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

Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels

Expand Messages
  • voxverax
    The Gospels-Text of Didymus the Blind Based on some research I did about a couple of years ago, here are some findings about the Gospels-text of Didymus the
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 10, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      The Gospels-Text of Didymus the Blind

       

      Based on some research I did about a couple of years ago, here are some findings about the Gospels-text of Didymus the Blind, based mainly on Bart Ehrman’s volume in the NTGF series.  I thought it might be a good idea to have the data collected in one place.  Readers should keep in mind that this was rough-and-ready analysis; it includes a couple of on-the-spot corrections, and readers are welcome to sift through the data to make further improvements.  In other words, don’t expect this to be perfect; the analysis was rather casual; it’s not like I was preparing a Ph.D. dissertation. 

       

      In Matthew,  Didymus agrees with either B or Byz (but not both) 49 times.

      Didymus agrees with B against Byz 24 times (49%).
      Didymus agrees with Byz against B 25 times (51%).


      In M
      ark – well, in Mark, the data is too sparse to justify confidence that it reflects the affinities of Didymus’ text.  Nevertheless:

      Didymus agrees with either B or Byz (but not both) five times.  However, in three cases where Ehrman concludes that Didymus supports a reading in B, the grounds seem especially questionable.  Granting every one of them, though: 

      Didymus agrees with B against Byz 4 times (80%).

      Didymus agrees with Byz against B 1 time (20%).

       

      In Luke, Didymus agrees with either B or Byz (but not both) 45 times.

      Didymus agrees with B against Byz 28 times (62%)

      Didymus agrees with Byz against B 17 times (38%).

       

      In John, Didymus agrees with either B or Byz (but not both) 40 times.

      Didymus agrees with Byz against B 23 times (57.5%).

      Didymus agrees with B against Byz 17 times (42.5%).

       

      So let’s see here:  figuring that nothing comes close to representing the Alexandrian Text of the Gospels as well as Codex B, and that nothing represents the Byzantine Text as well as the RP-2005 compilation, did the Gospels-text used by Didymus resemble the Alexandrian Text, or the Byzantine Text?

       

      Didymus agrees with B against Byz 24 times in Mt., 4 times in Mk., 28 times in Luke, and 23 times in John, which equals a total of 79 agreements with B against Byz.

       

      Didymus agrees with Byz against B 25 times in Mt., 1 time in Mk., 17 times in Luke, and 17 times in John, which equals a total of 60 agreements with Byz against B.  

       

      Thus, out of 139 places in the Gospels-text used by Didymus where the text is either Alexandrian or Byzantine (but not both), Didymus’ text was Alexandrian 79 times (57%) and Byzantine 60 times (43%).    


      Normally we would call that a Mixed Text.  It looks like Didymus’ Gospels-text – particularly in Matthew, where Didymus’ text had a couple more Byzantine readings than Alexandrian readings – was very far from a pure Alexandrian Text. 

       

      This raises a significant question:  did anyone in the early church use the pure Alexandrian Text?  I’m not referring to the “Secondary Alexandrian” or “Later Alexandrian” text that pops up as a proxy for the Text-That-Shall-Not-Be-Correctly-Named – namely, the “Mixed Alexandrian-Byzantine” text – in the NTGF series.  I’m referring strictly to the Alexandrian Text, as it is displayed in Codex Vaticanus.  Can anyone name the patristic writers who used a Gospels-Text a lot (say, over 120 clear quotations) and can be shown to have used a text that agreed with the Alexandrian Text more than 70% of the time at points where the Alexandrian and Byzantine Text disagree?

       

      For those who might like a closer look at the evidence about what kind of Gospels-text was used by Didymus the Blind, here is the data, book-by-book.  Bear in mind that Ehrman did not consider De Trinitate to be among the genuine works of Didymus, so he did not include it in his analysis.  With De Trinitate in the equation, the results could be very different.

       

      **********

       

      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 FOUR:  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
      FIVE: 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 SIX:

      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??

       

      **********

       

      Next, let’s take a look at Didymus’ text of Mark.  This is not going to take long, since Ehrman lists less than a dozen verses from Mark used by Didymus, and in only seven of those places is there a discernible disagreement between any members of the group Byz-A-Aleph-B.   (I checked each reference with RP-2005.) 

       

      [Didymus’ allusion to 3:17 - TAUTHS THS BRONTHS HKOUSAN OI AMFI TON IAKOB KAI IWANNHN  ECRHMATISAN GAR UIOI BRONTHS (Commentary on Ecclesiastes 355:23) - agrees with Byz A Aleph . . .  and “(B)”  (B’s text is different -- ONOMA instead of ONOMATI -- but the difference cannot be detected using only Didymus’ allusion to the verse)]

       

      (1) 4:10 - LOIPON ERW[TW]SI[N] PERI TWN PARABOLWN (Comm. on Eccl. 10:3) - Didymus alludes to “the parables” instead of “the parable,” and thus supports Aleph and B (TAS PARABOLAS) (disagreeing with Byz and A).  But on what basis was it determined that Didymus was not recollecting Matthew 13:10, or blending both passages to describe the one scene they record?

      (2) 4:11 - EXW (Comm. on Eccl. 5:26-27 and 10:1 and 7:23) – Didymus’ allusions agree with Byz A Aleph (disagreeing with B, which reads EXWQEN)

      (3) 4:28 - EITEN (or EITA) STACUN (Comm. on Genesis 104:2-3) – Didymus’ allusion agrees with Byz A B (disagreeing with Aleph, which omits both words)

      (4) 7:6 - O LAOS OUTOS (Comm. on Gen. 176:18-19) – Didymus’ citation agrees with B (disagreeing with Byz A Aleph, which transpose.)  (Without reading Didymus’ Commentary on Genesis, I must wonder:  this is not from Matthew 15:7-8, or Isaiah 29:13, because ...?) (NA27 disagrees with B and Didymus here.)

      (5) 9:49 - PURI (Comm. on Zech. 207:6 and 358:25) – Didymus’ citation agrees with Byz A B (disagreeing with Aleph, which has EN PURI)  (On page 231 Ehrman calls this an “Alexandrian exclusive” reading.  Any idea why?)

      (6) 11:2 - OUPW (Comm. on Zech. 221:21-24) – Didymus’ allusion -- ... EIRHTAI GAR OTI OUPW TOTE EKAQISEN EP’ AUTON ANQRWPWN TIS -- supports the inclusion of OUPW, thus agreeing with Aleph B (disagreeing with Byz (which omits) and A (which has PWPOTE)).  (B has OUPW ANQRWPWN and Aleph has ANQRWPWN OUPW, but at least they both include the word.)

      (7) 11:2 - EKAQISEN (Comm. on Zech. 221:21-24) – Didymus’ allusion supports Aleph and B (disagreeing with Byz and A, which have KEKAQIKEN (But this is not an allusion to Luke 19:30 because ...?)

       

      So out of a possible score of 14 (7+7), Aleph+B = 4+6 = 10 (71%), and Byz+A = 3+3 = 6 (43%).  It’s a strong showing for B (6 out of 7!), and if one figures that Aleph’s reading in 4:28 is just a parableptic mistake, Aleph’s score would be 5 out of 7.  But the sample-size is so small, and the grounds for the inclusion of some of these readings seem so tenuous, that it’s rather tentative.  As Ehrman states on p. 202, these results “certainly cannot be considered reliable by themselves.”

       

      **********

       

      Let’s take a look at the text of Luke as it is represented in the writings of Didymus. Here are all the places where Ehrman (in his 1986 dissertation Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels) identified places in Luke where there is disagreement among the witnesses Byz A Aleph B.

      (1) 1:17 - PROELEUSETAI - supporting TR A Aleph; disagreeing with B (which has PROSELEUSETAI)
      (2) 1:35 - DIO - supporting TR Aleph B; disagreeing with A (which has DIOTI)
      (3) 1:69 - EN - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have EN TW)
      (4) 2:35 - SOU - supporting B; disagreeing with TR A Aleph (which have SOU DE)
      (5) 2:36 -
      META ANDROS ETH EPTA - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have ETH META ANDROS EPTA)
      (6) 2:36 - ZHSASA - supporting B TR A; disagreeing with Aleph (which has XHREUSASA)
      (7) 2:37 - EWS - supporting A Aleph B; disagreeing with TR (which has WS)
      (8) 2:37 - OGDOHKONTA - supporting TR A B; disagreeing with Aleph (which has EBDOMHKONTA)
      (9) 3:8 - KARPOUS AXIOUS - supporting TR A Aleph; disagreeing with B (which transposes)
      (10) 4:17 - BIBLION TOU PROFHTOU ISAIOU - supporting Aleph B (disagreeing with TR A, which have BIBLION HSAIOU TOU PROFHTOU [Note: Ehrman spells “Hsaiou” with an initial “I” three times in this listing; in each case the letter should be H.]
      (11) 4:18 - ME (second occurrence) - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have ME ISASQAI TOUS SUNTETRIMMENOUS THN KARDIAN)

      [4:18 - Ehrman shows Didymus’ reading EUANGELISASQAI - supporting A Aleph B; disagreeing with TR (which has EUANGELIZESQAI), but at this point TR and RP-2005 disagree; RP-2005 has EUANGELISASQAI. Thus this is not a valid disagreement with Byz, and will not be included in the analysis.]


      [4:29 - Ehrman shows Didymus’ reading EWS - supporting A Aleph B; disagreeing with TR (which has EWS THS), but at this point TR and RP-2005 disagree; RP-2005 has EWS.  Thus this is not a valid disagreement with Byz, and will not be included in the analysis.]


      (12) 4:29 - AUTWN WKODOMHTO - supporting TR A; disagreeing with Aleph B (which transpose)
      (13) 4:29 - AUTON - supporting TR A B; disagreeing with Aleph (which omits)
      (14) 6:38 - W (GAR) METRW - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have W (GAR) AUTW METRW [The main point of variation under consideration here consists of the inclusion or non-inclusion of the word AUTW before METRW, and W after METRW.]
      (15) 6:38 - ANTIMETRHQHSETAI - supporting TR A Aleph; disagreeing with B (which lacks ANTI-)
      (16) 6:45 - KARDIAS - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have KARDIAS AUTOU)
      (17) 6:46 - A - suporting TR A Aleph; disagreeing with B (which has O)
      (18) 7:28 - GUNAIKWN - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have GUNAIKWN PROFHTHS)
      (19) 7:28 - IWANNOU - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have IWANNOU TOU BAPTISTOU) [These two listings in 7:28 could fairly be considered a single variant-unit: IWANNOU versus PROFHTHS IWANNOU TOU BAPTISTOU]
      (20) 9:62 - EPIBALWN - supporting TR Aleph B; disagreeing with A (which has EPIBALLWN)
      (21) 9:62 - CEIRA - supporting B; disagreeing with TR A Aleph (which have CEIRA AUTOU)
      (22) 10:13 - EGENHQHSAN - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have EGENONTO)
      (23) 10:19 - DEDWKA - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have DIDWMI)
      (24) 10:19 - non-inclusion of OU MH - supporting Aleph; disagreeing with TR A B (which have the words)
      (25) 10:19 - inclusion of OU MH - supporting TR A B; disagreeing with Aleph (which omits) [Didymus utilizes this passage with both readings]
      (26) 10:19 - ADIKHSEI - supporting Aleph A; disagreeing with TR B (which have ADIHKSH)
      (27) 10:19 - DUNAMIN - supporting TR A Aleph; disagreeing with B (which has DUNAMIN THN)
      (28) 10:20 - EGGEGRAPTAI - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have EGRAFH)
      (29) 11:13 - UPARCONTES - supporting TR A B; disagreeing with Aleph (which has ONTES)
      (30) 11:15 - BEEZEBOUL - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with A TR (which have BEELZEBOUL)
      (31) 11:15 - TW - supporting A Aleph B; disagreeing with TR (which omits) [RP-2005 also omits]

      [At 11:33, Ehrman lists the reading EIS KRUTP

      (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

    • voxverax
      A correction is needed near the end of the previous post: in the statement, In the Gospels, Didymus’ Gospels-text agrees with the top 2 Alexandrian
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 11, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

        A correction is needed near the end of the previous post:  in the statement, "In the Gospels, Didymus’ Gospels-text agrees with the top 2 Alexandrian witnesses 62 times, and with the top two Alexandrian witnesses 56 times," the first reference should read "top2 Byzantine witnesses 62 times" rather than "top 2 Alexandrian witnesses." 

         

        (Thanks to Fred Vidar for the correction.)

         

        Yours in Christ,

         

        James Snapp, Jr.



        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, <james.snapp@...> wrote:

        The Gospels-Text of Didymus the Blind

         

        Based on some research I did about a couple of years ago, here are some findings about the Gospels-text of Didymus the Blind, based mainly on Bart Ehrman’s volume in the NTGF series.  I thought it might be a good idea to have the data collected in one place.  Readers should keep in mind that this was rough-and-ready analysis; it includes a couple of on-the-spot corrections, and readers are welcome to sift through the data to make further improvements.  In other words, don’t expect this to be perfect; the analysis was rather casual; it’s not like I was preparing a Ph.D. dissertation. 

         

        In Matthew,  Didymus agrees with either B or Byz (but not both) 49 times.

        Didymus agrees with B against Byz 24 times (49%).
        Didymus agrees with Byz against B 25 times (51%).


        In M
        ark – well, in Mark, the data is too sparse to justify confidence that it reflects the affinities of Didymus’ text.  Nevertheless:

        Didymus agrees with either B or Byz (but not both) five times.  However, in three cases where Ehrman concludes that Didymus supports a reading in B, the grounds seem especially questionable.  Granting every one of them, though: 

        Didymus agrees with B against Byz 4 times (80%).

        Didymus agrees with Byz against B 1 time (20%).

         

        In Luke, Didymus agrees with either B or Byz (but not both) 45 times.

        Didymus agrees with B against Byz 28 times (62%)

        Didymus agrees with Byz against B 17 times (38%).

         

        In John, Didymus agrees with either B or Byz (but not both) 40 times.

        Didymus agrees with Byz against B 23 times (57.5%).

        Didymus agrees with B against Byz 17 times (42.5%).

         

        So let’s see here:  figuring that nothing comes close to representing the Alexandrian Text of the Gospels as well as Codex B, and that nothing represents the Byzantine Text as well as the RP-2005 compilation, did the Gospels-text used by Didymus resemble the Alexandrian Text, or the Byzantine Text?

         

        Didymus agrees with B against Byz 24 times in Mt., 4 times in Mk., 28 times in Luke, and 23 times in John, which equals a total of 79 agreements with B against Byz.

         

        Didymus agrees with Byz against B 25 times in Mt., 1 time in Mk., 17 times in Luke, and 17 times in John, which equals a total of 60 agreements with Byz against B.  

         

        Thus, out of 139 places in the Gospels-text used by Didymus where the text is either Alexandrian or Byzantine (but not both), Didymus’ text was Alexandrian 79 times (57%) and Byzantine 60 times (43%).    


        Normally we would call that a Mixed Text.  It looks like Didymus’ Gospels-text – particularly in Matthew, where Didymus’ text had a couple more Byzantine readings than Alexandrian readings – was very far from a pure Alexandrian Text. 

         

        This raises a significant question:  did anyone in the early church use the pure Alexandrian Text?  I’m not referring to the “Secondary Alexandrian” or “Later Alexandrian” text that pops up as a proxy for the Text-That-Shall-Not-Be-Correctly-Named – namely, the “Mixed Alexandrian-Byzantine” text – in the NTGF series.  I’m referring strictly to the Alexandrian Text, as it is displayed in Codex Vaticanus.  Can anyone name the patristic writers who used a Gospels-Text a lot (say, over 120 clear quotations) and can be shown to have used a text that agreed with the Alexandrian Text more than 70% of the time at points where the Alexandrian and Byzantine Text disagree?

         

        For those who might like a closer look at the evidence about what kind of Gospels-text was used by Didymus the Blind, here is the data, book-by-book.  Bear in mind that Ehrman did not consider De Trinitate to be among the genuine works of Didymus, so he did not include it in his analysis.  With De Trinitate in the equation, the results could be very different.

         

        **********

         

        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 FOUR:  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
        FIVE: 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 SIX:

        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??

         

        **********

         

        Next, let’s take a look at Didymus’ text of Mark.  This is not going to take long, since Ehrman lists less than a dozen verses from Mark used by Didymus, and in only seven of those places is there a discernible disagreement between any members of the group Byz-A-Aleph-B.   (I checked each reference with RP-2005.) 

         

        [Didymus’ allusion to 3:17 - TAUTHS THS BRONTHS HKOUSAN OI AMFI TON IAKOB KAI IWANNHN  ECRHMATISAN GAR UIOI BRONTHS (Commentary on Ecclesiastes 355:23) - agrees with Byz A Aleph . . .  and “(B)”  (B’s text is different -- ONOMA instead of ONOMATI -- but the difference cannot be detected using only Didymus’ allusion to the verse)]

         

        (1) 4:10 - LOIPON ERW[TW]SI[N] PERI TWN PARABOLWN (Comm. on Eccl. 10:3) - Didymus alludes to “the parables” instead of “the parable,” and thus supports Aleph and B (TAS PARABOLAS) (disagreeing with Byz and A).  But on what basis was it determined that Didymus was not recollecting Matthew 13:10, or blending both passages to describe the one scene they record?

        (2) 4:11 - EXW (Comm. on Eccl. 5:26-27 and 10:1 and 7:23) – Didymus’ allusions agree with Byz A Aleph (disagreeing with B, which reads EXWQEN)

        (3) 4:28 - EITEN (or EITA) STACUN (Comm. on Genesis 104:2-3) – Didymus’ allusion agrees with Byz A B (disagreeing with Aleph, which omits both words)

        (4) 7:6 - O LAOS OUTOS (Comm. on Gen. 176:18-19) – Didymus’ citation agrees with B (disagreeing with Byz A Aleph, which transpose.)  (Without reading Didymus’ Commentary on Genesis, I must wonder:  this is not from Matthew 15:7-8, or Isaiah 29:13, because ...?) (NA27 disagrees with B and Didymus here.)

        (5) 9:49 - PURI (Comm. on Zech. 207:6 and 358:25) – Didymus’ citation agrees with Byz A B (disagreeing with Aleph, which has EN PURI)  (On page 231 Ehrman calls this an “Alexandrian exclusive” reading.  Any idea why?)

        (6) 11:2 - OUPW (Comm. on Zech. 221:21-24) – Didymus’ allusion -- ... EIRHTAI GAR OTI OUPW TOTE EKAQISEN EP’ AUTON ANQRWPWN TIS -- supports the inclusion of OUPW, thus agreeing with Aleph B (disagreeing with Byz (which omits) and A (which has PWPOTE)).  (B has OUPW ANQRWPWN and Aleph has ANQRWPWN OUPW, but at least they both include the word.)

        (7) 11:2 - EKAQISEN (Comm. on Zech. 221:21-24) – Didymus’ allusion supports Aleph and B (disagreeing with Byz and A, which have KEKAQIKEN (But this is not an allusion to Luke 19:30 because ...?)

         

        So out of a possible score of 14 (7+7), Aleph+B = 4+6 = 10 (71%), and Byz+A = 3+3 = 6 (43%).  It’s a strong showing for B (6 out of 7!), and if one figures that Aleph’s reading in 4:28 is just a parableptic mistake, Aleph’s score would be 5 out of 7.  But the sample-size is so small, and the grounds for the inclusion of some of these readings seem so tenuous, that it’s rather tentative.  As Ehrman states on p. 202, these results “certainly cannot be considered reliable by themselves.”

         

        **********

         

        Let’s take a look at the text of Luke as it is represented in the writings of Didymus. Here are all the places where Ehrman (in his 1986 dissertation Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels) identified places in Luke where there is disagreement among the witnesses Byz A Aleph B.

        (1) 1:17 - PROELEUSETAI - supporting TR A Aleph; disagreeing with B (which has PROSELEUSETAI)
        (2) 1:35 - DIO - supporting TR Aleph B; disagreeing with A (which has DIOTI)
        (3) 1:69 - EN - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have EN TW)
        (4) 2:35 - SOU - supporting B; disagreeing with TR A Aleph (which have SOU DE)
        (5) 2:36 -
        META ANDROS ETH EPTA - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have ETH META ANDROS EPTA)
        (6) 2:36 - ZHSASA - supporting B TR A; disagreeing with Aleph (which has XHREUSASA)
        (7) 2:37 - EWS - supporting A Aleph B; disagreeing with TR (which has WS)
        (8) 2:37 - OGDOHKONTA - supporting TR A B; disagreeing with Aleph (which has EBDOMHKONTA)
        (9) 3:8 - KARPOUS AXIOUS - supporting TR A Aleph; disagreeing with B (which transposes)
        (10) 4:17 - BIBLION TOU PROFHTOU ISAIOU - supporting Aleph B (disagreeing with TR A, which have BIBLION HSAIOU TOU PROFHTOU [Note: Ehrman spells “Hsaiou” with an initial “I” three times in this listing; in each case the letter should be H.]
        (11) 4:18 - ME (second occurrence) - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have ME ISASQAI TOUS SUNTETRIMMENOUS THN KARDIAN)

        [4:18 - Ehrman shows Didymus’ reading EUANGELISASQAI - supporting A Aleph B; disagreeing with TR (which has EUANGELIZESQAI), but at this point TR and RP-2005 disagree; RP-2005 has EUANGELISASQAI. Thus this is not a valid disagreement with Byz, and will not be included in the analysis.]


        [4:29 - Ehrman shows Didymus’ reading EWS - supporting A Aleph B; disagreeing with TR (which has EWS THS), but at this point TR and RP-2005 disagree; RP-2005 has EWS.  Thus this is not a valid disagreement with Byz, and will not be included in the analysis.]


        (12) 4:29 - AUTWN WKODOMHTO - supporting TR A; disagreeing with Aleph B (which transpose)
        (13) 4:29 - AUTON - supporting TR A B; disagreeing with Aleph (which omits)
        (14) 6:38 - W (GAR) METRW - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have W (GAR) AUTW METRW [The main point of variation under consideration here consists of the inclusion or non-inclusion of the word AUTW before METRW, and W after METRW.]
        (15) 6:38 - ANTIMETRHQHSETAI - supporting TR A Aleph; disagreeing with B (which lacks ANTI-)
        (16) 6:45 - KARDIAS - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have KARDIAS AUTOU)
        (17) 6:46 - A - suporting TR A Aleph; disagreeing with B (which has O)
        (18) 7:28 - GUNAIKWN - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have GUNAIKWN PROFHTHS)
        (19) 7:28 - IWANNOU - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have IWANNOU TOU BAPTISTOU) [These two listings in 7:28 could fairly be considered a single variant-unit: IWANNOU versus PROFHTHS IWANNOU TOU BAPTISTOU]
        (20) 9:62 - EPIBALWN - supporting TR Aleph B; disagreeing with A (which has EPIBALLWN)
        (21) 9:62 - CEIRA - supporting B; disagreeing with TR A Aleph (which have CEIRA AUTOU)
        (22) 10:13 - EGENHQHSAN - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have EGENONTO)
        (23) 10:19 - DEDWKA - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have DIDWMI)
        (24) 10:19 - non-inclusion of OU MH - supporting Aleph; disagreeing with TR A B (which have the words)
        (25) 10:19 - inclusion of OU MH - supporting TR A B; disagreeing with Aleph (which omits) [Didymus utilizes this passage with both readings]
        (26) 10:19 - ADIKHSEI - supporting Aleph A; disagreeing with TR B (which have ADIHKSH)
        (27) 10:19 - DUNAMIN - supporting TR A Aleph; disagreeing with B (which has DUNAMIN THN)
        (28) 10:20 - EGGEGRAPTAI - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have EGR

        (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

      • yennifmit
        Hi James, Here is a CMDS (classical multidimensional scaling) map of Ehrman s data on Didymus for Matthew s Gospel:
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 13, 2013
        • 0 Attachment

          Hi James,


          Here is a CMDS (classical multidimensional scaling) map of Ehrman's data on Didymus for Matthew's Gospel:


          http://www.tfinney.net/Views/cmds/Matt-Ehrman.gif


          Didymus is in his own part of textual space, a bit closer to L-like texts (i.e. Alexandrian) than omega-like ones (i.e. Byzantine). This could be interpreted as evidence that the type of text found in omega (045) was known in Egypt when Didymus was teaching.


          Best,


          Tim Finney



          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

          A correction is needed near the end of the previous post:  in the statement, "In the Gospels, Didymus’ Gospels-text agrees with the top 2 Alexandrian witnesses 62 times, and with the top two Alexandrian witnesses 56 times," the first reference should read "top2 Byzantine witnesses 62 times" rather than "top 2 Alexandrian witnesses." 

           

          (Thanks to Fred Vidar for the correction.)

           

          Yours in Christ,

           

          James Snapp, Jr.



          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, <james.snapp@...> wrote:

          The Gospels-Text of Didymus the Blind

           

          Based on some research I did about a couple of years ago, here are some findings about the Gospels-text of Didymus the Blind, based mainly on Bart Ehrman’s volume in the NTGF series.  I thought it might be a good idea to have the data collected in one place.  Readers should keep in mind that this was rough-and-ready analysis; it includes a couple of on-the-spot corrections, and readers are welcome to sift through the data to make further improvements.  In other words, don’t expect this to be perfect; the analysis was rather casual; it’s not like I was preparing a Ph.D. dissertation. 

           

          In Matthew,  Didymus agrees with either B or Byz (but not both) 49 times.

          Didymus agrees with B against Byz 24 times (49%).
          Didymus agrees with Byz against B 25 times (51%).


          In M
          ark – well, in Mark, the data is too sparse to justify confidence that it reflects the affinities of Didymus’ text.  Nevertheless:

          Didymus agrees with either B or Byz (but not both) five times.  However, in three cases where Ehrman concludes that Didymus supports a reading in B, the grounds seem especially questionable.  Granting every one of them, though: 

          Didymus agrees with B against Byz 4 times (80%).

          Didymus agrees with Byz against B 1 time (20%).

           

          In Luke, Didymus agrees with either B or Byz (but not both) 45 times.

          Didymus agrees with B against Byz 28 times (62%)

          Didymus agrees with Byz against B 17 times (38%).

           

          In John, Didymus agrees with either B or Byz (but not both) 40 times.

          Didymus agrees with Byz against B 23 times (57.5%).

          Didymus agrees with B against Byz 17 times (42.5%).

           

          So let’s see here:  figuring that nothing comes close to representing the Alexandrian Text of the Gospels as well as Codex B, and that nothing represents the Byzantine Text as well as the RP-2005 compilation, did the Gospels-text used by Didymus resemble the Alexandrian Text, or the Byzantine Text?

           

          Didymus agrees with B against Byz 24 times in Mt., 4 times in Mk., 28 times in Luke, and 23 times in John, which equals a total of 79 agreements with B against Byz.

           

          Didymus agrees with Byz against B 25 times in Mt., 1 time in Mk., 17 times in Luke, and 17 times in John, which equals a total of 60 agreements with Byz against B.  

           

          Thus, out of 139 places in the Gospels-text used by Didymus where the text is either Alexandrian or Byzantine (but not both), Didymus’ text was Alexandrian 79 times (57%) and Byzantine 60 times (43%).    


          Normally we would call that a Mixed Text.  It looks like Didymus’ Gospels-text – particularly in Matthew, where Didymus’ text had a couple more Byzantine readings than Alexandrian readings – was very far from a pure Alexandrian Text. 

           

          This raises a significant question:  did anyone in the early church use the pure Alexandrian Text?  I’m not referring to the “Secondary Alexandrian” or “Later Alexandrian” text that pops up as a proxy for the Text-That-Shall-Not-Be-Correctly-Named – namely, the “Mixed Alexandrian-Byzantine” text – in the NTGF series.  I’m referring strictly to the Alexandrian Text, as it is displayed in Codex Vaticanus.  Can anyone name the patristic writers who used a Gospels-Text a lot (say, over 120 clear quotations) and can be shown to have used a text that agreed with the Alexandrian Text more than 70% of the time at points where the Alexandrian and Byzantine Text disagree?

           

          For those who might like a closer look at the evidence about what kind of Gospels-text was used by Didymus the Blind, here is the data, book-by-book.  Bear in mind that Ehrman did not consider De Trinitate to be among the genuine works of Didymus, so he did not include it in his analysis.  With De Trinitate in the equation, the results could be very different.

           

          **********

           

          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 FOUR:  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
          FIVE: 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 SIX:

          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??

           

          **********

           

          Next, let’s take a look at Didymus’ text of Mark.  This is not going to take long, since Ehrman lists less than a dozen verses from Mark used by Didymus, and in only seven of those places is there a discernible disagreement between any members of the group Byz-A-Aleph-B.   (I checked each reference with RP-2005.) 

           

          [Didymus’ allusion to 3:17 - TAUTHS THS BRONTHS HKOUSAN OI AMFI TON IAKOB KAI IWANNHN  ECRHMATISAN GAR UIOI BRONTHS (Commentary on Ecclesiastes 355:23) - agrees with Byz A Aleph . . .  and “(B)”  (B’s text is different -- ONOMA instead of ONOMATI -- but the difference cannot be detected using only Didymus’ allusion to the verse)]

           

          (1) 4:10 - LOIPON ERW[TW]SI[N] PERI TWN PARABOLWN (Comm. on Eccl. 10:3) - Didymus alludes to “the parables” instead of “the parable,” and thus supports Aleph and B (TAS PARABOLAS) (disagreeing with Byz and A).  But on what basis was it determined that Didymus was not recollecting Matthew 13:10, or blending both passages to describe the one scene they record?

          (2) 4:11 - EXW (Comm. on Eccl. 5:26-27 and 10:1 and 7:23) – Didymus’ allusions agree with Byz A Aleph (disagreeing with B, which reads EXWQEN)

          (3) 4:28 - EITEN (or EITA) STACUN (Comm. on Genesis 104:2-3) – Didymus’ allusion agrees with Byz A B (disagreeing with Aleph, which omits both words)

          (4) 7:6 - O LAOS OUTOS (Comm. on Gen. 176:18-19) – Didymus’ citation agrees with B (disagreeing with Byz A Aleph, which transpose.)  (Without reading Didymus’ Commentary on Genesis, I must wonder:  this is not from Matthew 15:7-8, or Isaiah 29:13, because ...?) (NA27 disagrees with B and Didymus here.)

          (5) 9:49 - PURI (Comm. on Zech. 207:6 and 358:25) – Didymus’ citation agrees with Byz A B (disagreeing with Aleph, which has EN PURI)  (On page 231 Ehrman calls this an “Alexandrian exclusive” reading.  Any idea why?)

          (6) 11:2 - OUPW (Comm. on Zech. 221:21-24) – Didymus’ allusion -- ... EIRHTAI GAR OTI OUPW TOTE EKAQISEN EP’ AUTON ANQRWPWN TIS -- supports the inclusion of OUPW, thus agreeing with Aleph B (disagreeing with Byz (which omits) and A (which has PWPOTE)).  (B has OUPW ANQRWPWN and Aleph has ANQRWPWN OUPW, but at least they both include the word.)

          (7) 11:2 - EKAQISEN (Comm. on Zech. 221:21-24) – Didymus’ allusion supports Aleph and B (disagreeing with Byz and A, which have KEKAQIKEN (But this is not an allusion to Luke 19:30 because ...?)

           

          So out of a possible score of 14 (7+7), Aleph+B = 4+6 = 10 (71%), and Byz+A = 3+3 = 6 (43%).  It’s a strong showing for B (6 out of 7!), and if one figures that Aleph’s reading in 4:28 is just a parableptic mistake, Aleph’s score would be 5 out of 7.  But the sample-size is so small, and the grounds for the inclusion of some of these readings seem so tenuous, that it’s rather tentative.  As Ehrman states on p. 202, these results “certainly cannot be considered reliable by themselves.”

           

          **********

           

          Let’s take a look at the text of Luke as it is represented in the writings of Didymus. Here are all the places where Ehrman (in his 1986 dissertation Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels) identified places in Luke where there is disagreement among the witnesses Byz A Aleph B.

          (1) 1:17 - PROELEUSETAI - supporting TR A Aleph; disagreeing with B (which has PROSELEUSETAI)
          (2) 1:35 - DIO - supporting TR Aleph B; disagreeing with A (which has DIOTI)
          (3) 1:69 - EN - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have EN TW)
          (4) 2:35 - SOU - supporting B; disagreeing with TR A Aleph (which have SOU DE)
          (5) 2:36 -
          META ANDROS ETH EPTA - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have ETH META ANDROS EPTA)
          (6) 2:36 - ZHSASA - supporting B TR A; disagreeing with Aleph (which has XHREUSASA)
          (7) 2:37 - EWS - supporting A Aleph B; disagreeing with TR (which has WS)
          (8) 2:37 - OGDOHKONTA - supporting TR A B; disagreeing with Aleph (which has EBDOMHKONTA)
          (9) 3:8 - KARPOUS AXIOUS - supporting TR A Aleph; disagreeing with B (which transposes)
          (10) 4:17 - BIBLION TOU PROFHTOU ISAIOU - supporting Aleph B (disagreeing with TR A, which have BIBLION HSAIOU TOU PROFHTOU [Note: Ehrman spells “Hsaiou” with an initial “I” three times in this listing; in each case the letter should be H.]
          (11) 4:18 - ME (second occurrence) - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have ME ISASQAI TOUS SUNTETRIMMENOUS THN KARDIAN)

          [4:18 - Ehrman shows Didymus’ reading EUANGELISASQAI - supporting A Aleph B; disagreeing with TR (which has EUANGELIZESQAI), but at this point TR and RP-2005 disagree; RP-2005 has EUANGELISASQAI. Thus this is not a valid disagreement with Byz, and will not be included in the analysis.]


          [4:29 - Ehrman shows Didymus’ reading EWS - supporting A Aleph B; disagreeing with TR (which has EWS THS), but at this point TR and RP-2005 disagree; RP-2005 has EWS.  Thus this is not a valid disagreement with Byz, and will not be included in the analysis.]


          (12) 4:29 - AUTWN WKODOMHTO - supporting TR A; disagreeing with Aleph B (which transpose)
          (13) 4:29 - AUTON - supporting TR A B; disagreeing with Aleph (which omits)
          (14) 6:38 - W (GAR) METRW - supporting Aleph B; disagreeing with TR A (which have W (GAR) AUTW METRW [The main point of variation under consideration here consists of the inclusion or non-inclusion of the word AUTW before METRW, and W after METRW.]
          (15) 6:38 - ANTIMETRHQHSETAI - supporting TR A Aleph; disagreeing with B (which lacks ANTI-)

          (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.