V.5 (a) wdvres after ‘Iep., NBDLA 28 33 versions:
Orig Eus. after éBarr., AP rell (69 cut om. rdvres= Mt.). (6) worduw, om. Dabe ffi? Eus; ef. the ‘Western’ and ‘Syrian’ reading in Mt. (c) tm’ avrod after éBarr., NBL 33 Latt (exe. a) Arm: Orig Eus. after rorduw, ADP rell a Syr-hel Go. Note, further (d), that 8 69 a om. Kai be- fore éBamr.
In (d) the omission was probably due to the idea that the subj. of é&eropevero was complete at ydpa (ef. the post-Syrian é£emropevoyvro). The result is a strange statement that the city folk took the lead in accepting baptism, which can hardly be historical.
The Syrian change of the position of rdvres may be a modified echo of this. It is more likely due to a misunderstanding of the characteristically Marcan indefiniteness of éBarrlfovro=‘men’ were being baptized. mdvres with éBamr. is hyperbolical after a fashion to which Luke supplies parallels, not Mark.
In (d) and (c) notice once more how the Syrian Text combines the language of the ‘ Neutral’ with the order of the ‘Western’ Text. The result is a close assimilation to Mt.
V.8 (1) cal qv, NBL 33.
qv oe, AD®P rel. Mark’s resolute adherence to cal causes constant ditticulty to scribes. At least 40 times dé has been wrongly introduced into the Syrian Text; cf. vv.14: 1% *8 in this extract. (2) 6’Iw., SBL unc? cu”. ; -0, ADA rell? assim. to v.4, Otherwise the tendency in these authorities, esp. D, is to insert articles before proper names. See vv.% 24 16. 29: 36, (3) For rptyas cayujrov D& reads déppyy ( = déppir) kap., °a’ pellem and ‘d’ pilos. déppw in
LXX (of raiment) Jg 41% #4, Zee 13* only.
In Zee 134 déppw=n77x, found also (Heb. not LXX) for Elijah’s mantle in 1K 1918. a 2K 28 13f, |
This is remarkable, because the clause cal ¢évqv depu. 1.7. do. avoid, omitted by D, is found exactly in 2 K 18 in another description of Elijah. déppiv (=the prophetic mantle) was probably regarded as a concise and picturesque equivalent tor the whole
hrase. But the man who introduced it must have known his Hebrew Bible and his LXX. Note that C a," which also omits cal (évyv, x.7.0., places v.° after Wace V." Geyer adrots for éxipyccey éywv, D(a). In ‘a’s’ arrangement of the verses, avrots has a point which is lost in D. In view of the rest of vv.” ® in D, it is safe to say that @\eyery comes from Lk 37 or Mt 37, exipuocey is characteristic of Mk. (cf. e.g. 1°8 and Lk 4%, 1 and Lk 515, 64 and Lk 9°. It is curious that in these passages there should be no par. in Mt.). It has also point as resuming v.74. Vv." § (1) D a (ff!) read: "Ey pey buds Barrltw év tdart, épxerat dé driow wou 6 icxupdbrepds ov o§ otk elul ikavds Noa Toy iudvTa Tov Umrodnudrwv avrod> kat avrds buds Bamrifer év mvetuarte aylw. Notice tirst the order of the clauses, natural in Lk 3°, which this reading reproduces almost verbatim, but weak in Mk., where there is no ref. in the context to popular surmises about John. Notice also the omission of the characteristic Marcan xiwas. A clear case of assimilation in the‘ Western’ text. (2) The Syrian text adopts uév from this text,
or from Mt. and Lk. NBL 33 69 124 Orig om.; cf. Jn 1%. dé rare, in Mk 449% 12° 1471-88 only ; ef. 10°.
(3) Also év 1° against NBAH cu’, éy 2° against BL b Lat-vg.
In Mt 3" Jn 1° gy is found with both words without variant. In Ac 1° #6. and & mv. without variant. In Lk 3! 56. (exe. D 113 69 al & v6.) and ev wv. Without variant. There seems, therefore, no tendency to omit év where it is clearly genuine, even to balance phrases, e.g. Ac 1°. The tendency to insert from par. must have been very strong.
V.9(1) rats Auépars éxelvars, DA Latt (exe. ac).
éxelvos never comes after juépa in Mk. without special emphasis. Only in 13}: ** 14%, all three eschatological passages. (2) 6’Inc., DMTA 13 28 69 al. See on v.§ (3) els roy “lopd. bd ’Iwdy., NBDL cu (év 7a, 1-28, ete.) Latt (¢ f) Syr-vg Boh. brd “Iwdy. els rov “Iopd., AP rell cf Syr-hel Arm Aith Go.
Notice the converse change in v.°. Here clearly the important fact is that the baptism was ad- ministered by John, not that it took place in the Jordan. vd Iw. is therefore rightly kept to the last.
V.19 (1) evdéws or dbs, om. D ab.
A peculiarly difficult word for the textual critic in Mk., clearly characteristic, offending some scribes and some translators by its recurrence, at the same time always to hand when an adventurous scribe wished to ‘improve’ the story. We find ourselves therefore driven by sheer perplexity to take refuge in obedience to the one golden rule of sound criti- cism and to ‘trust our MSS.’ The result will show if our confidence is misplaced.
One point we can lay down at the outset. A close examination of the facts shows that the effect of Synoptic parallels on the text of Mk. must, so far as this word is concerned, have been uniformly to- wards omission: Mk 14” om. D 251 2° ac ff? k q (Mt 269 ‘non fluctuat’) is the only possible exception.