Claromontanus bleeds

For evangelical (and other) critics: JBTC 28 is released, free-to-download as usual. The article herein that jumps out, to me, is Richard Fellows', on a "sexist" tendency in ancient transmissions of John 11-12:2 (thankfully not in KJV, nor beyond). I rate Fellows' term as fair so I shan't be "scare" quoting it, further.

Marcion was not a sexist, although he also was not a transmitter of John. Also non-sexist (albeit making up for it in antisemitism) was the "Western" Bezae codex which carried this lack-of-sexism to its copy of John. I will scarequote the term "Western" - because contemporary with Bezae, was the Claromontanus, which absolutely warped its Pauline quotes, to run against the feminine. These divergent tendencies simply do not belong together under the same rubric.

Fellows believes that John's original author was like Marcion: not a sexist, or at least (like most of us) chose where or where not to deal with early Christian women. John 11-12:2 concerns Mary, Martha, Lazarus, and a sister-relationship... somewhere. Usually John, as an author should, defines a secondary character by his or her relationship to someone hitherto more important. John, as of the Aramaeo-Greek Near East, tends to have that superior person as male. But here, at Bethany, the first-mentioned was Mary. Fellows notes that some manuscripts say Martha was her sister; others - here 𝔓⁶⁶ - that Martha was "his" - which we must read as Lazarus'.

Fellows thinks that this would also affect 1 Cor 14:34–35 and the Pastoral Epistles, as also spurious. I would counter this affects 1 Cor 14:34-5 as in sexist misplacements of vv. 34-5. We see this misplacement in Tertullian and in the Claromontanus. Lately, 1 Timothy skeptics (starting with Marcion, admittedly) are supporting the Corinsian canon, against this branch of "Western"-ism.

Even so, I will note that Claromontanus proper does not include the Gospels. Might, in 𝔓⁶⁶, we see the Claromontan John?