Mark 9:30-41 - Revision of the Textus Receptus

The gospel according to Mark

Chapter 9

---

30. και εκειθεν[1] εξελθοντες παρεπορευοντο δια της γαλιλαιας και ουκ ηθελεν ινα τις γνω[2] And going out from there, they passed through Galilee. And he did not want anyone to know it,

31. εδιδασκεν γαρ τους μαθητας αυτου και ελεγεν αυτοις οτι ο υιος του ανθρωπου παραδιδοται εις χειρας ανθρωπων και αποκτενουσιν αυτον και αποκτανθεις τη τριτη ημερα[3] αναστησεται for he was teaching his disciples, and saying to them, “The Son of Man is being delivered into hands of men, and they will kill him. And after he is killed, he will rise the third day.”

32. οι δε ηγνοουν το ρημα και εφοβουντο αυτον επερωτησαι But they did not understand the saying and were afraid to ask him.

33. και ηλθεν εις καφαρναουμ[4] και εν τη οικια γενομενος επηρωτα αυτους τι εν τη οδω προς εαυτους διελογιζεσθε And he came[5] to Capernaum, and when he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing among yourselves[6] on the way?”

34. οι δε εσιωπων προς αλληλους γαρ διελεχθησαν εν τη οδω τις μειζων But they were silent, for they had disputed with one another on the way about who was the greatest.

35. και καθισας εφωνησεν τους δωδεκα και λεγει αυτοις ει τις θελει πρωτος ειναι εσται παντων εσχατος και παντων διακονος And sitting down, he called the twelve, and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all.”

36. και λαβων παιδιον εστησεν αυτο εν μεσω αυτων και εναγκαλισαμενος αυτο ειπεν αυτοις And taking a little child, he set him in the midst of them. And when he had taken him in his arms, he said to them,

37. ος αν[7] εν των τοιουτων παιδιων δεξηται επι τω ονοματι μου εμε δεχεται και ος αν εμε δεξηται[8] ουκ εμε δεχεται αλλα τον αποστειλαντα με “Whoever receives one of these little children in my name receives me. And whoever receives me, receives not me, but him who sent me.”

38. απεκριθη δε αυτω ο[9] ιωαννης λεγων διδασκαλε ειδομεν τινα εν[10] τω ονοματι σου εκβαλλοντα δαιμονια ος ουκ ακολουθει ημιν και εκωλυσαμεν[11] αυτον οτι ουκ ακολουθει[12] ημιν And John answered him, saying[13], “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us[14] casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow us.”

39. ο δε ιησους ειπεν μη κωλυετε αυτον ουδεις γαρ εστιν ος ποιησει δυναμιν επι τω ονοματι μου και δυνησεται ταχυ κακολογησαι με But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for there is no one who will do a mighty work in my name and can soon speak evil of me.

40. ος γαρ ουκ εστιν καθ ημων υπερ ημων εστιν For he who is not against us[15] is for us.

41. ος γαρ αν ποτιση υμας ποτηριον υδατος εν [16] ονοματι μου[17] οτι χριστου εστε αμην λεγω υμιν [18] ου μη απολεση τον μισθον αυτου For truly I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in my name because you belong to Christ, will by no means lose his reward.

---

[1] NA-Text reads “κακειθεν”. Contracted form of the same “και εκειθεν”.

[2] NA-Text reads “γνοι”. Same verbal tense spelled differently.

[3] NA-Text reads “μετα τρεις ημερας” (“after three days” instead of “the third day”).

[4] NA-Text and VgSt read “καφαρναουμ” (Latin equivalent: Capharnaum).

[5] Or “they came” (NA-Text and VgSt), which is supported by codices א, B, D, W, 0274, family of manuscripts ƒ¹, minuscules 565, 1424 and 2427, old Latin, the Peshitta, the Sahidic Coptic version and the Diatessaron. The third-person singular is supported by codices A, C, L, Δ, Θ, Ψ, family of manuscripts ƒ¹³, minuscules 28, 579, 700, 892, 1071 and 1342, the Byzantine manuscripts, 2 old Latin codices (it^f and it^q), the Syriac Sinaiticus, the Harklean Syriac, the Bohairic Coptic version and Theophylact. Both are well supported. The plural flows from the previous verse and the singular is more aligned with what follows.

[6] NA-Text and VgSt omit “among themselves”, which is supported by codices א, B and D. The inclusion is supported by codices A, W, Θ, both families of manuscripts ƒ¹ and ƒ¹³, minuscules 565 and 700, the Byzantine manuscripts, the Syriac versions, the Sahidic Coptic version, the Diatessaron and Theophylact. The inclusion is more widespread, suggesting local adjustment with limited influence in some Alexandrian and Western manuscripts.

[7] NA-Text reads “ος αν” (twice in the verse), which is supported by codices א, B, D, W, Γ, Θ, and family of manuscripts ƒ¹³. The TR is supported by Theophylact. The Byzantine spelling is likely a local adjustment. The Greek text has been adjusted, following the NA-Text.

[8] NA-Text reads “δεχηται” (present instead of aorist). This is certainly a local error found in Alexandrian majuscules. Mark certainly meant the parallels: δεξηται / δεχεται and δεξηται / δεχεται in the first and second clauses and not δεξηται / δεχεται and δεχεται / δεχεται. This error could be easily corrected by comparing the Alexandrian majuscules with majuscules of other transmission lines.

[9] M-Text (Robinson-Pierpont text only) omits the definite article “ο” before the proper name. The inclusion of the article is supported by codices א, A, B, C, D, L, W, Δ, Θ, Ψ, both families of manuscripts ƒ¹ and ƒ¹³, minuscules 28, 565, 700 and 892 and Theophylact. This omission does not belong in the original text.

[10] M-Text omits “εν”. The inclusion is supported by codices א (ε), B, D, Θ and Theophylact. The TR stands without need of correction.

[11] NA-Text reads “εκωλυομεν” (imperfect instead of aorist).

[12] NA-Text reads “ηκολουθει” (imperfect instead of aorist).

[13] NA-Text reads “John said to him”. 

[14] NA-Text omits “who does not follow us”. This is  another verse that Hort used to exemplify his theory that the Byzantine text is secondary, being the product of scribes deliberately making up a new Greek text by adding elements of the Western text into the “earlier” Alexandrian text. He used this verse because the Alexandrian text omitted the first “ος ουκ ακολουθει ημιν” and the Western text omitted the second “οτι ουκ ακολουθει ημιν”. So, Byzantine scribes would have added the first omitted sentence from the Western text into the Alexandrian text. But the issue with this theory is that the Western text reads “ος ουκ ακολουθει μεθ ημων” and not the Byzantine “ος ουκ ακολουθει ημιν”. And Codex D likely lost the last clause by visual homoeoarcton (οτι ουκ ακολουθει ημιν ο, thus missing “because he does not follow us”). And the first clause in the Alexandrian text was probably removed because scribes saw two similar clauses “who does not follow us” and “because he does not follow us” as an unnecessary repetition, which would have appeared as an error to some of them. Then, they compared this verse with the parallel passage in Luke 9:49 and found the first clause missing there, thus creating a harmonized text with the parallel passage in Mark. Lastly, the Diatessaron should not be cited as a witness for the Alexandrian text, because Tatian added this verse from Luke 9:49. This may also be one of the sources of the confusion, because in Tatian’s harmony, Mark 9:39 follows Luke 9:49, which may be why the Peshitta also omitted this clause. Another problem with this theory is that the Byzantine verb in the last clause is in the present tense (οτι ουκ ακολουθει ημιν) whereas the Alexandrian is in the imperfect tense (οτι ουκ ηκολουθει ημιν), thus confirming that Byzantine scribes did not use the Alexandrian text as a primary material for making up a new text. Hort’s foundation for categorizing the Byzantine text as secondary, being the product of a conflation between the Alexandrian and the Western texts collapsed once again for the third time upon closer examination.

[15] M-Text, PT, WPF³⁵ and VgSt read “you” (twice in the verse), which is supported by codices A, D, K, X, Π, minuscules 118, 124, 700 and 1424, the Byzantine manuscripts, old Latin, the Peshitta, the Harklean Syriac version and some manuscripts of the Bohairic Coptic version. The TR is supported by codices א, B, C, L, W, Δ, Θ, Ψ, both families of manuscripts ƒ¹ and ƒ¹³, minuscules 28, 157, 565, 579, 892, 1241, 1342, 2427 and 2542, the old Latin codex it^k, the Syriac Sinaiticus, a marginal note in the Harklean Syriac version, the Coptic versions, the Gothic version, Basil and Theophylact. There is an instability in the parallel passage in Luke 9:50, but the external evidence is stronger on the side of “you” in Luke. In Mark, the external evidence is certainly on the side of “us”. The vulgate and codex D have a harmonized text in both parallels by using the same pronouns, which weakens them as faithful witnesses to the text.

[16] NA-Text and M-Text omit “τω”, which is supported by codices א, A, B, C, E, F, G, K, L, N, W, X, Π, Σ, Ψ, family of manuscripts ƒ¹, minuscules 2, 157, 180, 205, 579, 597, 892, 1006, 1010, 1079, 1195, 1230, 1241, 1342, 1253, 1365, 1424, 1546, 1582^c, 1646, 2148 and 2427 and the Byzantine manuscripts. The inclusion is supported by codices D, H, M, Δ, Θ, family of manuscripts ƒ¹³, minuscules 28, 565, 700, 1009, 1071, 1216, 1242, 1243, 1292, 1344, 1505, 2174, 2542 and Theophylact. Both are well supported. The inclusion is probably a natural addition to the text based on verses 37, 38 and 39. So, the article has been removed from the Greek text.

[17] NA-Text omits “μου” and renders literally “in name that”. Mark never used the word “name” disassociated from a proper name, a pronoun or the word “Lord” (see verses 3:16, 17, 5:19, 22, 6:14, 9:37, 38, 39, 11:9, 10, 13:6, 13:13, 14:32 and 16:17). There’s no trace of this irregular wording anywhere else in the New Testament or the Septuagint. Even though a case could be made for this reading on the agreement of majuscules of Alexandrian and Byzantine types, I find highly unlikely that Mark would have used a modified wording of the “in my name” or “in your name” of the previous context to simply mean “because” with a meaning totally disassociated from the flow of the context. Also, “in my name” is widespread across all text types, which includes the original reading found in codex Sinaiticus. 

[18] NA-Text adds “οτι”.

 

----

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!