Tense-Form Reduction and the Use of ἐποιήσατε in Codex Bezae 63 (N 700. 1241. l2211) M. The second variant has far weaker attestation— πεποιήκατε, found in f1 Orpt. The NA28’s reading of ποιεῖτε has much stronger external support, appearing in a B L Θ 0281. 892 pc bo; Orpt Cyr. Mark’s text, too, has a variant reading for the clause πεποιήκατε αὐτὸν: ἐποιήσατε αὐτὸν is found in a C D K N W Γ f13 28. 1241. 2542. l844. M. A similar but transposed reading appears in A Θ f1 33. 565. 579. 700. 1424 al. The reading of the NA28 is found in B L Δ Ψ 892; Or. Interestingly, Luke has no variant reading for ἐποιήσατε. The texts of Matthew and Mark as they stand in the NA28 are indeed the best readings. In both, the readings possess strong external support, and having each of the Synoptics read a different tense-form for ποιέω certainly makes the texts as they stand the more difficult readings. Two prefatory observations on this textual evidence should be made before specifically considering the readings of Codex Bezae in more detail. First, Bezae’s use of ἐποιήσατε for Matt 21,13//Mark 11,17 is obviously not a singular reading. Thus, the change in tense-forms is not necessarily peculiar to Bezae. This does not mean, however, that the change in Bezae is meaningless (see discussion below). Second, the readings of the Aorist form in the major codices (esp. a C D W) do not appear to be restricted to a particular genealogy or text-type6, and they seem to have arisen within a relatively close period of time7. This makes it very difficult to establish precisely the origin of the variants and the direction of influence. 3. Possible Explanations for ἐποιήσατε in Codex Bezae Matt 21,13// Mark 11,17 There are at least three possible explanations for the variant readings of ἐποιήσατε in Matthew and Mark: (1) harmonization with Luke, (2) Latinization of the Greek, and (3) scribal tense-form reduction8. 6 The variant ἐποιήσατε for both Matthew’s and Mark’s texts appear in a range of manuscript traditions, from the strong Alexandrian type of Sinaiticus, to the Western text of Bezae, to the more eclectic text of Washingtonianus. According to Wisse, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) was classified by Westcott and Hort and Hermann von Soden as an Alexandrian text. However, portions of the Codex have received various classifications. For example, Matthew was seen as a weak Byzantine text and Mark a weak Alexandrian text (F. Wisse, The Profile Method for Classifying and Evaluating Manuscript Evidence [Studies and Documents 44; Grand Rapids 1982] 52). On the complexities involved with Washingtonianus specifically, see L.W. Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W in the Gospel of Mark (Studies and Documents 43; Grand Rapids 1981). 7 The codices a C D W are all 4th–5th century. 8 The possibilities discussed are not intended to be exhaustive.