A working theory of Bezae’s text


  1. Isolation from the Greek mainstream
  2. Old Latin parallels
  3. Parallels with ancient writers
  4. East-West exchange of readings
  5. Major variation in Acts

Isolation from the Greek mainstream








Old Latin parallels




Parallels with ancient writers




East-West exchange of readings


Major variation in Acts


Is the “Western” text really “Eastern”?


G. Zuntz put it well:


B. Aland and K. Aland observe with some hyperbole:














References and Notes





The puzzling case of Codex Sinaiticus in John 1-8

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

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

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

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

John 4 - 6 clusters with X01 - special circled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet there remain many questions. For example:

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

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


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

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

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

[4] Parker, Bezae, 149.

Can we use papyri to date Bezae’s layers?





John 4 - 6 clusters with P66



  3. Free Greek (9 readings, ‘+’)
  4. Alexandrian (5 readings, ‘×’)




John 4 - 6 clusters with Or




John 4 - 6 clusters by level








The article in JBL will discuss P75:


Thank you, Timothy!]

How much of Bezae’s text dates to the second century?

The distinctive elements of Bezae’s Greek text are typically dated to the second century or earlier. This dating is of course based on parallels with second-century writers and a “consensus” view of the tradition as essentially stabilized by the fourth century. But in some recent posts, I have questioned aspects of this view with respect to Codex Bezae.

For example:

While it seems possible to view Bezae’s text as a product of the fourth century, it appears unlikely that it would preserve no second-century influences. There must then be some elements of Bezae’s text assignable to the second century. The question is which elements.

To address this question, I suggest we follow M. W. Holmes’ layered view of Bezae’s text, as a layered sequence of traditions accumulated over time from the various influences to which the text was exposed. [1]

In a recent article in which I examined John 4:1-42 as a test case for Bezae’s layers, I found the following six layers for the 73 readings examined. Each layer consists of readings that Bezae shares with various groups of witnesses, which are unknown in advance:

  1. Transitional Greek (8 readings)
  2. Mainstream / Byzantine (33 readings)
  3. Free Greek (9 readings)
  4. Alexandrian (5 readings)
  5. African Old Latin (8 readings)
  6. European Old Latin (10 readings)

The readings may be plotted as points on a graph (see explanation) with ellipses indicating the group of readings per layer:

Figure 2: Holmes' categories superimposed over six clusters

Bezae’s readings in John 4:1-42 partitioned into six layers (numbering arbitrary): 1. Transitional Greek, 2. Mainstream / Byzantine, 3. Free Greek, 4. Alexandrian, 5. African Old Latin, 6. European Old Latin. Readings labeled as: x = neither Alexandrian or Byzantine, o = Alexandrian, triangle = Old Latin, diamond = Byzantine.

To sequence the readings, I identified several witnesses with identifiable dates:

  1. P66 (200)
  2. Origen (254)
  3. P75 (iii)
  4. Cyprian (258)
  5. a B א (iv)

Then each reading is dated according to the earliest attesting witness or 400, whichever is earlier:

John 4 - 6 clusters by date BW

Bezae’s readings in John 4:1-42 by earliest datable attestation.

From the sequenced layers, it can be seen that layer 2 (Bezae’s agreement with Mainstream or Byzantine witnesses) attests by far the most readings datable to 200, while the highest proportion of readings datable to 200 belongs to layer 4 (Bezae’s agreement with Alexandrian witnesses). Otherwise, layer 3 (Free Greek) and layer 1 (Transitional Greek) have just two and one reading(s) attested in 200 respectively.

The two layers in which we cannot demonstrate attestation in the second-century are the two Old Latin layers (5 and 6) where we are most conditioned to expect second-century attestation. This shows how completely theoretical our dating schema is for “Bezae” and its Old Latin relatives. Given that unambiguous parallels with early writers such as Irenaeus are so sparse and can be easily explained another way, it seems there is little that can secure the so-called “Western” tradition in the second-century.


Is Codex Bezae’s text deceptively ancient?

Dating from the mid-380’s, not long before Codex Bezae’s paleographically-assigned date of ca 400, Ambrosiaster’s thinly-veiled attack on the Vulgate in his Commentary on Romans (chapter 5, verse 14) must be considered highly-relevant to the problem of Bezae’s origins as a bilingual codex, due especially to its concern with the interaction between the Greek and Latin traditions (see my working translation). Ambrosiaster criticizes the Vulgate for its dependence on divergent Greek texts whose pedigree cannot be verified, while at the same time, arguing for the genuineness of the Old Latin version whose reliability (he claims) can be verified with reference to the citations of ancient writers, such as Tertullian, Cyprian, and Victorinus (all three of whom are named explicitly).

Of course, Ambrosiaster could not have been unaware of discrepancies between Latin texts. His concern then must be on the latter point that a text is only as reliable as the authorities that certify its authenticity. Ambrosiaster apparently believes that he can distinguish between corrupted texts and the ancient text on the basis of their respective agreement with the citations of a select pool of authoritative writers. The implication here is that corrupt texts can be corrected on the basis of the appropriate selection of citations.

Now if Ambrosiaster’s method were applied to an actual document, the result would be a text with a series of quite deliberate parallels to the citations of a selection of old writers, embedded within a text that otherwise reflects the period of its production. Taken at face value, such a text might appear very ancient indeed, which is of course the intention. It might even appear as though the ancient writers cited in the text had themselves depended on this later text form.

While we know that stabilization of the Old Latin version was at the time a desideratum, the question is whether Ambrosiaster’s approach would ever have been sufficiently representative to have been applied in practice. But if such a scenario is plausible, the implications for Codex Bezae are momentous. When Bezae parallels a citation of Irenaeus, we can no longer be sure whether it is Irenaeus who used an early text form resembling Bezae’s text or whether Bezae’s producers considered Irenaeus a suitable authority for the correction of their text.

While we must remain ever aware of the limitations of our sources, the uncanny yet somewhat selective appearance in Bezae’s text of parallels with early writers appears at least consistent with Ambrosiaster’s criterion of authenticity (as it were), a connection that seems intriguing enough to pursue for potential insights into possible contexts for Bezae’s origins.

Article Now Available on Textual Layers in Codex Bezae

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the abstract:

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

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