The facts are interesting, and we may allow our- selves this one excursion into the field of Synoptic
218 TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
criticism. Assuming the WH text as our standard, evdvs occurs 40 times in Mark. In 29 of these there are parallel contexts in both Mt. and Lk., in8 there is a parallel in Mt. only, in2in Lk. only, in 1 there is no parallel in either. In one case, 12=Mt 8° =Lk 5", ev@. is found in all three Gospels. In none of the other 30 cases where Lk. has a parallel con- text is ed#. found: in 7 the whole phrase to which ev#. belongs in Mk. is transformed ; in 17 v0. is simply omitted; in 5 he substitutes wapaxpjua, in 1 eira. Of the 37 places where Mt. presents a parallel, ev@. isretained in 12; in 8 the whole phrase, in 15 the word, disappears ; in 2 dd ris pas éxelyns does duty as an equivalent. In one case Lk. (21° = Mt 246=Mk 137) substitutes ov evOéws for ot'rw.
Assuming, as it is probably worth while to do at present, that our Mk. wasin the hands of both Mt. and Lk., the figures given above supply a good illustration of the delicate literary criticism to which Mark was subjected, esp. by Luke. This general result is not seriously attected by questions of text. In 6 places TR ins. where WH om., in 4 TR om. where WH ins. But it is worth notice that the ‘Western’ Text, esp. in D and in the various MSS of Lat-vet, shows a clear tendency to omit «d@. The chief passages are 11 28. 29 98 36 ANS 57. 42 G75. 50 920 1448.45, The same tendency is found in the same authorities in Mt., e.g. 422 212.
In the case before us (11°) the genuineness of evdvs in Mk. is, we think, supported by its presence in Mt 3%. There are only 2 cases (24 2748) where Mt. in a parallel context shows a ev. which is not represented in the true text of Mark. And in neither of these does any authority for the text of Mk. attempt to assimilate.
(2) é« ro 06., NBDL 13 28 33 69 124. dré, AP rell; cf. Mt 31,
Here, again, éx is characteristic of Mark. In 4 other cases it corresponds to dé in a parallel context in Mt., and in 10 cases in Luke. A similar reaction on the MSS of Mk. also in 1*°- 26 715 99 163,
(3) oxefoudvous, NAB rell. qvuypévous, D Latt (‘apertos’)=Mt. and Luke.
Here there is nothing to account for the change of dvewyuévous if it were genuine, while cxufouevous is at once vivid and difficult.
(4) karaBatvor cis airév, BD 13 69 124 a. kaTaBaivov ér’ airév, NAP rell, but note that >» 33 insert cad uévov before éx’ from Jn ie
Fondness for e/s is another characteristic feature of Mark’s style. It occurs in all about 157 times. Of these, 42 are found in both Mt. and Lk., 39 in Mt. alone, 19 in Lk. alone, 57 belong to sections or phrases peculiar to Mark. In 3 places Lk. substi- tutes év, in 2 érl, in 1 év uéow. Mt. substitutes év in 5 places and ériin 4. Here (11°) Mt. and Lk. agree in substituting éri as they agree in substi- tuting év in 118. In 4 cases Mt. or Lk. supports els when the other has changed it.
On the other hand, été with ace. occurs only 32 times in Mark. There is only very slight evidence of a tendency to change it into els. See 6°? 1522: Sp and perhaps d (not D) in 9%, In no case is there a real parallel to the phrase here, which must have suffered from ‘ assimilation.’
V." (a) Om, éyévero, 8* D ff? mt (a £ ‘venit? 3; 28
2ve ol aKovaOn).
Here, again, light is thrown on the reading by a careful study of Mark’s usage. He is fond of yvecOu, and uses it to cover a great variety of different meanings. It oceurs 52 times in the WH Text; of these, 6 are found both in Mt. and Luke. Besides these, Mt. retains only 16, Lk. only 9; and even in some of these instances slight modifications are introduced, (Mt. has a parallel context in 49,
Lk. in 36 cases). The text of Mk. shows similar traces of the attempt to obliterate this individual- ism. See 1!” 227 4411 516162 (96) 97 10% 124 144, 98 seems to be Syrian. In all the other cases, except 117 227518, D appears in the group which either omits or provides a substitute for yiv. D is generally supported by some Old Latin MSS and various members of the group 1-28, ete. The most in- structive case is the closely par. 97 éyévero uv} éx Ths vepédns (NBCLA), where AD rell ine. Syr-sin read 7\Oey (exe. k 1 Syr-vg-codd om.), while idov from Mt. and Aéyouca from Lk. also find support. In Lk 9° éyé&ero . . . Aéyovoa is found without variant, except that D reads 7\ev, Syr-cu-sin jxovcOm. In 10“ the Syrian Text has yevéoOu, NBC(D)LA civar. The omission of éyévero may
therefore safely be regarded as ‘Western.’ (6) &v col, SBDSLPA 1 13 22 33 69 cu” Lat- ve ac ft! 29?] Boh? Syr-vg-hel-txt Arm