Here, again, (a) is clearly original. Its full force not being understood (or requiring in trans- lation the express mention of the object), the ‘Western’ reading (b) supplied ra dikrva from v.78. On the other hand, the influence of Mt. suggested (c) duplBrnorpov. Finally, by substituting Bdddovras (d), the resemblance to Mt. was made complete.
Vi yevérOar, om. 1 13 28 69 118 209 al” b Syr-
sin-vg Aith. ' See on v.4. Here the omission is helped by text of Mt. V.38 (a) ra Sikrva, NBCL al! ff! g? Lat-vg Boh Arm= Mt.
(6) rdvra, Dabe ff2?=Lk.; ef. 10%.
Note that Dachave already used dikrva in v.16, (¢) ra Sixrva adréy, A unc? al pl fg! Syrr AXth Go. Notice a similar addition in vy." 2 ete.
V.19 (a) éd¢yov, BDL 1 28 118 124 131 209 2” a b fF?
g! Boh Syr-vg (sin).
(b) éxetOev, N* = Mt.
(c) 6dtyoy éxetOev, N° 33.
(d) éxeiBev d\tyov, AC unc? al pl cf ffl gl2 Syr-hel Arm Go.
Here there is no doubt of the genuineness of orlyov. éxetev seems to have come in from Matthew. The tendency to omit éxei@ey is very slight in the Gospels, and confined to quite insignificant MSS, exe. in Jn 115,
(c) and (d) represent independent conflations of (a) and (0).
V.” dardOov dricw avrod, SABC rell Syrr.
nKorovOncay avrg, D Latt Boh= Mt. ; ef. v.38, amepx. éricw is a remarkable, apparently unique phrase (Jn 12” is no true parallel), which has suffered assimilation. Perh. aSyriasm; but acon. is a common word, not wont to provoke alterations. V.71 (1) (a) eiomopevovrar, SABC rel d. (6) elomopeverat, 1 6 22 71 121 al paue. (€) elomopevéuevos, Orig (¢) (e). (a) elcemopevovro, D8 33 (61) (ab f).
A reading worth looking at. At first sight (a) seems entirely natural, and we wonder why it should have caused any trouble. Then we notice the sequence of verbs, drf\Oov, eiomopevovrat, édldac- kev. The subject of no two of them is the same, though they are linked by «ai, but in genuine Marcan fashion the reader is trusted to infer the subject of each himself.
Again the sequence of tenses, an historic present, characteristic of Mk., between an Aor. and an Im- perfect. (0) and (c) are independent attempts to smooth over the change of subject, (d¢) assimilates the tenses.
(2) (a) rots odBBacw ecicehOwy els Thy cvvaryw- viv édldacxey, ABD rell Latt (exe. ec) Syr-hel.
(b) eiveN@y rots caf. ouvay., 33 124.
(¢) rots cdBBaow edidacKkery els Thy cuvay., NL 28 346 2”: Orig.
(d) é6l6ackev év Trois o4BBacw els Thy cuvay., C Boh Syr-sin-ve.
(¢) Tots cdBBacw els Thy cuvay. édldacker, A 69.
(7) et ingrediens cum eis sabb. in synag. Capharnaum docebat populum e.
Note that Syr-sin omits cai eic. eis Kad.
This is a strange case of confusion affecting the simplest of sentences. The omission of elcehOdy, which is common to (c) (d) and (e), produces a reading which at first sight seems attractive. It is short and vigorous. And the pregnant use of eds might easily have led to the insertion of eiceh Adv. On the other hand, the group NCLA, which sup- ports the omission, is, the present writer believes, in Mark typically ‘Alexandrian,’ in Dr. Hort’s sense of the term. They exhibit constantly a type of readings quite their own, which, though always interesting, rarely succeed in establishing their claim to preserve the original text. The most favourable examples are 3% 7 47 28 111 15) 44, Here it is worth noticing that in (f) ingrediens may stand either for elomopevéuevos or eloedOdy. And it is possible that the repetition may have given offence to the linguistic sense of the Alex- andrians, and have led to the dropping of eicehOuy. Both words are well established in Mark’s voca- bulary. For though ropevec@a never occurs (outside 16°21) exe, perhaps in 9*°, elowop. is found 8 times.
édldackev eis Thy
220 TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
Nor is Mk. fond of the pregnant use of eds. 19 1°° (2! 2.) 139 16 149 are the only examples; and even knpvooew eis (1*9 14°) hardly justifies dvddoxew eis.
The larger omission in Syr-sin may well be due to the ditliculty of supposing that the work from which Simon had been called (v.?*) lay at any distance from his home (v.?).
(3) avrov’s post é616., D (Latt) Syr-hcel Arm Aith Go. Probably from v.”°. There is no difficulty in the absolute use of dvddoxew, Which occurs fairly often in all the Gospels, and generally causes no trouble. Mt 4° is the only parallel. Curiously enough, in Mt 21° 26°° Lk 23° some auth. omit diddoxev altogether. Mark is never tired of emphasizing this aspect of our Lord’s activity. In 9 cases (out of 17) the word is not paralleled either in Matthew or Luke. V.7 xal ante oix, om. D*bede. Cf. v.14 (3) (0).
V.*8 (1) ed00s post cal, SBL 133 131 209 Boh: Orig. Om. ACDA rell. Cf. on v.° (1). It is not found in Lk 433,
Here the word would be specially liable to alteration, as it expresses simply the suddenness of the interruption, without reference to any definite point of time.
(2) adrOv post cwaywyj, om. DL72bece ff? g! Boh.
The presence of the word is remarkable. It has no antecedent. cuvay. is regularly defined in Mt., but very rarely in Mark or Luke. Only Mk 1%: ®9, Lk 4° (where as here Dablom.). But there is no trace of any tendency to supply atvé» mechanically with oway. in either Mark or Luke. Lat-vg in Lk 13 is an instructive exception. So it is un- likely that it has come in here from Matthew. On the other hand, Mark has no quite similar case (exc. 9%, where airév has come in from LXX) of an indefinite avrdy. It is possible that it may represent Mark’s transformation of what on St. Peter’s lips was ‘our’ synagogue.