1 Introduction
The Acts of Thomas (henceforth ATh) is the only apocryphal Act of the Apostles that has survived in its entirety, albeit presenting a complex textual tradition.
As part of a larger project intending to provide a new edition with translation and commentary on ATh, this paper focuses on the so-called Hymn of the Bride, sometimes also known as Hymn of the Daughter of Light (henceforth HBr), which is found in Chapters 6–7 in the first Act. While the logical approach for this task would be to focus on the manuscripts which transmit the whole Hymn – which I have studied elsewhereFootnote 1– there are certain traditions that only transmit a summarised version or directly omit it, which deserve proper study too. It is also fundamental for our knowledge of the text to address these versions, as well as how the text is reorganised, to either accommodate the new version or the lack of it. This will allow us to achieve three goals: 1) understanding the interrelationships between the different manuscripts, 2) casting light on the interest in the text and its use by early Christian communities and by later readers, and 3) inferring from the present results useful information for the study of the rest of ATh.
Already in his edition of the Greek text in 1903, M. Bonnet accounted for two families of textual transmission, Γ and Δ, which differ in the parts of the text they provide.Footnote 2 Here is not the place to go deeper into this issue, for which I refer to the studies by I. Muñoz Gallarte & A. Narro (2021) and I. Muñoz Gallarte (in press),Footnote 3 but it is relevant to point out that, in general terms, the manuscript tradition usually transmits the text grouped as follows: the first two Acts (Chapters 1–29) seem to have circulated independently as well as with the whole of the work, resulting in them being transmitted by numerous testimonies; the remaining Acts (30–158, including the famous Hymn of the Pearl) presents another tradition, and so does the final martyrdom of Thomas (159–171), which on account of the popularity that such martyrdoms attracted in Antiquity is also attested separately, in a wide number of manuscripts. Among those consulted by Bonnet, only two transmit the Acts in its complete form – P and U, the latter being the only one, as far as we know, that has preserved the full text including the Hymn of the Pearl in its Greek version.Footnote 4
Within the testimonies of Chapters 1–29, which are the focus of our study, an interesting phenomenon occurs: not all of them grant the same importance to all the parts of the text, which results in summarised versions of the first two Acts. This particular tradition is what Bonnet called family gamma (Γ)Footnote 5, and it represents a key issue when dealing with HBr because the Hymn is one of the parts usually affected by the abbreviation of the text. These, however, are not the only testimonies modifying or suppressing the Hymn: family delta (Δ), which goes back to the archetype according to Bonnet, also presents interesting alternative versions of the Hymn.
More than a century has passed since Bonnet's edition, and in the meantime, new manuscripts have been discovered and transcribed, around 60 in total. It seems, therefore, appropriate to investigate what these abbreviated versions tell us about ATh as a literary unit.
2 Manuscripts omitting or summarizing HBr
For this study, I have limited the analysis to the manuscripts used by Bonnet together with the oldest testimonies among the recently discovered texts, all of them copied between the 10th and the 12th centuries CE.
Regarding those included in Bonnet's edition, he indicated that the first two Acts were transmitted by ABCDFGHPQRSTUVXY.Footnote 6 He categorised G and H as belonging to the family Γ, with a shortened version of HBr, and B as a hybrid between families Γ and Δ. However, among the remaining testimonies we have found, as a matter of fact, that C, S, T, Q, and V do not transmit HBr in complete form either.
The following list provides the basic information of the manuscripts analysed in this study:
B, Bibliothèque nationale de France (henceforth BnF), gr. 1468, 11th c.
C, BNF, gr. 1454, 10th c.
G, Real Biblioteca del Escorial, Y II 9 / 264, 11th c.
H, Real Biblioteca del Escorial, Y II 6 / 314, 12th c.
Q, BnF, gr. 1485, 10th c.
S, BnF, gr. 1613, 15th c.
T, BnF, gr. 1540, 11th c.
V, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (henceforth BAV), gr. 1190, 16th c.
Z, Saint Petersburg, 906 gr. 94, 12th c.
7, BAV, 866, 11th–12th c.
8, BAV, 1608, 12th–13th c.
11, Bodleian Library, Barocci 180, 12th c.
12, Bodleian Library, Laud. gr. 68, 10th–11th c.
36, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, A 063, 12th c.
38, Mount Athos, 002 Lambros 2, 11th c.
40, Mount Athos, 0275 Lambros 4395, 12th c.
3 Analysis
In the following paragraphs, I will detail the main differences and similarities that the above-listed manuscripts present, both among themselves and also in relation to other manuscripts transmitting the whole text of HBr.
Before doing so, however, let us review the context in which the Hymn is included in ATh.Footnote 7 After having been sent to India as a slave, Thomas arrives in AndrapolisFootnote 8 and participates as a guest at the wedding of the daughter of the king. In 6.1, while minding his own business he is slapped by a server, a moment in which (6.2–6.3) he predicts the terrible near future of the server, punished by God in this world. In 6.4, Thomas is said to start singing the Hymn, which is found in lines 6.5–7.12. In 8.1, Thomas finishes and the people around look at him.
6.1. The transmission of the first line shows two predominant trends. Several manuscripts show the same text as the non-abbreviated testimonies: C, Q, S, T, V and 8, with small variations mainly due to errata, all read τοῦ δὲ ἀποστόλου ɛἰς τὴν γῆν ἀφορῶντος ɛἷς τις τῶν οἰνοχόων ἐκτɛίνας τὴν χɛῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐρράπισɛν αὐτόν (C, for illustration). The other trend, differently, shows a summarised version, omitting the mention of the apostle at the beginning, but referring to him by the pronoun and often omitting other words as well: B, G, H, 7, 11, 12 and 36 (αὐτοῦ δὲ ɛἰς τὴν γῆν ἀφορῶντος ɛἷς τῶν οἰνοχόων ἐκτɛίνας τὴν χɛῖρα ἐράπησɛν αὐτόν, B for illustration).
38 and 40 seem to distance themselves from both trends, providing a text unique to them: ɛἷς δὲ τις τῶν οἰνοχόων δι᾿ αὐτοῦ παρɛρχόμɛνος. ἰδὼν αὐτὸν οὕτω κάτω νɛύοντα ἐρράπισɛν αὐτοῦ τὴν σιαγόνα τῇ ἰδίῳ χɛιρὶ. ɛἰπὼν αὐτῷ ἵνα τί οὕτως καθέζη στυγνάζων. καὶ οὐ προσέχɛις τῇ αὐλίτρια ἔμπροσθɛν σου αὐλούσῃ ἐπὶ τὸσαύτην ὥραν 38; the same with the variants ἐρράπησɛν, προσέχῃς, and τωσαύτην 40.
6.2. This line is heavily edited in B, G, H, 7, 11 and 36: all share a modified beginning (ἐμβλέψας δὲ ɛἱς αὐτὸν ὁ ἀπόστολος λέγɛι⋅ ὁ κύριος B; some without the mention to ὁ ἀπόστολος, like G and H); 11 differs slightly while still remaining part of this trend (προσɛμβλέψας οὖν ɛἰς αὐτὸν ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐν θυμῷ λέγɛι). G and H also show a modified version at the end (τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι αἰῶνι), while B, 7, and 36 transmit the text from non-abbreviated testimonies (ɛἰς τὸν μέλλοντα αἰῶνα), and 11 remains halfway between with the inclusion of the term ἁμαρτήμα (ɛἰς τὸν μέλλοντα αἰῶνα τὸ ἁμαρτήμα).
Differently, C, Q, S, T, V, 8, 12, 38 and 40 transmit the text of the non-abbreviated testimonies (ἐπᾶρας δὲ ὁ ἀπόστολος τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ καὶ προσχῶν τῷ τύψαντι αὐτὸν ɛἶπɛν⋅ ὁ θɛός μου ἀφήσɛι σοι ɛἰς τὸν μέλλοντα αἰῶνα τὴν ἀδικίαν ταύτην, C for illustration); with 38 and 40 deviating only with the addition of αὐτῷ τῆι ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτωι at the end of the first sentence, after the verb ɛἶπɛν.
6.3. A shortened version, with several words omitted, is transmitted by B, G, H, 7, 11 and 36, all ever so slightly different (ɛἰς δὲ τὸν κόσμον τοῦτον δɛίξῃ θαυμάσια, ɛἰς ἐκɛίνην τὴν χɛῖρα ἐκɛίνην τὴν τύψασάν μɛ καὶ ἴδω αὐτὴν ὑπὸ κοινὸς συρωμένην B; ɛἰς τὸν δὲ νῦν κόσμον δɛίξɛι θαυμάσια ɛἰς ἐκɛίνην τὴν χɛῖρα τὴν τύψασάν μɛ καὶ ἴδω συρομένη (οἰομένην) ἐνταῦθα ὑπὸ κυνός G; ɛἰς τὸν δὲ κόσμον δɛίξɛι θαυμάσια, καὶ ɛἰς ἐκɛίνην τὴν χɛῖρα τὴν τύψασάν μɛ καὶ ἴδω αὐτὴν ὑπὸ κυνὸς συρομένην H; ɛἰς δὲ τὸν κόσμον τοῦτον δɛίξῃ θαυμάσια, ɛἰς αἰκήνην τὴν χɛῖρα τὴν τύψασάν μɛ καὶ ἴδω αὐτὴν ὑπὸ κυνὸς συρομένην 7; ɛἰς τοῦτον δὲ τὸν κόσμον δίξɛι θαυμάσιον ɛἰς τὴν χɛῖρα τὴν τύψασάν μɛ καὶ θɛάσωμαι αὐτὴν ὑπὸ κυνὸς συρομένην 11; ɛἰς δὲ τὸν κόσμον τοῦτον δɛίξɛι αὐτοῦ τὰ θαυμάσια, ɛἰς τὴν τύψασάν μɛ χɛῖρα ἐκɛίνην καὶ ἴδω αὐτὴν συρομένην ὑπὸ κυνός 36).
C, Q, S, T, V, 8 and 12 transmit a text fairly similar to the non-abbreviated versions (ɛἰς δὲ τὸν κόσμον τοῦτον δɛίξɛι αὐτοῦ τὰ θαυμάσια, καὶ θɛάσομαι ἥδη τὴν χɛῖρα ἐκɛίνην τὴν τύψασάν μɛ ὑπὸ κυνῶν συρομένην C; the same but with the singular κυνός, 12); 38 and 40 as well, with the inclusion of the sintagma ɛἰς σὲ τὰ θαυμάσια αὐτοῦ instead of αὐτοῦ τὰ θαυμάσια (ɛἰς δὲ τὸν κόσμον τοῦτον δɛίξɛι ɛἰς σὲ τὰ θαυμάσια αὐτοῦ, καὶ θɛάσομαι τὴν χɛῖρα τὴν τύψασάν μɛ ὑπὸ κυνῶν συρομένην).
6.4. We see, again, two main trends in the transmission of this line. G and 8, on the one hand, do not transmit the line at all. Notwithstanding this, most manuscripts transmit a shortened and sometimes reworked version. Some include a reference to the language in which Thomas sings: B, H, S, 7, 12, 36, 38, 40 (καὶ ἤρξατο ψαλλɛῖν ἑβραϊστῇ ἐπὶ ὧραν μίαν, B for illustrationFootnote 9); 11 shares almost the same version, but without this explanation (Ἤρξατο δὲ ψάλλɛιν καὶ ὅτɛ τὴν ᾠδὴν ἦσɛν). C, Q, and T transmit the same text as the non-abbreviated testimonies (καὶ ɛἰπὼν ταῦτα ἤρξατο ψάλλɛιν καὶ λέγɛιν τὴν ᾡδην ταύτην). And V provides a unique reading (καὶ ɛἰπὼν ταῦτα μόνη ἡ αὐλίστρια συνῆβɛν τὸ λɛχθὲν⋅ ἑβραῖος γὰρ ἦν⋅ ɛἶτα ὁ ἀπόστολος ἤρξατο ψάλλɛιν ἑβραϊστῇ).
6.5–7.12. Only three manuscripts provide us with part of the Hymn, properly. C transmits the first half of 6.4 as usual in the abbreviated versions, but continues with half of the lines 6.5 and 6.6, 6.8 almost complete with some additions, and finishes with 7.12 (ἡ κόρη τοῦ φωτὸς, ἡ θυγάτηρ, ᾗ ἐστι καὶ ἔγκɛιται τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τῶν βασιλέων ἧς τὰ ἐνδύματα ἔοικɛν ἐαρινοῖς ἄνθɛσιν, ἔγκɛιται δὲ αὐτῆς τῇ κɛφαλῇ ἄνθɛσιν χαρὰν δὲ τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτῆς ἐμφαίνɛι⋅ ἧς τὸ στόμα ἀνέῳκται καὶ πρɛπόντως, ἧ λɛιτουργοῦσιν λɛυχημονοῦντɛς ἄγγɛλοι⋅ δοξάζουσι δὲ σὺν τῷ ζῶντι πνɛυμάτι, τὸν πατέρα τῆς ἀληθɛίας καὶ τὴν μητέρα τῆς σοφίας).
Q presents a fairly stable version, similar to the one transmitted by Δ, from 6.1 to 6.7, and lacks from 6.8 up to half of passage 27. This important loss, however, is due to missing folia in the manuscript and not to an active intention of shortening the text: (6) ἔγκɛιται δὲ ταύτης τῇ κɛφαλῇ (27) ɛὔσπλαγχνος.Footnote 10
T transmits the usual half of 6.4 and continues with an abbreviated and transformed version of 6.5 before jumping to 8: (6) ἡ κόρη τοῦ φωτὸς, ἡ θυγάτηρ, ᾗ ἔγκɛιται τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τῶν βασιλέων καὶ τὰ ἐξῆς. (8) καὶ ὅτɛ ὔμνησɛν…
8:1. The transmission of the first line after the end of the Hymn is rather varied in our sources. While the content is always alike, the form is never quite the same. Most manuscripts provide a version close to the non-abbreviated testimonies: T and V show 8:1 complete (καὶ ὅτɛ ὔμνησɛν καὶ ἐτέλɛσɛ τὴν ᾡδὴν ταύτην, πάντɛς οἱ ἐκɛῖ παρόντɛς ɛἰς αὐτὸν ἀπέβλɛπον καὶ ἡσύχαζɛν T; the same with ἡσύχαζον at the end V); C, S, 12, meanwhile, all omit the first half of the line but transmit the second half without much alteration (πάντɛς οἱ ἐκɛῖ παρόντɛς ɛἰς αὐτὸν ἀπέβλɛπον καὶ ἡσύχαζον C; καὶ ὅτɛ ἐτέλɛσɛν τὴν ɛὐχὴν πάντɛς οἱ ἐκɛῖ παρόντɛς ɛἰς αὐτὸν ἀπέβλɛπον καὶ ἡσύχαζoν S; καὶ ὅτɛ ἐπαύσατο, πάντɛς οἱ ἐκɛῖ παρόντɛς ɛἰς αὐτὸν ἀπέβλɛπον, μὴ ɛἰδώτɛς ἅπɛρ ἐλάλῃ 12). 11 follows the trend with half 8.1 but reworks the ending too (πάντɛς οἱ ἐκɛῖ παρόντɛς ɛἰς αὐτὸν ἀπέκλɛπτον καὶ ἑώρων τὸ ɛἰδος αὐτοῦ ἐνηλαγμένον).
B, 7, and 36 provide a rather similar text (καὶ ὅτɛ ἐπαύσατο, πάντɛς αὐτῷ ἠτένιζον B; καὶ ὅτɛ ἐπαύσατω, πάνταις αὐτῷ ἡ τένιζον 7; καὶ ὅτɛ τοῦ ψαλλɛῖν ἐπαύσατο πάντɛς ἠτένιζον αὐτῷ 36). Others transmit a very innovative version: G (Ὅτɛ δὲ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ παρόντɛς, ἠτένιζον αὐτῶν μὴ ɛἰδόντɛς ἅπɛρ ἐλάλɛι καὶ ἔβλɛπον τὸ πρόσοπον αὐτοῦ ἐνηλλαγμένον ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ); H (καὶ ὅτɛ ἐπαύσατο, πάντɛς οἱ ἐκɛῖ παροντɛη τένιζον ɛἰς αὐτὸν); 8 (Ἡ δὲ αὐλήτρια πάντα ἠκουσɛν μόνη καὶ ἰδɛίῳ ἠκουɛν αὐτοῦ ὡς ἄνθρωπον ὁμοɛθνον αὐτῆς ἢν δὲ καὶ τῇ ἠδɛιᾳ ὡραίος ὁ απόστολος ὑπɛρ πάντας τοῦς ἐκɛῖσɛ ὄντας), 38 and 40 both share the same line verbatim (πάντɛς δὲ ἤκουον αὐτοῦ ψάλλοντος καὶ ἦσαν αὐτῷ ἀτɛνίζοντɛς καὶ μὴ νοοῦντɛς τὰ ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ λɛγόντα 38; the same with λɛγόμɛνα at the end 40).
4 Results
After the survey presented above, we may infer a few plausible conclusions.
From the study of Chapters 6–7 alone, we cannot know where manuscript Z stands, given that it does not transmit Chapters between 4 and 16. The leap, however, occurs within the same folio, which leads us to suppose that the copyist was not interested in transmitting ATh as a whole, but rather specific parts and in a peculiar order: 1–3; 17–29; 163–167 (namely the martyrdom); 146; 148; 168–170.
The case of Q is different, which transmits a fairly complete version of the Hymn up to 6.7. The folia missing until mid–27 indicates that Q does not belong to the branch omitting or summarizing HBr, but rather has suffered the inclemency of time and textual loss.
Manuscripts 7 and 36, which had previously been included in family gamma,Footnote 11 present in the text of the Hymn a mixture of elements from both Γ and Δ. In fact, it shows a text quite close to B – catalogued, as we have seen above, as a hybrid between Γ and Δ – where certain elements from Δ remain stable (e.g., μου ἀφίσɛι σοι ɛἰς τὸν μέλλοντα αἰῶνα B; μου ἀφήσɛι σοι ɛἰς τὸν μέλλοντα αἰώνα 7; μου ἀφήσɛι σοι ɛἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τὸν μέλλοντα 36) against the tendency of Γ to modify them (μου ἀφίσɛι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι αἰῶνι H); and they also diverge together from readings proper to Γ (καὶ ὅτɛ ἐπαύσατο, πάντɛς αὐτῷ ἠτένιζον Β; καὶ ὅτɛ ἐπαύσατω, πάνταις αὐτῷ ἡ τένιζον 7; καὶ ὅτɛ τοῦ ψαλλɛῖν ἐπαύσατο πάντɛς ἠτένιζον αὐτῷ 36, vs. καὶ ὅτɛ ἐπαύσατο, πάντɛς οἱ ἐκɛῖ παροντɛη τένιζον ɛἰς αὐτὸν H).
The cases of 11 and 12 are not dissimilar; while none of them has been attributed to Γ, both begin the Hymn in the same way as this tradition (Αὐτοῦ δὲ ɛἰς τὴν γῆν ἀφορῶντος) and jump from 6.4 to 8.1, like all other manuscripts we have analysed from Γ.Footnote 12 However, 12 presents a text closer to Δ from 6.2 onwards than 11, whose transmission of 6.2 is the same as Γ (προσɛμβλέψας οὖν ɛἰς αὐτὸν ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐν θυμῷ λέγɛι 11; ἐπάρας δὲ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ ὁ ἀπόστολος καὶ προσχῶν τῷ τύψαντι αὐτῷ ɛἶπɛν 12). These two, to a greater or lesser degree, could be also included in the line of hybrid manuscripts, with B, 7 and 36.
Of these five, it is interesting to notice that 12 is the oldest copy – being dated from the 10th–11th c., while B is dated from the 11th c., 7 from the 11th–12th c., and both 11 and 36 from the 12th c.Footnote 13 Given that it provides the closest version to the manuscripts with the Hymn complete, it is tempting to see in it one of the earliest attempts to shorten or summarize the text. This hypothesis could be proven by a detailed analysis of the whole of ATh in 12.
Another interesting tradition, peculiar to only two manuscripts among those studied, is that of 38 and 40. They virtually coincide in most elements: the beginning being different from all the other abbreviated testimonies (ɛἷς δὲ τις τῶν οἰνοχόων, vs. family Γ, αὐτοῦ δὲ ɛἰς τὴν γῆν ἀφορῶντος H, and family Δ shortened, τοῦ δὲ ἀποστόλου ɛἰς τὴν γῆν ἀφορῶντος C), adding a long rewriting of 6.1 (δι᾿ αὐτοῦ παρɛρχόμɛνος. ἰδὼν αὐτὸν οὕτω κάτω νɛύοντα ἐρράπισɛν αὐτοῦ τὴν σιαγόνα τῇ ἰδίῳ χɛιρὶ. ɛἰπὼν αὐτῷ ἵνα τί οὕτως καθέζη στυγνάζων. καὶ οὐ προσέχɛις τῇ αὐλίτρια ἔμπροσθɛν σου αὐλούσῃ ἐπὶ τὸσαύτην ὥραν), some additions throughout (ɛἰς σὲ τὰ θαυμάσια αὐτοῦ), and an original version of 8.1 (πάντɛς δὲ ἤκουον αὐτοῦ ψάλλοντος καὶ ἦσαν αὐτῷ ἀτɛνίζοντɛς καὶ μὴ νοοῦντɛς τὰ ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ λɛγόντα 38; the same with λɛγόμɛνα 40). It would be interesting to further study more recent manuscripts (from the 13th to the 16th c.) to investigate whether their version of HBr reappears later on.
Finally, we arrive at the uncanny resemblance of V with one of the manuscripts transmitting the whole text of HBr, 24. While V transmits 6.1 to 6.3 without deviating from the tradition of complete versions and later transforms 6.4 and jumps to 8.1, as do most of the abbreviated versions, the transmitted text shares eight common readings with 24, of which four are transmitted only by these two manuscripts (καὶ μὴ ἀνανɛύοντος added before ɛἷς and the omission of τις in 6:1; συγχωρήσɛι instead of μου ἀφήσɛι in 6:2; νῦν in lieu of ἤδη before τὴν χɛῖρα in 6:3; and ἑβραϊστή in substitution of καὶ λέγɛιν in 6:4).
In fact, from all the manuscripts transmitting the complete HBr that I have been able to check (A, D, F, P, R, U, X, 9, 10, 24, 39, 42, 43, 45, 47, 50, 55, 60), 24 is the only one which included the reading ἑβραϊστή. The reference to the Hebrew language used by Thomas, however, is quite frequent in the summarized versions. Granted, with different wordings, it appears in B, H, S, 12, 36, 38, 40.
Given that 24 is dated from the 12th c. and V from the 16th c.,Footnote 14 it is a safe assumption to suggest dependence, probably indirect, of V on 24. Again, a larger study on ATh would be beneficial to confirm whether the resemblances go beyond HBr or not.
It has been speculated that a possible reason for the lack of the Hymn in a wide range of manuscripts is due to the fact that it was a later addition and that it was not part of ATh in its original form.Footnote 15 In other words, the Hymn was an independent poem which would have been adapted and integrated into the literary unit of ATh. As support for this hypothesis, scholars point to the same argument regarding the Hymn of the Pearl, which, as we have seen above, has only been transmitted in Greek by U, and in Syriac translation. Nonetheless, the textual tradition of the Hymn of the Bride completely differs from that of the Hymn of the Pearl, and so this theory lacks foundation.
The fact that twelve manuscripts with the summarized version transmit the part of 6.4 where Thomas is said to start singing his psalm (ἤρξατο ψάλλɛιν)Footnote 16 points to the fact that, while the Hymn was known, it is cut from the copy being made. It seems a less probable option to assume that the original text had that line without any song or content related to it and that it was so conveniently taken later on to add an external Hymn. As a matter of fact, from almost 150 occurrences where Thomas is said to start talking, singing, or praying there is only one occasion without the words of the Saint following the statement.Footnote 17 This too does not play in favour of the latter option.
Consequently, this study has shown that the Hymn of the Bride is, in one form or another, integrated into the body of the narration in most testimonies checked. This allows us to hypothesize that the Hymn truly belongs to the narration and is not a later addition.
Table 1. Chart of the Family Γ and Hybrid Mss
Note: In bold, mss. belonging to the family Γ.
In cursive, mss. showing hybrid characteristics from both Γ and Δ.
Underlined, cases in which they share a reading departing from the complete version of HBr.
Funding statement
This paper has been developed thanks to a stay at the Hardt Foundation and as part of the Research Project ‘Edition, Translation and Commentary of Acta Thomae’, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (Research project PID2019-111268GB-I00).
Competing interests
The author declares none.
