Did Ambrose use an Old Latin or Vulgate text in the pericope adulterae?

This post responds to the helpful comments I have received concerning my suggestion that Jerome might be the interpolator of the pericope adulterae (= PA) in John. Of course, any suggestion of this kind must ultimately be evaluated in light of the textual evidence.

Ambrose’s witness to the PA turns out to be highly significant because it dates to the same decade that Jerome released the Vulgate gospels, the first indirect witness to the PA in John. The question we must ask is whether Ambrose depended on a newly-minted Vulgate text or an existing Old Latin text. If Ambrose relied on a new Vulgate text, it is evident either that he cited rather freely or relied on a different edition — a possibility suggested by Jerome’s own citations of the PA, which differ from the standard Vulgate form. On the other hand, if Ambrose relied on an Old Latin text, it is not like any Old Latin text we have, though it shares some distinctive readings with the Old Latin witnesses.

The following table shows Ambrose’s agreements with the Old Latin and Vulgate texts in the pericope adulterae. Text shared with the Vulgate is green (104 units), text shared with at least one Old Latin witness is yellow (34 units), and text unique to Ambrose is red (71 units).1

MS 2 MS 5 MS 8 MS 14 Vulgate Jerome, Pelagius Ambrose, Epist 68 Ambrose, Epist 50 Ambrose, Misc 1 Ambrose, Misc 2
John 8:4
et offerentes ergo eam (+ et W, + publice M)
dixerunt dicunt dixerunt dixerunt dixerunt dixerunt
illi illi ihm ei ei
magister magister magister [m]agister magister
haec haec haec haec haec hanc
mulier mulier mulier mulier mulier mulierem
modo modo
depraehensa conpraehensa deprehensa depraehensa deprehensa inuenimus
est est est est est
sponte palam publice
in in [in] in
moecata adulterio moecatione adulterio adulterio moechantem
John 8:5
2 5 8 14 Vg HI Pel AM Ep 68
in in in
lege moyses intellege lege lege
autem autem autem autem autem scriptum est enim (autem r)
nobis in in
lege lege
moyses moyses Moses Moysi (Moysis m)
mandauit praecepit precepit mandauit mandavit
nobis [n]obis nobis
huiusmodi tales qui huiusmodi huiusmodi omnem moecham
lapidare lapidare lapidetur lapidare lapidare lapidari
tu tu tu tu tu tu
ergo autem nunc autem autem ergo uero
quid quid quid quid quid quid (qui E*)
dicis dicis dicis di[ci]s dicis dicis
de de
ea ea
John 8:6
2 5 8 14 Vg HI Pel AM Ep 68 AM Ep 50 AM Iob AM De spiritu
hoc haec hoc haec quae hoc hoc
enim autem autem cum igitur
dicebant dicebant dicebant dicebant dicerent
temptantes temptantes temptantes temptantes
illum eum eum eum
ut ut ut ut
haberent haberent [pos]sent possent
quomodo causam
eum eum
unde cum Iudaei
accusarent adcusandi accussare accusare accusarent
eum eum adulteram
praeuidens digito mystice etiam
dominus dominus dominus
ihs ihs ihs ihs Iesus at Iesus Iesus Iesus Iesus Iesus
autem autem autem autem autem
inclinato inclinatus inclinato inclinans inclinans inclinans inclinato inclinato inclinato
[… se
capite capite d]eorsum deorsum capite capite capite
digito digito digito digito digito digito digito digito
supra suo suo
scribebat scribebat scribebat scribebat scribebat scribebat scribebat scribebat scribebat scribebat
in in in in in in in in in
terram terram terra terra terra terra (terram Pl) terra terra terra
cum a Iudaeis adultera esset oblata
John 8:7
2 5 8 14 Vg HI Pel AM Ep 68 AM Ep 50 AM David
cum cum cum cu[m cum cum
ergo autem autem aute]m autem
perseuerarent inmanerent interrogarent perseuerarent perseverarent exspectarent
interrogantes interrogantes expectantes interrogantes interrogantes ut audirent
eum eum eum eum eum
quid […]
adlebauit erexit erexit erexit erigens
capud caput
se se se se
et et et et et
dixit dixit dixit dixit dixit dixit iterum erigit quasi dicturus sententiam et ait
illis illis eis eis eis
quis quis quisque qui qui qui qui qui qui
uestrum est uestrum
sine sine sine sine sine sine sine sine sine
peccato peccato delicto peccato peccato peccato peccato peccato peccato
est est es[t est est est est est, inquit,
ipse uestrum …] vestrum uestrum (+ uestrum F P1 al., ~ est sine peccato M)
prior prior prior primus primus prior prior prior
super super in in
illam eam eam [… illam
iniciat mittat mittat
super eam
lapidem lapidem lapidem lap]ide[m] lapidem lapidem lapidet lapidet lapidet
iactet mit[tat] mittat eam eam (lapidem in illam mittat F) eam
John 8:8
2 5 8 14 Vg HI Pel AM Ep 68 AM Ep 50
et et et […] et et
iterum iterum iterum iterum iterum
inclinato inclinatus inclinas inclinans inclinato
capite se capite
digito digito
hoc autem dixit et
scribebat scribebat scribebat scribebat scribebat scribebat
in in in in in
terra terram terra terra (terram Pa*) terra
John 8:9
2 5 8 14 Vg HI Pel AM Ep 68 AM Ep 50
illi unusquisque illi
autem autem igitur
cum iudaeorum cum
audissent audissent audientes audientes audientes (+ autem P, audiens M*)
autem autem
hoc uerbum
exierunt foras
unus paulatim […] unus unus (unum M) illi
post secedebant post post post
unum singuli unum unum unum
exiebant exiebant exiebant exiebant exire coeperunt
incipientes incipientes adcipientes incipientes incipientes incipientes incipientes (insipientes M)
a a a a a a
senioribus presbyteris senioribus […]bus senioribus senioribus senioribus
et sedebant cogitantes de se uel quod ipsi plura haberent crimina qui diu uixerant uel qui priores (priorem B* F L P) uim intellexerunt sententiae quasi prudentiores
omnes omnes
exire recesserunt recedentibus ergo illis
et et et et et et
relictus remansit relictus remansit remansit remansit remansit remansit
est est
ihs ihs
solus solus solus solus solus solus solus
ihs Iesus Iesus
et et et et et cum et
mulier mulier mulier mulier mulier mulier mulier
in in in in in in
medio medio medio me[dio] medio medio
cum cui
esset erat stans stans locutus est Iesus stans
John 8:10
2 5 8 14 Vg HI Pel AM Ep 68 AM Ep 50
cum cumque et
adleuasset erigens erexisset erigens erigens eleuans eleuans
autem autem autem autem autem
capud se se se se caput caput
ihs ihs ihs ihs Iesus Iesus
dixit dixit dixit dixit dixit dixit
ad ad
ei eam ei ei
mulier mulieri mulier mulier mulier mulieri (mulier B) mulierem
ubi ubi ubi […] ubi ubi ubi ubi
sunt sunt sunt sunt sunt sunt sunt sunt
qui qui qui qui
te te te te
perduxerunt accussabant accusabant accusabant
nemo nemo nemo nemo nemo nemo nemo nemo
te te te te te te te te
condemnauit lapidauit condem[na]uit condemnavit condemnauit lapidauit (condemnauit r) lapidauit (condemnauit HSr)
John 8:11
2 5 8 14 vg HI Pel AM Ep 68 AM Ep 50 AM Ep 64 AM David
et et et et
illa illa illa illa illa
quae quae quae
dixit dixit dixit dixit ait respondit respondit
nemo nemo nemo nemo nemo nullus nemo nemo
dne dme dne dne Domine domine domine
dixit dixit dixit dixit dixit responditque et ait dicit ait
autem autem autem autem
ei ei ad illam ei
ihs ihs i[hs] Iesus Iesus Iesus Iesus
ad illam
nec nec nec nec nec neque nec nec
ego ego ego ego ego ego ego ego
te te te te te te te te (x F)
iudico condemno damnabo condemnabo condemnabo condemno damnabo (condemnabo EFHMOSWd) damnabo (damno r, condemnabo cett.)
i uade uade uade vade uade uade uade uade uade
et et et et et et et et
ex ex ex post
amplius hoc hoc ho[c] amplius amodo amodo amodo amodo haec
uide uide (x B, ~ uide amodo m) uide uide
iam iam iam iam
noli noli noli noli noli noli ne (nec F) ne ne ne
peccare peccare peccare peccare peccare peccare pecces pecces pecces pecces
2 5 8 14 vg HI Pel AM Ep 68 AM Ep 50 AM Ep 64 AM David

The puzzling case of Codex Sinaiticus in John 1-8

A study of Bezae’s text in John 4:1–42 is attractive for a number of reasons. Not only is John 4 the best-preserved chapter in Origen’s monumental Commentary on John, but it is also the first entire chapter of John in which both Codices Sinaiticus (א) and Bezae (D) preserve a so-called “Western” text.

In fact, the textual character of Sinaiticus in John 1-8 is one the fascinating puzzles of textual research in the gospels. Short of actual historical contact with a tradition very much like that of Bezae, it is difficult to explain the remarkable parallels shared by this normally-solid Alexandrian witness with perhaps the most famously divergent of gospel manuscripts.

In his seminal article on the text of Sinaiticus in John, G. Fee focused on John 4 as the most “Western” of the early chapters of John, a situation that has proved convenient for my own study of Bezae’s layering in John 4:1-42. [1] (For details on this study and its method, see this previous post.) In fact, nine of Fee’s thirteen singular agreements between א and D and four of his seven sparsely-attested agreements are included in my data set. (For Fee’s data from John 4:1-42, see this page.)

As seen in the plot below, with points (o, Δ, +, ×, ◊, ∇) representing D’s readings by layer, Fee’s observations corroborate well with Bezae’s layering in John 4:1-42, where as we might expect, readings attested by א, color-coded in violet, exhibit a significant level of correspondence with D’s two Old Latin layers in the two small ellipses at the lower left:

John 4 - 6 clusters with X01 - special circled

Agreements of א and D in John 4:1-42 (in violet) with layers identified as 1. “Transitional” Greek (o), 2. Greek Mainstream (Δ), 3. “Free” Greek (+), 4. Alexandrian (×), 5. African Old Latin (◊), 6. European Old Latin (∇). A selection of witnesses is listed for each reading.

Certainly, א’s correspondence with D’s Old Latin layers stands out against the remaining Greek witnesses, none of which has any significant representation in the Latin layers, while א is represented at half of the eighteen readings apportioned among the two Old Latin layers.

What is perhaps more striking though, is that the four sparsely-attested א-D agreements singled out by Fee (circled in yellow) do not fit cleanly inside any of the other six layers identified in the study, occupying an outlier position at the fringes of the layer boundaries (in fact, on the perimeters of the blue ellipses in layers 1 and 3). Remarkably then, even after we consider the Alexandrian, mainstream, and two Old Latin layers, א still attests an additional residual layer in common with D.

So from these remarkable parallels, can we say anything more about potential contexts for Bezae or its traditions? For a suggestion, we might turn to Bezae’s correctors:

As it turns out in his study of Bezae’s correctors, D. C. Parker notes a “striking” 62.5% (25/40) agreement between Bezae’s Corrector B and Sinaiticus together with its C-group of correctors, specifically the C[a] and C[b2] correctors, whom A. C. Myshrall places in the fifth to sixth centuries, apparently not long after Bezae’s production in ca 400. [2] Noting the possibility that Sinaiticus was in Caesarea at some point in the fifth or sixth centuries, Parker observes:

“there is evidence [from Corrector B] to suggest that Codex Bezae may also have been in Caesarea, or somewhere susceptible to Caesarean influence, at an early stage in its life, perhaps during the fifth century.” [3]

Parker then suggests that Corrector B had access to both a D*/d-like text and a א[c]-like text, whether combined or as individual manuscripts. [4] Of course,  this plausible coincidence of location is just the kind of evidence we need to begin building a historical framework capable of accommodating the multiple shared layers we find in these two unlikely codices in John 1-8.

Yet there remain many questions. For example:

  • Why were only the first eight chapters of John copied in this so-called “Western” text form?
  • Was this a feature of the exemplar?
  • Did the scribe start out correcting from a second “Western” exemplar and lose interest in chapter 8?
  • Did the scribe choose an unauthorized “Western” MS and proceed until discovered and apprehended?
  • Was the pericope adulterae in this “Western” exemplar at John 8?
  • Was a MS chosen specifically because it attested the pericope adulterae without considering its divergent character throughout?
  • Might dissension among producers of the MS over the pericope adulterae explain why the “Western” text form cuts off in chapter 8?

However we address these questions, the situation we find in א seems to reflect a real grappling with a text form much like that of D. This is surprising given what is often considered of D’s isolation in the Greek tradition. It may suggest though that whenever א was produced, whether in Caesarea or elsewhere, D’s tradition held a real attraction among at least some of the participants. We can only ask what brought this to an abrupt halt, as it were, almost in the act of copying.


[1] G. D. Fee, “Codex Sinaiticus in the Gospel of John: A Contribution to Methodology in Establishing Textual Relationships,” New Testament Studies 15 (1968) 23–44 at 32.

[2] D. C. Parker, Codex Bezae: An early Christian manuscript and its text (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 146; A. C. Myshrall, “Codex Sinaiticus, its Correctors, and the Caesarean Text of the Gospels” (Ph.D. Diss., The University of Birmingham, 2005) 102.

[3] Parker, Bezae, 144-148. But see also on the setting, D. Jongkind, Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2007) 252-254.

[4] Parker, Bezae, 149.

What is Bezae’s place in Acts?

The textual tradition of Acts is clearly of great relevance for research on Codex Bezae. Not only is Bezae’s text longer and more divergent in Acts, but we also catch glimpses of it in other Greek witnesses, such as P38, P127, and MS 614 among others.

For a sense of Bezae’s close relationships in the Greek tradition, I will turn to the data in Text und Textwert (= TUT) from which I have constructed of a table of closely-related witnesses for Acts, described in a previous post. [1] Using the open-source graphing application, Gephi, I have made a graph depicting the structure of the Greek tradition of Acts based on close relationships between witnesses. The ten witnesses most closely related to Bezae in Acts (1162, 623, 619, 2718, 08, 945, 1704, 1751, 1884, and 2412) are indicated with yellow arrows and arranged in four groups, each with a distinct profile.

Acts Gruppierung (excluding 1-2, bezae)


In the graph, nodes represent witnesses, while the edges denote close relationships and node size reflects the number of close relationships for a witness. Witnesses are color-coded according to “Lesarten 1 1/2 value” with purple farthest from the Majority Text and red closest. Note that some witness groups have no close relationships to witnesses in the main graph and hence they are not connected to the main graph. Some witnesses do not appear at all in the graph, either because they are not extant in enough test passages (such as P38 or P127) or because they have no closely-related witnesses (such as Bezae). A PDF version of the graph is available.


To suggest a tentative interpretation, we might note that witnesses of the so-called “Alexandrian” tradition (represented by purple nodes) appear in the center around a core of P74, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus. Just above this “Alexandrian” group, a second group (with blue nodes) appears to the left of MS 1739. A third, smaller group (of green nodes) centered around MS 206 lies above the blue nodes. If we assume that the “Alexandrian” group represents the initial text (with a direction of flow towards the Byzantine tradition — represented here by the Majority Text), these “blue” and “green” groups appear to have developed in sequence through a natural but fairly controlled process of transmission. Below the “Alexandrian” group, the tradition quickly branches in a variety of directions into groups that are not as tightly connected, perhaps indicating a less-controlled pattern of transmission.

The large, tightly-coupled cluster (of red nodes) apparently representing the early Byzantine tradition seems not to connect to the main group based on our criteria. My guess is this group would connect near the bottom of the graph (near the orange nodes) if we lowered our thresholds for the Gruppierung criteria or counted 1/2 readings as non-majority. While there are many factors to consider, the radiating pattern seems consistent with models based on an “Alexandrian” initial text. (However, I would welcome alternative interpretations in the comments.)

The precise place of Bezae’s text is somewhat difficult to determine because it is no more than 36% related to any other witnesses that appear in the Gruppierung data. [2] In fact, given Bezae’s isolation and lack of close relationships, it is difficult to envision a natural transmissional pathway to (or from) Bezae’s profile from any other place in the tradition (as I suggested in my earlier reply to James Snapp Jr.). This disconnect with the rest of the tradition suggests that the variations we see in Bezae may have been introduced artificially by processes other than simple copying.

[1] This table is modeled on the Gruppierung nach Übereinstimmungsquoten tables found in the four TUT volumes on the gospels.

[2] This problem is discussed at the end of volume 1 in the TUT of Acts.

(revised) Top 10 Closest Greek MSS to Bezae in Acts

Important Note: This post supersedes a previous post that used an erroneous calculation to compute the Gruppierung nach Übereinstimmungsquoten table for Acts. Note that the figures here are still preliminary.

Here are the (revised) top 10 closest Greek MSS to Bezae in Acts based on the computed Gruppierung data:

GA Non-Majority % Total % Profile
1162 36.4% (8/22) 34.7% (25/72) 18.4 23 26 42.4 46 57 61 74
623 35.3% (6/17) 32.1% (17/53) 23 26 42.4 46 57 62
619 35.0% (7/20) 30.9% (17/55) 23 26 42.4 46 57 61 74
2718 33.3% (6/18) 30.6% (19/62) 23 42.4 46 57 62 68.3
08 31.8% (7/22) 34.7% (25/72) 2 18.4 25.3 26 46 61 62
945 31.8% (7/22) 31.9% (23/72) 18.4 21 23 26 46 57 68.3
1704 31.8% (7/22) 31.9% (23/72) 18.4 21 23 26 46 57 68.3
1751 31.8% (7/22) 31.9% (23/72) 18.4 21 23 46 57 61 68.3
1884 31.8% (7/22) 32.9% (23/70) 2 15.4 25.3 26 46 61 62
2412 31.8% (7/22) 37.5% (27/72) 23 42.4 46 49.4 57 62 72.4

The first thing to observe is that none of these “top ten” MSS is particularly close to Bezae. For example, none of these MSS would appear in the Gruppierung nach Übereinstimmungsquoten table in the printed edition because they do not satisfy the “second” Gruppierung criterion that Non-Majority % must be greater than 50%.

Still there are some noteworthy patterns:

  1. MSS 623 and 619 share a similar profile
  2. MSS 945, 1704, and 1751 share a similar profile that is different from that of 623 and 619 (945 and 1704 have the same profile)
  3. The Greco-Latin bilingual, Codex Laudianus, appears in the list
Notes on Method

I am following the same essential method used in the gospels (e.g. see John vol. 1, pp. 50-53; Luke vol 1., p. 25; Mark vol. 1, p. 44) with two modifications:

  1. Due to Bezae’s free character, basing agreements on exact matches tends to exaggerate Bezae’s distinctiveness with the result that it may appear more isolated. (see Epp, “Textual Clusters,” 2013) To mitigate this effect, I am including TUT‘s “variant” agreements (denoted as capital letters) as matches (unlike the TUT calculations which exclude these).
  2. I am not counting Bezae’s five 1/2 readings (10, 35, 52, 55, 76) or its 1/2 variant (1/2L) as initial-text readings.

Which MS is closest to Bezae in the gospels?

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:

Witness Without MT Total
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:

Witness Without MT Total
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:

Witness Without MT Total
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.

Top 10 Closest Greek MSS to Bezae in Acts

The Gruppierung nach Übereinstimmungsquoten table found in each of the four Text und Textwert (= TUT) volumes on the gospels offers a good high-level sense of the closest textual relationships in the Greek tradition. Unfortunately, this useful table is not present in the TUT volume of Acts. Recently, I have written a Python script to parse the Verzeichnende Beschreibung data and compute Gruppierung data for Acts (see below).

[Note: The list below has been revised in a more recent post.]

Here are the top 10 closest Greek MSS to Bezae in Acts based on the generated Gruppierung data (NA28 readings in plaintext, special readings in bold, work shown here):

GA Non-Majority % Total % Teststellen
1853 66.7% (6/9) 37.5% (27/72) 4 18.4 46 57 62 72.4
XII Athos acts paul
1646 66.7% (4/6) 36.1% (26/72) 21 26 61 72.4
1172 Athos gospels acts paul
1610 66.7% (4/6) 33.3% (20/60) 18.4 46 57 62
1463 Athens acts paul
1893 62.5% (5/8) 33.9% (20/59) 23 42.4 46 57 74
XII Jerusalem acts paul revelation
2201 60.0% (3/5) 32.8% (19/58) 23 46 57
XV Elassona gospels acts paul revelation
623 60.0% (6/10) 32.1% (17/53) 23 26 42.4 46 57 62
1037 Vatican acts paul
619 58.3% (7/12) 30.9% (17/55) 23 26 42.4 46 57 61 74
X Florence acts paul
913 57.1% (4/7) 35.4% (23/65) 18.4 46 57 62
XIV London acts paul
1162 57.1% (8/14) 34.7% (25/72) 18.4 23 26 42.4 46 57 61 74
XI Patmos acts paul
436 55.6% (5/9) 34.7% (25/72) 18.4 42.4 46 57 62
XI/XII Vatican acts paul

I am following the same method used in the gospels (e.g. see John vol. 1, pp. 50-53; Luke vol 1., p. 25; Mark vol. 1, p. 44 in order of helpfulness, note Matthew has same description as Luke) with a few modifications:

  1. Due to Bezae’s free character, basing agreements on exact matches tends to exaggerate Bezae’s distinctiveness with the result that it may appear more isolated. (see Epp, “Textual Clusters,” 2013) To mitigate this effect, I am including TUT‘s “variant” agreements (denoted as capital letters) as matches (unlike the TUT calculations which exclude these). For example, at Teststelle (= TS) 8 (Acts 2:31) I am counting Bezae’s “singular” variant 2B (ενκαταλειφθη) as an agreement with the initial-text reading 2 (εγκατελειφθη), though this TS is not included in the Haupliste. The result is that in my calculations Bezae has 13 agreements with the initial text (including two additional TSS 2 and 57), rather than the 11 listed in the Hauptliste (4, 8, 21, 23, 26, 46, 58, 61, 62, 74, 75).
  2. Also unlike the TUT Acts volume, I am not counting Bezae’s five 1/2 readings (10, 35, 52, 55, 76) or its 1/2 variant (1/2L) as initial-text readings.
  3. Note that as in the Hauptliste, special readings do not include singular readings. For Bezae there are nine non-singular, special readings (‘15.4’, ‘18.4’, ‘25.3’, ‘42.4’, ‘44.4’, ‘49.4’, ‘68.3’, ‘71.3’, ‘72.4’)

Article Now Available on Textual Layers in Codex Bezae

I recently published an article on textual layers in Codex Bezae found here:

Analyzing Textual Stratification in the Greek Gospel Text of Codex Bezae: Comparing Three Approaches to Layer Extraction in John 4,1–42 (2015)

It is one thing of course to suggest that Codex Bezae attests a mixed text with readings from multiple sources combined into its final text. But it is quite another matter to identify and extract these sources in a systematic and repeatable way. The basic method was proposed by Michael Holmes in a 1996 essay (“Codex Bezae as a Recension of the Gospels”). Holmes then successfully demonstrated this method on the text of Matthew. The consistency of his results speaks for itself.

My goal in this paper is to identify more accurate and efficient techniques to extract Bezae’s layers based on Holmes key insights, namely

  1. That the same witnesses are often found together in support of distinct subsets of Bezae’s readings and
  2. That any group of readings supported by essentially the same selection of witnesses represents a ‘layer,’ which we can treat as a distinct element of Bezae’s tradition.

The motivation is to repeat Holmes’ proof-of-concept on the text of Matthew with other full-scale applications in other parts of Bezae. The article uses complete IGNTP transcriptions for a small part of John.

From the abstract:

It has been suggested that Codex Bezae’s Greek column (D) attests a stratified text, consisting of distinct layers of readings that reflect its historical contact with different traditions. Using John 4:1-42 as a case study, this paper compares three methods of partitioning D’s readings by layer: first, Holmes’ (1996) method based on patterns of agreement; second, a proposed method based on the levels of D’s readings in local genealogies; and, third, a proposed method based on multivariate clustering.

The result shows that Bezae’s readings tend to bifurcate cleanly between two main layers, a mainstream layer and an Old Latin layer.