Group 1 — Singular Agreements
Of thirteen singular agreements between Sinaiticus and Bezae in John 4, ten of the thirteen occur in the passage covered by my study of Bezae’s layering in John 4:1-42. In the table below, I have replaced Fee’s apparatus with the data in my study, which covers more Greek witnesses, fewer Latin witnesses, no Syriac witnesses, Origen, and a selection of early Christian writers in Latin (Beuron abbreviations): [1]
| 4:9 | D S* e a b d | – ου γαρ συγχρωνται ιουδαιοι σαμαριταις c: S[D] + ου γαρ συνχρωνται ιουδαιοι σαμαρειταις |
| 4:11 | D S a b d e ff [2] | – ουν post ποθεν |
| 4:14 | Cy D S* a b d ff c | ο δε πινων <- ως δ’αν πιη c: S[Ca] ος δ αν πιη |
| 4:17 | D S e b d r ff c Her/y | εχεις <- εχω |
| 4:24 | D S* d ff Her/y | – αυτον c: S[Ca] + αυτον |
| 4:24 | Hil D S* a d r Her/n | προσκυνειν δει <- δει προσκυνειν c: S[Ca] δει προσκυνιν |
| 4:27 | D S* d r | εν <- επι (_ τουτω) c: S[Ca] επι |
| 4:27 | D S 1654 a b d r ff [3] | + αυτω (ειπεν _) |
| 4:38 | (no retroversion) | απεσταλκα <- απεστειλα |
| 4:42 | D S* b d r Her-y | σην μαρτυριαν <- σην λαλιαν c: S[Ca] λαλιαν |
Group 2 — Sparsely-Attested Agreements
Fee mentions seven additional variants with relatively sparse Greek support, five of which are attested in John 4:1-42. Four involve an explicit agreement between Bezae and Sinaiticus: [4]
| 4:1 | P66 D S Θ 1 35 565 1010 1241 1293 e a b d r ff c | ιησους <- κυριος | |
| 4:14 | Hil D S 33 213 397 1010 1071 1241 1242 1293 2561 a b d | + εγω (_ δωσω) | |
| 4:17 | D S C L 597 1241 2786 d r | ανδρα ουκ εχω <- ουκ εχω ανδρα | |
| 4:25 | (no retroversion) | αναγγελλει <- αναγγελει c: S[Ca] αναγγελει |
Fee plausibly suggests that Bezae and Sinaiticus share a common tradition at the following variant in 4:42, where both readings have a genitive nuance after the verb ακουω, despite the explicit difference in their readings: [5]
| αυτοι γαρ ακηκοαμεν | P66 P75 A B C W Byz pl |
| αυτου γαρ ακηκοαμεν = (?) αυτοι γαρ ακηκοαμεν παρ’ αυτου | D a = (?) S Π2 565 λ φ pc |
[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] My data erroneously reads S q r c for S e a b d ff.
[3] The witness of 1654 shows that this is no longer a “singular” S-D agreement.
[4] Fee, “Sinaiticus,” 32.
[5] Fee, “Sinaiticus,” 33.