The gospel according to Mark
Chapter 12
[1] NA-Text reads “λαλειν”. Those verbs are
interchangeable. [2] NA-Text reads “εξεδετο”. Same verbal tense spelled differently, which is supported by codices א, A, B and Θ. The TR is supported by codex D and Theophylact. The spelling has been adjusted, following the NA-Text. [3] NA-Text reads “fruits”
(Gr.: “των καρπων”). [4] NA-Text and P-Text replace “δε” by “και” and place it at the beginning of the verse, which is supported by codices א, B, D, L, Δ, Ψ, minuscules 33, 892 and 1424, the old Latin codices and the Bohairic Coptic version. The Sahidic Coptic version is divided. The Byzantine arrangement is supported by codices A, C, W, Θ, both families of manuscripts ƒ1 and ƒ13, the Byzantine manuscripts, the Peshitta and Theophylact. The support for the Byzantine arrangement is better, so it has been maintained in the text. [5] NA-Text reads “εκεφαλιωσαν”. Same verbal tense spelled
differently. [6] NA-Text and Vg-St omit “And throwing stones at him”. This omission is supported by codices א, B, D, L, W, Δ, Ψ, family of manuscripts ƒ1, minuscules 28, 33, 565, 579, 700, 1342, 2427, old Latin, the Coptic versions and Bede. The inclusion is supported by codices A, C, X, Θ, minuscule 892, family of manuscripts ƒ13, the Byzantine manuscripts, the Peshitta, the Gothic version, the Diatessaron and Theophylact. The parallel passage in Luke 20:11-12 omits the stoning and Matthew 21:35-36 includes it. The stoning and beating in Matthew 21:35 are separate actions contained in aorist verbs, separated by the conjunction “and”, not a participial clarification of the verb “wounding in the head” like here. It is highly unlikely that the verb “stoning” here was imported or even inspired by the parallel passage in Matthew. The following verb “κεφαλαιοω” is found nowhere else in the New Testament or the Septuagint but it clearly refers to a wound in the head, so that a participial verb added to explain it was not necessary. The Arabic Diatessaron also used a word that means specifically “wound in the head” and another word for stoning like the Byzantine text. The wording in the parallel passage in Luke is also quite different so that it is equally unlikely that this verb got removed by harmonization to a parallel passage. Being that the evidence is not conclusive, this word has been maintained in the Greek text and the translation because this variant must be taken together with the following, which points strongly in favor of the inclusion. As a side note, the Greek text in the Complutensian Polyglot, which is Byzantine, included this verb, whereas the Latin text in the parallel column omitted it, following the vulgate. The same thing applies to the verb in the following footnote. [7] NA-Text and Vg-St omit “sent
him away”, which is omitted by codices א, B, (D), L, Δ, Ψ, minuscules
33, 579, 892, 1342, 2427, old Latin, the Bohairic Coptic version and some
manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic version. The inclusion is supported by
codices A, C, W, Θ, both families
of manuscripts ƒ1 and ƒ13, minuscules 28, (565),
(700), the Byzantine manuscripts, the Syriac versions, the Gothic, the Sahidic
Coptic version, the Diatessaron and Theophylact. There are two possibilities
here. The participles “λιθοβολησαντες” and “ητιμωμενον” connected with the aorists
“εκεφαλαιωσαν” and “απεστειλαν” may be displaying
Byzantine expansions to the text or the Alexandrian aorists “εκεφαλιωσαν” and “ητιμασαν” simplifications to the text for whatever reason.
When we look at the evidence, we notice that the Byzantine text is more
widespread, including the Sahidic Coptic version that normally supports the
Alexandrian text, which is an indication that the Alexandrian reading was
crafted locally with limited influence on some Egyptian manuscripts and the
Western text. [8] NA-Text reads “αποκτεννοντες”, which is supported by
codex א and D.
M-Text reads “αποκτενοντες”. Same verbal tenses with a
different spelling. Codex B reads “αποκτεννυντες”. Codex Θ reads “απεκτεννοντες”. The TR is supported by
Theophylact. The spelling has been corrected following the NA-Text. [9] NA-Text omits “again” [10] NA-Text reads “ειχεν” (imperfect indicative
instead of present participle). [11] NA-Text and Vg-St omit
“his” and render “a beloved son”, which is supported by codices א, B, C,
D, L, Δ, Θ, Ψ, minuscules 565, 700 and 892, old Latin, the Syriac Sinaiticus, the
Peshitta and the Bohairic Coptic version. The Sahidic Coptic version is divided.
The omission of the pronoun is supported by codices papyrus 45VID,
codices A, W, both families
of manuscripts ƒ1 and ƒ13, the Byzantine manuscripts,
the old Latin codices (itaur) and (itc), the Harklean
Syriac version, the Diatessaron and Theophylact. The parallel passage in
Matthew 21:37 reads “his son” and Luke 20:13 “my beloved son”. But the wording
is different in both passages, which makes harmonization less probable. Mark
used the expression “beloved son” three times (1:11, 9:7 and 12:7). In the
previous passages, they referred to a direct speech of the Father from heaven,
but here it is in the context of a narrative. So, they are not comparable. The
support for the NA-Text is better. The pronoun here may be a natural addition inspired by the parallel passages or a textual embellishment. The
pronoun has then been removed from the text and the word order of the vulgate
and the NA-Text adopted in the Greek text (Gr.: “υιον
αγαπητον”,
Latin: “filium carissimum”). This word order with a participial verb is
supported by codices A, C*, D and Θ. [12] NA-Text omits “Therefore”. [13] NA-Text omits “also”. [14] NA-Text reads “ειπαν”. Same verbal tense, different spelling. [15] NA-Text and P-Text place the personal pronoun “αυτον” after “killed” and add another after “cast out”. The inclusion of a second pronoun is supported by codices A, B, C, D, N, Γ, Θ, Ψ, minuscules 565, 1241 and 1424. The non-inclusion is supported by codices א, L, W, both families of manuscripts ƒ1 and ƒ13, the Byzantine manuscripts, old Latin and Theophylact. The vulgate of Stuttgart and the Clementine vulgate have preserved only one pronoun at the same position as the TR, M-Text and WPF35. The second pronoun may have been missed by visual homoeoteleuton (εξεβαλον αυτον, thus missing “αυτον”). Also, the support for the inclusion is excellent from all text-types. Therefore, the pronoun has been added and the word order changed following the NA-Text. [16] NA-Text brackets “Therefore”.
The collective witness of the majuscules, including codex Sinaiticus and the
minuscules is overwhelmingly against questioning this word as part of the text. |
----
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. Vg-St: Vulgate of Stuttgart;
7. WPF35: Wilbur Pickering-family 35;
8. P-Text: 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