Wise om NBD 157 2P° Latt Boh Syr-sin-vg
th. Ins. (A) CLA rell. Syr-hel Arm Go: Orig Eus=Lk 44 (where as here D cu! Lat- vet Boh Syr-sin-hier 42th om.).
Another ‘Alexandrian’ reading, this time adopted by the ‘Syrian’ Text, against the ‘Neutral’ and the ‘Western.’ Granted that the ‘Western’ authority here must be discounted because of its behaviour in Lk 4%, still the ‘Neutral’ reading is preferable because it alone explains the phenomena in the two passages taken together. There seems no reason why "Ea (however it is to be understood) should have caused trouble. All is simple, if we suppose that the ‘ Alexandrian’ and ‘Syrian’ texts here assimilated Mark to Luke, while conversely the ‘Western’ assimilated Luke to Mark.
(2) ofdauev, SLA Boh Arm Ath: Tert Irenit rig Eus. ol6a, ABCD rell Latt Syrr=Lk 44 (where only Arm has pl.).
Neither reading has any intrinsic difficulty. It is simply a question whether the Alexandrian Text introduced the pl. in consequence of juiv (cf. 7decar, v.*4), or whether the rest assimilated Mark to Luke. The fact that the Alexandrians omitted to insert the corresponding change in Luke is not a fatal objection to the first hypothesis.
Y.7 (1) dm’ for e¢, HL 33 cul cf ote Dik.
See on v.!°. _ é« is habitual in cases of possession in Mark. In these cases it is never retained either by Matthew or Luke.
(2) (@) rod dvOpérov for airod and + mvedua dxddaprov, D (8°) Latt (exe. f) (Go Alith).
Go Aith add wv. dx. but read adtrod. 8P° 6 my. TO aK.
(6) SABCLA rell: Orig Syr-sin read
avrod without mv. ax.=Lk.
Here we have to balance the chance that (6) has arisen out of (a) by assimilation to Luke, against the chance that (a) has arisen out of (6) by assimila- tion to 5°. (a), as 5° shows, is thoroughly Marcan ; but the evidence for it, as our experience even in these few verses is enough to suggest, is far from trustworthy. Again, if we may allow any weight to our provisional hypothesis as to the relation between Luke and Mark, there is no reason to suppose that Luke would have modified (a) if his text of Mark had contained it. In 8%°(=Mk 58) he retains the words, though putting them into the oratio obliqua. His agreement with Mark in these verses, 4°35 — Mlk 1726, is exceptionally close. There is no par. in Matthew.
Y.*6 (1) The whole verse reads as follows in D :—
kal €&p\Oev 7d mveiua To axdOaprov omapdéas
avrov kal kpdtas pwvy pweyddn é&Oev ar’ avrov.
With this e agrees (only omitting 7d dxd@aprov), and ff? (only transposing omap. air. with ro mv. TO Gk.).
It is difficult not to believe that this exhibits a conflation of two readings: (a) xal é£#\Oev Td rv. Td ax. omapdéas atrov Kal kpdéas pwvy weyddy, with (d) the reading in the text. Some such conflation must also underlie the reading of D in y.*4 (a) might have arisen out of (d) by free assimilation to Mk 976, where also we find the masce. «ai Kpdéas Kal TONG orapdéas €&fOev.
(2) kpagav is read by AC(D) rell.
guvjoay, NBL 33: Orig.
Neither phrase is objectionable in itself. wv. ¢. mey. is found in Lk 23%, Ac 168, but not in contexts likely to have suggested themselves here. xpd¢w, on the other hand, is constantly used of the cries of the possessed, and xpdéas ¢. wu. occurs in Mk 5’,
(3) dw’ is read for é& by C(D)AM 33 Latt.
See on v.™.
V.°7 (1) (@) adro’s, NB (be ff2q).
(6) mpds éavrov’s, ACDA unc? al”,
(¢) xpos adrovs, GLS rell verss.
It is difficult to find any test to enable us to judge between these readings. The reciprocal use of mpds éavr. is characteristic of Mk 9! 1131 197 144 16°, besides v.2. 914 16-33 1026, It is not found in Matthew. It occurs in Lk 20° (=Mk) 22% (v0, 2014= Mk), and in Jn 12% On the other hand, NB exhibit no special animus against it. They seem clearly right on the three other occasions (9% LO? Lk 20), where they combine to attest an alterna. tive reading. curfyretv is used absolutely in 12°8 and Lk 24°, The construction of Mk 9" ig am- biguous. In 94-16 the true reading is clearly mpods avrovs, though here N in each case reads éaur. These facts, so far as they go, are in favour of (a), as is the fact that some of the authorities for ™pos (ACE* MA? al”) give what is perhaps a further sign of the influence of Lk 4% by reading Aéyorres for Aéyovras. a’rovs has a real point (cf. on a’rév in v.%) if it indicates a distinction between the circle immediately round our Lord, and that part of the congregation whose astonishment found vent in the words that follow.
(2) (@) rb €or robro; didaxh Kah Kar’ efouclay, SBL 33 (1 118 131 2P° als + airy) Boh.
(b) rhs % ddaxh exelvyn t) Kawh attry q éfovcta 8rt, D (evv? Latt).
(¢) ri €or rotro; rls) didaxh F kawh atrn dr kar’ eEovolay, (A)CA rel (A ris aKa av. 610.) (69 ris 7 Kk, dvd. ad.),
Note that the Latin renderings are very various.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT) 221
They agree with D in leaving out ri ¢orw rodro ; Some omit xaw7. Most, if not all, may represent kar’ é€ovclay, none exe. 6d,’ éfovcia.