The gospel according to Mark
Chapter 1
|
1. αρχη του ευαγγελιου
ιησου χριστου υιου του θεου The beginning of the gospel of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God[1]. |
|
2. ως[2]
γεγραπται εν τοις προφηταις ιδου εγω[3] αποστελλω
τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου ος κατασκευασει την οδον σου As it is written in the prophets[4],
“Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way [5]: |
|
3. φωνη βοωντος εν τη ερημω
ετοιμασατε την οδον κυριου ευθειας ποιειτε τας τριβους αυτου the voice of one crying in the
wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord! Make his paths straight!’” |
|
4. εγενετο ιωαννης [6] βαπτιζων
εν τη ερημω και κηρυσσων βαπτισμα μετανοιας εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων John came baptizing in the wilderness
and preaching a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins. |
|
5. και εξεπορευετο προς
αυτον πασα η ιουδαια χωρα και οι ιεροσολυμιται και εβαπτιζοντο παντες εν τω
ιορδανη ποταμω υπ αυτου εξομολογουμενοι τας αμαρτιας αυτων And all the country of Judea and those
of Jerusalem went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River,
confessing their sins. |
|
6. ην δε[7] ο[8] ιωαννης
ενδεδυμενος τριχας καμηλου και ζωνην δερματινην περι την οσφυν αυτου και
εσθιων ακριδας και μελι αγριον Now John was clothed with camel’s hair
and a leather belt around his waist. And he ate locusts and wild honey. |
|
7. και εκηρυσσεν λεγων
ερχεται ο ισχυροτερος μου οπισω μου ου ουκ ειμι ικανος κυψας λυσαι τον ιμαντα
των υποδηματων αυτου And he preached, saying, “After me
comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy
to stoop down and loose. |
|
8. εγω μεν εβαπτισα υμας εν
υδατι αυτος δε βαπτισει υμας εν πνευματι αγιω I indeed[9]
baptized you with[10]
water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” |
[1] NA-Text brackets “the Son
of God” and omits the definite article “του” before God. The collective
witness of the majuscules, including codex Vaticanus, is overwhelmingly against
questioning “the Son of God” as part of the word of God. Scribes noticed the
error in codex Sinaiticus and corrected it in the 300 or 400’s. Codex Koridethi
is not confirmed in neither family of manuscripts ƒ1, nor ƒ13.
[2] NA-Text reads “καθως”. Those adverbs are
interchangeable.
[3] NA-Text and VgSt omit “εγω” (Latin equivalent: “ego”).
The omission is supported by codices B, D, Θ, minuscules 28* and 565, old
Latin, the Coptic versions and Irenaeuslat. The inclusion is
supported by codices א, A, L, W, both
families of manuscripts ƒ1 and ƒ13, the Byzantine minuscules,
the Harklean Syriac version and some manuscripts of the Sahidic and Bohairic
Coptic versions and Theophylact. The Clementine vulgate had “ego” in the text
in disagreement with the vulgate of Stuttgart. Addition by harmonization with
Exodus 23:20 or Malachi 3:1 is not very likely because the wording is different
in those passages and there is no sign of transference of other elements from
the Septuagint into this verse. Jerome commenting on this verse says that “the
apostle has not rendered his original word for word, but using a paraphrase, he
has given the sense in different terms” (Letter 57:5, Jerome). Besides, both
the Latin and the Alexandrian traditions are themselves divided. Another
possibility is omission by scribal error caused by visual homoeoteleuton (εγω αποστελλω, thus missing “ego”).
[4] Or “in Isaiah the prophet” (NA-Text and VgSt), which is supported by codices א, B, D, L, Θ, Δ, family of manuscripts ƒ1, minuscules 22, 33, 200, 372, 565, 700, 892, 1071, 1241, 1243, 2174, 2737, 2427, 10 old Latin codices (ita, itaur, itb, itc, itd, itf, itff2, itl, itq and itr1(vid)), the Peshitta, the Armenian, the Georgian, the Palestinian Syriac, the Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic versions, the Gothic version and a marginal note in the Harklean Syriac version, Irenaeusgr, Irenaeuslat, Origen, Victorinus of Pettau, Ambrosiaster, Basil, Epiphanius (Panarion 51:6:3), Fortunatianus, Jerome, Augustine and Bede. “In the prophets” is supported by codices A, E, F, G, H, K, P, W, Π, Σ, family of manuscripts ƒ13, minuscules 28, 180, 579, 597, 1006, 1009, 1010, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1242, 1253, 1292, 1342, 1344, 1365, 1424, 1505, 1546, 1646, the Byzantine minuscules, the Harklean Syriac, a marginal note in some manuscripts of the Bohairic Coptic version, some manuscripts of the vulgate, the Armenian, the Ethiopic and the Slavic version, Irenaeuslat, Photius and Theophylact. Jerome observed that Porphyry used this passage in his works against the Christians because what follows is taken from Malachi and Isaiah and not from Isaiah only. He then went on to say that “the ecclesiastical writers have provided abundant response to this challenge. As for us, we think that the name Isaiah is there due to a copyist error” (Commentary on the gospel of Matthew, 3:1, Jerome). In other places though, he seems to have assumed that “Isaiah” is what Mark wrote and he kept “Isaiah” in his translation of the Latin vulgate. Origen thought that what Mark was doing was to take “two prophecies spoken in different places by two prophets and conflated them into one, so as to declare: “As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet …” (Commentary on John 6.24). Origen had no problem with “Isaiah” in his manuscript and he did not see the alleged contradiction that would be raised by Porphyry after his death. This variant appears to have already existed in the 100’s, given that both forms are found in the writings of Irenaeus. The argument that the Byzantine reading in his writings is secondary because they are found only in the portions that came down to us in Latin loses strength if we consider the fact that conformation to the Latin vulgate would naturally result in “Isaiah the prophet” and not “in the prophets”. It is also noteworthy that the parallel passages in Matthew 3:3 and Luke 3:4 read “Isaiah”. An early scribe may have harmonized Mark with the parallel passages, not realizing that Mark combines prophecies from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 as opposed to Matthew and Luke that quote strictly from Isaiah 40:3. It may have happened very early though to have left its mark in all text-types, several different versions and patristic writers in multiple locations, which is normally a sign of originality, especially having preserved the harder reading. For this reason, this variant is viable. The suspicion that a foreign element that does not belong in the original text, brought into Mark from the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke is the main reason for the relegation of this reading to the footnote. As a side note, the Greek text in the Complutensian Polyglot, which is Byzantine read “in the prophets” with the Latin text in the parallel column reading “in Isaiah the prophet”.
[5] NA-Text and VgSt omit
“before you”. The omission is supported by codices א, B, D,
K, L, P, W, Θ, Π, Φ, minuscules 700*, 2427 and 2766, old Latin, the Peshitta
and Irenaeuslat. The Bohairic Coptic version is divided. The
inclusion is supported by codices A, Δ, both families of manuscripts ƒ1 and
ƒ13, minuscules 33, 565 and 1342,
the Byzantine minuscules, 3 old Latin codices (itf, itff2
and itl), the Harklean Syriac and the Gothic versions and some
manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic version, Origen, Eusebius and Theophylact.
Malachi 3:1 reads differently in the Septuagint (Gr.: “ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου”), which goes against any idea of addition by harmonization. Another
possibility is scribal error caused by parablepsis (οδον σου
εμπροσθεν σου, thus missing “before you”), but because the external evidence is strong
and robust in favor of the omission, it is safer to omit these words in the
Greek text and the translation.
[6] NA-Text adds a definite article
in brackets before the participle, thus rendering “John the Baptist” as a
possibility.
[7] NA-Text reads “και” at the beginning of the verse.
The meaning is the same.
[8] NA-Text and M-Text add a
definite article before the proper name John. The inclusion of the article is
supported by א, B, L, Θ, both
families of manuscripts ƒ1 and ƒ13, minuscules (28), (33), 565c,
892, the Byzantine minuscules and Theophylact. The omission is supported by codices
A, D, W and Δ. The article has been added to the Greek text.
[9] NA-Text omits “indeed”. VgSt
places it in the second clause.
[10] NA-Text and VgSt omit “with” (Gr.: “εν”, Latin equivalent “in”). The vulgate of Stuttgart omits also the second preposition before “the Holy Spirit”, which is supported by codex B. The omission of the first occurrence of the preposition in the verse is supported by codices א, B, H, Δ, minuscules 33, 892*, 1006, 1216, 1243, 1342, 2427, the Armenian and the Georgian versions, Origen, Jerome and Augustine. The inclusion is supported by codices A, D, E, F, G, K, L, P, W, Π, Σ, both families of manuscripts ƒ1 and ƒ13, minuscules 28, 157, 180, 205, 565, 579, 700, 892c, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1292, 1344, 1365, 1424, 1505, 1546, 1646, 2148 and 2174, the Byzantine minuscules, 7 old Latin codices, the Sahidic and the Bohairic Coptic versions, the Gothic and the Ethiopic version, Hippolytus and Theophylact. The parallel passage in Matthew 3:11 contains the preposition and Luke 3:16 does not, but the wording is so different in the parallel passages that one fails to see any sign of harmonization between those texts. With the exception of the genitives in Mark 9:41 and 14:13, Mark uses prepositions to refer to "into the water" in 9:22 and "from the water" in 1:10. Granted that the use of a preposition is expected in those two texts, but not necessarily here "with water". In the absence of a strong element in the text pointing definitively in one direction, it is safer to rely on the excellent support spread across all text-types for the inclusion of the preposition.
----
Notes:
1. Text in red letters are places where the original reading in the Textus Receptus has been revised and corrected;
2. The English translation used as a reference is the WEB brought to conformity as literal as possible to the Textus Receptus. The end product though is not the WEB or a revised WEB and it should not be called WEB. The content of this post is freely available to everyone and it is not supposed to be copyrighted;
3. TR: Textus Receptus. This text is not copyrighted;
4. NA-Text: Nestle-Aland text commonly known as critical text;
5. M-Text: Majority Text;
6. VgSt: Vulgate of Stuttgart;
7. WPF35: Wilbur Pickering-family 35;
8. PT: Patriarchal Text, also known as Patriarchal Greek New Testament, published by the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
9. The creator of the variant apparatus available in the VarApp kindly gave me permission to freely use the information contained in the material he put together.
---
To God all the glory for the preservation of the scriptures! He reigns!
No comments:
Post a Comment