

' '
[] []
[]
(GenT 1 8 9 : 1 - 4 ) [ C ] * *
'
(GenT 2 1 2 : 2 2 - 2 3 !

[C]

' ,
( P s T 81:12-13) [ C ]

' ,

( P s T 81:15-16)

a t ' ,
( P s T 202:25) [ C ]

[c]

...' ,
(PsT 246:13-14) [ C ]
, [ ...]
(PsT 257:24-25) [ C ]
'
(ZeT 1 3 3 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) [ C ]
'

(ZeT 185:8-9)
[C ]

Text

M a t t . 11:29

and A p p a r a t u s

/63

(cont.)

'

16-17) [ C ]

,
( Z e T 201:

' ,
'


(ZeT 220:19-21) [ C ]

' , [ ' ]

(ZeT 2 6 0 : 2 2 - 2 4 ) [ C ]
' ,

(ZeT 306:3-5)
[C]
' ,
(ZeT 335:16) [ C ]

[] [ ]

( Z e T 406:6)

[C]

'
TR U B S B C D L D S fam 1 . 13 33 892
a b k ] omit K
Lac.:

A 1241 e

M a t t . 11:30

(PsT 262:22-23) [ C ]

(ZeT 2 2 0 : 1 9 - 2 0 )
[C]* *

( Z e T 221:16)

[C]

[ ]
(ZeT 2 6 0 : 2 4 - 2 5 ) [ C ]
3

TR U B S
C * S 8 H 2 fam 1

L fam 13
Lac.:

33 892 a b k ]

A 1241 e

Matt. 12:24
[]
(PsT 294:9) [ C ]

[]

64/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

M a t t . 12:24

(cont.)
3

TR U B S

omit
33

Lac:

rell]

fam 1 . 13 892 1241 ]

L b ;

a r e 11

A (1241) e

M a t t . 12:33
. ,
Kat
(JobT 369:17-20) [ C ]

( 2 )

TR U B S
D

B C E L W A i l S

fam 1 . 13 33 8 9 2 ]

...

a ] ...

b k rell
Lac.:

A 1241 e

M a t t . 12:35
[ , ] ,
( E c c l T 78:18-19)
[All]*
Ta

( 2 )

T R C L fam 1
fam 13 892

3 3 ] omit

UBS

B D

L a c . : A 1241 e

M a t t . 12:36
6[]

(GenT 1 7 4 : 1 3 - 1 4 )
[AU]

12:37

(GenT 8 8 : 2 7 - 8 9 : 1 ) [ A d ] *
, [ ]

( P s T 255:10)
[Ad]**

Text

and A p p a r a t u s /65

M a t t . 12:37 i c o n t . )

( P s T 272:22-23) [ A d ] *
.. . ( o r -)
( a ) ( b ) ] ... ( o r
-) UBS
C D L W > fam 1 . 13
33 892 k

rell]

Da

-
Did
-
DidP )
L 33

p t

rell]

'^' r e l l ]
Lac . :

rell]

omit

1241 e

M a t t . 12:40


( E c c l T 92:9)
[All]
[ ] ...
[ ]
(GenT 1 8 9 : 1 9 - 2 1 ) [ A d ]

M a t t . 12:43
...[ ] ,
'

(JobT 398:21-26) [ C ]

33

L ]
892 a b k

Lac.:

A 1241 e

TR UBS

fam 1. 13

M a t t . 13:11
,.-

( P s T 75:9!
[All]*

(ZeT 147:27) [ C ]
u u t i v
[]
(ZeT 162:28) [ C ]

66/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

M a t t . 13:11

(cont.)
3

TR U B S
B C D E L W A S n Q
fam 1. 13
33 892 1241 b e ] mysteriutn ( a ) , sacramentum ( k )
(= )
a k

Lac. :

r e l l ] omit

a b e k

M a t t . 13:17

( P s T 247:4-5) [ c ]

TR UBS
C L U
H Q fam 1. 13
33 892 1241 b ]
D; e t
(= )
a k;
omit
e
non a u d i e r u n t

Lac. :

r e l l ] omit

M a t t , 13:23
, ,
( E c c l T 146:1!
[Ad]
, [, ]

(JobT 152:13)

67:28) [ A l l ]

(PsT

M a t t . 13:24
[ ] [ ] []
[] []
;jobT 1 5 2 : 9 - 1 3 )
[Ad]

M a t t . 13:28

(GenT 1 6 4 : 2 3 - 2 4 )

Text:
TR U B S
B C D E L W i S n S
892 1241 a b e k
Lac . :

[C]

fam 1. 13 33

[Ad]

Text

and A p p a r a t u s

/6 7

M a t t . 13:38
[] .

k ]
TR U B S
fain 1 . 1 3 33 892 1241 a b e
] 6

( J o b T 156 : 2-3 [ A d ]

B C D E L W A S n S

rell

rel 1

]
La c . :

rell

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)

( E c c l T 194:18-19) [ C ]

[C]

[]

(GenT 3 9 : 9 - 1 0 ) [ C ]

(ZeT 3 75:21) [ C ]

lt

Did^
1 2 4 1 ]

D i d P t TR U B S
K C (0) U
1 il
fam 1. (13 ) 33 892 a b e k
3

rell]

rell]

Lac . :

rell]

mei ()

D fam 13, ( f u l g e b u n t )

fam 13

Matt. 13:45
[ou ]
[]
(ZeT 278:6-7)

[All]*

a b e k

68/ Didymus

and t h e G o s p e l s

Matt. 13:45 ( c o n t . )

TR U B S
C D L S J 2
fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 e k ] bonam m a r g a r i t a m (=
)
a b
3

Lac. :

Matt.

13:47

( E c c l T 228:7-8)
[All]*

1241

TR UBS
C D L 4 2 fara 1 . 13 33 892
k ] gnre p i s c r u m (= )
a b e

]
;
rell

Lac. :

L;

Matt. 13:52

[] [ ]
( E c c l T 65:18) [ A l l ]
... ]
faml, proferit (a) b
( e ) k;
TR U B S
N B C D E L W A
fam 13 33 892 1241
3

Lac. :

Matt. 14:21
[] , []
[] ,
( J o b T 31:
2 5-2 9)
[All}*

TR UBS
C L S 3 S fam 13
33 892 1 2 4 1 ]
D () ( f a m l ) a
b e

Lac . :

rell]
A k

faml

Text

Ma 11.

and A p p a r a t u s /69

15:6

Sua
(ZeT 309:5)
[All]*
,

TR L W () Il fam 1
U B S D 6 892 a b e ;
3

Lac . :

33 1241 ]
C fam 13

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

rell]

rell]

rell]

Lac.:

A k

rell]

omit

D a b e

1241

Matt. 15:9
5
(ZeT 309:3-5)
[Adj*

]
TR
UBS
C D L W r a m i . 13 33 892 1 2 4 1 ;
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
3

rell]

Lac . :

Ma 11.
'

omit

A k

15:13
[], []
,
(JobT 223:33-224:1)
L Ad ]

70/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Matt. 15:13

(cont.)

eHo[ittov] naaav

(ZeT 80:14) [Ad]

Matt. 15:14
, [ ]
( E c c l T 301:9-10) [ C ]

[]

TR UBS
C ( D l L 4 S f a m l 33
892
(1241 ) a e ]
fam 13

rell]

fam 13

D fam 1 ]

rell
3

( o r ) ( )
TR UBS C W
33 892 a e ] () ( o r
)
rell

rell]

]
Lac.:

D w

1 2 4 1 ; 6

rell

S b k

Matt. 15:19
]
( E c c l T 280:20-21) [ A d ] *
[]
( J o b T 217: 32-33 ) [ C ]

TR U B S C D L i 9 8 fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 a e ]

omit
K (homeoeteleuton !

Lac.:

rell]

A b k

Matt. 16:16

14-15) [ C ]
3

TR U B S
B C E b W i e n
892
1241 a b e ]
D
Lac.:

A k

(Gen 114:

fam 1. 13 33

Text

and A p p a r a t u s

/71

Matt. 16:17
[] , '
[][]
(Ecc.1T 3 3 1 : 1 3 )
[Ad]

Matt. 16:18
L a

( E c c l T 355:24-25) [ A l l ]
, , []
, [ ]
(GenT 1 1 4 : 1 5 - 1 7 ) [ C ] * *
...5 ,

(GenT 1 9 5 : 6 ) [ C ]

, []
(JobT 148:1-3! [ C ]

,
( J o b T 312 : 23-25 ) [ C ]

,
,
(ZeT 1 0 7 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) [ C ]

TR UBS
C L ti H 5 fara 1 .
13 33 892 1 2 4 1 ]
D a b e

rell]


Lac . :

reil]

;
D;

A k

Matt. 16:19

(Ze 1 8 7 : 4 - 5 )
[All]*
T R C D 3 fam 1. 13 33 892 1 2 4 1 ]
UBS
L W
3

La c . :

Ma 11.

A k

16:27
.
[All]*

t e

(ZeT

78:18!

72/

Didymus a n d t h e G o s p e l s

Matt. 16:27 ( c o n t . !
3

TR UBS
892 1241 e ]
H fara 1 a b
Lac . :

fam 13

33

A k

Matt. 18:3

,
( P s T 91:5-6! [ A l l ]

1: . 18:6
[] [ ]
, , [ ]

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


( 1 9 4 : 2 6 - 2 7 ) [ ] *
3

UBS
L 33 8 9 2 ]
W S f a m l . 13 1241, ( i n c o l l u m )
e; E H

TR D; i n c o l l o (=ev ') a b
r e l l ]
Lac.:

A C k

18:7
'
[]

(Ecc.IT

U B S L f a m l 8 9 2 ]
(W) fam 13 33 1241 a b ( e )

Lac.:

rell]

fam 13; omit

113:3)

TR

A C k

Matt. 18:10
[]
6ic< [<:]
(EcclT
[All]

344 :22-23)

Text

Matt. 18:10

and A p p a r a t u s

/73

(cont.)

(GenT 8 9 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) [ A d ] *

au
(GenT 194:26)

[Ad]*
L

(ZeT 194:13)
[Ad]*

fam 1 e ]
TR UBS
D
f a i n 13 ( 892 ! 1241 a b :
(33)
p t

Did
D 33 8 9 2 ] omit
fara i . 13 1241
Lac . :

Did

p t

TR UBS

E L W

A C k

Matt. 18:20
on

o t e [] [ ]
[]
( 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
faral.
13 33 892 1 2 4 1 a b e ] ..."
D

rell]

Lac . :

omit

rell]

omit e

A C k

Matt. 18:21
; ;

(Pa 1 0 7 : 2 1 )

[Ad]

74/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Matt. 18:22
, ,

(PsT 107:21-22) [ A d ] *
(2!

1241]
Lac . :

3
TR UBS
L U i! 2 f a m l . 13 33 892

D, ( s e p t i e s ) a b e
A C k

Matt. 18:35


(ZeT 126:23-24)
[Ad]

Matt. 19:12
[] [] [ ]
( Z e T 398:16)
[]...
[All]

Matt. 19:28

( P s T 225:14) [ A d ] *
'

, ,

(ZeT 56:8-10)
[All]*


( J o b T 327: 12-15 ) [ C ]
Reconstruction:
...


3

TR U B S C W fam 13

D L fam 1 892

( o r )

** '

rell]

r e l l ] omit

Lac . :

A k

33 1241 a b e ]

r e l l ]
D

faml

Text

and A p p a r a t u s /75

Matt. 20:32

33

L 8 9 2 ] omit
1241 a b e

Lac . :

TR U B S

(GenT 5 4 : 9 - 1 0 )
3

[C]

C D W faro 1. 13

A S k

Matt. 21:2
[]

(ZeT
218:6-8)
[All]*
3

U B S C D L fam 13
W () fam 1 1241
La c . :

33 8 9 2 ]

TR

A k

Matt. 21:10
oe ],

(GenT 180:25-26 ) [ A d ]

Matt. 21:19

(GenT 8 5 : 2 7 - 8 6 : 1 ) [ C ]

L ] omit
TR U B S
33 892 1241

Lac . :

rell]

C D t 1 11 8 fam 1 . 1 3

A k

Matt. 21:31

(PsT
55:2-3) [ C ]

a b e ]

TR U B S K B C D E L W
fam 1 . 1 3 33
892 1241
3

rell

( i n regno)

a b e ]

76/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Matt. 21:31 ( c e n t . )

La c . :

rell]

A k

Matt. 22:13
L U I
[ ] ,

!PsT 2 4 7 : 7 - 8 )
[Ad]*
Reconstruction:

(?) ,


UBS
L f a m l . 13
8 9 2 ]
D a b e;

TR C W
a 33 ( 1 2 4 1 )

D fam 13

Lac . :

Matt.

1 2 4 1 a b e ]
rell]

rell

1241

A k

22:19

(ZeT 309:10)

[C]

TR U B S
C 0 I, 5 Q fam 1 . 13 33 892
1241 a e ] omit
b

denarium

(=)

( P s T 7:23)

La c . :

rell]

A k

Matt. 22:44

UBS
D]
33 892 1241
]
Lac. :

A C k

rell

[C]

TR L W f a m l . 13

Text

Matt.

and A p p a r a t u s

/77

22:45

,
( P s T 7:23-24) [ A d ] *

(+ D i d . ) D fam 13 a b ]
TR UBS3 L W fam 1 33 892 1241 e
Lac. :

A C k

M a t t . 23:2

( J o b T 327:15-1 7) [ C ]

D fam 13 a b e j
TR U B S
L W fam 1 33 892 12.4).
3

Lac.:

A C k

Matt. 23:14
,

( J o b T 322:
28-31) [ A d ]

Matt.

23:25

,
(ZeT 88:22-24)
[All]*
J

TR U B S
D L f a m l . 13 33 892 1241
a e ]
C ;
Lac. :

A b k

Matt. 23:27

( Z e T 88:22-23) [ A l l ]
[ ]
[]
[C ]

(GenT 125:21-23)

TR UBS
C D E L H A O S )
892 1 2 4 1 ]

faml

fam 13

33

78/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Matt. 23:27 ( c o n t . !
]

rell

] 6 e

Lac.:

Matt.

rell]

rell

A (b)

23:30

,

( Z e T 82:
20-22) [ C ]

TR W S f a m l
fam 13 892 1241

rell]

3 3 ]

UBS

TR W S f a m l . 13

B C D E L

33
3

r e l l ]
U B S D f a m l . 13;

; (. . p o s t ) 1241
. ..
Lac.:

a b rell]

omit

i_n t o t o

A k

Matt. 23:31

(ZeT 82:22-23) [ C ]
3
]
TR UBS
( f a m l . 13) 33 892 1241 a b e
]
Lac.:

C D L

rell

A k

Matt. 23:32

(ZeT 82:23-24) [ c ]

TR UBS
C L W f a m l . 13
D
1241 a b ] e;
]

omit

rell

33 892

Text

Matt. 23:32

(cont.)

] a n t e
Lac.:

Matt.

rell

A k

23:33

Matt.

and A p p a r a t u s /79

(GenT 96:19-20)

[C]

1241

TR U B S
C D L W II Q fam 1. 13 33 892
a e ] omit
b

Lac.:

A k

23:35

(!) ( Z e T 2 : 5 - 6 )
[All]*

TR U B S
33 892 1241 a b e ]
Lac.:

Matt.

C H t 6 II f a m l . 13
omit K

A k

23:37

(GenT 171: 2 5 - 1 7 2 : 1 ) [ C ]
3

UBS
D L f a m l . 13 33 892
a b e ]
TR C 1241

] (

Lac.

rell

r e l l ]

a b e

A k

M a t t . 24:3

( E c c l T 87:4) [ C ]

, []

(GenT 7 3 : 2 0 - 2 2 ) [ C ] * *

80/ Didymus

Matt.

and t h e G o s p e l s

24:3

(cont.)

UBS
B C L e-S f a m l 33 8 9 2 ]

TR D E W A fam 13 1 2 4 1
3

note

r e l 1 ]

rell]

(2 )

a b rell]

Lac.
Matt.

rell]

omit

omit

A k

24:5

(GenT 2 2 1 : 5 - 6 )
[C]
3

] TR U B S

fam 1 . 13 33 892 1 2 4 1 a b e
]

rell

Lac.:

B C D E L W

rell]

. C

A k

Matt. 2 4 : 1 2
, [] ,

(GenT 4 4 : 1 6 - 1 7 ) [ A l l ]

(GenT . 1 9 3 : 3 - 4 )
[C]
3

TR U B S
K B E L W A 6 n H
892 1 2 4 1 ]
D
Lac.

f a m l . 13 33

A C k

Matt. 2 4 : 1 4


(EcclT 357:21-22) [Ad]*

TR U B S
D L
1 2 4 1 a b e ] omit W
3

Lac.

A C k

f a m l . 13 33 892

Text

and A p p a r a t u s / 8 1

,
( Z e T 73:1-2) [ C ]

Matt. 24:22

Text:
TR U B S
1241 a b e
Lac.:

Matt.

D L W 9 5 fam 1. 13 33 892

A C k

24:29

,
(PsT 14:24-26) [ C ]

a ] TR U B S
fam 1 . 1 3 33 892 1241 b e
]
Lac.:

B D E L W i e r i

rell

A C k

M a t t . 24:30
[ ] [ ]
[] []
( Z e T 375:2-4) [ C ]

TR UBS"
L W fam I . 13
33 892 1 2 4 1 ]
D a b e
] ,
Lac.:

rell

A C k

Matt. 24:36
,
,
ZeT 3 77:
17-18) [ A d ] *
3 () p o s t
TR UBS
D W f a m l . 13 ( 3 3 ) 1241 a ( b ) e; omit

rell]

TR f a m l

3 3 ]

33, (vel.) b

rell

L 892

82/

uidyrnus and t h e G o s p e l s

Matt. 24:36
3

( o r )
UBS
D fam 13 a b ]
neque f i l i u s h o m i n i s ( = )
e;
omit
rell

rell]

Lac. :

A C k

TR W 1241

Matt. 24:40
[6] [ ] [], ]
[] [][ ][]
( E c c l T 346:15-16) [ A d ] *
Reconstruction:
,

6
TR U B S D L 4 8 H f a m l . 13 33 1241
a b e ]
ti 892
J

Lac.:

A C k

Matt. 25:1

(ZeT 197:14) [ C ]

TR UBS
C D L i S f a m l . 13 33
892 1241 a b ] W
J

Lac.:

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 ] *
J

( D i d . ) TR U B S
A B C (D) E L W
fam13
33 892 1 2 4 1 ]
f a m l (b)

Lac.:

rell]
a e k

Text

and A p p a r a t u s ..'83

Matt. 25:15
[] []
[] ,
, ,
( E c c l T 164:18-20)
[All]*
[] ...
, ,
(PsT 251:15-17) [ A d ] *

TR UBS
C L i II C fam 1. 13
33 892 1 2 4 1 ]
D

rell]

Lac.:

a e k

Matt. 25:16

( P s T 251:17) [ A d ] *

Lac.:

Matt.

TR U B S
C L i C fam 13
1241 ]
'
fam 1

33 892

e k

25:18

,

( P s T 251:18-19) [ A l l ]

Matt.

25:25

( P s T 251:21)

[Ad]

,
]
( P s T 251:22-23)
[Ad]

Matt.

25:31

( Z e T 178:1)

[Ad]

Matt. 25:32

,

( E c c l T 321:25-322:2) [ A l l ]

84/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Matt.

25:33

( E c c l T 322:2-3) [ A d ] *

TR U B S

omit
D a b

Lac.:

]
rell]

f a m l . 13 33 892 1 241 ]

rell

C e k

Matt. 25:41


( E c c l T 322:4-5)
[Ad]
[]
(PsT
247:7-8) [ C ]

( Z e T 83:14-15)
[C]

, ,

(ZeT
178:6-8) [ C ] * *
Ol
L

TR UBS
i D 11 S f a m l . 13 8 9 2 ] omit
33 1241

a b

rell]

] '
rell

rell

Lac . :

D faml

; '

C e k

.Matt. 26:15
,
(PsT
93:15-16! [ A d ] *
,
(PsT
293:21) [ A d ] *
,
(PsT
294:4) [ A d ] *

Text

Matt, 26:15

and A p p a r a t u s

(cont.)
3

TR B S
N A B D E L A e n
892
1241 a b ]
W
Lac.:

Matt.

f a m l . 13 33

C e k

26:31

(ZeT
354:16)
[C]

Lac.

TR D W S f a m l ] C L fara 13 33 892 1241 a b

51

UBS

Matt.

/85

e k

26:52

(PsT
85:25-26)
[C]

- ]
(PsT
247:28)
[C]

a ]
TR UBS
fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 b
]
rell

Lac.:

rell]
rell]

UBS

C L 33 :

A B C D E L W A e t l Q

W fam 13

1241

faml

e k

M a t t . 26:53


(GenT 2 2 5 : 1 8 - 2 0 ) [ A d ] *
( D i d . )
TR UBS

(C) D L 8 fam ( 11. 13 33 892 ( 1241!

a b

rell]

v:LC

* faml

... ] ...
892;
...
rell

] ou

1241
UBS

()

L 33

86/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Matt, 26:53
uoL

(cont.)
rell]

rell]

UBS

fam 1

UBS

D L b ]

A C L fam 13

;
] X I I n u l l a
Lac.:

Matt.

rell
3 3 ]
rell

( )

e k

26:55

( P s T 294:5) [ A d ]

Matt. 2 7 : 3 . 5
... ] ]
[All]

Matt.

27:25

' [
(ZeT 161:25) [ A d ]

Matt.

( 293:30)

27:40

,
[C]

!ZeT 341:8)

TR U B S
S D L ( 8 f a m l . 13 33
892 1 2 4 1 ]
B a b
3

Lac. :

Matt.

rell]

UBS

A D a b

C e k

27:52-53

, ,
[All]

( P s T 186:28)

Text

Matt.

and A p p a r a t u s

/87

28:19

oitep
[] 9
(JobT 402:38-403:2! [ A l l ]

( Z e T 263:17!

TR L'BS
892 1241 a b ]
D e

f am 1. 13 33

A f a m l 3 ]
ouv
rell
Lac.:

Matt.

[c]

D a b ;

C L k

28:20

16ou If '

(Eccl239:26!

[Ad]

( E c c l T 87:3! [ A d ] *

'

(cclT 2 3 9 : 1 7 - 1 8 ! [ d ] *

] o m i t
TR U B S
33 892 1241 a b e
Lac.:

C L k

( P s T 12:7)

A B D E w

[Ad]*
fam 1 . 13

88/

Didymus

Mark

and t h e G o s p e l s

1:15

( P s T 157:30)

ICI

Mark

Text:
892

TR U B S

1241 a b

Lac. :

C e k

A B D E L

fam 1. 13 33 579

3:17

( E c c l T 355:23)
[All]*


(...

Did)
TR UBS
() C (D) L
f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b ]

e
Lac.:

Mark

f k

4:10

[][]
[All ]*

( E c c i T 10:3)

(Did)
UBS
B C L A 892]
TR f a m l 33 579 1241;

D w fam 13 a b
Lac.:

Mark

e k

4:11

.
[ ] ,
*
[]
( E c c l T 5: 26-27)
[]*
[]

( E c c l T 10:1)
[All]*

(EcclT

TR UBS
N A B C D E L W A 6 i l S
579 892 a b ]
fam 1 1241

Lac.:

rell]

e k

7:23)
fam 13

[All]*
33

Text

Mark

and A p p a r a t u s /89

4:28

(GenT 1 0 4 : 2 - 3 ) [ A U ] *
. . .
3

( o r )
TR U B S C D L W
f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e ] omit:

rell]

Lac. :

Mark

D;

4:34

[ ]).uet

( E c c l T 7:24! [ A U ]

Mark

7:6

[ ] [ ] ,
[ ]
(GenT 176:18-19) [ C ]
3

D b ]
TR U B S
.
W S f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241;
a

rell]

D W a b

L 8 9 2 ] e s t (= )
a b;
W;
;
rell

]
Lac.:

Mark

D;

rell

C e k

9:49

s.

( Z e T 207:6)

( Z e T 358:25)

[C]

( a ) ] TR U B S
A B C
f a m l . 13 579 892 1241 ( b ! ( k !
3

- (yao)

()

rell]

Lac.:

33e

rell]

rell]

[C]
(D) E L W 'f

D a b k

W;

90/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Mark

11:2

, , ,
,


'
( Z e T 221:21-24)
[All]*

UBS
C L W farn 13 892 ( a d h u c
b) ]
A 1241 ( b ) ; omit
TR D fam 1 579 a k

r e l l ]

w
Lac.:

Mark

TR A D f a m l . 13;

33e

14:33

[Ad]*
&

( P s T 43:20)

( P s T 222:10)

...

( P s T 293:7)

]
TR UBS

V f a m ! 3 579 892;
1241

a b k rell]

Lac.:

33e

rell]

( 282:3)

L
D

[C]
[C]
[c]

A B C D E L W A
faml;

Text

and A p p a r a t u s /91

Luke 1:2
01

a s '
[C]
OL

TR U B S
C D L W 9 fam 1
1 2 4 1 ] omit f a m 1 3

]
Lac.

7 5

b e

( Z e T 329:23)

33 579 892

rell

Luke 1:15
6 .

'

( P s T 31:22) [ A l l ]

( P s T 30:9) [ c ]

TR UBS
S B C D L l S H i S
33 579 892 1241 a b ]
W e

r e l l ) omit

f a m l . 13

75
Lac:
Luke

1:17

( Z e T 68:1-2) [ A d ] *
3

( D i d ! TR U B S
A D W f a m l . 13
33 579 892 1241 a b e ]
C L

rell

7S
Lac.:
Luke

1:28

,
[C]

(GenT 1 6 1 : 2 4 )

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

92/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Luke 1:32-33
- '
,
(ZeT 109:4-6) [ A d ]

Luke 1:34
,
[ ]*

( 1 7 9 : 2 2 )

,
[0]

f a m l . 13 33 892 1 2 4 1 ] omit
L W A n f 3
579 a e

rell]

...
Lac:

579

rell]

omit

i n toto

TR U B S

( 1 1 8 : 1 - 2 )

A C D

7 5

Luke 1:35
, ,
(3 5:14) []

'

( 2 9 : 2 1 - 2 2 ) [ A d ]
,
[]
(3 2 8 5 : 9 - 1 0 )
[]
'


( 41:2-5)
[11 ]

,
( 1 6 6 : 2 0 !
[]


( 215:29-31!
]

[] ,
,

< 0 ^ 274: 18-22)
]

Text

Luke 1:35

and A p p a r a t u s /93

(cont.)

e m
(PsT 18:20-22}
[C]

...

. ,

( Z e T 68:4-5)
[C]

e ] TR U B S
( C D ( ) 4 i l i
fam 1. 13 33 579 892 1241 a b

rell]

]
Lac:

AW
C faml

33 a

e ; omit

rell

7 5

Luke 1:38
-
( E c c l T 236:20)
[C ]
... ]
( P s T 295:29!
[C]

[ ]

Text:
TR U B S
A B C D L W i e n f S
579 892 1241 a b

fam 1. 13 33

Omi t i n t o t o :
Lac:

7 5

Luke 1:44

( J o b T 57:25-27} [ A l l ]

Luke 1:53

[ ] ( Z e T 258:10)
[AU]
[]

( P s T 196:18-19)
[C]
]
TR UBS
fam 1 . 1 3 33 579 892 1241
Lac:

7 5

A B C D L W i e O ' f Q

94/

Bidymus and t h e G o s o e l s

Luke

1:68

, ^

(ZeT 220:14-15) [ C ]

TR U B S
C
? S fam 1. 13 33
579
892 1241 e ] omit
W a b

( q u i ) e ] oxi

rell
rell

Hai r e l l ]
Lac:

Luke

omit

7 5

1:69

[C]**

(ZeT 105:29)
(ZeT 220:15-16)

UBS
C D L W f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 ]
TR S

Lac:

7 5

L u k e 1: 78-79

(PsT
323:22) [ A d ] *

ZeT 57:17) [ A d ] *

(ZeT
105:20! [ A d ] *
3

( D i d ! TR U B S

33 579 892 1241 a b e ]
D
Lac.:

f a m l . 13

75

Luke 2:11
.,. ,
( Z e T 22:3-4)
[C]

[C]

Text

Luke 2:11

and A p p a r a t u s /95

(cont.!
3

TP. U B S
K A B D L W A S n v n
33 579 892 a b e ]
1241

fam 1 . 1 3

r e l l ]
W; C h r i s t u s
Dominus (= ) e
Lac.:

7 5

lesus

Luke 2:14

Text:
TR U B S
1241 a b e
Lac.:

7 5

( P s T 20:8)

[C]

L W f a m l . 13 33 579 892

Luke 2:34
[]
(ZeT 392:1-2) [ C ]

TR U B S
N A B L W A e n t S
892 1241 a b e ] D

Lac.:

7 5

[]).

fam 1. 13 33 579

Luke 2:3 5

tc]

L W 579 b ] TR U B S
faro 1 . 13 33 892 1241 a e

Lac.:

7 5

( P s T 41:26-27)

A D

Luke 2:36
,

( Z e T 1 54: 21-22)
[C]
3

UBS
L W fam 13 33
579 892 1241 a ( e ) ]
TR
fam 1 ( b ) ;
A D

rell]

v i r o s u o (= )

b e

96/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Luke 2:36

(cont.)

Lac.

Luke

rell]

*~

2:37

(ZeT
154:23-24)
[C]

UBS
L 33 5 7 9 ]
892 1241; omit. D a b e

Lac.:

Luke

7 5

rell]

TR W fam 1.

3:8

[cl

( Z e T 79:23)

TR U B S
A C L fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 a b ]
D W e;

] ouv

rell

()

rell]

ergo v o b i s

(= )

75
Lac:
Luke

4:5

(ZeT 45:1-2)
[All]*

5

33 579 8 9 2 ]

? 2
'. 13
1241; VI

75
,:
Luke

4:9

(ZeT 44:25)

[C]

TR U B S
S D L 4 t Q fam 1. 13 3 3 5 79
892 1241 b e ] o m i t
a
Lac

7 5

Text

Luke

and A p p a r a t u s /97

4:13

aie' ...
[C]

( P s T 44:14)

PsT 43:27!

[Ad]*

]
TR UBS

D L W ' fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e

Luke

rell]

Lac.:

75
P C

4:17

(PsT
336:20)
[C]

5 7 9 ] omit
TR U B S
33 892 1241

fam 1. 13

a b r e l l ]
TR fam 1 1241 e;

D
75
Lac.:
Luke

4:18

[Ad]

( Z e T 11:25-26)

' , ,
,
( Z e T 38:2-4)
[C]
' , , [ ]
[] , [ ]

( Z e T 393:11-13)
[C]

' UBS
(D) L W fam 13 33 579 892 a b e ]

TR
fam 1 ( 1 2 4 1 )

75
Lac.:

rell]
rell]

TR

98/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Luke 4:22
[
] [
]

[] []
( P s T 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, t e s t i m p n i u m U l i s r e d d e b a t e t (=
) e

Lac.:

rell]
7 5

c o r d e (=)

Luke 4:29
...[ ] ,
(GenT 1 8 0 : 2 2 - 2 4 ) [ C ]

UBS
K A B C L W A e n ? S
TR D (fam 13)

fam 1

TR A C fam 1

a rell

r e l l ] omit

] '

Lac.:

rell]

33 579 892 1241 ]

1241 b ]

rell

Luke 5:10

(GenT 61:16-17)

[c]

TR UBS
C L
W fam 1 . 1 3 33 579 892 1241 a b ]

D e
Lac:

7 5

Luke 5:22

CC]

( ZeT 1 7 8 : 1 6 - 1 7 )

Text

and A p p a r a t u s /99

Luke 5:22 ( c o n t . )
3

]
TR U B S
K A B C D L W A 6 n ? Q
fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241
Lac

75

Luke 6:21
3

[]
( E c c l T 72:1-2) [ A l l ]

(EcclT

72:2-3)

[C]

,
13-15) [ C ]

(JobT 228:

,
20-21) [ C ]

( J o b T 228:

... ,
[C ]

(w} e ]
TR U B S
f a m l . 13 33 (579 ) 892 1241 a b
...]

omit i n t o t o

( 280:11)

75
P C

Lac.:
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
]
Lac.:

gratos

(=!

Luke 6:36
[
PsT 290:20-21) [ A l l ]
]

100/

Didymus

Luke

and t h e G o s p e l s

6:38

(ZeT 83:7)

( o r ) a m l 3 a b ] ( o r ) TR U B S
A B C D L W a n V
fam 1 33 892 1241 e
3

7 5 V 1 <

()
UBS P
K D L W (faral)
()
rell

Lac:

rell]

[C]

33 892 1241 e ]

33 b e

579

Luke 6:45
...[] [ ] []
[] [] ( J o b T 3 3 9 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) [ C ]
[]

( P s T 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
3

UBS p
a n t e

5 7 9 ]
D)
rell

rell]

omit

D W

rell]

rell]

bona

L 579

(= )

Luke 6:46
, , ;
( E c c l T 208:6) [ C ]
, , ;
(PsT
204:12) [ C ]
, , ;
(PsT
229 : 3)
[ C]
, , [] ;
(PsT
281:30) [ C ]
3

D]
TR U B S '->
Cam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e

C L W 9 f Q

Text

Luke 6:46

(cent.)
rell]

Luke

and A p p a r a t u s /101

75

Be

rell

6:48

(JobT 27:20-22) [ A l l ]
...
(ZeT 3 1 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) [ A l l ]

Luke

7:28

[ [
[JobT 293:17-19)
[C]

UBS

? 3

L w fam 1 33 579 a b e ]
TR A D f a m l 3 ( 8 9 2 ! 1241

UBS
L W fam 1 579 8 9 2 ] omit

(-
)
rell
7 5

1241
Lac . :

Luke

rell]

a n t e

1241;

D;

7:41

,
(PsT 106:28-29) [ A d ] *
3

TR U B S
L W fam 1 . 13 33 579
892 1241 b e ]
D a
75
Lac.:
Luke

8:14

[ ] . . .
[All]

Luke

(EcclT

32.4:13)

8:15

...

( E c c l T 320:
17-20)
[All]*

102/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Luke 8:15

(cont.)

,

,
( P s T 21:25-26)
[All]*

...
( P s T 67:26-27)
[All]*

TR UBS

L " fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1 2 4 1 ] omit
D a b e

Lac. :

Luke

rell]

L;

fam 13

9:23

,
, '

( Z e T 185:10) [ A d ] *
'
33

Luke

TR UBS
892 1 2 4 1 ] omit

' L W f a m l . 13
C D 579 a b e
3

9:30-31

...
,

(ZeT 77:14-16)
[AU]

Luke

9:62

'
... ( P s T 2 0 7 : 3 1 )
[C]

- . 1 3 3 3 5 7 9 8 9 2
1241]

L VI
5

3" ~" 1
7

b ]

8 9 2 ] (

... ( )
]

()

Text

and A p p a r a t u s

/103

Luke 10:13

[ ] (] ]
, [ ] [ H I ]
) []
( J o b T 346:12-16 )
[C]
3

7 5

UBS
D L f a n 13 33 579 892
1241
a b ]
TR A C W ' f a n 1 e

rell]

omit

rell]

omit

rell

Luke 10:19

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

[]
( E c c l T 323:19-20)
[Ad]*
>
(GenT 61:18-20!
...
[Ad]*
[] [ ] []
[] ] [
[]
(JobT 63:13-16) [Ad]*
[] [e] [ ] []

[] ...]
(JobT 130:17-20) [ A d ] *

[] [] [ -] [
[] [] [] ( J o b T 143:
31-144:2) [ A d ] *

( P s T 5:23-24) [ A d ] *
[ ]
(PsT
297:8-9) [ A d ] *

...
(ZeT
157:10) [ A d ] *


(ZeT 217:16-18! [ A d ] *

104/

Didymus

and t h e G o s p e l s

Luke 1 0 : 1 9 ( c o n t . )
...
,

(EcclT 319:18-191
[C]

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

(PsT 7 8 : 1 1 - 1 2 )
...
rc]
.,.
,
(ZeT 2 0 5 : 3 !
[C]
Reconstruction:
,
,
, [ou ]

UBS '
C L W fam 1 5 7 9 8 9 2 1 2 4 1 b e ]

TR A D fam 1 3 3 3
3

W fam 1 ]

Did

p t

rell]

omit

Dld

A D L fam 1

rell
p t

5 7 9 ]

rell

rell

rell]

] omit 5 7 9

Lac.:

rell]

(a)

Luke 1 0 : 2 0

(EcclT 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 A p p a r a t u s .'105

Luke 10:20 ( c e n t . )

(ZeT 1 4 9 : 4 - 5 ) [ C ]

7 j

D fam 1 ( e ) ]
TR U B S P

C L W f fam 13 33 ( 5 7 9 ) 892 1241 a b

UBS
H

;
3

7 5

rell]

L fam 1
rell

rell]

D a b e

']

33 579 1241 ]

TR;

rell

Luke 10:30

( P s T 202:5-6) [ A l l ]

Luke 11:13

...
( E c c l T 5-6) [ A d ] *

( P s T 109:16)
3

7 5

[C]

TR U B S
H B C L K S H S
33 579 891 1 2 4 1 ]
D

rell]

Lac.:

f a m l . 13

D b ;

L;

a e

Luke 11:15

(PsT 145:28) [ C ]

( P s T 14 7:29)
[C]

(PsT 369:32-34) [ C ]

[... ]

( P s T 304 : 19)

[C]

106/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Luke 11:15

(cont.)

( 5 7 9 ) ]
TR U B S
D ( L ) W is f a m l . 13 33 892 1241 b
3

rell]

r e l l ] omit

Lac.:

omit

TR D

7 5

A C

faml

579

a e

Luke 11:33
. . . ...
12-13) [ A d ] *

( ZeT 65:

UBS
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
J

Luke 11:50
[ ]
[ ] [] (GenT 181:17-19) [ A d ] *
e i n

( P s T 70:14-15)

[Ad]*

TR U B S
C L I 4 9 S
f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1 2 4 1 ]
Dab;
omi t
e

Luke

12:7

[Ad]*

(JobT

120:27-28)

TR U B S
I 4 11 ! 8 f a m l . 13
33 892 1 2 4 1 )
D 579
3

Lac:

Luke

7 5

12:8

[ ] ...
(GenT 1 7 6 : 1 0 - 1 1 )
[C]
.,.
(PsT
210:34-35!
[C]

Text

and A p p a r a t u s

/10 7

Luke 12:8 ( c o n t . )

p t

p t

Did
<F 5 7 9 ] D i d
TR U B S
D L W fam 1. 13 33 892 1241

Lac:

TR U B S

7 5

7 5

L W ]

rell

Luke 12:18

(JobT 101:17-19) [ C ]

[] [ ] [ ] [ ]
(JobT 396:14-16! [ C ]

7 5

TR U B S
D L 8 D ! i ! fam 1 . 13 33 579
892 1241 b e ] omit
W a

r e l l ]
maiora faciam
(= )
b

Lac, :

rell]

D e;

Luke 12:19
, , , []

{EcclT

, ,
[Ad]*

37:6! [ A d ] *
(EcclT

278:11)

[ ] [, ] [ ], ,
,
[]
(JobT 396:15-17) [ A d ] *
! 2 1

579

7 5

TR U B S

4 8 I 2 fam 1 , 1 3 33
892 1 2 4 1 ]
W; omit
a b e

rell]

omit

D a b e

]
Lac:

rell

Luke 12:20
, [] .
,
( E c c l T 168:22-23) [ C ]

108/

Didymus

and t h e G o s p e l s

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) [ A d ] *
,

[] []
( P s T 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
, ( r e p e t u n t ) b ]
DidPt ( a u f e r e t u r
e ) ;
D i d P ;
"*
L 33 5 79
v i d

t:

()
Did
()
DidPt r e l l

p t

D 5 7 9 ]

(2)

rell]

ouv

rell]

Lac. :

D a e
D a b e

Luke 12:49
...

(GenT 47:1-2)
[All]*
,
[Ad]*

(ZeT 207:2)

(ZeT 3 5 8 : 2 4 - 2 5 ! [ A d ] *
[ ]
(ZeT 371:4-5) [ A d ] *

[]
(JobT 346:18-20) [ C ]

[]

[ ],

Text

and A p p a r a t u s /109

Luke 12:49 ( c o n t . )

7 5

UBS
A L W f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1 2 4 1 ]

TR D

Lac.:

C a

Luke 13:11

( P s T 264:6-7) [ A l l ]

Luke 13:27
6
(GenT 1 9 4 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) [ A d ] *

6 ()
D i d TR UBS

L W
f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b ]

D e

Lac:

rellj

omit

7 3

L 1241 b

Luke 13:32
[]
[C]
3

(EcclT

96:1-2)

7 5

TR U B S
* D U
4 8 D ! S) fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 a e ] i l I i (= ) b
Lac:

Luke 14:26
[ ] -

( E c c l T 81:14! [ A d ] *


,
(GenT 2 0 9 : 1 3 - 1 6 ) [ A d ] *
...

,

,
(PsT 112:
14-16) [ A d ] *

110/ Didymus

L u k e 14:26

and t h e G o s p e l s

(cont.!

( P s T 112:24! [ A d ] *

Did
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 ]

a b e

rell

UBS

L 33;

7 5

rell]
(1241) a b e

pt

UBS

579

Dl.d
U B S L 33 579 892 1 2 4 1 ]

DidP*
fam 13;
e; r e l l
7 5

Lac:

r e l l ]
rell]

579

579

Luke 14:28
[ ][]

( Z e T 388:7-9)
[Ad]*

TR f a m l ] UBS
1241;
fam 13

Lac:

rell]

omit

D L W 579
33 892

Luke 14:29
[ ] [],

( Z e T 388:9-11)
[Ad]*
( o r )
TR UBS

A B L i 8 fam 1 . 1 3 33 579 892 1241 a b ]

D e

L faml]

rell

Text

and A p p a r a t u s /111

Luke 14:29 ( c o n t . )
...

rell]

(v. 30) (a b) r e l l J

Lac. :

( o r )

rell]

892

r e l l ]
' 892; omit
D a b e

TR fam 13 33;

Luke 14:30
[],

,

( Z e T 388:11-13) [ A d ] *
3

7 ; >

TR U B S

33 892 1 2 4 1 ]
Lac.:

D L H i D
579

fam I . 13

Luke 14:34
,
[C]

TR U B S
1 2 4 1 ]

7 5

rell]

7 5

Lac.:

rell]

305:13)

L i I U S fam 1. 13 33 579 892

D W
fam 1

] TR
A W fam 1
r e l l ;
fam 13

(EcclT

xtvi

3 3 ;

892 b e;

Luke 15:8
6[][]
[ ] [] []

(ZeT 404:9-10)
[AU]

Luke 15:17

( P s T 226:15)

[C]

112/ Didymus

and t h e G o s p e l s

Luke 15:17 ( c o n t . )

TR U B S
H S D II i H I S fam 1. 13 33
579 892 1241 a b e ]
L
3

Lac:

7 5

Luke 15:22
[ ]

( J o b T 262:18! [ A d ] *

TR UBS
B D L I 4 9 H S
fam 1. 13 33
892 a b e ]
^ 5 7 9 1241;
A
7

75

5 7 9 ]
TR
fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 ( a b e ) ;
(a b e ) r e l 1
Lac:

Luke 16:8
[]

(GenT 1 6 3 : 2 4 - 2 6 )
[Ad]*
[] []

(JobT 76:27-29) [ A d ] *
[]
[]
( Z e T 385:
20-22) [ A d ] *
p

Did
TR U B S 75 s L 4
892 ( 1 2 4 1 ! a b e
3

01

rell]

Pmit

] . . . Did
6 I! ! 2 f am 1 . 13 33 ( 579)

579 1241

( D i d ) r e l l ] ;
g e n t e h a c ( a ) , h a c g e n e r a t i o n e ( b ) ( !
a b
Lac,:

Luke 16:15
.,. [ ] 8
, 5 [
]
( E c c l T 297:7-9) [ c ]

Text
Luke 16:15

and A p p a r a t u s /113

(cont.)

,
,
,
(ZeT 178:11-14) [ C ] * *

5 7 9 ]
TF U B S
() D L W f a m l . 13 33 892 1241

TP. tara 13

rell]

Lac . :

Luke

rell]

579 (892 )

7 5

( a ) ( b ) ( e ) ] omit

rell

rell

579

( ) r e l l ]

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 ) ]

Lac . :
Luke

(Did) r e l l ]

omit

16:20

()

( J o b T 1.78:15-16) [ A d ]

114/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Luke

16:22

[ ] [ ] [],
[] [] [] ( J o b T 175:
10-11)
[All]*

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


( P s T 238:32-33) [ A d ] *
[] [ ] [ ], K ] O L
[ ] [ ]
( J o b T 3 76 : 3-6)
[Ad]*

.]
TR UBS
W fam 1 , 1 3 33 579 892 1241

rell]

abe

rell]

Lac. :

Luke

D L

TR W fam 13

r e l l ]

...

rell]

5 7 9 ;

fam 13

16:22-23

, .
, ,
,

( E c c l T 92:1-5) [ A l l ]

Luke 16:23

...
( P s T 217:5-6) [ A U ] *

TR UBS
i L 4 11 S! fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1 2 4 1 ]
D a b e

Lac. :

()

( D i d ) D b e ] omit

rell

Text

and A p p a r a t u s ,'115

Luke 16:24-28
[ ]
.

[ ]
;
[]
;

( E c c l T 280:

];
5-9! [ A l l ]

Luke 16:25

[

(EcclT

85:27)

[C]

] ]

(EcclT

106:26-27)

[c]

[] ,

(GenT 9 8 : 2 - 3 ! [ C ]

( P s T 60:26-27)

[C]

UBS '
D L fam 13 579 a e ]

TR (A) W fam 1 33 892 1241 b

( 1)

Lac:

rell]

omit

a b e

Luke 16:26

(GenT 2 0 : 2 4 - 2 5 )

[Ad]

Luke 17:5

Text:
33
Lac:

(GenT 162:13)
/ 3

[C]

TR U B S
(P )
579 892 1241 a b e

fam 1. 13

Luke 17:10
, ,
, ][]
( J o b T 341:34342 :1) [ A d ] *

116/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Luke 17:10 ( c o n t . )
, ,
[Ad]*

TR U B S
1241 ] omit

7 5

L 4 9 J 8 fam 1. 13 33 892
579 a b e

fam 1

rell]

a b e ]

TR W Q fam 13

r e l l ]

(rell)]

Lac:

rell]

rell]

rell]

D rell

892 1241

D;

omit

33

()
omi t

( P s T 96:21!

Luke 17:21


Text:
33
Lac.:

(JobT 141:22-23) [Ad]

(JobT 370:27-28)

7 5

TR U B S

579 892 1241 a b e

[C]

fam 1 , 1 3

Luke 18:2
[ ]
[ ( E c c l T 3 1 4 : 9 ) [ A d ] *
3

7 3

TR U B S
.
33 579 892 1241 a b e ]
W
Lac :

Luke

[]

fam 1. 13

18:3,5

[] [ ],

( E c c l T 314:11-12) [ A l l ]

Text

and A p p a r a t u s ,'117

Luke 18:6
[]
[C]

[]

(EcclT

TR U B S
33 579 892 1241 a b e ] omit
Lac.:

314:13)

fam 1 . 1 3

Luke 18:7
[]
14-15) [ C ]

( E c c l T 314:

TR f a m l . 13 3 3 ]
UBS
L 579 892 1241 e;
D; o m i t
a b

Lac.:

rell]

omit

rell]

D 1241

Luke 18:8
[]
[ ]
(GenT 1 8 7 : 2 3 - 2 4 )
[C]
J

TR U B S
J B D L I i 9 1 I ! S
faro 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 b ] p u t a s i n v e n i e t ( i n v e n i e t p u t a s
( ?)
a b

a)

D a b e ;
rell

Lac. :

rell]

omit

L u k e 18:14
[ ] [ ]
[CJ

'

(JobT

284:1-2)

'
UBS
L f a m l 33 5 7 9 ]
TR W ;

fam 13 892 1241;

D a b e
J

rell

118/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Luke 19:10

PsT 267:18) [ A d ] *
[]
[Ad]*

( P s T 286:25-26)

[Ad]*

( Z e T 96:25)

...

( Z e T 38:21!

[C]

[]
(ZeT
220:9) [ C ]
] TR U B S
33 579 892 1241 a b e

Lac:

rell]

S D L 2

faml.

Luke 19:12
,

( E c c l T 47:2) [ C ]
3

892

TR D B S
N A B O L i e r i f S
1241 a ] W b e

rell]

rell]

Lac.:

omit

rell]
75
P

f a m l . 13 33 579

D 579

D a b e

Luke 19:17, 19
[ ] 6
( J o b T 71:8-9) [ A l l ]

Luke 19:21
,

( P s T 251:22-23) [ A d ] *

Text, and A p p a r a t u s /119

Luke

19:21
oti

(cont.l

TR U'BS
A L fam 1 . 13
33 579 892 1241 a b ] D e
3

r e l l ]

D W e

75
Lac . :

Luke 19:23
,
( P s T 251: 24-25 )
[AU]

L u k e 19:42
. .

(ZeT 326:4-5) [ A d ] *
3

TR U B S
892 1 2 4 1 ]

B D H 4 9 H S
a e

U B S
L 579 ]
r e l l

rell]

rell]

omit

Lac.:

rell]

rell]
7 5

D fam 13 e ;

omit a e

...

fam 1 . 13 33 579

a
omit

i n toto

C b

Luke 19:43
[vo]

,
(ZeT 326:5) [ A d ] *
3

( D i d ) TR U B S 8 C L 4 9 O S
fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241 a ] ; o m i t

rell]

omit

D a e

( D i d ! TR A W fam 1 . 13 892 ]
( ) D;
rell
75
Lac.:

W e

120/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Luke 20:24

( Z e T 309:11)

[C]

TR U B S
x A B C L W f a r a l . 13 33 579
892 1 2 4 1 ]
D
75
Lac.:
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

rellJ

Lac.:

Luke

rell]
7 5

C D L fam 13 1241

20:35

,

(ZeT 53:23)
[All]*
[][ ]

( E c c l T 66:12-13)

[C]

UBS
D L fam 1 33 579 8 9 2 ]
1241;
TR t ;
A W
fam13
75
Lac.:

C b

Luke 20:36
...

{ Z e T 53:24)

[... ]

(EcclT

TR U B S
A B D L W d e n f S
1241 a ] o m i t
fam 1 e

Lac.:

rell]

rell]
P

7 5

C b

892

[All]*

D W a e

fam 13

66:13)

[Cj

33 579 892

Text

Luke

and A p p a r a t u s ,'121

21:20

... ,

( Z e T 326:8)
[Ad]*

TR A 1, * fam 1 . 13 33 892 1241 ] omit

D W 579

() ] p o s t

rell

Lac.:

W faml]
A faml]

7 5

UBS

579; p o s t

D e;

rell

rell

C b

Luke 21:26
...
[ ] [
] , [ ]
(ZeT 3 77:1 ) [ A U ]

Luke 22:15
'
( P s T 9:12) [ C J
Text:
TR U B S
A B C P I ,
33 579 892 1241 a b e
3

Luke
en

7 5

fam 1. 13

22:30

(JobT 87:18) [ A d ] *
]
TR UBS
5 J I 8 II ! fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b;

D e; omit
2
?

Lac.:

Luke 22:31

( P s T 43:29)

[Ad]*

122/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Luke 22:31 ( c o n t . )
[]
( J o b T 7:24-26) [ C ]
1.6 [ ]
( J o b T 90:17-19)
fc]
6
(ZeT
43:18) [CJ

D i d )

D i d P t TR U B S 75
s D L W 4 ' S
f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e
3

16

t e l . I ] omit

Lac:

Luke 22:32
uitep .,.
(ZeT
43:19-20! [ A d ] *
3

UBS

fam 13

D L fare 1
33 892 1241

5 7 9 ]

TR

75

Lac. :

Luke 22:33

( P s T 148:17)

[c]
3

]
TR U B S
p
D L () fam 1. 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e

Lac.:

rell]

omit

Luke 23:21
,

( P s T 290:30)

[C]

3
75
,
UBS

B D ] ,
TR A L f a m l . 13 579 892 1241;
W a b e
Lac:

C 33

Text

Luke

and A p p a r a t u s /123

23:43

< ZeT 26:20)

( Z e T 368:29)

[Ad]
[Ad]

'

( E c c l T 92:9)

[C]

'

IGenT

[CJ

' []

108:9)

(GenT

HO: 12-13)

'

(GenT 117:5- 6)

'

(PsT

221:1)

[C]

tcj

75
TR J B S
'
L fam 1.

33 579 892 1241 a b e ] '
C
3

L u k e 24:32
,

(GenT 1 9 6 : 3 - 4 ) [ A d ] *
,
( P s T 274:10) [ A d ] *

3
75

TR U B S p '
L 1 f S
fam 1. 13 33 579 892 1241 a b ]
D (nostrum f u i t exterminatum) e
J

Lac:

Luke

rell]

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 faml:

rell

3
7^
UBS

rell

rell

C L 33 5 7 9 ]

124/ Didymus

John

and t h e G o s p e l s

1:1

. . . ]

( P s T 302:27) [ A d ] *

... ,

(EcclT

355:27)

...

( Z e T 94 :22) [ A d ] *

[C]

( P s T 187:19-20)

[C]

Reconstruction:
.

3

TR U B S '
892 1 2 4 1 ]
Lac . :

John

C W

faml.

13 33 579

it

1:2

(ZeT 2 5 3 : 1 3 )

[Ad]

J o h n 1:3
' [ ] []

(JobT 14:9)

[All]

'

( P s T 134:3-4) [ A l l ]

'
(ZeT 253:13) [ A l l ]
[] '
(JobT 281:15-17) [ C ]
'

( P s T 110:28)

[c]

6 6

D f a m l ] TR U B S
f a m l 3 33 579 892 1241
Lac . :

John

7 5

v i d

1:4

nv

( P s T 98:26)

TR U B S
A B C D L A e r i Y
892 1241 a e ] e s t (=) e
3

Lac.:

6 6 -

rell]

omit

[C]
f a m l . 13 33 579

Text

John

and A p p a r a t u s /125

1:5

[] [ ] <[] [
[6]
(JobT 352:3-4) [ C ]

Text:
TR U B S

C D L fart 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 a ( b ) ( e )
3

Lac.:

John

1: 6

( P s T 30:9! [ C ]

, [ ] ,

( P s T 321:7-8) [ C ]
3

6 6 -

TR U B S
'
892 1 2 4 1 ]

Lac.:

John

C L 9 fam 1 . 1 3 33 5 79
D

a b c r e l l ]

WS

1:7

[Ad]

( P s T 82:2-3)

,
(PsT 321:8) [ C ]
3

6 6

Text:
TR U B S P '
N A B C D L A e n
33 579 892 1241 a b e
Lac.:

fam 1. 13

John 1 : 9
[ ] ,
( E c c l T 330:9-10) [ C ]

(EcclT

356:1)

[C]

... [ ] [] ,
[ ] ] (GenT 6:4) [ C ]
[ . [)

( J o b T 333 :6-7)

( P s T 305:22)

[C]

[C]

126/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

John 1:9

(cont.)

TR UBS

'
K A B C D L f i e n f
892 1241 a b ] e s t ( = ) e

.
Lac.:

John

rell]

inlumnabat

fam 1. 13 33 579

(= ) b

1:14

,
,
( P s T 48:22-25)
[Ad]
,
( P s T 63:14)
[Ad]

,

( P s T 63:18-19)
[Ad]

( P s T 73:13)
[Ad]

[ ] ,
(PsT 131:8-9)
[Ad]
,

( P s T 185:13-14) [Ad]

,
, [ ]
( P s T 327:17-18)
[Ad]

328:16)
[Ad]

(PsT

[ 3 ,

( Z e T 33:6-7) [ A l l ]
,
(ZeT 4 0 : 1 6 - 1 7 )
[Ad]
[] ,
,
( Z e T 315:6)
[Ad]

(ZeT 3 6 6 : 1 2 - 1 3 ! [ A l l ]

( P s T 86:23) [ C ]

,
.
( P s T 103:16-17) [ C ]

Text

John

1:14

and A p p a r a t u s ,/127

(cont.)

,
,
( P s T 149:28-29 )
[C 3
. . . ,

( P s T 153:30-31) [ C ]
,
(PsT 221:19-20) [ C ]

,
(ZeT 32:13) [ C ]
[ ] ,
[], ,
( Z e T 249: 17!
[ C ] **
[]

6 6 -

7 5

TR U B S
C D L i H ! 2 fam 1 . 13 33 579
892 1241 a b e ] omit
B

Lac . :

rell]

J o h n 1:16
... (GenT 162:22-23)
...

( P s T 327:2-3) [ A l l ]
[ luv
[All ]

[ ]

( P s T 327:18)

( P s T 134:16)

[C]

( Z e T 70:24)

Reconstruction:

...
Text:
33

[C]

TR U B S
'
C D L & S am 1. 13
579 892 1241 a b e
3

6 6 -

[All]*

128/

John

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

1:17

6
(PsT 155:26! [ A d ] *
[ ] 6
(PsT
3:20)
[C]

6 6

(autem
a b e ) ]

( a b e ) ; omit
TR U B S

fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241

Lac.:

John

rell]

7 5

omit

1:18

[C]

(Ecc.1T 356:1 )
[C]

(GenT 216:22)

( Z e T 365:16-18) [ C ] * *
3

6 6 -

TR U B S
J C L i 9 II f 3 fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1 2 4 1 ] umquam n i s i (= ) a b e
3
66

UBS
3

UBS

rell]

6 6

'

()

rell]

omit

C L 3 3 ]

rell]

filius

rell

suus

7 5

(= )

]
Lac:

rell

rell]
omit

C L ]

7 5

rell

D W

John 1:29

( P s T 5:2) [ A l l ]

(PsT
286:1)
[Ad]


( P s T 315:2) [ A l l ]

Text

John 1:29

and A p p a r a t u s /129

(cont.)

(ZeT 2 5 2 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) [ A d ] *

(ZeT 60:8)

[C]

(ZeT 1 4 8 : 2 2 - 2 3 ! [ C ]
&
(ZeT 2 5 2 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) [ C ]

TR U B S
C L 9 fam 1. 13 33
579 892 1241 e ] D e i e c c e (= ) a b
3

6 6 -

rell]

peccata

(Eccl'F

Lac.:

John

(= )

D W

1:30
73:5)

[C]

(ZeT 2 3 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) [ C ] * *

(ZeT 1 0 5 : 1 2 ) [ c ]
3

6 6 -

7 5

Text:
TR U B S P
579 892 1241 a b e
Lac.:

John

f a m l . 1 3 33

D W

1:47

,
219:10-11)
[Ad]
3

6 6 -

7 5

]
TR U B S

f a m l . 1 3 33 579 892 1241 a b e

]

Lac.:

rell]

C D W

579

rell

(GenT

130/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

John

2:19

( P s T 238:20!

[C]

(ZeT 1 6 : 2 3 ) [ C ]

Lac.:

John

6 6 -

7 5

TR U B S
A L ' fam 1. 1 3 33 5 79
892 1241 a b e ] omit

C D W

2 :21

( P s T 73:24) [ A l l ]

Reconstruction:

(ZeT 16:25)

[C]

[C]

6 6

7 5

]
TR U B S '

f a m l . 1 3 33 579 892 1241 a b e

John

( P s T 238:21 )

r e l l ] omit

Lac . :

C D W

3:4

,

(JobT 104:8-10) [ A d ] *

3

(GenT 243:22)
7 5

[C]

TR U B S
L
f a m l . 1 3 33 579 892 1241 a b ]

6 6 .
; homo denuo r e n a s c i cum s i t s e n e x (>
! e

Lac.:

C D W

r e l l ]

fam!3

Text

and A p p a r a t u s /131

John 3:5

( P s T 56:23)

[AU]

(PsT 225:11-12!
[AU]

John

3:7

(GenT 2 4 3 : 2 1 )

(JobT 104:6-7)

6 6

Text:
TR U B S *
579 892 1241 a b e
L a c .:

[C]
[C]
fam 1. 13 33

C D W

John 3:13

,
( P s T 153:8-9) [ C ]

,
( P s T 234:23) [ C ]
3

6 6 -

Text:
TR U B S
'
579 892 1241 a b e
Lac . :

L fam 1 . 1 3 33

C VI

J o h n 3:16

( P s T 2 2 1 : 2 1 ) [ A d ] *

( P s T 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

r e l l ]

rell]

'

7 5

33 ( e )

(L)

132/ Didymus

John 3:16

and t h e G o s p e l s

(cont.)

r e l l ] omit

rell]

] '
o m i t in_ t o t o
Lac.:

John

rell

1241

D W

3:18

, n e t

( P s T 87:1-2)
[C]
L
(PsT 221:22)
[C]
6

7 5

TP, UBS"
1241 a b e ]
*
Lac.:

John

A L

fam 1 . 13 33 579 892

D W

3:19

(EcclT

47:29)

[C]

3
75

TR CBS

A B L
a m l 3 33 579 892 1241 a b ]

fam 1 e;

6 6

Lac.:

John

D W

3:20

John

(EcclT

48:3)

[Ad]

3:29

.

(ZeT 1 0 5 : 1 3 )
[Ad]
... ]

(EcclT

76:13)

[C]

Text

John

3:29

[]

]
Text:
33
Lac.:

6 6

TR U B S *
R
579 892 1241 a b e

( E c c l T 66:29-67:1)

(EcclT

76:13)

(EcclT

325: 18)

S B D L 1 8 D : 8

[C]

[C]
(C]

f a u l . 13

C W

4:13

... [ ]
148:2) [ C ]
Text:
33
Lac . :

John

/133

(cont.)

[]

John

and A p p a r a t u s

6 6

7 5

TR U B S "
A B C D L A B F l f Q
579 892 1241 a b e

(EcclT

faml.13

4:14

,
. ][]

( E c c l T 164:26-27) [ A l l ]
...
361:26 [ A l l ]

(EcclT

[] ,
[] []
]
(JobT 140:8-12) [ A d ] *
( , )

(JobT 371:24-25! [ A d ] *
... , ,

( P s T 58:23-24) [ A d ] *

[
] [ ]
( P s T 310:15)
[All ] *

134/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

John 4:14

(cont.)

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

6 6

7 5

TR U B S "
i C L C 2
33 579 892 1 2 4 1 ]
D

Lac:

John

a b e rell]

relll

faml.13

fam 13

4:20-24

'
,
n
(ZeT 196:19-21)
[All]

John

4:20

... . . .
(ZeT
162:10) [ A d ] *

( D i d ) UBS

C D L 3 3
892 b ]
TR fam 1 . 13 579
1241
a e
5

Lac:

John

rell]

omit

4:23

...
( P s T 55:15-16)
[All]*
...

(ZeT 103:29-30)
[All]*

[ ]
[ ]
(ZeT 405:5-6)
[All]*

Text

John 4:23

and A p p a r a t u s /135

(cont.)

TIVEUUCJTI
TR U B S P '
K A B C D L A 6 n S faml3
33 579 892 1 2 4 1 ] xco uveuuaxi,
fam 1
3

Lac . :

John

6 5

7 5

4:24

Hveuua

o eeo?

(GenT 8 8 : 2 0 )
3

6 6

[C]

7 5

Text:
TR U B S P '
K A B C D L i e n f S
33 579 892 1241 a b e
Lac . :

John

fam 1. 13

4:28

ouxcoc, eupLOHStc
] r t e p [ i ] t q c S a u a p i x i&oc. ye-ypauuevov
[ o x i KCII ] e n e i v n 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,
emeiv...
( E c c l T 361:12-14)
[All]*
aq>nxsv
TR UBS
P
fam 1 . 13 33 579 892
D b e
tr.v

u&piav

Lac , :

John

reli]

eyu)

uoiav

4:29

Seute i 6 e x e avOputov,
( E c c l T 361:14-15)

John

N A B C L A 8 II t Q
1241 a i a-jnuev n yuvri

o? e u s v
[Ad]

L;OL t a v t o au[apxn.ua] nou

4:32
puoiv ex i p a f e t v n.v uueic. oux o i o a x e
fc]
3

6 6

7 5

Text:
TR U B S P '
K
33 579 892 1241 a b e
Lac . :

(PsT 315:25)

A B C D L A 9 II V S fam 1 . 13

and t h e G o s p e l s

136/ Didymus

John

4:34

[]
[]
{ P s T 286 :30) [ A l l ]

[Ad]

( P s T 315:24)

J o h n 4:35

( E c c l T 40:24) [Ad]

[ , ]
[ , ]

(ZeT 18:23) [ C ]
V i d

6 6

Did
TR U B S P '
C D L
f a m l 3 33 579 892 a b e ] omit
fam 1 1241
L a c .:

J o h n 4:36
...

(EcclT

6 6 -

UBS
A D

rell]

(EcclT
(EcclT

324:7-8)

[C]

328:3)

[C]**

C L fam 1 33 1241 e ]
fam 13 579 892 a b

D

rell]
) e
Lac:

324:12-13) [ A l l ]

6 6

TR

r e l l ]

cum eo q u i m e t i t

(=

John 5:5
[ ]
[ ]
36[]
( P s T 291:15) [ A l l ]

Text

and A p p a r a t u s /13 7

J o h n 5:6
;

( P s T 132:15)

[C]

Text:
TR U B S P '
A C D L fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1241 a b e
3

Lac, :

6 6

7 5

J o h n 5:f
,
(PsT 132:15-16) [ C ]
,
(PsT 292:10) [ C ]

TR U B S *
C L fam 1. 13
33 579 892 1 2 4 1 ]
A D a b e
3

Lac . :

5 6

( o r )

rell

r e . l l ]

1241

J o h n 5:18

[] [ ] , [ ]
, ' [ ]
[],
(GenT 9:5-7)
[Ad]*

TR UBS

D L 2 am 1 . 13
33 892 a b e ]

579 1241
Lac. :

J o h n 5:19
[ ],
(GenT 2 2 : 6 - 7 ) [ C ]

( D i d ) TR UBS

W
f a m l . 13 33 ( 5 7 9 ) a ]
( D i d ) D;
A ( L ) 892 1241 ( b ) e

138/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

John 5:19 ( c o n t . )

rell]

Lac.:

r e l l ]

Dab;

w
r e l l ]

579

John 5:29
[] ,
6
( P s T 146:16-17) [ A d ] *

D W]
TR U B S
L * S f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241
6

b r e l l ]

Lac. :

John

a e ;

r e l l ]

6 6

"

7 5

5:37

[]
(JobT 353:2-4) [ A d ] *
3

6 6 -

[]6 [ ]...

7 5

6
TR U B S
D L S f a m l . 13
33 579 892 1241 a e ] 6
W b
Lac:

John 5:38
... [] [ ]
353:5-6) [ C ]

(JobT

Xoyov
e ] TR UBS
6 6 . 7 5 D L fam 1 . 1 3 3 3 579 8 9 2
1241 a b

6 6

UBS '

8 9 2 1 2 4 1 b ]
Lac . :

L W fam 1 . 1 3 3 3 5 7 9
rell

Text

John

and A p p a r a t u s /139

5:39

(ZeT 3 0 8 : 2 3 - 2 5 ) [ A l l ]

[]

(Ze 3 8 4 : 1 3 ) [ A d ] *

W e ]
TR UBS

Q f a r a l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b

Lac:

John

D L i 8 II

5:45

[] [] [][] ,
( E c c l T 315:14-15) [ A d ] *

(EcclT
351:5-7)
[C]
3

6 6

T R UBS

P S L 1241;
D

f a r a l . 13 33 579 8 9 2 ]

Lac:

John

rell

a b e ] r e l l ]

5:46

[ ]
( E c c l T 274 : 24-25)
[AU]
,
[C]

TR UBS

33 579 892 1 2 4 1 ] e t m i h i
Lac . :

(EcclT

351:7)

D L i 0 S faml.13
(= )
a b e

140/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

John

5:47
6 e

( E c c l T 351:7-8) [ C ]

ei

( 2

6 6 -

7 5

'
33 892 a b e;
Lac:

John

]
TR U B S
A

D W () fam 1 . 1 3 579 1241

6:27

( E c c l T 283:20! [ A l l !

(ZeT 168:25-26) [ A l l ]

[]

[ ][ ],
[ . . . ] ( E c c l T 1 1 8 : 2 2 - 2 3 ) [ C ]

(2)
'
1

TR UBS

75

D L W S f a u l . 13

33 579 892 1241 a b e ] omit

Lac.:
John

6 6

6:29

ivo

[] ov
[C]

(EcclT

118:25)

UBS
( L ) f a m 1 33 5 7 9 a b e ]

TR D W A fam 13 892 1241

3

Lac:

John

6 6

7 5

6:38

[)
,
( P s T 286:17) [ A d ] *
..,

( P s T 29:19-20) [ C ]

(ZeT 38:20-21) [ C ]
Reconstruction:

Text

Jphn

6:38

and A p p a r a t u s

/Ml

(cont.)

UBS
A L W 6 fam 13 33 1241 ]

TR X D Q fam 1 579 892
3

6 6

M (b) e

rell]

r e l l ]

Lac.:

John

r e l l ]

' rell]

D L W

rell]

a b rell]

D 892 a ( b ) e

579
omit

75
P
C

6:41

( P s T 237:9)

[C]

fam 1 3 b e ]

TR U B S
II C D [, 8 fam 1
33 ( 5 7 9 ) 892 1241 a
3

r e l l ]

7 5

r e l l ]

John

579

6:46

(GenT 2 1 6 : 2 3 ) [ 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

Lac:

rell]
(

7 5

faml

() r e l l

142/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

John

6:47

(EcclT

( P s T 13:12-13)

(ZeT 231:6)

omit
Lac:

John

171:7)

[C]
[C]

[C]

TP. A D fain 1. 13 33 579 1241 a b e ]

UBS
C L W 892
3

6 6

7 5

6:51

[ ] [ ] [ ] [
[] [] ...
( E c c l T 161:4-5)
[All]

John

6:57

[ ]
...

( P s T 2:7) [ c ]

( P s T 147:13)

[C]

[ ] [ ] [ ]
( P s T 298:11-121
[C]

( P s T 305:12 !
3

[C]

7 5

TR U B S
3 C [,
f S f am 1

D fam 13 579 1241

33 892 ]

6 6

7 5

) omit

]
Lac.:

a b e

rell

rell

John 6:62
[]
( P s T 153:12-13) [ C ]

W] TR DBS
fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241

rell]

a b e

omit

' r e l l 1 ou

(66)

66

75

C D I 4

Text

John

6:62

rell]

avaatvovta
Lac . :

omit

rell]

ante tov uiov

6:63

TO

nvEUUff
TR
33 579 892

Lac . :

6 6

to CUOTC [ o i ]ouv

7 5

UBS P '
B C D L W A 6 n f Q fam 1 . 13
1241] iveuua
N

6:70

ouxi

TOUC

5w6ena uuac ECeXEgauriv;

o u x i TOUC 6W6EMS u)jac eEeXeCauriv;

eoxtv
(ZeT 44:19)
[C]
OOXt
K ] OUK
33 579 892
sic

eE uuwv

TR U B S
1241

TOUC

rell]

6 6

7 5

'

E E uucov

D b (e)]

ouxi ] (OUK ) ET

( P s T 322: 1 )

iaoXoc,

B C D L W d 6 f! f

fam 1.

; E uviuv s i c .

Lac . :

rell

rell

omit

6wEKa . . .SKEXsCaynv
eEeXeaun,v

[C]

e i c E uiiuv

urn

TOUC. jeKa uuac, ] uuac, TOUC. wexa

John

/143

1241

r> oap^...ouH lomeXei ou6ev, TO itveuua e o x i

(GenT 1 5 3 : 1 0 - 1 1 )
[Ad]*

John

Apparatus

(cont.)

av6puTtou

John

and

rell]

rell]

sEaXsEa

rell

ECEXsEaunv

6to6eKa

7:37

eoiuig o Inoouc. EKEHPotyEv XETTWVup PC

Ei

u.

HOI

TUVETID

W] Edv
TR U B S
33 579 892 1241

(ZeT

6 6

E t t i c . itya, epxEOQis

42:21)

[Ad]*

K B D I 58

II f a

faul.13

144/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

John

7:37

(cont.)

Lac:

John

7 5

( a ) r e l l ]

B (a);

omit

- D b e

6 6

A C

7:38

. 6 .
(PsT 21:2)
[AU]



( P s T 68:14-15) [ A l l ]
,
(JobT 371:21-23) [ C ]

. . . , [ , ,
[ ]
(PsT
310:15-16) [ C ] * *

, ,
(ZeT 381:6-8)
]
[C]
3

6 6 -

7 5

TR B S
K B D L N B n i
33 579 892 1241 a b e ]

Lac.:

John

fam 1. 13

AC

7:39

[
[ ]
( P s T 310:16-17) [ C ]
6 6

]
TR L'BS
fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241

7 5

D L i 8 II ? 8
3

rell]

omi t
b

rell]

Lac.:

(P

7 5

) AC

UBS

a b e rell]

75

UBS

6 6

L W;

Text

John

and A p p a r a t u s /14s

8:3-11

,
[] , [ ]ou . ,
,
[ ] ,
, []
.
,
, .

, []
, .
( E c c l T 223:6-13)
[All]

John

8:12

xoouou.

, "
( P s T 99:2-3) [ C ]
3

6 6 -

TR U B S
3
892 1241 ( a ) b ]
e

r e l l ]

r e l l ]

] ou
Lac.:

John

33 5 79

rell

AC

8:33

(GenT 9 9 : 9 )
6 6 -

7 5

Text:
TR U B S
579 892 1241 a b e
Lac . :

John

faml.13

[C]

D L W fam 1. 13 33

A C

8:34

... []
175:19-20) [ A d ] *
3

6 6

7 5

(GenT

^
TR U B S

f a m l . 1 3 33 579 892 1241 a e ] omit
D b
Lac . :

146/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

John 8:37

3

6 6 -

Text:
TR U B S P

33 579 892 1241 a b e

Lac . :

(GenT 218:30)

[C]

B C D L W A e f l Q

fam 1. 13

John 8:39
t o i e i v [
( E c c l T 274:24-25) [ A l l ]

17-18) [ A l l ]
,
(GenT 9 9 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) [ C ]

(GenT 234:

,
(GenT 2 1 8 : 2 7 - 2 8 ) [ C ]

[] ,
(JobT 151:13-16) [ C ]
,
(ZeT 262:14) [ C ]

Did
UBS
D L ]
f a m l . 13 33 579 ( 8 9 2 ) 1241 a b e
p t

ft

rell
Lac . :

6 6

ft
]

^
UBS

Did

[]

p t

T R C W i e n f S

7S

W (;

John 8:40
[] , ] [
[] , []
( P s T 3:13-14)
[C]
3

6 6 -

TR U B S
C L W
faml
33 579 892 1241 ]
D f a m 13
a b e

r e l l ]

D e

Text

John 8:40

(cont.)

xou 9eou r e l l ] xou itaxpoq uou

lie

r e l l ] omit

aiOKTEivuL
o v x a ] omit
XeXaXriKOt
iv

rell]

anonteivat

Mai

579

rell
rell]

l o c u t u s e s t (=XeXaXnHEv)

E K 8eou en>9ov

EYU)

x a i n><w

(ZeT 26:15)

EM xou 9eou egrixeov Mai n,Mu>- Pu6e

e l n X u O a , aXX' ewetvoc. Me a n e a x e i X e v
pue
TR U B S
1241 a b ]

eyto] 70) yap

EH

rell]

s5nX3ov
Mai

7 5

P
ou

N B C L W A f i f
P
D 0 e

fam 1 . 13 33 579

892

579

rell]

omit

P^

euauxpu

r e l l ] euauxou OUM

eXnXu6a

r e l l ] eXnXuOov

Lac.:

yap a u ' euauxou

(ZeT 366:15) [ c ] * *

6 6

r e l l ] e?EXn.Xu6a

r\>aii

[C]

rell

irapa

a^EOXEiXev

1241

8:42

eym

John

fam. 1.3

r e l l ] n,v OUK

Lac . :

John

and A p p a r a t u s /147

rell]

aEeaxaAxev

6 6

8:44
EM xou 6iaoXou y e w n P a v T o c . a u t o u q O e A n a a v r e c xac.
eiu6uuLac, auxou H O I E I V
(ZeT 234:18)
[C]

oxav XaXn xo ipeu&oc. ex t u n liwv X a X e i , o x i ^ E U O X H S

Mai o naxrjp auxou
(GenT 94: 22-23 ) [ C ]

eoxiv

148/

John

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

8:44

(cont.)

...

[]

( J o b T 151:21)

[C]

( P s T 70:19) [ C ]
...

( P s T 198:8-9) [ C ]
...
3

6 6 -

( P s T 198:14)

[C]

7 5

UBS
C D I i 6 ?
fam 1 . 13 33 579 1 2 4 1 ]
TR 892

a b

rell]

rell]

qui

Lac:

(= )

rell]

omit

892

e
579

John 8:45
[ ]
(PsT
3:15-16) C c ]

6 6 -

TR U B S
C L W fam 1 . 13 33
579
892 1 2 4 1 ] omit
D a b e

rell]

rell]

1241 b;

rell

r e l l ]

Lac . :

C fam 13

John 8:48

;
( P s T 145:26-27) [ C ]
Co ] []
;
( P s T 294:10) [ C ]

Text

John

8:48

and A p p a r a t u s

(cont.)
6 6

7 5

]
TR U B S
BCD
fam 1. 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e
()
1241

ou

rell]

rell]

Lac . :

John

7149

rell]

omit

omit

()

6 6

( L) W

D L 892

a e
M

f a m 1. 13

8:56

, ,
,
( E c c l T 326:19-20)
[All]
[] ,

(GenT 2 1 4 : 2 9 - 2 1 5 : 1 )
[Ad]
[ ] [ ]
,
( P s T 300:9)
[Ad]
...

( Z e T 305:9) [ A l l ]

,
(GenT 2 2 1 : 9 - 1 1 ) [ C ]
Text:
33

John

TR U B S p '
A B C D L r f a m l . 13
579 892 1241 a b e
3

6 6

7 5

9:1

...

(GenT 1 6 8 : 1 4 )

[Ali]

John

[AU]

( P s T 15:26)

9:2

[] - [][]
, ;
( j o b T 118 :23-25) [ A d ] *

TR U B S '

A B C L W i e n T B
fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b ]
D e
3

6 5

7 5

150/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

John

9:6

,
(ZeT
56:25)
[All]*
3

6 6

7 5

( D i d ) TR U B S "
,

f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e ]

John 9:16

( P s T 147:30)

[Ad]

, []
(PsT
294:9) [ A l l ]

John

9:28

( E c c l T 205:23-24)

[C]
3

6 6 -

a b ]
TR U B S
D L W fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241 e

r e l l ] omit

Lac . :

P^

John 9:39


(GenT 8 1 : 2 3 - 2 4 ) [ A d ] *
, [] [ ]
[] ( Z e T 392:22393:1) [ C ]

TR U B S

6 6

* D t i D ! fam 1 . 1 3 3 3 1 2 4 1 ]
579 892
6 6

1 2 4 1 ]

e rell

r e l l ]

6 6

rell

D a b ]

r e l l ]

rell]

D
omit 1 2 4 1

()

Text

John

9:39

(cont. )

BXeuooOLv H O I
TSVB\nai
Lac . :

John

Apparatus / 1 5 . 1

and

0 1 SXETEOVXE?

rell]

579

r e . l l ] omit

YEVFioovxai

faml3

10:9

ETU

eiyi

n Sopa.

eav

UBS

TR

av
xai

P 75

T I C iX6n. E i o E X E U O E t a i ,

A i ' euou eav

E E S X E U O E X [ a ] i not

Kai

6 6

vounv

eupnei

b rell]

fam

1 . 13

33

579

1241]

W A a e

omit

e i c e X 8 r ) ] eioeXOr) au)6n.Oxai x a i
C

[C]

eioeXeuosTai

Lac.:

251:16)

(ZeT

rell

892

John 1 0 : 1 0
eyo)

r)XSov...iva
[C]

etui nXSov

ion.v

EKUJOLV

Hal

i v a 5ion.v E X U O I V H O I

itepiocav

exiooiv

rcepiooov eymoiv

(EcclT

(EcclT

46:2-3)

82:16-17)

[C]
eyu)

nXBov
[C]

eya>

tionv

iva

Exaieiv

xai

Ttepicoov

EXIOOIV

(ZeT

303:11 )

TR U B S P *
K A B L W A 6 P. V Si fam 1 . 1 3 3 3
5 7 9 1 2 4 1 b e ] eyco 6e
D a

xai

TIEPIOOOV

6 6

7 5

EXIOOIV

rell]

omit

6 6

75

Tteptaoov
Ciolv
Lac:

rell]

rell]
C

nepiaaoxspov

l,u>r\v aiviov

f 579, (abundantius)

892

John 1 0 : 1 1
...om
VOUEUC. a p [ i ] O T O ? xn.v i|-'Oxnv s a u x o u E9n,xev unep av
EXnXuSev [ o u ] o a i TtpoSaxov
(ZeT 2 5 3 : 1 8 - 1 9 ) [ A l l ]

a b e

152/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

John 10:11

(cont.)

( Z e T 297:8 - 1 0 )
[All]

(ZeT 316:15-16)
,
[All]
...

(ZeT 354:17-19) [ A l l ]
.. . [ ] []
[]
( Z e T 356:4-6)
[All]
. 0
(ZeT 102:30-103:2! [ c ]

3

6 6

TR U B S "

579
1241 a e ]
x b

r e l l ] p a s t o r enim
(= )
a b

rell]

ovibus s u i s

Lac.:

rell]

(b)/autem

( a ) bonus

= )

f am 1. 13 33

b e

rell

C 89 2

John 10:14

(ZeT 278:16)
3

6 6 -

[C]

TR U B S
I 1 1! ! 2
f a m l . 13 33 579 1 2 4 1 ]
D
Lac:

C 892

John 10:15
...
[Ad]

[C]

(ZeT 303:12)

(ZeT 278:16)

Text

and A p p a r a t u s /1S3

J o h n 10:15 ( c o n t . )
3

TR U B S ,
a b e ]

D W

fam 1 . 13 33 579 1241

6 6

rell]

reil]
7

Lac.:

o v i b u s meis

(= )

b e

omit
C 892

J o h n 10:16

(ZeT 312:8-9)

[All ]

,

(ZeT 297:11-14)
[C]
3

TR U B S
1, S fara 1 . 13 33 579 1241
b e ]
D a
6 6

TR 579 1 2 4 1 ]

6 6

]
3

TR U B S
;
rell

6 6

rell

rell
7

D L fam 1

6 6

]
TR
1241
a b e;
rell
]
]
Lac.

7 5

b e ]

fam 13

579

a b e;

rell

rell

) C 892

J o h n 10:17
, ;

( P s T 238:221

...

[Ad]

( P s T 238:26-27)

... ,

( ZeT 3 0 1 : 5 )
[AU]

[Ad]

154/

Didymus

and t h e G o s p e l s

John 10:17 ( c o n t . )
... "

( P s T 148:10)

[C]

...

( P s T 238:37)

[C]

6 6

Text:
579

TR U B S
1241 a b e

Lac.:

7 5

D L W fam 1 . 13 33

C 892

John 10:18
]. [ ' ] , '
[] '
( J o b T 375:8-10) [ A d ] *


( P s T 41:18-19!
[AU]
' '

( P s T 148:10) [ A d ] *
' , '
( P s T 238:23-24) [ A d ] *

, ' '

( P s T 238:26-27) [ A d ] *

..."

( P s T 238:37) [ A d ] *
Reconstruction:
/ ' , '
' -

p t

6 6

Did
TR U B S P '
33 579 1241 a b e ]

r e l l ]

'.. .

Lac:

r e l l ] omit

rell]

7 5

potestatem

A D L W fam 1 . 13
DidP*

'

r e l l ]

i n toto

W :

579

autem

r e l l ]

! C 892

(= e )

Text

John

and A p p a r a t u s

/155

10:27

(ZeT 302:20-21! [ A d ] *

[C]

( P s T 58:6-7)

[C]

( P s T 236:31)

[C]

(ZeT 278:15-16)

UBS
L W fam 13 33 1241 a b e ]
TR
A D fam 1;
579
3

6 6

7 5

]
Lac.:

John

rell

C 892

10:28

,

(ZeT 302:21-303:1)
[C]
3
75

UBS

L 33 1 2 4 1 ] p o s t
TR
A D V fam 1 . 13 579 a b e
Lac:

C 892

John 10:29

[Ad]

( P s T 148:26)

[ [] [] [ ]

(JobT 22:20-21)
[C]

[] [] []
(JobT 150:11-13)
[C]
[ ] [] [ ] [ )
( J o b T 150.-24-26) [ C ]
...
31-149:1)
[C]

( P s T 148:

156/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

John

10:29 ( c o n t . )

f a m l 3 ]
TR U B S
A fam 1 33 579 1241
()
) a b e

rell]

r e l l ] omit

Lac:

7 5

UBS

6 6

6 6

A D L W

r a o e r e i l l u d ( =

'

7 5

! C 892

John 10:30

(JobT

( P s T 131:2) [ A l l ]

266:19-21)

( P s T 7:27-28)

(ZeT 35:5)

( Z e T 185:16)

6 6 -

[C]

[C]
[C]

TR U B S

579 1241 a b ]
DidP* W e
Lac:

[Ad]

f a r o l . 13 33

C 892

J o h n 10:32
en

( E c c l T 87:20) [ A d ] *

TR

a e;

D L fam 13 5 7 9 ]
UBS
fam 1 33 1241
b :
;
75vid

6 6

TR
A I, W fam 1 . 13 33 579 1241 a b ]
omit
UBS
H B D e
3

Lac . :

^ r e l l ] ouv
(P

7 5

) C 892

W;

ouv

P^;

omit

Text

and A p p a r a t u s

/157

John 10:33

[ ]

(GenT 9:3-4)

fi

[C]

(GenT 4 5 : 2 0 - 2 1 )

[C]

TR UBS

L W fam 1 . 13 33 579 a b ]
omit
1241 e

Lac:

7 5

rell]
(

7 5

rell]

6 6

1241

6 6

) C 892

John 1 0 : 3 5
' [ ]
[All]*

(328:17)
...
(EcclT 4 1 : 2 )

,
[C]

(GenT 1 5 9 : 3 - 4 )
[C]

[ ]

[]

...
(GenT 2 4 6 : 1 1 - 1 2 )
[C]

...

(PsT

187:21)

[C]

..,
(PsT

279:24-25 )

(ZeT

94:27-28)

279:24-25)

[C]

[]
(ZeT

[C]

[C]

TR UBS

L W
f a m l . 13 33 579 1 2 4 1 ]
D a b e
]
Lac. :

C 892

rell

158/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

John 10:36
pv . . .

(ZeT
94:29-95:2) [ C ]

a b e ]
TR U B S
L W fam 1 . 13 33 579

1241 r e l l ]

6 6

6 6

"

A B D

D W

] omit 579
]

rell

(} . ( ) r e l l ]
1241
Lac.:

C 892

John 11:26

(PsT 1 3 4 : 2 7 - 2 8 ) [ C ]
3

6 6

W] TR U B S "
D L fam 1 . 13 33 579 1241 a b e
Lac:

A B C

892

John 11:39
6

(PsT
15 :24-25 )
[AU]

John 11:43
,
3

( P s T 270:20)
6 6 -

Text:
TR U B S
33 579 1241 a b e
Lac:

892

()

[C]

A B C D L W A B D ' i S

f am 1. 13

Text

and A p p a r a t u s /159

John 12:2

( P s T 270:21-22)

TR A D W f a u l . 13 33 579 1 2 4 1 ]
UBS
L
3

eM

6 6

Lac.:

[C]

7 5

rell]

TR 3 3

C 892

J o h n 12:24
[] [] [
[], []
,
(JobT 156:4-7) [ C ]
[]
]
TR U B S

n D I, ? 8
fam 1 . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e ;
3

Lac . :

John 13:2
- []

( E c c l T 294 :15-16)
[All ]
[

( E c c l T 295:11-12) [ A l l ]
' [ ]
(JobT 245:9-10) [ A l l ]

(ZeT 4 3 : 9 )
[All]

John 13:13
..- ,

( P s T 58:9) [ C ]
,
-
( P s T 236:34) [ C ]
,

(ZeT 28:3-4) [ C ]

160/

Jphn

Didymus

13:13

and t h e G o s p e l s

(cont.)

,

(ZeT 182:21-22) [ C ]
HUPLO

TR U B S
fam 1 579 a b e
Lac:

fan-, 13 33 892 1 2 4 1 ]

C D m
4 f 2
6 6

7 5

J o h n 13:25

[] []
. . .
( E c c l T 15:20-21)
[AU]

J o h n 13:27
[] ,

iPsT
42:3) [ A l l ]
6[] [ ]
( P s T 293:22 ) [ A d ] *
[]
294:17) [ C ]

[ ]

(PsT 293:17)

[c]

[C]**
3

(EcclT

6 6

(ZeT 43:13)

TR U B S
C L 4 f
f a m l . 1 3 33 579 892 1241 ( a ! ( b ) ] o m i t
D e

D L 579 a b ]

1241 a b e ]

rell]

omit

rell]

]
Lac:

7 5

rell

rell
rell

Text

John

/161

13:30

John

and A p p a r a t u s

(PsT 149:3)

[Ad]

13:37

(John 375:25-26)

( P s T 148:17)

[Ad]*

[Ad]*

Did
TR UBS
C D L
f a m l . 13 33 892 1241 a ( b ) e ]

DidPt
w 579
6 6

Lac:

John

7 5

13:38

John

(JobT 375:27-28)

14:2

John

(GenT 2 3 2 : 4 ) [ A l l ]

14:6

(EcclT

( P s T 4:4)

( P s T 79: 24 )

...

43:5)

[Ad]
[Ad]

(PsT 155:16)

( P s T 138:27)

[Ad]

[Ad]

[C]

(PsT 252:24) [ c ]
Text:
TR U B S

33 579 892 1241 a b e
3

Lac

John

[Ad]

6 6

fam 1 . 13

75

14:9

(GenT 89:19) [ A l l ]

162/

Didymus

and t h e G o s p e l s

J o h n 14:9 ( c o n t . )

...

...

...

( P s T 147:6)

[Ad]*

( P s T 240:2)

( E c c l T 331:10)

[Ad]*
[C]

(GenT 5 8 : 6 ) [ c ]

...

( P s T 131:9!

( P s T 18:30-31)

[C]

[C]

( P s T 151:21)
( Z e T 185:16)

...

[C]
[C]

(ZeT 194:10)

[c]

(ZeT 259:11) [ C ] * *

TR U B S
D L W fam 1 . 13
33 579 892 1241 e ]
a b
3

6 6

7 j

Lac:

John 14:10

[Ad]*

(EcclT

(]

(GenT 1 7 6 : 2 1 )

( P s T 7:27!

,
[C]

87:19)

[C]

(ZeT 185:15-16)

( D i d ) TR S D S 8 f a m l . 13 33
579 892 1241 a ]
UBS & 7 5
L b e
6

6 6

UBS
]

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 e t o p e r a , 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
7 5

Lac . :

[C]

Text

and A p p a r a t u s /163

John 14:12
,

(PsT 15:20-21) [ C ]
]
TR UBS
D L W
f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b e
66
6

rell]

omit

...

rell]

Lac:

omit _in t o t o

John 14:21
, []
6
, []
(Ecc.1T 3 3 1 : 5 - 7 ) [ C ]
,

,
(ZeT 1 9 2 : 2 2 ) [ C ] * *
3

6 6

6e TP. U B S *
J 0 L II 8 ' 5
f a m l . 13 33 579 892 1241 a b ] o m i t
e
^

r e l l ]

rell]

Lac:

r e l l ]

892

rell]

rell]

fam 13

r e l l ]

579 e ;

7 5

John 14:23
[ ] , [ ]
* to ! [ ]
(JobT 224:10-12) [ A d ] *
'
(PsT 131:1) [ A d ] *

164/

Didymus

John 14:23

and t h e G o s p e l s

(cont.)

, ,
,
'
(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 ]
(a b ) ;
D e
]

TR A 1241

rell

(2)-,

rell

] omit
'
Lac.:
John

rell]

rell

892

14:27

6 , [.]
(ZeT 1 5 8 : 1 6 - 1 7 ) [ A d ] *

(ZeT 15:2)

[6]

[C]

(ZeT 171:22-23)

[C]

Reconstruction:
,

1

^ ' a e ] omit
TR U B S
fam 1 . 13 33 579 1241 b
Lac.:

John

6 6

7 5

C 892

14:31

,
[],

(GenT 1 1 0 : 1 )
( Z e T 398:4)

[C]
[C]

Text

John

14:31

(cont.)

Text:
TR U B S
a b e
Lac:

John

and A p p a r a t u s /165

6 6

"

7 5

fam 1 . 13 33 579 1241

C 892

15:1

.
{ E c c l T 42:21-22) [ A l l ]
...
[All]

(EcclT

( P s T 238:17-18) [ A l l ]

312:12)

( P s T 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

[Ad]*

(ZeT 6 1 : 1 3 - 1 4 )

, ,

(ZeT 1 7 2 : 7 ) [ A d ] *

TR A D fam 1. 13 1 2 4 1 ]

UBS ) I ? 3 3 579 a b e

Lac:

John

rell]

6 6 -

7 5

C W 892

15:2, 6

(ZeT 343:17-18) [ A l l ]

166/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

John 15:5
. ,
,

( Z e T 61:13)

( Z e T 172:7)

[C]

[C]

6 6

TR U B S
L i l f 2 f a i l l i . 13 33 579
1241 b e ] D a

Lac.:

7 5

C W 892

John 15:14
,

( P s T 198:12)
3

[C]

6 6

TR U B S
A B L fam 1 . 13 33 1241
a b e ]
D 579
.] ,
Lac:

7 5

rell

892

John 15:15

f a m l ]
TR U B S
f a m l 3 33 579 1241 a b e
Lac.:

7 5

( P s T 198:12) [ A d ] *

6 6

D L

C W 892

John 15:16
...

(ZeT 263:18-20) [ A d ] *
3

TR U B S

1241 a b e )
Lac.:

6 6

D L I 2 fam 1 . 13 33 579
;
omit

C W 892

John 15:19
[],

(GenT 1 4 9 : 9 - 1 0 ) [ A d ] *

Text

and A p p a r a t u s /167

John 15:19 ( c o n t . )
[] , ' [ ]

(JobT 66:29-31) [ A d ] *

( J o b T 137:4-5)

[Ad]*

Reconstruction:
, '

3

6 6

]
TR U B S
L '
f a m l . 13 33 579 1241 a b e; D
]
*
Lac.:

rell]

e t (= )

6 6

rell

C W 8 92

l o

J o h n 16:13
' [

( P s T 334:24-25)

(Ad)

John 16:33
,

TR U B S
K A B C D L W A 9 n ? S
1241 b ] q u i a ego (= o f t ) a e

Lac:

6 6

( Z e T 158:18)

[Ad]*

f a m l . 13 33 579

892

John 17:3
,

(EcclT
171:8-9)
[ C ] **
,
( P s T
13:11-12)
[C ]
,
[]
( P s T 240:6-7)
[C]
' ,
,
(ZeT 231:6-8) [ C ]

168/

Didymus and t h e G o s o e l s

John 17:3 ( c o n t . )

A D L W 33 5 79 12 41 ]
TR UBS
C fi fam 1 . 1 3 a b e

rell]
)
b e

rell]

omit

rell]

omit

Lac:

r e l l ]

( 6 6 !

solum e t verum

<=

W;

892

J o h n 17:5
,

( E c c l T 322: 7-8)
[AU]

iShlLj-Illl
,
, ]
Text:
TR U B S
1241 a b e
Lac:

7 5

6 6

(GenT 1 0 0 : 2 8 ) [ C ]
( P s T 246:26)

[C]

N A B C D L W i e n Y S

fam 1 . 13 33 579

892

John 17:12
,

( P s T 246:26)

[C]

3
66

UBS
K B C D L W fam 1 a b e ]

TR f a m 1 3 33 579 1241

Lac:

7 5

892

John 17:21

(JobT 266:19-21) [ A d ] *
' ...
(PsT 131:2) [ A d ] *

Text

J o h n 17:21

and A p p a r a t u s /169

(cont.)

iv" , ,
]
( P s T 179:4)
[AU]

,
Tg A
L
.

11 S fam 1 . 13 33 579 1241 ]
UBS p v i d C D W a b
3

]
Lac:

John

( 6 6

'

rell
7 5

392

18:4-5

. . . []

D a ]
TR U B S
Q fam 1 . 13 33 579 1241 b e
Lac

John

6 6

7 5

"

( P s T 148:13)

[C]

4 II 1

C U

892

18:6

...
148:13) [ C ]
Text:
TR U B S
1241 a b e
Lac:

John

6 6

"

7 5

18:7

(PsT 148:14)

[Ad]

18:8

(PsT 148:15)
6

TR U B S p
33 579 a b ( e ) ]
H

Lac:

John

fam 1 . 13 33 579

892

John

(PsT

( 5 6 )

7 5

[C]

A B C D L H A e n i ' Q
1241

fam 1. 13

892

19:14

[]
[All]

(GenT

189:23-24)

170/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

John 19:15
, ,
i P s T 32 :27-28) [ A d ] *

[] []

(EcclT

205:23)

( P s T 290:31)

[]

[C]

[C]

(ZeT 161:25)

,
( D i d ) TR U B S
- .
33 579 1241 a b e ]

[C]
f a m l . 13

6 6

Lac:

( 6 6

C D 892

John 19:23-24

"
( P s T 39:11-12) [ A l l ]

John 19:30
...
[C]

TR U B S p
N A B L e
33 579 1241 a b e ] W
3

Lac:

( 6 6 >

( P s T 238:25-26)

f a m l . 13

c D 892

John 19:37
[]
] [ ] ( P s T 295 :12) [ A l l ]
]

3

( P s T 295:4-5)
( Z e T 341:11)

[C]

[C]

Text:
TR U B S P
[, w i,\m 1. 13
33 579 1241 ( a ) b ( e )
Lac:

7 5

C D 892

Text

and A p p a r a t u s /171

John 19:38-40
&
[ ]
( Z e T 268:
6-8) [ A l l ]

John 20:19

,
( P s T 71:
25-26) [ A l l ]

172/ Dldymus and t h e G o s p e l s

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

M a t t . 3:3; Mark

1:3; Luke 3:4; John

( E c c l T 38:2 3-24 )

M a t t . 3:9: Luke

1:23

3:8

(GenT 2 1 8 - 2 6 - 2 7 )

M a t t . 3:10; Luke

3:9

6 [ ] ...
( E c c l T 68:15-16)
[ ]


]
( J o b T 369:13-16)



( Z e T 79:24-26)

M a t t . 3:10; 7:19; Luke

3:9

(ZeT 2 7 : 3 - 4 )


(ZeT 331:
13-15)

( Z e T 342:18-19)

M a t t . 3 : i l _ ^ Mark 1:8; Luke

3:16

...

( Z e T 358:27-29)

M a t t . 3:12; L u k e

3:17

-- 6' - '
(ZeT 331:17-21)

Text

Matt . 4:8; Luke

and A p p a r a t u s

/.17 3

4:5

(ZeT 44:25-45:1)

M a t t . 4:23; 9:35; 10:1

(JobT 3:33-34)

'

M a t t . 5:12; Luke 1:47; Rev. 19:7

[ ]
( J o b T 72:6-9)

M a t t . 5:16; 24:35; Mark 13:31;

......
( E c c I T 12:21-22)

Luke 16:17;

21:33

, [ ]
( E c c I T 340:19-20)

( P s T 245:29)

M a t t . 5:29; 5:30; 18:8; 18:9

[]

(Ecc.1T 6 9 : 1 - 2 )

M a t t . 5:37; James
...

[ ],

5:12

( P s T 199:1)

' ,

M a t t . 5:44; Luke

(ZeT 1 8 5 : 2 8 )

6:27

M a t t . 5:44; Luke

(PsT 69:6)

( P s T 77:5-6)

6:27-28

[]
,
( E c c I T 81:8-9)

174/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

M a t t . 5:44; Luke 6:27-28

(cont.)

( P s T 89:16-17!

...

(EcclT

124:7)

M a t t . 6:4, 6
[] & ,

( J o b T 37:21-22 !

( P s T 201:15)

Matt 6:9; Luke 11:2

( P s T 183:18, 20)

( P s T 190:16!

( P s T 205:21)

( Z e T 383:15)

M a t t . 6:9-10; Luke 11:2

[ ] ...

( P s T 280:4-5)

M a t t . 6:10; Luke .11:2

(GenT 104 :25-26)
-

[ ]

( P s T 205:22)

M a t t . 6:13; Luke 11:4

[ ]

(JobT
(JpbT

167:8-9)

286:18-19)

(PsT 28:2)

( P s T 62:5)

Text

M a t t . 6 ; 1 3 ; Luke 11:4

and A p p a r a t u s

/ I 75

(cont.)

( , )
(PsT 78:12-13)

(PsT 141:21-22)

( P s T 210:21)

(PsT 219:24-25)

Matt. 6 :21r

( P s T 305:7)

Luke 12:34

[ ],
44:16)

[ ]

(EccIT

M a t t . 6:24; Luke 16:13

( P s T 84:8)

M a t t . 7:7; Luke 11:9

(EccIT

350:19-20)

(ZeT 2 8 4 : 4 )

M a t t . 7:11; Luke 11:13

e i [ ]
6[] [ ] , []
[ ]
( E c c I T 314:5-7)

M a t t . 7:12; Luke

6:31

,
]
( E c c I T 223:21!

[ ,

[ ] ,

(GenT 1 8 3 : 6 - 7 )

M a t t . 7:17-18; 12:33;

Luke

6:43

[ ][]
. . .
( E c c I T 69:8-9)

176/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Matt.

7:24; Luke

6:47-48

.

( E c c I T 352:18-19)
,

( P s T 108:12-13)

(ZeT 183:21-23)

M a t t . 7:24-25;

Luke

6:47-48

]
( E c c I T 35:29-36:3)

M a t t . 8:2: Mark

1:40; Luke

5:12

(GenT

( P s T 132:13)

ue

( P s T 286:25)

M a t t . 8:3; Mark 1:41; Luke

5:13

(PsT 132:13-14)

(PsT 292:10)

M a t t . 8:12; 13:42,

54:11-12)

50; 22:13;

24:51;

25:30;

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

Luke 13:28

( E c c I T 199:5-6)

M a t t . 9:6; Mark

2:10; Luke

5:24

>
(PsT 158:19)

M a t t . 9:20; Mark

5:25-27; Luke

8:43-44

,
, '

(ZeT 57:5-7)

Text

Matt. 9 : 2 2 ; Mark

5:34; Luke

8:48

[,

M a t t . 10:22;

(ZeT 413:17)

24:13; Mark 13:13

( P s T 90:12)

M a t t . 10:30;

Luke

( P s T 282:1!

12:7

( E c c l T 122:19-20)

M a t t . 10:32;

and A p p a r a t u s /177

Luke 12:8

... . ...

( P s T 210:34-35)

M a t t . 11:3; Luke

7:19

M a t t . 11:7; Luke

[ ]

(PsT 133:7-8)

7:24

;
;
(JobT 357:26-28)

M a t t . 11:9; Luke

7:27

...

M a t t . 11:11;

Luke

(ZeT 252:13)

7:28

(ZeT 1 0 5 : 1 1 )

ou

(ZeT 358:26-27)

(ZeT 368:15-16)

M a t t . 11:15;

1 3 : 9 : 13:43; Luke 8:8; 14:35

( P s T 308:12)

178/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

M a t t . 11:16-17; Luke

7:32

,

( E c c I T 73:1-2)

M a t t . 11:16-18;

Luke

7:31-32

;...
,
,
( E c c I T 358:26 . . .
359:2)

M a t t . 11:19; Luke

7:34

6 e ,
( E c c I T 73:13-14)

Mat t . 11:21;

...

[ ]

(EccIT

159:1-2)

Luke 10:13

,

( P s T 136:18-19)
. .

,
[]
( P s T 236:5-7)

M a t t . 11:23; Luke 10:15

;
(JobT 313:23-25)

, , ,

(PsT 150:3-4)
, ,
( P s T 201:30)

M a t t . 11:25; Luke 10:21

(GenT 2 2 3 : 1 0 - 1 1 )
,[], ,
[ ] ,
[] ( 3 0 0 : 1 6 - 1 8 )

Text

M a t t . 11:25; Luke 10:21

and A p p a r a t u s

/79

(cont.)

,
[] []

[ ]
(PsT 312:21-22)

M a t t . 1 2 : 4 1 - 4 2 ; Luke 11:31-32
. . . [] []
, [ ] []
[ ].
[5] []
( J o b T 3:7-14)

M a t t . 12:45;

Luke 11:26

,
,


( Z e T 88: 2-5)

M a t t . 13:5-6; Mark

4:6-7

] [ ] [ ] ( J o b T 8 0 : 1 7 - 2 0 )

M a t t . 13:8, 23
[ ],

(PsT 233:28-29)

, [ , ]
(PsT 259:33-34)

M a t t . 13:31;

Luke .13:19

M a t t . 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke

(PsT 318:28-319:1)

9:23

[ . . .

(EcclT

...

(GenT

81:14)

...

(PsT 112:14)

209:13)

, [ ]

(PsT 198:21-22)

180/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

M a t t . 16:24; Mark

8:34; Luke 9:23

(cont.)

, ,
(ZeT 133:8-10)
,

M a t t . 16:25; Mark

8:35; Luke

9:24

, .
,
( E c c l T 77:25-26)

M a t t . 16:28; Mark

9:1; Luke

9:27

, -

(GenT 1 3 6 : 1 7 - 1 8 )
[],
(JobT 1 4 8 : 2 1 - 2 3 )

(ZeT 53:11-12)

[ ]
(ZeT 392:9-10)
[]

Matt, 19:27: Mark

10:28

209:19)

M a t t . 20:28; Mark

[]

(GenT

10:45

(ZeT 301: 5-6)

(ZeT 3 0 8 : 1 5 - 1 6 )

...
(ZeT 3 2 4 : 2 3 - 2 4 )
...

M a t t . 21:2; Mark 11:2; Luke

(ZeT 354:18-19)

19:30

[ ]...
(GenT 5 2 : 6 - 7 )

,


'
(ZeT 221:21-24)

Text

M a t t . 22:21; Mark

12:17;

Luke

20:25

M a t t . 22:29; Mark

and A p p a r a t u s /181

( P s T 155:11)

12:24

[]

(PsT 1:23-24)

M a t t . 22:32; Mark

12:27;

Luke

[]

20:38

(EccIT

199: 7)

...

(EccIT

(PsT 276:2)

...

M a t t . 22:39; Mark 12:31, 33; Luke 10:27;

James 2:8; L e v . 19:18

Rom.

312:17-18)

13:9; G a l . 5:14

... 6' ,
,
(ZeT 178:5-6)

M a t t . 23:25;

Luke 11:39

... []

M a t t . 23:35;

(GenT

125:19)

Luke 11:50-51

[ , [ 6 ]
[ ] []
(GenT 1 8 1 : 1 7 - 1 9 )

...
( P s T 70:14-15)

M a t t . 23:37;

Luke

13:34

M a t t . 23:37-38;

Luke

( P s T 134:2)

13:34-35

...
(PsT 186:28-29!

Matt. 23:38;

Luke 13:35

(EccIT

345:11)

182/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

M a t t . 23:38;
i5ou

Luke 13:35

(cont.)

u u i v

M a t t . 24:3; Mark

(ZeT 325:11-12)

(ZeT 367:10)

13:4; Luke 21:7

M a t t . 24:19; Mark

(ZeT 237:16)

13:17;

(PsT 12:7)

Luke 21:23

[ ] [! [
( E c c I T 173:25)


(GenT 2 4 5 : 1 9 - 2 0 )

M a t t . 24:29; Mark

13:24;

I s a . 13:10

...

( E c c I T 340:20-21 )
[ ]
( P s T 16:14-15)

M a t t . 24:31; Mark

13:27

...
(ZeT 2 1 : 1 9 - 2 1 )


( Z e T 30:25-26)

M a t t . 24 : 35; Mark

.13:31; Luke 21:33

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

( P s T 337:8-9)

(ZeT 5 5 : 26-2 7)

Text

M a t t . 24 : 35; Mark 13:31;

24:42, 4 3 ; 25:13; Mark 13:35;

Luke 12:39

[] , [ ]
(JobT 88:15-16)

M a t t . 24:45;

Luke 12:42

[ ]

Matt. 25:21,

(EcclT

46:29)

23

[]

(EcclT

[ ]
199:4 )

(JobT

72:5)

(EcclT

86:1-2)

' ,

( P s T 6:20-21)

M a t t . 25:26;

/183

Luke 21:33 ( c o n t . !

(ZeT 1 2 8 : 2 3 - 2 4 )

Matt.

and A p p a r a t u s

(ZeT 2 6 0 : 8 )

Luke 19:22

,

( P s T 251:23-24)

...

M a t t . 26:13; Mark 14:9

(GenT 1 8 3 : 1 4 )

M a t t . 26:24;

[ ] . . .

Mark 14:21

[] , []

(EcclT

172:24)

[ ] []

(EcclT

175:22)

[ ]
(JobT 62:7-8)
[ ]

[ ]

( J o b T 289:14-15 )

184/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

M a t t , 26:31; Mark

14:27

M a t t . 26:34; Mark

( P s T 33:12)

14:30

,
,

M a t t . 26:48; Mark

(JobT

375:27-28)

(PsT 148:18)

14:44

.. . ,
(PsT 293:28)
[]

M a t t . 26:49; Mark

14:45; Luke 22:47

[] []

M a t t . 27:40; Mark

( P s T 293:16 )

15:29

( P s T 29:5)
[ ]

(ZeT 341:6-7)

M a t t . 27:42; Mark

15:31

Mark

1:7; Luke

3:16; John

,
(PsT 130:18)

Mark

( Z e T 341:7 )

1:27

2:9; J o h n 5:8, 11

' []
(PsT 291:21)

Mark

5:30; Luke

8:46

(ZeT 3 4 : 7 - 8 )

[]

Text

Mark 8:38; Luke

and A p p a r a t u s /185

9:26

. uou...

(PsT 288:7)

Luke 3:6; I s a .

(PsT 93:18)

...

40:5

[]
['

(GenT

153:8-9)

(GenT 1 9 8 : 2 3 - 2 4 )

Luke 8:16; 11:33

. . . [
, ' ,
(] (ZeT 6 5 : 1 2 - 1 4 )

Luke 14:11;

18:14

(JobT 121:18-20)

[ ]

( P s T 201 : 32 -33 )
...

Luke

(PsT 264:29-30!

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!
... [ ],
( P s T 182:10-1.1)

186/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

John 6:33, 35, 41, 48, 50, 51, 58

(cont.)

,
...
(ZeT 119:13-15)

John 6:35, 48

( P s T 50:14)

. . .

(PsT 196:16)

( P s T 220:3)

(PsT 237:9)

[] ( P s T 3 3 1 : 1 3 - 1 4 )

John

10:3, 16, 27

[ ]
...
( E c c I T 38:10-11)
[] .
( E c c I T 38:19)

6
(ZeT 2 7 : 2 9 - 3 0 )

[ ]... []

(ZeT 103:11-13)

John 11:25;

14:6

(GenT 1 0 6 : 2 - 3 )

(PsT 147:12)

( P s T 239:32)

John

17:21, 22

,
(ZeT 2 6 8 : 1 9 - 2 0 )

Chapter
The

Gospel

For over
classified
varied

NT

T e x t o f Didymus:

Quantitative Analysis

two

hundred y e a r s t e x t u a l

MSS

by t a b u l a t i n g t h e i r

from t h e TR.

discipline,

IV

Although used

t h i s p r a c t i c e d i d not

rationale until

critics

analyzed

from t h e i n c e p t i o n of
f i n d an a d e q u a t e

that

" i d e n t i t y of reading implies i d e n t i t y of o r i g i n . "

1

o f t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e NT

K i r s o p p Lake

that

and

Hort's

argued

text

s i n c e the Byzantine t e x t

documents not

against

conformed t o t h e B y z a n t i n e

p o r t i o n s of t e x t .

t h e TR

and

g a v e an e l o q u e n t
By

i n the

standard.

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 o f a MS,

n e e d 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
remaining

1902

(Westcott

forms o f 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

completely

reason,

and

: in

" S y r i a n " ) came t o d o m i n a t e t h e t r a d i t i o n

Middle Ages, e a r l i e r

For t h i s

Lach-

e v e n t u a l l y b u t t r e s s e d by W e s t c o t t

Hort's understanding

they
the

theoretical

K a r l Lachmann p o p u l a r i z e d h i s d i c t u m

mann s p o s i t i o n was

and

agreements whenever

This i s readily
4

comparing v a r i a n t s .

done by

B. H.

came t o r e c o g n i z e t h e i n s u r m o u n t a b l e

the

collating

Streeter

e x p o s i t i o n o f t h i s method a s l a t e a s

the middle of the p r e s e n t century,

one

compare

textual

1936.

critics

d e f i c i e n c i e s of the t r a -

F o r a more d e t a i l e d a c c o u n t o f t h e r i s e o f t h i s t r a d i t i o n a l method o f MS a n a l y s i s and t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c o n t e m p o r a r y m e t h o d s a s r e a c t i o n s a g a i n s t i t , s e e my a r t i c l e

" M e t h o d o l o g i c a l D e v e l o p m e n t s 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 o f New T e s t a m e n t D o c u m e n t a r y E v i d e n c e , " NovT,
forthcoming.
2
I n t r o d u c t i o n and A p p e n d i x , v o l . I I , The New T e s t a m e n t i n
t h e O r i g i n a l Greek. ( C a m b r i d g e : M a c m i l l a n ,
1881).
3
Codex 1 o f t h e G o s p e l s and A c t s ( C a m b r i d g e : 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 , b u t q u i t e i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f L a k e ,
E d g a r 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 N e w b e r r y G o s p e l s ( C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 0 2 ) .
T h e Four Gospels: A Study of O r i g i n s . 5th impression
( L o n d o n : M a c m i l l a n , 1936) 25-76, e s p . 3 9 - 4 5 .
Streeter's
s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d statement of h i s methodological 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 than the f i f t h century, only
t h o s e r e a d i n g s n e e d be n o t e d w h i c h d i f f e r from t h e s t a n d a r d
t e x t ( p . 44, e m p h a s i s h i s ) .
5

187

188/

Didymus and t h e

Gospels
6

d i t i o n a l method o f MS
method may

a n a l y s i s and

classification.

p r o v i d e a " r o u g h and r e a d y " m e a s u r e o f

consanguinity.

But o v e r l o o k i n g documentary agreements i n

readings shared with the T R r e a d i n g s

very ancient,
of t e x t u a l

The
textual

i f not g e n u i n e c a n

alignments.

t h a t o f t e n prove

seriously

For t h i s reason, the

method o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n h a s g i v e n way
method o f q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s ,

skew t h e

be

traditional

t o a more

originally

to

picture

sophisticated

d e v i s e d by E .

C.
7

Colwell,

f o r m e r p r o f e s s o r o f NT

a t the University

I n s t e a d of counting agreements i n v a r i a t i o n
norm, s u c h a s t h e TR,
proportional
sentatives

f r o m an

Chicago.
extrinsic

t h e newer method t a b u l a t e s a w i t n e s s ' s

agreements w i t h c a r e f u l l y

i n al\

of

u n i t s of v a r i a t i o n

selected textual

judged

t o be

repre-

genetically

The d e a t h k n e l l f o r t h e method was s o u n d e d i n 1945 by

B r u c e M. M e t z g e r , "The C a e s a r e a n T e x t o f t h e 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 o f 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) 4 2 - 7 2 .
subsequent r e s e a r c h confirmed Metzger's f i n d i n g s ,
i n addition to
t h e a r t i c l e s o f 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 n o t e ,
s e e e s p . H a r o l d Murphy, " E u s e b i u s " New T e s t a m e n t T e x t i n t h e
D e m o n s t r a t i o E v a n c r e l i c a . " J B L 78 ( 1 9 5 4 ) 1 6 2 - 6 8 ; G o r d o n D. F e e ,
"Codex S i n a i t i c u s i n t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n : A C o n t r i b u t i o n t o
M e t h o d o l o g y 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
( 1 9 6 8 - 6 9 ) 2 3 - 4 4 ; Idem, "The T e x t o f J o h n i n O r i g e n and C y r i l
o f 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 t h e R e c o v e r y and
A n a l y s i s o f P a t r i s t i c C i t a t i o n s , " fiite 52 ( 1 9 7 1 ) 3 5 7 - 9 4 . I t
s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t e v e n i n t h e e a r l i e s t p e r i o d o f r e s e a r c h
n o t e v e r y o n e 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 o f t h e
t r a d i t i o n a l system of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .
S e e , e.g., t h e s c a t h i n g
a s s e s s m e n t o f 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 A r c h b i s h o p R i c h a r d L a u r e n c e , R e m a r k s on t h e S y s t e m a t i c C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f M a n u s c r i p t s A d a p t e d bv G r i e s b a c h i n h i s
E d i t i o n o f t h e New T e s t a m e n t ( O x f o r d , 1 8 1 4 ) , r e p r i n t e d i n t h e
B i b l i c a l R e p e r t o r y 2 (1826) 33-95.
S e e h i s r e v i s e d a n d u p d a t e d e s s a y s i n S t u d i e s i n Methodo l o g y i n T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m o f t h e New T e s t a m e n t ( G r a n d R a p i d s :
E e r d m a n s , 1 9 6 9 ) , e s p . "Method i n L o c a t i n g a N e w l y D i s c o v e r e d
M a n u s c r i p t , " 2 6 - 4 4 ; a n d "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 T e x t - T y p e s o f New T e s t a m e n t Manus c r i p t s , " ( w i t h E r n e s t W. T u n e ) , 5 6 - 6 2 .
The s u p e r i o r i t y o f
C o l w e l l ' s methods was d e m o n s t r a t e d by s e v e r a l s u b s e q u e n t s t u d i e s , most n o t a b l y G o r d o n D. F e e , "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, 1 9 8 1 ) .
The a n a l y s i s u s e d 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 a s
o u t l i n e d by F e e a n d H u r t a d o .

Quantitative

Analysis

/189

8
significant.
In

a pioneering a r t i c l e

analysis,
that

Colwell,

c l o s e l y r e l a t e d MSS,

agree

in approximately

significant
closest

of

r e l a t i o n s by

extrapolation

witnesses

other groups

of

t h a t MSS

another

( a 10%

the
be

of

vary.

Epistles,
the

L.

an

of

a n a l y s i s ; the

one

and

the

Tune

same

proxi-

a g r e e m e n t ) and

to

method i n r e c e n t
The

years

most s i g n i f i c a n t

be

different textual

l e v e l s of
of

MSS

set
at

g r o u p s must

a g r e e m e n t s , and
the

no

anticipated

of

the

these
Johannine

f o r e x a m p l e , R i c h a r d s showed t h a t members o f most

Nevertheless,

including

n e s s e s do

from t h e i r n e x t

Colwell

a group can

I n h i s c a r e f u l study

important aspect

dies,

Sinaiticus,
genetically

gap).

B y z a n t i n e subgroups agree i n the

variation.

of

observed

Richard's demonstration that

a l l o w e d ^ t o s e t t h e i r own

will

of

i n comparable
a 70%

Colwell's

a g r e e m e n t among MSS

outset

10%.

several modifications.

b r e a k t h r o u g h came i n W.

Tune,

belonging to

(at l e a s t

A thorough t e s t i n g of
effected

of

about

method

with Ernest

a l l instances

group would n o r m a l l y s t a n d
one

rate

quantitative

s u c h a s V a t i c a n u s and

70%

mity both to

has

the

v a r i a t i o n , while being separated

textual

r e a s o n e d by
textual

on

in collaboration

of

subsequent r e s e a r c h
Colwell's

Richards's,

This

of

90%

has

supported
stu-

h a v e shown t h a t A l e x a n d r i a n

wit-

conclusion

conclusions.

i n a b o u t 70%

of

of

of a l l

Several

tend to agree together

of v a r i a t i o n .

vicinity

all

instances

proves s i g n i f i c a n t for

the

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 t h e y i n d i cate textual relationship.

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 to s c r i b a l
e r r o r ( e . g . n o n s e n s e r e a d i n g s ) o r t o common s c r i b a l p r e d i l e c t i o n ( e . g . n u - m o v a b l e , i t a c i s m , OUTU/OUTOIC, e t c . ) .
For a
d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f t h e g e n e t i c i n s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e s e k i n d s of
v a r i a t i o n , s e e 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 G r e e k
M a n u s c r i p t s o f t h e J o h a n n i n e E p i s t l e s (SBLDS 35.
Missoula:
S c h o l a r s P r e s s , 1977) 3 3 - 4 1 .
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 n o t d e m o n s t r a t e a MS'e
a f f i n i t i e s with other
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

("The

G o r d o n D. F e e , i n an i m p o r t a n t m e t h o d o l o g i c a l s t u d y ,
T e x t o f J o h n i n O r i g e n and C y r i l o f A l e x a n d r i a :
A

190/

Didymus and

the

Gospels

a n a l y s i s of a witness, such
on

a s Didymus, who

c o u l d be

a p r i o r i g r o u n d s t o p r e s e r v e an A l e x a n d r i a n

s u s p i c i o n r e c e i v e s a remarkable
text

suspected

text.

And

the

c o n f i r m a t i o n when Didymus's

i s s u b j e c t e d to 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 q u o t e s Matthew more e x t e n s i v e l y t h a n

Synoptic Gospels.
sions)

When t h e s e q u o t a t i o n s

are collated

a g a i n s t t h e MSS

the

other

(and u s a b l e

allu-

r e p r e s e n t i n g the

major

t e x t u a l g r o u p i n g s i n Matthew, 1 6 3 u n i t s o f g e n e t i c a l l y

signi-

ficant variation

repre-

are uncovered. A rank

ordering of the

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 to 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
forth

i n Table

A c l o s e examination

Didymus's t e x t u a l
fragmentary

mus's t e x t
Byzantine
be d r a w n .

before

affinities

here

stood

t o be

i n Matthew.

construed

consideration

nesses that normally

number o f r e a d i n g s

i t s testimony

i s b o r n e o u t by
witnesses
agree

ments a l i g n t h e m s e l v e s

t h a t Didy-

t o an e a r l y s t r a n d o f

t h a t s i n c e A does not

of the t o t a l

(20/163),

the other Byzantine

Codex A i s s i m p l y

as evidence

the

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

I t s h o u l d seem o b v i o u s

s e r v e even one-eighth

list

i t accurately reflects

i n c l o s e proximity

traditiona

T h i s assumption

set

of these data r e v e a l s t h a t t h i s

r e q u i r e s a minor adjustment

too

i n the alignments

(p. 1 9 1 ) .

must be

pre-

under

discounted.

considering the alignments

(TR,

E,

A,

W,

e x t e n s i v e l y w i t h A.

of

, a ) , witThese docu-

w i t h Didymus + 2 0 % Ifegjj t h a n d o e s

A.

C o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e M e t h o d o l o g y i n t h e R e c o v e r y and A n a l y s i s
o f 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 a n o t h e r i n e x c e s s o f 8 0 % , t h e 7 0 % l e v e l o f a g r e e m e n t h o l d s
t r u e f o r the "secondary Alexandrians."
These f i n d i n g s were
c o n f i r m e d i n h i s s u b s e q u e n t s t u d y , " P 7 5 , P 6 6 , and O r l g e n : The
Myth o f 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 Dimens i o n s i n New T e s t a m e n t S t u d i e s , ed. R i c h a r d N. L o n g e n e c k e r and
M e r r i l l C. T e n n e y ( G r a n d 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 the 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 7 0 % i n the
J o h a n n i n e E p i s t l e s , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t members o f o t h e r
t e x t u a l g r o u p s a g r e e among t h e m s e l v e s a t h i g h e r l e v e l s
fClassification. 4 3 - 1 2 9 ) .
See

pp.

1 3 - 1 5 above.

Quantitative Analysis

/191

Table 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
A g r e e m e n t 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 Matthew
(163 u n i t s o f v a r i a t i o n )

1. A
3
2 .UBS
3 . 33
4. L
5. 892
6. K
7. c
8. B
9. n
10. Q
11. fara 13
12 . E
13 . TR
14. fam 1
15. A
16. 8
17. W
18. 1241
19. e
20. D
21. a
22 . b
23 . k

16/20
111/163
108/163
104/157
106/161
106/162
80/123
105/163
102/163
100/162
100/163
100/163
99/163
98/163
97/163
88/159
88/161
72/134
24/46
62/132
60/130
54/127
32/76

(80.0%)
(68.1%)
(66.3%)
(66.2%)
(65.8%)
(65.4%)
(65.0%)
(64.4%)
(62.6%)
(61.7%)
(61.3%)
(61.3%)
(60.7%)
(60.1%)
(59.5%)
(55.3%)
(54.7%)
(53.7%)
(52.2%)
(47.0%)
(46.2%)
(42.5%)
(42.1%)

F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , A c a n n o t be u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e
textual

affinities

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

f r a g m e n t a r y 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 :
what l e n g t h o f t e x t
No h a r d a n d f a s t

Didymus's

i n Matthew.

exactly

i s r e q u i r e d f o r an a n a l y s i s o f t h i s

sort?

r u l e h a s emerged f o r d e c i d i n g t h e i s s u e .

E a c h 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

192/

Didymus a n d t h e G o s p e l s

probably
be

used

than
be

question,

f o r e x a m p l e , w h e t h e r t h e O l d L a t i n MS k c a n

f o r t h e a n a l y s i s o f Matthew, s i n c e i t c o n t a i n s

h a l f o f 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 .

n o t e d t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f 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 other

Western group

(D, a , b, e ) .

enough t e x t t o be u s e d

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e

Apparently,

1241)

t h e seven

top the l i s t ,

the end.

of A i sdiscounted,

Table

I i s seen

leading Alexandrian witnesses

w h i l e t h e f i v e W e s t e r n d o c u m e n t s come a t

and C a e s a r e a n

texts,

E q u a l l y n o t i c e a b l e , however,

i n no c l e a r - c u t

pattern.

i s t h e absence of major

between t h e s e b l o c k s o f w i t n e s s e s .
out

In

(excluding

B e t w e e n 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 o f

the Byzantine

Leaving

breaks
3

t h e TR a n d UBS

o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e moment, t h e c l e a r e s t b r e a k s

b e t w e e n B and n
1241

(1.8% d i f f e r e n c e ) ,

and e (1.5% d i f f e r e n c e ) ,
last

of these breaks

e i s so fragmentary
of v a r i a t i o n
in

k preserves

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.

general,

The

then,

f o r the analysis.

A f t e r t h e testimony
to

fewer

But i t should

A and Q ( 4 . 2 %

and e and D ( 5 . 2 %

difference).

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

i n Matthew

( c o n t a i n i n g o n l y 46/164

under e x a m i n a t i o n ) .

T h e amount o f t e x t

MS e i s a d e q u a t e t o e s t a b l i s h a b a s i c a l i g n m e n t :

of i t s a t t e s t a t i o n should

units

preserved
i t joins

t h e o t h e r Western w i t n e s s e s a t t h e bottom o f t h e l i s t .
the s p a r s i t y

occur

difference),

But

c a u t i o n a g a i n s t making

t o o much o f i t s d i s t a n c e from D a n d t h e o t h e r s .
T h u s one i s l e f t
Alexandrian
in

with three groupings of witnesses: ( l )

documents which v a r y

r e l a t i o n s h i p t o Didymus,

Caesarean

documents w h i c h s p l i t

v a r y i n g among t h e m s e l v e s

from one a n o t h e r

o n l y 1.9%

(2) a group o f B y z a n t i n e and

i n t o two g r o u p s , t h e f i r s t

3.1% and t h e second

1.6%, and ( 3 ) a

g r o u p o f W e s t e r n w i t n e s s e s w h i c h v a r y among t h e m s e l v e s
T h i s comparative
no d o u b t ,
the

disparity

from t h e w i d e l y

recognized

uncontrolled character of

text-type.
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

is

10.1%.

among t h e W e s t e r n s o u r c e s d e r i v e s ,

juncture

c o d e x 1 2 4 1 , a document commonly a s s i g n e d t o t h e L a t e -

Alexandrian
proportion

group.

Why

i s i t t h a t 1241 e x h i b i t s

o f a g r e e m e n t w i t h Didymus

such

(53.7%), f a l l i n g

a low
to the

Q u a n t i t a t i v e A n a l y s i s /193

bottom o f t h e 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 ?

H e r e i t c a n o n l y be p o i n t e d o u t t h a t no
t h e document h a s b e e n p u b l i s h e d , and

thorough a n a l y s i s

i t s text

o f Matthew

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 .
view

of the ambiguity

The

Didymus's t e x t u a l

alignments

i n view

of the absence

more c o m p e l l i n g

when t h e a g g r e g a t e

g r o u p members a r e t a b u l a t e d .

at

of major

gaps

t e x t - t y p e s , becomes

r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f known

H e r e t h e work o f e a r l i e r

critics

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 a s s u m e d .
b e e n shown t o be
cannot

be

editions
TR

to

i n Matthew.

b r e a k d o w n o f w i t n e s s e s i n t o g r o u p s , w h i c h may

appear unconvincing

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

in

In

o f i t s w i t n e s s , i t s h o u l d n o t be u s e d

d e f i n e more c a r e f u l l y

first

of
has

used

Furthermore,

for the t a b u l a t i o n .

i s more ambiguous, s i n c e ,

a r e not,

strictly

speaking,

on

on t h e o t h e r hand, do
from t h e s e t r a d i t i o n s .

The

the testimony
aggregate

be p r o v i d e d ,

of the

t h e one

have
1241)

hand, UBS
and

and

Byzantine

represent e c l e c t i c
For t h i s
one

reason,

w i t h and

the

texts
two

other

editions.

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
(pp.

(A,

r o l e o f t h e modern

Early Alexandrian

drawn p r i m a r i l y

s e t s of t a b u l a t i o n s w i l l

or a b e r r a n t

The

documents, but,

without

w i t n e s s e s which

u n u s u a l l y fragmentary

i n Table I I

194-95).
H e r e t h e b r e a k d o w n o f w i t n e s s e s i s much c l e a r e r t h a n 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 t h e 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 o f UBS
i s t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t , 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 o f t h i s t r a d i t i o n ( 6 6 . 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

, h o w e v e r , Didymus's a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e e a r l i e r

drops a f u l l

percentage

p o i n t , m a k i n g him

strand

more c l o s e l y a l i g n e d

T h u s K i r s o p p L a k e and S i l v a New,
S i x C o l l a t i o n s o f New
T e s t a m e n t M a n u s c r i p t s (HTS, x v i i ; C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . ! H a r v a r d
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1932) 9 5 .
S e e f u r t h e r , pp. 205, 212 b e l o w .
1 4

S e e e.g. M e t z g e r , The T e x t o f t h e New T e s t a m e n t ; 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 e d . (New Y o r k :
O x f o r d u n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1968) 3 6 - 6 6 ; 2 1 3 - 1 9 .

194/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Table 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 o f A l l W i t n e s s e s With
A r r a n g e d b y T e x t u a l Group i n Matthew

Agreements
EARLY

Disagreements

Didymus

% Agreement

ALEXANDRIAN:
3
UBS

111

52

106

56

Totals

105
322

58
166

66.0%

3
T o t a l s w/o U B S

211

114

64.9%

LATE ALEXANDRIAN:
C

80

43

104

53

33

108

55

892

106

55

Totals

398

206

65.9%

720

372

65.9%

609

320

65.6%

(Average A l e x a n d r i a n )
(Average

Alexandrian
W/O

UBS

CAESAREAN:

88

71

98

65

fam

fam

13

100

63

Totals

286

199

59.0%

BYZANTINE:
TR

99

64

100

63

88

73

97

66

102

61

100

62

Totals

586

389

60.1%

T o t a l s W/O TR

487

325

60.0%

Quantitative Analysis
Table

/195

I I (cont.)

Agreements

Disagreements

62

70

60

70

54

73

24

22

32

% Agreement

WESTERN:

Totals

44

232

279

with the Late Alexandrians.

45.4%

A s i g n i f i c a n t gap

now

separates

t h e A l e x a n d r i a n g r o u p from t h e B y z a n t i n e , w i t h w h i c h
averages

a 60.1%

a g r e e m e n t when TR

from t h e L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n s )

and

i s included

60.0%

when i t i s n o t

o f 5.9%) . Didymus a g r e e s w i t h t h e C a e s a r e a n
t h e same r a t e 5 9 . 0 % ,
drians.

The

the

of t h e i r

inability

tradition

of p r i o r r e s e a r c h to e s t a b l i s h a

i n Matthew.

The

an a g g r e g a t e

Removed by

the
of

Caesarean
this

low

support

13.6%

from

the Western w i t n e s s e s agree

o f o n l y 45.4%

of

i n view

most s i g n i f i c a n t a s p e c t o f

the Western group.

nearest neighbors,

AlexanCaesarean

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and

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
Didymus by

and

a t a l l s u r p r i s i n g , both i n view
individual

5.8%

(a drop

w i t n e s s e s a t about

from t h e L a t e

c l o s e proximity of the Byzantine

g r o u p s s h o u l d n o t be
alignments

a d r o p o f 6.9%

Didymus

(a drop of

for

their

w i t h Didymus i n

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 t o
later

s t r a n d of t h a t t r a d i t i o n .

shows l i t t l e

o r no

evidence

Residual Methodological
Before
pels,
First,

extending

of Western

Didymus's

contamination.

a n a l y s i s t o the o t h e r t h r e e Gosi s s u e s must be

addressed.

must q u e s t i o n e v e n more r i g o r o u s l y t h e

of the r e l a t i v e l y

the

text

Concerns
this

some f i n a l m e t h o d o l o g i c a l
one

Furthermore,

significance

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 to

among t h e t e x t u a l w i t n e s s e s .

Why

i s i t that, with the

t i o n o f t h e W e s t e r n g r o u p , no m a j o r b r e a k s

occur

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 Table

Didymus
excep-

between
I?

Notably,

196/

Didymus and

the Alexandrian
t o 6 4 . 4 % (MS

be

Gospels

support

n by

witness

recalled

normally

t h a t they a l s o w i l l

Didymus n o t

These are d i f f i c u l t

common s e n s e

Why

o f t h e G r e e k MSS,

and

answers.

(2)

and

textual

analysis

apply

simply

a textual

cannot

must t h e r e f o r e p r o c e e d

MS.

circumvent

this
be

analysis:

surprising.

h a v e an u n a v o i d a b l e

they w i l l

tend

the textual

t h e same t i m e ,

alignments

problem:

See

p.

The

rigor,

and

evidence.

effect

on

Thus the

the

differ-

absence of l a r g e

Gospel

text-types i s
text

fully

so f a r d i s c e r n e d would

defined.

i t i s precisely this consideration

w h i c h makes t h e a l i g n m e n t s
more r e m a r k a b l e .
Alexandrian,

dif-

advances i n

t o "even out"

Were D i d y m u s ' s c o n t i n u o u s

d o u b t l e s s become more w e l l
At

inac-

always

in error.

with methodological

among t h e t e x t u a l w i t n e s s e s .

recovered,

to

source

often,

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
not

expected

f a c t o r s o c c a s i o n a l e r r o r s o f r e c o n s t r u c t i o n and

systematic c a u t i o n w i l l
statistical

clear

As p r e v i o u s l y

a d e g r e e o f 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

Both of t h e s e

ences

be

Methodological

reconstruction will

are

analysis.

r a n d o m l y and,

sometimes i m p o s s i b l e .

occasionally
critic

force: ( 1 )

in relationship to a P a t r i s t i c
o f a NT

which

two

difficulty,

T h i s makes t h e r e c o v e r y o f t h e i r t e x t

ficult,

of

questions

to uncover than

despite this

Greek t e x t

group

Nevertheless,

the groupings of w i t n e s s e s should

to the continuous

only

affiliations?

questions to address,

shown, t h e F a t h e r s q u o t e d t h e NT
curately.

from o t h e r

o f w i t n e s s e s h a v e emerged i n t h e

First,

not

does t h i s a n a l y s i s

clear-cut

final

from

i n + 7 0 % of a l l v a r i a -

separated

d a t a a r e more d i f f i c u l t

l e s s well defined

than

Tune c o n c l u d e d

considerations serve to mitigate t h e i r

the P a t r i s t i c

be

be

demonstrate such

c a n p e r h a p s r e c e i v e no

alignments

(MS 3 3 )

I n t h i s regard, i t

agree

about about 1 0 % .

w i t n e s s e s by

those

only 1 . 8 % .

t h a t C o l w e l l and

t h a t g r o u p members w i l l
t i o n but

from 6 6 . 3 %

f o r Didymus r a n g e s

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

the Byzantine
should

the

Table

anti-Western
1 8 9 above.

u n c o v e r e d by

I I (pp.

1 9 4 - 9 5 )

the a n a l y s i s a l l the
shows t h e

unmistakably

q u a l i t y o f Didymus's Gospel

text.

Quantitative Analysis

I n v i e w o f t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e a v a i l a b l e d a t a , one
s t r u c k b o t h by

the r e l a t i v e l y high

the Alexandrian
and

w i t n e s s e s and

the others.

tradition
cal

reading,

ants p o t e n t i a l l y

T h i s not

the Alexandrian

textual

T h i s matter

of

How

can

statistical
cance
put
is

suggested

by

show how
that

gssA

i s , how

How,

f o r example, can t h e

Obviously

than Western.

the proportional

But

agreement:

is.

r e l a t e s to the other

w i t n e s s e s i n comparison with the proximity

t o one

In theory

the comparative

c o u l d be

end,

Table

one

another

(p.

198).
The

do

not

not

show,

Alexandrian

of t h e s e

witnesses

real

significance

r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o him
t i o n s addressed

by

of t h i s

furthest

t a b l e c a n be

s e e n by

rank-

T h i s procedure

rank-orderings

will

The

ques-

a r e w h e t h e r Didymus

has

of agreements w i t h w i t n e s s e s t h a t
and,

conversely, a

relatively

of agreements w i t h w i t n e s s e s t h a t appear to
Leaving

a s i d e MS

w i t n e s s e s w i t h the h i g h e s t agreements w i t h
How

i n Didymus

have a l r e a d y been e s t a b l i s h e d .

such

removed from h i s t e x t .

L.

To
with

i n r e l a t i o n t o w i t n e s s e s whose

his closest allies,

proportion

rela-

of a l l other w i t n e s s e s .

of each w i t n e s s .

a r e l a t i v e l y high proportion
a p p e a r t o be

Didymus's

c o n s i d e r i n g them i n

i n t h e p o r t i o n s o f Matthew p r e s e r v e d

show w h e r e Didymus s t a n d s

and

Didymus i s f a r

I I I shows t h e a g r e e m e n t s o f a l l w i t n e s s e s

ordering the a f f i n i t i e s

33,

be

significance

T h e y do

s i g n i f i c a n c e of

a s c e r t a i n e d by

t i o n s h i p to the mutual alignments

low

signifi-

another.

alignments

this

questhese

witness

these s t a t i s t i c s

an A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s he
c l o s e l y he

Alexan-

s i g n i f i c a n c e of

a g r e e m e n t o f Didymus w i t h a n o t h e r

a c o n t r a s t i n g 45.4%

more A l e x a n d r i a n

of

s e t of methodological

gauge t h e r e l a t i v e

into perspective?

vari-

for a c l e a r e r understanding

t r a d i t i o n as a whole.

breakdowns?

o f a 65.9%

for ascertaining

" r e l a t i v e l y high agreement" w i t h

one

group

Alexandrian

o n l y makes h i s u n e q u i v o -

significant

d r i a n w i t n e s s e s l e a d s to a second
tions.

a v e r y good

i t a l s o makes t h e c o l l o c a t i o n o f

significant

with

the d i s p a r i t y between t h i s

for a given v a r i a n t

the o r i g i n a l

be

a g r e e m e n t o f Didymus

Didymus must h a v e had

at his disposal.

support

must

/197

w e l l Didymus s u p p o r t s

A,

the

Didymus a r e UBS

the readings

be

three

found i n

198/

Didymus

and

the

Gospels

"1

rTT"T

s;

Mi!

I!

i\s

si s! s

5! :..

s; s
Z , 2

. J:
1

5is

Q u a n t i t a t i v e A n a l y s i s /199

t h e s e w i t n e s s e s c a n be s e e n i n t h e f o l l o w i n g

rank-orderings.

33
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%)
(73,.1%)
10. L
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%)
(69 .4%)
17. 1241
18. DIDYMUS (68,.1%)
(61 .4%)
19. D
(51..3%)
20. k
21. e
(51 .0%)
22 . a
(46 .9%)
23. b
(45 .5%)

3 ~

1. C

(81. .3%)

1. UBS

(73..1%)

2.

(80. .7%)

2. C

(72. ,5%)

892
3

(77 3%)

3. 33

(72. .4%)

4. TH

(77. ,3%)

4. E

(72..4%)

5. 2

(77. .2%)

5. 892

(72. .2%)

6. A

(75..0%)

6. A

(72..2%)

7. n

(74. .8%)

7. fam 13

(71. .2%)

8. B

(74, ,8%)

8. B

(70. .5%)

9. W

( 7 3 . ,7%)

9. n

(69. ,9%)

3 . UBS

( 7 3 . ,6%)

10.

TR

(69. .9%)

(73. .0%)

11.

(69. .7%)

12. E

(73. ,0%)

12 . 1241

13.

(72..4%)

13.

(69. .2%)

14.

1241

(70. ,1%)

14. W

(66. .7%)

15.

(68. ,5%)

15.

(66. .4%)

16.

DIDYMUS

(66, ,3%)

16.

DIDYMUS

(66. .2%)

17.

(65.4%)

17. N

(65, .6%)

18.

fam 13

(65.. 0%)

18.

fam 1

(64. .1%)

19.

(50. .0%)

19.

(48, .8%)

20.

(50. .0%)

20.

(43, .2%)

21.

(42..9%)

21.

(40, .0%)

22 . a

(42,.0%)

22 . b

(39, .0%)

23 . b

(41..1%)

23.

(33 ,9%)

10.
11.

fam 1

O b v i o u s l y Didymus d o e s n o t s t a n d
ship to these texts
Similar

results

as they stand

a r e obtained

the w i t n e s s e s f u r t h e s t

i n as close

i n relationship

(69. ,3%)

a relationt o him.

when D i d y m u s ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o

removed f r o m h i s t e x t a r e g a u g e d .

200/

Didymus

and t h e G o s p e l s

fe

1. b
2. e
3 .k
4. D
5. A
6. n
3
7 . UBS
8. DIDYMUS
9. E
10. TR
11. K
12. fam 13
13 . 892
14. Q
15. A
16. C
17. 33
18. 9
19. B
20. 1241
21. fam 1
22. w
23. L

(83.,7%)
(76.,5%)
(67,1%)
(64,.0%)
(52,.9%)
(47,.7%)
(46,.9%)
(46,.2%)
(46,.2%)
(45..4%)
(45,.0%)
(44..6%)
(43.,8%)
(43..8%)
(43,.8%)
(43..2%)
(42,,0%)
(41,.7%)
(41..5%)
(40,.0%)
(40,.0%)
(38.4%)
(33.9%)

1.
2.

These a r e p u z z l i n g alignments
is
But

ranked

(83.,7%)
(71.,7%)
e
3. D
(64., 6 % )
4. k
(63.,6%)
(47.,1%)
5. A
6. UBS 3
(45.5%)
7. fam 13 (45,.2%)
(45,.2%)
8. n
9. 9
(45 0%)
10. TR
(44.,8%)
11. E
(44.,4%)
(43.,5%)
12. B
13 . 892
(43.,4%)
(43.,1%)
14. K
15. fl
(42.,7%)
(42.,7%)
16. A
17. DIDYMUS (42.,5%)
18. 33
(41,.1%)
(40.,4%)
19. C
(39.,0%)
20. L
21. 1241
(38,.1%)
22. W
(36,.4%)
23. fam 13 (36,.3%)
a

w h e r e one w o u l d e x p e c t ,

indeed.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

(69.,6%)
(67.,1%)
(63..6%)
b
a
(61.,8%)
(61.,8%)
TR
n
(60.,8%)
(60.,5%)
E
A
(55,.3%)
(53.,8%)
e
6
(52.,5%)
(51.,3%)
UBS
W
(50..7%)
K
(50.,7%)
33
(50.,0%)
(50.,0%)
fam 1
B
(48.,7%)
(47.,4%)
892
(47,.4%)
fam 13
(44,,8%)
c
(43.,2%)
L
DIDYMUS (42,.1%)
1241
(41,.1%)
A
(0,.0%)
a

F o r MS k

Didymus

n e a r t h e bottom o f t h e l i s t .

h e 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 h e i s t o UBS

he s t a n d s
ness.

i n closer proximity

t o MS a t h a n

t o any other

How c a n t h e s e f a c t s be e x p l a i n e d ?
Before

addressing t h i s question d i r e c t l y ,

i t i s important

t o n o t e one o t h e r p u z z l i n g f e a t u r e o f 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 n o t s t a n d w h e r e one w o u l d e x p e c t .
t h e W e s t e r n w i t n e s s e s show c o n s i s t e n t a l i g n m e n t s ,
together
and

and

wit-

a t t h e top of the rank-orderings

a t t h e bottom o f t h o s e

f o rAlexandrian

Only

standing

f o r g r o u p members
witnesses

(with the

Quantitative
e x c e p t i o n o f MS
are

e i n r e l a t i o n s h i p t o MS

highly fragmentary).

domly, s h o w i n g no

(72.5%),

and

k, w h e r e b o t h

Taking

L has as i t s c l o s e s t

one

(72.4%).

But

ran-

example,

allies,
3

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
33

texts

w i t n e s s e s tend to f a l l

i n n e r group a d h e s i o n .

t h e L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n MS
would expect,

Other

Analysis/201

as

(73.1%), C

t h e B y z a n t i n e MS

E stands i n

p r o p o r t i o n a l l y t h e same r e l a t i o n s h i p t o L a s d o e s 33,
contrast

t o t h e o t h e r B y z a n t i n e documents

66.4%).

And

relatively
c a n be

the otherwise c l o s e l y

f a r removed

(65.6%).

What c o n c l u s i o n c a n be
these textual

Such unexpected

occur

derives entirely
Father.
occur

As

be

which

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

Of

K .

tently

L happens

i n every p o r t i o n of t h e i r

these
texts

predictability

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

even here, w i t h o t h e r A l e x a n d r i a n s .

that

total

T h i s d o e s n o t mean t h a t

c o u r s e t h e r e i s some m e a s u r e o f

the alignments:

selves,

But n o t

themconsis-

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
conclusion.

For P a t r i s t i c

evidence

such a s Table I I I a r e of l i t t l e

t e x t s of others, such

could then a s c e r t a i n ,

in relationship

group membership.
mally taken
of C o l w e l l .
See

methodological

sort,

t e x t o f one

graphics

To be
MS

sure, i f

a g a i n s t the

a g r a p h i c would prove

useful.
of K

say, the r e l a t i v e a f f i l i a t i o n s

t o D k,
This,

of t h i s

o r no v a l u e .

were comparing the c o n t i n u o u s

continuous
B

church

demonstrably

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

c l o s e r to E than to

o f Matthew.

One

escaping
evidence

from t h e s p o r a d i c q u o t a t i o n s of a

r e l a t i o n s h i p s are maintained

one

Simply

text

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 those

texts.

in

i s no

f o r the simple reason t h a t the

a consequence, the alignments

obtain in a f u l l

to

alignments
every witness.

i n p o r t i o n s of
There

W,

stands

drawn from t h e s e f i n d i n g s ?

alignments

w h i c h h a v e b e e n c o l l e c t e d a t random.
circumstance

in stark

69.9%;

Sinaiticus

found i n t h e r a n k - o r d e r i n g s of v i r t u a l l y

this:

this

( e . g . TR,

related

one

and

draw c o n c l u s i o n s

in fact,

concerning

has been the approach

nor-

i n a n a l y s e s o f t h i s k i n d , s t a r t i n g w i t h t h e work
But a s t h i s
the works c i t e d

study

shows, t h e a p p r o a c h d o e s

i n n.7,

p.

188,

above.

not

202/

Didymus and

the

Gospels

work w e l l when s e e k i n g t o p o r t r a y t h e a f f i n i t i e s
fragmentary

and

of a h i g h l y

randomly s e l e c t e d c o l l e c t i o n of d a t a , as i s

u s u a l l y the case 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 the 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 ?
in

O n l y by

s e t t i n g the findings

r e l a t i o n s h i p to q u a n t i f i e d a f f i l i a t i o n s already

determined

for 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
continuous

texts.

Thus the Colwell-Tune

group w i t n e s s w i l l

agree

i n approximately

w i t h o t h e r g r o u p members, w i t h a +10%
g r o u p s , c a n be u s e d
gested,

the s p e c i a l
that occur
+65%

lowered

c h a r a c t e r of P a t r i s t i c
f r e q u e n t l y but

70%

As

between

already

sug-

somewhat i n v i e w

q u o t a t i o n s and

sporadically,

lowered

perhaps

Didymus r a r e l y

i n Mark
quotes

ten v e r s e s of the Gospel

cally

the Gospel

c a n be

Of

frequently

than

this.

But

i s o l a t e Marcan q u o t a t i o n s
Mark's G o s p e l

i s not

by Matthew and

Mark a s t h e a u t h o r

f o u n d among t h e s e

refer-

i t i s practically

impossible

for three reasons:

( 1 ) most

since

( 2 ) Didymus r a r e l y

M a r c a n form o f t h e t e x t ;

and

only

commen-

w e l l h a v e q u o t e d Mark more

"distinctive,"

Luke;

i n the Toura

only ten u n i t s of g e n e t i -

c a n be

c o u r s e , Didymus may

o f Mark: p a r t s o f

isolated

E v e n more s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,

significant variation

ences.

to a
6-8%

groups.

Didymus's A f f i n i t i e s

taries.

of

allusions

a g r e e m e n t o f a w i t n e s s w i t h g r o u p members w i t h a

d i s p a r i t y between

i t was

"reproduced"

cites a

uniquely

( 3 ) n e v e r d o e s Didymus

of a quotation.

As

to
of

a result,

identify

there are

h a r d l y enough d a t a t o p r o d u c e a q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s .
e v e n when t h e a n a l y s i s
cannot
larly

i s undertaken,

be c o n s i d e r e d r e l i a b l e by
unfortunate

Caesarean

because

text only

themselves.

aggregate

And

certainly

This i s particuisolated

the

i n Mark.

combined w i t h t h a t

the evidence

from t h e o t h e r G o s p e l s

p i c t u r e o f Didymus's G o s p e l

demonstrates

the r e s u l t s

p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h has

These c a v e a t s notwithstanding,
be

of a l l v a r i a t i o n

disparity

as a s t a r t i n g point.

t h e s e numbers s h o u l d be

their

r u l e o f thumb t h a t

text.

( p . 2 0 3 ) , Mark's m i n o r r o l e

from Mark

to provide
As T a b l e

in this

total

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 t h e m a j o r r o l e s p l a y e d by

can

an

IV
picture
the

Q u a n t i t a t i v e A n a l y s i s /203

other

Gospels.
Table IV

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 Mark
(10 u n i t s o f v a r i a t i o n )

10/10

1.

9/10

3 . 892

9/10

(90.0%)

4. L

9/10

(90.0%)

5. C
6. UBS

of

some MSS

of

the data.

6/7

(85.7%)

8/10

(80.0%)

8/10

(80.0%)

8.

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%)

5/10

(50.0%)

14. A

5/10

(50.0%)

15. E

5/10

(50.0%)

16.

fi

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.

4/10

(40.0%)

23. a

3/9

(33.3%)

24. k

1/3

(33.3%)

25. e

0/1

(0.0%)

fam 1

Didymus a l i g n s most
least

(90.0%)

7.

13. TR

nesses,

(100%)

2. B

frequently with Alexandrian

f r e q u e n t l y w i t h Western. The p e c u l i a r

( e . g . MS

witalignments

33) d e r i v e o n l y f r o m t h e e x t r e m e

sparsity

I n v i e w o f t h i s p r o b l e m , t h e r e i s no r e a s o n t o

a n a l y z e Didymus's

text

o f Mark a n y f u r t h e r a t t h i s

stage.

204/

Didymus a n d t h e G o s p e l s

Didymus's A f f i n i t i e s

i n Luke

The d a t a f o r D i d y m u s ' s t e x t o f L u k e a r e c o n s i d e r a b l y more

promising.

A s c a n be s e e n

q u o t e s and a l l u d e s

i n the c r i t i c a l

t o Luke e x t e n s i v e l y .

apparatus,

representative

witnesses

of v a r i a t i o n .

S i g n i f i c a n t l y , the quantitative

forth

i n these references reveals

i n Table V demonstrates t e x t u a l

those already

Didymus

A c o l l a t i o n of the
125

units

analysis set

alignments comparable t o

f o u n d i n Matthew.
Table 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 L u k e
(125 u n i t s o f v a r i a t i o n )
3
1. UBS

91/125

( 7 2 . 8%)

2. H

88/123

( 7 1 . 5%)

3. B

89/125

(71. 2%)

4. L

88/125

(70. ,4%)

5. fam 1

87/124

(70.2%)

6. 579
75
7. P

85/122

(69. 7%)

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.

79/124

( 6 3 .,7%)

13 . n

78/125

(62 .,4%)

14.

77/124

(62.,1%)

15.

27/45

(60., 0%)

16.

1241

75/125

(60., 0%)

17 . A

74/124

(59..7%)

18.

72/124

(58..1%)

19.

TR

71/125

(56, .8%)

20.

69/122

(56, .6%)

21.

3 6/86

(41,.9%)

22.

39/94

(41,.5%)

23 . D

46/120

(38 .3%)

24 . e

30/92

(32 .6%)

Q u a n t i t a t i v e A n a l y s i s /205

As

i n Matthew, D i d y m u s ' s t e x t

the Alexandrian

o f Luke s t a n d s c l o s e s t t o

w i t n e s s e s and f u r t h e s t

from t h e W e s t e r n .

Between t h e s e b l o c k s o f w i t n e s s e s s t a n d t h e B y z a n t i n e and
Caesarean

MSS

i n random o r d e r .

derable d i s p a r i t y

There

Only t h r e e unexpected alignments

falls

i s , once a g a i n ,

among t h e W e s t e r n w i t n e s s e s

i n the midst

of the Alexandrian

occur here:
group,

i t s text;

preserving

only

1241,

fam 1, w h i c h

undoubtedly

because of t h e c u r i o u s i n f u s i o n of Alexandrian
11
throughout

consi-

themselves.

readings

c, w h i c h i s h i g h l y f r a g m e n t a r y

45/125 u n i t s o f v a r i a t i o n ;

whose t e x t u a l c h a r a c t e r i s b e c o m i n g

i n Luke,

and, once

again,

increasingly

suspect.
When t h e MS s u p p o r t

f o r Didymus's t e x t

down by t e x t - t y p e s , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s
result.

i n Luke i s broken

charted i n Table VI

( 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 n o t c o u n t e d among t h e A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s ) .
Table VI
P r o p o r t i o n a l A g r e e m e n t s W i t h Didymus A r r a n g e d
By T e x t u a l Group i n L u k e

Agreements
EARLY ALEXANDRIAN:
3
UBS
75

Disagreements

91

% Agreement

34

56

25

88

35

89
324

36
130

71.4%

233

96

70.8%

B
Totals
3
T o t a l s w/o UBS

i i
See

Metzger, Text,

See

pp. 1 9 3 , 2 1 2 .

12

p. 2 1 5 .

206/

Didymus a n d t h e G o s p e l s

Table VI
Agreements
LATE

(cont.)

Disagreements

% Agreement

ALEXANDRIAN:
C

27

88

37

W (1:1-8:12)

18

15

80

45

33

83

41

579

85

37

892

85

40

466

233

66.7%

790

363

68.5%

699

329

68.0%

Totals
(Average

Alexandrian)

(Average

Alexandrian
W/O

UBS )

18

CAESAKEAN:
8

79

45

fam 1

87

37

fam 13

80

45

Totals

246

127

66.0%

BYZANTINE:
TR

71

54

77

47

W (8:13-24:53)

54

37

74

50

78

47

69

53

Totals

423

288

59.5%

T o t a l s W/O TR

352

234

60.1%

WESTERN:
D

46

74

39

55

36

50

30

62

151

241

Totals

38.5%

Quantitative Analysis

H e r e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f t h e g r o u p s t o Didymus a r e
more c l e a r - c u t

than

i n Matthew.

A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s i n 68%
+8%

b e t w e e n t h i s g r o u p and

Didymus a g r e e s w i t h

of a l l v a r i a n t s ,

the Byzantine.

Of

agreement

agreement.

(66.0%)

As

fam

percentage

points

(to 63.9%).

t h e o t h e r hand, a g r e e w i t h
38.5%

of a l l v a r i a t i o n .

The

Didymus i n an

Alexandrian

because

of

total

fam

more

than

Western w i t n e s s e s ,

on

a s t o n i s h i n g l y low

Thus, once a g a i n ,

preserve a predominantly

res-

Caesarean

Excluding

1 from t h e t a b u l a t i o n w o u l d d r o p t h e C a e s a r e a n
two

with a

expected

1 w i t h Didymus.

of

Alexandrian

already intimated, the

i s h i g h e r t h a n w o u l d be

t h e e x t e n s i v e agreement of

even

the

w i t h a gap
the

s u b g r o u p s , Didymus s t a n d s c l o s e r t o t h e e a r l i e r ,
p e c t a b l e 71.4%

/207

text

Didymus i s s e e n
f a r removed

to

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 q u o t e s J o h n more e x t e n s i v e l y t h a n
pel.

C o l l a t i o n s of h i s quotations

and

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
proportional

r e l a t i o n s h i p s thereby

T a b l e V I I (p.
One

i s immediately

s t r u c k by

the f a i l u r e

i s , notably,

to t h i s

observation

These w i t n e s s e s again
supporting

not

the

The

Western

or l e s s

witnesses

of

of a l l v a r i a t i o n .

of the

Alexandrian

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 ) , although

Byzantine

occur here.

in

align-

form a c l e a r b l o c k a t t h e end

Didymus i n 50%

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

C,

in

of the q u a n t i t a -

do

attestation.

The

f o r Didymus's t e x t

only exception

the l i s t ,

the

208).

F o r t h e most p a r t , t h e c l e a r p a t t e r n s o f t e x t u a l

group.

Gos-

uncovered are s e t f o r t h

ment f o u n d i n t h e S y n o p t i c s s i m p l y

(33,

other

against

u n i t s of v a r i a t i o n .

t i v e a n a l y s i s t o i s o l a t e group support
John.

any

allusions

list

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
(fam 13,

fam

1, 2)

i s negligible.

and

Fur-

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 the
with 57.0%).

list
Nor

antine witnesses.
only

0.3%

(note P

can

any

with

59.6%

u n i f o r m i t y be

a g r e e m e n t and

892

f o u n d among t h e

Codex S r a n k s s e v e - i t h on

from D i d y m u s ' s c l o s e s t A l e x a n d r i a n

the

list,

allies,

Byz-

removed
while

208/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

c o d e x A r a n k s n i n e t e e n t h . E v e n more s t r i k i n g i s t h e
tently

even d i s t r i b u t i o n of w i t n e s s e s .

b r e a k b e t w e e n 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 b e t w e e n 892
that

i s , a t the beginning

o f t h e Western group.

Western w i t n e s s e s a r e excluded,
separated

consis-

The o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t
and b,

When t h e

Didymus's c l o s e s t a l l y i s

from t h e m o s t d i s t a n t by o n l y

11%.

Table 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 J o h n
(128 u n i t s o f v a r i a t i o n )

1. 33
2. C
3. L
4. fam 13
5. UBS
fam 1
6.
7.
66
8. P
9. B
10. 579
11. A
12.
13. W
14. 1241
15. TR
75
16. P
17. e
18. n
19. A
20. K
21. 892
22. b
23. a
24. D
25. e

87/128
36/54
83/128
83/128
82/128
82/128
81/127

(68. 0%)
(66.,7%)
(64..8%)
(64.,8%)
(64..1%)
(64.,1%)
(63.,8%)

77/121
81/128
81/128
64/102
80/128
66/106
77/124
79/128

(63.,6%)
(63..3%)
(63.,3%)
(62,.7%)
(62,.5%)
(62.,3%)
(62,,1%)
(61,.7%)

59/99
76/128
76/128
75/127
73/128
49/86
51/102
50/103
53/117
45/103

(59,,6%)
(59,.4%)
(59,.4%)
(59..1%)
(57..0%)
(57.,0%)
(50,,0%)
(48.,5%)
(45 .3%)
(43,.7%)

Q u a n t i t a t i v e A n a l y s i s /209

T h e c l o s e p r o x i m i t y o f a l l t h e w i t n e s s e s t o Didymus i n
J o h n c a n be s e e n e v e n more c l e a r l y when t h e 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 , a s i s done

Table

Agreements

Disagreements

Arranged

% Agreement

ALEXANDRIAN:
UBS
66
P
75
P
K

(8:39-21:25)

82

46

77

44

59

40

43

31

81

47

Totals

342

208

62.,2%

T o t a l s w/o UBS

260

162

61..6%

LATE

VIII.

VIII

P r o p o r t i o n a l A g r e e m e n t s W i t h Didymus
By T e x t u a l Group i n J o h n

EARLY

i n Table

ALEXANDRIAN:
C

36

18

83

45

66

40

80

48

33

87

41

579

81

47

892

49

37

1241

77

47

559

323

63,.4%

(Average

A l e x a n d r i a n ) 901

531

62,.9%

(Average

Alexandrian
485

62,.8%

Totals

w/o UBS )

819

210/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s
Table V I I I
Agreements

(oont.)

Disagreements

% Agreement

CAESAREAN:
6

76

52

82

46

fam

fam

13

83

45

Totals

241

143

79

49

62.8%

BYZANTINE:
TR
A

64

38

75

52

76

52

ffl

81

46

375

237

61.3%

296

188

61.2%

Totals
T o t a l s w/o

TR

WESTERN:
K

30

24

(1:1-8:38)

53

64

50

53

51

51

45

58

229

250

Totals

47.8%

Once a g a i n , t h e W e s t e r n w i t n e s s e s s t a n d a
distance

from t h e o t h e r g r o u p s .

considerable

Nonetheless, they support

Didymus somewhat more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n i n Matthew and

E v e n more s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,
Caesarean witnesses,
only

1.6%.

One

taken as groups, v a r y

i s tempted

i s not d i s t i n c t i v e l y

like

form o f t e x t

First

Didymus
a

text
that

A l e x a n d r i a n s u p p o r t and

even d i s t r i b u t i o n of w i t n e s s e s .

S u c h a c o n c l u s i o n , however, would
stage.

i n John,

forms t h r o u g h o u t t h e G o s p e l .

a c c o u n t f o r both t h e uneven

the c o n s i s t e n t l y

a n o t h e r by

any one o f t h e g r o u p s b u t

r e p r e s e n t s a combination of t e x t
T h i s would

f r o m one

t o draw t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t

r e p r e s e n t s a t h o r o u g h l y "mixed"
that

Luke.

t h e A l e x a n d r i a n , B y z a n t i n e , and

be p r e m a t u r e a t t h i s

i t must be d e t e r m i n e d w h e t h e r

these

affiliations

Methodological
apply

different textual

t i o n s of t e x t .
suggests that
through

A perusal

alignments

consistent

occur i n d i f f e r e n t

of the c r i t i c a l

Didymus's t e x t

J o h n 6:46.

apparatus

i s predominantly

But beginning

T h e s e i m p r e s s i o n s demand s t a t i s t i c a l

por-

of John

Alexandrian

w i t h J o h n 6:47

a t t e s t a t i o n of Alexandrian

I X shows t h e a l i g n m e n t s
John

/211

t o t h e w h o l e o f Didymus's t e x t o f J o h n , o r w h e t h e r ,

instead,

less

Problems

one n o t i c e s

verification.

of the representative

Table

witnesses before

6:47.
Table IX

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 J o h n 1:1-6:46
(40 u n i t s o f v a r i a t i o n )

1. C
2. UBS 3
3. B
4. 33
66
5. P
6.
75
7. P
8. L
9. 579
10. fam 13
11. fam 1
12. 6
13. A
14. a
15. TR
16.
17. 892
18. n
19. K
20. w
21. 1241
22. b
23. e
24. D
25. a

14/17
31/40
30/40
30/40

(82,.4%)
(77..5%)
(75..0%)
(75 .0%)

28/38
29/40

(73 .7%)
(72 .5%)
(70 .3%)
(70 .0%)
(67 .5%)
(67 .5%)
(65 .0%)
(65 .0%)
(62 .5%)
(61 .5%)
(60 .0%)
(60 .0%)
(60 .0%)
(57 .5%)
(57 .5%)
(57 .1%)
(56 .8%)
(53 .3%)
(43 .8%)
(40 .0%)
(38 .7%)

26/37
28/40
27/40
27/40
26/40
26/40
25/40
24/39
24/40
24/40
24/40
23/40
23/40
12/21
21/37
16/30
14/32
12/30
12/31

readings.

2X2/

Didymus and

As

the

Gospels

the t a b l e demonstrates,

1:1-6:46

are s t r i k i n g l y

the Synoptic Gospels.

Didymus's a l i g n m e n t s

s i m i l a r to those
His closest

allies

w i t n e s s e s , most o f w h i c h a g r e e w i t h him
all

variation.

T h i s group i s c l o s e l y

witnesses, with

62.5%-57.5%.
of the l i s t

and

alignments

provide

are

i n more t h a n 70%

a g r e e m e n t , and

evidence widespread
agreement).

are several

an u n e x p e c t e d l y

low

of

Caesarean

Byzantine,

divergence

Notable

in

Alexandrian

f o l l o w e d by

Western r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f a l l

(53.3%-36.7%

selves
clear

67.5%-65.0%

The

f o r John

a l r e a d y uncovered

with

to the

bottom

among them-

exceptions to

these

Late Alexandrian w i t n e s s e s which

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

W,

i s known t o p r e s e r v e a c u r i o u s amount o f m i x -

whose t e x t

ture;

and

a l r e a d y come u n d e r s u s p i c i o n ;

892.

T a b l e X shows t h e a l i g n m e n t s

f o r John

1:1-6:46

by

textual

group.

Table

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 W i t h Didymus A r r a n g e d
A c c o r d i n g t o T e x t u a l Group i n J o h n 1:1-6:46

Agreements

Disagreements

% Agreement

EARLY ALEXANDRIAN:

B
Totals
T o t a l s w/o

UBS

31
28
26
30
115
84

9
10
11
10
40
31

74. 2%
73.0%

Quantitative

Table X
Agreements
LATE

A n a l y s i s /213

(cont.)

Disagreements

% Agreement

ALEXANDRIAN:
C

14

28

12

12

29

11

33

30

10

579

27

13

892

24

16

1241

21

16

185

90

67.3%

152

65

70.0%

267

105

71.8%

236

96

71.1%

Totals
T o t a l s w/o W
and
(Average

w/o W,
(Average
W,

W/O

1241

Alexandrian,
1241)

Alexandrian,
1 2 4 1 , 0BS )

CAESAREAN:
9

26

14

fam 1

26

14

fam 13

27

13

Totals

79

41

65.8%

BYZANTINE:
TR

24

16

25

15
16

24

23

17

24

15

120

79

60.3%

96

63

60.4%

Totals
T o t a l s W/O TR

214/

Didymus and

the

Gospels

Table X
Agreements

(cont.)

Disagreements

% Agreement

WESTERN:
N

23

17

12

18

12

19

16

14

14

18

Totals

77

86

Didymus's a l i g n m e n t s
clear-cut

than

i n J o h n 1:1-6:46 a r e e v e n more

i n Matthew and

Luke.

H e r e Didymus a g r e e s m o s t

extensively with Alexandrian witnesses

with the e a r l i e r
g r e a t e r than
unified
that

s t r a n d of t h i s

those

the average

more t h a n

The

significantly

Caesarean

group i s

a l l y i n g w i t h Didymus somewhat

Alexandrian witness

the average

(+ 7 0 % ) , h i s a g r e e m e n t s

t r a d i t i o n being

f o r the l a t e r .

i n i t s support,

47.2%

Byzantine

(by 4 . 7 % ) , b u t

(by 5 . 4 % ) .

less

somewhat

Once a g a i n ,

W e s t e r n w i t n e s s e s a r e f a r removed from t h e n e x t c l o s e s t
s u p p o r t i n g Didymus i n o n l y 47.2%
13.2%

of a l l v a r i a t i o n

from t h e B y z a n t i n e g r o u p ) .

These data

(a drop of

f o r John

b e a r o u t w h a t h a s a l r e a d y b e e n shown f o r t h e o t h e r
Didymus's t e x t

i s predominantly

Alexandrian with

the
group,

1:1-6:46

Gospels

few

Western

affinities.
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

in the remaining

p o r t i o n of the Fourth Gospel

(p. 215).

affiliation

than

i n the q u a n t i f i e d

relationships charted for

t h e whole Gospel

( s e e T a b l e V I I p.

208).

and

the table

f i n d s even l e s s c l e a r

clearly

by T a b l e X I

sarean,

H e r e one

dramatically

i s shown

Alexandrian,

Byzantine witnesses are interspersed

in a baffling

sequence.

p o s i t i o n s o f t h e A l e x a n d r i a n MSS

Cae-

throughout

Note, f o r e x a m p l e ,
33

group

(second, w i t h

the

64.8%

agree-

66
ment), L

(ninth, with

62.5%), P

( s i x t e e n t h , w i t h 5 8 . 0 % ) , and
Furthermore,

(thirteenth,
(twenty-first,

with
with

t h e gaps between w i t n e s s e s a r e s l i g h t

t h e s e q u e n c e w i t h no

outstanding breaking points,

59.0%),

53.2%)!
throughout

even between

Quantitative

Analysis

/215

Table XI
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 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 J o h n 6:47-21:25
(88 u n i t s o f v a r i a t i o n )

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

33
1241
fam 1
fam 13
W
A
TR

L
579
n

66
13. P
14.
3
15. UBS
16. B
17.
18. 9
19. H
20. 892
75
21. P
22. a
23. b
24. D
25. e
the
to

57/88
57/88
56/87
56/88
56/88
54/85
39/62
55/88
55/88
54/88
53/88
22/37

(64.,8%)
(64.,8%)
(64.,4%)
(63.,6%)
(63., 6%)
(63.,5%)
(62..9%)
(62.,5%)
(62.,5%)
(61.,4%)
(60.,2%)
(59.,5%)

49/83
51/87
51/88
51/88
51/88
50/88
50/88
25/46

(59..0%)
(58.6%)
(58..0%)
(58..0%)
(58..0%)
(56,.8%)
(56,.8%)
(54 .3%)

33/62
38/72
35/72
41/87
31/71

(53 .2%)
(52,.8%)
(48 . 6%)
(47,.1%)
(43 .7%)

W e s t e r n w i t n e s s e s and t h e r e s t .
an i n e v i t a b l e c o n c l u s i o n :

T h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s add up

from J o h n 6:47 t o t h e end o f t h e

G o s p e l , Didymus's t e x t c a n n o t be c o u n t e d a s p r e d o m i n a n t l y
Alexandrian,
any

or, f o r that

matter, as predominantly r e l a t e d to

of the s t a n d a r d t e x t - t y p e s .

i n which v a r i a n t s

I t i s a highly

from each o f t h e s e v e r a l

eclectic

traditions

text

(least.

216/

Didymus a n d t h e G o s p e l s

of course,

from t h e W e s t e r n ) a r e r e p r e s e n t e d

i n random

fashion.
This conclusion
support

c a n be b o r n e o u t by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e g r o u p

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 A r r a n g e d
A c c o r d i n g To T e x t u a l Group i n J o h n 6:47-21:25

Agreements
EARLY

Disagreements

% Agreement

ALEXANDRIAN:
UBS
66
P
75
P
K

51

(8:39-21:25)

37

49

34

33

29

43

31

51

33

Totals

227

164

58.1%

T o t a l s w/o UBS

176

127

58. 1%

LATE ALEXANDRIAN:
C

22

15

55

33

54

31

51

37

33

57

31

579

54

34

892

25

21

1241
Totals
(Average

Alexandrian)

(Average

Alexandrian
w/o UBS )

56

31

374

233

61.6%

601

397

60.2%

550

360

60. 4%

A l t h o u g h J o h n 20:19 i s t h e l a s t v e r s e o f t h e G o s p e l t h a t
Didymus q u o t e s , 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
r e m a i n c o n s t a n t t o t h e end o f t h e G o s p e l .

Quantitative Analysis

Agreements

Disagreements

/217

% Agreement

CAESAEEAN:

50

38

fam

56

32

fam

13

56

32

Totals

162

102

TR

55

33

39

23

51

36

53

35

61. 4%

BYZANTINE:

a
Totals
T o t a l s w/o

TR

57

31

255

158

61.,7%

200

125

61.,5%

WESTERN:
7

(6:47-8:38)

41

46

38

34

35

37

31

40

152

164

Totals

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 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 on
The

the b a s i s of the support

Western group i s f u r t h e s t

standing

10.0%

behind

Alexandrian!).
together,
TR

and

The

the next

a r e not

highly eclectic

n e a r e s t group

counted.

1.1%

text,

Early
close

v a r i a n c e among them when

What t h i s must i n d i c a t e

c h a r a c t e r o f Didymus's t e x t

of the Fourth Gospel.

H e r e Didymus d o e s n o t

of the groups p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l h i s
predominantly

Western or Byzantine,

distinctively

Alexandrian

g i v e n way

(the

other text-types stand extremely

w i t h no more t h a n

UBS

of i n d i v i d u a l w i t n e s s e s .

removed from Didymus's

i n the l a t t e r part
support

t e x t has not
f o r example.

traditions.

any

one

become
I n s t e a d the

c h a r a c t e r of h i s t e x t has

to elements of the other

the

i s the

Now

simply
Didymus i s

218/

Didymus a n d t h e G o s p e l s

seen t o represent
will

a t h o r o u g h l y "mixed" t e x t .

be borne out by a c o n s i d e r a t i o n

group r e a d i n g s

This

o f Didymus's

conclusion
support of

i n C h a p t e r V.

Before turning

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 .
figures already
(Table

T h i s involves a simple

tabulation of the

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

XIII).
Table

XIII

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 A r r a n g e d A c c o r d i n g
To T e x t u a l G r o u p i n g f o r A l l F o u r G o s p e l s

Matthew
EARLY

Mark

Luke

John

8/10

91/125

82/128

292/426

68. 5%

77/121

77/121

63. 6%

56/81

59/99

115/180

63. 9%

244/369

66. 1%

284/426

66. 7%

UBS
DO
P
3
7/ R
P
K

111/163

106/162

7/10

88/123

43/74

105/163

9/10

89/125

81/128

Total Early

LATE

Totals

ALEXANDRIAN

Alexandrian:

1012/1522

66.5%

ALEXANDRIAN
C

80/123

6/7

27/45

36/54

149/229

65. 1%

104/157

9/10

88/125

83/128

284/420

67. ,6%

18/33

66/106

84/139

60. ,4%

8/10

A
33

108/163

579

8/10
80/125

80/128

170/263

64. .6%

5/10

83/124

87/128

283/425

66. .6%

6/10

85/122

81/128

172/260

66 .2%

49/86

249/382

65 .2%

77/124

229/393

58 .3%

1628/2521

64 .6%

2627/4023

65, .3%

892

106/161

9/10

85/125

1241

(72/134)

5/10

(75/125)

Total Late

A l e x a n d r i a n ( i n c l u d i n g 1241)

Average A l e x a n d r i a n

80. , 0%

10/10

Q u a n t i t a t i v e A n a l y s i s /219

Table X I I I

(cont.)

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%

790/1272

62.1%

Total Caesarean:

BYZANTINE
TR

99/163

5/10

71/125

79/128

254/426

59.6%

(16/20)

5/10

77/124

64/102

162/256

63.3%

100/163

5/10

105/173

60.7%

88/161

54/91

142/252

56.3%

97/163

74/124

75/127

246/414

59.4%

102/163

6/10

78/125

76/128

262/426

61.5%

100/162

5/10

69/122

81/127

255/421

60.6%

Total

Byzantine:

1426/2368

60.2%

WESTERN
K
D

62/132

4/10

30/54

30/54

55.6%

46/120

53/117

165/379

43.5%

2/3

66.7%

60/130

2/3
3/9

39/94

50/103

152/336

45.2%

54/127

5/10

36/86

51/102

146/325

44.9%

24/46

0/1

30/92

45/103

99/242

40.9%

32/76

1/3

T o t a l Western:

33/79

41.8%

627/1418

44.2%

T h e s e f i g u r e s show t h e 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 o f
Didymus's t e x t ,
tion

i n view

chapter.

but they

cannot

Three

adjustments

tive analysis reflects

accurately as possible:

view

from t h e r e s t
of their

must be made b e f o r e

the quantita-

Didymus's t e x t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s a s
( 1 ) Didymus's t e x t o f t h e l a t t e r

p o r t i o n o f John, beginning
off

be a c c e p t e d w i t h o u t r e s e r v a -

o f 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

w i t h J o h n 6:47, must b e s e p a r a t e d

o f h i s Gospel

text;

( 2 ) MSS 1241 a n d W, i n

curiously variegated texts,

s h o u l d b e removed

from t h e a n a l y s i s ;

a n d ( 3 ) UBS

strictly

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f a n y t e x t - t y p e , s h o u l d be

speaking,

a n d TR, w h i c h a r e n o t ,

220/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

left

out of consideration.-

results

appear c o n c l u s i v e

When t h e s e c h a n g e s a r e made t h e
(Table X I V ) .

P r o p o r t i o n a l A g r e e m e n t W i t h Didymus A r r a n g e d A c c o r d i n g
To T e x t Group i n Matthew, Mark, L u k e , and J o h n 1:1-6:46
66
EARLY ALEXANDRIAN: P
Matthew

(Jn.),

Mark

16/20

Luke
Jn.

75
P
(Lk., J n . ) ,
211/325
64.9%

1:1-6:46

Totals

LATE ALEXANDRIAN: C, L ,

70.8%

84/115

73.0%

544/789

68.9%

579
Matthew
Mark
Luke
Jn.

1:1-6:46

Totals
Average A l e x a n d r i a n

CAESAREAN:

(Mk., L k , J n . ) , 33,
(Mk., L k . , J n . ) , 892

398/604

65.9%

53/67

79.1%

448/666

67.3%

152/217

70.0%

1051/1554

67.6%

1595/2343

681%

6 ; fam 1; fam 13
Matthew
Mark

Jn.

286/485
17/30

Luke
1:1-6:46

Totals

BYZANTINE:

80. 0%

233/329

A (Mk.),

K (Mt., Mk,

59.0%
56.7%

246/373

66.0%

79/120

65.8%

628/1008

62.3%

A; E (Mt., Mk.); A (Mt., L k . , J n . ) ; H;

Matthew
Mark

21/40

Luke
Jn.

415/671

1:1-6:46

Totals

61.8%
52.5%

298/495

60.2%

96/159

60.4%

830/1365

60.8%

Lk),B

Quantitative Analysis

Table XIV
WESTERN:

N (Jn.);

D;

232/511

38..5%

77/163

47..2%

473/1099

43..0%

1:1-6:46

These q u a n t i f i e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s
up

t o J o h n 6:46

set

forth

1241

c a n p r o f i t a b l y be

f o r J n . 6:47-21:25

a r e not

Mk.)

39..4%

151/392

Luke

Totals

(Mt. ,

45..4%

13/33

Mark

Jn.

(cont.)

(MX.); a ; b; e; k

Matthew

/221

f o r Didymus's G o s p e l

compared w i t h t h o s e

( T a b l e XV:

UBS

, TR,

text

already

W,

and

considered.)

Table

XV

C o m p a r i s o n o f S u p p o r t f o r Didymus Among T e x t u a l G r o u p s
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.,
and J n . 1:1-6:46

Jn.

6:47-21:25

Early Alexandrian:

68.9%

58.1%

Late Alexandrian

67.6%

60.7%

(Average

68.1%

59.6%

62.3%

61.4%

Alexandrian)

Caesarean
Byzantine

60.8%

61.5%

Western

43.0%

48.1%

T h i s comparison demonstrates

on a b r o a d e r

a l r e a d y b e e n shown from J o h n ' s G o s p e l

itself:

s c a l e what
a shift

had

in

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 o f J n . 6:47-21:25.
eclectic
larly

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 n the remarkable

absence

The

particu-

of c l e a r - c u t group support

o r a g a i n s t Didymus: t h e L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n ,
a n t i n e groups a l l f a l l

i s seen

w i t h i n one

Caesarean,

percentage

and

p o i n t of

for

Byz-

each

o t h e r . O n l y t h e 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 ,
Didymus h e r e

although

than

i n any

even t h i s group s t a n d s c l o s e r
other p o r t i o n of the

Gospels.

to

222/

Didymus and 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

the Gospels
was

argued

c a n be drawn from t h i s

a b o v e t h a t t o be c l a s s i f i e d

a s a g r o u p member,

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

s h i p w i t h members o f a g r o u p , w i t h a t l e a s t
between groups.

Didymus*s t e x t o f

quantitative analysis.

I t
a

a 65% r e l a t i o n 6-8% d i s t a n c e

T h i s i s p r e c i s e l y what i s found i n t h e

c a s e o f Didymus.

F o r most o f h i s G o s p e l

q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u -

sions,

Didymus s t a n d s a s 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

text.

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

strand

of t h i s t r a d i t i o n ,

Early

to the early

though t h e d i s t a n c e between t h e

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 n o t s t r i k i n g

(1.3%!).

D i d y m u s ' 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
the Byzantine
tion

or the s o - c a l l e d Caesarean

i s significant primarily

(1) Didymus c a n n o t
Caesarean

text,

be u s e d

t o shed

to isolate

light

This

observa-

implications:

on t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e

w h i c h some h a v e t h o u g h t 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 ;

used

text.

f o r i t s negative

a proto-Byzantine

and (2) h i s t e x t cannot

text

be

i n fourth-century

Alexandria.
Of

further significance

the Western w i t n e s s e s .
some i n f l u e n c e o v e r
17
day,

this

i s D i d y m u s ' s g r e a t d i s t a n c e from

Although t h e Western t e x t d i d e x e r t

the Alexandrian t r a d i t i o n

i n Didymus's

i n f l u e n c e a p p a r e n t l y h a d no e f f e c t on Didymus

himself.
T h e s e p r e l i m i n a r y c o n c l u s i o n s c a n be e x p a n d e d a n d s u p 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 e x a m i n a tion

o f Didymus's a t t e s t a t i o n o f group r e a d i n g s .

examination

will

b e made i n t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r .

S e e pp. 195-202 a b o v e .
See

n. 40, p . 20 a b o v e .

See

n. 39, p . 20 a b o v e .

See

n. 36, p . 20 a b o v e .

S u c h an

Chapter
The

Gospel

T e x t o f Didymus: Group

Profiles

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
determined s t r i c t l y
representatives
on

by c o m p a r i n g h i s t e x t w i t h

o f t h e known t e x t - t y p e s .

have been

individual

With t h i s

emphasis

i n d i v i d u a l MSS, no a t t e n t i o n h a s b e e n p a i d t o Didymus's

support

f o r readings that d i s t i n g u i s h the various

groups.

Y e t t h i s kind of support

i s equally

s i n c e Didymus c a n s c a r c e l y be c l a s s i f i e d

a s a good

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
ings.

Alexandrian
group

read-

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-

titative

a n a l y s i s with a comprehensive examination

mus's r e l a t i o n s h i p
textual

textual

significant,

of Didy-

to readings c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of d i f f e r e n t

groups.

Over t h e 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 o f g r o u p r e a d i n g s .
s a l s has r e c e i v e d widespread

critical

None o f ^ t h e s e

acceptance.

propo-

Most

T a k i n g h i s l e a d from E . A. H u t t o n ' s A t l a s o f 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 , 1 9 1 1 ) , E . C. C o l w e l l
To d e t e r was t h e 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 .
mine t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f group a f f i l i a t i o n p r i o r t o t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s , Colwell suggested t a b u l a t i n g a w i t n e s s ' s
support o f " 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 r o w l y d e f i n e d a s r e a d i n g s " i n w h i c h t h e minimum s u p p o r t f o r
e a c h o f a t l e a s t t h r e e v a r i a n t f o r m s o f t h e t e x t i s e i t h e r one
of t h e major s t r a n d s of t h e t r a d i t i o n , or t h e support o f a
p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d g r o u p . . . , o r t h e s u p p o r t o f some one o f
t h e a n c i e n t v e r s i o n s . . . , o r t h e s u p p o r t o f some s i n g l e manus c r i p t o f 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 ing,"
27-28).
To d e m o n s t r a t e t h e 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 p r o p o s e d c o n s i d e r i n g t h e document's a t t e s t a t i o n o f t h e
unique r e a d i n g s o f t h e group.
C o l w e l l had hoped t h a t t h e i n i t i a l a n a l y s i s o f m u l t i p l e
r e a d i n g s would s a v e time i n making a p r e l i m i n a r y judgment o f
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 o f 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 , w h i c h t h e y a r e n o t . And w h i l e a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f
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 p r i m a r y g r o u p members, s u c h
readings 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 t h e y 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 m i x t u r e w i t h r e a d i n g s o f o t h e r groups.
Furthermore,
n e i t h e r o f t h e s e i n i t i a l s t e p s c a n i n d i c a t e w h a t must be
e s t a b l i s h e d by a t h o r o u g h q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s i n a n y 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
variation.
F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s many s u b s e q u e n t r e s e a r c h e r s
b y p a s s e d C o l w e l l ' s f i r s t two s t e p s . O t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s , how223

224/

Didymus and

have f a i l e d

the

Gospels

t o match t h e l e v e l

of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n achieved

t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s o f i n d i v i d u a l MSS;
r e p r e s e n t e d ad h o c

by

o t h e r s have

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
textual witnesses.

Not

even

the Claremont

Profile

Method

e v e r , r e f r a i n e d f r o m m a k i n g an a n a l y s i s o f g r o u p 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 b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e
c l e a r e s t means p o s s i b l e , t h e 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 s e e n s h o r t l y , t h i s l a t t e r a p p r o a c h 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 , b u t i t c a n s e r v e t o c l a r i f y and r e f i n e t h e
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 o f t h i s i s s u e , s e e my a r t i c l e "The U s e o f Group
P r o f i l e s f o r t h e C l a s s f i c a t i o n o f NT D o c u m e n t a r y E v i d e n c e , "
JBL. forthcoming.

2
T h i s i s t r u e , e.g., o f t h e p r o f i l e method u s e d by
C a r r o l l O s b u r n i n h i s o t h e r w i s e v a l u a b l e s t u d y , "The T e x t o f
t h e 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 o f Rome," The S e c o n d C e n t u r y 2 (1982) 97-124.
F o r t h i s a n a l y s i s O s b u r n u s e d E . A.
H u t t o n ' s e a r l i e r method o f " T r i p l e R e a d i n g s , " t a b u l a t i n g H i p p o l y t u s 's s u p p o r t o f 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 o f
one o f t h e t h r e e m a j o r t e x t - t y p e s . The p r o b l e m s o f s u c h an
a p p r o a c h a r e now w e l l known: i t b a s e s i t s j u d g m e n t s o n l y on
" d i s t i n c t i v e " r e a d i n g s ( w h i c h a r e n e v e r d e f i n e d ) and d o e s n o t
c o n s i d e r t h e r e a d i n g s " d i s t i n c t i v e " o f any s u b g r o u p s .
This
k i n d of a n a l y s i s c a n 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 , b u t n o t h i n g more.
For Osburn's study the
method was s u f f i c i e n t t o d e m o n s t r a t e h i s m a j o r c o n t e n t i o n ,
t h a t H i p p o l y t u s c a n n o t be u s e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a
Byzantine t r a d i t i o n i n the second century.
Much w o r s e i s A l e x a n d e r G l o b e ' s s t u d y "The G o s p e l T e x t o f
S e r a p i o n o f T h m u i s , " NovTest, 26 ( 1 9 8 4 ) 9 7 - 1 2 7 .
G l o b e ' s group
p r o f i l e method a s s u m e s t h e 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 p r o v e n a n c e o f t e x t u a l c o r r u p t i o n p r i o r t o t h e
analysis!
That i s to 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
s u p p o r t e d p r i m a r i l y by W e s t e r n o r C a e s a r e a n d o c u m e n t s , b u t
because i n Globe's opinion, 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
w h i c h o r i g i n a t e d i n t h e West o r i n C a e s a r e a .
Not i n f r e q u e n t l y
G l o b e makes s u c h j u d g m e n t s q u i t e i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f t h e e x t e n t
and c h a r a c t e r o f t h e MS s u p p o r t f o r t h e r e a d i n g s , on t h e 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 .
In actuality,
of course, the e a r l i e s t occurrence of a v a r i a n t t e l l s us
nothing 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 t o Gordon F e e ' s g r o u n d b r e a k i n g s t u d y o f
t h e t e x t o f J o h n i n O r i g e n and C y r i l ( s e e n. 7, p . 6 a b o v e ) .
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 t h a n 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 g r o u p
a l i g n m e n t s i n t h e p o r t i o n s o f J o h n 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 .
For t h i s reason, the s e v e n t e e n t e x t u a l g r o u p i n g s t h a t F e e i s o l a t e d c a n n o t be a p p l i e d
i n the a n a l y s i s of other 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
text.

Group P r o f i l e s

t h e most i n f l u e n t i a l

proposal

a d e q u a t e f o r a t h o r o u g h and
elsewhere

that

to d a t e c a n

in-depth

t h i s method i s w e l l

be

regarded

suited

as

analysis.

/225

I have

f o r making a

argued
quick

5
determination
since
to

of a document's e s s e n t i a l

i t e v a l u a t e s o n l y one

consanguinity.

p a t t e r n of group r e a d i n g ,

But
i t fails

c o n s i d e r enough d a t a t o a l l o w a n a c c u r a t e a s s e s s m e n t

document's t e x t u a l

affinities.

P r o f i l e Method c l a s s i f i e s

a MS

I n simple
on

terms,

the

the b a s i s of i t s a t t e s t a t i o n

o f r e a d i n g s f o u n d e x t e n s i v e l y among w i t n e s s e s o f one
independent

of a thorough q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s

p e c t i v e of

"distinctive"

of a

Claremont

readings, that

and

i s , readings

group,
irrespreserved

6
exclusively
full

and

by

members o f one

t e x t u a l group o r a n o t h e r .

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 ,

requires

(1) a f u l l - s c a l e

demonstrates

quantitative analysis

however,

which

t h e 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

other

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

F o r 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 t h e r a t i o n a l e and
a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e C l a r e m o n t P r o f i l e Method, s e e E l d o n J a y
Epp, "The C l a r e m o n t P r o f i l e - M e t h o d f o r G r o u p i n g New T e s t a m e n t
M i n u s c u l e M a n u s c r i p t s , " i n S t u d i e s i n t h e H i s t o r y and T e x t o f
t h e New T e s t a m e n t , ed. Boyd L . D a n i e l s and J a c k M. S u g g s (SD,
29.
S a l t L a k e C i t y : u n i v e r s i t y o f U t a h P r e s s , 1967) 2 7 - 3 7 ;
E r n e s t C. C o l w e l l , P a u l R. M c R e y n o l d s , I r v i n g A. S p a r k s , and
F r e d e r i k W i s s e , "The I n t e r n a t i o n a l G r e e k New T e s t a m e n t P r o j e c t : A S t a t u s R e p o r t , " JJ3L. 87 ( 1 9 6 8 ) 1 8 7 - 9 7 .
The method was
d e v i s e d by M c R e y n o l d s and W i s s e 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 School.
F o r 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 o f t h e method s e e t h e i r d i s s e r t a t i o n s :
P a u l R.
M c R e y n o l d s , "The C l a r e m o n t P r o f i l e Method and t h e G r o u p i n g o f
B y z a n t i n e New T e s t a m e n t 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 ,
C l a r e m o n t G r a d u a t e S c h o o l , 1 9 6 8 ) ; F r e d e r i k W i s s e , "The C l a r e mont P r o f i l e Method f o r t h e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e B y z a n t i n e
New T e s t a m e n t M a n u s c r i p t s : A S t u d y i n Method" (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Claremont Graduate School, 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 u p d a t e d t h e 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 M a n u s c r i p t
E v i d e n c e (SD, 44.
Grand R a p i d s : Eerdmans, 1 9 8 2 ) .
"The
6

Use

o f Group

Profiles."

Ibid.
Wisse's d e c i s i o n not to 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 u n i q u e t o t h e
v a r i o u s g r o u p s l e d h i m t o make e r r o n e o u s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f
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 o f MSS B e z a e and V a t i c a n u s t o t h e same g r o u p !
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
analysis.

226/

Didymus a n d t h e G o s p e l s

preceding

chapter,

and (2) a comprehensive e v a l u a t i o n o f group

r e a d i n g s : b o t h t h o s e 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
g r o u p and t h o s e u n i q u e t o e a c h o f t h e g r o u p s .
Three
such

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

a comprehensive e v a l u a t i o n f o r t h e Gospel

a l l u s i o n s o f Didymus.

q u o t a t i o n s and

(1) An i n t e r - g r o u p p r o f i l e

i s con-

cerned with readings 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

o f o n l y one o f t h e known t e x t u a l

(a category

dered

groups

by t h e C l a r e m o n t P r o f i l e M e t h o d ) .

are profiled:
group

those

supported

(as defined s t r i c t l y

members o f one g r o u p .

mainly

not consi-

Two s e t s o f r e a d i n g s

by members o f o n l y one

b e l o w ) and t h o s e

supported

o n l y by

The l a t t e r s e t o f r e a d i n g s h a s i t s e l f

b e e n 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 s u p p o r t e d
m o s t g r o u p members
ported

( a n d no o t h e r w i t n e s s e s ) a n d t h o s e

o n l y by a few g r o u p members

intra-group p r o f i l e
sively

i s concerned

( a n d no o t h e r s ) .

( 2 ) An

w i t h r e a d i n g s found

exten-

among members o f a group, r e g a r d l e s s o f how w e l l

a r e a l s o a t t e s t e d by members o f o t h e r g r o u p s .
s e t s of readings a r e p r o f i l e d :

those

l e a s t two-thirds of these representatives.

profile

i s concerned

they

Once a g a i n two

supported

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i t n e s s e s o f a group and t h o s e

by

sup-

by a j l t h e

supported

(3) A

by a t

combination

w i t h t h e e x t e n t and s t r e n g t h o f a r e a d -

i n g ' s a t t e s t a t i o n b o t h w i t h i n a g i v e n g r o u p a n d among t h e
v a r i o u s groups.
those

supported

The r e a d i n g s p r o f i l e d under t h i s

d e t e r m i n e d by t h e i n t r a - g r o u p p r o f i l e )
witnesses
It

category a r e

by a l l o r most r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f a g r o u p ( a s
b u t by few o r no o t h e r

( a s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e i n t e r - g r o u p

w o u l d be h e l p f u l

at this

a s p o s s i b l e t h e terms used

profile).

stage to define as narrowly

t o d e s c r i b e each

of these

group

relationships.
Inter-Group Relationships
D i s t i n c t i v e Readings:

Generally, readings d i s t i n c t

to a

group, i . e . those

s h a r e d by most g r o u p members a n d f o u n d i n no

other witnesses.

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 o f 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 e x t e n d e d
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
with the data c o l l e c t e d f o r the present study.

Group P r o f i l e s /227
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 Alexandrian:
least

R e a d i n g s found i n a 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 ,

of t h e L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n ,
D i s t i n c t i v e l y Western:
one

half

and no o t h e r s .

R e a d i n g s found

in at least

G r e e k w i t n e s s a n d two O l d L a t i n MSS

(when

t h e i r w i t n e s s c a n b e a d d u c e d ) a n d no o t h e r s .
When t h e O l d L a t i n c a n n o t
found

Distinctively

Caesarean:

Caesarean
Distinctively
one

Byzantine:

Readings found i n a l l but

R e a d i n g s found e x c l u s i v e l y

g r o u p members a n d no o t h e r s
Readings:

(excluding d i s t i n c t i v e readings).

R e a d i n g s t h a t a r e s h a r e d by a t l e a s t

" G r e a t e r group s u p p o r t "

"uniform"

primary

below) a s r e a d i n g s

readings

supported

group, n o r predominantly

i s defined

(seethe intra-group
neither uniformly

by more t h a n

non-group

(a) i n the case

by

profile
another

one o t h e r g r o u p , n o r by

more t h a n two o t h e r g r o u p s when one o f them s u p p o r t s

dominantly;

(b) i n t h e c a s e o f " p r e d o m i n a n t " p r i m a r y

( s e e below) a s r e a d i n g s supported
d o m i n a n t l y by a n o t h e r
readings

supported

among

s h a r e d by a t l e a s t t w o

g r o u p members and t h a t h a v e g r e a t e r g r o u p t h a n

support.
of

R e a d i n g s found i n a l l t h e

o f 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:

two

readings

w i t n e s s e s a n d no o t h e r s .

w i t n e s s e s o f one g r o u p , i . e . t h o s e

Primary

be used,

i n two G r e e k w i t n e s s e s .

neither uniformly

i t prereadings
nor pre-

group; and ( c ) i n a l l o t h e r c a s e s , a s

by more g r o u p t h a n

non-group w i t n e s s e s .

Intra-Group Relationships
Uniform Readings:
with

R e a d i n g s s h a r e d by a l l g r o u p w i t n e s s e s

text.
Predominant Readings:

thirds

Readings shared

o f a l l group w i t n e s s e s w i t h

by a t l e a s t t w o -

text.

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 sketched p r e v i o u s l y , a l l of t h e preceding c a t e g o r i e s of group w i t n e s s e s c a n be a p p l i e d only t o u n i t s o f
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 w h i c h two o r more o f t h e
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e witnesses agree a g a i n s t t h e r e s t .
Furthermore,
i n v i e w o f 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
n o t t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e w i t n e s s o f e i t h e r W o r 1241 when

228/

Didymus and

It

i s now

profiles
ships.

the

Gospels

p o s s i b l e to describe the three p r e l i m i n a r y

i n terms of these narrowly

The

first

two

profiles

d e f i n e d group

relation-

are "simple"one a s c e r t a i n i n g

t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h Didymus a t t e s t s t h e d i s t i n c t i v e ,

exclu-

sive,

determin-

and

primary

ing h i s support
third profile

r e a d i n g s o f each group, t h e o t h e r

of uniform

and

predominant r e a d i n g s .

readings which are simultaneously uniform

distinctive,

e x c l u s i v e , or

P r o f i l e One:

Inter-Group

The
mus

of the

the d i s t i n c t i v e ,

frequency

I t was

decided

from t h e r e s t

m i n i n g on
occurs

with which

e x c l u s i v e , and

four major c o n t r o l groups.

ings.

The

primary

Didy-

readings

fractions represent

the t o t a l

number o f

to separate the readings

of the Gospel

of John

t e x t a s a means o f

independent grounds whether a s h i f t of

i n t h a t p o r t i o n of

of
and

Readings

number o f D i d y m u s ' s a g r e e m e n t s o v e r

21:25

or predominant

primary.

f o l l o w i n g t a b l e shows t h e

supports

The

i s " c o m p l e x " s h o w i n g Didymus's a t t e s t a t i o n

6:47-

deter-

consanguinity

text.

Table

XVI

Didymus's A t t e s t a t i o n o f I n t e r - G r o u p

Distinct, j,V3

Exclusive

Readings

primary

Totals

Matthew
Alexandrian:

1/2

4/8

9/19

14/29

Byzantine:

0/0

0/1

5/23

5/24

Caesarean:

0/0

0/7

6/18

6/25

0/13

3/19

11/27

14/59

Western:

Mark
Alexandrian:

1/1

0/1

3/3

4/5

Byzantine:

0/0

0/0

0/2

0/2

Caesarean:

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

Western:

0/2

0/2

1/2

1/6

e s t a b l i s h i n g uniform

the

read-

or d i s t i n c t i v e

readings.

Group P r o f i l e s

T a b l e XVI
Distinctive

/229

(cont.)

Exclusive

Primary

Totals

Luke
Alexandrian:

1/1

2/8

14/23

17/32

Byzantine:

0/0

0/0

2/13

2/13

Caesarean:

0/0

0/0

6/9

6/9

0/15

0/18

7/17

7/50

Western:

John

1:1-6:46
Alexandrian:

0/0

0/5

4/4

4/9

Byzantine:

0/0

0/0

0/2

0/2

Caesarean:

0/0

0/0

0/2

0/2

Western:

0/4

0/5

2/9

2/18

T o t a l s : Matthew-John
Alexandrian:

6/22

30/49

39/75

(75.0%)

(27.3%)

(61.2%)

(52.0%)

0/0

Byzantine:
(
Caesarean:

Western:

6:46

3/4

)
0/0

7/40

7/41

(17.5%)

(17.1%)

0/7

12/29

12/36

(")

(0.0%)

(41.4%)

(33.3%)

0/34

3/44

21/55

(6.8%)

(38.2%)

(0.0%)

John

0/1
(0.0%)

24/133
(18.0%)

6:47-21:25
Alexandrian:

1/1
(100%)

2/11
(18.2%)

Byzantine:

0/0

0/0
(")

Caesarean:

(")
0/0
(--)

(100%)

Western:

Before

1/1

1/4

4/21

(25.0%)

(19.0%)

evaluating these data,

i t may

2/6

5/18

(33.3%)

(27.8%)

0/4

0/4

(0.0%)

(0.0%)

0/3

1/4

(0.0%)
6/14

(25.0%)
11/39

(42.9%)

(28.2%)

prove h e l p f u l to

consider the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the inter-group p r o f i l e i n

general terms.

F o r a w i t n e s s t o be c l a s s i f i e d

member, i t o b v i o u s l y must s u p p o r t

a s a group

a high proportion

of d i s -

230/

Didymus and

the

Gospels

t i n c t i v e group r e a d i n g s .
of course,

The

category

h a v e b e e n c h o s e n s c a r c e l y e v e r do
type

"distinctive"

agree

on

a l l w i t n e s s e s of a

a given v a r i a n t reading.

n e w l y a n a l y z e d w i t n e s s c a n n o t be
case with readings

For t h i s

expected

found e x c l u s i v e l y

pected

i s that Alexandrian

o f KSS

will

text-

reason,

to agree

i n every

among t h e m a j o r i t y

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 .

that

itself,

c a n be u s e f u l o n l y when r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i t n e s s e s

of

B u t w h a t c a n be

ex-

w i t n e s s e s o u t s i d e t h e c o n t r o l group

f r e q u e n t l y preserve such d i s t i n c t i v e readings,

rarely will

they preserve readings d i s t i n c t i v e to

and

other

groups.
F u r t h e r m o r e , one
tain

would e x p e c t

any

group w i t n e s s t o

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 o f e x c l u s i v e and

group r e a d i n g s .
applied.

H e r e a s p e c i a l d e g r e e of c a u t i o n must

Because these l a t t e r kinds of inter-group

i n v o l v e group s p l i t s ,

of agreement i n such r e a d i n g s as o b t a i n s

70%

individual witnesses.

agreement w i t h e x c l u s i v e or p r i m a r y

than

text,

one

o v e r l y s a n g u i n e a b o u t e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e same

a n a l y s i s of the

c a n be

and

i s to say, a

readings

be

65-

i s f a r more

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

involve a

What c a n

be

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 the e x c l u s i v e

primary
On

should

proportion

in a quantitative

That

f r e q u e n t o p p o s i t i o n t o the group's m a j o r i t y t e x t .
expected

be

readings

w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y o f g r o u p members

sometimes opposing the e x c l u s i v e or p r i m a r y

n o t be

con-

primary

r e a d i n g s o f one

group t h a n

the b a s i s of t h e s e t h e o r e t i c a l

c l e a r t h a t p r i o r t o J o h n 6:47,

t o w h a t one

would e x p e c t

of the

Didymus's p r o f i l e

others.

i t should
conforms

o f a good A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s .

preserves a high proportion

readingsvarying

of t h o s e

observations,

of d i s t i n c t i v e l y

i n o n l y one

He

Alexandrian

of four i n s t a n c e s .

Ho

distinc-

D i d y m u s ' 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 presence of the a r t i c l e i n Matt.
25:41.
B o t h i m m e d i a t e l y 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 ( o m i t ait' uo ;
MeHairiDauvo i f o r K a i n p a u e v o L ) . Of t h e r e m a i n i n g 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 o f Mark 4:10 a p p e a r s
f a i r l y c e r t a i n , a l t h o u g h i t o c c u r s i n an a l l u s i o n , w h i l e t h e
d i s t i n c t i v e r e a d i n g s o f M a t t . 18:6 and L u k e 24:49 a r e beyond
question.

Group P r o f i l e s

t i v e readings

a r e f o u n d among t h e C a e s a r e a n

c o n t r o l groups.

(thirty-four)

This s t a t i s t i c

u n a f f e c t e d by t h e W e s t e r n

o t h e r group.

what h a s a l r e a d y b e e n

Didymus was

basically

tradition.

Didymus p r e s e r v e s a m a r k e d l y h i g h e r

t i o n of Alexandrian

distinc-

o f w h i c h Didymus

confirms

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 :

Furthermore,

Byzantine

B u t t h e r e i s an i m p r e s s i v e number o f

t i v e Western readings
p r e s e r v e s none.

and

/231

e x c l u s i v e and p r i m a r y

readings

Didymus d o e s n o t p r e s e r v e t h e s o l e

propor-

t h a n o f any

Byzantine

exclusive reading,
n o r any o f t h e s e v e n C a e s a r e a n e x c l u s i v e
12
13
readings,
and o n l y t h r e e o f t h e f o r t y - f o u r W e s t e r n .
By
contrast,

he a g r e e s w i t h A l e x a n d r i a n

more t h a n

one o u t o f e v e r y

e x c l u s i v e readings i n

Didymus's

61.2% agreement w i t h A l e x a n d r i a n

four i n s t a n c e s .

In addition,
15
primary

readings

M a t t . 4:4; 5:42; 10:28; 10:29; 11:21; 11:28; 15:8;

16:18; 18:22; 2 2 : 1 3 ; 24:30; 2 5 : 3 3 ; 2 8 : 1 9 ; Mark 7:6; 9:49; L u k e
2:37; 8:15; 9:62; 10:20; 11:13; 11:50; 1 2 : 1 9 ; 12:20 ( 2 x ) ;
14:29; 1 6 : 2 3 ; 18:14; 19:12; 19:43; 2 0 : 2 5 ; J o h n 1:6; 4:14;
4:28; 5:19.
11
Matt. 26:53.
12
M a t t . 7:23; 7:26; 13:43; 1 4 : 2 1 ; 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 o f a g r e e m e n t s w i t h O l d 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 ( 1 2 : 3 7 ;
21:31 [ 2 x ] ) .
W e s t e r n e x c l u s i v e r e a d i n g s n o t s u p p o r t e d by
Didymus:
M a t t . 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; 2 6 : 5 3 ; 2 8 : 1 9 ;
Mark 3:17; 7:6; L u k e 2:36; 5:10; 6:45; 7:41; 1 2 : 1 8 ; 12:19;
13:27; 14:29 ( 2 x ) ; 16:8; 16:25; 18:7; 18:8; 19:21; 19:42 ( 2 x ) ;
21:20; 2 4 : 3 2 ; J o h n 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 o f a g r e e m e n t i s much
l o w e r t h a t Didymus's o v e r a l l a g r e e m e n t 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 only because the e x c l u s i v e readings 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 o p p o s i n g a l l o t h e r
witnesses.
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 o f M a t t . 5:4; 12:24; 2 0 : 3 2 ; 2 1 : 1 9 ; L u k e 6:45; 1 1 : 1 5 ;
w h i l e v a r y i n g a t M a t t . 7:6; 7:14; 11:21; 2 4 : 4 0 ; Mark 9:49;
L u k e 1:17; 14:29; 15:22; 16:8; 17:10; 2 0 : 3 5 ; J o h n 3:16 ( 2 x ) ;
5:18; 5:29; 5:45.
15
Didymus a g r e e s w i t h A l e x a n d r i a n p r i m a r y r e a d i n g s i n t h e
f o l l o w i n g t e x t s : M a t t . 5:41; 7:9 ( 2 x ) ; 10:28 ( 2 x ) ; 12:35;
2 1 : 2 ; 2 3 : 3 0 ; 2 4 : 3 ; Mark 7:6; 11:2 ( 2 x ) ; L u k e 2:35; 2:36; 2:37;
4:17; 6:38; 7:28 ( 2 x ) ; 10:19; 10:20; 1 1 : 1 5 ; 12:8; 18:14 19:42;
2 0 : 2 5 ; J o h n 4:20; 4:36; 5:38; 5:47.
Disagreements:
Matt.
6:24; 10:28; 11:21; 15:6; 16:19; 19:28; 2 2 : 4 5 ; 2 6 : 3 1 ; 26:53
( 2 x ) ; L u k e 6:45; 6:46; 13:27; 14:26; 14:28; 18:7; 1 9 : 4 3 ;
2 0 : 2 5 ; 21:20.

2 3 2 / Didymus and t h e

Gospels

c o n t r a s t s s h a r p l y with h i s support
Caesarean,
18

41.4% a g r e e m e n t ;

f o r a l l t h e other groups:

Western, 38.2%;

and

Byzantine,

17.5%.
When D i d y m u s ' s

support

of the three d i f f e r e n t

inter-group readings i s tabulated together

umn) , one c a n s e e w i t h p a r t i c u l a r c l a r i t y h i s
proximity to the Alexandrian text.

He

kinds of

(the Totals c o l comparative

agrees with over

half

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
the Caesarean,
Western.

and w i t h l e s s

than

a fifth

of

of the Byzantine

and

T h u s i t s h o u l d be c l e a r t h a t Didymus i s n o t o n l y a

good A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s
t i o n of d i s t i n c t i v e

( a s shown e s p e c i a l l y by h i s a t t e s t a -

r e a d i n g s ) b u t t h a t h i s d e v i a t i o n s from t h e

Alexandrian tradition

a r e not toward a Western o r

Byzantine

text.
One
change

other

f e a t u r e of t h i s p r o f i l e worth observing

i n Didymus's

alignments

beginning

p a u c i t y o f t h e d a t a makes i t d i f f i c u l t
p a r t s of John, although
the Western readings
n o t be o v e r l o o k e d
[11.1%]).

[28.2%] as c o n t r a s t e d w i t h
total

Gospel

to

should
2/18
text

with t h a t which f o l l o w s v a l i d a t e s the conclu-

s i o n drawn e a r l i e r :
dramatically

3:12;
14:28;
(4x);
23:21;

p a r t of the Gospel

B u t a c o m p a r i s o n o f Didymus's

b e f o r e J o h n 6:47

The

t o compare o n l y t h e two

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

i n t h e second

(11/39

i s the

w i t h J o h n 6:47.

t h e c h a r a c t e r o f Didymus's

for the f i n a l

text

shifts

two-thirds of John's Gospel.

Par-

A g r e e m e n t s w i t h C a e s a r e a n p r i m a r y r e a d i n g s : M a t t . 1:6;
11:20; 2 2 : 1 3 ; 2 4 : 3 6 ; 2 6 : 5 3 ; L u k e 1:34; 6:38; 9:23;
21:20; 22:32.
D i s a g r e e m e n t s : M a t t . 7:23; 7:26; 10:28
1 1 : 1 8 ; 15:14; 23:30 ( 2 x ) ; 25:6; 2 6 : 5 3 ; L u k e 2:37; 2 0 : 3 5 ;
J o h n 4:20; 5:47.

^ A g r e e m e n t s w i t h W e s t e r n p r i m a r y r e a d i n g s : M a t t . 3:12;
5:9; 6:20; 7:9 ( 2 x ) ; 7:24; 7:26; 2 2 : 1 3 ; 2 3 : 2 ; 24:36; 2 6 : 5 3 ;
Mark 7:6; L u k e 4:18; 10:20; 1 6 : 1 5 ; 1 6 : 2 3 ; 17:10 ( 2 x ) ; 2 4 : 4 9 ;
J o h n 1:3; 6:46.
D i s a g r e e m e n t s : K a t t . 1:16; 4:19; 5:20; 5:48;
6:1; 6:14; 11:20; 12:24; 1 3 : 4 3 ; 14:21; 1 5 : 6 ; 2 3 : 3 7 ; 2 5 : 4 1 ;
2 6 : 5 3 ; 27:40 ( 2 x ) ; Mark 4:10; L u k e 1:68; 3:8; 9:23; 14:26;
17:10; 1 9 : 1 2 ; 19:21; 19:42; 20:36; 2 3 : 2 1 ; J o h n 5:8; 5:29;
5:47; 6:38 ( 4 x ) .
18
A g r e e m e n t s w i t h B y z a n t i n e p r i m a r y r e a d i n g s : M a t t . 4:4;
15:6; 15:14; 23:30; 2 6 : 3 1 ; 2 8 : 1 9 ; L u k e 4:29; 1 9 : 4 3 .
Disagreements:
M a t t . 1:6; 5:25; 5:48; 7:9 ( 2 x ) ; 7:21; 7:24; 1 5 : 8 ;
2 1 : 2 ; 2 2 : 1 3 ; 2 3 : 2 5 ; 2 3 : 3 7 ; 2 4 : 3 ; 24:36 ( 3 x ) ; 2 6 : 5 2 ; 2 4 : 5 3 ;
Mark 4:10; 1 1 : 2 ; L u k e 1:69; 2:36; 4:17; 4:18; 6:38; 1 0 : 1 3 ;
1 6 : 2 5 ; 18:14; 19:42; 2 0 : 2 5 ; 2 2 : 3 2 ; J o h n 6:29; 6:46.

Group P r o f i l e s
t i c u l a r l y w o r t h n o t i n g a r e : (1) t h e d r o p i n D i d y m u s ' s
for Alexandrian

readings

greater attestation
28.2%).

from 5 2 . 0 % t o 2 7 . 8 % ;

of Western r e a d i n g s

d i s t i n c t i v e Western reading,

(up from 18.0% t o

Obviously

and h e c o n t a i n s n e a r l y t h r e e

of e x c l u s i v e Western r e a d i n g s

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

Byzantine

affinities.

group r e a d i n g s h e r e ,

c a n n o t be o v e r l o o k e d
v e r y good s u p p o r t e r

f o r example.

And

at least

major drawbacks t o t h i s
First,

be u n e v e n l y d i s t r i b u t e d
Byzantine

Father's B i b l i c a l

any

A l l t h e same, i t

t h a t Didymus h a s c h a n g e d f r o m b e i n g
tradition

in part this

i n v o l v e d a g r e a t e r i n f l u x of Western

distinctive

judgments

There are s c a r c e l y

of the Alexandrian

r a t h e r m e d i o c r e one.

been i n t i m a t e d .

as in^the
6.8%).

these data a r e too s p a r s e to a l l o w f i n a l

of D i d y m u s ' s t e x t u a l

Two

support

(2) t h e

O n l y i n t h i s p o r t i o n o f t e x t d o e s Didymus p r e s e r v e a

times the proportion

rest

and

/233

shift

readings.

first

p r o f i l e have a l r e a d y

i t i s b a s e d on few d a t a t h a t t e n d
among t h e t e x t u a l g r o u p s .

or Caesarean

quotations

texts.

the data w i l l
to support

to

When no

r e a d i n g s a r e f o u n d among a

and a l l u s i o n s ,

With o t h e r P a t r i s t i c

be more numerous.

has

the p r o f i l e cannot

very 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 with the Byzantine

Caesarean

to being

or

sources, of course,

Second, a w i t n e s s ' s

a group's e x c l u s i v e or primary

failure

r e a d i n g s may

result

from i t s p r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e 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 .

o f t e n p r o v e s t o be t h e

c a s e f o r Didymus.
corroborate

This i n fact

T h e s e two d r a w b a c k s s u g g e s t

t h e need t o

the findings of the inter-group p r o f i l e with a

p r o f i l e which c o n s i d e r s p u r e l y intra-group

relationships.

He a g r e e s w i t h t h e 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 ( 1 0 : 2 8 ) , b u t 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 : 3 9 ; 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 : 3 7 ; 7:39 [ 2 x ] ; 9:39; 10:9; 1 0 : 2 9 ; 10:33; 1 2 : 2 ;
14:10).
He a l s o p r e s e r v e s two p r i m a r y r e a d i n g s ( 1 3 : 1 3 ; 14:10)
w h i l e f a i l i n g t o s u p p o r t f o u r o t h e r s ( 6 : 4 7 ; 8:48; 1 0 : 1 5 ;
14:10).
2 0

John
10:35).
21

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;

A g r e e m e n t s w i t h W e s t e r n e x c l u s i v e r e a d i n g s : J o h n 9:28;
10:36; 14:27; 18:5.
D i s a g r e e m e n t s : 8:12; 8:34; 8:40; 8:48;
9:2; 10:10; 10:11 ( 2 x ) ; 10:15; 10:29; 1 3 : 2 7 ; 14:10; 14:23
( 2 x ) ; 15:5; 16:33; 17:3.

234/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

P r o f i l e Two: I n t r a - G r o u p
The

second

Readings

p r o f i l e c h a r t s t h e a t t e s t a t i o n o f u n i f o r m and

predominant r e a d i n g s without

regard 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 g r o u p s .

To b e i n c l u d e d

i n the profile,

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 o f a n y g r o u p .
delimitation
accidental

This

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 o f

a g r e e m e n t among o t h e r w i s e u n r e l a t e d M S S .

Table

XVII

Didymus's A t t e s t a t i o n o f I n t r a - G r o u p

Pxegmi.rianfc

Readings

Total

Matthey:
Alexandrian:

49/57

(86.0%)

29/45

(64.4%)

78/102

(76.5%)

(56.3%)

Byzantine:

60/87

(69.0%)

9/16

69/103

(67.0%)

Caesarean:

45/59

(76.3%)

26/56

(46.4%)

71/115

(61.7%)

Western:

25/52

(48.1%)

12/29

(41.4%)

37/81

(45.7%)

(60.0%)

Mark:
Alexandrian:

4/4

(100%)

3/5

7/9

(77.8%)

Byzantine:

4/8

(50.0%)

0/0 (--)

4/8

(50.0%)

Caesarean:

4/5

(80.0%)

0/4

(0.0%)

4/9

(44.4%)

Western:

1/4

(25.0%)

2/4

(50.0%)

3/8

(37.5%)

Alexandrian:

33/37

(89.2%)

Byzantine:

39/61 ( 6 3 . 9 % )

10/18 ( 5 5 . 6 % )

49/79

(62.0%)

Caesarean:

47/55

(85.5%)

17/33 ( 5 1 . 5 % )

64/88

(72.7%)

8/30 ( 2 6 . 6 % )

7/18 ( 3 8 . 9 % )

Luke:

Western:

John

28/35

(80.0%)

61/72 ( 8 4 . 7 % )

15/48 ( 3 1 . 3 % )

1:1-6:46:

Alexandrian.-

11/11 ( 1 0 0 % )

Byzantine:

17/23 ( 7 3 . 9 % )

Caesarean:
Western:

13/14 ( 9 2 . 9 % )

24/25

(96.0%)

0/3 ( 0 . 0 % )

17/26 ( 6 5 . 4 % )

19/23 ( 8 2 . 6 % )

3/6 ( 5 0 . 0 % )

22/29

(75.9%)

5/10 ( 5 0 . 0 % )

1/6 ( 1 6 . 7 % )

6/16

(37.5%)

Group P r o f i l e s / 2 3 5

Table XVII
Uniform

(cont.)
Predominant

Total

T o t a l s : M a t t h e w - J o h n 6:46
Alexandrian:

97/109

(89.0%)

73/99

(73.7%)

170/208

(81.7%)

Byzantine:

120/179

(67.0%)

19/37 ( 5 1 . 4 % )

139/216

(64.4%)

Caesarean:

115/142

(81.0%)

46/99

(46.5%)

161/241

(66.8%)

39/96

(40.6%)

22/57

(38.6%)

61/153

(39.9%)

Western:

John

6:47-21:25

Alexandrian:

20/27

(74.1%)

Byzantine:

42/59

(71.2%)

Caesarean:

38/51 ( 7 4 . 5 % )

Western:

19/24 ( 7 9 . 2 % )
2/2

44/61 ( 7 2 . 1 % )

(46.2%)

44/64

(68.8%)

11/17 ( 6 4 . 7 % )

19/34

(55.9%)

6/13

8/17 ( 4 7 . 1 % )

Once a g a i n some p r e l i m i n a r y r e m a r k s
may be h e l p f u l .

39/51 ( 7 6 . 5 % )

(100%)

about t h i s

A w i t n e s s o b v i o u s l y cannot

profile

be c l a s s i f i e d

bona f i d e member o f a g r o u p u n l e s s i t c o n t a i n s a h i g h

as a

propor-

t i o n o f t h e r e a d i n g s s h a r e d by a l l o r most g r o u p members.
would expect a h i g h e r a t t e s t a t i o n o f uniform
predominant,

since failure

readings

One

than

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 p r i m a r y

or exclu-

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 .

since the

p r e d o m i n a n t r e a d i n g o f one g r o u p w i l l
ther,

this profile will

parities

Furthermore,

o f t e n be t h a t o f a n o -

not r e v e a l t h e k i n d of r a d i c a l

among g r o u p s a s t h o s e s e e n i n t h e f i r s t

dis-

profile,

w h e r e two o f t h e t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s o f g r o u p r e a d i n g s w e r e
mutually

exclusive.

What i t d o e s d e m o n s t r a t e

s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher support

f o r those of t h e others, i n approximately

a s was a t t a i n e d

i s a witness's

f o r r e a d i n g s o f one g r o u p

than

t h e same p r o p o r t i o n

i n the quantitative analysis

of individual

witnesses.
I n view

o f t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , i t c a n be s e e n t h a t t h e

intra-group p r o f i l e demonstrates
Didymus's c l o s e s t
and

that

affinities

beyond r e a s o n a b l e doubt

l i e with the Alexandrian

t h e consanguinity of h i s t e x t

Most s i g n i f i c a n t

shifts

i s the t a b u l a t i o n of uniform

mus s u p p o r t s a l l o f t h e A l e x a n d r i a n u n i f o r m

that

text,

a f t e r J o h n 6:46.
readings.

Didy-

r e a d i n g s i n Mark

236/

Didymus and

the

Gospels

and

J o h n 1:1-6:46, a l l b u t

and

a l l but

e i g h t of f i f t y - s e v e n
.
23

f o u r of t h i r t y - s e v e n i n Luke.

ment c o n t r a s t s s h a r p l y w i t h h i s s u p p o r t
p a r t i c u l a r l y the Byzantine
(40.6%

T h i s 89.0%

of the other

a g r e e m e n t ) and

That

a good g r o u p w i t n e s s c o u l d v a r y

surprising.
define

The

Western

of a l l uniform

Any

should

some v a r i a t i o n .

these a u t o m a t i c a l l y agree
extraneous

witness w i l l

from t h e u n i f o r m

i n 100%

of

preserve

text

of

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

the other

five

Thus Didymus's o v e r a l l

d r i a n uniform

Staying
s t r u c k by

the

(57/65,

i n and

of

i s not

of other groups,

of the Caesarean
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 ,
and

agreeAlexan-

only

signifi-

i t i s also

r e a d i n g s , one

s h i f t s t h a t occur beginning

t i o n of Byzantine

in

itself.

f o r t h e moment w i t h u n i f o r m

Didymus's s u p p o r t

87.7%

a g r e e m e n t o f 89%

r e a d i n g s p r i o r t o J o h n 6:47

c a n t l y higher than h i s support

s i g n i f i c a n t l y high

collated

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i n Matthew, i t t o o

would p r e s e r v e e i g h t p l a c e s o f v a r i a t i o n
ment).

effect,

be

c o n s i d e r i n g Didy-

Alexandrian

removed f r o m t h e g r o u p o f A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s and
against

not

serve to

naturally

T h i s c a n be d e m o n s t r a t e d by

mus 's e i g h t v a r i a t i o n s
Matthew.

from r e p r e s e n t a t i v e

readings

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e witnesses themselves

"uniformity":

readings.

sult,

agree-

groups,

agreement).

w i t n e s s e s i n a b o u t 10%

such

(67.0%

i n Matthew,

Western readings

is

w i t h J o h n 6:47.
and

especially

while h i s
increases.

attestaAs

a re-

t h e d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e n o n - W e s t e r n g r o u p s a r e

negligible

(3%),

In
the

now

w h i l e t h e W e s t e r n 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 M a t t . 4:4; 1 2 : 3 7 ; 21:31
(2x) ; 2 2 : 1 3 ; 2 2 : 4 5 ; 2 3 : 2 ; 2 6 : 3 1 .
Three of t h e s e (12:37;
21:31
[ 2 x ] > a r e a g r e e m e n t s w i t h O l d L a t i n MSS a g a i n s t a l l o t h e r s .
2

The

e x c e p t i o n s : L u k e 10:20; 1 6 : 2 3 ; 1 7 : 1 0 ;

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 w o r t h n o t i n g t h a t Didymus n e v e r
v a r i e s f r o m t h e A l e x a n d r i a n u n i f o r m r e a d i n g s i n J o h n 1:1-6:46,
but does so seven times i n the r e s t of t h e Gospel (6:70;
9:28;
1 0 : 2 9 ; 1 0 : 3 6 ; 1 3 : 2 7 ; 14:27; 1 3 : 5 ) .
Three of t h e s e (9:28;
1 0 : 3 6 ; 1 4 : 2 7 ) r e p r e s e n t a g r e e m e n t s w i t h O l d L a t i n MSS a g a i n s t
a l l others.
O v e r a l l , Didymus's s u p p o r t o f A l e x a n d r i a n u n i f o r m
r e a d i n g s d r o p s more t h a n 15% i n t h i s p o r t i o n o f h i s G o s p e l
t e x t ; h i s s u p p o r t o f C a e s a r e a n u n i f o r m r e a d i n g s d r o p s o v e r 6%.

Group P r o f i l e s /237
better

showing

(up n e a r l y 7% t o a 4 7 . 1 % a g r e e m e n t ) .

c o n c l u s i o n cannot

be e s c a p e d

The

t h a t Didymus's t e x t u a l

affinities

a r e much l e s s p r o n o u n c e d f o r t h e l a t t e r p a r t o f J o h n ' s
e v i d e n c i n g a g r e a t e r i n f l u x o f Western and B y z a n t i n e
A similar profile
nant

readings.

emerges i n t h e t a b u l a t i o n o f predomi-

B e f o r e J o h n 6:47, Didymus i s a g a i n shown t o be

a strong witness to the Alexandrian

73.7%

of a l l instances.

tine,

i s removed by a f u l l

Caesarean
(38.6%

The next

text,

w h i c h he s u p p o r t s i n

closest

group, t h e B y z a n -

22% ( w i t h 51.4% agreement), t h e

by 2 6 % ( 4 6 . 5 % a g r e e m e n t ) , a n d t h e W e s t e r n by 3 5 %

a g r e e m e n t ) . As a l r e a d y n o t e d , Didymus s u p p o r t s

A l e x a n d r i a n predominant readings than uniform

attests

t h e v a r i a n t of t h e group's m i n o r i t y

exclusive

When D i d y m u s ' s s u p p o r t

i n primary

a strong supporter

the profile

of intra-group

Up t o J o h n 6:47, Didymus

of the Alexandrian

text

(81.7%

ment) , a r a t h e r m e d i o c r e w i t n e s s t o t h e C a e s a r e a n
t i n e groups

Beginning

agree-

and Byzan-

(66.8% and 64.4% agreement r e s p e c t i v e l y ) ,

poor r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e Western group

w i t h J o h n 6:47 t h e a l i g n m e n t s

d i s p a r i t i e s among t h e A l e x a n d r i a n ,
groups narrow s h a r p l y

(here they

(39.9%
shift:

Byzantine,

and a

agreement).
t h e wide

and

Caesarean

a r e s e p a r a t e d by 8% r a t h e r

1 7 % ) , w h i l e t h e W e s t e r n g r o u p now s t a n d s much c l o s e r t o

Didymus

(up 16% from 3 9 . 9 % t o 5 5 . 9 % ) .

The

proportion
antine,

major drawback o f t h i s

and Caesarean

ingsthat

second

profile

i s that the

o f Didymus's a g r e e m e n t s w i t h t h e A l e x a n d r i a n ,

common o c c u r r e n c e

groups i s i n e v i t a b l y

o f e x c l u s i v e and d i s t i n c t i v e Western

agreeing

against a l l others.

o f t h e o t h e r groups, though l e s s

similar effect

on t h e p r o f i l e .

Byz-

r a i s e d by t h e

i s , by i n s t a n c e s o f two o r t h r e e W e s t e r n

readings

less

and

f o r predominant group r e a d i n g s i s

r e l a t i o n s h i p s becomes c l e a r .

than

fewer

because he often

readings.

combined w i t h t h a t f o r t h e uniform,

is

Gospel,

readings.

The d i s t i n c t i v e

read-

witnesses

and e x c l u s i v e

frequent,

Readings of t h i s

have a

kind reveal

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
aberrant

about

i t s f a i l u r e t o support

f o r m o f one o f t h e t e x t u a l g r o u p s .

a particularly
But t h i s

negative

k i n d o f 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 u n d e r t h e c a t e -

238/

Didymus and

the

g o r i e s of the f i r s t

Gospels

profile.

Obviously

p r o f i l e w h i c h c a n combine t h e c o n c e r n s
with those

what i s n e e d e d i s a
of the f i r s t

profile

of t h e 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 the uniform

and

g r o u p t h a t h a p p e n a l s o t o be

predominant r e a d i n g s of

distinctive,

exclusive,

or

primary.

P r o f i l e Three:
The

C o m b i n a t i o n I n t e r - and

r e l a t i o n s h i p o f an

b e s t be g a u g e d by
uniformly
o r few

tabulating

or predominantly

other witnesses.

a profile

of t h i s

sort.

mus's c a s e t o p r o v i d e

Intra-Group

Readings

i n d i v i d u a l w i t n e s s t o a group
i t s support

for readings

among g r o u p members, b u t

Naturally there w i l l
Nonetheless,

be

a clear portrait

among

fewer

enough e x i s t
of h i s group

can

found
no

data

i n Didyaffini-

ties.

Table

XVIII

D i d y m u s ' s S u p p o r t o f U n i f o r m and P r e d o m i n a n t R e a d i n g s
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

Predominant

That

Total

Matthew:
Alexandrian:
Byzantine:
Caesarean:

5/7

4/7

9/14

2/12

0/3

2/15

4/5

2/19

6/24

8/29

6/18

14/47

Alexandrian:

1/1

2/2

3/3

Byzantine:

0/1

0/0

0/1

Caesarean:

0/0

0/0

0/0

Western:

0/3

1/2

1/5

Western:

Mark:

Luke:
3/4

7/10

10/14

Byzantine:

2/11

0/1

2/12

Caesarean:

3/5

3/4

6/9

3/18

3/12

6/30

Alexandrian:

Western:

in

Group P r o f i l e s

Table

XVIII

(cont.)

Uniform

Predominant

Total

Alexandrian:

1/1

2/2

3/3

Byzantine:

0/2

0/1

0/3

Caesarean:

0/1

0/0

0/1

Western:

2/7

0/4

2/11

John

/239

1:1-6:46:

T o t a l s : Matthew-John
Alexandrian:

6:46

10/13

(76.9%)

15/21

Byzantine:

4/26

(15.4%)

0/5

Caesarean:

7/11

(63.6%)

5/23

(21.7%)

12/34

(35.3%)

13/57

(22.8%)

10/36

(27.8%)

23/93

(24.7%)

Western:

John

(71.4%)

25/34

(73.5%)

(0.0%)

4/31

(12.9%)

6:47-21:25

Alexandrian:

0/0

V i

1/1

(100%)

Byzantine:

0/4

0/0

0/4

(0.0%)

Caesarean:

0/0

1/4

1/4

(25.0%)

Western:

1/5

6/10

7/15

(46.7%)

Once a g a i n ,
Didymus's

the p r o f i l e

strongest a f f i n i t i e s

up t o J o h n 6:47

shows

l i e with the Alexandrian

that
group.

He

s u p p o r t s a f u l l 76.9% o f t h e A l e x a n d r i a n u n i f o r m r e a d 25
27
ings,
a s o p p o s e d t o 63.6% o f t h e C a e s a r e a n r e a d i n g s ,
22.8% o f t h e Western,

and a s c a n t

15.4% o f t h e

Byzantine.

26 .
; 10:28; 18:6; 2 1 : 2 ;
H i s a g r e e m e n t s : M a t t 5:28
1 1 : 1 5 ; J o h n 5:38.
Disagree2 4 : 3 ; Mark 1 1 : 2 ; L u k e 2:36; 4:17;
17:10.
ments:
Matt. 22:45; 26:31; Luke
T h i s r e l a t i v e l y h i g h l e v e l of agreement i s b e s t a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e p r o n o u n c e d A l e x a n d r i an e l e m e n t i n t h e C a e s a r e a n
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 o f t h e W e s t e r n and B y z a n t i n e
Didymus's a g r e e m e n t s :
Matt
groups.
S e e below, pp. 261-62.
Disagree1:6; 3:12; 11:20; 2 2 : 1 3 ; L u k e 1:3 4; 9:23; 2 1 : 2 0 .
ments:
M a t t 15:14; L u k e 2:37; 23 :21; J o h n 5:47.
28
3:12; 6:20; 7:9; 7:24; 7:26;
Western agreements:
Matt.
10; 2 4 : 4 9 ; J o h n 1:3; 6:46.
2 2 : 1 3 : 2 3 : 2 ; 2 4 : 3 6 ; L u k e 4:18; 17
4:19; 5:19; 5:42; 1 0 : 2 9 ;
Western disagreements:
1:16; 4:4
15:6; 1 5 : 8 ; 1 6 : 1 8 ; 1 8 : 2 2 ;
1 1 : 2 0 ; 1 1 : 2 1 ; 11:28; 1 3 : 4 3 ; 14:21
2 7 : 4 0 ; Mark 4:10; 7:6;
2 2 : 1 3 ; 2 4 : 3 0 ; 2 5 : 3 3 ; 25:41; 26:53
1 0 : 2 0 ; 1 1 : 1 3 ; 12:19; 12:20;
9:49; L u k e 2:37; 8:15; 9:23; 9:62
2 7

240/ Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

E v e n more t e l l i n g

i s the t a b u l a t i o n of predominant

readings.

H e r e Didymus a t t e s t s

71.4% o f t h e 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% o f t h e C a e s a r e a n ,
and 27.8% o f t h e W e s t e r n .
He
33
s u p p o r t s none o f t h e p r e d o m i n a n t B y z a n t i n e r e a d i n g s .
combination of t h e s e f i g u r e s

mus 's a f f i n i t i e s
Alexandrian

crystal

Byzantine.

clear.

While s u p p o r t i n g 73.5% of a l l

readings of t h i s p r o f i l e ,

the Caesarean readings,

The

i n t h e t o t a l s c o l u m n makes D i d y -

he a t t e s t s o n l y

35.3% of

24.7% o f t h e W e s t e r n , and 12.9% o f t h 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 the

l a t t e r p o r t i o n o f J o h n ' s G o s p e l p r e c l u d e s a c o m p l e t e comparison with the rest

worth noting that

o f Didymus's G o s p e l t e x t ,

although i t i s

Didymus's a t t e s t a t i o n o f w e s t e r n

readings

n e a r l y d o u b l e s from 2 4 . 7 % t o 4 6 . 7 % .
One
trasting

way

t o put t h i s p r o f i l e

Didymus w i t h a l l

into perspective

i s by c o n -

other witnesses with respect

to

1 4 : 2 9 ; 1 6 : 2 3 ; 18:14; 1 9 : 1 2 ; 1 9 : 4 3 ; 2 0 : 2 5 ; 2 0 : 3 6 ; J o h n 1:6;
4:14; 5:19; 6:38 ( 2 x ) ,
29
B y z a n t i n e a g r e e m e n t s : M a t t . 15:6; 15:14; L u k e 4:29;
19:43.
D i s a g r e e m e n t s : M a t t . 1:6; 7:9; 7:24; 15:8; 2 1 : 2 ;
2 2 : 1 3 ; 2 3 : 3 7 ; 24:36 ( 2 x ) ; 2 6 : 5 3 ; Mark 1 1 : 2 ; L u k e 1:69; 4:17;
4:18; 6:38; 1 0 : 1 3 ; 1 6 : 2 5 ; 18:14; 1 9 : 4 2 ; 2 0 : 2 5 ; J o h n 5:38;
6:46.
A l e x a n d r i a n a g r e e m e n t s : M a t t . 7:9; 1 0 : 2 8 ; 1 2 : 3 5 ;
2 3 : 3 0 ; Mark 4:10; 1 1 : 2 ; L u k e 2:37; 6:38; 7:28; 1 0 : 1 9 ; 10:20;
2 0 : 2 5 ; 2 4 : 4 9 ; J o h n 4:20; 4:36.
D i s a g r e e m e n t s : M a t t . 10:28;
11:21; 2 5 : 4 1 ; L u k e 1 4 : 2 8 ; 18:7; 1 9 : 4 3 .
3 0

3 1

C a e s a r e a n a g r e e m e n t s : M a t t . 2 4 : 3 6 ; 2 6 : 5 3 ; L u k e 6:38;
14:28; 22:32.
D i s a g r e e m e n t s : M a t t . 7:23 ( 2 x ) ; 7:26 ( 2 x ) ;
10:28 ( 3 x ) ; 1 1 : 1 8 ; 1 3 : 4 3 ; 14:21; 15:14 ( 2 x ) ; 23:30 ( 2 x ) ; 2 5 : 6 ;
25:16; 26:53; Luke 20:35.
3 2

W e s t e r n a g r e e m e n t s : M a t t . 5:9; 6:34; 7:9; 21:31 ( 2 x ) ;

2 6 : 5 3 ; Mark 7:6; L u k e 1 6 : 1 5 ; 1 6 : 2 3 ; 17:10. D i s a g r e e m e n t s :
M a t t . 5:48; 6:1; 6:14 ( 2 x ) ; 7:14; 7:23; 1 0 : 2 8 ; 10:34; 13:11;
2 3 : 3 7 ; 2 6 : 5 3 ; 2 8 : 1 9 ; Mark 7:6; L u k e 11:50; 1 2 : 1 9 ; 12:20;
14:26; 1 6 : 2 5 ; 17:10; 19:42; 21:20; 2 3 : 2 1 ; J o h n 1:18; 5 s 8 ;
5:47; 6:38.
3 3

B y z a n t i n e disagreements:
2 2 : 3 2 ; J o h n 6:29.
3

M a t t . 5:25; 7:21;

24:3;

Luke

* A l e x a n d r i a n a g r e e m e n t s i n t h i s p o r t i o n o f J o h n : 10:28
( p r e d o m i n a n t ) . C a e s a r e a n a g r e e m e n t s : 10:29 ( p r e d o m i n a n t ) .
W e s t e r n a g r e e m e n t s : 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; 1 3 : 2 7 ; 13:27.
Byzantine disagreements:
8:39;
1 0 : 2 7 ; 1 4 : 2 3 ; 17:12 ( a l l u n i f o r m ) .
Caesarean disagreements:
8:48; 1 0 : 1 6 ; 10:32 ( a l l p r e d o m i n a n t ) . W e s t e r n 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; 1 0 : 3 5 ; 17:21; p r e d o m i n a n t 6 : 6 2 ; 7:37;
10:10; 1 0 : 2 9 .

Group P r o f i l e s

their

support

of the A l e x a n d r i a n

witnesses closest

readings with the greatest

T h e r e w o u l d be no
in a rank-ordering
Alexandrian

group r e a d i n g s .

to the Alexandrian

readings.

will

Obviously

contain

such

frequency.

reason

o f MSS

text

/241

to include Alexandrian

according

to support

By d e f i n i t i o n ,

of

witnesses

uniform

the Alexandrians a l l

35
share these readings.
by

this

Table
he

standard,

XIX

confirms

stands well

When t h e o t h e r w i t n e s s e s a r e

however, a s i g n i f i c a n t

result

Didymus's s t r o n g A l e x a n d r i a n

a b o v e a l l o t h e r w i t n e s s e s on t h e
Table

ranked

i s obtained.
affinities:
list.

XIX

W i t n e s s e s Ranked A c c o r d i n g t o S u p p o r t of U n i f o r m
D i s t i n c t i v e , E x c l u s i v e , or Primary Alexandrian Readings
I n Matthew, Mark, L u k e , and J o h n 1:1-6:46

1. Didymus

10/13

(76.9%)

9/13

(69.2%)

7/12

(58.3%)

4. w

7/13

(53.8%)

5.

6/13

(46.2%)

6.

4/9

(44.4%)

7. b

4/9

(44.4%)

5/13

(38.5%)

2.

fam

3.

1241

8.

fam

9.

2/6

(33.3%)

10.

4/13

(30.8%)

11. A

2/7

(28.6%)

12.

2/8

(25.0%)

13.

3/13

(23.1%)

14.

3/13

(23.1%)

15. n

3/13

(23.1%)

16.

An

out

0/0

e v e n more s i g n i f i c a n t

the witnesses according

tive,

13

exclusive,

result

i s obtained

by

to agreements i n predominant

or primary

ranking
distinc-

r e a d i n g s of the A l e x a n d r i a n

W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f 1241, w h i c h , a s n o t e d , was
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 .

group.

left

242/

Didymus and

the

Gospels

Since the Alexandrian witnesses s p l i t

c a n be

i n these readings,

included i n the tabulation as w e l l .

But

r e c o g n i z e d t h a t g r o u p members o u t s i d e o f t h e c o n t r o l
will

normally c o n t a i n fewer

side,

of t h e s e readings than those i n -

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 o f

i n t h e r a n k - o r d e r i n g o f T a b l e XX t h e more

Table

1. P
66

remarkable.

XX

9/9

(100%)

2/2

(100%)

3. K

18/21

(85.7%)

4.

18/21

(85.7%)

5. L

18/21

(85.7%)

6.

13/16

(81.3%)

15/21

(71.4%)

9/13

(69.2%)
(64.7%)

7. Didymus
8.

579

9.

1241

11/17

892

13/21

(61.9%)

8/13

(61.5%)

12/20

(60.0%)

10.
11.
12.

33

13. e
14.

fam

5/11

(45.5%)

9/21

(42.9%)

15. W

6/19

(31.6%)

6/21

(28.6%)

16.

17. D

5/20

(25.0%)

18. b

2/12

(16.7%)
(13.3%)

19. A

2/15

20. E

1/9

2/21

(9.5%)

22 . n

2/21

(9.5%)

23. s

2/21

(9.5%)

2/21

(9.5%)

25. a

1/14

(7.1%)

26. k

0/3

(0.0%)

21.

24.

fam

13

(11.1%)

of

Didy-

W i t n e s s e s Ranked A c c o r d i n g 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, L u k e , J o h n 1:1-6:46

2. P

be

group

s i n c e t h e y were not used t o e s t a b l i s h t h e b o u n d a r i e s

the category.
mus

they

i t should

G r o u p P r o f i l e s /243

As
only

this

rank-ordering

indicates

demonstrates,

shows t h a t h e d o e s s o e v e n b e t t e r t h a n
Alexandrian

c o n t r o l group.

ship to the Early Alexandrian

just

( c f . h i s |tanding

witnesses P

a s o b v i o u s l y h e must be c o n s i d e r e d

subgroup

the minuscule

MSS o f t h e " L a t e "

and B ) .
secondary

somewhat

Alexandrian

(MSS 33, 579, 8 9 2 , 1 2 4 1 ) .

T h i s c o n c l u s i o n c a n be f u r t h e r s h a r p e n e d
c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f MSS

f o u r t h cannot

by y e t a n o t h e r

i n t h e i r combined w i t n e s s , a s s e t f o r t h

in a fourth profile.
the

primary

in relation-

a strong

witness t o i t , a t l e a s t as strong a s , or perhaps

s t r o n g e r than,

textit

some members o f t h e

Didymus i s o b v i o u s l y n o t a

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the t e x t - t y p e

But

the t h i r d p r o f i l e not

t h a t Didymus p r e s e r v e s t h e A l e x a n d r i a n

Unlike the three preliminary

be u s e d

f o r every

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

profiles,

t e x t u a l witness, but only

affinities

have a l r e a d y been

established.

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

so-called

The

witnesses

" l a t e r " Alexandrian witnesses are generally

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
level

the " e a r l i e r " Alexandrians.

of impurity

against

the r e l a t i v e l y

d r i a n group.

purer

them

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the Alexan-

To some e x t e n t , o f c o u r s e ,

done i n t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s .
allow

One way t o gauge t h e

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

t h i s h a s a l r e a d y been

But t h a t a n a l y s i s d i d not

f o r c o m p a r i s o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l MSS w i t h g r o u p o r s u b g r o u p

readings,

and so d i d n o t p e r m i t

j u d g m e n t s t o be made c o n -

c e r n i n g t h e r e l a t i v e p u r i t y o f i n d i v i d u a l g r o u p members. T h e s e
j u d g m e n t s c a n be made, h o w e v e r , by i s o l a t i n g
andrian witnesses
of

from t h e r e s t

the purest

a n d u s i n g them a s a

Alex-

standard

comparison.
Thus t h e f o u r t h p r o f i l e

relative

standing

to the text
Gospel,

t o determine

s h a r e d by t h e g r o u p ' s p u r e s t members.

a l l w i t n e s s e s were c o l l a t e d

predominant E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n
ported

attempts

by a l l o r b y a t l e a s t

d r i a n MSS w i t h

Didymus's

among t h 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

text).

a g a i n s t t h e uniform

readings

( i . e . readings

two-thirds of the Early

The r e s u l t a n t

respect

F o r each

rank-orderings

and

supAlexan-

indicate

244/

how

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

w e l l e a c h MS

adulterated
drian

preserves the Alexandrian text

form.

Alexan-

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

uniform readings w i l l
and

in i t s least

S i n c e and B a r e t h e o n l y E a r l y

XXII).

I n Luke t h e w i t n e s s o f P
66
75

t h a t of both P
two G o s p e l s

be g i v e n f o r t h e s e G o s p e l s

and P

and i n J o h n

are also available.

separate l i s t s

c a n be p r o v i d e d

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
Table

of

( T a b l e s XXI

Hence f o r t h e s e

f o r uniform

(Tables XXIII

and

and

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
W i t h t h e U n i f o r m E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n T e x t i n Matthew
(116 u n i t s o f v a r i a t i o n )

70/85

( 8 2 .,4%)

2. 892

95/116

( 8 1 .,9%)

3 . 33

90/116

( 7 7 .,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%)
(68,.1%)

1. C

10.

79/116

11.

78/116

(67,.2%)

12.

1241

63/94

(67,.0%)

13. A

9/12

(66,.7%)

14.

74/113

(65,,5%)

15.

fam 13

73/116

(62,.9%)

16.

51/94

(54,.3%)

17 . k

26/53

(49 ,
.1%)

18. e

18/38

(47,,4%)

19. a

44/93

(47,.3%)

20.

37/89

(41,.6%)

XXIV).

Group P r o f i l e s /245

Table

XXII

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 Hark
(8 u n i t s o f v a r i a t i o n )

1. C

6/6

(100%)

3/3

(100%)

3. Didymus

7/8

(87.5%)

4. L

7/8

(87.5%)

7/8

(87/5%)

2.

5.

6. 892

7/8

(87.5%)

7. 33

4/5

(80.0%)

8. 579

6/8

(75.0%)

9. A

6/8

(75.0%)

10. n

6/8

(75.0%)

6/8

(75.0%)

11.

fam 13

12 . 1241

6/8

(75.0%)

13. E

5/8

(62.5%)

14 . e

5/8

(62.5%)

15. a

5/8

(62.5%)

16.

4/8

(50.0%)

17. b

4/8

(50.0%)

18. W

3/8

(37.5%)

19.

fam 1

3/8

(37.5%)

20. k

1/3

(33.3%)

2/8

(25.0%)

22 . e

0/1

(0.0%)

21.

24 6/ Didymus a n d t h e G o s p e l s

Table

XXIII

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 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

Uniform and Predominant

(94 u n i t s o f v a r i a t i o n )

Readings

(106 u n i t s o f v a r i a t i o n )
93/106

( 8 7 . 7%)

87/103

( 8 4 . 5%)

3. Didymus

86/106

( 8 1 . 1%)

4.

82/106

( 7 7 . 4%)

(80. ,9%)

5. 33

81/105

(77. 1%)

28/36

(77. 8%)

6. 892

80/106

( 7 5 . 5%)

7. 892

72/94

(76.6%)

7. C

31/42

( 7 3 .,8%)

8. n

70/94

(74. ,5%)

8. 1241

76/106

(71.,2%)

9. A

68/94

(73..1%)

9. fam 13

75/106

(70. 8%)

1. L

86/94

( 9 1 . 5*)

1. L

2 . 579

83/92

( 8 8 . .3%)

2.

3 . Didymus

79/94

(84. 0%)

4. 33

78/93

( 8 3 .,9%)

5. Y

76/94

6. c

579

10.

1241

68/94

(72..3%)

10.

74/106

(69.,8%)

11.

68/94

(72..3%,

11.

73/106

(68. ,9%)

12.

fam 13

67/94

(71..3%)

12. A

71/105

(67.,6%)

13.

66/94

(70..2%)

13.

70/106

(66, .0%)

(68..1%)

14 . W

69/106

(65..1%)

64/94

14.

fam 1

15.

63/94

(67,.0%)

15.

fam 1

69/106

(65..1%)

16. w

62/94

(66, .0%)

16.

67/106

(63..2%)
(52,.5%)

39/75

(52,.0%)

17.

42/80

18. b

32/67

(47, .8%)

18. b

34/73

(46, .6%)

19.

43/93

(46, .2%)

19.

48/105

(45,.7%)

20.

29/76

(38,.2%)

20.

31/81

(38..3%)

17.

Group P r o f i l e s

Table

/247

XXIV

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
W i t h 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 J o h n 1:1-6:46

Uniform Readings

U n i f o r m and

(18 u n i t s o f v a r i a t i o n )
9/9

Readings

variation)

(100%)

1. C

15/15

2. 33

17/18

(94.,4%)

2.

33

28/31

(90.3%)

3. L

17/18

(94.,4%)

3.

Didymus

27/31

(87.1%)

1.

Predominant

(31 u n i t s o f

(100%)

15/18

(83.,3%)

4.

26/31

(83.9%)

5.

Didymus

14/18

(77.,8%)

5. ?

24/31

(77.4%)

6.

579

14/18

(77.,8%)

6.

23/31

(74.2%)

14/18

(77.,8%)

7. A

23/31

(74.2%)

13/18

(72 .,2%)

8.

fam

23/31

(74.2%)

13/18

(72.,2%)

9.

23/31

(74.2%)

10. A

13/18

(72.,2%)

10.

1241

22/30

(73.3%)

11.

892

22/31

(71.0%)

4.

7. e
8.

892

9.

fam

579

12/17

(70.. 6%)

11.

12 . A

12/18

(66..7%)

12 . fam

12/18

(66..7%)

13. A

12/18

(66,,7%)

11/18

(61,.1%)

16. W

6/10

17.

18.

1241

22/31

(71.0%)

21/31

(67.7%)

14. n

21/31

(67.7%)

15. A

20/30

(66.7%)

(60 .0%)

16. W

9/15

(60.0%)

8/14

(57 .1%)

17 . a

11/24

(45.8%)

9/18

(50 .0%)

18. b

11/24

(45.8%)

19. b

8/18

(44 .4%)

19.

11/24

(45.8%)

20.

7/18

(38 .9%)

20.

9/23

(39.1%)

13.

14 . fam
15.

As

13

can seen

from t h e s e t a b l e s ,

13

Didymus s t a n d s i n a p p r o x i -

m a t e l y 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
nesses

i n a l l o f t h e G o s p e l s up

ments p r e s e n t e d
picture

t o J o h n 6:47.

i n t h e s e t a b l e s a r e combined, an

e m e r g e s o f Didymus's r e l a t i v e

Alexandrian text.
uniform readings

This w i l l
( T a b l e XXV,

first
p.

support

agree-

aggregate

of the

Early

be done w i t h r e s p e c t

to

248).

This t a b l e provides a c l e a r demonstration of

Alexandrian a f f i n i t i e s h e

wit-

When t h e

Didymus's

s t a n d s among t h e g r o u p o f

Late

248/

Didymus and t h e

Gospels

Table

XXV

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
U n i f o r m 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 Matthew,
Mark, L u k e , a n d J o h n 1:1-6:46
(236 u n i t s o f v a r i a t i o n )

1. C

119/136

( 8 7 .,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%)

96/131

(73.,3%)

149/213

(70..0%)

8. A
9. 1241

Alexandrian

10.

fam 1

165/236

(69..9%)

11.

165/236

(69.,9%)

12.

164/236

(69..5%)

13.

161/233

(69..1%)

14.

84/123

(68.,3%)

15.

160/235

(68.,1%)

16. W

153/228

(67..1%)

17.

fam 13

158/236

(66.,9%)

18.

104/209

(49..8%)

19.

27/56

(48..2%)

20. b

81/182

(44..5%)

21.

95/214

(44..4%)

22.

54/193

(40..6%)

witnesses.

Especially

t o be n o t e d h e r e

d r o p b e t w e e n 892 a n d A, s h o w i n g t h e b * s i c c o h e s i o n
Alexandrian

i s t h e 6%
of the

group.

Nevertheless, this profile

taking

with

i n t o account

s h o u l d be f u r t h e r r e f i n e d

by

t h e t w e n t y - f i v e i n s t a n c e s of predominant

Early Alexandrian

readings

use

i s b a s e d on t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e v a r i a -

such

readings

i n L u k e and J o h n .

The d e c i s i o n t o

t i o n o f one w i t n e s s o f t h e s u b g r o u p d e r i v e s e i t h e r
vagary

of the witness

itself

from t h e

o r from c o r r u p t i o n o f one s t r a n d

Group P r o f i l e s

o f t h e g r o u p by a d i f f e r e n t

element of the t e x t u a l

When t h e s e p r e d o m i n a n t r e a d i n g s a r e a c c e p t e d
senting the Alexandrian

tradition

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
clearly

as p o s s i b l e (Table

tradition.

as also

i n i t s purest
tradition

/249

repre-

form, t h e
i s shown a s

XXVI).

Table

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

U n i f o r m and Predominant E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n Readings
I n Matthew, Mark, L u k e , and J o h n 1:1-6:46

1. 579

126/142

( 8 8 . 7%)

2.

128/148

( 8 6 . 5%)

3. L

209/259

( 8 0 . 7%)

4. Didymus

207/261

( 7 9 . 3%)

5. 33

203/257

( 7 9 . 0%)

6. 892

205/261

( 7 8 . 2%)

7.

109/140

( 7 7 . 9%)

8. 1241

167/238

(70.,2%)

9. A

109/156

( 6 9 . 9%)

10.

fam 1

180/261

( 6 9 . 0%)

11.

179/261

( 6 8 .,6%)

12. E

84/123

( 6 8 . 3%)

13.

177/261

( 6 7 . 8%)

14.

175/258

( 6 7 . 8%)

15.

fam 13

176/261

( 6 7 . 4%)

16.

163/245

(66.,5%)

17 .

172/259

(66.,45)

18.

27/56

( 4 8 . 2%)

19.

110/230

( 4 7 .,8%)

20.

100/225

(44., 4 % )

21.

86/194

(44. 3%)

22.

60/144

( 4 1 . 7%)

The g e n e r a l c o n t o u r s
prising.

of t h i s

final

profile

a r e not s u r -

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

Early Alexandrians,

to the

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 t h e B y z a n t i n e

and C a e s a r e a n

witnesses gravitate

250/ Didymus and t h e

to the middle.

The L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n s

form o f A l e x a n d r i a n
be e x p e c t e d
falls

Gospels

text

with the purest

from t h e 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 ,

f a r behind the other Alexandrian witnesses

from f , i t s c l o s e s t A l e x a n d r i a n
standard,

the text

Byzantine

and C a e s a r e a n

A).

agree

i n 78-88% o f a l l i n s t a n c e s .

neighbor).

As w o u l d

MS

1241

(removed

J u d g e d by

7.7%

this

o f 1241 a p p e a r s t o be much c l o s e r t o t h e
groups

(standing only

0.3% a h e a d o f

The w i t n e s s e s o f t h i s m i d d l e g r o u p a r e r e m a r k a b l y c o n s i s -

t e n t w i t h one a n o t h e r

i n t h e i r a t t e s t a t i o n of E a r l y

drian readings, with l e s s

h i g h e s t ranked

than

Alexan-

4% d i f f e r e n c e s e p a r a t i n g t h e

w i t n e s s from t h e l o w e s t .

Between

the

Byzantine

and W e s t e r n w i t n e s s e s i s a gap o f 12%, t h e W e s t e r n w i t n e s s e s

alone

s h a r i n g l e s s than h a l f

Alexandrian

As a l r e a d y s u g g e s t e d ,
file

the readings

found i n t h e E a r l y

text.

resides

the s u p e r i o r i t y

in i t sability

of t h i s

final

pro-

to isolate Alexandrian

group

r e a d i n g s by e l i m i n a t i n g t h e v a g a r i e s o f i n d i v i d u a l

Early

andrian witnesses.

T h i s makes Didymus's

XXVI p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i k i n g .

H e r e h e 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 a s 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
group

( L , f , 33, and 8 9 2 ) .

Alex-

p o s i t i o n i n Table

sub-

T h i s f i n d i n g l e a d s one t o c o n -

c l u d e t h a t Didymus s h o u l d be r a n k e d

among t h e L a t e

Alexandrian

witnesses.
B o t h 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

Didymus r e p r e s e n t s t h e e a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n
would expect

final

o t h e r way

profile.

fourth p r o f i l e to t e s t

tion within the Alexandrian

m e n t s when t h e E a r l y
split.
total

No

such

of t h i r t y
3 6

occur

in

One

Didymus's

loca-

i s to c h a r t h i s agree-

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

splits
occur

tradition

one

wit-

above a l l o t h e r A l e x a n d r i a n MSS

Such o b v i o u s l y i s not t h e c a s e .

to use t h i s

that

But

t h a t i f Didymus w e r e a n E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n

n e s s , he would have s t o o d
this

tradition.

clearly

i n Didymus"s

t e x t o f Mark, b u t a
36
i n Matthew, L u k e , and J o h n 1:1-6:46,

M a t t . 1:6; 5:4; 6:1; 6:20; 7:9; 7:14; 7:26; 11:20;

12:24; 1 6 : 1 9 ; 22:44; 24:36; 24:40; 26:53 ( 2 x ) ; L u k e 6:45;
6:46; 9:62; 1 1 : 1 5 ; 1 3 : 2 7 ; 14:26; 14:34; 1 6 : 2 5 ; 21:20; 23:21;
2 4 : 4 9 ; J o h n 1:18; 3:16; 5:47; 6:38.

Notably,

Didymus's s u p p o r t

group i n t h e s e s p l i t s
Early Alexandrians
fourteen.
justify

So

/251

f o r the predominant r e a d i n g of

each

i s n e a r l y even:

i n s i x t e e n and

slight

ranking

Group P r o f i l e s

he

agrees with

the Late Alexandrians

a difference i s clearly

s u b s t a n t i a t e d by

examining the

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
r e a d i n g s a r e not

uniform

the E a r l y Alexandrian

agrees

reading).

readings

t e x t up

t o J o h n 6:47

J o h n 1:1-6:46, MS
37

reading

Table XXVII

Early Alexandrian

Didymus i s a good

(p. 252)

readings

for the r e s t

of uniform

and

i n t h i s p o r t i o n of
resembles

o f Didymus's G o s p e l

the

list,

all

readings.

all

text

supporting

others, attesting

The

the E a r l y Alexandrians

Western w i t n e s s e s f a l l

somewhat l o w e r

made p r e -

(p. 2 4 9 ) .
o f MS

The

579,

i n at least

readings
The

and

top

76%

of

below

in

Byzantine

i n the middle of the

the Alexandrians

this essential

i s particularly

Didymus.

text.

significantly

and
table,

higher

Westerns.

Given
one

than

of w i t -

significantly

the E a r l y Alexandrian

w i t n e s s e s group t o g e t h e r

shift
John

predominant

t h e one

s l i g h t l y more t h a n h a l f o f a l l i n s t a n c e s .

the

represen-

with

presents a rank-ordering

support

Late Alexandrian witnesses, with the exception

than

There

subgroup.

t h e whole, t h i s p r o f i l e

Caesarean

support

579

in five!

o f Didymus's t e x t b e g i n n i n g

nesses according to t h e i r

viously

their

occur-

f o u r t h p r o f i l e c a n a l s o s e r v e t o document t h e

i n the consanguinity

On

s p l i t s where

argument c o n t r a r y t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n a l r e a d y drawn:

i n h i s Gospel

6:47.

This

attestation

Notably, of the nine

i n L u k e and

t a t i v e of the Late Alexandrian

The

in

enough t o

( i . e . where o n e - t h i r d or l e s s

with the E a r l y Alexandrian

r e m a i n s no

not

Didymus among t h e E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n s .

c o n c l u s i o n c a n be

rences of such

the

Rather

continuity with the e a r l i e r

s t r u c k by

than

standing

a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s , Didymus h a s
middle s e c t i o n occupied

by

t h e p o s i t i o n now
i n the midst
fallen

Byzantine

near
and

profile,

occupied

by

of the L a t e

Alex-

t h e bottom o f

the

Caesarean

witnesses.

I t s h o u l d be r e c a l l e d t h a t 579 was n o t u s e d 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 agrees with the E a r l y Alexa n d r i a n s i n L u k e 6:45; 1 1 : 1 5 ; 1 4 : 2 6 ; 1 6 : 2 5 ; and 2 1 : 2 0 , b u t n o t
i n L u k e 1 3 : 2 7 ; 2 4 : 4 9 ; J o h n 1:18; and
6:38.

252/

Didymus a n d t h e G o s p e l s

Table

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
A g r e e m e n t W i t h U n i f o r m and P r e d o m i n a n t
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 J o h n 6:47-21:25
(68 u n i t s o f v a r i a t i o n )

1. C

36/37

(97. ,3%)

60/68

(88. ,2%)

3. W

55/66

( 8 3 . ,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%)

2.

12. A

Instead

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.

31/60

(51. .7%)

19. D

35/68

(51.5%)

20.

31/61

(50. .8%)

o f an i m p r e s s i v e 7 9 . 3 % a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e E a r l y

andrians,
One

Didymus now m a i n t a i n s

other c o n s i d e r a t i o n demonstrates

Didymus's t e x t u a l

affinities

from t h a t
(pp.

obtained

250-51).

tation

the s h i f t i n

f o r t h i s portion of the Gospels.

A c o m p a r i s o n o f Didymus w i t h t h e E a r l y
w i t n e s s e s when t h e i r t e x t s

split

and L a t e

Alexandrian

produces a d i f f e r e n t

e a r l i e r f o r the r e s t of h i s Gospel

Instead

Alex-

a mediocre 64.7% agreement.

result
text

of containing a s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r a t t e s -

of the purer Alexandrian readings, as represented i n

the E a r l y Alexandrian
proclivity

text,

Didymus now

to the Late Alexandrian

evidences a convincing

type of t e x t ,

supporting

Group

these 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

ten

instances.

T h i s does not suggest

w i t n e s s of the Late Alexandrian

the Fourth
Alexandrian

splits

or the other.
Alexandrian

subgroup

Gospel ( c f . the preceding

His attestation

tradition,

i n eight of

i n the l a t t e r p a r t of

profile!).

of the l a t e r

therefore, simply

increased occurrence

of t e x t u a l

/253

t h a t Didymus i s a good

I n these

Didymus n e c e s s a r i l y p r e s e r v e s one

J o h n 6:46-21:25 t h e c o n s a n g u i n i t y
an

Profiles

strain

reading

of the

demonstrates that i n

of h i s t e x t changed through
contamination.

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 ) ; 1 0 : 1 5 ; 10:29; 1 2 : 2 ; 1 4 : 1 0 ; 1 7 : 3 ;
17:21.

Chapter V I
Conclusions

most e n d u r i n g

The

c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h e present study

u n d o u b t e d l y be i t s a c c u m u l a t i o n
t h e NT q u o t a t i o n s

of s i g n i f i c a n t data:

and a l l u s i o n s o f a f o u r t h - c e n t u r y

Alexan-

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 .

the data

sources a r e s i m i l a r l y

from a l l o t h e r

mulated w i l l
the h i s t o r y

important

will

here a l l

Not u n t i l a l l
accu-

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 a s p o s s i b l e
o f t h e NT t e x t .

And o n l y t h e n w i l l

to t h e ultimate goal of t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m :
r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e NT

we d r a w

nearer

the accurate

autographs.

A t t h e same t i m e t h i s

s t u d y h a s 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 t h e ongoing t a s k o f t e x t u a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n .
The

purposes o f t h i s

methodological
study

final

c h a p t e r a r e (1) t o r e h e a r s e t h e

refinements

proposed i n t h e course o f t h i s

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

o f NT w i t n e s s e s , and

( 2 ) t o draw o u t t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e a n a l y s i s o f Didymus
f o r t h e e a r l y h i s t o r y o f t h e NT t e x t , p a r t i c u l a r l y
transmitted

a s i t was

i n Alexandria.

Methods o f T e x t u a l A n a l y s i s a n d C l a s s i f i c a t i o n
A number o f s i g n i f i c a n t m e t h o d o l o g i c a l
made by o t h e r t e x t u a l
vances

a d v a n c e s have been

analyses i n recent years.

h a v e made a n i m p o r t a n t

impact

These ad-

on t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y i n

four major a r e a s :

(1) The Use o f a Q u a n t i t a t i v e A n a l y s i s .

Textual 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

n e s s ' s a g r e e m e n t s 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

o n l y when t h e y v a r y
s u c h a s t h e TR.

from a n e x t r i n s i c

significant variation.

another

i n a l l units of g e n e t i c a l l y

(2) The A l i g n m e n t s o f A l e x a n d r i a n

A l e x a n d r i a n MSS c a n be e x p e c t e d

i n approximately

t o agree

70% o f a l l v a r i a t i o n ,

while

i n g a t a d i s t a n c e o f a b o u t 1 0 % from MSS r e p r e s e n t i n g

See

groups
standard

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 b e d e t e r -

mined by t a b u l a t i n g a l i g n m e n t s

Witnesses.

and a r t i f i c i a l

a wit-

pp. 187-90 a b o v e .
254

w i t h one
standother

Conclusions

groups.

(3) The

Phenomenon o f

s o m e t i m e s made u s e
n e s s may

e v i d e n c e r a d i c a l and

A textual

Block Mixture.

o f more t h a n one

be

unexpected realignments.

(4)

quantitative

considers

individual

analysis that

representatives

scribes

exemplar, a t e x t u a l

sudden s h i f t s of

a n a l y s i s must t h e r e f o r e
3

Since

wit-

consanguinity.

c o n d u c t e d so

P r o f i l e s of

/255

as

to

detect

Group R e a d i n g s .

a witness's proximity

to

o f known t e x t u a l

used e x c l u s i v e l y to determine t e x t u a l

groups cannot

alignments.

be

Instead

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
g r o u p must be u s e d t o c o n f i r m and r e f i n e t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e
4
quantitative
Not
gical

advances,

in the
the

analysis.

only did

the

methods o f

use

of

a quantitative

groups can

composite of
the

analysis

s h o u l d be

representative

its

own

With r e s p e c t

w i t n e s s e s of

c r y s t a l i z e d somewhat by

the

group, r a t h e r

to

That

i s to

used to a s c e r t a i n

say,

the

looking at

problems attendant to the

average

step

of

the

quantitative
relationship

t h e members o f

This

serves

to

idiosyncracies

each
reduce
of

this

MS.

A second r e f i n e m e n t has
a quantitative

t o do

with the

a n a l y s i s can

be

e x t e n t of

agree-

expected to y i e l d

for

S e e pp. 189-90 a b o v e .
As d i s c u s s e d b e l o w , t h e s e
f i g u r e s s h o u l d be l o w e r e d somewhat f o r t h e n o n - c o n t i n u o u s
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. 1 9 5 - 2 0 2 .
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
J o h n 6:47 and c o n t i n u i n g t o t h e end o f t h e G o s p e l .
See
the
d i s c u s s i o n o f pp. 2 0 7 - 1 8 .
4
S e e pp. 223-25 a b o v e .
S e e t h e t a b l e s on pp. 1 9 4 - 9 5 ; 2 0 5 - 0 6 ; 2 0 9 - 1 0 ; 2 1 2 - 1 4 ;
216-17.
5

known

than r e s t r i c t i n g

proportional relationships

u n c l a s s i f i e d witness to

individual

ment t h a t

i n common u s e .

group r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .

somewhat t h e
that

the

themselves.

MSS

a previously

g r o u p qua

or

be

methodolo-

a n a l y s i s , t h i s study proposed t h a t

d a t a g r o u p by

comparison only to

individual

of

the

earlier

s o u g h t t o make r e f i n e m e n t s o f

a n a l y s i s now

document's r e l a t i o n to
textual

p r e s e n t s t u d y r e l y on

i t also

I t w i l l be r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e g r o u p p r o f i l e s e f f e c t
s i m i l a r end t h r o u g h an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t means.

256/

Didymus and

a Patristic

argued t h a t P a t r i s t i c

sporadic quotations

group a f f i l i a t i o n

Only those

as c l e a r l y

passages

a church

for analysis.

analysis

of

sionally

and

apply

dence.

i n the course

advances can

difficult.

reconstruction w i l l

be

incorrect.

with methodological

f a c t o r s o c c a s i o n a l e r r o r s of

and

the q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s :

systematic c a u t i o n w i l l

t h e d i f f e r e n c e s among t e x t u a l
T h u s i t was

h a v e an

rigor

tend

to

"even

witnesses.

in fact,

the the witnesses of the Alexandrian

i s strongly
than

as c l e a r

Alexan-

e v e n some o f
8

c o n t r o 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 o f Didymus's t e x t

of A l e x a n d r i a n w i t n e s s e s .

evi-

recon-

unavoidable

they w i l l

shown t h a t Didymus's t e x t

q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s a r e not

No

occa-

a d e g r e e o f 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

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

Yet

c h a r t e d by

cut as

i n + 70%

i s normally

For these reasons

of a l l v a r i a t i o n

and

be

the

the

i t was

p r o p o s e d t h a t t h e n o r m a l r u l e o f thumb t h a t A l e x a n d r i a n
nesses agree

with

loose

surmount t h e s e problems:

effect

expected

only

available

the o c c a s i o n a l corruption

struction

out"

for

o f t r a n s m i s s i o n t o make t h e

must t h e r e f o r e p r o c e e d

Both of t h e s e

on

reasons
locate.

sourcesthe

a P a t r i s t i c witness particularly

a proposed t e x t u a l

critic

to

F a t h e r c h o s e t o q u o t e , and

h a b i t s o f t h e F a t h e r s and
citations

methodological

The

not
such

T h i s random c h a r a c t e r o f t h e d a t a c o m b i n e s

of t h e i r

The

text.

t h a t happen t o s u r v i v e , a r e

o t h e r problems unique t o the P a t r i s t i c

citation

may

sources,

l a c k of c l a r i t y were not h a r d

quoted passages

sources

o f t h e NT

as other

which c o n t a i n a continuous

comparative

those

I t was

frequent but

a s G r e e k MSS
this

Gospels

author.

preserving
evidence

the

removed

wit-

from
9

l e a d i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f o t h e r g r o u p s by
be

somewhat m o d i f i e d

f o r s o u r c e s s u c h a s Didymus.

t e r of the data urges

o f a g r e e m e n t a s low
See
8

a d i s t a n c e of

the

lowering

a s 65%,

t h e d i s c u s s i o n on

of t h e s e

The

figures to

w i t h gaps between groups of

pp.

10%

characlevels
around

195-96 a b o v e .

S e e e s p . 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.
above.
9
S e e t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f pp. 189-90 a b o v e .

238-53

C o n c l u s i o n s /257
10
6-8%.
The
study

major methodological

concern

Method f o r c l a r i f y i n g
tive

proposals developed i n t h i s

t h e u s e o f t h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e Group

analysis.

Profile

and r e f i n i n g t h e f i n d i n g s o f a q u a n t i t a -

Since a quantitative analysis considers the

r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f an e x t r a n e o u s

witness only 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 o f known t e x t u a l g r o u p s , o r t o t h e i r

composite

t e s t i m o n i e s a s g r o u p w i t n e s s e s , i t must be s u p p l e m e n t e d 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 readings t h a t
terize

t h e v a r i o u s groups,

readings

i r r e s p e c t i v e of whether

a r e a t t e s t e d by t h i s o r t h a t i n d i v i d u a l

P r e v i o u s p r o f i l e methods h a v e l a c k e d a d e q u a t e
applicability,
ysis.

charac-

these

witness.

sophistication,

or thoroughness t o allow f o r a complete a n a l -

Hence t h r e e p r o f i l e s w e r e d e v e l o p e d f o r t h e s t u d y
1

of D i d y m u s s t e x t ,

p r o f i l e s w h i c h c a n be u s e d

whose t e x t h a s b e e n f u l l y

collated

f o r any w i t n e s s

and, p r e f e r a b l y , a l r e a d y

subjected to a quantitative analysis.

First,

a n i n t e r - g r o u p p r o f i l e was u s e d

e x t e n t o f Didymus's a t t e s t a t i o n o f r e a d i n g s

to ascertain the
found mainly

by

representatives

o f o n l y one o f t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p s

group r e a d i n g s )

o r o n l y by r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f o n e g r o u p

("dis-

r e a d i n g s when t h e m a j o r i t y o f g r o u p w i t n e s s e s

attest

tinctive"

the reading;
two

do).

" 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 o f a t l e a s t

Next an i n t r a - g r o u p p r o f i l e was u s e d

Didymus*s s u p p o r t
any

group

nesses

of readings

("uniform" r e a d i n g s )

t o determine

f o u n d among a l l t h e w i t n e s s e s o f
or^among most o f t h e s e w i t -

("predominant" r e a d i n g s ) .

Finally,

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 c o n c e r n s
by

("primary"

t a b u l a t i n g Didymus*s a t t e s t a t i o n

combination

o f t h e o t h e r two

of readings

supported

by

m o s t o r a l l members o f one g r o u p , b u t by f e w o r no o t h e r
witnesses

( i . e . uniform

o r 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 o f pp. 195-202

See

t h e d i s c u s s i o n on pp. 2 2 3 - 2 5 a b o v e .

See

pp. 2 2 8 - 3 3 .

See

pp. 2 3 4 - 3 8 .

above.

258/

Didyiaus and

distinctive,

the

Gospels

e x c l u s i v e , or

primary).

T h e s e p r o f i l e s d e m o n s t r a t e d 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 Alexandrian
f o u r t h p r o f i l e was

developed to confirm

these

text.

f i n d i n g s by
15

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 .
the other p r o f i l e s ,

the

f o u r t h c a n be u s e d

a l r e a d y d e t e r m i n e d t o be A l e x a n d r i a n .
d r i a n MSS

are used

t h e i r uniform

as a c o l l a t i o n base,

are collated

i n i t s p u r e s t form.

against this

Here t h e E a r l y
on

" p u r i t y " c a n be

cation

final

of t h i s

When o t h e r

readily

gauged.

levels

appli-

p r o f i l e t o Didymus d e m o n s t r a t e d

C h a r a c t e r and

H i s t o r y of the Alexandrian

from t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y d e r i v e

from t h e A l e x a n d r i a n

t r a d i t i o n o f t h e mid-

century,

be u s e d

they

concerning

cannot

beyond

t h e e n t i r e h i s t o r y o f t h e NT

i n the

problems a l r e a d y r a i s e d
16
Alexandrian text.

Text

Text
entirely

to l a t e -

text.

fourth

At t h e

"Late" Alexandrian

i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o a s k what l i g h t

thorny

western

"Late"

t o make s w e e p i n g g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s

however, once t h e s e d a t a have been a n a l y z e d

has been f i r m l y s i t u a t e d

The

their
The

tradition.

Since the data

it

Alex-

witnesses

d o u b t t h a t he p r e s e r v e s a good s t r a n d o f t h e

Alexandrian

time,

Alexan-

the assumption t h a t

hypothetical standard,

of A l e x a n d r i a n

The

Unlike

for witnesses

(or predominant) t e x t b e s t r e p r e s e n t s the

andrian tradition

reasonable

only

and

Didymus

tradition,

h i s t e x t can shed

concerning

same

the h i s t o r y

on

the

of

the

i n Alexandria
17

It

has

long been debated whether the Western t e x t

See

pp.

See

pp.

243-53.

See

pp.

19-21

began

238-43.

15
16
above.

1 7

H e r e we do n o t n e e d t o c o n c e r n o u r s e l v e s w i t h t h e
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 a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t W e s t e r n w i t n e s s e s do n o t c o h e r e
a s c l o s e l y a s do t h o s e o f o t h e r g r o u p s , b u t i n s t e a d p r e s e r v e a
" w i l d " form o f t e x t t h a t was e x t r e m e l y e a r l y and
widespread.
S e e , f o r e x a m p l e , K u r t A l a n d , "The S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e P a p y r i
f o r P r o g r e s s i n New T e s t a m e n t R e s e a r c h , " The B i b l e i n Modern

Conclusions

/259

18
to exert i t s influence l a t e

i n Alexandria,

or

instead

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
, ,
times.
T h i s l a r g e r p r o b l e m c a n n o t be r e s o l v e d by l o o k i n g a t
o n l y one
tion.

point along

the continuum of the A l e x a n d r i a n

Nevertheless,

i t i s significant

a t r a d i t i o n which i s v i r t u a l l y
Judging

from t h e e v i d e n c e

a n a l y s i s of
readings,

free

from W e s t e r n i n f l u e n c e .

a f f o r d e d b o t h by

i n d i v i d u a l w i t n e s s e s and

t h e W e s t e r n t r a d i t i o n was

by

the q u a n t i t a t i v e

the p r o f i l e s

of group

making p r a c t i c a l l y

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

mus' s

tradi-

t h a t Didymus p r e s e r v e s

text

no

i n Didy-

day.
T h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s n o t m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t e d by

in consanguinity

detected

p a r t of John's Gospel.

i n Didymus's t e x t

shift

latter

I t i s t r u e t h a t Didymus's s u p p o r t

i n d i v i d u a l W e s t e r n w i t n e s s e s and
group r e a d i n g s

the

f o r the

his attestation

both improve a t t h i s p o i n t .

of

B u t when v i e w e d

from t h e l a r g e r p e r s p e c t i v e , h i s W e s t e r n a f f i l i a t i o n s

are

s t r i k i n g l y weak e v e n h e r e :

the

Alexandrian
does not

text

suggest

proclivity

still

Hence t h e t e x t u a l

shift

t h a t Didymus u s e d

Western manuscripts

for

I t does s u g g e s t

e l e m e n t o f h i s t e x t was
t o w a r d an e c l e c t i c

Fourth Gospel,
tionsleast

stands c l o s e r to

i n every respect.

t h i s p o r t i o n of John.
Alexandrian

he

of

Western

text.

t h a t the

modified

an i n c r e a s e d

I n t h i s p a r t of

Didymus p r e s e r v e s r e a d i n g s

of a l l the W e s t e r n i n

by

distinctively

of v a r i o u s

the
tradi-

no r e c o g n i z a b l e p a t t e r n o f

20
attestation.
The

Byzantine

Text

in Alexandria

A s was

shown by t h e l a b o r s o f von Soden, K.

21
E. C o l w e l l ,
t h e B y z a n t i n e t e x t i s no m o n o l i t h ,

Lake,
but

and

rather

S c h o l a r s h i p , e d . J . P h i l i p H y a t t ( N a s h v i l l e : A b i n g d o n , 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 M e t h o d o l o g y . 53; G o r d o n D.
F e e "Codex S i n a i t i c u s , " 44.
18
So S t r e e t e r , The F o u r G o s p e l s . 60, 118.
S o P. L . H e d l e y , "The E g y p t i a n T e x t o f t h e G o s p e l s and
A c t s , " Q2S 118 ( 1 9 3 4 ) 223.
O n the presence of the Western t e x t i n A l e x a n d r i a , see
n. 36, p. 20 a b o v e .
21
1 9

2 0

See

Hermann von

Soden,

Di^slV^.iaiLte&^S&aJl!iaBL-.

260/

Didymus and

comprises
tion.

the

Gospels

a complicated

Leading

subgroups were s e l e c t e d
22
A,

E, n ,

Q.

o f t h e s e w i t n e s s e s , and

groups they r e p r e s e n t .
cant a f f i l i a t i o n

supports
by

I n no

w i t h any

identical

evidence

rela-

of the

o f group r e a d i n g s .

Byzantine

I n m o s t i n s t a n c e s Didymus

I t s h o u l d n o t be

overlooked,

t h a n he d o e s f o r any

shared

in this

minant Byzantine readings t h a t a r e a l s o d i s t i n c t i v e ,

or primary

subsignifi-

o f g r o u p w i t n e s s e s o r by h i s

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

sive,

Didymus:

B y z a n t i n e g r o u p r e a d i n g s o n l y when t h e s e a r e

other groups.

tion,

tradiByzantine

hence to the

c a s e d o e s he

of the branches

w h e t h e r by h i s s u p p o r t

attestation

of

f o r the p r e s e n t a n a l y s i s of

Didymus s t a n d s i n v i r t u a l l y

t i o n s h i p s to each

text,

network of v a r i o u s streams

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e more i m p o r t a n t

or

connecpredo-

exclu-

other g r o u p t h e

Western

included.
T h e s e f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t no

"proto-Byzantine"

text

e x i s t e d i n A l e x a n d r i a i n D i d y m u s ' s day o r , a t l e a s t i f i t d i d ,
i t made no i m p a c t on t h e m a i n s t r e a m o f t h e t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n
24
there.

Thus the support

o f Didymus f o r B y z a n t i n e

nesses, which i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than

Western, does not

that

wit-

f o r the

suggest

t h a t he drew some o f h i s r e a d i n g s
25
f r o m 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 suggests

a e n t s ( B e r l i n : Alexander Drucker, 1902-11); Kirsopp 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 o f K. L a k e , R o b e r t 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 o f Mark, HXB 21 ( 1 9 2 8 ) 33857; E . C. C o l w e l l , "The Complex C h a r a c t e r o f t h e L a t e B y z a n t i n e T e x t o f t h e G o s p e l s , " J g 54 ( 1 9 3 5 ) 2 1 1 - 2 1 .
See a l s o
W i s s e , P r o f i l e Method. 1-18.
22
On t h e s e MSS and t h e s u b g r o u p s t h e y r e p r e s e n t , s e e
R u s s e l l C h a m p l i n , 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 L a k e C i t y : U n i v e r s i t y o f U t a h P r e s s , 1967) 1-11,
and
S i l v a L a k e , 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) 6 5 - 7 1 .
S e e pp. 238-39 a b o v e .
2 4

N o t a b l y , once a g a i n , t h e s h i f t e v i d e n c e d i n Didymus's
t e x t a t J o h n 6:47 d o e s n o t 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 to the Byzantine t e x t .
2 5

H.
S t u r z (The B y z a n t i n e T e x t - T y p e ) r e p e a t e d l y a s s e r t s
t h a t " t h e 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 s e c o n d
c e n t u r y , from a s t r e a m o f t r a n s m i s s i o n i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e

Conclusions
rather that

the Byzantine e d i t o r s derived t h e i r

from e l e m e n t s
clusion,

of course, has

on e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t
The

Caesarean
As was

isolated
mus

Text

g i v e any

earlier,

the Caesarean

i n Mark's G o s p e l ,

are scantiest.

t h e r here nor

a l s o b e e n drawn by
26
grounds.

6.

i n part,

T h i s con-

Z u n t z and

others

in Alexandria

observed

only

text,

found 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 .

/261

Nonetheless,

i n any

Text has

been

f o r which the data

from

Didy-

i t i s significant

that

nei-

other p o r t i o n of the Gospels

d o e s Didymus

i n d i c a t i o n of the e x i s t e n c e of a Caesarean

text

in

fourth-century Alexandria.
How
profiles

i s i t , then,

than to the Byzantine

exist

that

as d i s t i n c t

represent

and

"mixed" t e x t s

i n the t e x t u a l

The

realignments

a corresponding

rean, w h i l e h i s support
agreements with

Caesarean

so p e r p l e x i n g
witnesses

i n which the A l e x a n d r i a n element i s

I n t h i s regard

Didymus's d i m i n i s h e d a t t e s t a t i o n
m a t c h e d by

q u e s t i o n i s not

that the s o - c a l l e d

e s p e c i a l l y prominent.

group

group

W e s t e r n , g r o u p s w h i c h a r e known t o

entities?

when i t i s r e c a l l e d

that

t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s and

show Didymus s t a n d i n g c l o s e r t o t h e C a e s a r e a n

i t cannot

be

overlooked

of the l a t t e r p a r t of John,
of the A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t i s

drop i n h i s support

f o r the

Caesa-

f o r the other groups i n c r e a s e s .

the Caesarean

w i t n e s s e s , t h e r e f o r e , seem

His
to

W e s t e r n 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
o f t h i s t h i r d t y p e o f t e x t c r e p t i n t o W e s t e r n 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 w e r e
t r u e , why d i d t h i s k i n d o f t e x t h a v e s u c h a n 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 h a s made a n u n w a r 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 f o u n d i n t h e e a r l y p a p y r i , he a s s u m e d 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 t h e p r e s e n c e o f some
B y z a n t i n e r e a d i n g s i n s e c o n d - c e n t u r y MSS s i m p l y d o e s n o t p r o v e
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 that time.
Furthermore, 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 :
actuall y v e r y few o f t h e 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 t h e
s e c o n d - 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 t e r m .
As one e x a m p l e drawn f r o m a m y r i a d
o f 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 s u c h a s :i>uxfi OuSv o f
L u k e 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 , t h o u g h , on h i s own
s h o w i n g , i t i s s u p p o r t e d by O l d 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 a s by C l e m e n t o f A l e x a n d r i a and A t h a n a s i u s !
26
G. Z u n t z , T e x t o f t h e E p i s t l e s .

262/

Didymus and

derive

the

Gospels

from m u t u a l a f f i n i t i e s w i t h t h e A l e x a n d r i a n

f r o m any

p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p he b o r e t o a

Caesarean

tradition.

The

and

Early

Late Alexandrian

text,

not

distinctively

Texts

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

Didymus l e d him

to conclude

Alexandrian

text,

sional."

S i n c e Didymus r e s e m b l e s

late

fourth century. Martini questioned

as the

a type

t h a t Didymus r e p r e s e n t s t h e

of t e x t M a r t i n i l a b e l e d
this

of

Early

"prerecen-

o l d e r form o f t e x t
whether

as

the

d e s i g n a t i o n of other w i t n e s s e s as " L a t e A l e x a n d r i a n " i s at a l l

28
appropriate.
He drew a t t e n t i o n t o t h e f a c t t h a t some o f t h e
readings

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
i n J o h n 8:39 a s an e x a m p l e .
From t h i s M a r t i n i

reading of P
concluded

t h a t 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 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 s u g g e s t e d t h a t i t d e r i v e d
f r o m a s l i g h t c o r r e c t i o n o f an e x t r e m e l y a n c i e n t , u n e d i t e d
30
line

of t e x t p r e s e r v e d

also

view, both the unedited

P

B)

and

in Alexandria.

Alexandrian

text

the edited v e r s i o n e x i s t e d

In Martini's

(represented best

s i d e by

side for

by

several

centuries.
A c l o s e examination

o f M a r t i n i ' s argument shows t h a t

Didymus a c t u a l l y h a s v e r y l i t t l e
Didymus w e r e an E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n
o n l y t o show t h e c o n t i n u e d
the

fourth century.

But

t o do

with

i t . Even i f

w i t n e s s , he

p e r s i s t e n c e of t h i s

t h i s w o u l d be

no

new

c o u l d be
type

used

of text

in

discovery.

M a r t i n i h i m s e l f d e m o n s t r a t e d t h i s v e r y phenomenon by h i s
examination 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 !
Alexandrian"

To

demonstrate t h a t the d e s i g n a t i o n

i s inadequate,

by-pass the evidence

Martini,

t h e r e f o r e , M a r t i n i was

from Didymus and

"Late Alexandrian

"Late

forced

to

look to the o l d e r p a p y r i

Text,"

295.

28
Ibid.,
29
,
Ibid.,
30
Ibid.,
3 1

295.
295-96.
295-96.

I 1 probleaa d e l l a r e c e n s i o n a l i t a del codice B a l i a

d e l p a p i r o Bodmer X I V (Rome, 1966) .

luce

Conclusions

for e a r l i e r
The

elements of t h i s

present

study

of M a r t i n i ' s a n a l y s i s .

/263

tradition.

shows a t l e a s t

one

of the

inadequacies

Didymus a c t u a l l y d o e s b e a r

r e l a t i o n s h i p to the s o - c a l l e d

Late Alexandrian

a close

witnesses.

A l t h o u g h t h e 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

overall

agreements a r e g r e a t e r with the E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n

witnesses,

t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two

Alexandrian

ble

Mark Didymus a c t u a l l y

(1.3%),

and

i n Matthew and

c l o s e r to the Late Alexandrians.

groups i s n e g l i g i -

Furthermore,

p r o f i l e makes i t c e r t a i n t h a t Didymus c a n n o t
a member o f t h e E a r l y A l e x a n d r i a n

the
be

closely

than

Didymus d o e s !

a Late Alexandrian
But

this

Martini:
drian?
study,

classified

group: o t h e r L a t e

d r i a n w i t n e s s e s resemble the E a r l y Alexandrian

33

text

T h u s Didymus must be

classification

r a i s e s the question

a l s o posed

a witness Late

somewhat m o d i f i e d :

a w i t n e s s which stands c l o s e s t

in this

how

i s i t that

Alexandrian

The

by

Alexan-

witnesses

solution to

this

c h a r a c t e r of the h i s t o r y

of

text.

When c r i t i c s
Alexandria,

to E a r l y

Late Alexandrian?

i l l u m i n a t e the r e a l

the Alexandrian

more
considered

I n view of the c o n c l u s i o n s a l r e a d y reached

t h e q u e s t i o n c a n be

enigma w i l l

as

Alexan-

witness.

w h a t d o e s i t mean t o c a l l

must be c o n s i d e r e d

stands

fourth

s p e a k o f two

distinct

types of t e x t

a s does M a r t i n i , they tend t o c o n f u s e

the

in
histori-

cal

r e l a t i o n s h i p of these t e x t s .
I t h a s 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 o f any k i n d i . e . i t c a n n o t 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 t h e n o f 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 t y p e o f t e x t ?
Do

t h e y d e r i v e from an A l e x a n d r i a n

recension?

Obviously

to

some e x t e n t t h e s e MSS d i f f e r from t h e p u r e l i n e o f t e x t b e s t

75
preserved 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

See

pp.

220-21 a b o v e .

See

pp.

243-51 a b o v e .

33
3 4

S e e Gordon D. F e e , "P75, P66, and O r i g e n " ; C a l v i n

P o r t e r , " P a p y r u s Bodmer XV (P75) and t h e T e x t o f Codex V a t i c a n u s , " J P L 81 ( 1 9 6 2 ) 3 6 3 - 7 6 ; and M a r t i n i , I I p r o b l e m a .

264/

Didymus and

the

Gospels

witnesses preserve a d i s t i n c t

type

of t e x t ,

i . e . that

their

a g r e e m e n t s r e p r e s e n t a form o f t e x t w h i c h h a s b e e n d e r i v e d
from an
This,

early Alexandrian

o f c o u r s e , was

r e c e n s i o n of the purer

Hort's

conception

taken

a p o l o g y 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
(=Neutral)

and

the

of Hort's

cite

foible
no

an e d i t e d

G r e e k MS

an u n m i x e d f o r m .

(-Alexandrian)

theory has

an

of t e x t .

in P

M a r t i n i h i m s e l f has

w i t n e s s e s do

could

l a t t e r k i n d of t e x t

not r e p r e s e n t a d i s t i n c t

type

r a t h e r , they

away f r o m t h e p u r e s t l i n e

of Alexandrian

of a

in

"late"

draw t h i s

the s o - c a l l e d

from a r e c e n s i o n a t a l l ;

witnesses at various

he

in a sense h i g h l i g h t e d

Although M a r t i n i does not

s i o n , he v e r y w e l l c o u l d h a v e :

But

l o n g been r e c o g n i z e d :

which r e p r e s e n t s t h i s

text.

without

unedited

type

t h e p r o b l e m 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
reading

l i n e of

over

Late

conclu-

Alexandrian

of t e x t d e r i v i n g

i n d i c a t e a movement
t e x t by

various

times.

36
This

i s not,

of course,

a new

conception.

But

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 o f
The

q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s w h i c h shows D i d y m u s ' s c l o s e

t i o n s h i p to E a r l y Alexandrian

witnesses, coupled

f o u r t h p r o f i l e w h i c h shows him
g e s t s t h a t the notion
text

i s inaccurate.

with Alexandrian

o f two
There

t o be

distinct

was

one

with

Late Alexandrian,
types of

type

of t e x t

i t does

Didymus.
relathe
sug-

Alexandrian
i n Alexandria,

witnesses preserving i t in varying levels

of

purity.
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 . , o f a d i s t i n c t i v e form o f t e x t d e r i v i n g
from a t h i r d - o r 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 ,
simply pushed the date of the " r e c e n s i o n " back i n t o the second
century.
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 i m p o r t a n t 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 the 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 n o t 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 o f an e d i t i o n o r
revision.
T h e y c o u l d j u s t a s w e l l h a v e r e s u l t e d from a r b i t r a r y i m p r o v e m e n t s o f t h e B i b l i c a l t e x t a t d i f f e r e n t t i m e s by
d i f f e r e n t s c r i b e s who w e r e 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 w h i c h A l e x a n d r i a was s o famous.
As shown b e l o w ,
t h i s way o f c o n s t r u i n g t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e " L a t e " A l e x a n d r i a n t e x t s e e m s t o e x p l a i n more a d e q u a t e l y t h e t e x t u a l c h a r a c t e r o f D i d y m u s ' s G o s p e l q u o t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s .
See,

e.g.,

Streeter,

The

Four

GoSBgls, 59-61.

Conclusions

If

this

conclusion i s correct,

nations f o r the Alexandrian

labels

"Early"

matter

and

one

purest

used

The

merely as a

i n the p r e s e n t study,

do

serve to

high-

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:

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s tend

t o be

early,

B u t when a f o u r t h - c e n t u r y w i t n e s s s u c h
Late Alexandrian,

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

earliest

t h a t " e a r l y " and

37

sources,

one

form o f t e x t .

codex

result.

i n d i c a t e t h a t one

"late"

the

late.

a s Didymus i s l a b e l e d

some c o n f u s i o n may

these designations simply

circumstance

the l e s s pure

w h i l e a contemporary w i t n e s s such a s

K i s c a l l e d E a r l y Alexandrian,
course

s e t of d e s i g -

subgroups i s n e c e s s a r y .

"Late Alexandrian,"

of convenience

light

a w h o l e new

/265

of

Of

the

But g i v e n

readings

coexist

the

i n the

wonders about t h e adequacy of

the

labels.
M a r t i n i p u z z l e d over

t h i s problem as w e l l ,

but

expressed

a r e t i c e n c e about r e t u r n i n g to the H o r t i a n

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a

"Neutral" text.

commonly

but

i t too

preserved
not

This designation i s s t i l l

i s misleading.

To be

i n a second-century

sure, t h i s

witness

appear to r e p r e s e n t a t e x t u a l

viously,

then,

(P

type

used,

of t e x t i s

) which i t s e l f

r e v i s i o n or e d i t i o n .

does
Ob-

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 o f a v e r y

ancient text."

B u t t h a t d o e s n o t make i t " N e u t r a l , " i . e .

"original."
And o n c e t h e d e s i g n a t i o n i s e x t e n d e d s o a s t o
i n c l u d e " p r i m a r y " and " s e c o n d a r y " N e u t r a l s , a s i s done by F e e
39
and

the term has

others,

of a "secondary
From t h e
Alexandrian

l o s t much o f

Neutral" witness

foregoing

i t s m e a n i n g . The

i s bizarre

i n the

d i s c u s s i o n i t s h o u l d be

idea

extreme!

seen

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

that

the

their

r e l a t i v e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e p u r e s t form o f t h e t e x t

i n Alex-

andria.

sub-

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

groups, t h e r e f o r e , a r e "Primary
Alexandrian."
nothing

The

label

about the o v e r a l l
See

M a r t i n i , "The

Alexandrian"

"Primary

and

Alexandrian"

"Secondary

presupposes

s u p e r i o r i t y or the u n r e v i s e d
Late Alexandrian

Text,"

charac-

295.

3 S

S e e , f o r example, t h e s t u d i e s o f F e e ("The T e x t o f
i n O r i g i n and C y r i l " ) and G l o b e ( " S e r a p i o n o f T h m u i s " ) .
"The

Text of John i n Origen

and

Cyril,"

387.

John

266/

Didyirtus and

the

t e r of t h i s text,

Gospels

nor does i t s u g g e s t

t h a t the t e x t

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 b u t
later.

"Secondary A l e x a n d r i a n "

signifies a relative

n a t i o n of the d i s t i n c t Alexandrian
e i t h e r the r e l a t i v e
l a t e date

inferiority

of o r i g i n .

text,

without

presupposing

Furthermore,

by

suggesting

form o f t e x t ,

d e s i g n a t i o n avoids the misconception

t h a t t h e MSS

the text

Alexandrian"

"Secondary A l e x a n d r i a n " :
impurity

as other secondary

will

be

i s on

von

r e p r e s e n t s an o f f i c i a l
40
century.
text,

geneity

a l r e a d y been s a i d

i n the Alexandrian

an e c c l e s i a s t i c a l l y

tradition.

catechetical

c o n j e c t u r e o f S. J e l l i c o e ,
l a r i z e r of the Hesychian
who

persuaded Jerome of

latter visited
The
dria,

him

One

would

school!would

-4Tj
See
41
IBi

n o t e 35,
82

especially

differ

(1963)

r e c e n s i o n , t h a t i t was

a popu-

actually

i t s e x c e p t i o n a l q u a l i t y when
w e e k s i n A.D.

was

fluid

19

above.

409ff.

he

the

386.

in fourth-century
as i n other

A good d e a l o f e v i d e n c e

p.

little

codices

P a r t i c u l a r l y unfounded i s t h e

though not n e a r l y as f l u i d

c i e n t Christendom.

fourth

l e a d e r t h e head

t h a t Didymus h i m s e l f was

f o r two

t e x t o f t h e NT

or

sanctioned

i n the magnificent Alexandrian

produced during h i s l i f e t i m e .

of

text

t o f i n d a much g r e a t e r homo-

suppose t h a t the t e x t of a prominent church

from t h a t p r e s e r v e d

that

the older view

r e c e n s i o n made i n t h e t h i r d

would c e r t a i n l y e x p e c t

of t h e A l e x a n d r i a n

as

of

always

others t h a t the Alexandrian

Were t h e r e s u c h

one

classified

t h e same l e v e l

w i t n e s s e s , but does not

e v i d e n t from what h a s

s o d e n , and

When

i t becomes

contaminations.

t h e c h a r a c t e r o f Didymus's t e x t c o u n t e r s
Bousset,

latter

this

a g r e e most e x t e n s i v e l y

witnesses while being

his text

s h a r e w i t h them t h e same
It

of

i n t h i s way,

a w i t n e s s s u c h a s Didymus c a n

"Primary

relatively
the

d e r i v e from a r e c e n s i o n o f some s o r t .

i n A l e x a n d r i a i s understood

c l e a r how
with

the

contami-

of t h i s k i n d o f t e x t or i t s

impure p r e s e r v a t i o n o f a d i s t i n c t i v e

group t h e m s e l v e s

i s found

among none o f

Alexan-

c e n t e r s of
e x i s t s to

an-

indicate

Conclusions

that particular
42
there.

And

e f f o r t s were t a k e n
at least

a n c i e n t , u n r e v i s e d , and

one

line

unedited.

/267

to preserve t e x t u a l p u r i t y

of A l e x a n d r i a n
The

Gospel

t e x t was

quotations

very
and

a l l u s i o n s o f Didymus h e l p t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e d e g r e e o f 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
Alexandrian

tradition:

from t h i s norm.
spread
had

t h a t by

lost

textual variation

B u t t h e t r e n d t o w a r d v a r i a t i o n was
the time

so

o f Didymus most A l e x a n d r i a n

the e x c e p t i o n a l p u r i t y of the P

See

the

t e n d e d t o be

e s p e c i a l l y Zuntz,

wide-

witnesses

B l i n e of

Text of the E p i s t l e s .

entire
away

text.

271-76.

Appendix

One

Didymus i n t h e A p p a r a t u s o f NA'

The f o l l o w i n g i s a c o m p l e t e l i s t
Didymus's s u p p o r t c a n now be c i t e d
26
a p p a r a t u s of NA

The l i s t

of readings

or corrected

includes only those readings f o r

w h i c h 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 .
indicate
given

f o r which

i n the

Parentheses

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 t h e one

i n the apparatus.

s h o u l d be c o r r e c t e d

R e a d i n g s f o r w h i c h Didymus's

asterisk.

Matt 1 6

omit

M a t t 1 16

( ,
)

Matt 5 4

add

M a t t 5 25

' 6

M a t t 5 41

( )

Matt 6 1

M a t t 6 14

(2 )

M a t t 6 21

Matt 7 6

Did

Matt 7 9

omit

Matt 7 9

omit

M a t t 7 10

M a t t 7 13

o m i t

M a t t 7 14

M a t t 7 21

add

M a t t 7 24

M a t t 7 26

M a t t 8 12

M a t t 10:28

support

i n t h e a p p a r a t u s a r e marked w i t h a n

p t

)
Did

p t

Did^/{ !

^ ^
2 68

Didymus i n t h e
1

M a t t 10:28

M a t t 10:33

Matt

11:20

add

Matt

12:24

M a t t 12:35

add

M a t t 15:6

Matt

15:8

*Matt 15:14

M a t t 16:19

M a t t 18:6

Matt

18:7

omit

Matt

18:10

omit

M a t t 19:28

Matt

21:2

M a t t 21:19
M a t t 22:13
M a t t 22:44
Matt

22:45

Matt

23:2

M a t t 23:30
M a t t 23:37
M a t t 23:37
M a t t 24:3
M a t t 24:36
M a t t 24:40
Matt 25:41
Matt 25:41

add

(
omit

(add

omit

add

add

add

/269

270/ Didymus a n d t h e G o s p e l s

M a t t 26:31

M a t t 26:52

via

M a t t 26 : 53

omit

M a t t 26 : 53

M a t t 26 :53

omit

M a t t 26 : 53

()

M a t t 27 : 40

omit

M a t t 28 :19

omit

Mark 4: 10

Mark 7: 6

Mark 11 :2

( )

Mark 11 :2

L u k e 1: 17

( )

L u k e 1: 69

omit

L u k e 2: 35

L u k e 2: 37

L u k e 4: 17

L u k e 6: 21

( )

L u k e 6: 38

( )

L u k e 6: 45

omit

L u k e 7: 28

L u k e 9: 23

add

L u k e 9: 62

( '
)

L u k e 10 :13

L u k e 10 :19

* L u k e 10:19

.'

Did

/omit

Did

Didymus i n t h e

L u k e 10:20

L u k e 10:20

L u k e 11:15

L u k e 12:8

Did* "/

L u k e 12:20

Did* *"

L u k e 13:27

L u k e 14:26

L u k e 14:26

L u k e 14:26

L u k e 14:26

L u k e 14:34

omit

L u k e 14:34

L u k e 15:22

add

31

/271

31

Did* "

31

Did* "/

Did* ^

L u k e 16:23

()

L u k e 18:14

'

L u k e 19:42

omit

L u k e 19:43

2 6

()

L u k e 21:20

omit

Luke 23:21

L u k e 24:49

omit

L u k e 24:49

John l : 3

J o h n 3: 18

add

J o h n 4: 36

omit

J o h n 5: 29

J o h n 5: 47

J o h n 6: 46

^/

Did

p t

272/ Dich/mus and t h e G o s p e l s

J o h n 6: 57

add

uou

J o h n 6: 62
John

6: 70

ei e UMicv

J o h n 7: 39

eXe-yev

J o h n 7: 39

ou

J o h n 7: 39

n L oxeuovxe

J o h n 8: 12

epoi

* J o h n 8: 39

eoxe

* J o h n 8: 39

ito i e i xe

Did

p t

/nxe

J o h n 9: 6

(eitexpLoev )

J o h n 10 : 16

ouvayayeiv

J o h n 10 :16

uxouoouoiv

J o h n 10 :16

(yevnooxixai

npev

J o h n 10 :27

axououotv

pt

Did /ai.peL.

uou

J o h n 10 :30

add

uou

J o h n 10 :32

><aXa e p y a e6eia

J o h n 10 : 32

add

J o h n 11 :26

omit

et eue

J o h n 12 :2

omit

EM

Did

John

14 t l O

p t

p t

upu

uou

(xn,v ^uxqv uou u i e p s o u )

ijjuxnv u o u ) D i d
p

J o h n 14 : 10

Did

f2 1
add

J o h n 13 : 37

p t

J o h n 10 :18

J o h n 10 :29

Did

(add

o)

au xou

J o h n 14 23

noi-naouea

J o h n 17 :3

YlVBOHOUOtV

J o h n 17 :12

omit

ev xai HOOUIO

Didymus i n t h e

J o h n 17:21

omit

J o h n 18:5

2 6

/273

Appendix

Two

Didymus i n t h e A p p a r a t u s o f UBS

The f o l l o w i n g

i s a complete l i s t

D i d y m u s ' s s u p p o r t c a n now b e c i t e d
a p p a r a t u s o f UBS

of readings f o r which

or corrected

i n the

The f o r m a t i s t h e same a s A p p e n d i x

M a t t 1: 16

( ,
)

M a t t 3: 12

( )

M a t t 7: 13

M a t t 7: 14

M a t t 7: 14

M a t t 7: 24

M a t t 8: 12

()

M a t t 15: 6

M a t t 18 :7

Watt

24 : 36

pt

Did /niit

Did

Di d

p t

One.

p t

/ a

Did

p t

M a t t 27 :40

omit

<

Mark 7: 6

Mark 9: 49

L u k e 1: 17

()

L u k e 1: 35

L u k e l : 68

L u k e 2: 11

L u k e 6:;38

L u k e 7: 28

L u k e 9: 62

'
( f o r )

2 74

2 75/ D i d y n u s a n d t h e G o s p e l s

L u k e 11 : 13

itveuua

L u k e 12 :20

a u a i T O u a i v t n v ^uxnv aou aito 3ou

i|)uxnv aou a i x c u a i v a i o aou
.Did
oou o r n a i T O U O i v aito aou
Did'

L u k e 13 :27

OUH

L u k e 19 :42

eipnvnv

J o h n 8: 34

inc.

* J o h n 8: 39

ariov

ota uua itoBev e a t s

auapxiac.

ItO LELtE

J o h n 9: 6

enexp i ev

J o h n 10 : l l

xinotv

J o h n 10 : 15

Ti6nui

J o h n 10 : 16

(yevnaovxai)

* J o h n 10 :18

a i. p e i

p t

Did /noev

J o h n 10 :29

Jiaxpo you

J o h n 10 :32

naxpoc u o u

J o h n 17 :21

e v I i v

Did

p t

p t

Did /( n
/ t n v !|>ox

Selected Bibliography
I.

Aland, Kurt.
gart:

Biblical

T e x t s and

Synopsis Quattuor Evanqeliorum.

Deutsche

Bibelanstalt,

M.;

and W i k g r e n ,

New

York:

Allen.

C a r l o M.;

The G r e e k New

United Bible Societies,

Cardi Vercellone Sodalis,

Cozza Manachi,
Vaticanus.

eds.

1868.

Stutt-

Metzger,

Testament.

Bruce

3 r d ed.

1975.

and B a s i l i a n i ,

B i b l l o r u m Sacrorum

Reproduced,

8 t h ed.

1973.

A l a n d , K u r t ; B l a c k , Matthew; M a r t i n i ,

Barnabitae,

Editions

losephi

Graecus

Detroit:

Codex

Brown and

Thomas,

1982.
Beerman, G u s t a v ,

and G r e g o r y ,

Evangelien.
Champlin,

Leipzig:

Russell.

XXVIII)

C a s p a r Rene, e d s .

J.C. H i n r i c h s ,

F a m i l y E and

Salt

F e r r a r , W i l l i a m Hugh.

& Co.,

City: University
.

(SD,
1966.

Abbott.

London:

(SD, X X I I I ) .

(SD, X X I I ) .

of Utah P r e s s ,

of Utah P r e s s ,

Salt

Lake

1963.
Salt

Lake

City:

1962.
(SD, X X I V ) .

Salt

Lake

City:

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
Press,
.

(SD, X X I ) .

Salt

Lake C i t y :

U n i v e r s i t y of

F a m i l y 1 3 T h e F e r r a r Group: The

Press,

Utah

1962.

t o Luke

(SD, X X ) .

S a l t Lake C i t y :

Text According

University

of

Utah

1961.
F a m i l y 1 3 T h e F e r r a r Group: The

t o Matthew
Utah P r e s s ,
Hansell,

of Utah P r e s s ,

F a m i l y n i n Matthew

University

E d i t e d by T. K.

F a m i l y p i n Luke

University

i n Matthew

of Utah P r e s s ,

1877.

F a m i l y n i n John

Geerlings, Jacob.

Koridethi

A C o l l a t i o n o f F o u r I m p o r t a n t Manu-

s c r i p t s of the Gospels.
Macmillan

i t sAllies

Lake C i t y : U n i v e r s i t y

Die

1913.

(SD, X I X ) .

Salt

Text According

Lake C i t y : U n i v e r s i t y

of

1961.

Edward H.,

ed.

Novum T e s t a m e n t u m G r a e c e :

simorum Codicum T e x t u s i n O r d i n e P a r a l l e l o
Accedit C o l l a t i o Codices S i n a l t i c i .
Clarendon Press,

1864.
276

3 vols.

Antiquis-

Dispositi
Oxford:

B i b l i o g r a p h y /277

Harris,

J . Rendel.

Testament,"
Hort,

"An I m p o r t a n t M a n u s c r i p t o f t h e New

J B L 9 (1890)

31-59.

F e n t o n J o h n A n t h o n y , a n d w e s t c o t t , B r o o k e F o s s , e d s . The
New T e s t a m e n t

in theOriginal

Greek,

I , C a m b r i d g e : Mac-

m i l l a n , 1881.
Jlicher, A d o l f .

Itala:

Das Neue T e s t a m e n t

i s c h e r berlieferung. B e r l i n :
1963;

I-III,

Lake, Helen,

a n d L a k e , K i r s o p p , e d s . Codex

1911; reproduced

Lake, K i r s o p p .
3).

Detroit:

Sinaiticus

Oxford:

Clarendon

Brown & Thomas, 1 9 8 2 .

Codex 1 o f t h e G o s p e l s a n d I t s A l l i e s .

Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y

(TS,

P r e s s , 1902.

L a k e , K i r s o p p , and Lake, S i l v a .
The

IV,

e d s . K u r t A l a n d a n d W a l t e r Matzkow, 1 9 7 0 .

P e t r o p o l i t a n u s : The New T e s t a m e n t .
Press,

in altlatein-

W a l t e r de G r u y t e r & Co.,

F a m i l y 13 ( T h e F e r r a r

T e x t A c c o r d i n g t o Mark

(SD, X I ) .

London:

Group):

Christo-

phers, 1941.
L a k e , K i r s o p p , and New, S i l v a .
Manuscripts
University

(HTS, X V I I ) .
P r e s s , 1932.

A c c o r d i n g t o Mark
S. C. E . , e d .

, ed.

London:

Oxford:

Martin, Victor,

Oxford:
ed.

Geneva:
, ed.

University

Bapyrus

14-21.

Evangelium

P r e s s , 1935.
Evangelium

Secundum

P r e s s , 1940.

6odigr_IJ;

Bibliotheca

Papyrus

J e a n chap.

C h r i s t o p h e r s , 1937.

University

Novum T e s t a m e n t u m G r a e c e :

Matthaeum.

14.

(SD, V ) .

Novum_Testamentum G r a e c e :

Secundum Marcum.
.

Testament

Harvard

F a m i l y n a n d t h e Codex A l e x a n d r i n u s ; T h e T e x t

Lake, S i l v a .

Legg,

S i x C o l l a t i o n s o f New
Cambridge Mass.:

jv^gilS-aS-imSLJ^.

Bodmeriana, 1956.

Bodmer I I . S u p p l e m e n t :
Geneva:

Bibliotheca

E v a n q i l e de
Bodmeriana,

1958.
N e s t l e - A l a n d Novum T e s t a m e n t u m G r a e c e .

26th ed.

Text

by K u r t A l a n d , Matthew B l a c k , C a r l o M. M a r t i n i ,
Metzger,
Aland
of

and A l l e n Wikgren.

Apparatus

gart:

Deutsche

M.

e d i t e d by K u r t

and B a r b a r a A l a n d w i t h t h e I n s t i t u t e

t h e T e x t o f t h e New T e s t a m e n t

edited

Bruce

f o r t h e Study

(Westphalia).

B i b e l g e s e l l s c h a f t , 1979.

Stutt-

278/

Didymus

Rettig,

and t h e G o s p e l s

H. C. M., e d . Codex S a n g a l l e n s i s .

Zurich:

Frederich

S h u l t h e s s , 1836.
schmidtke,

Alfred,

codex.
Scrivener,

ed. Die Evangelien: E i n e s a l t e n

Leipzig:

F r e d e r i c k H. A., e d . Novum T e s t a m e n t u m :

S t e p h a n i e ! A. D. 1 5 5 0 . C a m b r i d g e :
von Soden, Hermann F r e i h e r r .
Testaments
II,

Deighton

Die Schriften

i n i h r e n ltesten

Text m i t Apparat.

Tischendorf,

nzial-

J . C. H i n r i c h s , 1 9 0 3 .
Textus

B e l l , 1877.

d e s Neuen

erreichbaren Textgestalt.

Gottingen, 1913.

C o n s t a n t i n u s , e d . Monumenta S a c r a

Inedita.

L e i p z i g , 1846.
, e d . Novum Testamentum G r a e c e .
Leipzig:

II.

Ex S i n a i t l c o

Codice.

F . A. B r o c k h a u s , 1 8 6 5 .

E d i t i o n s o f Didymus's C o m m e n t a r i e s f o u n d a t T o u r a

Didymus.

Kommentar zum E c c l e s i a s t e s .

T e x t e und Abhandlungen.

25).

L i e s e n b o r g h s , e d s . Bonn:

1.1 ( P a p y r o l o g i s c h e

Gerhard

B i n d e r and Leo

R u d o l f 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 .

T e x t e und A b h a n d l u n g e n .
Bonn:
.

22).

R u d o l f H a b e l t V e r l a g GMBH:
Kommentar zum E c c l e s i a s t e s .

T e x t e und Abhandlungen.
Bonn:

Kommentar zum E c c l e s i a s t e s .

Krebber,

e d s . Bonn:

16).

I V (Papyrologische

Kommentar zum E c c l e s i a s t e s .

T e x t e und A b h a n d l u n g e n .

Gronewald, ed.

1979.
V I (Papyrologische

9 ) . Gerhard

e d s . Bonn:

1972.

V (J

Michael

Bonn: R u d o l f H a b e l t V e r l a g GMBH,

1969.

1970.

R u d o l f H a b e l t V e r l a g GMBH,

T e x t e und A b h a n d l u n g e n . 2 4 ) .

Liesenborghs,

I I I (Papyrologische

J o h a n n e s K r a m e r and Brbel

Kommentar zum E c c l e s i a s t e s .

Gronewald, ed.

1977.

1 3 ) . Johannes Kramer, e d .

R u d o l f H a b e l t V e r l a g GMBH,

T e x t e und Abhandlungen.

I I (Papyrologische

Michael

B i n d e r and Leo

R u d o l f H a b e l t V e r l a g GMBH,

B i b l i o g r a p h y /279

Kommentar z u H i o b .

Abhandlungen,
Habelt

1).

V e r l a g GMBH,

I (Papyrologische

Albert Henrichs,

Habelt

2).

I I ( P a p v r o l o a i s c h e Texte und

Albert Henrichs,

V e r l a g GMBH,

3).

e d . Bonn:

Rudolf

1968.

Kommentar z u H i o b .

Abhandlungen.

Rudolf

1968.

Kommentar z u H i o b .

Abhandlungen,

T e x t e und

e d . Bonn:

I I I fPapvrologische

T e x t e und

U r s u l a Hagedorn, D i e t e r Hagedorn, a n d

L u d w i g Koenen, e d s . Bonn:

Rudolf Habelt

V e r l a g GMBH,

1968.
_.

Psalmenkommentar

Abhandlungen,
Michael
GMBH,
.

G r o n e w a l d , e d s . Bonn:

Psalmenkommentar.

8).

.
Toura:
notes.
Cerf,
.
Toura:

Verlag

I I I (Papyroloqjsche

I V (Papyrologische

V (Papvrologische

Michael

V e r l a g GMBH,

Cologne:

S u r l a Gense.

Rudolf

Texte

T e x t e und

Gronewald, ed.

Bonn:

1970.
Quaternio I X .

Westdeutscher V e r l a g , 1964.
indit d'aprs

Introduction, texte critigue.

2 vols.

T e x t e und

G r o n e w a l d , e d . Bonn:

D e r Psalmenkommentar v o n T u r a .

1976,

Rudolf

1969.

Psalmenkommentar.

ed.

T e x t e und

G r o n e w a l d , e d . Bonn:

Michael

V e r l a g GMBH,

Kehl,

Rudolf

1969.

Psalmenkommentar.
6).

T e x t e und

G r o n e w a l d , e d . Bonn:

Michael

V e r l a g GMBH,

Rudolf Habelt
.

Rudolf Habelt

1968.

Abtlandlungen. 1 2 ) .

Aloys

T e x t e und

A d o l p h e Gesche', and

I I fPapyrologische

Michael

Psalmenkommentar.

Abhandlungen.
Habelt

4).

V e r l a g GMBH,

Abhandlungen.
Habelt

I (Papvrologische

Louis Doutreleau,

1969.

Abhandlungen.
Habelt

7) .

(SC, 233, 244)

un p a p y r u s de

traduction e t

Paris:

L e s ditions du

1978.

SurZacharie.

Texte

indit d'aprs

Introduction, texte critique,

notes.

3 vols.

Paris:

L e s ditions du C e r f ,

(SC, 83-85).

un p a p y r u s de

traduction e t

Louis Doutreleau, ed.

1962.

280/

Didymus and t h e

Gospels

III.

Aland,

Kurt.

New

"The

Books and

Articles

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

Testament

Research,"

i n The

s h i p . ed. J . P h i l i p H y a t t .

Bible

i n Modern S c h o l a r -

Nashville:

Abingdon

Press,

1965.
__.

S t u d i e n z u r berlieferung d e s Neuen

und

seines Textes.

Altaner,

Berthold.

Berlin:

" E i n grosser, aufsehen

p a t r o l o g i s c h e r Papyrusfund,"
.

"Wer

VI,

B e r t h o l d , and

Schriften,
Herder,
Andresen,

und

"Didymos 3,"

Patroloaie:

Geschichte der

Gustav.

Welt.

The

(1942)

Biblical

Cambridge:
"The

Wissenschaftliche

1962.

Didvme l ' A v e u g l e .

P. M.

(TU, V)

l'cole

d'Alexandrine,"

80-109.
Paris:

Beauchesne,

1910.

T e x t of Clement of A l e x a n d r i a .

University

Press,

Evidence of the E a r l y

1899.

V e r s i o n s and

Patris-

Q u o t a t i o n s on t h e T e x t o f t h e Books o f t h e New

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 .
Clarendon
Beranger,

Press,

Louis.

1890,

B i e n e r t W o l f g a n g A.

Alexandria.

'De

(1963)

" A l l e g o r i a " und

B l i n d e n von

Testa-

Oxford:

195-240.

" S u r deux nigmes de

Didyme l ' A v e u g l e , " RechSR 51

dem

Leben
Freiburg:

altkirchlichen

" P o u r l ' h i s t o i r e de

V i v r e e t Penser 2

Bebb, J . M.

i n Lexicon der Alten

v o l . I I I . Darmstadt:

Buchgesellschaft,

tic

147-51.

Stuiber, Alfred.

A r t e m i s V e r l a g , 732-33.

Literatur,

(1943)

332-33.
i n Isaiam

L e h r e d e r Kirchenvter. 8 t h e d .

Bardenhewer, Otto.

Barnard,

(1947)

1978.

Carl.

Zurich:

Bardy,

T_hj2 127

1967.

erregender

i s t der V e r f a s s e r des T r a c t a t u s

1 - 7 ? " ThRev 42

Altaner,

Testaments

W a l t e r de G r u y t e r ,

Trinitate'

de

155-67.

"Anagoge" b e i Didymos

Berlin:

W a l t e r de

Gruyter,

1972.
Bizer,

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

O r t h o d o x o s und
Boismard,

M.-E

"A

Atios."

Ph.D.

P r o p o s de J e a n V,

Dialogen.

Dissertation,
39," E B

55

Bonn,

(1948)

Der
1966.
5-34.

Bibliography

SS

/281

"Critique textuelle et citations patristiques,"

57

(1950)

"Dans l e s e i n de

388-408.
ES

Pre ( J o h 1 , 1 8 ) , "

59

(1952)

23-39.
_.

" L e c t i o b r e v i o r , p o t i o r , " BB
.

" L e p a p y r u s Bodmer I I , "

"Problmes de

Wilhelm.

"Die

Hinrichs,

1894,

zum

(1953)
des

Princeton

Hesychius,"

Heuen T e s t a m e n t .

"The

Text

of the

T h e o l o g i c a l Seminary,

Remy.

L.

taires

p r o p o s du
14

Mew

ed.

Studies

C.

Ph.D.

in

Dissertation,

A u t e u r s Sacrs e t

Paris:

Louis Vives,

1860.

trini-

visione

9-14.

Complex c h a r a c t e r o f t h e

of the G o s p e l s , "

JBL

54

Grand Rapids:

"The

211-21.

C r i t i c i s m of

Eerdmans,

M c R e y n o l d s , P a u l R.;

Wisse, F r e d e r i c k .

Late

(1935)

i n Methodology i n T e x t u a l

E r n e s t C.;

and

J.

Pauline E p i s t l e s

T r a c t u s c o n t r a O r i g e n e m de

"The

Text

Testament.

Colwell,

2nd

(i960)

E r n e s t C.

Byzantine
.

Text-

" Q u e r e l l e origniste e t c o n t r o v e r s e s

I s a i a e , " v
Colwell,

in

Leipzig:

1966.

H i s t o r i e gnrale d e s

Ecclsiastiques V.
Chavoutier,

le

347-71.

Stromata of clement of A l e x a n d r i a . "

Ceillier,

161-68.

363-98.

74-110.

Brooks, James A r t h u r .
the

60

Recension

k r i t i s c h e Studien

(1951)
(1957)

c r i t i q u e t e x t u e l l e concernent

quatrime vangile," gB
Bousset,

58

RJ3 64

the

1969.

Sparks,

Irving

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Greek

T e s t a m e n t P r o j e c t : A S t a t u s R e p o r t , " IB

87

A.;

New

(1968)

187-

97.
Cullmann, Oscar.
t e x t e n und
Dietsche,

W.

n e u e s t e n P a p y r u s f u n d e von

Didvmus von

Schrift
Doutreleau,

"Die

gnostischen

Alexandrien

ber d i e S e r a p h v i s i o n .
Louis.

de

"Le

R e c h S R 51

Vol.
'De

Origenes-

(1949)

als Verfasser
Freiburg:

Didyme" i n K y r i a k o n :

Johannes Quasten, eds.

Jungmann.

153-57.
der

Blumer,

"tude d'une t r a d i t i o n m a n u s c r i t e :

S p i r i t u Sancto'

S c h r i f t e n , " ThZ

I.

S p i r i t u Sancto'

(1963)

383-406.

Josef

Verlag Aschendorff,
de

'De

Festschrift

P a t r i c k G r a n f i e l d and

Mnster:

1941.
Le

A.
1970.

Didyme e t s e s diteurs,"

2 8 2 / Didymus a n d t h e G o s p e l s

" L e 'De T r i n i t a t e

l'Aveugle?"
.

est-il

R e c h S R 45 ( 1 9 5 7 )

l ' o e u v r e de Didyme

514-57.

"Que s a v o n s - n o u s a u j o u r d ' h u i d e s P a p y r u s de

Toura?"

R e c h S R 43 ( 1 9 5 5 )

161-93.

D o u t r e l e a u , L o u i s , a n d Koenen, L u d w i g .

"Nouvelle i n v e n t a i r e

d e s p a p y r u s de T o u r a , " RechSR 55 ( 1 9 6 7 )
D u p l a c y , J e a n , a n d Suggs, H. J a c k .
la

547-64.

"Les c i t a t i o n s grecques e t

c r i t i q u e du t e x t e de Nouveau T e s t a m e n t : l e pass, l e

present e t l'avenir,"
by A n d r e

i n L e B i b l e e t l e s pres.

B e n o i t and P i e r r e P r i g e n t .

U n i v e r s i t a i r e s de F r a n c e ,
Eldridge,

Laurence.

Paris:

Edited

Presses

1971, 187-213.

Thn^SosSSL3&M%^LEiSim^ius

(SD, X L I ) . S a l t L a k e C i t y :

of Salamis..

U n i v e r s i t y o f Utah

Press,

1969.
Epp,

Eldon J .

"The c l a r e m o n t P r o f i l e Method f o r G r o u p i n g New

Testament Minuscule Manuscripts," i n S t u d i e s i n t h e

H i s t o r y a n d T e x t o f t h e New T e s t a m e n t i n h o n o r o f
Kenneth W i l l i s
J a c k Suggs

Clark.

of Utah P r e s s ,
F e e , Gordon D.

E d i t e d by Boyd L D a n i e l s a n d M.

(SD, X X I X ) .

Salt

Lake C i t y :

"Codex S i n a i t i c u s

C o n t r i b u t i o n t o Methodology

i n t h e Gospel o f John: A

i n Establishing

R e l a t i o n s h i p s , " NTS 15 ( 1 9 6 8 - 6 9 )
.

Textual

23-44.

" O r i g e n ' s T e x t o f t h e New T e s t a m e n t a n d t h e T e x t

Of E g y p t ^ H I | 2 8
6

University

1967, 27-38.

"P

, P

(1982)

348-64.

, and O r i g a n :

The Myth o f 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 D i m e n s i o n s i n
New T e s t a m e n t

E d i t e d by R i c h a r d N. L o n g e n e c k e r a n d

M e r r i l l C. T e n n e y .

Grand R a p i d s :

Zondervan,

1974,

19-

45.
.

"The T e x t o f J o h n a n d Mark i n t h e W r i t i n g s o f

C h r y s o s t o m , " MIS 26 ( 1 9 7 9 - 8 0 )
.

525-47.

"The T e x t o f J o h n i n O r i g e n a n d C y r i l

andria:

A C o n t r i b u t i o n t o Methodology

of Alex-

i n t h e Recovery

and A n a l y s i s o f P a t r i s t i c C i t a t i o n s , " B j j b 52 ( 1 9 7 1 ) 3 5 7 94.

Bibliography

"The

T e x t of John

t i q u e of t h e Use

i n the Jerusalem B i b l e : A

of P a t r i s t i c

T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m , " I f i L 90
Fischer,

Bonifatius.

Sprache.

"Das

Citations

(1971)

i n New

/283

Cri-

Testament

163-73.

Neue T e s t a m e n t

in

lateinischer

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
D i e A l t e n bersetzungen d e s Neuen T e s t a m e n t s .

Die

Kirchenvterzitate und

Kurt

Aland.
Funk, F . X.

Berlin:

Lektionare.

W a l t e r de G r u y t e r , 1972,

1-92.

" D i e z w e i l e t z e n Bcher d e r S c h r i f t

d e s Gr. g e g e n E u n o m i u s , "
A b h a n d l u n g e n und

Gauche, W i l l i a m J .

Untersuchungen.

America,

II.

Paderborn:

291-329.

Didvmus t h e B l i n d : An

Fourth Century.

Basilius'

Kirchengeschichtliche

F e r d i n a n d Schningh, 1899,

Washington:

Educator of the

Catholic University

of

1934.

G e e r l i n g s , J a c o b and New,
G o s p e l o f Mark," HIB
Gesch, A d o l p h .

Silva.
24

"Chrysostom*s

(1931)

L a C h r i s t o l o g i e du

P s a u m e s ' dcouvert T o u r a .
de G h e l l i n c k , J .

Alexander.

T e x t of the

121-42.
'Commentaire s u r l e s

Gembloux: J . D u c u l o t ,

"Rcentes dcouvertes de

chrtienne a n t i q u e , " NRTh 71

Globe,

E d i t e d by

(1949)

1962.

littrature

83-86.

" S e r a p i o n o f Thmuis a s W i t n e s s t o t h e

G o s p e l T e x t U s e d by O r i g e n i n C a e s a r e a , " NovT 26

(1984)

97-127.
Goodspeed, E d g a r J .
Press,

The N e w b e r r y G o s p e l s . C h i c a g o :

University

1902.

G r a n t , R o b e r t M.
Apparatus

"The

C i t a t i o n of P a t r i s t i c

Criticus."

E d i t e d by M e r r i l l
University

Press,

Greenlee, J . Harold.
(SD, X V I I ) .

i n New

Testament

P a r v i s a n d A l l e n P.
1950,
The

E v i d e n c e i n an

Manuscript
Wikgren.

117-24.

Gospel Text of C y r i l

of Jerusalem

Copenhagen: E j n a r M u n k s g a a r d ,

G r i e s b a c h , Johann Jakob.

Studies.

Chicago:

Svmbolae C r i t i c a e .

1955.

2 vols.

Halle,

1785.
Gurand, O.

"Note prliminaire s u r l e s p a p y r u s

dcouverts T o u r a , " EHE

131

(1946)

85-108.

d'Orign

284/

Didymus and t h e G o s p e l s

Gnthor, P. A n s e l m .

Die 7 pseudoathanischen D i a l o g e : e i n

Werk Didvmus' d e s B l i n d e n von A l e x a n d r i e n .

Herder,
Hedley,

P.

COR

L.

118

"The

E g y p t i a n T e x t o f t h e G o s p e l s and A c t s , "

( 1 9 3 4 ) 23-39T

Heron, A l i s t a i r .

"The

Two

188-230.
Pseudo-Athanasian

t h e Anomeans," JJES, n . s . 24
Hills,

E. F.

"A New

(1950)

345-62.

Glan:

"ber d i e G r e g o r von N y s s a

25

i n t h e O r i g i n a l Greek.

Appendix.

Cambridge:

Larry.

Edward Ardron.

Cambridge:
Jellicoe,
82

"The

1881.

A.

J.

Egypt,"
Klostermann,

2nd

Press,

ed.

1981.

1911.

London:

Macmillan

1940,

NTS

of the

4 Co.,

1912.

Testament,"

E d i t e d by Hugues V i n c e n t .

(1956-57)

and

the Text of

327-34.

Erich.
Leipzig:

J . C. H i n r i c h s ,

"Der P a p y r u s f u n d von T u r a , " ThLZ 73

Koenen, L u d w i g .

" E i n t h e o l o g i s c h e r Papyrus des

1905.

(1948)

47-50.

Klner

Sammlung: Kommentar Didymos' d e s B l i n d e n z u Z a c h 9,11

16," A r c h i v fr
.
ZPE

"Zu den
2

in

Paris: J.

245-50.

" P a p y r u s Bodmer I I ( J o h n i - x i v )

Canonicas Enarratlo.
.

the Pre-

Eerdmans,

" H e s y c h i u s and t h e T e x t o f t h e New

Gabalda,

New

and

Hesychian Recension Reconsidered," JBL

Memorial Lagrange.

Klijn,

The

Introduction

Handbook t o t h e T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m

Testament,
.

Brooke F o s s .

409-18.

Kenyon, F r e d e r i c G.
New

Rapids:

Schrift

390-98.

An A t l a s o f T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m .

university

Sidney,

(1963)

Macmillan,

(1904)

T e x t - C r i t i c a l M e t h o d o l o g y and
Grand

Hutton,

II,

Buch I .

1975.

zugeschreiben

F e n t o n J o h n Anthony, and W e s t c o t t ,

Hurtado,

trinitate.

V e r l a g Anton Hain,

' A d v e r s u s A r i u m e t S a b e l l i u m , ' " ZKG

Testament

Dialogues Against

101-22.

Didvmus d e r B l i n d e : De

M e i s e n h e i m am
Holl Kurt.

(1973)

Approach t o t h e Old E g y p t i a n T e x t , " J B L

Hnscheid, Jrgen.

Hort,

Rome:

1941.

(1968)

P a p v r u s f o r s c h u n q 17

P a p y r i a u s dem
44-53.

(1960)

u.

61-105.

Arsenioskloster bei Tura,"

B i b l i o g r a p h y /285

K r a m e r , Brbel.

"Didymus v o n A l e x a n d r i e n , "

Realenzyklopdie. V I I I .
1981,

"Rechenshaft

Testaments,"
Kirsopp.
Robert

T e x t o f Mark,"

Gospels,"

V.

Laurence,

New, "The
338-57.

Lebon, J .

E d i t e d b y Hugues

1940, 2 5 1 - 5 8 .

R e m a r k s 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 o f
Oxford,

2 (1826)

1814. R e p r i n t e d

"Le Pseudo-Basile

Johannes.

in Biblical

33-95.

Didyme D ' A l e x a n d r i e , "

XIV).

P r e s s , 1903.

"The B y z a n t i n e T e x t o f t h e

J . Gabalda,

Richard.

Repertory

Clarendon

Silva.

i n Memorial Lagrange.

Manuscripts.

(Adv. Eunom. I V - V ) e s t b i e n

L e Museon 59 ( 1 9 3 7 )

61-83.

Didvmus d e r B l i n d e v o n A l e x a n d r i a (TU,

Leipzig:

J . C. H i n r i c h s , 1 9 0 5 .

Wilhelm C a h i l l .

Ph.D.

and S i l v a

HJJl 21 (1928)

Oxford:

and Lake,

Vincent Paris:

Linss,

Text." Excursus 1 of

" T e x t s from Mount A t h o s , " i n S t u d i a B i b l i c a e t

Kirsopp,

Leipoldt,

817-45.

"The E c c l e s i a s t i c a l

Ecclesiastica.
Lake,

de G r u y t e r ,

ber s e i n e A u s g a b e d e s Neuen

ThStK 3 (1830)

P. B l a k e , K i r s o p p L a k e ,

Caesarean
.

i n Theologische

Walter

741-46.

Lachmann, K a r l .

Lake,

Berlin:

Dissertation,

"The F o u r G o s p e l

T e x t o f Didvmus."

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 D i d i m o e n E l

Commentario Z a c a r i a s D e l P a p i r o De T u r a , " gej 36

(1976)

267-84.
Martini,

C a r l o M.

Gospels?"
.
alia

I I problema d e l l a

a Late Alexandrian Text ofthe

285-96.

recensionalita d e l codice B

l u c e d e l p a p i r o Bodmer X I V ( A n B i b ,

Pontifical
Mees, M.

" I s There

H I S 24 ( 1 9 7 7 - 7 8 )

Biblical

X X V I ) Rome:

I n s t i t u t e , 1966.

D i e Z i t a t e a u s dem Neuen T e s t a m e n t b e i C l e m e n s v o n

Alexandrien.
Metzger, Bruce
Origin.

M.

Rome, 1 9 7 0 .
The Ear3,y V e r s i o n s o f t h e New T e s t a m e n t :

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:

P r e s s , 1977.
__.

" P a t r i s t i c Evidence

and t h e T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m o f

t h e New T e s t a m e n t , " iffig 18 ( 1 9 7 1 - 7 2 )

379-400.

Their

clarendon

286/

Didymus a n d t h e G o s p e l s

T h e T e x t o f t h e New T e s t a m e n t :

C o r r u p t i o n , and R e s t o r a t i o n .
university

New Y o r k :

Oxford

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 C o m p l e t u s
Vol.XXXIX.
Mingarelli,

I t s Transmission.

2nd e d .

series

Graeca

Prior.

P a r i s , 1863.

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

Bonn, 1 7 6 9 . R e p r i n t e d i n K i g n e S XXXIX,
Mhlenberg, E k k e h a r d .
berlieferunq.

Trs.

139-216.

Psalmenkommentare a u s d e r K a t e n e n -

3 vols.

Berlin:

W a l t e r de G r u y t e r ,

1975-78.
Mller-Wiener W.
Tura, T e i l
Muncey, R. W.

"Zu den P a p y r i a u s dem A r s e n i o s k l o s t e r b e i

II,"

2 (1968)

53-63.

The New T e s t a m e n t T e x t o f S a i n t

Cambridge:

Murphy, H a r o l d S.

" E u s e b i u s ' New T e s t a m e n t T e x t i n t h e

D e m o n s t r a t i o E v a n g e l i c a . " J B L 78 ( 1 9 5 4 )
Oliver,

Harold Hunter.

Dissertation,
Carroll.

John.

Clement

the Great."

Ph.D.

Emory, 1 9 6 1 .
"The T e x t o f t h e 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 o f Rome,"
Patrick,

162-68.

"The T e x t o f t h e F o u r G o s p e l s , A s

Quoted i n t h e M o r a l i a o f B a s i l

Osburn,

Ambrose.

U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1959.

Second C e n t u r y 2 (1982)

"The B i b l i c a l

of Alexandria.

97-124.

T e x t i n Clement," Appendix
London:

Wm.

Blackwood

Fin

& Sons,

1914.
Porter,

C a l v i n L.

" P a p y r u s Bodmer XV ( P 7 5 ) a n d t h e T e x t o f

t h e Codex V a t i c a n u s , "
Prigent,

Pierre.

J B i 81 ( 1 9 6 2 )

363-76.

" L e s c i t a t i o n s d e s 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 T e s t a m e n t , "

i n Die a l t e n

bersetzung d e s Neuen Testaments,, d i e Kirchenvterzitate

und L e k t j o n a r e .

E d i t e d by K u r t A l a n d .

Berlin:

Walter

de G r u y t e r , 1972, 436-54.
P u e c h H.-ch.

" L e s n o u v e a u x crits d'Origne e t de Didyme

dcouverts T o u r a , " RHPhR 31 ( 1 9 5 1 )

Quasten, Johannes.
Greek P a t r i s t i c
de Regnon, T.

Patrology
Literature.

V o l .I I I ,

293-329.
T h e G o l d e n Age o f

Utrecht:

tudes de thologie p o s i t i v e

Trinit. I I I .

P a r i s , 1898.

Spectrum, 1966.
surl a sainte

Bibliography

R i c h a r d s , W.

L.

The

the Johannine
Press,

"The

A c t s , " HTR. 26
"A New

(1914)
_.

The

Seiler,

Egyptian Text of the Four Gospels

(1933)

and

79-98.

Collation

o f MS

22 o f t h e G o s p e l s , " JJ3_L. 33

Washington Manuscript of the Four G o s p e l s .

Macmillan

John

ed.

Missoula: Scholars

91-117.

York:
Sandys,

of the Greek M a n u s c r i p t s of

SBLDS, 35;

1977.

S a n d e r s , H e n r y A.

Classification

Epistles.

/287

Edwin.

Vol. I .
Ingrid.

Kapitel

& Co.

A History of C l a s s i c a l
Cambridge:

University

Didymus d e r B l i n d e : De

1-7.

New

1912.

M e i n s e n h e i m am

Scholarship.

Press,

trinitate

Glan:

2nd

1906.
B u c h 2.

V e r l a g Anton

Hain,

1975.
von

Soden, Hermann F r e i h e r r .
Testaments
I,

Stolz,

Untersuchungen.
Eugen.

(1905)
Streeter,

D i e S c h r i f t e n d e s Neuen

i n i h r e n ltesten e r r e i c h b a r e n
3 vols.

Berlin,

"Didymus, A m b r o s i u s ,

Textgestalt.

1902-10.

Hieronymus,"

J_Q

87

371-401.

Burnett Hillman.

Origins.

The

5th impression.

Four G o s p e l s : A Study
London:

Macmillan

of

&

Co.,

1936.
S t u r z , H a r r y A.

The

Byzantine Text-Type

Textual Criticism.
Cal.:
S u g g s , M.

Biola
Jack.

C o l l e g e Bookstore,
"The

and New

3rd s y l l a b u s e d i t i o n .

Testament

Mirada,

1980.

use of P a t r i s t i c

f o r a P r i m i t i v e New

Testament

La

Evidence i n the Search

T e x t , " NTS

(1957-58)

131-57.
Swanson, Reuben J .
Ph.D.
Tarelli,
and

c . C.

Wisse,

"The

Gospel T e x t of Clement
Yale University,

(1964)

(1940)

the

Western

253-60.

" Z u r T h e o l o g i e d e s M a r k e l l von A n k y r a

I , " 2KG

217-70.

Frederick.

The

P r o f i l e Method f o r C l a s s i f y i n g

E v a l u a t i n g Manuscript Evidence
Eerdmans,

of A l e x a n d r i a . "

1956.

C h e s t e r B e a t t y P a p y r u s and

B y z a n t i n e T e x t s , " J T S 41

Tate, Kartin.
75

"The

Dissertation,

1982.

(SD, 4 4 ) .

Grand

and
Rapids:

288/

Didymus and t h e

Young, F r a n c e s .

Froa Nlcaea t o Chalcedon;

L i t e r a t u r e and
Press,

Gospels

I t s Background.

Zoepfl,

Fortress

1983.

Zewopoulos, Gerassiaos.
Ph.D.

A Guide t o the

Philadelphia:

Dissertation,

Fiedrich.

"The
Boston

Gospels Text of A t h a n a s i u s . "

university,

1955.

Didymi A l e x a n d r i n i i n e p i s t o l a s

canonicas

brevis enarratio,

i n N e u t e s t a m e n t l i c h e Abhandlungen,

e d . M.

Mnster:

Meinertz.

handlung,
Zuntz,

Gnther.

IV,

Verlagsbuch-

1914.
The

Text of the E p i s t l e s :

t h e Corpus Paulinum.
1953.

Aschendorffsehe

London:

A D i s q u i s i t i o n Upon

Oxford U n i v e r s i t y

Press,

9 "781555 400842'