Mark 7:31-37 - Revision of the Textus Receptus

The gospel according to Mark

Chapter 7

---

31. και παλιν εξελθων εκ των οριων τυρου και σιδωνος ηλθεν προς την θαλασσαν της γαλιλαιας ανα μεσον των οριων δεκαπολεως And again, departing from the region of Tyre and Sidon[1], he came to the sea of Galilee through the middle of the region of Decapolis. 32. και φερουσιν αυτω κωφον μογιλαλον[2] και παρακαλουσιν αυτον ινα επιθη αυτω την χειρα And they brought to him one who was deaf and[3] had a speech impediment. And they begged him to lay his hand on him. 33. και απολαβομενος αυτον απο του οχλου κατ ιδιαν εβαλεν τους δακτυλους αυτου εις τα ωτα αυτου και πτυσας ηψατο της γλωσσης αυτου And taking him aside from the multitude in private, he put his fingers into his ears, and spitting, he touched his tongue. 34. και αναβλεψας εις τον ουρανον εστεναξεν και λεγει αυτω εφφαθα ο εστιν διανοιχθητι And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said to him, “Ephphatha!”  that is, “Be opened!” 35. και ευθεως διηνοιχθησαν[4] αυτου αι ακοαι και ελυθη ο δεσμος της γλωσσης αυτου και ελαλει ορθως And immediately[5] his ears were opened, and the impediment of his tongue was released, and he spoke clearly. 36. και διεστειλατο αυτοις ινα μηδενι ειπωσιν[6] οσον δε αυτος[7] αυτοις διεστελλετο μαλλον περισσοτερον εκηρυσσον And he commanded them that they should tell no one, but the more he commanded them, the more widely they proclaimed it. 37. και υπερπερισσως εξεπλησσοντο λεγοντες καλως παντα πεποιηκεν και τους κωφους ποιει ακουειν και τους[8] αλαλους λαλειν 7And they were astonished beyond measure, saying, “He has done all things well. And He makes even the deaf hear and the mute speak!” [1] NA-Text and Vg-St read “he came through Sidon” (Gr.: “ηλθεν δια σιδωνος”, plus the preposition “εις” that is more consistent with the Alexandrian wording), which is supported by codices א, B, D, L, Δ, Θ*, minuscules 33, 565, 700, 892, 1342 and 2427, the old Latin codices ita, (itaur), itb, itc, itd, itf, itff2, iti, itl, itn and itr1, the Palestinian Syriac, the Bohairic Coptic and the Ethiopic version. The Sahidic Coptic is divided. The TR is supported by papyrus 45, codices A, E, F, G, H, K, N, W, X, Θc, Σ, 0131, 0211, both families of manuscripts ƒ1 and ƒ13, minuscules 28, 157, 180, 205, 579, 597, 1006, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1253, 1292, 1344, 1365, 1424, 1505, 1546, 1646, 2148 and 2174, the Byzantine manuscripts, the old Latin codex itq, the Syriac Sinaiticus, the Peshitta, the Harklean Syriac, the Gothic, the (Armenian), the Georgian and the Slavic version, the Diatessaron and Theophylact. The support for the Byzantine reading is more ancient and more widespread and is consistent with the geographical location from verse 24, which is clearly connected with verse 31 by means of the “again” at the beginning of the verse. This is another case where the Hort’s theory that the Byzantine text is the product of a recension in the 300’s by combining the Alexandrian and Western texts into a new text that has no support in the 200’s has been proven false by the discovery of Papyrus 45 in the 1930’s. Papyrus 45 from the 200’s supports the Byzantine reading that is not found in codices א, B and D. By his model of transmission, this should not happen. This variant proves that the Byzantine should no longer be considered late and corrupt. [2] M-Text reads “μογγιλαλον”, which is supported by papyrus 45, codices A, L, both families of manuscripts ƒ1 and ƒ13, the Byzantine manuscripts, the Syriac versions and the Coptic versions. The TR is supported by codices א, B, D, W, Δ, Θ, 0131, minuscules 565, 700 and Theophylact. No need of correction. [3] NA-Text and Vg-St add “and” (Gr.: “και”, Latin equivalent: “et”). This addition is supported by codices א, B, D, W, Δ, Θ, 0131, minuscules 565 and 700. The omission is supported by papyrus 45, codices A, L, both families of manuscripts ƒ1 and ƒ13, the Byzantine manuscripts, the Syriac versions, the Coptic versions and Theophylact. This is probably a natural scribal addition to the text to better distinguish between the two maladies of the person brough to Jesus. The TR stands without need of correction. This is another example that disproves Hort’s theory that the Byzantine text is the product of a recension by Lucian of Antioch in the 300’s for which there should be no support in the 200’s, which has been proven false by the discovery of papyrus 45 in the 1930’s. [4] NA-Text brackets “immediately”. [5] NA-Text reads “ηνοιγησαν”. Those verbs are interchangeable. [6] NA-Text brackets “λεγωσιν” (present instead of second aorist). [7] NA-Text omits “αυτος”, possibly a scribal error caused by parablepsis (αυτος αυτοις, thus missing “αυτος”). [8] NA-Text brackets “τους”, which is clearly a scribal error in the Alexandrian codices caused by visual homoeoteleuton (τους αλαλους, thus missing “τους”).

----

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!