^{page 285 note 1} Didymes the Blind, born in 313, died in 398. He lived all his life in Alexandria, or near this city, where he was teacher in the catechetical school. He was blind from childhood, but received nevertheless a thorough education in a monastic and scholarly milieu. He was himself a monk, knew the great Anthony, and had among his students Rufinus of Aquileia and Jerome. Cf. Leipold, J., Didymes der Blinde von Alexandrien (TU, NF, XIV, 3) (Leipzig, 1905)Google Scholar; Bardy, G., Didyme L'Aveugle (Lyon, 1910)Google Scholar; Gauche, W. J., Didymes the Blind, An Educator of the Fourth Century (Washington, 1934).Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 2} DIDYME L'AVEUGLE, Sur Zacharie, Texte inédit d'après un papyrus de Toura. Introduction, Texte critique, Traduction et notes par L. Doutreleau, Tomes I-III (Sources Chrétiennes 83–85) (Paris, 1962)Google Scholar. Henrichs, A., Didymes der Blinde, Kommentar zu Hiob, 1 (Hiob 1–4) (PTA I) (Bonn, 1968)Google Scholar; II (Hiob 5, 1–6, 29) (PTA 2)(Bonn 1968); U. Hagedorn, D. Hagedorn and L. Koenen, idem, III (Hiob 7, 20c–11) (PTA 3) (Bonn, 1968); Doutreleau, L., Gesche, A. and Gronewald, M., Didymes der Blinde, Psalmenkommentar, I, Ps 20, 21 (PTA 7)(Bonn, 1969)Google Scholar; M. Gronewald, idem, II (Ps 22–26, 10) (PTA 4) (Bonn, 1868); III (Ps 29–34) (PTA 8) (Bonn, 1969); IV (Ps 35–39)(PTA 6) (Bonn, 1969); V (Ps 40–44, 4) (PTA 8) (Bonn, 1970); Kramer, J., Didymos der Blinde, Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes, III (Eccl 5–6) (PTA 13) (Bonn, 1970)Google Scholar; G. Binder and L. Liesenborghs, idem, VI (Eccl 11–12) (PTA 9) (Bonn, 1969).

^{page 285 note 3} The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (New York and Oxford, ² 1968), p. 216Google Scholar. The same list is given in Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London-New York, 1971), p. xxixGoogle Scholar. For the origin of the names ‘proto’ and ‘late’ see Duplacy, J., Où en est la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament? (Paris, 1959), p. 92 and note 393Google Scholar, where he concludes ‘Le texte “alexandrien” de Westcott-Hort et le texte H de von Soden deviendrait donc “alexandrin tardif”.’ The term proto-Alexandrian was first used, according to Duplacy, by Hatch, W. H. in his Facsimiles and Descriptions of Minuscule Manuscripts…of the New Testament (Cambridge, Mass., 1951), p. 60Google Scholar. In this book he mentions as Proto-Alexandrian and Β, and as Later Alexandrian C L T (in Luke and John) W (in Luke and John) X Z (in Matthew) Δ (in Mark) (in Luke) ψ (in Mark) Hp 33. Sahidic (in part) Bohairic Vulgate (in part) Origen (in part) and Cyril of Alexandria are mentioned as witnesses to the Alexandrian text in general. Hatch claims also the existence of an Old Egyptian Text, represented in 45 (in Luke and John) W (in Mark and John) fam. I fam. 13 28, Sahidic (in part) Old Syriac, Harclean margin, Clement of Alexandria. For Hatch ‘the Old Egyptian…was not the product of a critical revision of an earlier text. It was a purely natural growth, owing its distinctive features to changes introduced in the process of transcription’ (op. cit. p. 60)Google Scholar. The notion of an Old Egyptian text as distinct from a Proto-Alexandrian has not been adopted by subsequent textual critics. Kieffer, R.(Au delà des recensions? L'évolution de la tradition textuelle dans Jean VI, 52–71, Lund, 1968, p. 29)Google Scholar, speaks of ‘deux niveaux dans le texte alexandrin, un niveau “protoalexandrin” et un niveau alexandrin plus tardif’. See also Zuntz, G., The Text of the Epistles (London, 1953), pp. 156, 250–1, 271–6.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 1} At least I did not find any clear instance of a distinctive variant with the denomination of ‘late-Alexandrian’.

^{page 286 note 2} For an evaluation of Didymus as an exegete see Doutreleau, L., Sur Zacharie (1962), pp. 13 and 137Google Scholar, and the bibliography quoted there. See also Annaratone, D. M., Analisi del commento di Didimo il Cieco ai Salmi 35 e 36 ritrovati a Tura (Dissertation at the University of Rome, typescript), 1976Google Scholar; Bienert, W. A., ‘Allegorie’ und ‘Anagoge’ bei Didymus dem Blinden von Alexandria (Berlin, 1972)Google Scholar, and the bibliography quoted by Aland, K., Repertorium (see next note), for AT 57, 92a, 96a, 123.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 3} That is: Commentary to Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Zachariah. In Aland, K., Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri, I: Biblische Papyri (Berlin, 1976)Google Scholar, they are called respectively AT 57 (Ps), AT 92a (Eccl), AT 96a (Job), AT 123 (Zac).

^{page 287 note 1} Semler, J. S., Apparatus ad liberalem Novi Testamenti interpretationem (Halle, 1767), pp. 45 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 2} Griesbach, J. J., Novum Testamentum Graecum, vol. 1 (Halle, 1777)Google Scholar, prolegomena.

^{page 287 note 3} Mill, J., Kainh, H. ΔΙΑΘΕκΕ Novum Testamentum cum Lectionibus Variantibus MSS Exemplarium, Versionum, Editionum, SS Patrum et Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum; et in easdem notis (Oxonii, 1707), p. clxiiiGoogle Scholar. He states expressly about the Codex Vaticanus: ‘nec dignum esse, cuius variations multa cum difficultate comparandae essent’.

^{page 287 note 4} In the year 1720 a first collation of Codex Vaticanus was prepared for R. Bentley by A. Mico, scriptor of the Vatican Library. A second collation was made after 1726 by Rulotta and sent to Bentley.

^{page 287 note 5} Wettstein, J. J., Novum Testamentum Graecum, Tomus 1 (Amstelaedami, 1751), p. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 6} Griesbach, J. J., Novum Testamentum Graecum, 2^a editio (Halae, 1796), prolegomena, p. lxxxi.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 7} Hug, J. L., Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. The first edition was published in 1808. I followed here the fourth edition, vol. 1 (Stuttgart-Tübingen, 1847), 168 if.Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 1} At least among those who accepted the existence of recensions. In fact there were critics, among them Constantin von Tischendorf and Samuel P. Tregelles, who did not care too much about classification of MSS. They preferred to consider each MS in itself and to work in the field of collation to record exactly its readings.

^{page 288 note 2} Westcott, B. F.–Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction (London, ¹ 1881; ² 1896).Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 3} See for instance the description of this view given by Metzger, B. M., The Text of the NT (² 1968), Pp. 133–4.Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 4} This corresponds to the first principle of the two great critics, which is proposed at the beginning of their Introduction: ‘The office of textual criticism, it cannot be too clearly understood at the outset, is always secondary and always negative’ (Westcott, B. F.–Hort, F. J. A., Introduction, p. 1Google Scholar; emphasis mine). It would be interesting to study how much this principle affects the whole of the conception of Westcott and Hort.

^{page 288 note 5} Westcott, B. F.–Hort, F. J. A., Introduction, p. 131.Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 1} This is especially true, for Westcott, and Hort, , of the Alexandrian text: ‘Since it has so happened that every MS containing an approximately unmixed Alexandrian text has perished, the Alexandrian readings can have no strictly primary attestation among extant documents, and are therefore known only through documents containing large other elements’ (Introduction, p. 166).Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 2} Introduction, pp. 130–2, 166–7.Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 3} See for instance Introduction, pp. 208–9.Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 1} Introduction, p. 209.Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 2} Introduction, p. 131.Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 3} Introduction, pp. 208–9.Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 4} Bousset, W., Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament (Texte and Untersuchungen, 11) (Leipzig, 1894), IIIGoogle Scholar. Die Recension des Hesychius, , pp. 74–110.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 1} Soden, H. von, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte, 1Google Scholar. Teil: Untersuchungen, 1Google Scholar. Abteilung: Die Textzeugen (Berlin, 1902;)Google ScholarII Abteilung: Die Textformen, A. Die Evangelien (Berlin, 1907).Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 2} Streeter, B., The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins (London, 1924).Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 3} See my study Il problema della recensionalitd del codice B alla lute del papiro Bodmer XIV (Roma, 1966)Google Scholar, and Fee, G. D., ‘75, 76 and Origen: The Myth of Early Textual Recension in Alexandria’, in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, eds. Longenecker, R. N. and , M. C (Grand Rapids, 1974), PP 19–45.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 4} See above p. 285, n. 3.

^{page 292 note 1} See especially Doutreleau, L., Didyme l'Aveugle, Sur, Zacharie, Tome I (Paris, 1962), 139–80 (and also pp. 45–50)Google Scholar; Altaner, B. and Stuiber, A., Patrologie. Leben, Schriften and Lehre der Kirchenväter (Freiburg, 1976), p. 280.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 2} See Kerl, A., Der Psalmenkommentar von Toura, Quaternio IX (Pap. Col. Theol., I) (Köln, 1964) Pp. 43–7.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 3} For an accurate description of the different ways in which the Fathers make use of a scriptural text, and for a terminological proposal (which I shall try to follow in this article) see Fee, G. D., ‘The text of John in Origen and Cyril of Alexandria: a contribution to methodology in the recovery and analysis of patristic citations’, Biblica 52 (1971), 357–94.Google Scholar

^{page 293 note 1} The quotations are to be found in the following works of Didyrnus (here and in the following I shall mention only the biblical book commented, and the volume, page, and line of the papyrus; the editions are listed above, p. 1, n. 2): Ps, vol. II. 78. 11–12 (= Psalmenkommentar, ed. Gronewald, M., Vol. II. 78. 11–12, Bonn, 1968)Google Scholar; Eccl, vol. VI. 319. 18–19, 323. 19; Hiob, vol. I, 63. 13–16; vol. n. 130. 17–20; vol. II. 143. 31–144. 2; Zac, vol. 1. 43. 21–3; vol. In. 157. 10–12; vol. III. 205. 3–4; vol. III. 217. 16–18. Another quotation of Luke, 10Google Scholar. 19 in the Commentary on Psalms is to be found in Patrologia Graeca, 39, 1332A.Google Scholar

^{page 293 note 2} The quotations are: Ps, vol. 1. 48. 22–3; vol. II. 63. 14, 18, 73. 13, 86. 23, 103. 15; vol. III. 131.8, 148. 29, 153. 31, 185. 14, 221. 20; vol. V. 327. 17–18, 328. 16. In Ps, vol. III. 185. 14 Didymus reads έθεασάμεθα ατόν instead of έθ τήν δόξαν ατο.

^{page 294 note 1} For previous assessments of the textual position of Didymus's text of the Gospels, on the basis of the works known to us before the discovery of Toura, see among others Soden, H. von, Die Schriften des NT (see above p. 6, n. 4), 11, A, pp. 1472 ff.Google Scholar See also Kieffer, R., Au delà des recensions? L'évolution de la tradition textuelle dans jean VI, 52–71 (Lund, 1868), p. 224.Google Scholar

^{page 294 note 2} On the alleged patristic shorter text of John see Fee, G. D., ‘The text of John in The Jerusalem Bible: a critique of the use of patristic citations in NT textual criticism’, J.B.L. 90 (1971), 163–73.Google Scholar