What is the date of Bezae’s text?

In a comment on my latest post, Tim Joseph asked a fair question about where I stand on the date of Bezae’s text. Since this question gets right to the heart of my research, I thought it a worthwhile topic for a post.

In a number of posts over the past few weeks, I have suggested that various features of Bezae’s text seem consistent with a date in the late fourth century, including:

In short, it seems little prevents Bezae’s distinctive final text form from having come together as late as the end of the fourth century. Of course, like most multi-layered texts, Bezae reflects influences from different periods. In terms of Bezae’s layers, my provisional dating in John 4:1-42 is:

  1. with Alexandrian (probably initial)
  2. with BYZ (probably 2nd)
  3. with Origen, family 1 and other Greek (3rd)
  4. with African Old Latin (3rd)
  5. with European Old Latin (4th)
  6. with Irenaeus and other authorities (perhaps 4th)
  7. singular (4th)

It seems that some of the above layers were likely combined before entering Bezae’s tradition:

  1. a Greek base (layers 1 through 3)
  2. a Latin base (layers 4 and 5, possibly 6)

Moreover, certain features of Bezae’s tradition may have entered through multiple layers:

  1. Bezae’s harmonizations may have entered through layers 2, 3, 4, 5, or 7
  2. Its citations of early writers, such as Irenaeus, may have entered through layers 4, 5, or 6
  3. Elements of an early “free” text may have entered at least through layers 3 or 4 [1]

It is clear that many of the mainstream readings Bezae shares with the Byzantine tradition originated in the second century, because we see them already in P66. But while Bezae’s most distinctive readings are often assumed to derive from the second century, I think in many cases this assumption is at least questionable.

In my view, it has not been demonstrated that Bezae’s distinctive Greek text could not have been substantially influenced by Old Latin readings, not from Bezae’s own Latin column, but from other Latin versions, and not necessarily confined to so-called “Latinisms,” but to an entire layer of Old Latin readings. Such a retroversion of Old Latin readings into the Greek text, assumed by the above dates, must have post-dated the mid-fourth-century development of the European Old Latin tradition, which puts us not far from ca 400. [2]

Of course, the dates and model are not definitive.


References and Notes

[1] B. Aland, “Entstehung, Charakter und Herkunft des sog. westlichen Textes” ETL 62 (1986) 5–65 at 20-22 and 49, what Aland refers to as stage-1 changes.

[2] The Latin and Greek columns of Bezae’s bilingual tradition would presumably have been corrected afterwards in both directions to agree as closely as possible. I discuss this controversial matter further in posts on Latinization and the relation of Bezae’s columns.

Latinization in Codex Bezae?

When we suggest that Bezae’s Greek text may be “Latinized,” what precisely do we mean? It seems the question has been viewed in two ways.

On the one hand, Latinization in Bezae has been viewed in terms of the interaction of the columns. This seems to have been the view of J. Mill (1707) of which D. C. Parker observes:

“the Greek text [in Mill’s view] … had been consistently altered to agree with the Latin column, thus losing any claim to significance as an ancient Greek witness.” (Codex Bezae 184)

In a similar way, J. D. Michaelis (1788) cites passages in which:

“[t]he Greek text varies … from the Latin version, with which it is accompanied … [and hence we are able] to rescue the copyist from the charge of having corrupted the Greek from the Latin” (trans. Marsh, Introduction to the New Testament 2/1:230).

Certainly, the evidence of the columns discourages any notion that Bezae’s Latin column has consistently influenced the Greek text as a significant force in its development. This can be seen in places where the Latin reproduces errors in the Greek, e.g. in gentes eius (“its nations”) in the Latin of Acts 21.21 which reproduces the erroneous εθνεσι αυτου (“its nations”) for εθεσι αυτου (“its customs”) in the Greek.

But there is another way we can look at Latinization in Bezae. It is possible to see Latinization in Bezae’s Greek text, not in terms of its own Latin column, but in light of the broader Old Latin tradition. This is how H. Marsh describes Wettstein’s view:

“the writer of the Codex Bezae departed from the readings of the Greek manuscript, or manuscripts, from which he copied, and introduced in their stead, from some Latin version, readings which were warranted by the authority of no Greek manuscript.” (Introduction 2/2:680)

The distinction between these two views seems not to have been fully appreciated. While evidence from Bezae as a codex can be mustered to disprove dependence between the columns, proving or disproving dependence on other Old Latin texts is not so straightforward. In fact, we cannot claim that Latin influence has been ruled out for Bezae’s Greek text solely on the basis of the comparison of its columns. In this light, Marsh’s canon comes across as unhelpfully dogmatic:

“there is no reason whatsoever for ascribing any reading of a Greek manuscript to the influence of the Latin, unless it can be proved that it could not have taken its rise in the Greek, and that it might easily have originated in the Latin.” (Introduction 2/2:683)

It is questionable though whether Latin influence can ever be “proved” under such a canon. But are we to conclude then that Latin influence has never occurred? This seems at the very least doubtful in a bilingual tradition as thoroughly Latin as that of Codex Bezae.

Why does Jerome cite Latin MSS for the pericope adulterae?

In an earlier post I suggested that it would have been unnecessary for Jerome to cite Latin MSS in support of the pericope adulterae (= PA) if he had considered the Greek evidence sufficient. In the comments, Steven Avery raised the excellent point that Jerome may simply have been noting all of the evidence he knew.

Certainly I cannot disagree! But I noted that my suspicions were raised because Jerome normally considers the Greek text to be sufficient in defending a reading. In this connection, I thought it would be useful to compile a list of references Jerome makes to the Greek and Latin NT texts. While the list is by no means exhaustive, it does suggest that in many cases Jerome considers the Greek evidence to stand by itself, while at the same time he tends to disparage the Latin evidence (though certainly there are rhetorical considerations).

So why might Jerome have invoked the Latin evidence for the PA?

In my first post on Jerome and the PA, I noted that, since Jerome’s point rested on the Greek meaning of αναμαρτητος (v. 7), he was eager to present this evidence in the best possible light:

“But if Greek copies had been easy to find, why mention their number or (for that matter) bring up the problem at all? It seems that by calling in the Latin evidence, Jerome anticipates an  objection concerning the scarcity of Greek copies, which suggests that in 415 there were still very few Greek copies of John with the PA, but apparently plenty Latin copies.”

[To see all (currently 5) of my posts on Jerome/Hieronymus and the PA conveniently on a single web page, click here or click the ‘Jerome’ or ‘Hieronymus’ link under the Tags heading on the left sidebar.]

 

Was Bezae’s Latin text coequal with the Greek?

In an earlier post, I discussed Ambrosiaster’s critique of the Greek tradition for its many discrepancies, which he attributes to “a spirit of controversy” introduced by “heretics and schismatics” (see translation). But in turning to the Old Latin version, Ambrosiaster makes an unexpected claim, implying that the latter has somehow escaped a similar level of corruption.

“it is well-known that very long ago native Latin speakers (Latinos) translated the text we now have from ancient Greek codices.  Let us not keep silent … because our codices take their origin from ancient Greek copies, which the innocence (simplicitas) of former times certifies to us without corruption (incorruptos)” (Comm. Rom. 5:14, edition α)

How is Ambrosiaster able to justify this extraordinary claim? Is it empty rhetoric? Or might there be a peculiar logic behind its seeming absurdity?

In fact, Ambrosiaster’s exhortation to speak up against critics of the Old Latin version suggests he is utterly sincere. [1] Noting perhaps surprisingly that the translators were “native Latin speakers” — when we might expect skill in Greek rather than Latin to be emphasized — Ambrosiaster seems eager to show that the Latin tradition is in no way deficient in its power to convey the original meaning simply because it is in Latin. Of course, by commending the original Greek codices and the original Latin translation for their antiquity, he situates them in time (it is thought) before the major corruptions. In a sense, Ambrosiaster is suggesting that the Old Latin version is self-sufficient with respect to the recent Greek tradition.

But what is this naïveté concerning the “innocence of the times”? Is Ambrosiaster simply romanticizing about a bygone era?

Not necessarily. Early in his argument Ambrosiaster notes the deleterious effect of theological controversy on the stability of the text, suggesting that this “innocence of the times” refers to a kind of innocence that avoided certain theological developments in the Greek tradition. With the Origenist controversy already looming on the horizon, Ambrosiaster may even be alluding to the theological speculation associated specifically with Origen. In any case, as a theological backwater, the Latin tradition would inevitably have been safeguarded from corruption to a certain extent simply because it was less accessible and less attractive to heretics than the original Greek.

The implications of a standalone Latin tradition for Codex Bezae are clear enough considering the evident role of Latin traditions in its development as a bilingual codex. Might Bezae’s producers have thought like Ambrosiaster that the Old Latin version could in some sense stand on equal terms with recent Greek copies? Our natural tendency to view Bezae as just another Greek codex simply on the basis of its Greek column may then be misguided, so long as the possibility exists that its producers had rather intended to elevate the Latin column to an equal standing with the Greek.

[1] This exhortation is preserved only in the commentary’s first edition.