Akth Go.
ev, ATIL unc® rell bd g! f Syr-hel-meg.
In Lk. there is virtually no doubt (apart from the very early ‘ Western’ variant vids wou ef ot) about the reading od... év ool,
In Mt. the reading is ofros . . . & @, exe. that D a Syr-cu read oJ—éy 6; Syr-sin Gl mies) eV Ol. :
év cot was peculiarly liable to change from the association with Is 42!=Mt 128; cf. 2P 1",
V.12 (1) 76 mv. add 76 &ytov, D.
The tendency to add dyoy is much less than might have been expected (see 28, Jn 7%), Its presence here, perhaps due to Lk 4", is more likely meant to mark the contrast with the Tempter.
(2) (a) éxBadre adrdv, DA 33-69.
(b) atrov éxBdd\d\er, NABL rell.
The order in (6) is somewhat unusual, though relatively commoner in Mk. than in Mt. or Luke. See 3% 1 12 54 113. 18 1913. 34 1.465 167,
V.33 (1) (a) €v 79 éphuw, SABDL 13 33 346 Boh:
rig Eus. (b) exe? KIL 1 69 124 131 209 al” Syr-sin Arm. (c) éxe?t €v rp épjuw, A unc? rel Syr-ve.
Here (a) is apparently the original reading. The repetition els riv ép., év Tp ép. is thoroughly Marcan ; cf. vy." It is interesting to notice that Mt. keeps eis Thy ép. and Lk. év rp ép.
(6) is a substitute for (w) to avoid the repetition,
(c) is a simple conflation of (a) and (6).
The only alternative is to regard (c) as a redupli- cation of the regular Marcan type (e.g. dWlas dé yevouevns Bre dv 6 izos), of which (a) and (8) are alternative redactions. But Mark’s pleonasms are never, we think, weakly tautological, as this would be; e.g. in 5" éxe? rpds 7G Bper, the second clause brings out a fresh and important feature in the scene ; cf, v.28,
(2) reoo- ju., SBL 33: Orig Eus.
nu. teoo., ADA rell= Mt. Lk. without variant.
V.14 (1) kat werd, BD8" a (c) Boh?
pera 6€, SAL rell. See on y.°. (2) ro edayyédov, om. Tis Bacidelas, NBL 1 28 33 69 209 b ¢ ff? Syr-sin Boh Arm. Add AD rell Lat-vg a f ff! gi? Syr-ve Z&th.
70 evayyéNov is used without further definition 5 times in Mk. (cf. Ae 157). In 1’Ino. Xp. is added. In Mt. evay. occurs 4 times, 3 times defined by ris Baoirelas, eva. is not found in Lk. or John. The full phrase 7 ev. 7. Bac. 7. 609 is not found any- where else. It is most likely that rv. Bac. came in from Mt. assisted by its recurrence in v.%. No
SS
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT) 219
good reason can be given to explain its omission, ifit were genuine. The phrase 4 Bac. r. Oeod is constant (14 times) in Mk., and never seems to have provoked alteration. (3) (@) kat Néywr, BLA unc? 1 33 69 rel ab ff! ¢? Lat-vg Boh Syr-vg-hel.
(0) Aéywr, N2AD unc? cu® f ff? g! Go.
(c) Om. N* emt Syr-sin: Orig.
This is a difficult case. It is surprising how many of the various readings in Mk. involve the insertion or omission or change of Aéywv. In some cases the insertion is clearly due to assimilation, 9” 11° 144 15%. In others the word is omitted or changed because it seemed bald or pleonastic, 17 6% 8°5 10 113! 124, The aberrant text is almost uniformly supported by D, some MSS of Lat-vet, and some members of the ‘ Ferrar Group.’
In 3 cases besides this, 125 2! 154, no certain decision is possible. In 2 of these, 1% 154, Nis the chief authority for omission. It is difficult to account for the change of (a) either into (8) or (c) if it be genuine. (a) is also open to suspicion from Mt 4”,
The asyndeton in (6) might have led to (a) and (c) as independent simplifications (cf. 1*°). But it is harsh even for Mark.
(c) might have caused difficulty, because v.!° can hardly be regarded as merely epexegetic of ré evayyéov THs Bacwdelas.
V.¥ remdipwvras of katpol, Da be ff? g' mt, probably due to the association in thought of pas- sages like Lk 21** and esp. Eph 1, the singular seeming too tame.
V.16 (1) kat rapdywv, SBDL 13 33 69 124 346 Latt Boh Arm Syr-hel-mg.
mepraray 6é, AA rell Syrr= Mt.
For 6é see note on v.®.
mapdywy recurs in 244 (=Mt 9°) and 152!; ef. Mt 977 209, Jn 9}.
It is never found in Luke. He has no strict par. here. In both the other cases he avoids it. There seems no reason why zepirarév should have been changed, if it were original.
(2) Zinwra, D 28 69 124 346 add rév. See note v.® (3) (a) Zluwvos, SBLM al a Boh Arm. (6) Tod Siuwvos, AEA 1 69 al’, See on v.°. (c) avrod, s DGT 33 al vix mu Latt (exe. a) Syr-sin-vg “th. (d) airod ro Diwwyos, EFH une’ al plus!”° Syr-hel Go. :
(a) is here clearly the original reading. The repetition of the subst. is a trick of the Marcan style (see 3”). (c) is an inevitable ‘Western’ correction agreeing with Matthew. (d) is asimple conflation.
(4) (@) dugeBdddoyras, RBL 33. (b) dugiBdddovras Ta dixrva, D 13 28 69 124 346 Latt. (c) dugdiBdrArovTas dupiByorpov, AA unc! Boh Syr-hel Go. (d) Bddovras duplBrnorpov, E°MVII? al pl Arm= Mt. ‘