Where does Bezae’s text fall in the Greek gospel tradition? Is it totally isolated or does it have some close relationships?
To get a rough sense, we can turn to the Gruppierung nach Übereinstimmungsquoten tables in Text und Textwert. By excluding agreements with secondary Majority readings, these tables are helpful in taking account of distinctive agreements with the greatest potential genealogical significance.
Not surprisingly, the result depends on which gospel we are examining. Only in Mark of the four gospels does Bezae lack any close witnesses according to the Gruppierung tables. The data for the other three gospels are given below.
In Matthew, two family 1 MSS appear closest to Bezae, followed by the palimpsest Codex Dublinensis (Z) and the fragmentary majuscule 0281 from Saint Catherine’s monastery:
|1582||62,5% (15/24)||55,1% (27/49)|
|1||61,5% (16/26)||52,8% (28/53)|
|035 (Z)||60,0% (6/10)||50,0% (9/18)|
|0281||60,0% (3/5)||50,0% (5/10)|
While the fragmentary nature of the latter two witnesses diminishes the significance of the data, the close alignment of a segment of Bezae’s readings with core Family 1 MSS suggests the influence of a Greek tradition in Matthew similar to that of Origen (see Anderson 2004).
In Luke the significance of Bezae’s agreement with Codex Zacynthius (Ξ) is questionable (like that of 035 and 0281 in Matthew) given the fragmentary nature of this codex:
|040 (Ξ)||85,7% (6/7)||43,8% (7/16)|
In John it is well-known that Bezae attests a high number of distinctive parallels with Codex Sinaiticus (א) in the first eight chapters (Fee 1968), a result that is confirmed by the Gruppierung data:
|01 (א)||57% (31/54)||46% (57/123)|
Although only the first half of John (through 10:41) is represented in the test passages, this level of agreement in even part of a gospel over so many test passages must be considered highly significant.
So what might we gather from the Gruppierung data for Bezae?
It is clear that only in Matthew and John are the numbers significant enough (statistically speaking) to relate Bezae to another part of the Greek tradition. But here the data are historically significant because they seem to connect a sizeable body of Bezae’s readings in these gospels to recognized old texts, whether of Family 1 in Matthew or of Codex Sinaiticus in John.
The situation is especially intriguing in John, because Sinaiticus departs from its usual pattern to agree with Bezae and the Old Latin gospels. If we accept this as evidence of a relationship, it might imply, for example, that something like Bezae’s tradition was already well-established in Greek by the mid-fourth century (accepting a ca 350 date for Sinaiticus). On the other hand, if Bezae’s bilingual Greek tradition reflects any degree of influence from Old Latin traditions that were still developing in the mid-fourth century, this would seem to push Sinaiticus to the end of the fourth century at the earliest.