So here are the instances of εὐθύς and εὐθέως (plus one adjectival use of εὐθείας) in the text of the gospel of Mark, according to 5 important manuscripts and the Byzantine tradition:
א = Sinaiticus
A = Alexandrinus
B = Vaticanus
D = Bezae
W = Washingtonianus
Byz = Byzantine
A = Alexandrinus
B = Vaticanus
D = Bezae
W = Washingtonianus
Byz = Byzantine
Reference | א | A | B | D | W | Byz |
1.3 | εὐθίας* | εὐθείας* | εὐθείας* | εὐθείας* | εὐθείας* | εὐθείας* |
1.10 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | - | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
1.12 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθύς |
1.18 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθέως | εὐθέως | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
1.20 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
1.21 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθέως | εὐθέως | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
1.23 | εὐθύς | - | εὐθύς | - | - | - |
1.28 | εὐθύς** | εὐθύς | εὐθύς | εὐθύς | - | εὐθύς |
1.29 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | - | - | εὐθέως |
1.30 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθύς | - | εὐθέως |
1.31 | - | εὐθέως | - | εὐθέως | - | εὐθέως |
1.42 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
1.43 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθύς | *** | εὐθέως |
2.2 | - | εὐθέως | - | εὐθέως | - | εὐθέως |
2.8 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | - | - | εὐθέως |
2.12 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | - | εὐθέως |
3.5 | - | - | - | εὐθέως | - | - |
3.6 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | - | - | εὐθέως |
4.5 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
4.15 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως |
4.16 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | - | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
4.17 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως |
4.29 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | - | εὐθέως |
5.2 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | - | εὐθέως | - | εὐθέως |
5.13 | - | εὐθέως | - | εὐθέως | - | εὐθέως |
5.29 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
5.30 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
5.36 | - | εὐθέως | - | - | - | - |
5.42a | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
5.42b | εὐθύς | - | εὐθύς | - | - | - |
6.25 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | - | εὐθύς | εὐθέως |
6.27 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
6.45 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως |
6.50 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | - | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
6.54 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως |
7.25 | εὐθύς | - | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | - | - |
7.35 | - | εὐθέως | - | - | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
8.10 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | - | εὐθύς | εὐθέως |
9.8 | - | - | - | εὐθέως | - | - |
9.15 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως |
9.20 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | - | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
9.24 | εὐθύς** | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
10.52 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
11.2 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
11.3 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
14.43 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | - | - | εὐθέως |
14.45 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | - | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
14.63 | - | - | - | - | εὐθύς | - |
14.72 | εὐθύς | - | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθέως | - |
15.1 | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθύς | εὐθέως | εὐθέως | εὐθέως |
15.46 | - | - | - | - | εὐθέως | - |
Totals (not counting 1.3) | εὐθύς: 39 εὐθέως: 0 omitted: 9 corrected: 2 | εὐθύς: 1 εὐθέως: 41 omitted: 8 | εὐθύς: 38 εὐθέως: 2 omitted: 10 | εὐθύς: 5 εὐθέως: 28 omitted: 17 | εὐθύς: 9 εὐθέως: 22 omitted: 18 nonextant: 1 | εὐθύς: 5 εὐθέως: 36 omitted: 9 |
* The word εὐθ(ε)ίας is used adjectivally, not adverbially, in Mark 1.3.
** The εὐθύς in Sinaiticus at Mark 1.28 and 9.24 has been added by a corrector.
*** Washingtonianus lacks Mark 1.43 altogether.
Sinaiticus never has εὐθέως at all, while Alexandrinus is nearly as pure in the other direction, having εὐθύς only once. Vaticanus has εὐθέως only twice. Bezae, Washingtonianus, and the Byzantine tradition are more mixed, but all three favor εὐθέως over εὐθύς. Some verses (like 1.23) look suspiciously as if they once lacked the adverb and εὐθύς was added; others (like 1.31) look suspiciously as if they once lacked the adverb and εὐθέως was added.
I am not sure that we can truly say that Mark only ever used εὐθύς and never εὐθέως, at least not without assuming our conclusion. Any thoughts on that?
Ben.