Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Didymus the Blind and the Text of Mt - Correction After List Four

Expand Messages
  • james_snapp_jr
    A Correction: after List Four, in the paragraph that says -- So: out of 61 places where Didymus agrees with either Aleph or with Byz but not with both,
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 26, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      A Correction: after List Four, in the paragraph that says --

      "So: out of 61 places where Didymus agrees with either Aleph or with Byz but not with both, Didymus agrees with Byz 33 times (54.1%). If the itacism-variant in 26:53 is included in the analysis, the rate of special agreement between Didymus and Aleph versus TR would decrease to 53.2% (33 out of 62)." --

      the second sentence should say, instead, that the rate of special agreement *between Didymus and TR verses Aleph* would decrease to 53.2% (33 out of 62)."

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.















      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, ron minton <ronminton@...> wrote:
      >
      > James, thanks for a lot of work on these texts. I may have missed this
      > somewhere, but sometimes you seem to distinguish TR and Byz, yet mostly you
      > do not. Does the fact that TR and Byz (or most of Byz) disagree some 1850
      > times make any difference in your calculations?
      > Do you distinguish between TR and Byz?
      > Grace be with you,
      > Ron Minton - Ukraine
      >
      > On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10:27 PM, james_snapp_jr <voxverax@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Using the data presented in Bart Ehrman's 1986 book "Didymus the Blind
      > > and the Text of the Gospels," here are some head-to-head comparisons
      > > between Byz and B, Byz and Aleph, and Byz and D.
      > >
      > > LIST ONE: Places in Matthew Where Didymus Agrees With Byz or With B But
      > > Not With Both.
      > >
      > > (1) 1:6 - Didymus and B have DE; Byz has DE O BASILEUS
      > > (2) 4:4 - Didymus and TR have ANQRWPOS; B has O ANQRWPOS
      > > (3) 5:16 - Didymus and TR have ERGA; B omits
      > > (4) 5:20 - Didymus and B have UMWN H DIKAIOSUNH; Byz transposes
      > > (5) 5:25 - Didymus and B have MET AUTOU EN TH ODW; Byz transposes
      > > (6) 5:48 - Didymus and B have WS; B yz has WSPER
      > > (7) 5:48 - Didymus and B have OURANIOS; Byz has EN TOIS OURANOIS
      > > (8) 6:1 - Didymus and TR have ELEHMOSUNH; B has DIKAIOSUNH
      > > (9) 6:21 - Didymus and TR have KAI; B omits
      > > (10) 6:21 - Didymus and B have (after KARDIA) SOU; Byz has UMWN
      > > (11) 6:33 - Didymus and TR have TOU QEOU; B has AUTOU (Didymus once
      > > disagrees with Byz and B by using 6:33 without TOU QEOU and without AUTOU,
      > > but in his Commentary on Ecclesiastes 193, he plainly uses TOU QEOU. Ehrman
      > > did not include this variant in his analysis, although he presents it.
      > > Elsewhere when Didymus appears to utilize rival variants, both readings are
      > > included in the analysis.)
      > > (12) 7:6 - Didymus and TR have KATAPATHSWSIN; B has KATAPATHSOUSIN
      > > (13) 7:6 - Didymus and TR have KATAPATHSOUSIN; TR has KATAPATHSWSIN
      > > (Didymus reads 7:6 two different ways)
      > > (14) 7:9 - Didymus and B have TIS; TR has TIS ESTIN
      > > (15) 7:9 - Didymus and B have AITHSH; TR has EAN AITHSH
      > > (16) 7:21 - Didymus and B have TOIS; TR omits
      > > (17) 7:24 - Didymus and B have OMOIWQHSETAI; TR has OMOIWSW AUTON
      > > (18) 7:24 - Didymus and TR have THN OIKIAN AUTOU; B transposes
      > > (19) 7:26 - Didymus and TR have THN OIKIAN AUTOU; B transposes (this is
      > > not a typo; the same variant is repeated in 7:24 and in 7:26)
      > > (20) 10:10 - Didymus and B have AUTOU; Byz has AUTOU ESTIN
      > > (21) 10:28 - Didymus and TR have FONHQHTE; B has FOBEISQE
      > > (22) 10:33 - (atfer ARNHSOMAI) Didymus and B have KAGW AUTON; TR transposes
      > > (23) 12:24 - Didymus and B have BEEZEBOUL; TR has BEELZEBOUL
      > > (24) 12:35 - Didymus and TR have TA (the second one); B omits
      > > (25) 13:17 - Didymus and TR have KAI DIKAIOI; B omits
      > > (26) 15:6 - Didymus and TR have THN ENTOLHN; B has TON LOGON
      > > (27) 15:8 - Didymus and B have O LAOS OUTOS; TR has EGGIZEI MOI O LAIS
      > > OUTOS TW STOMATI AUTWN KAI (ZeT 309:2-3 - is this a citation explicitly
      > > from Matthew?)
      > > (28) 16:19 - Didymus and TR have KLEIS; B has KLEIDAS
      > > (29) 18:6 - Didymus and B have PERI (before TRACHLON); RP-2005 has EIS (TR
      > > has EPI)
      > > (30) 18:10 - Didymus and TR have AUTWN; B omits (Ehrman combines two
      > > variant-units so as to present a three-way disagreement between Didymus
      > > (AUTWN), TR (AUTWN EN OURANOIS), and B (EN TW OURANW)
      > > (31) 21:2 - Didymus and B have KAENANTI; Byz has APENANTI
      > > (32) 21:19 - Didymus and B have OU; TR does not
      > > (33) 22:40 - Didymus and B have KURIOS; TR has O KURIOS
      > > (34) 23:27 - Didymus and Byz have PAROMOIAZETE; B has OMOIAZETE
      > > (35) 23:30 - Didymus and Byz have HMEN; B has HMEQA
      > > (36) 23:32 - Didymus and Byz have PLHRWSATE; B has PLHRWSETE
      > > (37) 23:37 - Didymus and B have ORNIS EPISUNAGEI; TR transposes
      > > (38) 23:37 - Didymus and B have NOSSIA; TR has NOSSIA EAUTHS
      > > (39) 24:3 - Didymus and B have SUNTELEIAS; TR has THS SUNTELEIAS
      > > (40) 24:36 - Didymus and TR have THS ORAS; B has WRAS
      > > (41) 24:36 - Didymus and B have OUTE O UIOS; Byz does not
      > > (42) 24:36 - Didymus and B have PATHR; TR has PATHR MOU
      > > (43) 24:40 - Didymus and TR have DUO ESONTAI; B transposes
      > > (44) 25:6 - Didymus and TR have GEGONEN; B has EGENETO
      > > (45) 25:41 - Didymus and TR have OI; B omits
      > > (46) 26:31 - Didymus and TR have DIASKORPOSQHSETAI; B has
      > > DIASKORPISQHSONTAI
      > > (47) 26:53 - Didymus and TR have PLEIOUS; B has PLEIW
      > > (48) 26:53 - Didymus and B have DWDEKA; TR has H DWDEKA
      > > (49) 27:40 - Didymus and TR have EI TOU QEOU; B has QEOU EI
      > >
      > > So: there are 49 places in Matthew where Didymus agrees with B or with Byz
      > > but not with both. Let's separate this into two lists.
      > >
      > > LIST TWO: Places in Matthew Where Didymus Agrees With B and Disagrees With
      > > Byz:
      > >
      > > (1) 1:6 - Didymus and B have DE; Byz has DE O BASILEUS
      > > (2) 5:20 - Didymus and B have UMWN H DIKAIOSUNH; Byz transposes
      > > (3) 5:25 - Didymus and B have MET AUTOU EN TH ODW; Byz transposes
      > > (4) 5:48 - Didymus and B have WS; B yz has WSPER
      > > (5) 5:48 - Didymus and B have OURANIOS; Byz has EN TOIS OURANOIS
      > > (6) 6:21 - Didymus and B have (after KARDIA) SOU; Byz has UMWN
      > > (7) 7:9 - Didymus and B have TIS; TR has TIS ESTIN
      > > (8) 7:9 - Didymus and B have AITHSH; TR has EAN AITHSH
      > > (9) 7:21 - Didymus and B have TOIS; TR omits
      > > (10) 7:24 - Didymus and B have OMOIWQHSETAI; TR has OMOIWSW AUTON
      > > (11) 10:10 - Didymus and B have AUTOU; Byz has AUTOU ESTIN
      > > (12) 10:33 - (atfer ARNHSOMAI) Didymus and B have KAGW AUTON; TR transposes
      > > (13) 12:24 - Didymus and B have BEEZEBOUL; TR has BEELZEBOUL
      > > (14) 15:8 - Didymus and B have O LAOS OUTOS; TR has EGGIZEI MOI O LAIS
      > > OUTOS TW STOMATI AUTWN KAI (ZeT 309:2-3 - is this a citation explicitly
      > > from Matthew?)
      > > (15) 18:6 - Didymus and B have PERI (before TRACHLON); RP-2005 has EIS (TR
      > > has EPI)
      > > (16) 21:2 - Didymus and B have KAENANTI; Byz has APENANTI
      > > (17) 21:19 - Didymus and B have OU; TR does not
      > > (18) 22:40 - Didymus and B have KURIOS; TR has O KURIOS
      > > (19) 23:37 - Didymus and B have ORNIS EPISUNAGEI; TR transposes
      > > (20) 23:37 - Didymus and B have NOSSIA; TR has NOSSIA EAUTHS
      > > (21) 24:3 - Didymus and B have SUNTELEIAS; TR has THS SUNTELEIAS
      > > (22) 24:36 - Didymus and B have OUTE O UIOS; Byz does not
      > > (23) 24:36 - Didymus and B have PATHR; TR has PATHR MOU
      > > (24) 26:53 - Didymus and B have DWDEKA; TR has H DWDEKA
      > >
      > > So, out of 49 places where Didymus agrees with either B or with Byz but
      > > not with both, Didymus agrees with B 24 times (49%).
      > >
      > > LIST THREE: Places in Matthew Where Didymus Agrees With Byz and Disagrees
      > > With B:
      > >
      > > (1) 4:4 - Didymus and TR have ANQRWPOS; B has O ANQRWPOS
      > > (2) 5:16 - Didymus and TR have ERGA; B omits
      > > (3) 6:1 - Didymus and TR have ELEHMOSUNH; B has DIKAIOSUNH
      > > (4) 6:21 - Didymus and TR have KAI; B omits
      > > (5) 6:33 - Didymus and TR have TOU QEOU; B has AUTOU
      > > (6) 7:6 - Didymus and TR have KATAPATHSWSIN; B has KATAPATHSOUSIN
      > > (7) 7:6 - Didymus and TR have KATAPATHSOUSIN; TR has KATAPATHSWSIN
      > > (Didymus reads 7:6 two different ways)
      > > (8) 7:24 - Didymus and TR have THN OIKIAN AUTOU; B transposes
      > > (9) 7:26 - Didymus and TR have THN OIKIAN AUTOU; B transposes (this is not
      > > a typo; the same variant is repeated in 7:24 and in 7:26)
      > > (10) 10:28 - Didymus and TR have FONHQHTE; B has FOBEISQE
      > > (11) 12:35 - Didymus and TR have TA (the second one); B omits
      > > (12) 13:17 - Didymus and TR have KAI DIKAIOI; B omits
      > > (13) 15:6 - Didymus and TR have THN ENTOLHN; B has TON LOGON
      > > (14) 16:19 - Didymus and TR have KLEIS; B has KLEIDAS
      > > (15) 18:10 - Didymus and TR have AUTWN; B omits
      > > (16) 23:27 - Didymus and Byz have PAROMOIAZETE; B has OMOIAZETE
      > > (17) 23:30 - Didymus and Byz have HMEN; B has HMEQA
      > > (18) 23:32 - Didymus and Byz have PLHRWSATE; B has PLHRWSETE
      > > (19) 24:36 - Didymus and TR have THS ORAS; B has WRAS
      > > (20) 24:40 - Didymus and TR have DUO ESONTAI; B transposes
      > > (21) 25:6 - Didymus and TR have GEGONEN; B has EGENETO
      > > (22) 25:41 - Didymus and TR have OI; B omits
      > > (23) 26:31 - Didymus and TR have DIASKORPOSQHSETAI; B has
      > > DIASKORPISQHSONTAI
      > > (24) 26:53 - Didymus and TR have PLEIOUS; B has PLEIW
      > > (25) 27:40 - Didymus and TR have EI TOU QEOU; B has QEOU EI
      > >
      > > So, out of 49 places where Didymus agrees with either B or with Byz but
      > > not with both, Didymus agrees with Byz 25 times (51%). A virtual tie.
      > >
      > > Now let's try a head-to-head comparison, Byz versus Aleph:
      > >
      > > (1) 1:6 - Didymus and Aleph have DE; TR has DE O BASILEUS
      > > (2) 4:4 - Didymus and TR have ANQRWPOS; Aleph has O ANQRWPOS
      > > (3) 5:9 - Didymus and Aleph have OTI; TR has OTI AUTOI
      > > (4) 5:13 - Didymus and TR have ALAS; Aleph has ALA
      > > (5) 5:19 - Didymus and TR have OUTOS; Aleph omits completely (the same
      > > omission in Aleph accounts for another variant which Ehrman lists, but to
      > > include it would be tantamount to double-counting the error in Aleph)
      > > (6) 5:20 - Didymus and Aleph have UMWN H DIAKAIOSUNH; Byz transposes
      > > (7) 5:25 - Didymus and Aleph have MET' AUTOU EN TH ODW; Byz transposes
      > > (8) 5:41 - Didymus and Aleph have EAN (more or less); Byz omits
      > > (9) 5:45 - Didymus and TR have KAI BRECEI ... ADIKOUS; Aleph omits
      > > (10) 5:48 - Didymus and Aleph have WS; TR has WSPER
      > > (11) 5:48 - Didymus and Aleph have OURANIOS; TR has EN TOIS OURANOIS
      > > (12) 6:1 - Didymus and TR have ELEHMOSUNH; Aleph has DIKAIOSUNH
      > > (13) 6:21 - Didymus and Aleph have KARDIA SOU; TR has KARDIA UMWN
      > > (14) 7:9-10 - Didymus and Aleph have AITHSH; TR has EAN AITHSH (or -SEI)
      > > (15) 7:13 - Didymus and Aleph have PLATEIA; TR has PLATEIA H PULH
      > > (16) 7:13 - Didymus and TR have PLATEIA H PULH; Aleph has PLATEIA
      > > (17) 7:13 - Didymus and TR have EISIN; Aleph omits
      > > (18) 7:21 - Didymus and Aleph have TOIS; TR does not
      > > (19) 7:21 - Didymus and TR have TO WELHMA; ALeph has TA QELHMATA
      > > (20) 7:24 - Didymus and Aleph have OMOIWQHSETAI; TR has OMOIWSW AUTON
      > > (21) 7:24 - Didymus and TR have THN OIKIAN AUTOU; Aleph transposes
      > > (22) 7:26 - Didymus and TR have THN OIKIAN AUTOU; Aleph transposes (this
      > > is not a typo; the same variants recur in 7:24 and 7:26)
      > > (23) 10:10 - Didymus and Aleph have AUTOU; TR has AUTOU ESTIN
      > > (24) 10:16 - Didymus and TR have OFEIS; Aleph has OFIS
      > > (25) 10:28 - Didymus and Aleph have FOBEISQE; TR has FOBHQHTE
      > > (26) 10:28 - Didymus and TR have FOBHQHTE; Aleph has FOBEISQE
      > > (27) 10:28 - Didymus and TR have SWMA (the second one); Aleph has TO SWMA
      > > (28) 10:33 - Didymus and Aleph have KAGW AUTON; Byz transposes
      > > (29) 10:34 - Didymus and Aleph have EIRHNHN BALEIN; TR transposes
      > > (30) 10:40 - Didymus and TR have O; Aleph has O DE
      > > (31) 11:29 - Didymus and TR have AP' EMOU; Aleph omits
      > > (32) 12:24 - Didymus and Aleph have BEEZEBOUL; TR has BEELZEBOUL
      > > (33) 15:6 - Didymus and TR have THN ENTOLHN; Aleph has TON NOMON
      > > (34) 15:8 - Didymus and Aleph have O LAOS OUTOS; Byz has O LAOS OUTOS TW
      > > STOMATI AUTWN KAI
      > > (35) 15:19 - Didymus and TR have GAR; Aleph omits
      > > (36) 16:19 - Didymus and TR have KLEIS; Aleph has KLEIDAS
      > > (37) 16:27 - Didymus and TR have THN PRAXIN; Aleph has TA ERGA
      > > (38) 18:6 - Didymus and Aleph have PERI; TR has EPI
      > > (39) 18:7 - Didymus and Aleph have ANQRWPW; TR has ANQRWPW EKEINW
      > > (40) 18:20 - Didymus and TR have H; Aleph omits
      > > (41) 19:28 - Didymus and TR have UMEIS; Aleph has AUTOI
      > > (42) 21:2 - Didymus and Aleph have KATENANTI; TR has APENANTI
      > > (43) 21:19 - Didymus and TR have GENHTAI; Aleph has GENOITO
      > > (44) 23:30 - Didymus and TR have HMEN; Aleph has HMEQA
      > > (45) 23:30 - Didymus and Aleph have HMEQA; TR has HMEN
      > > (46) 23:35 - Didymus and TR have UIOU BARACIOU; Aleph omits
      > > (47) 23:37 - Didymus and Aleph have ORNIS EPISUNAGEI; TR transposes
      > > (48) 24:3 - Didymus and Aleph have SUNTELEIAS; TR has THS SUNTELEIAS
      > > (49) 24:36 - Didymus and TR have THS WRAS; Aleph has WRAS
      > > (50) 24:36 - Didymus and Aleph have PATHR; TR has PATHR MOU
      > > (51) 24:40 - Didymus and TR have DUO ESONTAI; Aleph transposes
      > > (52) 25:33 - Didymus and Aleph have DEXIWN; TR has DEXIWN AUTOU
      > > (53) 25:33 - Didymus and TR have EUWNUMWN; Aleph has EUWNUMWN AUTOU
      > > (54) 25:41 - Didymus and TR have OI; Aleph omits
      > > (55) 25:41 - Didymus and TR have POREUESQE; Aleph has POREUESQE AP' EMOU
      > > (56) 26:31 - Didymus and TR have DIASKORPISQHSETAI; Aleph has
      > > DIASKORPISQHSONTAI
      > > (57) 26:53 - Didymus and TR have MOI; Aleph has MOI WDE
      > > (58) 26:53 - Didymus and TR have PLEIOUS; Aleph has PLEIW
      > > (59) 26:53 - Didymus and Aleph have DWDEKA; TR has H DWDEKA
      > > [Also in 26:53, Ehrman presents a variant in which Didymus and Aleph have
      > > LEGIWNWN AGGELWN and TR has LEGEWNAS AGGELWN; however, this is merely an
      > > itacism and is not included in the analysis because itacisms are not
      > > genetically significant.]
      > > (60) 27:40 - Didymus and TR have QEOU; Aleph has QEOU KAI
      > > (61) 29:19 - Didymus and Aleph have MAQHTEUSATE; TR has OUN MAQHTEUSATE
      > >
      > > So: there are 61 places in Matthew where Didymus agrees with Aleph or with
      > > Byz but not with both. Let's separate this into two lists.
      > >
      > > LIST THREE: Places in Matthew Where Didymus Agrees With Aleph and
      > > Disagrees With Byz:
      > >
      > > (1) 1:6 - Didymus and Aleph have DE; TR has DE O BASILEUS
      > > (2) 5:9 - Didymus and Aleph have OTI; TR has OTI AUTOI
      > > (3) 5:20 - Didymus and Aleph have UMWN H DIAKAIOSUNH; Byz transposes
      > > (4) 5:25 - Didymus and Aleph have MET' AUTOU EN TH ODW; Byz transposes
      > > (5) 5:41 - Didymus and Aleph have EAN (more or less); Byz omits
      > > (6) 5:48 - Didymus and Aleph have WS; TR has WSPER
      > > (7) 5:48 - Didymus and Aleph have OURANIOS; TR has EN TOIS OURANOIS
      > > (8) 6:21 - Didymus and Aleph have KARDIA SOU; TR has KARDIA UMWN
      > > (9) 7:9-10 - Didymus and Aleph have AITHSH; TR has EAN AITHSH (or -SEI)
      > > (10) 7:13 - Didymus and Aleph have PLATEIA; TR has PLATEIA H PULH
      > > (11) 7:21 - Didymus and Aleph have TOIS; TR does not
      > > (12) 7:24 - Didymus and Aleph have OMOIWQHSETAI; TR has OMOIWSW AUTON
      > > (13) 10:10 - Didymus and Aleph have AUTOU; TR has AUTOU ESTIN
      > > (14) 10:28 - Didymus and Aleph have FOBEISQE; TR has FOBHQHTE
      > > (15) 10:33 - Didymus and Aleph have KAGW AUTON; Byz transposes
      > > (16) 10:34 - Didymus and Aleph have EIRHNHN BALEIN; TR transposes
      > > (17) 12:24 - Didymus and Aleph have BEEZEBOUL; TR has BEELZEBOUL
      > > (18) 15:8 - Didymus and Aleph have O LAOS OUTOS; Byz has O LAOS OUTOS TW
      > > STOMATI AUTWN KAI
      > > (19) 18:6 - Didymus and Aleph have PERI; TR has EPI
      > > (20) 18:7 - Didymus and Aleph have ANQRWPW; TR has ANQRWPW EKEINW
      > > (21) 21:2 - Didymus and Aleph have KATENANTI; TR has APENANTI
      > > (22) 23:30 - Didymus and Aleph have HMEQA; TR has HMEN
      > > (23) 23:37 - Didymus and Aleph have ORNIS EPISUNAGEI; TR transposes
      > > (24) 24:3 - Didymus and Aleph have SUNTELEIAS; TR has THS SUNTELEIAS
      > > (25) 24:36 - Didymus and Aleph have PATHR; TR has PATHR MOU
      > > (26) 25:33 - Didymus and Aleph have DEXIWN; TR has DEXIWN AUTOU
      > > (27) 26:53 - Didymus and Aleph have DWDEKA; TR has H DWDEKA
      > > [Also in 26:53, Ehrman presents a variant in which Didymus and Aleph have
      > > LEGIWNWN AGGELWN and TR has LEGEWNAS AGGELWN; however, this is an itacism
      > > and is not included in the analysis because itacisms are not genetically
      > > significant. Ehrman states in a footnote (p. 189: "Variants are
      > > "genetically significant" when they indicate textual relationship. Thus a
      > > quantitative analysis does not consider variants that are readily
      > > attributed to scribal error (e.g. nonsense readings) or to common scribal
      > > predilections (e.g. movable-nu, itacism, OUTW/OUTWS, etc.)"]
      > > (28) 29:19 - Didymus and Aleph have MAQHTEUSATE; TR has OUN MAQHTEUSATE
      > >
      > > So: out of 61 places where Didymus agrees with either Aleph or with Byz
      > > but not with both, Didymus agrees with Aleph 28 times (45.9%). If the
      > > itacism-variant in 26:53 is included in the analysis, the rate of special
      > > agreement between Didymus and Aleph versus TR would increase to 46.8% (29
      > > out of 62).
      > >
      > > LIST FOUR: Places in Matthew Where Didymus Agrees With Byz and Disagrees
      > > With Aleph:
      > >
      > > (1) 4:4 - Didymus and TR have ANQRWPOS; Aleph has O ANQRWPOS
      > > (2) 5:13 - Didymus and TR have ALAS; Aleph has ALA
      > > (3) 5:19 - Didymus and TR have OUTOS; Aleph omits completely (the same
      > > omission in Aleph accounts for another variant which Ehrman lists, but to
      > > include it would be tantamount to double-counting the error in Aleph)
      > > (4) 5:45 - Didymus and TR have KAI BRECEI ... ADIKOUS; Aleph omits
      > > (5) 6:1 - Didymus and TR have ELEHMOSUNH; Aleph has DIKAIOSUNH
      > > (6) 7:13 - Didymus and TR have PLATEIA H PULH; Aleph has PLATEIA
      > > (7) 7:13 - Didymus and TR have EISIN; Aleph omits
      > > (8) 7:21 - Didymus and TR have TO WELHMA; ALeph has TA QELHMATA
      > > (9) 7:24 - Didymus and TR have THN OIKIAN AUTOU; Aleph transposes
      > > (10) 7:26 - Didymus and TR have THN OIKIAN AUTOU; Aleph transposes (this
      > > is not a typo; the same variants recur in 7:24 and 7:26)
      > > (11) 10:16 - Didymus and TR have OFEIS; Aleph has OFIS
      > > (12) 10:28 - Didymus and TR have FOBHQHTE; Aleph has FOBEISQE
      > > (13) 10:28 - Didymus and TR have SWMA (the second one); Aleph has TO SWMA
      > > (14) 10:40 - Didymus and TR have O; Aleph has O DE
      > > (15) 11:29 - Didymus and TR have AP' EMOU; Aleph omits
      > > (16) 15:6 - Didymus and TR have THN ENTOLHN; Aleph has TON NOMON
      > > (17) 15:19 - Didymus and TR have GAR; Aleph omits
      > > (18) 16:19 - Didymus and TR have KLEIS; Aleph has KLEIDAS
      > > (19) 16:27 - Didymus and TR have THN PRAXIN; Aleph has TA ERGA
      > > (20) 18:20 - Didymus and TR have H; Aleph omits
      > > (21) 19:28 - Didymus and TR have UMEIS; Aleph has AUTOI
      > > (22) 21:19 - Didymus and TR have GENHTAI; Aleph has GENOITO
      > > (23) 23:30 - Didymus and TR have HMEN; Aleph has HMEQA
      > > (24) 23:35 - Didymus and TR have UIOU BARACIOU; Aleph omits
      > > (25) 24:36 - Didymus and TR have THS WRAS; Aleph has WRAS
      > > (26) 24:40 - Didymus and TR have DUO ESONTAI; Aleph transposes
      > > (27) 25:33 - Didymus and TR have EUWNUMWN; Aleph has EUWNUMWN AUTOU
      > > (28) 25:41 - Didymus and TR have OI; Aleph omits
      > > (29) 25:41 - Didymus and TR have POREUESQE; Aleph has UPAGETE
      > > (30) 26:31 - Didymus and TR have DIASKORPISQHSETAI; Aleph has
      > > DIASKORPISQHSONTAI
      > > (31) 26:53 - Didymus and TR have MOI; Aleph has MOI WDE
      > > (32) 26:53 - Didymus and TR have PLEIOUS; Aleph has PLEIW
      > > [Also in 26:53, Ehrman presents a variant in which Didymus and Aleph have
      > > LEGIWNWN AGGELWN and TR has LEGEWNAS AGGELWN; however, this is an itacism.]
      > > (33) 27:40 - Didymus and TR have QEOU; Aleph has QEOU KAI
      > >
      > > So: out of 61 places where Didymus agrees with either Aleph or with Byz
      > > but not with both, Didymus agrees with Byz 33 times (54.1%). If the
      > > itacism-variant in 26:53 is included in the analysis, the rate of special
      > > agreement between Didymus and Aleph versus TR would decrease to 53.2% (33
      > > out of 62).
      > >
      > > Now, in the course of explaining his quantitative analysis, Ehrman states,
      > > "These figures show that in Matthew Didymus is a decidedly Alexandrian
      > > witness, standing somewhat closer to the later strand of that tradition."
      > >
      > > Really? Inasmuch as Didymus' text of Matthew, as reconstructed by Ehrman,
      > > agrees with Byz very slightly more often than Didymus' text of Matthew
      > > agrees with B, and more often than Didymus' text of Matthew agrees with
      > > Aleph, how is such a text "decidedly Alexandrian" any more than it is
      > > decidedly Byzantine? The solution he seems to propose is that Didymus' text
      > > agrees more with the /Secondary/ Alexandrian text than with the Byzantine
      > > Text -- but isn't that another way of saying that Didymus' text agrees more
      > > with an Alexandrian Text that has been mixed with Byzantine readings (or
      > > with a Byzantine Text mixed with Alexandrian readings) than it agrees with
      > > the Alexandrian Text alone or with the Byzantine Text alone?
      > >
      > > Now let's do a slightly different sort of comparison: Aleph and B have
      > > been used as the flagship-witnesses of the Alexandrian Text, while Byz has
      > > stood alone. What happens if we add Codex A into the equation, and compare
      > > the combined total number of agreements and differences? Of course this
      > > will only be a meaningful comparison if the variants involved come
      > > exclusively from the part of Matthew where A is extant -- which means that
      > > the comparison will begin in Matthew 25:6.
      > >
      > > Ehrman does not seem to have made much use of Codex A in his analysis,
      > > stating, "Since A does not preserve even one-eighth of the total number of
      > > readings under consideration (20/163), its testimony must be discounted."
      > > But waitasecond: Didymus does not contain one-eighth of the total number of
      > > readings under consideration when we reconstruct the text of the Gospel of
      > > Matthew; should we therefore discount Didymus' testimony? Isn't it more
      > > reasonable to look for help wherever it may be found? If Didymus'
      > > quotations from Matthew -- probably amounting, all strung together, to less
      > > than the length of a couple of chapters -- merit consideration, then Codex
      > > A should be considered too. Let's see what happens when we compare Didymus'
      > > text of Matthew to the contents of TR and A, and to the contents of Aleph
      > > and B, where all four witnesses are extant.
      > >
      > > LIST FIVE: Places in Matthew 25:6-28:20 Where Didymus Agrees with TR or A
      > > or Aleph or B:
      > >
      > > (1) 25:6 - Didymus has ECERCESQE - agreeing with TR A Aleph B
      > > (2) 25:6 - Didymus has GENONEN - agreeing with TR A Aleph (disagreeing
      > > with B)
      > > (3) 25:15 - Didymus has IDIAN DUNAMIN - agreeing with TR A Aleph B
      > > (4) 25:16 - Didymus has EN - agreeing with TR A Aleph B
      > > (5) 25:33 - Didymus has MEN - agreeing with TR A Aleph B
      > > (6) 25:33 - Didymus has DEXIWN - agreeing with Aleph A (disagreeing with
      > > TR B)
      > > (7) 25:33 - Didymus has EUWNUMWN - agreeing with TR A B (disagreeing with
      > > Aleph)
      > > (8) 25:41 - Didymus has OI - agreeing with TR A (disagreeing with Aleph B)
      > > (9) 25:41 - Didymus has POREUESQE - agreeing with TR A B (disagreeing with
      > > Aleph)
      > > (10) 26:15 - Didymus has PARADWSW - agreeing with TR A Aleph B
      > > (11) 26:31 - Didymus has DIASKORPISQHSETAI - agreeing with TR (disagreeing
      > > with A Aleph B)
      > > (12) 26:52 - Didymus has MACAIRH - agreeing with A Aleph B (disagreeing
      > > with TR)
      > > (13) 26:53 - Didymus has DOKEIS OTI OU DUNAMAI - agreeing with TR A Aleph
      > > B (there is a blank space in Ehrman's book where, it seems, the letter "A"
      > > was supposed to be)
      > > (14) 26:53 - Didymus has MOI - agreeing with TR A B (disagreeing with
      > > Aleph)
      > > (15) 26:53 - Didymus has PLEIOUS - agreeing with TR A (disagreeing with
      > > Aleph B)
      > > (16) 26:53 - Didymus has DWDEKA - agreeing with Aleph B (disagreeing with
      > > TR A)
      > > (17) 27:40 - Didymus has EI TOU QEOU - agreeing with TR A Aleph
      > > (disagreeing with B)
      > > (18) 27:40 - Didymus has QEOU - agreeing with TR B (disagreeing with Aleph
      > > A)
      > > (19) 28:19 - Didymus has MAQHTEUSATE - agreeing with Aleph A (disagreeing
      > > with B TR)
      > >
      > > In these 19 units, each pair (TR+A, and Aleph+B) has the potential to
      > > score 38 agreements. Which pair scores higher: the Byzantine pair, or the
      > > Alexandrian pair?
      > >
      > > TR: 15
      > > A: 17
      > > Aleph: 12
      > > B: 12
      > >
      > > Combined total of TR and A = 32/38 = 84%
      > > Combined total of Aleph and B = 24/38 = 63%
      > >
      > > Decidedly Alexandrian??
      > >
      > > Yours in Christ,
      > >
      > > James Snapp, Jr.
      > >
      > >
      > > Reply to sender<voxverax@...?subject=Re%3A%20Didymus%20the%20Blind%20and%20the%20Text%20of%20Matthew>| Reply
      > > to group<textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Didymus%20the%20Blind%20and%20the%20Text%20of%20Matthew>| Reply
      > > via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxMG5wcGdyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyNTQ0MzA5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNjExMzkyNgRtc2dJZAM2OTAxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTMyNDg4Nzk5Mg--?act=reply&messageNum=6901>| Start
      > > a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMTZzbDlnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyNTQ0MzA5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNjExMzkyNgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzMjQ4ODc5OTI->
      > > Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/6901;_ylc=X3oDMTM1dGZ0Y2o5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyNTQ0MzA5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNjExMzkyNgRtc2dJZAM2OTAxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTMyNDg4Nzk5MgR0cGNJZAM2OTAx>(
      > > 1)
      > > Recent Activity:
      > >
      > > - New Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnMzRzbWRwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyNTQ0MzA5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNjExMzkyNgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMzI0ODg3OTky?o=6>
      > > 1
      > >
      > > Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNDJudHJoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyNTQ0MzA5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNjExMzkyNgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzMjQ4ODc5OTI->
      > > MARKETPLACE
      > >
      > > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on -
      > > Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.<http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15osfunsj/M=493064.14543979.14562481.13298430/D=groups/S=1706113926:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1324895192/L=50f7e876-2f9b-11e1-ae5e-df30243cfad6/B=Jd.eA9GDJGc-/J=1324887992298662/K=V7EGGwjcuU6bGCFNoUSTrw/A=6060255/R=0/SIG=1194m4keh/*http://us.toolbar.yahoo.com/?.cpdl=grpj>
      > >
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.